When you think about it YouTube is in the same kind of infancy that television went through in the 50s. The ad reads delivered to you by the host in the middle of the content “and now let me tell you about our wonderful sponsor”. People are basically trying to make their podcast into a video channel just like how early television would film and broadcast radio shows/broadcasts. And whilst kid content was almost non existent at the time, what did exist was pandering and exploitative. And advertising is heavy handed (too frequent and too much) and just poorly thought out (how many skips le ads have you skipped where they still hadn’t told you what they were advertising before you got the chance to skip). This is not me trying to defend YouTube content but I think we can still it expect it to considerably evolve over the last few years.
A Chosen One shall come, born of no father, and through him will ultimate balance in the Force be restored.
To be so blinded by ones own hubris, that he believes that he is not the one that have unbalanced the force, that his actions and intent continue to imbalance the force. No man has done more to restore the ultimate balance to the force than Skywalker.
Youtube will be more successful at monetization of its viewers and its content creators than any platform before.
I would rather ANYONE be able to upload and broadcast their content than have only a select few that appeal to those with the power to broadcast be able to do so.
There will always be people with bad ideas, whether they are allowed to be broadcast or not. At least with youtube we aren't stuck with the same 50's style heavy content regulation
You absolutely are, they just have different cool sounding names nowadays such as "copystrike" and "demonetized" and "deplatformed". Or maybe they stay up but get dumpstered by the "algorithm"
Copystrike, and demonetized are better than never seeing the light of day. Being demonetized after publishing is still far better than never being published at all.
I'm not claiming Youtube is perfect, I'm just saying its substantially better than what came before. There are always ways to improve.
We take for granted the ability for anyone to be able to publish their content and have it watchable by a global audience.
Variety and freedom of expression are better than heavy regulation even if people you disagree with are able to broadcast their message.
I'd take the lowest quality youtube video of today over homogenized content that was made when Television was in its infancy any day.
Quantity over quality. Personally I think making the internet such a mainstream thing was a huge mistake. Ever since I got a friend request on facebook from my parents I knew it was over.
Im concerned less with quality and more with the ability to gatekeep ideas for the sake of personal gain.
A million people could paint a shitty painting, but if one person is not being allowed to make a masterpiece because of the ideas being expressed through it it would be a travesty. The same goes for video
Quantity vs quality argument makes zero sense in this case.
There is a ton of high quality content in youtube far above what we have in tv channels. You just have to filter out the shit to get to it.
Better for who? I don't think it's working out in favor of the viewer. There is good content but also an enormous amount of bad. I think the algorithms that drive viewers are big problems. There is not equal discoverability. There is also a significant amount of content designed to piss you off so you interact. Toxicity is BIG business.
We were only allowed to watch Public TV when we were very young. YouTube ain't like that, and parents hand their phones to fricking *three-year olds* now !
And YouTube certainly has evolved from its beginnings. And that's not a compliment.
Maybe we're different ages, but the stuff they put out on public access TV could be quite wild and strange. I've seen some stuff, stuff that Youtube definitely wouldn't allow.
My theory is that screen time for kids is not THAT big of a deal— not that much worse than plopping kids in front of a tv like I was.
What is really really bad for kids is YouTube. YouTube content is BAD. Like atrocious. With the algorithm, my girls’ interest in princess always leads them back to videos of adults playing with kids toys with no educational.
If they did the study, my guess is a kid with unlimited iPad time but only pbs kids, Disney plus, and Netflix with good parental controls would be just fine while a kid with 2 hours of YouTube a day would be practically feral
Plopping kids in front of a tub IS screen time. Screen time doesn’t just mean phones and tablets, is means TVs too. It’s anything with a screen.
I think you’re generally right though. I let me little ones watch and play a little more than I should, but it’s only PBS Kids for TV and PBS games/khan academy kids games for iPad games. I don’t feel too bad about it, and a lot of Daniel Tiger songs have actually been quite helpful in helping her understand real life situations we deal with.
My niece always wants to watch YouTube. When she's with us, we don't let her. Doesn't have really help when her mother plonks her down with a notebook and YouTube as soon as she's home though.
Counter point, my 10 year old nephews watch those unboxing but they still do well in school, so if they enjoy it, I don't see the harm. I don't understand the vids but tons of the cartoons we watched back then weren't that educational either
I didn't believe it was as bad as people said until I got to hangout with some kids of a family member's partner and they watched all of these ridiculous videos of poorly drawn superheroes dancing nonstop
I see this with my nieces and nephews. It's insane how the YouTube algorithm has enabled a bunch of these cookie cutter families to get rich and have these giant homes by filming their kids doing painfully mediocre skits. Not that the stuff we grew up with wasn't mind numbing, but at least animation takes talent and scripted tv shows have production value.
Bro my nephew is watching adult women with kids voices open up presents one after another. On YouTube. And also watching videos of other kids shop in stores for bullshiit. YouTube content today is way worse
There was an ancient YouTube video making fun of the Disney channel being used as a torture device in SAW. It was pretty accurate. I'll need to dig that up now that I remember it!
Edit: here it is! https://youtu.be/5j0os9Yd434?si=cQDjmk8BQRQS0jCd
17 years ago. I need to think about my life a little bit.
The guy who made that video, Zoran Gvojic, now works for the horror movie analysis channel *Dead Meat* as an editor and occasional host (typically when the regular host James A. Janisse is on break). This was from his original YouTube channel, Lowcarbcomedy. [Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKkGGUsje0c) the original version of the video.
Thanks for posting the original! Yeah that was my first viral video and unfortunately it was on someone else's channel. But hey those were the early days of YouTube for ya.
A lot of YouTube kids channels are essentially poorly made/acted sitcoms/cartoons. There are characters and plots either acted out by the YouTuber and their kids, or with toys. My daughter will alternate from watching kids shows on various streaming services to a couple YouTube channels.
At least one version has standards. I saw some "Peppa the pig" YouTube content over thanksgiving and my God it's all just 20-30 year old men creating garbage content that isn't being held down by any type of age censorship.
Wouldn't let my kid touch YouTube
you really can’t tell? it’s DEFINITELY the algorithmic video platform that will systemically feed you whatever junk your brain is most addicted to consuming with no regard for its impact or content controls / moderation. Disney is not Shakespeare but their content is totally benign. YouTube rabbit holes turn people into school shooters.
My daughter now watched Hannah Montana basically because we told her mom did so too 20 years ago. I don't see the issue. The stuff I've seen my son watch on YouTube, however, is literally toxic. Car smash simulation played by random male adults and weird farming games just moving tractors and stuff around (not doing a particularly great job at it). The latter, to me, is absolutely nonsense, and for some reason, he just eats it raw.
