Why CNBC’s Ratings Are Down
Last week, Zero Hedge published Nielsen ratings on CNBC.
The ratings were, in a word, abysmal. Across the cable network, viewership was down 28% year over year, with some shows down as much as 46%.
In my opinion, these ratings are more or less meaningless. They are not proof of bias or bad programming choices or other assertions. CNBC is a media venue that has surprisingly little control over its own fate. While network executives can occasionally make things better or worse via programming and staffing choices, the tidal wave of forces that ultimately determine the bulk of viewers is in reality far beyond their control.
Think Weather Channel or ESPN rather than NBC or HBO.
To better understand this, let’s look at the history of CNBC. This reveals the cable channel to have run through several distinct eras — 4 historical phases. It is apparent that various externalities — the economy, markets, volatility and major events — have determined the majority of changes in viewership and ratings — and not personalities or shows.
1) Phase one: Pre-history 1990-94: The channel we know today as CNBC was formed when its parent company, NBC Universal, acquired the Financial News Network in 1991. FNN was *merged into what was then known as “Consumer News and Business Channel.”
In its early days, FNN was mostly watched by professionals. While some civilians occasionally wandered onto the channel, it was primarily a staple of trading desks, brokerage firms, and professionals who wanted to a fast update of economic news, government data and breaking M&A stories. Viewer ship was modest, but had very good demographics — high income, high education, etc.
2) Phase two: Roaring Bull Market: 1995-2000: The channel grew as the 1990s bull market accelerated, especially in the second half of the decade. IPOs, mergers and thing technology related recieved significant coverage. Rating continued to climb along with the market.
The late 1990s were the days of wine and roses for the channel. As stocks became like sports teams rooted on by mom and pop. More members of the non professional investing public became regular viewers. During the irrational exuberance era, CNBC was everywhere. Gyms, bars, restaurants, any public place you went into that had a TV — even sports bars! — had the ticker strewn channel running in the background.
CNBC cut a **deal with Dow Jones. Analysts like Mary Meeker, Jack Grubman and Henry Blodget had become rock stars. Perma-bulls such as Abby Joseph Cohen and Joe Battapaglia dominated the airwaves and were frequent guests. Some critics lamented the relentless cheerleading — Bill Fleckenstein dubbed the channel “Bubble Vision” — as ratings rose with the bull market.***
3) Phase three: Bear Market/Nasdaq: 2001-05: Alas, he that lives by the sword dies by the sword. The 78% peak to trough collapse in the Nasdaq saw ratings tumble nearly as much — by some accounts, they fell nearly two thirds. Merrill Lynch banned the channel from its offices.
Viewers left in droves. Tech Stocks were no longer fodder for cocktail party conversations; Replaced with Commodities and of course Real Estate. CNBC’s loss was HGTV’s gain — Home & Garden channel’s ratings rallied with housing market.
4) Phase four: Crisis & Collapse: 2008-09: Starting with the fall of Bear Stearn’s in March 2008, CNBC viewership spiked. By August, you could smell the leading edge of the coming shitstorm in the air. When all Hell broke loose in September, the channel saw record ratings. These continued as the market gyrated and a new company seemed to collapse every weekend. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman, AIG, Citigroup, BofA, Merrill, etc.
Note that the homebuilders and banking stocks peaked out much earlier. I have yet to run a correlation study on ratings as these sectors becan their secular collapse. One would imagine it might be interesting to see if the rising market offset those.
That is an abbreviated version of CNBC’s history, grossly oversimplified. The forces that aligned to drive market and economy are significant secular changes. They impacted viewership dramatically.
Slate (and Newsweek’s) Dan Gross wondered if the channel’s recent tilt to the right might be out of sync with the nation’s recent rejection of Republican rule, but I doubt it. Market performance and volatility are the usual drivers of ratings. And extraordinary events such as scandals, corporate collapses and unusual givernment bailouts were the cream in their coffee this time around.
Indeed, those two factors seem to be the keys: Under ordinary bull and bear markets, CNBC ratings are likely to rise and fall with the stock market. That was the conclusion of phases two and three above. However, when we encounter periods of extraordinary events, CNBC ratings are correlated to Volatility.
If you think of CNBC as a single purpose channel — like ESPN or the Weather Channel — this makes sense. During playoffs and other big sporting events, ESPN traffic (including its website) rises. Wild weather sends more people over to the Weather Channel than usual to see the latest update.
Imagine a very unusual weather season, with a different hurricane making landfall and causing billions in destruction every week. That would sure wonders for the Weather Channel’s ratings.
Now consider the same scenario, only instead of naming these hurricanes Andrew or Hugo or Camille or Katrina, we called them Bear Stearns and Fannie Mae and Lehman Brothers and AIG and Citigroup. If you were the designated franchise that covered these firms, what might this storm do for your viewership?
Exactly . . .
~~~
No discussion of CNBC ratings would be complete without mentioning the feud between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer. There are some claims that the regular evisceration of CNBC by The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart is what did in the network, but I doubt it. While publishing insiders have told me they damaged Jim Cramer’s book sales, I doubt it had much to do with the network.
The beginning of the end of our 4th phase was the March 9th lows. While the economy is not yet out of the woods, the panic portion of the crisis seems to be over. That is likely not good for retaining those marginal viewers who tuned in just to see what the latest crisis update was.
So while network execs can move pieces around the board, play with formats and anchors, they seem to be making some differences around the margins. They can attract viewers and fight against Bloomberg TV and Fox Business, but the giant forces, the huge stories beyond everyone’s control are what generates monster ratings. Just so long as they retain the status as “designated go to franchise” for business news. Beyond that, rating changes seem to be incremental.
What’s true for equities also seems to apply to television rations: Everyone is a genius in a bull market.
>
Source: The Last Psychiatrist
>
click for ginormous table
Source: Zero Hedge
>
Previously:
How to Fix Financial Television (June 8th, 2009)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/how-to-fix-financial-television/
Daily Show vs CNBC (March 5th, 2009)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/daily-show-vs-cnbc/
Anti-Climax: Cramer vs. Stewart (March 13th, 2009)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/anti-climax-cramer-vs-stewart/
The Power of “The Daily Show” (April 23rd, 2009)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/the-power-of-tds/
Sources:
CNBC feels your pain…… And your anxiety, and your greed, and your outrage, and your optimism. And by tapping into your emotions about the market, the channel is cashing in
Jessi Hempel
Fortune, APRIL 3, 2008:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/31/news/companies/cnbc_pain.fortune/?postversion=2008033112
Why You’ve Stopped Watching CNBC
Explaining the ratings decline at the financial-news network
Daniel Gross
Slate Aug. 4, 2009
http://www.slate.com/id/2224257/
CNBC Ratings Seem Correlated To Future Market Volatility
SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/09/cnbc_ratings_correlated_to_mar.html
Why did CNBC slump in July?
Jonathan Berr
Media World: Aug 4th 2009 at 5:00PM
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/04/media-world-why-did-cnbc-slump-in-july/
Additional Readings:
CNBC on a road bound for revamps: Net takes care of business
MICHAEL LEARMONTH
Feb. 7, 2005
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117917550.html?categoryid=1237&cs=1
Wald Boosts Business at CNBC
Former Today executive producer offers “industrial-strength personal finance”
Joel Topcik
Broadcasting & Cable, 9/17/2006
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/105811-Wald_Boosts_Business_at_CNBC.php
The Revolution Will Be Televised (on CNBC)
CHARLES FISHMAN
Fasts Company, Dec 19, 2007
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/35/cnbc.html
An Open Letter to CNBC
Wistar Holt
Safe Haven, July 30, 2004
http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=1808&pv=1
_______________
* CNBC (“Consumer News and Business Channel”) parent company acquired the Financial News Network in 1991. FNN grew throughout the 1990s, as the bull market quickened.
•• 1997, CNBC formed a strategic alliance with Dow Jones
*** Wikipedia notes: During the late 1990s and early 2000s, CNBC’s ratings were increasing sharply along with the stock market, often beating those of CNN during market hours. In 2000, daytime viewership of the network peaked at 343,000, around the time the Nasdaq Composite crossed 5000. However, when the dot-com bubble began to burst later that year, CNBC’s viewing figures declined in tandem. The network’s ratings steadily fell quarter after quarter, year after year, until bottoming in Q1 2005, with an average viewership of 134,000 during the day. From the bottom, the network, along with the markets, rebounded significantly—average daytime viewership (6 am to 6 pm) reached a 7-year high of 310,000 viewers in the first quarter of 2008.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:52 am
“So why have CNBC’s viewers clicked the remote? It’s possible that viewers have left because the story broadcast on CNBC in the early months of 2009 proved to be wrong. There hasn’t been an Obama bear market. The show whose ratings have fallen most precipitously is the most overtly political one. Ratings for The Kudlow Report, presided over by Larry Kudlow, who proves you can be both a supply-sider and a gracious guy, are down more than 40 percent.”
….This is from the Daniel Gross article..obviously Gross is a moron…Kudlow is an overbearing loudmouth who never allows guests who disagree with him a moment to finish a point. He is painful to watch…too many drugs in his youth, I suppose.
Really, who would use gracious and Kudlow in the same sentence??
August 6th, 2009 at 7:57 am
If being wrong was a reason to flick the channel, how do you explain most of the viewership in the 1990s?
August 6th, 2009 at 8:00 am
BR, I think a better analysis of CNBC’s slumping ratings would involve whether viewers who still regularly tune in to financial news enjoy CNBC, and if it helps them make investment decisions.
I found CNBC to become completely annoying with the on-air personalities make me want to throw bricks at the tv during the trading day. More importantly, CNBC started focusing on the politics of economics more than the markets with ludicrous confrontations featuring people shouting over each other. This is pathetic and without any added value to my search for trading ideas and discussions that enhance my view and understanding of the market and it’s future direction. CNBC was adding nothing, and if anything was detracting from my day and my concentration on the markets.
3 months ago I permanently switched to Bloomberg TV, which not only do I find a fantastic network replete with very pleasant on-air personalities but also reports brilliantly on the market without any cheerleading or emotional embellishments. Just the facts. Bloomberg TV actually helps me in my trading and gives me great understanding of the markets. What a concept !!
August 6th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Kudlow belongs on Fox, he is a political hack that has an economics degree. In 1981 ,along with Stockman and Laffer he sold us that the way to balance the budget was to cut taxes. Stockman later admitted they lied and knew it at the time. Kudlow in 1985 said you also had to cut spending, Duh. To top it off in 2000 he said the reason we had a budget surplus was the Reagan tax cuts. Listen to him for entertainment not rational discourse.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Because it’s like watching a kindergarten brawl … except that you can actually learn something from observing 5 year olds.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:22 am
there has been a lot of talk about the numbers of retail investors that aren’t coming back this time, after their most recent fleecing. i think this is one of those instances where you’re going to see those numbers show up. i’d like to see the YoY comparisons of total retail brokerage account openings/closings over the years. i’d bet the numbers are more gaudy than CNBC’s ratings. it’s fun to think CNBC’s ratings issues are the result of the John Stewarts of the world or the tilt to the right, etc. etc. etc. but in reality folks aren’t even interested in opening their brokerage statements anymore, let alone watching CNBC.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:26 am
The political spin is unbearable, I care as much about Michelle Caruso Cabrera’s opinion on the administration as the NYSE’s Official “Floor Trader’s Manual to Personal Happiness.”
I wish CNBC were more like the weather channel, give me the current market temperature and the weekday earnings forecast and just shut the hell up.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:29 am
don’t watch it. clicked through a few times => total garbage – Cramer, Kudlow, Gasparino, Santelli – come on, everyone here deserves to treat themselves with more respect than to listen and watch what CNBC dishes
amazes me that it is such a topic of discussion here, and, yes, it seems to have a strong political bias
interesting to learn of the history – seems like phase 1 was the “good old days”
August 6th, 2009 at 8:46 am
I’m a former Weather Channel executive and your ratings analogy with CNBC is spot on. The biggest factor weighing on their ratings is fragmentation driven primarily by the on-line world. Think about how you consume information now vs. 5 and 10 years ago. There are many more ways to get information – when you want it and the way you want it. This trend will continue and will be reflected in ratings erosion for CNBC. CNBC will still experience ratings spikes – as you point out when there a big news stories. The other theories for ratings declines are simply wrong. One month does not make a trend.
Obviously I’m not privy to their talent research, but I was very surprised to see them let Dylan Ratigan walk. I think the only way they can differentiate the network and grow is with talent. My informal research showed he was at the top of the heap. They’ve been trying long form programming, but that’s a tough road in a digital environment.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Green shoots, yaaaah baby!
WASHINGTON — The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for state jobless benefits fell last week, providing another glimmer of hope that the economy may be on the road to recovery.
Initial claims for jobless benefits fell by 38,000 to 550,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis in the week ended Aug. 1, the Labor Department said in its weekly report Thursday. The four-week average of new claims, which aims to smooth volatility in the data, fell by 4,750 to 555,250, the lowest level since Jan. 24.
The tally of continuing claims — those drawn by workers for more than one week — rose by 69,000 during the week ended July 25 to 6,310,000, the highest level since July 4.
Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had predicted an increase in initial claims of only 1,000.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:02 am
CNBC’s ratings are down for the reason the rest of its corporate parent’s luster is…GE & CNBC both suck. CNBC= Continuous Nonsense Blasted Constantly. I prefer to watch Bloomberg because I get the factual info without all the screaming. Even FOX Business is not bad with certain programming (David Ass-man is a good host, as is Liz Claman). I absolutely cannot stand the fighting on CNBC, although it is fun sometimes to see idiots get embarrased like Art Laffer did on Tues vs. Steve Pearlstein of the WaPost.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:02 am
you hit the nail @8:22am “YoY comparisons of total retail brokerage account openings/closings” but not so fast – hold on to that thought – no need to rush out and dump until the need arises .. hopefully for the good inwestors out there, not self fullfilling .. ie kill them accounts because they’ve already been raided .. just wait “the rising tide will rise again”
back to the thread CNBCtv and media .. and why we live in a Better Homes & Gardens with 2 car filled garages world .. mind programming via art and media .. create’g demand / jobs / profits (or losses)*
#23. Decadence: Rome had bread and circuses. America’s descent into a mindless stupor, historian Niall Ferguson argues, can be seen in the popularity of pornography and NASCAR. If you think ragging on porn and stock-car racing is a bit of a cliché, please substitute mixed martial arts and reality television.
from BRs 10 greatest links yesterday ie 144 ways to die USA:
http://www.slate.com/id/2223285/sidebar/2223286/
coda* – Private Profits / Public Losses .. in this great American experiment of free market capitalism for all who can stomach the game
(ps – in my utopian society the Weather Channel would be weather all day everyday with Local on the 8’s never pre-empted – tune into MSNBC for your fluff tv … but allas we live in a world where every entity must carry its own water or die out)
August 6th, 2009 at 9:11 am
This was a well thought out, reasoned post. It is also flat wrong. This might be the first time I remember reading a Big Picture post and actually disagreeing with almost the whole thing.
“CNBC is a media venue that has surprisingly little control over its own fate.”
Yes, there are outside factors which will always drive a certain amount of CNBC viewership (financial disasters, bull markets, etc.). These trends are brought about by casual viewers who would normally not care about finance. CNBC should be trying to bring these people in while also retaining their core audience of financial professionals and individual investors. CNBC has abandoned their core audience for the casual audience and they will pay the price in the long run. It’s called tarnishing your brand and destroys value across all industries.
“Think Weather Channel or ESPN rather than NBC or HBO.”
The Weather Channel and ESPN are particularly bad examples. For me, the weather channel has been trumped by its own website. Old tech has been replaced by new tech. I hate having to pay for it as part of my cable package. As for ESPN, I used to watch Sports Center all the time but now I never do. Is it because I no longer like sports? Nope, I just can’t take the garbage stories and $&%* fantasy coverage instead of what they used to stick to – showing the damn highlights. ESPN is a great example of a brand that has ruined its reputation with hardcore sports fans and is actually like CNBC in many ways.
As for your VIX chart, you should know better than to post a chart covering only two months of cherry picked activity and passing it off as correlation. Show me a long term chart and maybe I will reconsider the point.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Joe Kernan Says:
August 6th, 2009 at 7:57 am
If being wrong was a reason to flick the channel, how do you explain most of the viewership in the 1990s?
reply:
———
First, your comment makes no sense. Are you saying that since you’re so wrong today on most things, we should go into the Way-Back machine and change channels? Or did you means to say that if you did so poorly in the 1990’s and during the credit bubble, then the fact people are watching today means they don’t care about quality reporting?
