An ‘Idol’ Ratings Loss, but Not in Its Pocketbook

So ABC can hardly be blamed for bragging that last week’s edition of its own reality show hit, “Dancing With the Stars,” attracted more viewers (23 million) than “Idol” (21.8 million). In much the same way, NBC was elated when it topped “Idol” on one night of its Winter Olympics coverage in February.

And certainly the latest cast of “Dancing” has attracted quite a bit of media attention, with names like Buzz Aldrin, the former astronaut, and Kate Gosselin, the reality star, among the competitors.

But any effort to push “Dancing” as a real threat to the might of “Idol” where it really counts — ad dollars — is at best premature. It may be fairer to label it folly. According to figures on commercial costs issued by the Nielsen company, “Idol” is charging about $642,000 for each 30-second commercial in its current run. The most recent figures for “Dancing” come from last fall’s edition, when it was charging about $209,000.

Why the huge disparity? Because the two shows, while now close in overall viewers, have vastly different audience profiles. These can be summed up in simple terms: “Dancing” is heavily female and older; “Idol” is heavily female and younger.

“Dancing” is a show with a serious tilt toward women viewers over 50 years old. Last week, for example, of those 23 million total viewers, 10 million, or about 43 percent, were women over 50. (Another 3.9 million were men over 50.)

“Idol,” which has crept up a bit in overall age in the last few years, had a little more than half as many women over 50, 5.7 million, and slightly fewer men in that age group, 3.4 million.

This matters because concentration of audience remains a factor for many marketers. “Advertisers are not going to pay a premium to reach an audience with a profile like the one that ‘Dancing’ has,” said Brad Adgate, the senior vice president for research at Horizon Media.

When a show has a disproportionate number of women over 50 in its audience, it simply cannot charge as much for commercials. That is not because advertisers do not like older women, but because they are so easy to find all over the rest of television.

“The audience for ‘Dancing’ is an attainable audience,” said David Sklaver, the president of KSL Media, which buys commercial time for advertisers. He noted that it might seem odd that “advertisers tend to devalue the audience that has the most money” — that is, older viewers.

But the scarcity argument tends to rule: advertisers pay more to reach people who do not watch much television. Thus, the most prized viewers of all watch the least amount of television: men under 35. The younger women who watch “Idol” are also highly valuable to certain advertisers.

“Categories like soft drinks and beer and gadgets want ‘Idol’ viewers,” Mr. Sklaver said. (Gadgets include tech products like computers and phones.)

Shows like “Idol” continue to be able to charge sizable premiums to advertisers because the audience composition includes a lot of those younger people — and in a better concentration.

Still, “Dancing” hardly has anything to apologize for: Its audience is so big that it includes strong ratings with younger adults as well. So far, the show is doing better with younger viewers than it did in its fall edition, though it still lags “Idol.”

This Monday, “Dancing” averaged a 5 rating among the 18- to 49-year-old audience that is the bulls-eye for most advertisers, while the most recent “Idol” hit a 7.7 in that category.

That is closer than the gap was between those two shows. And as Mr. Adgate noted, the breadth of the audience for both shows is appealing to many advertisers.

“Advertisers like a big-tent show,” Mr. Adgate said. “There are many more TV sets than there are people now, so there is appeal to a show that gathers the family in the living room. It enhances engagement with the show, and probably the commercials.”

Mr. Sklaver said that “Dancing” should be able to make up some of the ad income differential by attracting advertisers of “major purchase items” like automobiles.

“Look at me, I’m 50-plus,” Mr. Sklaver said. “I’m not even counted. And I’m in the market right now for a new car.”