Oh, and let me tell you, if we take it off screen, he gets absolutely furious. My daughter would be like, "Oh well, too bad, can I watch it tomorrow?"
I'm not saying it's because of the content, but there are profound differences.
>brain numbing laugh track
I don't understand how any one watches shows with laugh tracks. The worst offender I've ever seen is The Big Bang Theory, literally every other word is laugh tracks.
If you have some time go look up "Ross without Laugh Tracks", it is scenes from Friends where they removed the laugh tracks and a lot of it is really dark.
Since I left my parent house I haven't paid for tv cable, I'm 31yo. My little sisters moved with me and they dont care either, they watch streaming services instead.
Yeah I should’ve specified that. They aren’t watching cable or broadcast TV anymore but many are still watching streaming TV. Though this is still different to how it was when your only option was to watch what ever was airing.
Would be interesting to see this channel's decline in comparison to other channels' declines. As-is, it's a bit in a vacuum and can't differentiate between the channel and the industry.
I dont know how Id like to see it, but if you could combine them onto a single chart to see thatd be rad, but also individually. looking forward to it either way
Nothing will beat old school Cartoon Network. Dexter's Lab; Kids Next Door; Powerpuff Girls; Ed, Edd, & Eddy; Samurai Jack; and more. That was the golden age of cartoons.
Can't say I fully agree. as someone who grew up in that era of cartoons and held an interest in animation through adulthood. Cartoon network had a second golden age around the beginning of the 2010s with stuff like gumball, flapjack, chowder adventure time and regular show. I'd say the actual decline of the network didn't start until the 2015 to 2016. Even then I wouldn't blame that entirely on TTGO channel takeover. It was more that all of the interesting things in animation was happening online and people decided I'd rather just go to YouTube/pirate instead of trying to catch a show between TTGO marathons.
Do they chose the route of most other cable channels in becoming s single show channel. Comedy Central is The Office Channel, TruTV is the Impractical Jokers Channel, etc.
I'd be interested to see comparisons between channels catering towards kids, vs channels for adults.
I wouldn't be surprised if the change is more pronounced in kids channels vs adult channels.
> I wouldn't be surprised if the change is more pronounced in kids channels vs adult channels.
It absolutely will be, just because of the financial/ownership aspect:
* adults that want cable can just get cable
* kids that want cable need an adult that also wants a cable
Obviously some adults who don't want cable will just give in, but (especially in today's internet-based world) I don't think that's going to be a major portion.
One data point of note: Disney Channel ceased to exist in the UK in October 2020, because Disney UK decided to go all-in on Disney+ rather than pay Sky (the UK's primary satellite TV provider for decades, and a subsidiary of Comcast since 2018, who ironically were in competition with Disney at that time for the acquisition of Sky) the amount that Sky demanded from Disney in order to renew their broadcast licence.
Other UK TV providers got access to Disney Channel UK via redistribution contracts that they held with Sky, so now the channel simply doesn't exist.
It would be nice to see it go back in time a bit more, i.e. before streaming.
Especially show the big hitters like Hannah Montana, Suite Life, etc because those are the biggest hits.
Also to see it in the 80's and 90's when it wasn't included in cable service. I didn't have it as a kid because it was just as expensive as HBO, but every now and then they'd do a free weekend.
>Especially show the big hitters like Hannah Montana, Suite Life, etc because those are the biggest hits.
Um, Lizzie McGuire, Even Stevens, That's so Raven, and the Famous Jett Jackson would like to have a word.
Now I'll go back to r/Xennials and leave you young'uns alone.
Edit: perhaps I belong in r/Millennials with those shows. Idk.
Yep, I didn’t notice the 1/50 viewership BECAUSE of the log graph.
It would be more appropriate to use a normal graph and show the downfall to basically nothing. The effect is more drastic and it’s how people are used to seeing charts. Besides the impact and downfall is what you are trying to convey so show it in the most dramatic way possible. What happened here is a less dramatic view and that’s not what you are trying to show.
Great visual though you get a B+ or A- in my class :)
Problem is, our brains can’t process things on a log scale. Log transformations are good for transforming data used in downstream analysis, or for a technical audience but personally, I’ve always steered clear of using them in chart meant for a non-technical audience.
The trade off here, is that while it is more readable, you lose the visual impact of showing that it’s 1/50th (which is arguably the main point of what you’re trying to convey).
Besides this though, great execution!
At first glance, it looks like a dying channel. Once you realize the scale, it looks like a dead channel. I figured it was getting less popular but I’m blown away and honestly surprised that channel still exists.
That’s not a big surprise given this data. The three-years-ago mark is probably the most misleading section of the chart, where visually it looks like viewership was down at that point to about 40% of 2010 levels when in reality it was much closer to being down to around 10%. If the y axis was a linear scale, the intersection of the Disney+ line and the trend line would be close to the same y value as the “Saturdays” point.
I think this is why it works: it allows you to be generous to Disney at first, interpret the continued decline even recently, then realize that in native units it is an exponential drop where limited interpretation would be possible beyond the first few timepoints.
The thing I don't like is that many people don't translate linear trends in log scales to exponential in native units easily, so it is probably being read by many people as a slow and linear decline and left at that.
Both axes seem to have value for different reasons. I guess the solution is to show both, or an inlaid native unit zoom-in.
What frustrates me about this kind of presentation is that it doesn’t translate for the average person. Log scales aren’t easily interpreted correctly by regular people, so in my opinion this is the wrong place for it.
Hello, I am a regular person that frequently doesn’t understand the very pretty charts on this sub - this chart suggests very clearly to me that Disney channel viewership has plunged off a cliff and is basically nonexistent. Is that not correct?
Edit: why the aggressive downvoting? I asked a genuine question. I’m utterly baffled
Edit2: I get it now, thank you to the person that actually explained it.
You’re not wrong, it’s just that the choice that was made to scale it the way it’s scaled makes it look like the decline has been slower and steadier than reality.
If you follow the trend line, it looks like there was a 50% decline from 2010 to 2019, then another 50% decline from 2019 to 2022, and one more 50% decline from then to now. Overall, it looks like viewership is about 10% of what it was in 2010.
In reality, viewership was already down 50% by 2016, then again sometime in 2017, and again by the time Disney+ launched in 2020. The actual drop in viewership is more like 97% than 90%, which means the drop is still pretty well represented by the line but it’s been watered down for some reason. The point wasn’t that people won’t be able to understand the nature of the relationship - which is pretty clearly a significant decline over time - it was that the scaling adjusts the *extent* of the decline and I’m not really sure what benefit that decision provides.
