Re: TV's Top Earners
Mike Findlay <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
1/2 comedies have to be cheaper to produce than one hour drama's, and not just becasue of the time difference. Sitcoms can be done in studio, don't need effects, etc. I think studios get a much better return on sitcoms which leaves more money for salaries. BTW why was Desperate Housewives under comedies? I've never seen it but I thought that was a drama. And Charlie Sheen probably does skew the results - which is inexplicable to me. I've watched House and seen a couple episodes of Burn Notice. Aside from that I don't think I've heard of most of those shows? MIke F. ________________________________ From: pcg <[email protected]> To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 2:08:28 PM Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] TV's Top Earners > Why do comedies pay so much more? I wondered the same thing. Upon reflection, I'd guess that half-hour comedies draw more young viewers (18-34) than hour-long dramas do, and that demographic sweet spot is what draws the advertising dollars. Also, I think it's not as lopsided as it looks upon first glance. If you remove "Two and a Half Men" from the comedy list, the two lists become much more comparable. -- -pcg [email protected] -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot