XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: your.name@isp.com   
      
   "catpandaddy"  wrote in message   
   news:id8tv9$iml$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   > "Your Name"  wrote in message   
   > news:id8sof$tlt$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...   
   > > "RT"  wrote in message   
   > > news:4CF7CDAC.A4059D71@hotmail.com...   
   > >> Michael Flynn wrote:   
   > >> >   
   > >> > On 14/11/2010 16:58, The Coca Cola Kid wrote:   
   > >> > >   
   > >> > > Also, is that 800,000 range not the raw overnight ratings, not   
   taking   
   > >> > > into account DVR, web and time shift viewings?   
   > >> >   
   > >> > When it comes down to how much money can be made from a tv series   
   it's   
   > >> > the number of eyes on the live broadcast that is the most important.   
   > >> > People who time shift (by whatever method) tend to skip past the   
   > >> > adverts so the advertisers cant be charged for those viewers.   
   > >>   
   > >> People also get up and do other things during commercials... works out   
   > >> the same.   
   > >   
   > > Yep, or they flick to other channels, or they read the newspaper, etc.,   
   > > etc.   
   > > Very very few people bother to watch the adverts. Basing scheduling   
   > > decisions around advertising is and has always been moronically stupid   
   ...   
   > > but then it was thought up by idiots in management, so there's no   
   surprise   
   > > there.  :-(   
   >   
   > You either pay for your programming directly, or you pay for it   
   indirectly.   
      
      
   Of course you do ... or even both ways since some networks charge you a   
   monthly fee AND plays adverts AND receive money from government taxes!   
      
   Yet again it comes back to the idiotic and meaningless guesstimated number   
   called "ratings", which are even more worthless for adverts since few people   
   bother to watch them.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)