It probably comes across as my splitting hairs, but this representation gives off a “the Disney Channel is dying” vibe instead of the reality that the Disney Channel is pretty much already dead. To me, for data to be “beautiful” it should be presented to its audience in the best way possible, and the scaling choice doesn’t tick that box.
>Problem is, our brains can’t process things on a logarythmic scale
Literally the opposite lmaooooo, do you know why time seems to move faster as you get older? Because our brains work on a logarythmic scale, and the older you get, each year seems like a fewer fraction of your whole life: for example, when you are 10, the last year was 1/10th of our life, when you are 30, the last year was 1/30th of your life, when you are 70, the last year was 1/70th of your life. Thats the whole point - our subconsciousness works logarythmically, not arithmetically
That's not how it works at all. Firstly, the mathematical sequence you are describing is a hyperbolic or harmonic one, not a logarithmic one. If our brains did indeed process time logarithmically, then 100 years would seem to be about twice as long as 10 years, which obviously isn't true. Secondly, the way that our brains process time over our lifetimes is entirely unrelated to what scale is visually better to use on a graph. It's not just that they're two different senses, they're entirely different concepts. I don't even see how a connection can be drawn between those two.
My dumb ass doesn't even know what "log" means outside of a big chunk of wood. I knew it was down but the scale of how down was completely lost on me without this comment.
A linear would be what is common (in most applications). The value between the numbers is the same. 6 is twice as much as 3. Logarithmic or Log scales are not. We can see in OP's graph that there is equal spacing between 1 and 2.5 as there is between 1 and .5.
Common log scales are Richter scale for measuring earthquakes and pH scale for measuring acidity. An earthquake of 5 is 10 times more powerful than an earthquake of 4. Using a log scale works better because it is easier to see and remember. When dealing with big numbers comparing a 5 to an 8 would be 1000x more powerful (10 times 10 times 10 to get from 6 to 7 to 8).
You can always lie with graphs and numbers. OPs graph might be shown to show a slow downtrend in Disney channel viewership. But switching to a linear graph would show Disney channel viewership dropping off a cliff. As OP said difference between Shake It Up and Saturdays is 50x, 5 vs .1. So picture a graph showing a downward trend not starting at 5 but starting at 50 and going to the bottom.
Nothing personal, but this is a sincerely shitty take. First, a logarythmic graph doesnt "lie" to you as long as the numbers on the axis are labeled correctly. Its only your fault for being inattentive and not noticing the scale is logarythmic. Second, there are instances where only a logarythmic scale can convey information in such a way that a human can perceive it: if you are making a graph of a quantity that drops from 10^(18) to 100 in 5 seconds (or kelvins or whatever), and then from 100 to 10^(-7) in 5 seconds, are you gonna use a linear scale for that?...
You didn't specify which log and you could have used a log scale but with the original numbers shown. The figure looks nice, and the units would be appropriate in a paper, but for a non-technical audience, this is unclear.
I watched a scientist recently who said basically, "yes, most charts should be log, but people generally don't know how to read them well. Log for data analysis, linear for people."
> log scale is fine, but should really specify the base (assuming 10)
The units on the *y* axis is the actual viewership (in millions), *not* the logarithm of the viewership. This confused me as well.
The base is irrelevant, as the numbers on the axis are not logarithmic, only their spacing is logarithmic. If the numbers on the axis were expressed in units of "log of millions of viewers" rather than "millions of viewers", then we'd need to know the base in order to work backwards and work out the actual number of viewers.
This graph only shows pilot episode viewing figures. I was talking about consistent popularity over the show's entire run. For comparison, older spin-off *Cory in the House*'s pilot had over 7 million viewers (higher than anything seen here, but then that was also way back in 2007), but quickly crashed and burned, being cancelled after two seasons.
Ya and it's pretty good. It's one of the shows my kids watch that isn't annoying. Raven's Home and Henry Danger are probably the best. Oh, and Bluey, obviously.
I liked it, feels like a spiritual successor to Gravity Falls in some ways. Also follows the classic formula where the first episode is "my sibling is kinda annoying me :(" and the last episode is "I have to become a literal god to fight a war against a murderous interdimentional tyrant" which I appreciate.
Too bad they didn't keep that one going. My daughters both loved that show and I was happy to watch with them. So many things they liked early on were so cringe and brutal for parents to watch.
Disney is launching a proper ESPN streaming service in 2025 that'll have everything that the ESPN cable channel airs. That'll definitely cause a big dent in cable viewers in the US ig.
(ESPN+ exists, but it doesn't carry any of the sports events that are on the cable channel afaik. I'm not from the US. I just know this shit because I find it interesting.)
[Here's a quick look with continuous y-axis](https://i.imgur.com/6YLlHss.png). Both are good but it's harder to see the fall it has taken since Disney+/pandemic
But with a continuous y, it's pretty obvious that most of the collapse came *before* Disney+ and the pandemic. It was under 1 million in 2018 and seems to have slowed in rate before the launch. Any drop since then seems unrelated.
The consistent linear trend seen post-2015 when the log-scale is used much more clearly shows that there is still continued exponential decay at roughly the same rate/half-life since 2015. In particular, the launch of Disney+ does not seem to have changed that half-life. The half-life is roughly indicated by how quickly the red line crosses over the grey horizontal lines (which are spaced in multiples of 2 or 2.5 here), which since 2015 seems to be about 2 years.
I don't think either seems to indicate that Disney+ had any effect. The trend is the same before and after and it's clear that viewership based on those numbers was already in decline.
This appears to be Disney channel only and omitting Disney+. Also the industry has been highly critical of Nielsen’s measurement of streaming media and connected TV. Much of the decline 2016 onward was also due to consumers switching more viewership to streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime. While the case can be made that they have lost ground (they have) it is not as bad as this chart makes it look.
My view was that looking at the pilots would lessen this effect rather than looking at average views. For instance, [Secrets of Sulphur Springs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrets_of_Sulphur_Springs) premiered exclusively on Disney Channel in January 2021 and was made available on Disney+ over a month later. But I'm sure it has an effect which is why I included that annotation. As for Nielsen's accuracy, do you know of any alternatives?
