XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: artis@nospamplease.net.invalid   
      
   "cloud dreamer"  wrote in message   
   news:H5udnTSQTemd3H3RnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@supernews.com...   
   > On 14/11/2010 3:58 PM, Artisan wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "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.   
   >   
   >   
   > That's not how it works. Neilsens can extrapolate statistically how many   
   > people are watching a particular show at a particular time. It isn't   
   > biased towards any one demographic - normie or geek or whatever.   
   >   
   > Just as a poll of 1000 or 2000 people can, statistically, predict the   
   > outcome of an election fairly accurately, Neilsens uses the same idea. So,   
   > if 8 people out of an average sample of 1000 are watching Caprica, they   
   > can estimate that 800,000 out of so many are watching it nationwide (don't   
   > quote me on the numbers...I'm just using them as an analogy to illustrate   
   > the process).   
   >   
   > They've been using this process for decades. It works. We don't always   
   > agree, but it works.   
      
   Public Broadcasting seems to indicate otherwise, but I'm not able to perform   
   a double-blind study on how their programming would change if they abandoned   
   the PBS model and went with an advertising/slash/Neilsen model.  I don't   
   know if being a PBS junkie disqualifies my opinion, so maybe I will be   
   required to recuse myself from discussing it on that basis, but I'll go with   
   your decision on whether I should or not.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)