XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Okay sent the following on 11/16/2010 6:07 PM:   
   > Jim Gysin  ::   
   >> Because SF fans gravitate to shows like LOST and THE X-FILES while   
   >> running away from the likes of DEFYING GRAVITY and CAPRICA.   
   >   
   > Well, um, no.  This may be your feeling.  It might even be   
   > your impression.  But what numbers we have don't support it.   
   > The numbers suggest the opposite, in fact, in that many sf   
   > fans will endure a show simply because it's sf, and thereby   
   > it's giving them at least some of what they want (or,   
   > failing that, they can rewrite the stupid bits in their   
   > head, or complain about them to others).   
   >   
   >> I'm talking about the SF-loving subset of television viewers.  As soon   
   >> as you start talking about wrestling fans, you're changing the   
   >> discussion to something that I'm not talking about.   
   >   
   > The discussion was, I thought, how to get a TV network that   
   > showed mostly or entirely science fiction, to do well. Which   
   > requires people to watch it, and choose it over other things   
   > airing at the same time.  While damn near any SF show will   
   > draw a small number of hardcore fans, in terms of the entire   
   > TV audience, fans aren't common.  So either the network   
   > makes shows that can slipstream other viewers in, or makes   
   > shows that cost so little that the small fan audience is   
   > enough to make a profit off of.   "Fans exist" isn't a   
   > viable marketing strategy.   
   >   
   >> I'm talking about SF *fans*, so once you start talking about people who   
   >> don't like westerns not watching westerns, you're going off-track.   
   >   
   > I think you're not grasping analogy, but if it's not your   
   > cuppa, I won't try to reason with you.   
   >   
   >> Because it's not done well.   
   >   
   > No, no, no.  You're saying that, in some magic realm where a   
   > TV network could produce a dozen hours of science fiction a   
   > week, with the appeal of summer movie SF blockbusters on a   
   > basic cable budget, there'd be lotsa profit to be made.  I'm   
   > saying that that's not going to happen on three or four   
   > separate levels.   
      
   Given that you've snipped and/or ignored my main points, including where   
   you conveniently removed my observation about the *very* impressive   
   initial audience numbers for any number of recent SF shows (which proves   
   that your subsequent "[SF] fans aren't common" claim above is a   
   fallacy), I'll assume that you're mainly interested in playing dishonest   
   debate games.  Thanks for letting me know not to waste any more of my time!   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)