WHY IS CNBC VIEWERSHIP PLUNGING?
The latest numbers from Nielsen show that CNBC’s ratings have taken quite a hit in the last year.
Click for larger image
Despite the most fascinating economic environment of the last 80 years viewers are actually turning their backs on financial TV’s powerhouse network. Why?
It’s simple in my opinion. Investors are fed up with being spoon fed the perma-bull outlook. For 10 years now investors have listened to financial news networks feed them the “everything is going to be fine” line. And now,10 years later investors are realizing that everything is not fine. In fact, things are pretty bad. Stocks haven’t budged in 10 years and unemployment is at a 25 year high. Investors are tired of being lied to.
I don’t know if CNBC tells their reporters to try to shed positive light on all of their reports, but it sure appears that way. After all, it would seem that what’s good for the economy is good for GE and it would certainly seem to be counterproductive to constantly throw negative news at viewers since dampening sentiment could negatively impact GE’s bottom line. Unfortunately, when it comes to people’s money they just want the truth. CNBC would earn a lot more respect (and ad revenue) over the long-term if they spent more time telling the truth and less time pushing an agenda. It almost appears as though they have let their conflict of interest get in the way of good reporting.
We’ve mentioned before that CNBC has a serious problem allowing their reporters to opine on complex financial topics. No disrespect to Bartiromo, Burnet, Faber or the other fine reporters at CNBC, but no one on the planet gives a damn what you think about Q2 GDP. You are a reporter not a financial analyst. This would be like listening to Tony Kornheiser tell people how to run an offense just because he sat in the Monday Night Football booth for a few weeks. I’m sorry, but reporting on the floor of the NYSE does not make you a trader or financial expert. You’re a reporter – act like it.
In addition to this, investors have smartened up. Investors know that there are two sides to every trade. They know there are complex hedging strategies that are available to investors. They know that this is no longer a buy and hold world, yet CNBC continues to push this permabull mentality on its viewers. God bless Larry Kudlow – he seems like a truly great person and a great American, but come on – this guy has been wrong more times in the last 10 years than just about anyone on the planet. I often speak about the problems with having a directional bias – Kudlow is the world’s best example. Kudlow has come to epitomize CNBC and the perpetual bullishness that is destroying their ratings. It’s great to have a bullish outlook, but if you’re going to do this at least do us all a favor and give a permabear a show so he can give viewers the other side of the coin. Where is the bearish show on CNBC? Where is the reporter or expert who gets to be skeptical about government reporting and earnings reports?
What’s even more baffling is that none of the other financial news networks have been able to capitalize on this. Bloomberg continues to simply report the news – which is great, but makes for very boring TV. Fox has essentially copied the CNBC model, but has done so without the talent and respected (or disrespected) personalities. There is a huge market for financial TV and all viewers really want is a station that doesn’t feed them bullshit all day and does so through an informative two sided debate model. Can anyone dethrone the king of financial news as they flounder or will the total lack of creativity at the other networks continue to give CNBC the title of “best of the worst”.
Source: ZeroHedge.com, Nielsen
I think people have just lost interest in the stock market in general. They are burying their heads in the sand after the huge loss, and they said “I’m not going to look at my 401k statement anymore, I’m just going to invest for the long term.”
I think there might be a direct correlation between CNBC viewership falling and the NYSE volumes falling… people are too scared and have lost interest. Maybe they sold in March and the fact that markets have skyrocketed turned them completely off the markets.
Ejack I agree. There have been a lot of people after March who just threw up their hands and walked away.
I agree with the editorialist, however, since the numbers reflect July, maybe people are tuned out on vacation. I find two personalities almost unbearable, and I also turn OFF the channel when they are on: Kudlow and Michelle Fabrera, etc. I cannot take his bellowing, his rudeness and insulting behavior toward people he does not agree with. Michelle has this smirk…and she seems to be channeling Kudlow. Enough said.
CNBC can be quite insulting to the guests they don’t agree with at the moment (this week, Fast Money lineup was rather bemused and patronizing to Peter Schiff, yet last fall, they all looked like they crapped their pants while the decline was happening and they gave him the respect he deserved). Personally, I LOVED seeing how sobered everyone looked last fall, unfortunately, it didn’t stick. I’d love to know how THEIR 401k and investments did. Is CNBC game for that? Let’s see your portfolios. It would speak volumes, wouldn’t it?
NYSE volume is up 25 yoy:
In the second quarter of 2009, average daily volume (“ADV ”) of 3.6 billion shares for NYSE Group across all U.S. equity markets was 24.9% above the second quarter of 2008, but 9.5% below the first quarter of 2009. Year-to-date, NYSE Group handled ADV of 3.8 billion shares was 19.4% above the same period last year. NYSE Group matched share of all U.S. equity volume in the second quarter was 30.2%. NYSE-listed (Tape A) matched market share in the second quarter of 2009 was 39.3%, compared to 41.5% in the first quarter of 2009.
Perhaps many people prefer to get their information from the internet rather than from TV. There is a lot more information and a greater variety of points of view on the internet than any TV channel can possibly have.
Perhaps TV channels can still hold their own in terms of entertainment. But when people want to know about the economy and the markets. Then the entertainment value isn’t important to them. They want information and opinions of various experts. And the internet is better at providing that.
I second everything you have stated here TPC, as well as the other commenters. Simply put, they have completely destroyed their credibility and their biases and conflict of interest is plainly transparent. I haven’t watched more than a segment here and there over the last several months. I just can’t take it as they blather on, with only an occasional acknowledgment of the real economic condition we’re in. They’re clowns and disrespectful of anybody who doesn’t cheerlead like them.
I listen to Bloomberg Surveillance podcasts with Tom Keene. He’s excellent.
Completely agree Onlooker. Keene and surveillance is my absolute favorite. I’ve spoken with Keene a few times. You’ll be hard pressed to find a nicer man….not to mention incredibly smart.
I don’t mean to make wise comments here, but, Jim Grant has been reported of saying that the recession will be over when CNBC becomes a sports channel, or something similar..
Dean
I dont’ know about marking the end of the recession that way, but I’ve said (as have others) that one way you’ll know that the end of the secular bear is over is that CNBC will have gone out of business for lack of interest. And that’s not necessarily sarcasm either. By the time it’s over there will be lots of apathy towards stocks and “investing” by the masses. It will be the polar opposite of 2000 that way.
we hit bottom when they cancel Cramer’s show
as for CNBS in general, its just a bunch of pouty liped big boobs money honeys chatting it up with old bald guys….seem like more of a brothel to me…
where i work, the sound it kept off and we keep it on for just the free ticker, etc
its just verbal diarreah
i saw a clip where beaker debates denniger…hilarious, what a boob
I now watch CNBC only to discern the “message” dictated daily by GS via GE (in service of the Fed, Treasury, and WH). The only question I ask when most anchors open their mouths is “what is the agenda and who does it serve?”
The de facto firing of Dylan Ratigan was a seminal event. There is no one left among the obsequious pseudo-reporters/anchors/pretty faces/provocateurs willing to question Wall Street, let alone report on the inherent corruption that caused the collapse. Lucky for Ratigan, he can soon watch CNBC’s credibilty implode with the market from a safe distance.
The best CNBC segment I’ve seen in the last year occurred on July 7 when Joe, Becky and Carl interviewed David Rosenberg (before 7am of course). They sat like stunned mullets unable to respond to a reality so at odds with CNBC’s hype and their own compromise of intellectual honesty.
See:
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-dylan-ratigan-speaks-and-hes-angry-2009-4
See:
Market Halfway Through Bear Cycle: Rosenberg
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31775633/site/14081545
when you post pics from other blogs without the credit due, it tends to discredit your blog.
You mean the Nielsen data? Yeah, not ZH property….
I guess Nielsen added the highlighs as well, huh?
Tyler, I love your work, but come on….drawing a few circles on Nielsens data doesn’t make it yours. Let’s be real here….
Hey Silicon Valley, the numbers reflect y-o-y viewship. so are you saying much less people are watching CNBC this July than last year’s July because more people has the money to go on vacation compared to last year?
