XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: artis@nospamplease.net.invalid   
      
   "cloud dreamer"  wrote in message   
   news:WLGdnQi6x9jqyH3RnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@supernews.com...   
   > On 14/11/2010 5:58 PM, Artisan wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "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.   
   >   
   >   
   > Government money is public money.   
   >   
   > The point is, it relies on public money NOT on advertising.   
      
   I know that advertisers don't play a role.  What I'm not getting is this   
   emphasis on government money as opposed to viewer pledge drive money.  Is   
   catpandaddy still around?  I haven't seen him in awhile in my newsgroups but   
   he seemed on top of these things from a structural sense.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)