Rachel Maddow Ratings Hit Series Low With May 15 Program

Much was made last week when Tuesday's broadcast of "The Rachel Maddow Show" drew the smallest audience Maddow had seen since she joined MSNBC last summer, averaging 789,000 total viewers. According to Nielsen Media Research, Friday's (May 15) program drew just 763,000 total viewers, setting a new series low. Friday's program also drew Maddow's smallest Adults 25-54 audience ever, averaging just 163,000 demo viewers. Maddow did, however, beat Larry King on Friday, who averaged just 645,000 total viewers.

Maddow's ratings have cooled since the election frenzy of the fall, where she burst onto the cable news landscape with impressive numbers. In March, she averaged 1.133 million total viewers for her lowest month to date — in April, however, she came just shy of that with 1.042 million total viewers (setting a new monthly low). That said, her April 2009 ratings represented a 98% increase over April 2008, in which Dan Abrams' "Verdict" averaged just 527,000 total viewers in the same 9PM time slot.

Maddow's largest audience came on October 30, 2008, when she averaged 3.041 total viewers.

Friday night in Maddow's timeslot, mothership network NBC aired ratings boon "Farrah's Story," which attracted 9 million viewers and may have taken viewers away from MSNBC.

Comments

[thebruced]

To answer the questions on how TV ratings work. The ratings are based on live viewers. The way it works is advertisers put commercials on programs so people will buy their stuff. So the live viewers are more likely to see the bill paying advertisements. If the show is DVR'd commercials are generally skipped so the advertisers don't really care about the DVR viewings. As a result less live viewers means less advertising revenue as a point of reference for this see Air America Radio.

[Marie9]

I prefer Rachel when she is on the Keith O's show, more serious less silly.

I think she uses to much silliness and cutesy phases on her show.

I prefer her as a serious commentator, rather than this silly, personal issues person.

However, I still think she is the best female commentator on MSM.

[Carolab]

What? She's doing better than Larry King? Fuggedaboudit.

[PhilipTaylor]

Looks like Larry King should be nervous!

Rachel will always rebound!

[JOHNWISE]

( continuation) Rachel, in regards to the president speech on detention, Nothing is cut and dry. Things change and therefore plans and promises will change. He cannot rigidly apply the plan of releasing to the public, suspects who pose danger to the country's security . Again, the regular law may not apply when we are at war. This is more complex than we who are not in charge would know. It is easier said than done. Give time to those in authority to figure this intricate issue out. Many of us are more on the center and we have deemed that we cannot do business as usual. The president, I am sure, did not wake up and, eureka, had this idea. This must be a result of deliberations of various personnels that are in charge of this country's security. Rachel,I admire your great academic achievements, but please qoute the news in entirety and impartially. Other than that,we are still facing threats to our national security and I would wait to hear more from the intelligence body who know the complexity of this issue. I believe they have our country's best interests at heart.

[PhilipTaylor]

It is OK to say other than positive things about Obama!

There is plenty to complain about how he and Congress are treating the middle-class.

[JOHNWISE]

I admire Rachel , however her recent critiques of President Obama sound hyperbolized . She seems to take key phrases in his speech and highlights them emphatically out of context. In regards to the "prolonged detention" speech, she blew it completely out of proportion and I started wondering if we were listening to the same speech or if she was having selective hearing. We all know that these are PERILIOUS times with COMPLEX and SENSITIVE issues that bring PARANOIA . And therefore, at least from what I derived from the speech, we cannot treat terrorists,war criminals or those suspected to have terroristic bearings, with any regular kind of law -ad havoc and all-. He clearly stated that this will NOT BE A ONE MAN job. It will take the judicial and the congress (that we elected) to implement the best decisions for the sake of keeping this country secure.

[theman575757]

I think the Rachel Maddow show is doing great. I use my DVR and do not know if this is counted. I totaly agree with her positions on 99% of the time. Comparing to the stuff that Fox News Channel put out she is like Jesus Christ.

[Terra Sears]

I am not sure if I agree with that at all. I wonder how these are counted. After all I watch via tivo, or via msnbc.com... Do I count? I have no idea, but not to often do I watch at it on TV at the time of the showing...

I can't imagine that Maddow has lost that much support. Most of the woman I know completely adore her reporting, and "get" where she is coming from...

So in short, I just don't buy it...