You’re joking, right. If not, then your understanding of technology, people, investments, and economics and how all have changed since the 1990s is surely limited. While greed is a constant, the methods to exploit greed have expanded exponentially since the 1990s. And you have played a large part in cheer leading for those who are masters of exploitation.
Much as it’s dangerous to give a monkey a loaded gun, the world of finance today is filled with …
a. high caliber weaponry in the form of HFT techniques calibrated to pump markets and separate people from their money most efficiently
b. poor regulation
c. con artists that can confuse the ignorant and/or uneducated and make open theft appear to be liquidity enhancement, or free market capitalism, or use whatever excuse that works for the moment to distract anyone who might impede their theft.
d. Ignorant and frequently incompetent business reporting that treats headlines as the entire story and usually writes inaccurate or grossly misleading headlines. This included happy talk distractions like ‘green shoots’, ‘getting worse at a slower rate’ meant to suggest happy days are around the corner, and my personal favorite: ‘better than expected’. This last point, and your willing and enthusiastic support gives CNBC the appearance of being the shill network.
The market today is blowing an obvious bubble, but CNBC appears to happily oblige the masters of theft and confusion. The Fed is putting massive amounts of cash into the economy. Some of it is undoubtedly flowing into the market and forming an asset bubble. Is this a time for caution? NO NO NO. Larry Kudlow says it’s a bull market for the ages.
Have you no shame? Some people believed you and lost their future as a result. Now, you’re back at it. Although, as I said a couple of days ago, your on air personalities now look a little more thoughtful. I guess having to eat humble pie that someone first wiped their ass with can make a difference.
CNBC has obviously chosen to look at the financial world in the most superficial ways, allowing exploiters to use it’s credibility and polished presentation as a tool to separate the rubes from their cash in efficient ways. Thanks to the rise of alternate news sources your dominance in the business news field has eroded and is slowing being washed away.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:16 am
I think the political bent has a lot to do with it. It’s one reason why I turn it off. Political drivel doesn’t really bother me, but the exceptionally uninformed political diatribes, especially on the morning shows, are kind of like Thanksgiving dinner with the uninformed idiot uncle who still thinks that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
I admit to watching Kudlow, but I usually tune in when Barry is going to be on the show or to use Kudlow as a nearly-perfect contrarian indicator.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:20 am
At SPX 150, CNBC’s ratings will be 0. See you there.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Pulitzer for blogging nominations should start with this grand missive at the BP. Simply excellent.
I can only add a suggestion for the venerable CNBC: to move away from the “…the Weather Channel…” model to becoming more like the Discover Channel, a series on Teuthology and the study of cephalopods hosted by Matt Taibbi, perhaps?
August 6th, 2009 at 9:36 am
My next door neighbor has not been looking at her statements for a while.
Maybe with the drop in real estate and tanking portfolio, all the pseudo investors have actually lost interest in the markets and have moved ot the next fad.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:38 am
American International Group, whose shares surged 60% Wednesday, was up by another 26%. The company reports earnings Friday, and it recently named a new chief executive. Fannie Mae shares jumped 21% and Freddie Mac shares rose 18%. CIT Group shares were up 34%.
Crazy times, maybe GS is buying AIG with non recourse US financing!
August 6th, 2009 at 9:47 am
As nearly everyone here is sophisticated enough to know, commercial outlets create formats in consultation with marketing experts who typically use psychologists specializing in unconscious reactions to programming. Bloggers deliver views and clicks; TV outlets deliver ratings measured in a similar fashion. Don’t underestimate the effectiveness of these formats in getting your attention and transfixing it for a while. How smart you are has little to nothing to do with what draws you to the format.
One of my chief objections to television “journalism” of any stripe is how pretty the people are who deliver the news. Pretty has absolutely nothing to do with content and everything to do with unconscious audience response. Psychologists have also been studying fluency as a factor in receptivity to messaging for a few decades now. What seems clear so far is that fluency improves receptivity to messages that are counter to the interest of the receiving party. A bit more nuanced than just “sex sells.” Thirdly, forceful and confidently delivered messages yield a submissive response in many persons, again making them more receptive.
So pretty people confidently asserting opinions and delivering them in a fluent fashion in many respects trumps horseshit content on an unconscious level.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Greg — that list of 144 potential Black Swans is the stuff of nightmares!
August 6th, 2009 at 9:52 am
as others here have said CNBC has become entirely too political/biased in their blatherings. it’s more akin to a talk show than something one would watch for serious financial reporting with insights and opinions that have real untethered convictions. if this is what they want to be might as well step it up and hire a guy like george stephanopoulos to throw softballs.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am
in re: to AIG. how does a firm who’s on the hook for $180 billion from the taxpayers and will never ever ever be able to pay that back still exist in any semblence of its former failed structure?
August 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am
The reason The Daily Show is so successful at poking fun at CNBC is because he points out a fundamental truth.
CNBC is a captured network.
Great reporting is by nature agitating. It esteems to a higher principle. Matters of truth are of the utmost importance.
The guest hosts and interviews are one big advertisement disguised as a network. I watch it, but tune 90% of it out as flotsam and jetsam.
When I want truth I read The Big Picture. One of the few islands of honesty.
Curious
August 6th, 2009 at 9:57 am
The rise and fall of viewership obviously tracks the ebb & flow of the markets. Most people really don’t care about the stock market on a minute by minute basis. If I was an advertiser I’d only be willing to put money to work before 10:30 AM EST and 5-7:00 PM EST. Why you ask? How many places have you ever been to where they have CNBC turned on but the sound turned off. That’s a killer if your the advertiser. Most viewers from individuals to trading desk keep this on in case of some breaking or important news. They are not waiting with baited breath for the “half-time report”. “Squawk box” with its early morning read of the days important stories, “Fast Money” & “Cramer” are likely the only shows that make these guys money.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I agree with the political explanation as well. I’m sick of Maria Caruso Cabrera’s dimwitted right wing talking points, and I usually watch MSNBC now. Ratigan made a smart move by dumping CNBC (and it’s all in the family).
Now, even if I agreed with the right wing politically, why would I watch CNBC for that? I could just watch Fox News.
I’m not sure why CNBC made the decision to try to ape Fox News, considering Fox Business News has been spotted on milk cartons recently…”Have you seen me?”
August 6th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Boycott the shit. CNBC sucks. I have become a better trader since I tuned it out.
Actually, boycott financial TV period, its all a sham.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Cv’s target of S&P 1008 reached in the morning. Looks like we have a reversal going on. But let’s see if this one really plays out today. Shorting AIG and GGC today.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Why ratings are down? Who cares?
CNBC is just tired.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
The yelling and screaming on CNBC reminds me a feeding time in the Ape House at the Zoo. How does anyone stand it???
August 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I have to agree and disagree with you little on this one BR. It’s definitely true that CNBC, like ESPN, will ebb and flow with the stock market cycles, but I can tell you, as a professional, they took a turn last year and early this year into a sort of WWF style smackdown entertainment with staged fights between personalities and all sorts of weird stuff. It seemed like they were pandering to the broader spectrum of the populace that happened to be tuning in. When they careened down this route, they probably lost some of their hardcore audience of professionals and “jumped the shark” in my book. It all became a bit silly.
The only show that I tuned into after Feb/Mar was Fast Money with Dylan Ratigan. I found him to be a bit self-indulged by very bright, funny and entertaining….when he left, I left. And if you look at where the ratings really took a pounding, it was in those post-market shows….Kudlow just seems like some sort of caricature, so his ratings decline is somewhat self-explanatory. Giving D.Kneale a show just seems asinine beyond belief. I’ve never watched it once.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Here’s what I and I watching this fine Thursday:
Its all one trade, amigos.
UUP… gap resistance at 23.28
USO… old support at 37.00
SCO… gap resistance at 16.75
SPX… short-term support at 994
August 6th, 2009 at 10:30 am
“In my opinion, these ratings are more or less meaningless. They are not proof of bias or bad programming choices or other assertions.”
Barry, come on. You know better than that. In fact, your blog is only successful because that statement is patently false. Did you see the Columbia School of Journalism story on CNBC during the tech bubble collapse? And how they were nearly out of business and changed the channel’s format?
If those ratings are meaningless, how do you explain the same phenomenon happening across the entire mainstream media? New York Times, Chicago Tribute, CBS news and on and on and on and on. It is the very basis for the success of your blog. Mainstream media has BAD PROGRAMMING, irrelevant content, uniformed editorials, robotic journalists focused on paparazzi journalism and how good they look in a skirt or suit. It’s why youth don’t watch television news or read the newspapers. It’s why they are on the net. It’s why I am typing on your blog.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Re: SPX
It’s starting to feel like Wednesday 5 August all over again….
August 6th, 2009 at 10:38 am
@manhattanguy: 1008 been one of several important number for many months now. It’s the 38.2% retracement of the 1440->741 puke out “five wave” move and was also the high tick from Election Day 2008…would like to see it hold…
August 6th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Where are the 10:30 quants? No flurry of orders going through is kind of interesting. Shouldnt they be coming in to float the tape right about now?
If they dont decide to “buy party” today, then, well… CV can fill in the blanks. Its all about the next week bond auctions.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:49 am
I have been thinking about the news of the last couple of days…and it seems more or less disinflationary to me…here’s why:
I noticed the DB prognosis that 48% of homeowners will be underwater at the start of 2011. If this is anywhere close to correct, then there is no ATM for many years from houses….
Retail sales continue to stink…back to school, er, is not back this year….
Tax cuts will expire next year…taxes will increase on everybody. Just accept it.
Rates are rising. As they should with this much government spending. Borrowing money should be more expensive next year. National debt ceiling will be raised from 12.1 Trillion before the 4th quarter..
(By the way…12 trillion times, say, 4%..is 480 billion dollars a year…what could the government do with that money they are paying in interest?)
We are still fighting two wars…
Salaries and wages fell by 4.7% in the 12 months to June, 2009. This is the greatest rate of decline since records started being kept in 1960.
…just mulling this over…
August 6th, 2009 at 10:51 am
One very important thing no one has mentioned about CNBC ratings being down…..is what it does to their rate structure, what they are able to charge for their “ad time”. The folks that buy “time” for advertisers will drive their ad rates into the ground over this decline.
You must remember, all CNBC really cares about is revenue. Being a financial network is simple a vehicle, simply a format to drive revenues, to achieved that goal.
Low ratings translates into low revenue and that gets them where they live!! It is the deepest cut of all.
BR statement that “In my opinion, these ratings are more or less meaningless.” Tell that to the person who has to sell the ad time for this garbage.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:02 am
“Low ratings translates into low revenue and that gets them where they live!! It is the deepest cut of all.”
Then they’ll undoubtedly have to cut the bloated (surely) pay for the on air “talent”; oh what a shame. As the whole bloated structure deflates, there’s more to come for the entire entertainment sector (sports included), I’m sure.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Bruce
“(By the way…12 trillion times, say, 4%..is 480 billion dollars a year…what could the government do with that money they are paying in interest?)”
We’ll just grow our way out of it, don’t you know? That’s what we’ve been told for 25 years now. Surely they wouldn’t lie to us (or us to ourselves), would they?
August 6th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Onlooker:
Since I was a lad, I always wondered why people thought deficit spending by government was ok…now you see that it is entirely possible that half of our massive stimulus will just go to debt service…oh, and it will increase the debt further…
Bizarro world…
August 6th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Hey Bruce, at least you’re not 29.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Obviously Dan Gross is showing his usual left wing bias there. I bet there are still more democrats than republicans in CNBC’s lineup. It’s not the politics that bothers me as much; I can see thru it and I am smart enough to ignore. CNBC believes in status quo and hasn’t really learned anything from the epic collapse in the economy and market. The reason people walking away from CNBC is blogs like this. People get all these critical and insightful info out on blogs and youtubes no need to rely on traditional media.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:16 am
No, I have shoes older than that I- man….
Going canoeing on the Hiawassee this weekend…should be fun if I don’t drown or hit a rock…
August 6th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I have baseball gloves older than 29…
August 6th, 2009 at 11:27 am
@ transor @9:47 – great post.
OT – interesting action for a few days now. The most amazing thing to me is, the tight stops on my short SPY trade have not been hit. I have not held overnight for many months, but I am for this trade, and so far so good. But, there are still two possible outcomes:
1) Bulls are building up the energy for a huge upside break through 1010 S&P.
2) Bulls are getting exhausted trying to break through 1010, and the market will break down.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:33 am
hope:
agree, though, I’d use 1014 as the breakout zone or exhaustion zone. Coming at the end of such a huge rally, I’d side with 2) Bulls are getting exhausted at the same time bears have resigned themselves to ever increasing prices….
August 6th, 2009 at 11:38 am
@Andy – I am a little worried my stop is too tight at 1012.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:41 am
All Obamatons think criticism of their Lordship is right-wing hate speech and intolerable.
As for me, I watch little CNBC any more for two reasons: The markets are irrational at best, manipulated at worst, and any sound-bite commentary from talking heads is irrelevant and a waste of time; and the multiple talking heads format is annoying and offers virtually nothing of substantive value.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:46 am
The question is, is CNBC useful….? The answer to that question is, sure, to some of us, some of the time.
It can be entertaining and informative sometimes and then it can be irritating some other times. Who cares…. It’s not a big deal…..
It’s kinda like the owner of a nightclub once told me, back in the 80s, “When Donald Trump or Madonna show up at your door, you know it’s time to sell…”
Everything looses it’s novelty at some point, even porn… That’s why, “when a pattern is established, it will change.”
WHERE’S THE BUBBLE…..?
Ciao,
Econolicious
August 6th, 2009 at 11:46 am
CNBC has become the WWF or WWE of financial media. Everyone knows it’s fake. Those who are entertained by that will watch. Of course, there are always a few numb-nuts who will say it is not fake, it is real.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:47 am
WOW, BR!
That’s more substance than I’ve seen on CNBC in 5 years!!!!!!!!
And to think I turned on The Kudlow Show last night and Larry’s back to his old lead-in about “Free markets being the best path to prosperity” as if the past 12 months where that got dropped never happened. By the way, Larry now enthusiastically endorses the government giveaway that is “Cash for Clunkers”… and Ken Langone had to be the voice of reason last night when Larry tried to make the case for others deserving to make the kind of money Eli Manning’s new deal concerns.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
@ B n T:
Nice man! Enjoy yourself. If your weekend excursions ever take you up to elkmont… say hello to old cabin number 10 for me. A part of I-Man will always live there. Its in my soul, elkmont.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I think TD over at ZH is a little overly obsessed with CNBC. Anyone making investment decisions based on something they watch on TV deserves to lose their money.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Personally, my viewing of CNBC has dropped dramatically because of the increase of right-wing Republican claptrap. I want news backed by fact, or at least someone talking their book in a reasoned manner. Bloomberg is my choice now if I watch. I find the blog-o-sphere more informative than TV.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
[...] Why CNBC’s ratings are down (Ritholtz) [...]
August 6th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I-Man:
That little inclined hike along that mountain stream at Elkmont is one of the prettier areas in the Smokies in my opinion too….I took some great shots of an elderly fly fisherman there two years ago who didn’t know he was being observed…great light….this area makes me happy every day that I live here now..
August 6th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I’m holding out for a 10 handle on SRS
August 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
[...] “CNBC is a media venue that has surprisingly little control over its own fate.” (Big Picture) [...]
August 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Don’t know if I completely agree with the Weather Channel comparison. I mean, if the Weather Channel always predicted sunshine 7 days a week 365 days a year, they might see they’re viewership drop proportionately as well.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Bruce
“Since I was a lad, I always wondered why people thought deficit spending by government was ok…”
Yep, me too; though I’m a bit younger at 46. I scratched my head and figured that there must be some complicated macroeconomic theory stuff that just made common sense not applicable here. And it was said with such conviction by so many people who SHOULD have been trustworthy and reliable.
But eventually, of course, I came to realize that it was all just a rationalization to avoid thinking about the immorality of our actions toward our descendants, while wallowing in their money. They’ll surely have some magical productivity machine that will make it all irrelevant, so they won’t mind us piling the debt onto them.
We always have a good reason why “now” is not the time to worry about the deficit and making hard choices and sacrifices. And of course that seeped down to the individual level as well. Go figure.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
The Weather Channel is so laughably irrelevant now. Who would sit around for an hour waiting for you local forecast to come up, or any other weather info for that matter, when it’s available on demand on line. I’ll admit to not having even peeked at it for a decade or so though, so I’m not sure exactly what they do there anymore.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
This 994-995 support seems fairly important for today…if that gets taken we could start doing some intraday gapping lower….
Is that yet another daily doji forming on CL???? Geez…..1.4250-1.4315 seems like an important support zone for EURO (sep)…currently printing 1.4340…that was the “breakout” zone, but must admit is sure isn’t acting like a “breakout” the last few days…..that could turn into a big fat bull trap below 1.4250….
August 6th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
All financial TV is only a small shadow of what it’s potential could really be. They are all half hearted attempts to sell “access to a demographic” to for the sole purpose of manipulating public perception. Shame on all of them. I will watch some CEO talking his book for a few minutes out of a day, but move on to statistics, education, probabilities of market outcomes, and get a calendar of the next few days events worked into one of those ticker/crawler things instead of useless headlines.
There are an average of what, maybe two potential market moving data releases a day? Talk about the data release over the hour prior, explaining what it does, how it’s calculated, what spin is likely to be put on it, keep the politics out of it (or explain all points of view fairly), and then feature it as it is released. The point is, for those that truly believe in Buy and Hope diversification, there is absolutely zero reason to watch any financial TV. For those that care enough to want to respond to released data, there is no better medium then TV to calmly communicate “right now” what it means. I can see the weather radar any time with one click, but it’s 2 minutes old on average. I turn on the TV when I want someone who has statistically better than average interpretation skills to show me the “right now” and explain the likelihood of events in the next hour.
HGTV starts a show with how much they paid for a house, explains how they chose it and how much time they spend working on it, then teaches me how to paint and landscape, then shows me how much they sold it for. CNBC seems to want me to believe that market movements are random, except when they have breaking news, but spend no time in advance teaching me how to respond to the news they are breaking. Look, we are all well aware that the vast majority of trades are placed based on algorithm (a 97% win rate by anyone would be impossible if that were not true). How much time has any TV station spent teaching me how to spot and respond to those algorithms? There may be noise, but there is no random.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here but quickly, – if they would spend more time explaining the time value of money, admit that stock prices move up and down (and that’s ok, because for months or years at a time, it has *Nothing to do with the “goodness” of the underlying company. see Motors Liquidation..). Following from that, there should be no positive or negative emotion from any movement in price. It is no more “good” when markets are up, than when they are down over an intra-day period, quit crying and cheer-leading. Quit pretending volatility is bad, it is the lifeblood of anyone who is turning to TV for market information. If there is a high likelihood of low volatility for the next week, my time would be better spent camping or reading quarterly reports, not watching TV. Along the lines of the Travel Channel, Devote equal time to all markets, I see many commercials for currency trading, but no shows that explain how it works, how currencies interrelate with other markets and what events might move those markets tomorrow. At least energy futures get some mention, but if I went to that gym with CNBC on and asked “can you name five of the top 30 traded futures?” would I get a better result than asking “can you name five of the Dow30 components”?
Finally, transparency starts at home CNBC. Any time Cramer speaks, they run that massive disclaimer (which is good), yet everyone else on air is free to rant on about the gov’t effect on travel, green tech, and healthcare yet GE has direct corporate exposure to transportation, windmills, power grid tech, and medical equipment? You want respect CNBC? It’s about 1pm as I type this, go tune into the Weather Network for Sioux Falls and let me know if they are calling for blue skies and fairy dust to hold before the market closes at 4pm eastern today. http://www.wunderground.com/radar/mixedcomposite.asp?region=a3&size=2x&type=loop
August 6th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
@ Andy – I agree. Watching 994-995 like a hawk. I think there’s a 75% chance it will break today and become resistance.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Andy T Says:
August 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
This 994-995 support seems fairly important for today…if that gets taken we could start doing some intraday gapping lower….
reply:
———-
Or the algos could kick in and manufacture a perfect elliot wave up to 1000. If 100 computers weren’t covering 70% of the volume, you might have a chance. If some horrible news is expected, go long a couple of days before. Based on recent history, it’s a sure thing.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
The S&P pattern for several weeks has been to stay in a tight range for several days, break out a couple percent, and repeat. This can be expected to continue until something structural changes the market.
Bernanke made a remark that he expects to consider stopping some liquidity programs in September. It’s within the realm of possibility that, if stopped, it might affect the market liquidity and possibly cause a small correction.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
last post … I just noticed that perfect head and shoulders on the S&P earlier today.
Algo sucker bait.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
What is this chicanery in the USO today?
August 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
There goes 992.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
emmanuel117 Says:
August 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
There goes 992.
reply:
———-
More sucker bait.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
resistance now at 995 short term.
Watch for pump tomorrow on NFP numbers (opportunity to short?), and continuation of downtrend.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Andy T – Is a reasonable wave 3 up in place, or does it need longer to run on the third wave to be a good three count?
August 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I could be wrong, but the recent action looks very toppy. Lots of signs of a reversal of the run up are falling into place here.
1) Dollar breaking above recent base.
2) Low quality stocks melt up reversing.
3) High quality stocks started down first.
4) Areas of expected resistance held in classic manner.
5) five minute chart shows 4 attempts at breakout above 1008 failed.
Still waiting for moving averages to roll over, starting with the 5 day.
Lower high and lower low on 15 minute chart needs to be duplicated on longer time frames.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Sell ‘em, Lloyd !!!
August 6th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
That’s my dog.
Sell the SPUs- Buy the 2s. Do it Blankfein. Do it.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Also, a lot of people gave up their cable service and/or downgraded to basic service from enhanced service (where CNBC exists) when Comcast converted all channels above 34 to digital requiring users to add new boxes.
“Comcast lost more than 214,000 basic video subscribers during the second quarter, sending its total video customer base below 24 million.”
