This November sweeps is like no other sweeps period in memory. There are few of the stunts that the networks famously used in years past to boost ratings of local affiliates for setting ad rates, but there're lots of other issues for media buyers to ponder, and not the least of which is the strike by the Writers Guild of America that began yesterday. ABC is expected to win sweeps because of the high quality of its new and returning shows, and that's not expected to change--primetime shows have been backed up--but it's anyone's guess when it comes to late night, which will see the effect immediately, and daytime, which could be hurting shortly. As part of its sweeps coverage, Media Life talks to Tracie Chinetti, senior buyer/planner at Blitz Media in Boston and John Padgett, media director at the Hauser Group in Atlanta about who will win, how the strike might play out, and the impact of delayed DVR viewing.


Who do you expect to win November sweeps among 18-49s and why?

Chinetti: ABC is looking very strong with shows like “Dancing with the Stars,” “Dirty Sexy Money,” and "Samantha Who?,” and of course “Grey’s” and “Desperate Housewives.” The strength of their new and returning programs should lead it to first place.

Padgett: ABC should win among 18-49s in a two-network race. CBS will win a tight race in total viewers, but ABC should pull out an 18-49 win.

CBS will benefit in viewers and demos with “Amazing Race” on Sundays. It's fortunate that “Viva Laughlin” was so bad that it didn’t take up much promotional support before it disappeared.

CBS has a solid footing on most nights, and it's particularly consistent on Mondays, Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays.

But CBS has created some holes with new programs. “Cane” and “Kid Nation” have helped erode viewers on key nights for CBS, which is missing the solid and surprising “Jericho,” especially among 18-49s.

ABC has done a terrific job of expanding its dominance with women and 18-49s with a strong mix of complementary new shows and scheduling tactics to put them in the driver’s seat on Monday and Tuesday. It's also highly competitive if not victorious on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Sunday.

While “Big Shots” and “Cavemen” have been disappointments, they have far more winners than losers with “Samantha Who?,” “Dirty Sexy Money,” “Pushing Daisies,” “Private Practice” and “Women’s Murder Club.”

Smart programming choices on key nights and the strength of “Dancing with the Stars” will make them the winners.

Add to that NBC’s inconsistency and Fox’s lack of a total schedule, though it's better than any fall in memory, and ABC takes it.

Do you think there are more or fewer sweeps stunts this year compared with years past? Why?

Chinetti: It doesn’t seem like a big stunt year, there’s not a whole bunch of people blowing up or characters being killed off. Also, it seems like there is some moderation with specials, so it doesn’t seem like a lot of stunting is going on. Maybe the networks are focusing on other things like building programming.

Padgett: There are fewer program stunts, with more special-appearance, must-see episodes. I like the concept of driving long-term “brand” for a program with special guest stars, special episodes, as opposed to a totally off-strategy stunt.

I think we’ll continue to see more combined retail/branding stunts in the future.

With local people meters now rolling out across the country, how long will sweeps remain relevant?

Chinetti: I think we’ll see them gradually become less important. But the reality is that until the networks learn to, or can afford to, program more weeks of original programming, it will be a function of necessity for a while longer.

Padgett: They’re important for a number of reasons beyond the obvious and historical ones.

They serve a critical competitive role. They show the strength of one network’s promotional ability versus others, which can make a difference in an advertiser’s ability to get internal and customer excitement in partnering with that network in the future.

They create the opportunity for sampling programs that may get lost in the mix. They help create and support existing industry relationships, negotiations and renewals for network marketing and programming executives with producers, writers and talent. It’s a much bigger stake in the ground than just hitting your guarantees for existing advertisers.

How does the writers' strike impact the sweeps? That is, do you expect to see any shows that otherwise would have been yanked stay on the air simply because the networks have no other choice?

Chinetti: I think networks will still try to hold off on whatever original programming they have, because they still are measured by Nielsen. I think they’ll keep some stuff on that might not have otherwise made it. But some of the lower-rated shows will shut down production, rather than wait and see if they can build an audience.

But I do think some of the shows that are on the bubble may stand a better chance than they would have otherwise. The networks will run off the episodes they have, because why wouldn’t you?

Padgett: I think it won’t affect sweeps specifically. But I do think the strike will have programmers and sales executives pondering a variety of scenarios for the remainder of this season, depending on the individual network’s programming plans and number of episodes already in the hopper.

I do think that younger demos won’t notice the strike and its effects as much as older demos, which is a bit ironic in that new media usage among younger demos is at the heart of the strike.

What do you expect to see from C3 and DVR ratings during sweeps?

Chinetti: Well, the C3 doesn’t affect local advertisers as much. But DVR ratings are affecting so much right now. 

A lot of spot advertisers who are retail-focused, for example, are not helped if someone watches “Grey’s” on Monday and the sale was over the weekend.

Retail really drives spots. And retail tends to be more affected because it’s usually a more timely message.

Padgett: I expect that DVR ratings will continue to be strong for programs that deliver a considerable amount of below-age-40 viewing, with NBC’s “Heroes” and “The Office” leading the pack.

However, if you look specifically at commercial ratings, I think it’s going to reinforce that network television specifically will continue to be priced based on supply and demand.

The guys that negotiate the largest client dollars can have their differing opinions and posture for whatever rationale works to reinforce their clients’ confidence.

But bottom line, people aren’t watching commercials when they shift viewing, they’re watching programs. If you or your client needs to be in network television, then you’re going to have to pay for it based on demand.

As ratings shrink and demand remains strong, prices will continue to go up. I think commercial ratings are the fair/correct way to measure audience--pay for what you’re getting. Due to demand, you’re going to pay a lot more for that smaller rating. But at least you know what you’re paying for.

The end game is that once you’re paying for commercial ratings, then you can start to realistically compare the price/value of network television versus other media and make better, more informed decisions about the appropriate media mix for a given brand.

Which new programs need to have a strong sweeps to have any sort of future?

Chinetti: Well, I think there are certain shows that are considered on the bubble, CBS’s “Cane” and ABC’s “Big Shots” to name a couple. There’s interest in them for sure, and they have potential, but they do need to pick it up.

Padgett: NBC has its hands full with several under-performing programs.

Regardless of sweeps, “Friday Night Lights” and “Bionic Woman” will hang in there, due to decent 18-49 numbers. The same can’t be said for “Life” and “Journeyman,” who may not make it through sweeps.

I could see ABC taking “Big Shots” to hiatus and trying “Brothers and Sisters” or “Men in Trees” in that choice Thursday night slot.

Likewise, if “Cane” doesn’t make a dramatic turnaround, CBS will have to stunt some Elvis or Dr. Phil programs to fill the gap.

Which new programs have you been most impressed with, ratings-wise?

Chinetti: I think “Samantha Who” is holding a really good share of the “Dancing with the Stars” audience. It was a little surprising because it wasn’t one of the shows that was critically embraced going in. But on the other hand, it’s female-focused, and it seems to be well-matched with “Stars.”

And I also hear a lot of talk about “Gossip Girl” and “Dirty Sexy Money,” as far as people talking about watching them. I think both are doing fairly well in their target demos.

Padgett: While still early, I’d say “Samantha Who?” on ABC.

The idea of extending a hit to ninety minutes, then slotting a freshman sitcom to follow and lead into “The Bachelor” was fresh thinking. The program itself, the casting and writing were just as fresh.

I’m equally impressed with early results for “Pushing Daisies,” which looked unique and perhaps a bit niche for an 8 p.m. slot – but it’s performed really well.