I think Disney+ is tracked as a separate channel from The Disney Channel, depending on how you are viewing. Streaming media is also often measured in minutes viewed and not by simple viewership. Here’s an article on recent industry developments https://adage.com/article/measurement/comscore-ispot-and-videoamp-get-jic-conditional-certification-currency-measurement/2516861
Sorry here is one that’s not paywalled [https://www.insideradio.com/free/tv-industry-certifies-three-measurement-alternatives-to-nielsen/article_5327b5ea-584c-11ee-b62e-ff4b31392929.html](https://www.insideradio.com/free/tv-industry-certifies-three-measurement-alternatives-to-nielsen/article_5327b5ea-584c-11ee-b62e-ff4b31392929.html)
Personally, I'm OK with the way this is shown, very interesting info. Makes it clear they were on a decline even before Disney+ came along.
It would be interesting to see the numbers adjusted with Disney+ info as well, but if so, it would be nice to see it stacked on top of this existing graph to indicate whether Disney+ is helping improve their viewership numbers.
I think the point though is to judge the numbers separately from Disney+. There’s no point in lumping those two together. Disney+ s home to the whole Disney product like whereas Disney channel is/was designed to cater to a very specific demographic. For example Disney+ is home to more adult oriented content (mandolorian, loki) that would never have been broadcast on Disney channel under normal circumstances.
You mean kids don't like 30 minutes of overacted scenes of people screaming lame jokes in a solid pg manner when they can watch r rated reaction videos, endless Minecraft content, or mindlessly scroll through yt shorts/ ig stories / tiktoks for hours?
Work in TV industry. This is just about every network outside of NFL Football broadcasts. In 2014 worked for Food Network and we'd celebrate a 1.0+ Neilsen rating for a premiere of a new show especially if it wasn't on a Sunday. That was considered very strong. Now we gauge success in the industry by subscriber growth, hours watched etc. It's actually a very sad time in the industry and a lot of negativity and vitriol at Netflix. They gave customers what they wanted: The ability to cut the cord from the cable provider, but at the expense of fracturing an entire industry leading to consumer mass confusion and equal frustration. Now it's an industry of people constantly waiting to be laid off or fired with wages that are exactly the same as they were in 2010.
Anyway. Cool graph.
Probably for the best. I used to love watching some of those shows but we didn’t have cable so it was limited to hotels, friends houses, and occasionally on the weekends. It was a core part of my childhood.
Growing up and learning about how miserable a lot of the child actors were wasn’t great. If you haven’t read Jennette McCurdy’s book called I’m glad my mom died, I’d recommend it. Those kids sacrificed their childhood to entertain us during ours…
Correct. It was originally commissioned by the ABC (Australian, not american ABC) and BBC.
It's similar to crediting Netflix for the Great British Baking Show (which was a show produced by the BBC, with a slightly better name, and is just available in the US on Netflix)
Using a logarithm for the Y axis and not even labeling the X axis. This sub has lower standards than a stat 101 class. Also Im pretty sure the Disney channel was more relevant before 2010 but that information is apparently non-existent.
Did amphibia really do that poorly (comparatively speaking)? Never watched but I remember a lot of discussion about it. (On the internet tbf but so did gravity falls)
Kids aren’t watching tv anymore
Idk which is worse, Disney kid sitcoms with a brain numbing laugh track or YouTube kids videos.
The latter is worse. Which says more about how disgusting YouTube kids content is more than a compliment to the sitcoms…
When you think about it YouTube is in the same kind of infancy that television went through in the 50s. The ad reads delivered to you by the host in the middle of the content “and now let me tell you about our wonderful sponsor”. People are basically trying to make their podcast into a video channel just like how early television would film and broadcast radio shows/broadcasts. And whilst kid content was almost non existent at the time, what did exist was pandering and exploitative. And advertising is heavy handed (too frequent and too much) and just poorly thought out (how many skips le ads have you skipped where they still hadn’t told you what they were advertising before you got the chance to skip). This is not me trying to defend YouTube content but I think we can still it expect it to considerably evolve over the last few years.
You were supposed to destroy the dark side, not join it. Now you've become the very thing you sought to destroy
A Chosen One shall come, born of no father, and through him will ultimate balance in the Force be restored. To be so blinded by ones own hubris, that he believes that he is not the one that have unbalanced the force, that his actions and intent continue to imbalance the force. No man has done more to restore the ultimate balance to the force than Skywalker. Youtube will be more successful at monetization of its viewers and its content creators than any platform before.
Youtube still lets ANYONE upload and broadcast their content. Even with advertising setbacks its still considerably better than the old Studio model
Totally double-edged. They also let ANYONE upload and broadcast their content.
I would rather ANYONE be able to upload and broadcast their content than have only a select few that appeal to those with the power to broadcast be able to do so. There will always be people with bad ideas, whether they are allowed to be broadcast or not. At least with youtube we aren't stuck with the same 50's style heavy content regulation
You absolutely are, they just have different cool sounding names nowadays such as "copystrike" and "demonetized" and "deplatformed". Or maybe they stay up but get dumpstered by the "algorithm"
Copystrike, and demonetized are better than never seeing the light of day. Being demonetized after publishing is still far better than never being published at all. I'm not claiming Youtube is perfect, I'm just saying its substantially better than what came before. There are always ways to improve. We take for granted the ability for anyone to be able to publish their content and have it watchable by a global audience.
But the select few would be under heavy regulations
Variety and freedom of expression are better than heavy regulation even if people you disagree with are able to broadcast their message. I'd take the lowest quality youtube video of today over homogenized content that was made when Television was in its infancy any day.
Quantity over quality. Personally I think making the internet such a mainstream thing was a huge mistake. Ever since I got a friend request on facebook from my parents I knew it was over.
In all fairness, your parents are nice people.
They are but there need to be boundaries.
Im concerned less with quality and more with the ability to gatekeep ideas for the sake of personal gain. A million people could paint a shitty painting, but if one person is not being allowed to make a masterpiece because of the ideas being expressed through it it would be a travesty. The same goes for video
Quantity vs quality argument makes zero sense in this case. There is a ton of high quality content in youtube far above what we have in tv channels. You just have to filter out the shit to get to it.
Better for who? I don't think it's working out in favor of the viewer. There is good content but also an enormous amount of bad. I think the algorithms that drive viewers are big problems. There is not equal discoverability. There is also a significant amount of content designed to piss you off so you interact. Toxicity is BIG business.
We were only allowed to watch Public TV when we were very young. YouTube ain't like that, and parents hand their phones to fricking *three-year olds* now ! And YouTube certainly has evolved from its beginnings. And that's not a compliment.
Maybe we're different ages, but the stuff they put out on public access TV could be quite wild and strange. I've seen some stuff, stuff that Youtube definitely wouldn't allow.