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/08/06/technology/business-us-comcast.html
August 6th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I generally agree with Onlinebroker – that this post was wrong. You can correlate the entire “market” of viewers tuning into all financial news TV with the drama in the economy. But there is a core market of viewers that a solid network should OWN. If done properly, the ratings for a good news network should be pretty level with some spikes upward when economic “hurricanes” hit. Seems like Bloomberg TV is building that base.
How can a news network take itself seriously with Cramer’s antics being a supposed “driver” of its ratings. Give me a break.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Well….do we get the obligatory 3 min rally into the close to instill a sense of complete hopelessness for anyone who remains bearish after the failed attempt to sell off below 994 or will today brings us a new story…..
August 6th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Shorts aren’t confident yet = rally into close.
Shorts are scared of NFP response, but I don’t think they need to be.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Andy T Says:
August 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Well….do we get the obligatory 3 min rally into the close to instill a sense of complete hopelessness for anyone who remains bearish after the failed attempt to sell off below 994 or will today brings us a new story…..
hope:
———
The mother of all short opportunities will come once liquidity is removed, the official policy of pump is canceled, or the bubble bursts on it’s own. If it comes from China, copper will tank horribly for a few days and continue on after that. If it comes from the US, the 10 year will blow past 4%. If it comes normally, it will be due to regulators taking back the markets.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
CNBC = culture of personality
Bloomberg = Just the facts, please
Cramer = self first, stock market distant second
Kudlow = wants to turn everything into a bubble
Kneale = what me worry?
Haynes = the world revolves around Jersey and just waiting to retire
Bartiromo = must have some going on with Hank Greenberg
Cabrera = headlights are too bright
Ratigan = good, but was too harsh (called one of his trader’s a “jerk” on live TV)
Gasparino = “tee martooni’s pleesh”
the rest of ‘em are actually pretty decent because they just report the news
August 6th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I tend to watch Bloomberg 90% of the time. I’ll peek at Fast Money for Najarian. But that’s ab out as much CNBC as I can take.
It’s not just the political tilt, it’s the sophomoric nature of it. I passed by CNBC today for about two minutes before I heard some commentator make a wise crack about “if only the government could cut costs like the private sector has been doing.” Tired, but whatever. But then to add “And I can hear the amens from you guys in the back, amen is right” is just tiresome.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
“Dan Gross wondered if the channel’s recent tilt to the right…”
Dan is on the right track, but its more than the tilt to the right. It is the attitude of the hosts, or most of them, from Joe Kernan in the early morning to Kudlow, Maria B., Erin the B., the incredibly rude attorney who shall remain nameless and Michele C-C, et. al., that made CNBC unwatchable. I still turn it on but its on mute most of the time.
Even Rick Santelli disappointed me. I used to take the mute off whenever he came on but since his “rant” and the weeks of followup rants in support of his rant I no longer care what he has to say.
In my case, I surfed my cable channels and came up with BloombergTV.
I lost respect for the above biz journalists and the channel precisely in proportion to what I have learned about their political leanings — from their on air comments and the way they treat some guests.
Previoulsy, I did not lose respect for Maria B. when she went on air with CEO Stanley Weil b/c she admitted up front that she held 10,000 shares of CitiCorp. The same thing about GE with Jack Welch in the past. I never lost respect for the others until they ceased to be even handed and challenge only the guests that held opposing views.
These people have become full of themselves and when they work for CNBC it shows up as bias and prejudice that darkens all the work they do and it damages the network and everyone who works there and therefore GE shareholders. Hey, it happens, people go bad just like heads of lettuce. Throw the rotten ones out. No one will miss them — for long.
It really is unfair the to the many excellent biz journalists that work at CNBC that a few rotten but big name on air personalities are allowed to run down the entire organization. Its GM all over again. Even Dylan Ratigan jumped ship from the smug assholes. How embarrassing is that?
August 6th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
I was curious about this TBTF family tree so fyi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric
Revenue: US$ 182.515 billion (2008)
Operating income: US$ 19.141 billion (2008)
Net income: US$ 17.410 billion (2008)
Total assets: US$ 797.769 billion (2008)
GE Energy Infrastructure is composed of several units including (not a comprehensive list): GE Wind Power, Gasification, GE Nuclear Power, GE Coal Power, GE Oil & Natural Gas, GE Solar Power, GE Hydroelectric Power, and related subsidiaries such as electric power transmission networks.
GE Technology Infrastructure is composed of 4 sub-units: GE Aviation, GE Enterprise Solutions, GE Healthcare, and GE Transportation
GE Capital has 4 sub-units: GE Aviation Financial Services, GE Commercial Finance, GE Energy Financial Services, and GE Treasury
NBC Universal has 17 sub-units:
NBC, Universal Studios, NBC Universal Television Group, NBC News, USA, Syfy, CNBC, MSNBC cable TV, NBC.com, MSNBC.com, iVillage, Bravo, qubo, SendMeRSS, Telemundo Television Studios, The Weather Channel, Hulu
me now – Locally: I am aware of influence from 12 NBC Universal units via Comcast .. and a local plant that SABIC acquired on 5/21/07 from GE’s Plastics Division in a $11.6 billion cash deal, including $8.7 billion of its liabilities .. and a wind farm working towards 166 turbines SE of here.
August 7th, 2009 at 7:34 am
[...] Barry Ritholtz on why CNBC has very little control over it’s own ratings. (TBP) [...]
August 7th, 2009 at 8:00 am
I’m holding out some hope that David Faber will jump ship to Bloomberg TV making an exit statement that he can no longer stand the unprofessional nature of CNBC any longer.
August 7th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
[...] Barry Ritholz says that CNBC needs to be thought of as the Weather Channel or ESPN. If there’s a hurricane or a playoff, ratings will go way up. In normal times, ratings are just correlated with the market. [...]