Thursday, March 13
Not so, says King World--the company that distributes her talkshow.
The problem is Ray's ratings. When she debuted two years ago, she had a meager 2.5 rating, which her syndicator, King World, nonetheless trumpeted as "The biggest syndicated debut since 'Dr. Phil.' " In fact, one insider said, "They had hoped for more. 'Dr. Phil' beats 'Oprah' and gets like a 5.0 rating - and Rachael's set is very expensive and elaborate; his is just chairs."
The Huffington Post has a statement from King World: "The Rachael Ray show is one of the best talk show performers and during the recently completed February sweeps period there was only one show performed better — Dr. Phil."
From everything I've read in Broadcasting & Cable, Rachael's show is one of the few to be doing "well" in the daytime TV game. Her show is distributed across nearly 99% of the country and is in all major markets. Conversely, Martha Stewart's show is only seen in "over 85%" of the country.
So does any of this matter?
Yes, actually. I'm sick of hearing the reports about Rachael being a tough, hard to work with, bitch. How does anyone think Martha Stewart ended up being worth like a billion dollars? Because she's been a bitch throughout her entire career to all the people who claimed she couldn't do something.
You know what? Bitch is the new black!
I'm sure working with Dr. Phil is no picnic. You never see any news reports about horrified staff members complaining about just how tough their lives are with that man in charge.
I'm not even defending her talkshow here, just the double standard. It's just so crazy that report after report comes out about her increasing her ratings, only to have stuff show up in Page Six claiming otherwise.