Bear & Obama!!!!

[Whittler Kev]

Well finally read this thread and have to admit enjoyed the show and what it had to say.

Me too. It was a shame that with the entourage (and the slightly smaller Obama one) they didn't do a lot but gave strong messages - even a prayer which I'm not sure if it was to promote Grylls as a religious man or what.
I've never thought myself too religious but the best line that sticks in my head had to be something like - You never find an atheist on a sinking life raft

 

[santaman2000]

It can't get any dumber. If appearing on a "reality" show with a celebrity renowned for faking such things is the highest priority for the president of the USA, then gods help us all

This was my thought as well but I'll leave it at that lest it become political.

 

[santaman2000]

Is that taken from the Donald Trump School of Etiquette?

Decades older than Trump.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

Wow, it's ages since I heard the word 'ladies' as the ultimate put down for a bunch of men - thanks for that.. Really encouraging for all the ladies on here. Nice one.

Well said.

J

 

[tsitenha]

Bear is in reality a very tough person, skilled???
Action figure I would buy a few, leave them in their container, bequeath them to future heirs... they will accrue in value.
He is very talented in promoting himself for that, 5 stars.

 

[Old Bones]

Well finally read this thread and have to admit enjoyed the show and what it had to say.

Agreed. Whatever anyone might think about Bear Grylls, his shows are popular, and are watched by people who would never listen to a policy speech. The point of the programme was for both Obama and Grylls to raise awareness of climate change, and its impact right now (and Alaska is in the front line). It attracted an audience that would simply have not bothered with a podium speech, so it worked. It also looked like Obama enjoyed getting slightly out of the bubble for the day, although he actually likes hiking whenever he gets the chance - http://www.oregonlive.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/12/obama_gets_my_vote_after_makin.html

 

[dewi]

Whatever anyone might think about Bear Grylls, his shows are popular, and are watched by people who would never listen to a policy speech. The point of the programme was for both Obama and Grylls to raise awareness of climate change, and its impact right now (and Alaska is in the front line). It attracted an audience that would simply have not bothered with a podium speech, so it worked.

Thats a nifty spin... shame it isn't true.

Viewing figures of Bear and Obama = 4 million

Viewing figures of State of the Union address = 31.7 million

Seems the Yanks much prefer a podium speech to the President prancing about the woods with Bear.

 

[santaman2000]

Thats a nifty spin... shame it isn't true.

Viewing figures of Bear and Obama = 4 million

Viewing figures of State of the Union address = 31.7 million

Seems the Yanks much prefer a podium speech to the President prancing about the woods with Bear.

Neither of those figures are high to be honest.

 

[dewi]

State of Union address is similar to the NFL viewing figures... higher than anything we get over here anyway... I think Bear's series over here got an average of a million viewers per episode which was considered low enough to cancel his show at the time.

I reckon BG is much more popular your side of the pond though.

 

[GGTBod]

anyone noticed how any Bear related thread ends up down the same divisive path, some people love and some hate him and others are just sick of threads about him

 

[santaman2000]

State of Union address is similar to the NFL viewing figures... higher than anything we get over here anyway... I think Bear's series over here got an average of a million viewers per episode which was considered low enough to cancel his show at the time.

I reckon BG is much more popular your side of the pond though.

Over 105 million people watched the final episode of MASH.

23.4 million watch a single episode of The Big Bang Theory

Over 114 million people watched the Super Bowl. For the ratings for individual games during regular season play to be accurate you'd have to multiply them times the number of games being played that afternoon or evening (divide the number of teams by 2 and remove a small percent for an off day, so 32 teams / 2 = 16 minus say 10% = about 14 games played simultaneously on average) Add to that the fact that regular season games are only aired in a small area where the individual teams have fans; NOT broadcast nationwide.

 

[Old Bones]

Thats a nifty spin... shame it isn't true.

Viewing figures of Bear and Obama = 4 million

Viewing figures of State of the Union address = 31.7 million

Seems the Yanks much prefer a podium speech to the President prancing about the woods with Bear.

Except thats comparing apples with oranges.

Its perfectly true that the episode of Running Wild With Bear Grylls featuring Obama got about 3.95m viewers on NBC. That wasn't actually the highest ( the episode with Michelle Rodriqeuzpulled in slightly more viewers, but who wouldn't want to watch Michelle Rodrigeuz?), but the Obama programme was a one-off special aired several months after the second series had finished. The Grylls show got between 2.83m and 3.84m for its second season, which ranks roughly 15th in NBC's most viewed programmes for 2015, and has been renewed for a third season. Strangely, the episode in question got higher ratings in the UK than it did in the US, but perhaps this reflects the more fragmented state of US TV and the fact that the old networks have a serious problem attracting people, full stop.

However, what I was trying to say was that the demographic for those watching the show would have been somewhat different to those interested in a speech given by Obama at a hotel in Fairbanks about climate change, in front of the AAAS, etc. That might have got page 2 in the Washington Post, on Grist, etc. But that programme, which, as the Guardian points out, was 'in reality a rather tame walk and chat about climate change followed by a snack of salmon', got a relatively large amount of coverage in the US and international media, and had a major impact on social media http://www.thewrap.com/president-ob...rylls-episode-kills-it-on-social-media-video/ . And that was the point. Its drummed up coverage, in a way in which most political speeches do not. I wasn't claiming anything else for it.

So if that the apple, what about the oranges? The State of the Union is a big deal for any president, but even that has suffered from declining viewing figures, and thats despite the fact that its ' carried live on 13 broadcast and cable networks and tape-delayed on Univision, showing in a combined 23.1 million households' staring at around 6pm (rather than at 10pm on a single channel) ' http://www.ibtimes.com/state-union-2015-ratings-audience-declines-twitter-chatter-spikes-1790772 .

Its down 2m viewers, but social media hits are up, which makes sense when you look how people consume media. Personally, I'm really surprised its that high, considering that it seldom announces that many surprises and its goes on for a while. I'm a self confessed US political junkie, and the 2015 State of the Union was really good (Obama is an excellent speaker), but I suspect a lot of viewers drifted in and out, and some were possibly just waiting for a Republican to say something crazy in the middle of it. And as for the Superbowl...its the Superbowl!

The programme was a decent idea, and got some coverage - thats fine, and leave it at that. I really can't be bothered to discuss Grylls, he's just not worth the effort.

 

[santaman2000]

Except thats comparing apples with oranges.

Its perfectly true that the episode of Running Wild With Bear Grylls featuring Obama got about 3.95m viewers on NBC. That wasn't actually the highest ( the episode with Michelle Rodriqeuzpulled in slightly more viewers, but who wouldn't want to watch Michelle Rodrigeuz?), but the Obama programme was a one-off special aired several months after the second series had finished. The Grylls show got between 2.83m and 3.84m for its second season, which ranks roughly 15th in NBC's most viewed programmes for 2015, and has been renewed for a third season. Strangely, the episode in question got higher ratings in the UK than it did in the US, but perhaps this reflects the more fragmented state of US TV and the fact that the old networks have a serious problem attracting people, full stop.

However, what I was trying to say was that the demographic for those watching the show would have been somewhat different to those interested in a speech given by Obama at a hotel in Fairbanks about climate change, in front of the AAAS, etc. That might have got page 2 in the Washington Post, on Grist, etc. But that programme, which, as the Guardian points out, was 'in reality a rather tame walk and chat about climate change followed by a snack of salmon', got a relatively large amount of coverage in the US and international media, and had a major impact on social media http://www.thewrap.com/president-ob...rylls-episode-kills-it-on-social-media-video/ . And that was the point. Its drummed up coverage, in a way in which most political speeches do not. I wasn't claiming anything else for it.

So if that the apple, what about the oranges? The State of the Union is a big deal for any president, but even that has suffered from declining viewing figures, and thats despite the fact that its ' carried live on 13 broadcast and cable networks and tape-delayed on Univision, showing in a combined 23.1 million households' staring at around 6pm (rather than at 10pm on a single channel) ' http://www.ibtimes.com/state-union-2015-ratings-audience-declines-twitter-chatter-spikes-1790772 .

Its down 2m viewers, but social media hits are up, which makes sense when you look how people consume media. Personally, I'm really surprised its that high, considering that it seldom announces that many surprises and its goes on for a while. I'm a self confessed US political junkie, and the 2015 State of the Union was really good (Obama is an excellent speaker), but I suspect a lot of viewers drifted in and out, and some were possibly just waiting for a Republican to say something crazy in the middle of it. And as for the Superbowl...its the Superbowl!

The programme was a decent idea, and got some coverage - thats fine, and leave it at that. I really can't be bothered to discuss Grylls, he's just not worth the effort.

The State Of The Union will always have artificially elevated ratings because all the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc) pre-empt regular programming for it. In other words, all the good shows are off and if you don't have cable, there's nothing else to watch.

 

[knifeman]

Couldn't agree more!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk