XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: your.name@isp.com   
      
   "catpandaddy"  wrote in message   
   news:idasv0$5hr$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   >   
   > "Your Name"  wrote in message   
   > news:id9v0i$h2a$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...   
   > > "catpandaddy"  wrote in message   
   > > news:id8tv9$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.   
   >   
   > What a surprise that you snipped the part calling you out to give your   
   > perfect solution.   
      
   I've already said before that there is no such thing as a "perfect solution"   
   and never will be ... it doesn't mean that they should keep using one that   
   is highly inaccurate and useless though, but then they are typical   
   management idiots with no brains.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)