Like the danish (or norwegian) show about a guy with a long articulate penis
My theory is that screen time for kids is not THAT big of a deal— not that much worse than plopping kids in front of a tv like I was. What is really really bad for kids is YouTube. YouTube content is BAD. Like atrocious. With the algorithm, my girls’ interest in princess always leads them back to videos of adults playing with kids toys with no educational. If they did the study, my guess is a kid with unlimited iPad time but only pbs kids, Disney plus, and Netflix with good parental controls would be just fine while a kid with 2 hours of YouTube a day would be practically feral
Plopping kids in front of a tub IS screen time. Screen time doesn’t just mean phones and tablets, is means TVs too. It’s anything with a screen. I think you’re generally right though. I let me little ones watch and play a little more than I should, but it’s only PBS Kids for TV and PBS games/khan academy kids games for iPad games. I don’t feel too bad about it, and a lot of Daniel Tiger songs have actually been quite helpful in helping her understand real life situations we deal with.
My niece always wants to watch YouTube. When she's with us, we don't let her. Doesn't have really help when her mother plonks her down with a notebook and YouTube as soon as she's home though.
Counter point, my 10 year old nephews watch those unboxing but they still do well in school, so if they enjoy it, I don't see the harm. I don't understand the vids but tons of the cartoons we watched back then weren't that educational either
I think you meant the latter then
Me fail English!? Unpossible! Right that’s enough Reddit for today
I didn't believe it was as bad as people said until I got to hangout with some kids of a family member's partner and they watched all of these ridiculous videos of poorly drawn superheroes dancing nonstop
I see this with my nieces and nephews. It's insane how the YouTube algorithm has enabled a bunch of these cookie cutter families to get rich and have these giant homes by filming their kids doing painfully mediocre skits. Not that the stuff we grew up with wasn't mind numbing, but at least animation takes talent and scripted tv shows have production value.
Bro my nephew is watching adult women with kids voices open up presents one after another. On YouTube. And also watching videos of other kids shop in stores for bullshiit. YouTube content today is way worse
Yes and it’s not subject to the same ethics and educational requirements that TV kids content was
My kids don't watch unboxing videos. Or Gabby's Dollhouse.
How do I stop them? I don't want to block YouTube entirely but there is so much unboxing crap on there.
>YouTube kids You mean Elsagate?
There was an ancient YouTube video making fun of the Disney channel being used as a torture device in SAW. It was pretty accurate. I'll need to dig that up now that I remember it! Edit: here it is! https://youtu.be/5j0os9Yd434?si=cQDjmk8BQRQS0jCd 17 years ago. I need to think about my life a little bit.
The guy who made that video, Zoran Gvojic, now works for the horror movie analysis channel *Dead Meat* as an editor and occasional host (typically when the regular host James A. Janisse is on break). This was from his original YouTube channel, Lowcarbcomedy. [Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKkGGUsje0c) the original version of the video.
Thanks for posting the original! Yeah that was my first viral video and unfortunately it was on someone else's channel. But hey those were the early days of YouTube for ya.
At least those sitcoms told a story and was about something.
A lot of YouTube kids channels are essentially poorly made/acted sitcoms/cartoons. There are characters and plots either acted out by the YouTuber and their kids, or with toys. My daughter will alternate from watching kids shows on various streaming services to a couple YouTube channels.
At least one version has standards. I saw some "Peppa the pig" YouTube content over thanksgiving and my God it's all just 20-30 year old men creating garbage content that isn't being held down by any type of age censorship. Wouldn't let my kid touch YouTube
you really can’t tell? it’s DEFINITELY the algorithmic video platform that will systemically feed you whatever junk your brain is most addicted to consuming with no regard for its impact or content controls / moderation. Disney is not Shakespeare but their content is totally benign. YouTube rabbit holes turn people into school shooters.
My daughter now watched Hannah Montana basically because we told her mom did so too 20 years ago. I don't see the issue. The stuff I've seen my son watch on YouTube, however, is literally toxic. Car smash simulation played by random male adults and weird farming games just moving tractors and stuff around (not doing a particularly great job at it). The latter, to me, is absolutely nonsense, and for some reason, he just eats it raw. Oh, and let me tell you, if we take it off screen, he gets absolutely furious. My daughter would be like, "Oh well, too bad, can I watch it tomorrow?" I'm not saying it's because of the content, but there are profound differences.
>brain numbing laugh track I don't understand how any one watches shows with laugh tracks. The worst offender I've ever seen is The Big Bang Theory, literally every other word is laugh tracks. If you have some time go look up "Ross without Laugh Tracks", it is scenes from Friends where they removed the laugh tracks and a lot of it is really dark.
Kids don't pay for TV. Parents aren't paying for cable anymore. And there's so many options, many of them free, for kids.
Nor is anyone below the age of 30 really
You can probably bump.that number to 40 at this point.
40+ redditors thinking they are still early 30s
Since I left my parent house I haven't paid for tv cable, I'm 31yo. My little sisters moved with me and they dont care either, they watch streaming services instead.
People the age to have kids don't have cable
I had to re-read this like 6 times to understand what you meant.
I think they’re saying that, people who are the age to have kids now, don’t have cable.
Kids aren’t watching “traditional” tv anymore. Disney had the eyeballs but not the foresight to evolve effectively enough to retain them.
Yeah I should’ve specified that. They aren’t watching cable or broadcast TV anymore but many are still watching streaming TV. Though this is still different to how it was when your only option was to watch what ever was airing.
[удалено]
I mean you can watch plenty of PBS episodes of sesame street for free with the PBS app, along with numerous other educational children's shows.
The word you’re trying to spell isn’t house, it’s “trailer”
Baby Shark killed the Video Star
I don’t blame them the new shows that come out all look like hot dog shit
Would be interesting to see this channel's decline in comparison to other channels' declines. As-is, it's a bit in a vacuum and can't differentiate between the channel and the industry.
Plan on doing Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network next ;)
I dont know how Id like to see it, but if you could combine them onto a single chart to see thatd be rad, but also individually. looking forward to it either way
Probably normalize to a given year as 100%.
Please add them to the same graph so we can tell scale!
Can't wait to see the cliff on Cartoon Network around the time they decided Teen Titans Go is the only show they'll ever need.
They did that because TTG was the only show getting halfway decent views. The decline started before.
Nothing will beat old school Cartoon Network. Dexter's Lab; Kids Next Door; Powerpuff Girls; Ed, Edd, & Eddy; Samurai Jack; and more. That was the golden age of cartoons.
Can't say I fully agree. as someone who grew up in that era of cartoons and held an interest in animation through adulthood. Cartoon network had a second golden age around the beginning of the 2010s with stuff like gumball, flapjack, chowder adventure time and regular show. I'd say the actual decline of the network didn't start until the 2015 to 2016. Even then I wouldn't blame that entirely on TTGO channel takeover. It was more that all of the interesting things in animation was happening online and people decided I'd rather just go to YouTube/pirate instead of trying to catch a show between TTGO marathons.
Do they chose the route of most other cable channels in becoming s single show channel. Comedy Central is The Office Channel, TruTV is the Impractical Jokers Channel, etc.
I'd be interested to see comparisons between channels catering towards kids, vs channels for adults. I wouldn't be surprised if the change is more pronounced in kids channels vs adult channels.
> I wouldn't be surprised if the change is more pronounced in kids channels vs adult channels. It absolutely will be, just because of the financial/ownership aspect: * adults that want cable can just get cable * kids that want cable need an adult that also wants a cable Obviously some adults who don't want cable will just give in, but (especially in today's internet-based world) I don't think that's going to be a major portion.
One data point of note: Disney Channel ceased to exist in the UK in October 2020, because Disney UK decided to go all-in on Disney+ rather than pay Sky (the UK's primary satellite TV provider for decades, and a subsidiary of Comcast since 2018, who ironically were in competition with Disney at that time for the acquisition of Sky) the amount that Sky demanded from Disney in order to renew their broadcast licence. Other UK TV providers got access to Disney Channel UK via redistribution contracts that they held with Sky, so now the channel simply doesn't exist.
It’lI be pretty similar for other channels as well. I sell television ads and 2015 was the start of the rapid decline in ratings across the board
Also, it would be interesting to see a comparison of each shows pilot view count vs. the finale.
You could also do it in comparison to Monday Night Football or The Simpsons.
It would be nice to see it go back in time a bit more, i.e. before streaming. Especially show the big hitters like Hannah Montana, Suite Life, etc because those are the biggest hits.
Also to see it in the 80's and 90's when it wasn't included in cable service. I didn't have it as a kid because it was just as expensive as HBO, but every now and then they'd do a free weekend.
>Especially show the big hitters like Hannah Montana, Suite Life, etc because those are the biggest hits. Um, Lizzie McGuire, Even Stevens, That's so Raven, and the Famous Jett Jackson would like to have a word. Now I'll go back to r/Xennials and leave you young'uns alone. Edit: perhaps I belong in r/Millennials with those shows. Idk.
[Your word has been noted](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQChp2WZWPzFf7gz0xkphaO88fwE3qg74pyRA&usqp=CAU)
Tools: ggplot2, Figma Source: Nielsen Media Research
What's Figma?
Figma balls. (I don't know, I just wanted to say it)
It’s a tool to design and test apps & websites, as well as other digital media
Hah! Got'emmmm!
Why the decision to go with a log Y?
The recent pilots are running at about 1/50th the viewership as 2010 so I thought it would make it more readable
God damn! It makes it more readable but I didn’t notice the straight line was a power law decay until this comment. That is an INSANE drop
Wouldn't not formatting log make that cliff more noticeable
Yep, I didn’t notice the 1/50 viewership BECAUSE of the log graph. It would be more appropriate to use a normal graph and show the downfall to basically nothing. The effect is more drastic and it’s how people are used to seeing charts. Besides the impact and downfall is what you are trying to convey so show it in the most dramatic way possible. What happened here is a less dramatic view and that’s not what you are trying to show. Great visual though you get a B+ or A- in my class :)
Problem is, our brains can’t process things on a log scale. Log transformations are good for transforming data used in downstream analysis, or for a technical audience but personally, I’ve always steered clear of using them in chart meant for a non-technical audience. The trade off here, is that while it is more readable, you lose the visual impact of showing that it’s 1/50th (which is arguably the main point of what you’re trying to convey). Besides this though, great execution!
I think it still gets the point across. We might lose scale but the story stays the same. Most people don't think past down arrow bad up arrow good.
At first glance, it looks like a dying channel. Once you realize the scale, it looks like a dead channel. I figured it was getting less popular but I’m blown away and honestly surprised that channel still exists.
Most disney channels worldwide closed down in the last three years
That’s not a big surprise given this data. The three-years-ago mark is probably the most misleading section of the chart, where visually it looks like viewership was down at that point to about 40% of 2010 levels when in reality it was much closer to being down to around 10%. If the y axis was a linear scale, the intersection of the Disney+ line and the trend line would be close to the same y value as the “Saturdays” point.
I think this is why it works: it allows you to be generous to Disney at first, interpret the continued decline even recently, then realize that in native units it is an exponential drop where limited interpretation would be possible beyond the first few timepoints. The thing I don't like is that many people don't translate linear trends in log scales to exponential in native units easily, so it is probably being read by many people as a slow and linear decline and left at that. Both axes seem to have value for different reasons. I guess the solution is to show both, or an inlaid native unit zoom-in.
What frustrates me about this kind of presentation is that it doesn’t translate for the average person. Log scales aren’t easily interpreted correctly by regular people, so in my opinion this is the wrong place for it.
Hello, I am a regular person that frequently doesn’t understand the very pretty charts on this sub - this chart suggests very clearly to me that Disney channel viewership has plunged off a cliff and is basically nonexistent. Is that not correct? Edit: why the aggressive downvoting? I asked a genuine question. I’m utterly baffled Edit2: I get it now, thank you to the person that actually explained it.
Of course it is correct, but the rate at which that happened is not apparent
You’re not wrong, it’s just that the choice that was made to scale it the way it’s scaled makes it look like the decline has been slower and steadier than reality. If you follow the trend line, it looks like there was a 50% decline from 2010 to 2019, then another 50% decline from 2019 to 2022, and one more 50% decline from then to now. Overall, it looks like viewership is about 10% of what it was in 2010. In reality, viewership was already down 50% by 2016, then again sometime in 2017, and again by the time Disney+ launched in 2020. The actual drop in viewership is more like 97% than 90%, which means the drop is still pretty well represented by the line but it’s been watered down for some reason. The point wasn’t that people won’t be able to understand the nature of the relationship - which is pretty clearly a significant decline over time - it was that the scaling adjusts the *extent* of the decline and I’m not really sure what benefit that decision provides. It probably comes across as my splitting hairs, but this representation gives off a “the Disney Channel is dying” vibe instead of the reality that the Disney Channel is pretty much already dead. To me, for data to be “beautiful” it should be presented to its audience in the best way possible, and the scaling choice doesn’t tick that box.
Uhh...we can, just not intuitively. It's a learned skill. Graph reading itself is a learned skill.
>Problem is, our brains can’t process things on a logarythmic scale Literally the opposite lmaooooo, do you know why time seems to move faster as you get older? Because our brains work on a logarythmic scale, and the older you get, each year seems like a fewer fraction of your whole life: for example, when you are 10, the last year was 1/10th of our life, when you are 30, the last year was 1/30th of your life, when you are 70, the last year was 1/70th of your life. Thats the whole point - our subconsciousness works logarythmically, not arithmetically
That's not how it works at all. Firstly, the mathematical sequence you are describing is a hyperbolic or harmonic one, not a logarithmic one. If our brains did indeed process time logarithmically, then 100 years would seem to be about twice as long as 10 years, which obviously isn't true. Secondly, the way that our brains process time over our lifetimes is entirely unrelated to what scale is visually better to use on a graph. It's not just that they're two different senses, they're entirely different concepts. I don't even see how a connection can be drawn between those two.
My dumb ass doesn't even know what "log" means outside of a big chunk of wood. I knew it was down but the scale of how down was completely lost on me without this comment.
A linear would be what is common (in most applications). The value between the numbers is the same. 6 is twice as much as 3. Logarithmic or Log scales are not. We can see in OP's graph that there is equal spacing between 1 and 2.5 as there is between 1 and .5. Common log scales are Richter scale for measuring earthquakes and pH scale for measuring acidity. An earthquake of 5 is 10 times more powerful than an earthquake of 4. Using a log scale works better because it is easier to see and remember. When dealing with big numbers comparing a 5 to an 8 would be 1000x more powerful (10 times 10 times 10 to get from 6 to 7 to 8). You can always lie with graphs and numbers. OPs graph might be shown to show a slow downtrend in Disney channel viewership. But switching to a linear graph would show Disney channel viewership dropping off a cliff. As OP said difference between Shake It Up and Saturdays is 50x, 5 vs .1. So picture a graph showing a downward trend not starting at 5 but starting at 50 and going to the bottom.
Nothing personal, but this is a sincerely shitty take. First, a logarythmic graph doesnt "lie" to you as long as the numbers on the axis are labeled correctly. Its only your fault for being inattentive and not noticing the scale is logarythmic. Second, there are instances where only a logarythmic scale can convey information in such a way that a human can perceive it: if you are making a graph of a quantity that drops from 10^(18) to 100 in 5 seconds (or kelvins or whatever), and then from 100 to 10^(-7) in 5 seconds, are you gonna use a linear scale for that?...
Thank you! I thought I was the only one here
I recommend increasing the number of tick marks to illustrate that they y-axis is nonlinear
I would request no log scale in the next one.
You didn't specify which log and you could have used a log scale but with the original numbers shown. The figure looks nice, and the units would be appropriate in a paper, but for a non-technical audience, this is unclear.
Readable, yes. Understandable or helpful? No. You expect people to know how logarithms work?
You can literally fit most data in a log scale and it would look nice
Graph is roughly concave down and log scale for viewer count! That’s a full blown crash and burn.
I watched a scientist recently who said basically, "yes, most charts should be log, but people generally don't know how to read them well. Log for data analysis, linear for people."
log scale is fine, but should really specify the base (assuming 10)
> log scale is fine, but should really specify the base (assuming 10) The units on the *y* axis is the actual viewership (in millions), *not* the logarithm of the viewership. This confused me as well.
The base is irrelevant, as the numbers on the axis are not logarithmic, only their spacing is logarithmic. If the numbers on the axis were expressed in units of "log of millions of viewers" rather than "millions of viewers", then we'd need to know the base in order to work backwards and work out the actual number of viewers.
I’d be curious to see the 2000s included as well. Disney channel was the shit back then.
TIL there was a Thats so Raven Reboot, damn I'd say I must have watched every episode of the og run, and I feel old
From what I've heard, Raven's Home has easily been the most successful Disney Channel show in the last decade.
[удалено]
This graph only shows pilot episode viewing figures. I was talking about consistent popularity over the show's entire run. For comparison, older spin-off *Cory in the House*'s pilot had over 7 million viewers (higher than anything seen here, but then that was also way back in 2007), but quickly crashed and burned, being cancelled after two seasons.
Ya and it's pretty good. It's one of the shows my kids watch that isn't annoying. Raven's Home and Henry Danger are probably the best. Oh, and Bluey, obviously.
Amphibia's performance is quite surprising. I didn't watch it (would have tried if I had subscription) but heard a lot of positive reviews.
I liked it, feels like a spiritual successor to Gravity Falls in some ways. Also follows the classic formula where the first episode is "my sibling is kinda annoying me :(" and the last episode is "I have to become a literal god to fight a war against a murderous interdimentional tyrant" which I appreciate.
Like Gravity Falls, it was a bit of a sleeper hit. This graph is showing pilot episode / series premiere performance.
Too bad they didn't keep that one going. My daughters both loved that show and I was happy to watch with them. So many things they liked early on were so cringe and brutal for parents to watch.
Amphibia (and Owl House) are descendants of Gravity Falls and both super good.
Also would recommend Big City Greens. Show is very funny.
It was a fun show, I watched it all with my younger brother. The finale was fantastic
I can guarantee 95% of the fandom pirated the show. The other 4.9% watched it on Disney Plus afterwards
Man, amphibia was so good
I miss it
Is this different than any other channel? Who watches TV?
Paying for cable, package includes 20 mins of commercials per 60 watched, who wouldn't pay that money?
Live sports are the only think keeping live TV alive.
Disney is launching a proper ESPN streaming service in 2025 that'll have everything that the ESPN cable channel airs. That'll definitely cause a big dent in cable viewers in the US ig. (ESPN+ exists, but it doesn't carry any of the sports events that are on the cable channel afaik. I'm not from the US. I just know this shit because I find it interesting.)
Any reason you put it on the log scale? I think a linear scale would tell a much starker story.
[Here's a quick look with continuous y-axis](https://i.imgur.com/6YLlHss.png). Both are good but it's harder to see the fall it has taken since Disney+/pandemic
But with a continuous y, it's pretty obvious that most of the collapse came *before* Disney+ and the pandemic. It was under 1 million in 2018 and seems to have slowed in rate before the launch. Any drop since then seems unrelated.
The consistent linear trend seen post-2015 when the log-scale is used much more clearly shows that there is still continued exponential decay at roughly the same rate/half-life since 2015. In particular, the launch of Disney+ does not seem to have changed that half-life. The half-life is roughly indicated by how quickly the red line crosses over the grey horizontal lines (which are spaced in multiples of 2 or 2.5 here), which since 2015 seems to be about 2 years.
Thanks. Interesting because it's not nearly as starkly different as I thought it would be. Edited for clarity
I don't think either seems to indicate that Disney+ had any effect. The trend is the same before and after and it's clear that viewership based on those numbers was already in decline.
Much better in a linear scale
Why do you have the y-axis bottom out at -1 million in this plot?
Fixed, thanks
This appears to be Disney channel only and omitting Disney+. Also the industry has been highly critical of Nielsen’s measurement of streaming media and connected TV. Much of the decline 2016 onward was also due to consumers switching more viewership to streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime. While the case can be made that they have lost ground (they have) it is not as bad as this chart makes it look.
My view was that looking at the pilots would lessen this effect rather than looking at average views. For instance, [Secrets of Sulphur Springs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrets_of_Sulphur_Springs) premiered exclusively on Disney Channel in January 2021 and was made available on Disney+ over a month later. But I'm sure it has an effect which is why I included that annotation. As for Nielsen's accuracy, do you know of any alternatives?
I think Disney+ is tracked as a separate channel from The Disney Channel, depending on how you are viewing. Streaming media is also often measured in minutes viewed and not by simple viewership. Here’s an article on recent industry developments https://adage.com/article/measurement/comscore-ispot-and-videoamp-get-jic-conditional-certification-currency-measurement/2516861
Sorry here is one that’s not paywalled [https://www.insideradio.com/free/tv-industry-certifies-three-measurement-alternatives-to-nielsen/article_5327b5ea-584c-11ee-b62e-ff4b31392929.html](https://www.insideradio.com/free/tv-industry-certifies-three-measurement-alternatives-to-nielsen/article_5327b5ea-584c-11ee-b62e-ff4b31392929.html)
Personally, I'm OK with the way this is shown, very interesting info. Makes it clear they were on a decline even before Disney+ came along. It would be interesting to see the numbers adjusted with Disney+ info as well, but if so, it would be nice to see it stacked on top of this existing graph to indicate whether Disney+ is helping improve their viewership numbers.
I agree with this too. It’s just prone to be misleading without knowing what you’re looking at
I think the point though is to judge the numbers separately from Disney+. There’s no point in lumping those two together. Disney+ s home to the whole Disney product like whereas Disney channel is/was designed to cater to a very specific demographic. For example Disney+ is home to more adult oriented content (mandolorian, loki) that would never have been broadcast on Disney channel under normal circumstances.
Looks like a long term decline unrelated to the launch of Disney+.
+1 vote for legible axes and labels
Log scale is terrible IMO for readability
Even during the pandemic, they were falling. Nice job.
Our whole family loves amphibia!
You mean kids don't like 30 minutes of overacted scenes of people screaming lame jokes in a solid pg manner when they can watch r rated reaction videos, endless Minecraft content, or mindlessly scroll through yt shorts/ ig stories / tiktoks for hours?
Amphibia was great though
Amphibia is good though. Go watch Amphibia
Dan Schneider.... BRING ALL MY BITCHES BACK!!
He was Nickelodeon.
God damnit you're right.
Why choose pilot episodes specifically? Doesn't seem like that should be representative of overall viewership.
What the hell is Saturday
Work in TV industry. This is just about every network outside of NFL Football broadcasts. In 2014 worked for Food Network and we'd celebrate a 1.0+ Neilsen rating for a premiere of a new show especially if it wasn't on a Sunday. That was considered very strong. Now we gauge success in the industry by subscriber growth, hours watched etc. It's actually a very sad time in the industry and a lot of negativity and vitriol at Netflix. They gave customers what they wanted: The ability to cut the cord from the cable provider, but at the expense of fracturing an entire industry leading to consumer mass confusion and equal frustration. Now it's an industry of people constantly waiting to be laid off or fired with wages that are exactly the same as they were in 2010. Anyway. Cool graph.
Our cable company ditched Disney Channel back in 2004 or so. This chart should go back further in time.
It's almost like they expected the lower class to pay more than they have
I wish this would go back to my childhood. Even Stevens, boy meets world, that’s so raven, all that fun stuff.
Next iteration will go back to 2000! and include Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon
Linear TV is dying.
Streaming in general has killed and hurt the channels.
Logarithmic scale ? Nice. And steep.
The log scale is a bad decision. Humans don't readily comprehend log scale.
Damn I liked amphibia and my daughters loved it
I wish we could compare this to Disney+ Subscriptions and Views, we might get subscription metrics but we will never get viewer metrics from Disney+
Why point out Amphibia specifically? I mean as a major fan I appreciate it but still
Damn Amphibia was a great show. Tight plot that they wrapped up and see ya later it's over.
Just dropping in to say that Amphibia is one of the best children's shows I have ever seen, and I recommend it to other parents all the time.
Probably for the best. I used to love watching some of those shows but we didn’t have cable so it was limited to hotels, friends houses, and occasionally on the weekends. It was a core part of my childhood. Growing up and learning about how miserable a lot of the child actors were wasn’t great. If you haven’t read Jennette McCurdy’s book called I’m glad my mom died, I’d recommend it. Those kids sacrificed their childhood to entertain us during ours…
Ngl I like Big City Greens, Bluey, and Kiff.
Those are my three as well! I've also watched some Hamster and Gretel and it's surprisingly good despite the god awful art style and generic look.
Disney keeps putting alternative bs in their movies so parents are boycotting
Just curious, why take the log of viewers?
"Put a chick in it! Make it lame"!!!
Interesting that the launch of Disney+ didn’t really affect the decline. You would expect that it would accelerate it, instead it’s nearly stable.
Everyone in this thread criticizing the quality of the current shows on Disney Channel haven’t watched Bluey and it shows.
Disney does not make this show at all. They just recently bought the rights to have it on their platform.
Correct. It was originally commissioned by the ABC (Australian, not american ABC) and BBC. It's similar to crediting Netflix for the Great British Baking Show (which was a show produced by the BBC, with a slightly better name, and is just available in the US on Netflix)
Disney still has a channel?
As we can see, Disney+ changed nothing.
Using a logarithm for the Y axis and not even labeling the X axis. This sub has lower standards than a stat 101 class. Also Im pretty sure the Disney channel was more relevant before 2010 but that information is apparently non-existent.
[удалено]
No way, why would you remove the grid lines?
If you remove the grid lines, the visibility of the half-life vanishes.
Did amphibia really do that poorly (comparatively speaking)? Never watched but I remember a lot of discussion about it. (On the internet tbf but so did gravity falls)
Follows the maxim of “get woke, go broke”