Our Ratings, Ourselves

Ant writes "This long New York Times article (10 pages; no registration required) reports on the mismeasure of television (TV)." From the article: "One of the great contradictions of modern American life is that almost everyone watches TV while almost no one agrees anymore about what it really means to watch television....when it comes to figuring out how many of us are watching these shows, and whether we're paying attention while we're watching and even whether we're actually noticing the advertisements among the shows we may or may not be watching -- well, this is where things get tricky..."

The Dumbing-Down of America

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

From the article:

For the past decade or so, watching television in America has been defined by the families recruited by Nielsen Media Research who have agreed to have an electronic meter attached to their televisions...

Obviously, these 'Nielsen' boxes are emitting some sort of toxic radiation that slowly poisons the brains of all in the area.

No? Well, then, YOU explain reality TV shows!

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[bonch (38532)]

No? Well, then, YOU explain reality TV shows!

Phoney human drama that is cheap to produce. No screenwriters or plotlines needed. Just find various "personalities" that will grate on each other, stick them together, and film it. Reality TV is so prevalent because it's so cheap and easy to make. Compare to, say, Law & Order, where you actually have to hire actors, write stories, and go film at various locations.

Even friggin' TLC has reality shows now. It's insane. And sad (anyone remember when TLC was shown in schools because it always ran educational content?).

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

Reality TV is so prevalent because it's so cheap and easy to make.

While this is certainly true, it doesn't really matter how cheap a show is to produce if no one will watch it. Somewhere out there, somebody is watching this crap. And they're fucking it up for the rest of us.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[bonch (38532)]

They're watching it because programming execs have made it the only thing to watch. They love that it's cheap to make. You can film it in a month and already have it ready to go. These things don't get mammoth ratings (with an exception or two like American Idol, which thankfully isn't saturated everywhere like Survivor was), but the ratings they do get is enough to justify the cheap cost to make them. And since it's so damn easy, why bother starting a new sitcom with actors and writers when you can just put an ad in the paper for college kids and stick them in a situation to film it?

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Osty (16825)]

with an exception or two like American Idol, which thankfully isn't saturated everywhere like Survivor was

American Idol isn't saturated everywhere? It's on three nights a week! It's advertised everywhere! All I want to do is watch an episode of 24, or House, and I have to deal with American Idol. I have to hear about it at work. American Idol winners have made movies. Radio stations have parodied the American Idol formula, as have porn movies. American Idol is everywhere, and I can't recall Survivor being spread around this much.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Umbral Blot (737704)]

Although I don't like reality tv it doesn't bother me that it exists. Its not like I am exceptionally happy with the other kinds of tv out there. All I want is my battlestar galactica, and if some people out there like reality tv, more power to them. Dropping reality tv will not make good shows appear.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[OAB_X (818333)]

> Dropping reality tv will not make good shows appear.

Well, it does, because the good expensive shows that dont have high enough ratings are canceled to make way for the shovelware.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Koiu Lpoi (632570)]

How many time has family guy been canceled?

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[SerialEx13 (605554)]

> Dropping reality tv will not make good shows appear.

Well, it does, because the good expensive shows that dont have high enough ratings are canceled to make way for the shovelware.

This is presuming that in order for a show to be good it also must cost a lot of money. There is no reason why a show cannot be low-budget but be a good show due to it's great writing.

You can throw all the money you want at a bad show, but it doesn't mean it'll become great.

Re:Battlestar Galactica

[steve_bryan (2671)]

I was around when the original BG came out and I don't know why anyone considers it as anything but embarrassing. It was so bad I almost didn't give the new show a chance but decided to watch because of the actors. I'm pleased that I did and have been quite pleased with their efforts. I suppose it might be a little like the relationship between the original Star Trek and TNG. I still have a fondness for the original series and for most of its run TNG is better and many ways, especially the quality of the acting and writing.

Maybe its a formative thing and you were the right age when the original was shown. I was probably too old by the time the original BG appeared. In any case I would stongly recommend that others who were uninterested in the original BG take a look at the current series, especially since it is now going to be available in HD.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[solios (53048)]

The problem isn't cable, the problem is having a Nielsen or other ratings-relvant "family" in an area where reception is limited. For example- due to several factors, the ONLY channel you could get in via antenna in the area I grew up in (northcentral PA) was the CBS affiliate out of Binghampton, NY. The only game in town, as it were - if you wanted to tube out, you watched WBNG TV12 or you watched Off.