TPC, Tyler here. Not sure why you are referring to anonymous as me. Feel free to rip off zerohedge as much as you want… Although anon does have a point – Nielsen did not draw the circles
That being said, I am sure you have sources at Nielsen as well
Tyler,
I’m just curious here – do you actually think that image is your property? It’s obvious that you ripped it off the Nielsen website. If anyone deserves a citation here it is Nielsen. And drawing circles on it doesn’t change that….
You post plenty of images and papers on your site without properly citing the source. You’ve even complained on multiple occasions about your cease and desist orders for accusations of copyright infringement so this is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, no?
It happens all the time in the blogosphere….We write a lot of stuff and sometimes the citations get lost in the mix of everything. It’s not intentional on my end, but it happens. This isn’t the NY Times we’re running here….I’d think you of all people would understand that. In the future, I’ll be sure to properly cite your work since it’s obviously a big deal to you and your audience. Perhaps you’ll be so kind as to return the favor to the work of others before busting people’s chops about it….
Tyler and TPC:
You are both cool dudes. Hate to see you get testy.
Come on..Gimmie all your lovin’:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDI-z6Gomm8
Well, I know CNBC USA is really just another pom-pom show; there are a few good reporters I like though; Dylan Ratigan, David Faber, Diana Olick and Margaret Brennan (when she smiles, I melt).
Of course, D.Ratigan and M.Brennan left CNBC for MSNBC and Bloomberg, so that gives me more reason to turn off CNBC; i used to watch Fast Money when D.Ratigan and Macke was on, but not anymore.
Back to the main topic; the issue is with CNBC USA, if you guys have a bit of time, try watching CNBC Asia, Europe, World; the reporting has alot less cheerleading, which gives more time to ask better questions.
Actually I got it from a source inside Nielsen. Not sure where on their website you think it is available: I actually am curious where on Nielsen.com you can get this data. Like I said before, feel free to grab anything – i really dont care. especially when it has to do with CNBC. Not to make a point out of it, for whatever reason, both Ritholtz and Lidzon cited ZH on that one. (not that I asked for it).
You do bring up a valid point on the cease and desist: if one were to come from Nielsen, it would be to zerohedge, not to you.
And, lastly, I couldnt care less about a citation… as we share a lot of readers, they know where content comes from, and to some of them it is important. I would hate for you to lose credibility in that fashion.
I used to watch Cramer and Fast Money and other programs as well, starting last September. Then I realized those programs were worthless after watching them a few months. You cannot get intelligent analysis from those people so why watch.
Tyler,
If we lose credibility based on our citations I am afraid we have both lost a great deal of credibility already. As I said before, I often forget to cite sources when I am in the middle of writing. It’s never intentional. Anyway, I think we’re making a bigger deal of this than it is.
As you know from our past conversations I am very appreciative of your site and your work. It’s a daily read of mine and I have cited and linked to your site on more than a few occasions. I’ve fixed the citation for what it’s worth.
TPC
Kudlow isn’t there to talk about market. He is there to broadcast his agenda and talks over his guests. That guy is wrong so many times. Watching that show bring me nothing valuable. I remember Kudlow was screaming Obama’s bear market. Guess that only apply when the market is down. Hadn’t heard Kudlow say Obama bull market. That kind of party trash talk doesn’t really help me to understand the market.
I started watching CNBC about a year ago. As a past set-it-and-forget-it investor my knowledge of the market was sorely lacking and I wanted to get plugged into the latest news. Due to my schedule viewing is limited to early morning so I would watch the show with Carl/Becky/Joe on. Once in a while I would see Art Cashin who seems like a pretty decent guy (not always right, but seems to tell it how he sees it).
Over the past year I’ve pretty much quit watching because I discovered a new term: permabull. It’s clear that Carl/Becky/Joe are all in that camp which leads to very lopsided and misleading reporting. Its too bad there can’t be more balance.
MARKET QUOTES
THIS WEEKS MOST POPULAR STORIES
MARKET NEWS
© 2009 pragcap.com · Login.
Home · Advertise · Contact us · Disclaimer ·