Good to know. I have the same reaction to your unhinged anti-Trump columns.

I started this as a simple side hustle, and last month I made a little over $6,137 just working a few hours a day from my phone. If you want to check out how it works, the website has all the details.
Here—>> www.giftpay7.vip

@Steve Sipress from Successful Selling Systems Inc.: Au contraire, I couldn't stop laughing.

I have never been a Trump fan, but that was by far the most entertaining SOTU speech I've ever watched. Pretty sure this clearly anti-Trump columnist wouldn't want to measure or admit to that.

For the staticians out there, comparing the SOTU length to the average viewership per minute leads to a negative (inverse) correlation of approximately -.94.  

Statistical support for the opinion. :-) 

Netflix has pulled out of their deal with WBD looks like Parmount is the winner and wouldn't take no for answer either. Really what needs to be done is shutdown a ton of cable channels in my opinion and spin them off as well. I wonder if that means NHL On CBS for the Stanley Cup Finals when ESPN/ABC doesn't have it every other year.

Or, better yet, sell off that part--probably the cable channels----that is losing money--if you can find  a sucker to buy them--and run the rest more sensibly. 

"Our business is in secular decline - let's spend $40-60B on some more of it"

I was in the business for 45 years plus, in and leading the strategic media planning groups at several small and large agencies/holding companies. My dream was that some day, some company might figure out the obvious (to only me?), that the Craetive and Media teams should be in a single unit working tiogether on a daily basis to maximize message effectiveness. This would have been a fantastic opportunity to show how that WOULD WORK!  Too bad.

Joe and Dan, when we talk about TV "ratings" and cite the average minute homes or viewer projections for various years, these are not what most of us who have long dealt with such numbers  would consider ratings" as they do not account for the size of the population bases at each point in time. That's why "ratings" are traditionally represented as percentages of the population in question as this is a far better indicator of relative popularity or program content appeal.

@Dan C. from MS Entertainment: Addendum. Richard Nixon too. Also a Republican. Clearly, it's not about party affiliation, but about the ability to sustain an audience. My point was Trump's better instincts for bloviation is his own worst enemy. Nothing to do with politics. All about him and his dysfunciton.
Estimated Nielsen Ratings for Richard NixonYearType of AddressEstimated HouseholdsHousehold Rating1970State of the Union~14.2 Million~24.01971State of the Union~15.1 Million~25.51972State of the Union~16.0 Million~26.81973Written Message OnlyN/AN/A1974State of the Union18.4 Million29.5

@Dan C. from MS Entertainment: I'm confused. If it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican, why do you keep bringing parties up? My column was explicitly about the correlation of two things Trump has been doing: expanding the duration (and setting records) for the length of his addresses, and experiencing a precipitous decline in the audiences viewing those addresses. That's all. There are many other caveats, but that's all I wrote about. Regarding your statement that every president has experienced a fall off in viewers for his addresses over time, it's actually not true. Ronald Reagan sustained his audience over time. He happened to be a Republican.

Year Type of Address Estimated Viewers Household Rating
1981 Address to Joint Session* 41.8 Million ~27.0
1982 State of the Union 40.5 Million 25.8
1983 State of the Union 43.1 Million 27.6
1984 State of the Union 41.0 Million 26.2
1985 State of the Union 45.7 Million 29.1
1986 State of the Union** 42.4 Million 27.2
1987 State of the Union 41.1 Million 26.4
1988 State of the Union 39.2 Million 25.1

"But the real point is that the more Trump gives of us -- duration-wise -- the lower his audience is."

It's not about whatisms. It doesn't matter if it's a democrat or a republican, every single president loses more and more audience the longer he speaks.

Clinton experienced the exact same results when he gave his historically long speeches. Historical numbers illustrate that your "point" applies to every president regardless of party.

Where is the NHL in the report kinda surprise no mention of NHL. The Lions when their on streaming I just watch on NFL Network late at night I didn't watch the Netflix game since that was a blowout by the Vikings on Christmas Day. I wouldn't watch on a pirate to watch sports.

Good idea from the Trumpeter.

The Big Tech simply doen't get enough income apparently, and if they owned their own Power Plants they might get better income.   

@Kevin Killion: Fair enough, I updated it with the correct baseline. But if you ask me, it looks considerably steeper, albeit a more accurate delineation.

Jow, of course not.  The 58% increase is patience-challenging for sure.  But my comment was about your Y-axis.  By rough measurement, your bar for 2017 is 62 pixels tall, and the 2026 bar is 278 pixels tall.  That's a huge 348% jump, making the increase look much, much bigger than it actually was.  The problem of course is that the Y-axis doesn't start at zero, and this would be obvious if it had been labelled.

@Dan C. from MS Entertainment: This column was about Trump's corresponding increase in the duration of his speeches and the decrease in his audience over time.

But if I must yield to your whataboutism, I can tell you Obama's eight addresses averaged 38.9 million viewers, while Trump's first six have averaged 42.3 million. We'll see how all eight -- or will it be 12 given his "strange" "third term" quip during last night's address -- end up averaging.

But the real point is that the more Trump gives of us -- duration-wise -- the lower his audience is. He should take my advice and utilize a less is more strategy, which would be better for all concerned.

Obama's viewership decreased steadily throughout his presidency. His final state of the union was 40% below his peak - which was his first sTate of the union address. 

Biden's viewership never came close to Trump's numbers.

On average, Trump's numbers are better than Obama and Biden.  Although it would be interesting to know what streaming numbers are like. 
 

Apples to apples, it's hard to argue Trump's losing the attention of America during his speeches - bloviation or not. 

If you were being honest with yourself, you would look at minute by minute, and Obama didn't fare any better. In fact historically, most SOTU speeches decline minute by minute for a variety of factors. 

Not everyone is up to date on the lates acronyms. I had to Google LLM. Please explain for the layman next time.

@Kevin the chart title is "Trump SOU Address Million Viewers / Minute." To my knowledge, Trump did not present the SOU during the Biden term.

@Kevin Killion from Stone House Systems Inc: So you're saying the duration of Trump's addresses has not increased 56% and his average audience per minute has not fallen 46%. Apologies, I'll check to make sure my calculator is working properly.

1) The duration chart at top is misleading, as would be clear if the Y-axis started at zero 
2) the minute by minute charts would be more informative if they hadn't skipped over the Biden years