Viewership Numbers Quotes

Not a lot of people watch cable news, they just don't.

But Angela had at least 30% more viewers on the same night at the same time. I mean, she wiped everybody out. But the sponsors don't care when she had the most people. They only care about if there was only a handful of young viewers on the other one.

If you've got a restaurant, you definitely want the line to be out the door the first night, but you're more interested in people continuing to come to the restaurant. And that's their outlook, a little bit. I think it allows for more creativity, in the process. It allows people to make interesting programming that maybe wouldn't have a place on broadcast networks, if you were just counting people.

I don't pay attention to target audiences and therefore I often hear that I am a ratings killer, somebody who fundamentally doesn't care whether one person is watching or an entire soccer stadium.

'Girls' is a huge show, as far as buzz, and magazine covers, and getting a ton of copy, and awards. And yet I don't think the viewership is huge.

It is a fact of broadcasting that you've got to get the big audiences for the channel that you're on.

Broadcasting for advertisers is still the best game in town, and they know it. Look, I admire a lot of the shows on cable. I think 'Mad Men' is wonderful. I think 'Breaking Bad' is wonderful. But let's remember they're about one-tenth the audience of NCIS.

The classic story of the Univision network is the mainstream pretends that the network doesn't exist, but then when it comes to sweeps or the ratings, they just have millions and millions more viewers than ABC, Fox, and CBS combined; it's that kind of a success story.

I want to be read. When you write a TV show like 'The Wire,' you've got three to four million readers watching your work. Even Grisham doesn't sell that many books.

If you go back in time and look at a map of all of the television markets where wrestling was most popular, historically, the deepest concentrations of those markets were in the northeast.

TV creates good viewership because it generates interest by being entertaining.

YouTube clips get millions, billions of hits. Reality TV programs have their own channels. How can movies attempt to compete with these kinds of numbers? And do we even need to? Are we scaring ourselves by unnecessary comparisons, by not comparing apples with apples?

Broadcast television is designed to reach as many people as possible, right? There's an obligation that we as creators have to advertisers, and it is an advertising medium.

A show like the 'Only Fool and Horses' Christmas special got 24 million viewers, so practically everyone in the country was watching. But of course it's a different world now, with so many channels. And those kind of figures are really difficult to achieve.

As a performer you are being used to keep people watching so the commercial endorsements that support the network can be seen by as many people as possible.

Wrestling equals ratings. It seems sometimes that TV stations don't like to make money.

I never get obsessed with ratings, partly because the Channel series 'Utopia,' which I did, had small ratings but a passionate following, which allowed a second series.

You make shows, and you don't go into it thinking, 'Our show's going to be number one'; you go into it hoping to stay on the air.

The thing with film is that it's so wide-reaching compared to comedy. When I release my comedy special, half a million people will see it. If I release a movie, five to ten million people will see it.

More people saw me in one episode of 'Cheers' than would ever see me in a play.

Something economically changed. It used to be that you needed 20 million people to watch a TV show for it to be a hit. Now, with just a few million people watching, you're considered very successful, for a lot of these streaming services, or cable channels. Now, that allows people to do much more creatively ambitious work, because it's not lowest common denominator.

Fox gets two million viewers a night, and MSNBC gets one. It's four million people, five million people, and 130 million people are going to vote. There are an awful lot of voters, and an awful lot of politically engaged, intelligent people who are not hanging on whatever happens on Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow.

It's just unfortunate that a network only makes their profit off of live viewership because their hands are tied by advertisers. They may believe in the show and want it to continue, but they just unfortunately can't afford it.