[KluvsO]

Rachel Maddow is an embarassment. She is trying to make her name as the far Left's or ACLU version of Rush Limbaugh..­.demonizin­g Obama and characterizing him as a war monger is not going to get her ratings up. Her level of hyperbole and self righteousness is abhorrent. Well after 8 years of being strangled by the far right's obsession over Iraq and Terri Shivo type crap...the majority of us who are centrists and pragmatists (in need of health care and financial opportunity) will be damned if we let the far left hold this nation down with ACLU law suits over memos and don't ask don't tell obsessions. The reality is Rachel will NEVER be able to use her far left credibility ot undermine the President and what will undoubtably be a second term. Her show will be off the air long before the mid term elections.

[BOin08]

I was the biggest fan when she started. I loved her quick wit and smarts when she appeared on Countdown, but, unfortunately, her ten minute spots turned in 60 minute show of "smarter than you" finger pointing as she followed Olbermann down the low road with ridicule, sarcasm and that annoying wink.

[KluvsO]

Quick summary of Rachel's show:

"If you don't please me and the left wind idealogues...you're in big trouble Obama!
Don't ask don't tell...
Torture...
Don't ask don't tell...
Torture....
Did I say BIG TROUBLE. I meant BIG BIG TROUBLE OBAMA. IT's ALL ABOUT ME, ME, ME! What I want NOW, NOW, NOW!"

Ratings going down, down, down Rachel.

[DC10]

So true about her limited topics! She's so smart and talented, but either she or MSNBC has decided to take a once "must-see" show into a less appealing direction. She has virtually no coverage of the many positive things this new Administration has already accomplished or set into motion and those few positive things she covers get presented with a criticism of essentially "fine, but it's not enough," as though the President is refusing to use his magic wand to make everything perfect instantly. If Pres Obama doesn't word things exactly the way she wants to hear them, she starts catastrophizing. The bulk of Rachel's and Keith's programs each day seem devoted to over-discussing Republican antics and unfairly bashing this Democratic Administration that is so new that it's not even fully staffed yet. They strangely give the RNC's ads free airplay and full coverage on their shows, but not the DNC ads. Another thing - Jonathan ("Clinton must be impeached") Turley is hardly the only law scholar available. Even if I trusted Turley, which I don't, other scholars should be heard if for no other reason to break the monotony.

[den1953]

It's a boring time for news!

[pfc1369]

Maddow is Sinatra singing to a saloon filled with tone deaf drunks, and hostile ones, at that.

[bookon]

I like Rachael, but her show is missing something. I am not smart enough to tell what exactly, but it clearly IS. I think it maybe that when she attacks Obama from the left it seems wrong to me. I am not sure... Maybe that is it.

[kndam72]

I don't really think her views or attacks are the real problem. I'll give you that it might alienate a few viewers. BUT I do agree that the show is missing something. Its neither innovative or exciting, and following Olberman has a certain sense of redundancy. Its all too formulaic and seems a little to scripted for her personality. I think if they shake up the format a bit and allow her to be more freewheeling and impromptu, then you would actually get her in her best element. She is an extremely bright and is delightfully opinionated, nietrher of those aspects are shining through right now.

In general, I would like MSNBC to become bolder and more liberal following the passions of most of its hosts. Now is the time if any to shine brighter as a bastion for liberal views and be a strong antimatter to Fuax News. If they embrace this change, they will see a sizable segment of the population gravitating to them.

they need to stop measuring themselves to centrists, appeasers CNN and realize that their troo strength and power might be garnered by removing their shackles of quaint notions of how to run a 24hr news channel. They need not worry about loosing advertisers because those folks follow the crowds rather than the viewpoints. How else would Fox sell even one piece of advertising.

Be bold MSNBC, be bold!

[snesich]

This ratings obsession is the real problem. It's not as though money isn't being made by the owners of MSNBC, regardless of the ebb and flow of the ratings.

But, for all companies, there is a constant pressure for more, more, more! Grow grow grow!

Profit is never enough. It has to be bigger bigger bigger---especially with the coveted demographic that buys buys buys!

That's the real problem behind all of this. Success can't be "good"; it always has to be stupendous, or else!!!

[Kelly Laraia]

I prefer Rachel to Keith O as she is smarter and does a better interview. However, their shows are too similar. My advise to Rachel, put some republican­s/conserva­tives on your show and do the interview/debate. Keith only puts people on his show that agree with him and Rachel needs to do something different to attract an audience.

[isisthecat]

Rachel has complained that most Republicans won't come on her show. Guess they're afraid that she won't let them get away with the usual talking points.