XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: artis@nospamplease.net.invalid   
      
   "cloud dreamer"  wrote in message   
   news:qK2dndZVm4t1q33RnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@supernews.com...   
   > On 14/11/2010 3:33 PM, Artisan wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "cloud dreamer"  wrote in message   
   >> news:JradnczYGL-ckkLRnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@supernews.com...   
   >>>   
   >>> It costs more to produce hence it needs better ratings to justify it.   
   >>> It needed to be in the one and a half million range, not the 800,000   
   >>> range.   
   >>   
   >> Well I watched it every week. I hope it wasn't too dumb of me to like   
   >> it. And on a separate note, I wonder if they even counted me in the   
   >> 800,000... I don't have a two-way box so they probably didn't even know   
   >> I was a fan and didn't count me in their totals.   
   >   
   >   
   > That's not how the rating system works. Neilsen has a set number of meters   
   > out there in selected homes. They base their numbers on them and   
   > extrapolate total viewership from the sample set.   
      
   Yikes!!  Well there's the problem then, you can't extrapolate the worth of a   
   sci-fi program from a random set of "normies"!  Under such a system, the   
   highest quality programming on the PBS stations (viewer supported public   
   broadcasting in the Americas) would fail, because normies (normal   
   undereducated people) don't watch heavy programming, they watch the   
   equivalent of comfort food.  Neilsen needs to step aside and stick with the   
   major networks.  The niche cable channels need to be represented by the   
   niche audiences for which the channel is intended for.  This would put   
   wrestling at the very low end of the list, paranormal "reality tv" somewhere   
   in the middle, and the quality expensive heavy programs on top.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)