It being CBS, they're broadcasting bullshit like Survivor to what's more or less a captive audience.

I did learn about demographics indirectly through growing up with that station - their target market was apparently over sixty. Golden Girls in syndication, and shitloads of commercials for preparation H, Depends, and Cadillacs.

Made my stint through a college filled with kids who'd been able to watch stuff that hit their demographic head-on fairly... weird.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Hans Lehmann (571625)]

If a show costs zero dollars to produce and air, then ir will turn a profit even if it only got one viewer.

I'm 47, so I spent my high school & college Saturday nights watching Saturday Night Live. It was good then. Thirty years later the show sucks, and has sucked immensely for at least the last 15 years. Why is it still on? Because it still gets high enough ratings in relation to it's production costs, and bacause there's nothing else on in that time slot that really competes with it. If Jay Leno ever decided to do a show on Saturday nights, the 30 year reign of Saturday Night Live would quickly grind to a halt.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Jardine (398197)]

Even friggin' TLC has reality shows now. It's insane. And sad (anyone remember when TLC was shown in schools because it always ran educational content?).

What exactly am I supposed to be learning from TLC now? All I ever see on TLC is decorating shows and cameras following pregnent women around. Do they even show documentaries anymore?

Even Discovery Channel has turned away from what used to be its core programming. Motorcycles, Monster Garage, and Mythbusters. Early episodes of Mythbusters concentrated more on the myths and testing them. New episodes seem to like to show build competitions between the two hosts with lots of "conflict" between them. What does any of this have to do with science, technology, and history?

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[rsmith-mac (639075)]

What does any of this have to do with science, technology, and history?

Meanwhile, real shows with truly relevant and important content like The Eyes of Nye [eyesofnye.org] are disregarded even on public broadcasting, and only seen in a handful of markets. Science is being increasingly dumbed down and compromised to be entertaining first and science second; consumers don't want entertaining science, they just want no-work entertainment. Heaven forbid someone actually has to think around here.

TLC

[YrWrstNtmr (564987)]

Even friggin' TLC has reality shows now. It's insane. And sad (anyone remember when TLC was shown in schools because it always ran educational content?).

TLC has gone from The Learning Channel to The Ladies Channel.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[by Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations! You've managed to rationalize sitting on your ass and staring and something completely worthless for a large portion of your day.

(Yes, I realize the irony in posting this to Slashdot.)

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Of course its cheap. Compare that to a sitcom. The stars of "Friends" were paid $1,000,000 an episode for the last few seasons. That's $6,000,000 an episode, just for 6 actors. Find me a reality show that costs them that much. Even "Extreme Makeover" where they tear down and rebuild an entire house every episode doesn't cost that much. A bunch of plane tickets for crew doesn't cost even close to what actors cost.

Americans love punishment

[by Anonymous Coward]

Americans love watching punishment. So many of these reality shows have as their basis a climax which determines who amongst the contestants will be punished, either by banishment, being fired, or being told to eat disgusting things.

Re:Americans love punishment

[jericho4.0 (565125)]

But it's so much more rewarding to mod them down.....

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[myowntrueself (607117)]

"No? Well, then, YOU explain reality TV shows!"

I'm just waiting for the next logical step in reality TV shows;

Networks start offering *free* cable and/or satellite, as much as you can 'eat', all you have to do is get a 'webcam' installed in your lounge.

Of course, all that will be on TV will more reality TV; the view through everyone elses 'webcam'...

My experiences with advertising

[DarkHelmet (120004)]

and whether we're paying attention while we're watching and even whether we're actually noticing the advertisements among the shows we may or may not be watching -- well, this is where things get tricky...

As someone who is recently starting to advertise (see below), that's one of the things that I'm finding much more difficult to determine.

For instance, advertising on google adwords, I see that my link gets 4,000 or so impressions. Does that mean that the person is even looking at the sponsored links on the side of the page? Taking it a step further, I had one day on google syndication that had 100,000 impressions. Only 60 or so people clicked through. I think a lot more internet viewers nowdays just glaze over ads.

I started doing advertisement by promoting on StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]. How do I know that the people reaching aren't annoyed with being redirected to a page they have absolutely no interest in? After all, on StumbleUpon, my page ends up fitting under web development. I'm sure all those people who are looking for things like SQL, CSS, or PHP tutorials must love me. 1600 hits. 0 emails. 0 signups. Maybe if they added a hosting section.

I'm thinking of moving my campaign off the internet, and into print / radio. But even then, how many people are just going to glaze through the ad when it's being played on the radio? For how many people I *might* appeal to, how many people will I *not* appeal to?

Ultimately, I guess advertising comes down to how much money I spend, versus how much I get back, relevance be damned. And I guess that's why spammers are around, after all. No, I will not start spamming people. That's just evil. Then again, Bill Hicks said, "Those of you who are in marketing and advertising, kill yourselves. You are satan's little helpers."

I really wish there were a way to just have my ad pop up for people who actually are interested in what I have to offer. Then I can leave everyone else the hell alone.

Re:My experiences with advertising

[bonch (38532)]

I really wish there were a way to just have my ad pop up for people who actually are interested in what I have to offer.

Well, I'll give you a little friendly advice. Whatever you do, please do NOT have your ad "pop up"! Pop-ups suck.

Why do they suck? Because it's forcing its message on me instead of me seeking it out. The only times I've ever interested in ads are when they are off to the side as a normal part of the site, often a text ad. "Here are some Thinkgeek shirts." I automatically tune out "FREE t-shirts! Click here!"

I tune out exclamation points, capital letters, and anything else that is actually done to get attention.

I like text ads. I will tolerate small banner ads, or benign ones that don't try to look like Windows dialogs and shake with a "YOU HAVE 1 NEW MESSAGE" message.

Without actually being able to see your ad specifically, it's harder to give you suggestions. But take it from a consumer you are targetting--don't make it look like an ad. Make it look like a bit of handy information. "Here's a good web development page" or whatever it is you're advertising. Don't do "WEB DEV--starting at $12.99 per month! Click here." I like to be told in a friendly way about stuff that is out there. I don't like it thrown at my head.

Re:P.S. Just saw your sig

[Electroly (708000)]

I think Slashdot signatures are actually an *exceptional* way to advertise geek-related things. What other way can you get advertising INLINE with the comments people are already reading? Additionally, people subconsciously trust "real humans" (as much as a Slashdotter can be considered a real human) more than faceless ads on webpages.

I know I myself signed up with my current hosting provider because I saw a link in someone's sig that looked like a great deal. Turned out to be a fantastic deal, I signed up, and that guy assuredly got a kickback.

Re:My experiences with advertising

[SharpFang (651121)]

A real good way to draw attention is actually to DO provide some valuable free content. Give them some of that SQL, PHP or CSS, enough to draw links, enough to go up in pagerank, enough to prove your competence. From 5000-10000 people a day who will roll through your help files, 50-100 will actually need a place to host their content as well, and 5-10 will think "Oh, the guy who made these great instructions provides some decent webhosting space! How convenient".

I'm "banner-blind". I just don't notice most of banners on pages I quickly click through. But if for some reason I'm "forced" to stay on one website for a few days, I start noticing banners they display. The place gets familiar, I start noticing less visible elements, features, extras. I may throw a glimpse at the credits in the footer. I may check some other pages of the site, than the ones I just needed. And I start to see banners - usually sites display a small family of banners and I start recognizing them. Sometimes I will click them too, if I find them interesting (but not "smartass" - be sure I won't click on a banner that reads "don't click this banner"). I got a free shell account once. I was using it frequently and I liked it so much, that when the server went commercial, I started paying for it...
So - draw persistent attention to your website - make people stay there, provide quality free service. There's enough incompetent jerks who just look to rip people off, to trust my money to someone who has just empty words to support his claims. Penis enlargement pills are risk free too. And the price is quite low as well.

Re:My experiences with advertising

[spagetti_code (773137)]

How do they do that?

Its pretty cool. After a program is recorded, a process starts up that scans the video file for what looks like ads. I believe it detects these by finding slow fades to black, still pictures and logos appearing.

When I get to watch a program (usually the next day, or a few days later), all the ads are gone.

It does occasionally get it wrong, and for those occasions (or when I am watching it as its being recorded) I have the trusty skip-30 and back-5 buttons.

Message to advertisers - dont overdo it!

[firehorsey (867123)]

Just last night we watched a movie on free to air and there was a 2-3 minute commercial break every 8 minutes. It was absurd (but a reminder why we pay $85 a month for Foxtel - which still gives you adverts, but not quite so often]).

We had plenty of time to go to the toilet, get drinks, fix snacks, let the cat in, feed the cat, let the cat out - cripes, and check emails.By the end of the movie we were so sick and tired of these products that we actively resolved to not ever by the damn things again.

Advertising works, but if you try and force feed and literally brainwash your potential customers we will eventually say - up yours!

Minority Report gets closer and closer

[Grrr (16449)]

RFID first, apparently - they're determined to mainstream it, either mixed under the audio (as detailed in the article) or Ad-ID [ad-id.org]...

<grrr>

american television = propaganda

[orufet (873172)]

okay, so that's not totally true, but for all intents and purposes, it is. and what isn't propaganda is mostly shows for stupid people ("lets see who'll get voted off the island next!") or for people who need to be told what they like ("you'll love this new mccdonalds deal").

Re:american television = propaganda

[Eternally optimistic (822953)]

That describes television in most countries.

TV propaganda evolved the American culture

[Cryofan (194126)]

American television is in the business of farming, farming willing consumers, farming willing corporate citizens, farming conformance. THey are in the business of breeding, of evolving a particular brand of American, one who works a lot and consumes a lot. One who is patriotic (translation: is easily manipulated by trigger cues appealing to sentimentality). One who is for the most part apathetic about voting and who accepts authority. One who accepts people of different cultures/races in the workplace (the better to flood the labor supply, my dear). One who is easily scared by TV propaganda so that military power can be used to invade and open new markets for the corporations that own the TV stations and networks.

Just as prehistoric hunters, pastoral peoples and farmers domesticated cattle and sheep and dogs, etc., so too has the economic elite (through TV, primarily) domesticated a certain breed of homo sapiens. Just as those humans of long ago bred their domesticated animals generation after generation for certain desirable characteristics, so too has the economic elite produced us Americans by altering our culture. THey didn't evolve us physically, but culturally. And TV is the primary tool.

As long as it's on...

[djinn2020 (874365)]

If it's on, anywhere in your general vicinity, you are "watching" it

Whether or not you're doing it consciously is debatable, but I know that when it's on in the background I zone back in to it and all of a sudden have a craving for Whataburger... mmm, Whataburger...

"Free" TV is a terrible deal

[btempleton (149110)]

One of the reasons for the failure path of advertising is that free, advertising-supported TV is a terrible deal for the viewer.

Common CPM for TV ads is $10, meaning one cent per viewer. The network gets a penny to show you a 30 second ad. If you watch 5 hours of TV, you will see an hour of those ads, and they get $1.20.

In other words, you get $1.20 worth of programming for watching an hour of advertising. $1.20 per hour is an illegal wage by a long margin in most places these days, and a terrible deal. It's no wonder we want to reject it.

The other big mistake the TV industry has made was in thinking the grail was full video on demand. Tivo and Netflix have shown that delayed-gratification video is more than satisfactory, and a lot cheaper to produce.

Some of these ideas are explored in my essay on the future of TV advertising [templetons.com] and Poor Man's Video on Demand [templetons.com], which you may want to read.

Re:"Free" TV is a terrible deal

[RichDice (7079)]

While your posting has given me a lot of insight into the economics of TV advertising that I didn't have before, there is something you wrote I have to take to task:

In other words, you get $1.20 worth of programming for watching an hour of advertising. $1.20 per hour is an illegal wage by a long margin in most places these days, and a terrible deal. It's no wonder we want to reject it.

Another way of looking at this is that I get several millions of dollars' worth per hour of advertising I watched. After all, it cost that much to make those 4 hours of TV.

TV productions, once made, are non-rivalrous. That is, your having a zero-marginal-cost copy of it doesn't diminish the value of my copy of it. If it cost $10 million to make, and you and I each get a copy, then we only have to spend $5 million apiece to get $10 million worth of TV. What it sounds like in your advertising model is that we've got 8 million people sharing the cost, each paying about $1.20 for $10 million worth of production. That's a pretty good deal. (A similar economics is in play with cars: the marginal cost of a car is $20,000, but in buying it you receive the benefits of $100,000,000s worth of R&D effort. Economies of scale make the world go 'round.)

Cheers,
Richard

Invisible advertising

[darnok (650458)]

One thing I've noticed over the past few years is that TV advertising just doesn't register with me any more. I'll be watching TV with my partner, ads will come on and she'll ask me what I think about product X. I'll ask "What brought that question on?", she'll point at the TV and the ad will still be showing. It simply never registered with me at all.

After 42 years, it seems I've developed an excellent TV content filter, that just needs a bit more tweaking to filter out reality and "talent contest" programs to make me happy.

I'm curious: is anyone else in the same boat? Has advertising become effectively invisible to you?

Re:Another weird thing I've noticed

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

Commercials used to be more informative, that's for sure. Now commercials are designed to elicit emotions more than the brain. I'm not too old (early 30's)... but I had to do a small research project where I was looking at old 50's television. The commercials were plain bad from a cinemographic point of view, but I actually got facts about the product, not "you need this to look cool, and if you don't you are a loser that will be made fun of by all of your coworkers and neighbors".

But, that is just my two cents :)

Re:Invisible advertising

[timeOday (582209)]

I found this thread interesting enough to look for some info, and I'm responding to what you wrote because it confirms what you said.

This is not from some media critic, or academic, but from the "Cable TV Ad Beaureau" [cabletvadbureau.com]:

Our audience is deciding what they want. MTV's median age is exactly when a majority of young American adults begin to form life-long brand loyalties. Young adults 15-17 are excited consumers and extremely impressionable. Now is the time to influence their choices. 12-34 year olds have higher brand recall and more recognition than 35-49 year olds. In fact 69% make their purchasing decisions based on brand name, not price.

In short, they're looking to build lifelong loyalties, and hitting up the demographic with the highest cash-to-brains ratio.

Conflicts of Interest & a House of Cards

[G4from128k (686170)]

So many aspects of marketing are so squishy that it is easy for everyone to fool themselves into thinking that the ads are effective. All of the participants have a vested interest in spinning the impact of ads -- TV stations, ad agencies have obvious conflicts of interest in promoting TV ads. But even the marketing execs at companies do to as they judge their personal "size" by how many millions they spend on big ad campaigns.

I have no idea if TV ads are really seen or not or if they really work or not - they may well create some subliminal warm fuzzy about some heavily promoted product or brand.

I do know that ads can backfire. When a major (potato) chip maker launched a multi-million dollar "taste-test" TV ad campaign against its biggest competitor, the competitor's sales went up because the campaign got people thinking about the chips and they bought more of the competitor's brand. This anecdote suggests that ads are seen, but may not have the intended effect.

I suspect that the real problem is that companies are so desperate to reach and influence buyers that they will try anything.

Impact of TV on my life

[John Seminal (698722)]

TV is the worst possible waste of time a person can have. Episodic television is mind numbing. It is designed to have somoene sit in front of a television while countless hours go away, never to come back. For example, what good has come from Sinfield on humanity? Yada, yada, yada. Point made.

The only reason television exists is because of advertising, for companies to sell you stuff you don't need. They don't care about you, and in many instances insult you. You don't need a doctor to diagnose you, instead we'll tell you what you need and you shop to find a doctor to write you a prescription.

I wish I had back all the hours I had watching TV. It has harmed me. It lowered my attention span. It made me blow my money on crap I don't need, and really did not want, but was so taken in by models who look so hot convincing me I really do need it.

How many people come home from a long day at work, pop open a beer while tossing a frozen pizza in the oven, and then spend the rest of the night laughing at 3rd grade jokes?

And even for the good things that TV can do, it has failed us miserably. Did anyone catch Dean's comments to Democrats? Dean said democrats need to get better at the 10 second soundbyte, more catchy phrases, and to mainstream their message. The TV could be so much more. Chances are you can get more from the editorial section of the newspaper than in a half hour news program. And where is the science and history on TV? Maybe we will get a science channel once cable hits channel 700. *sigh*

How do I get all those hours back? How do I go on living knowing my formative years were spent watching the Dukes of Hazzard?

In Partial Disagreement With the Above

[Staplerh (806722)]

I'll admit that you make several valid points, but overall your post reaks of intellectualistic superiority. First of all, it's dangerous to condemn the 'masses' for enjoying television after a long day at work. I'm sure you waste your time on something as well, although slashdot.org may seem like a more stimulating pursuit, for example, it is still really not accomplishing anything.

The TV could be so much more. Chances are you can get more from the editorial section of the newspaper than in a half hour news program. And where is the science and history on TV? Maybe we will get a science channel once cable hits channel 700. *sigh*

Perhaps it's because I'm up here in Canada, but it seems as if we have plenty of quality programing. Documentaries on CBC constantly interest; a recent one documented a National Guard battallion deploying to your ongoing War in Iraq. Television as a media can convey things that you can't read about to the same degree, and television allows lower-quality productions.

As for history, our History channel here does occasionally present valuable historical documentaries, although I'll conceed that their presentation of 'JAG' three times a day does diminish their esteem. But heck, sometimes it's fun to kick back and watch 'JAG', ridicule the rediculous plotlines and turn off the brain.

So while I do understand your argument, and conceed its validity in some parts, I find it hard to pass blanket condemnation of television.

Re:Impact of TV on my life

[0racle (667029)]

It lowered my attention span. It made me blow my money on crap I don't need, and really did not want, but was so taken in by models who look so hot convincing me I really do need it.

You can whine all you want, it doesn't make it true. Ever heard of personal responsibility? Self Control? Watching TV didn't make you do anything, you chose to.

Re:Impact of TV on my life

[maxpublic (450413)]

You're (presumably) sentient. You have free will. Regardless of the psychology involved the replying poster is correct: TV didn't "make" you do anything. You chose to do what you did. And that's entirely your own fault. Blaming anyone or anything else is just ducking responsibility for your actions.

Max

Americans need a serious wake up call

[antifoidulus (807088)]

I saw something at Best Buy the other day that really stopped me in my tracks: A refridgerator with a television built in. I thought to myself, "Who the fuck watches television to the point that they need one on their fridge?" And yet there it was, manufactured by LG(Koreans taking us down!). Now, I'm not saying that TV is totally worthless, I personally enjoy the Daily Show and South Park, but I think Americans are way too addicted to the television....it's time to back away before it's too late....

Re:Americans need a serious wake up call

[robstamack (786429)]

Actually, I used to make the exact same comments about the exact same refrigerators until a (not so close) friend moved to Korea. Apparently the living space in the majority of apartments there is excruciatingly small, thus they learned to combine appliances to reduce wasted space.

Inevitably an international company is going to inject new products into a foreign market with the hope that the recipient country will be as receptive as the domestic market.

Slashdot ratings for TV?

[nxtr (813179)]

FOX News Channel
Score: -1 Flamebait

Family Guy
Score: +5 Funny

Golf Channel
Score: 0 (who the hell watches it?)

Paid at both ends

[FullCircle (643323)]

What really pissed me off (thus no more cable) is that I'm paying for cable channels and after prime time almost all of them are infomercials!

Why should I pay for content that I'm not getting while these TV spammers pay to show their commercials all night?

I think we deserve 50% off for those 12 hours of infomercials.

Don't even get me started on 8 minutes of content between commercials. You barely get interested again before the next break. Then they run another lower third animated graphic over the top of the current show telling what comes on later.

Greedy bastards.

Thanks for that

[dimator (71399)]

"This long New York Times article (10 pages; no registration required) reports on the mismeasure of television (TV)."

Thanks for letting us know that "TV" refers, in fact, to "television" in the article synopsis. I was ready to pull up Webster's, had you not interceded.

YOU ARE THE PRODUCT

[disposable60 (735022)]

Never forget, YOU are the PRODUCT being sold to the advertisers. The shows are produced to maximize sales. Of you. To advertisers.

Watching the Detectives

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

They're measuring the wrong test point. There's no real understanding of the causal relationship between watching an ad and buying the product, let alone watching a show containing an ad and purchase, or hearing a show and making a purchase. It's all statistical correlation, which implicitly takes many causal paths into account, like word of mouth. They should stop pretending they have the mechanics understood, and just need some data about the human/receiver interface. They should instead study the mass psychology, sociology of ad messages, and other statistical dynamics that actually help predict the group behavior they're trying to control. But of course they won't: Arbitron and Neilsen are in the "measurement" business, and don't know how to sell anything else. However, as measurable webcasts become more of the media market, they'll get their data easily at the servers, and their model stil won't be complete. So they'll eventually have to turn to the statistical analysis anyway. Bottom line: TV will continue to suck indefinitely, and misinformed TV execs will continue to think they're geniuses.

Did you hear?

[Senjutsu (614542)]

You made the news! [davefaq.com]

Agree 100%

[bani (467531)]

I disconnected cable long ago. I was tired of paying $50/mo for tripe.

TLC killed off all their worthwhile shows and turned into the "home improvement and biker channel".
Scifi channel turned into the "John edwards show".
Paramount pretty much permanently killed star trek with "Voyager" and "Enterprise".
FOX cancelled Futurama.

The rest? Well, I can get them in DVD box sets, an entire season at a time, with commentary and extras, without any commercials, and watch them whenever I want. It's a hell of a lot cheaper, too.

I recall reading somewhere that for the first time in history since the introduction of television, viewership is actually going down . It honestly wouldn't suprise me.