XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: artis@nospamplease.net.invalid   
      
   "cloud dreamer"  wrote in message   
   news:cJCdnSjflOKjzX3RnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@supernews.com...   
   > On 14/11/2010 5:27 PM, Artisan wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "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.   
   >   
   >   
   > Not sure what PBS has to do with it. They rely on public money, not   
   > advertising. The ratings wouldn't apply to them.   
      
   Not exactly public, more like viewer pledges mixed in as opposed to   
   government run.  So it gives non-governmental citizens as close to a direct   
   say in programming as is likely to occur anywhere.  And it appears to work   
   very well... Masterpiece Theatre, lots of good arts, advanced science   
   programming without the silly info-tainment twists.  Heck, PBS was the very   
   first place I ever saw Monty Python's Flying Circus!!!  All of these to me   
   are good arguments for a viewer-pledge-driven model to be tried for narrow   
   niche stations; since it has been proven to work so well for   
   "broad"-casting, it might work for "narrowcasting" too.  But who knows.   
   Maybe an Internet/Web based model will make all of these ideas obsolete,   
   making it possible for viewers and programmers to be directly on the same   
   page and removing the guesswork of market sampling.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)