XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.tv.scifi.channel   
   From: cpd@cat.pan.net   
      
   "Your Name"  wrote in message   
   news:idbirb$faj$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...   
   >   
   > "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.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   Are you related to Dropping the Helicopter by any chance?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)