Jump to content

ARTICLE: ‘Live with Kelly and Ryan’ Ranks First in Women 25-54, Tying ‘Dr. Phil’ Among Syndicated Talk Shows


Errol

Recommended Posts

  • Webmaster
Kelly Ripa, Ryan Seacrest, Live with Kelly & Ryan

During the week of January 10-14, 2022, the most recent week in which syndicated TV ratings are available, “Live with Kelly and Ryan” placed second among all syndicated talk shows with a 1.7 rating in Households, according to Nielsen. The show was up +6% week to week (1.7 rating vs 1.6 rating), while also growing +3% week to week among Total Viewers (2.446 million vs 2.366 million) and +17% week to week in Women 25-54 (0.7 rating vs 0.6 rating).

Overall, the show was the week’s highest rated syndicated talk show among Women 25-54 rating, tied with “Dr. Phil.”

Season to date, “Live with Kelly and Ryan” ranks number one in Women 25-54 (0.7 rating), beating second place “Dr. Phil (0.6 rating) in the highly desired demographic.

Touting its win against the final season of “Ellen,” Live” holds a double-digit margin over the Ellen DeGeneres hosted talker among Households (+70% advantage – 1.7 rating vs 1.0 rating), Total Viewers (+71% advantage – 2.449 million vs 1.432 million) and Women 25-54 (+75% advantage – 0.7 rating vs 0.4 rating).

“Live with Kelly and Ryan” is hosted by Kelly Ripa (ex-Hayley Vaughan Santos, “All My Children”) and Ryan Seacrest. Produced by WABC-TV in New York, the show is distributed in national syndication by Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution. Michael Gelman, Ripa and Seacrest are the executive producers.



Note: The post ‘Live with Kelly and Ryan’ Ranks First in Women 25-54, Tying ‘Dr. Phil’ Among Syndicated Talk Shows appeared first on the Soap Opera Network website.

Read More

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Webmaster

Agree with you to an extent. However, their audience is not as social media engaged as Wendy is due to Wendy having a vastly younger audience. Social media engagements and ratings do not go hand in hand. You also have to factor in that with its much higher ratings, people are less likely to watch the same content online that they already saw on TV.

Hmm. This is a positive story...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I've seen so many posters over the years who are bright, creative, well-versed in soap history, and who care deeply about the integrity of the genre. I'd put the shows' chances in their hands a lot faster than I would allow any of the "usual suspects" to take control of the dramas they've already helped decimate. When I returned to university in the 1980s, I created a bible for a new soap and presented it in my screenwriting class. It was in reaction to how badly I saw the network shows being butchered at the time. The creative process was thrilling; a total joy, and I still smile when I remember the positive feedback I received from the professor and my fellow students. I was used to seeing written commentary from professors on my work. This one wrote me a long, complimentary note on the final page of the bible, but also graded it 97%, A+. I was beaming ear to ear for days!

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Thanks. I do wonder if Rose was meant to be more given the caliber of actress they hired. I remembered Sara and Peggy staying longer as they were still on when Soapnet started their repeats. I wonder if that was part of the reason they brought Jake's brother in. 
    • Speculation about Missy Reeves' potential evolution on basic civil rights doesn’t change my opinion of her. My view is shaped entirely by her public social media presence—which I find unpalatable—and I have no interest in learning more beyond that. I simply liked Jennifer’s hair and dress. That’s as far as my admiration goes.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Cheryl was gone before Lemay came back but I agree with your thinking that he would rather a character from a family he introduced to the show than a family he did not originate.  I remember reading somewhere in the early 90's probably after DS left as writer, their was an either a writer or a producer who made a comment that their intent was bring the McKinnon family back to AW.  Would have made sense for the newer viewers from the 80's.  Much like Lemay's attempt to bring the Frames back from his writing in the 70's in his 1988 return
    • DePriest left in January 1988. According to the AWHP, Rose last appeared nearly a year before in February 1987 while both Sara and Peggy appeared as late as October 1987.
    • Annie was not brought in as an antagonist for Reva. Reva wasn’t even on the canvas when Annie first appeared in late 1994. 
    • The speculation……….very entertaining. 
    • I had forgotten that several Days stars came out strong against Melissa. Good for them!
    • That would have made sense. Did all these characters get dropped when DePriest left or had they already been dropped?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy