REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Blame it on Nielsen?

POSTED BY: WHOZIT
UPDATED: Sunday, January 18, 2009 12:20
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1223
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:27 AM

WHOZIT


http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/01/abc-tca-.html I'm not sure if he's making a good point, or if it's an excuse? Yes in most homes there is more than 1 set on and on differents shows, but I do'nt think many Bars have LOST on. Most Bars show sports and the few that may have LOST, T:TSCC etc, may not be worth counting. We live in a 1,000 channel universe, this guy is going to have to relize that alot of people would rather watch shows on Discovery or the Sci-Fi channels, then what the free networks are putting on. FYI, I love "Deadliest Catch".

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 17, 2009 10:43 AM

DREAMTROVE


Nielsen is and has been a fraud. It's a delicate system to convince advertisers of the popularity or the unpopularity of something, with a semi-real base, to make it convincing, but like a democracy, easily manipulated to produce the results they want.

Networks destroy things usually for one of three reasons.

1. The reason that most people like to think is content control. This can and does happen. If something is too subversive, the networks will kill it. They are far more interested in controlling content than in making money. But still, this is usually the least likely reason.

2. Money. The networks like to fill their slots with sluts who are cheap, and can be put on screen. As Sam Goldwyn said "Nudity is the cheapest special effect in the business." After that, humor. Producing something like Firefly or T:TSCC costs millions per ep. They might be willing to do that if it was NWO propaganda, but only maybe. If it's counter to their message, and expensive, it's in double jeopardy.

3. The major reason anything ever gets cancelled or renewed is people. People like people they like, and they like dealing with them, and they take out petty vengeance on people who they don't like, who step on their toes, or insult them. If they like you, you'll stick around, if they don't, you're out the door. In general, Murdoch likes Joss, and he like Groenig. If he didn't, he would never run them on his network.

Hopefully, Dollhouse and T:TSCC will make a nice pairing, and make money for the network, that's one more reason not to cancel them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:09 AM

WHOZIT


Also it's the 18-49 demo, that is there fav. If a show is doing great in THAT demo, it stays on the air.

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 17, 2009 1:27 PM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nielsen is and has been a fraud. It's a delicate system to convince advertisers of the popularity or the unpopularity of something, with a semi-real base, to make it convincing, but like a democracy, easily manipulated to produce the results they want.

Networks destroy things usually for one of three reasons.

1. The reason that most people like to think is content control. This can and does happen. If something is too subversive, the networks will kill it. They are far more interested in controlling content than in making money. But still, this is usually the least likely reason.

2. Money. The networks like to fill their slots with sluts who are cheap, and can be put on screen. As Sam Goldwyn said "Nudity is the cheapest special effect in the business." After that, humor. Producing something like Firefly or T:TSCC costs millions per ep. They might be willing to do that if it was NWO propaganda, but only maybe. If it's counter to their message, and expensive, it's in double jeopardy.

3. The major reason anything ever gets cancelled or renewed is people. People like people they like, and they like dealing with them, and they take out petty vengeance on people who they don't like, who step on their toes, or insult them. If they like you, you'll stick around, if they don't, you're out the door. In general, Murdoch likes Joss, and he like Groenig. If he didn't, he would never run them on his network.

Hopefully, Dollhouse and T:TSCC will make a nice pairing, and make money for the network, that's one more reason not to cancel them.

Nielson Ratings aren't qualitative evaluations of how much a program is liked. The only thing that is measured is how many people watched.

The ratings provide information that Advertisers have used for decades to make sure thier message meets the right demographic so more of the right eyes see thier message. There is nothing sinister at work that could possibly make altering the ratings profitable, and your 3 reasons...I don't want to be too critical, but nobody in broadcasting could stay in business if money wasn't what motivates them over every other concern.

Bill O'Reilly has bragged about his ratings and manipulates how he words things to convince the easilly amused that he's right about everything as a result. One times when his ratings were low...he said something like "I don't know whats goin on at Nielson because it's impossible we're that low"

He never had one complaint when he was on top daily.

That's conspiracy theory/persecution complex thinking. It's also being a poor looser. I bet he or some Conservative was using this excuse for why thier Nielson ratings were low. Fox has been loosing ground since the election. They fired Colmes, and are supposed to be regrouping and digging in for the long seige. Fox is till number one but they should be, the liberal audience is split up over three to six liberal networks for the whole audience. If Fox doesn't have more that half of the viewrship they're actualy failing. I know it's an obtuse concept.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/

Like the Nobel Prize, Hollywoood, and San Francisco...because Republicans didn't win it, or they were humiliated by it in some way...everyone involved with these cities or things are anti American terrorist immorality lovers that are also cheating.

I'm having trouble fitting any of your three reasons into what I know...no offense but I hope you're wrong

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 17, 2009 1:39 PM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Also it's the 18-49 demo, that is there fav. If a show is doing great in THAT demo, it stays on the air.

18-49 year olds is the demographic that statistcally, through credit card info gathering, stands to do the most consumer spending that is influenced by advertising. It doesn't matter what the show is.

Thats where I figure you and trove are off. This is a business of advertisers using ratings to guide themselves to a suitable broadcaster......Not! Ratings using broadcasters to guide advertisers to the shows they "like"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 17, 2009 2:58 PM

DREAMTROVE


MBL

I used to believe this. But I've been watching. The press does not exist to make money, it exists to broadcast a mesage. Making money is secondary.

Nielsen corruption is old. It has to closely resemble audience, as results have to closely resemble an election. But that doesn't mean they have to be accurate. There are lots of things that they do to kill a show they don't want, scramble episode order, pre-empt it with football, put it opposite something really popular with the same target audience or shove it into a corner. Suspend it for weeks on end. etc. But if all else fails, they can juggle the ratings.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 18, 2009 12:20 PM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
MBL

I used to believe this. But I've been watching. The press does not exist to make money, it exists to broadcast a mesage. Making money is secondary.

Nielsen corruption is old. It has to closely resemble audience, as results have to closely resemble an election. But that doesn't mean they have to be accurate. There are lots of things that they do to kill a show they don't want, scramble episode order, pre-empt it with football, put it opposite something really popular with the same target audience or shove it into a corner. Suspend it for weeks on end. etc. But if all else fails, they can juggle the ratings.

The human factor can always introduce corruption, you will get no argument from me there.

But I shouldn't have failed to disclose that I know someone who works for a subsidiary of a company that audits all "book" data every year and certifies it to be correct. That probably didn't make sense, let me explain.

All medium to big media in the US wether it's News Papers, Cable, Radio, and so on....that function on advertising for revenue, have advertisers that group together to demand that the amount of circulation, viewership, and listenership are verified by standardized criteria for measurement established by audits performed by non afliated outside sources. Though these outside auditors are payed for by the media, they inveitably report back to and are controlled by advertiser industry groups. Everybody has an eye on each other. Advertisers, Media, and Raitings. Total ruthless transparency.

It's there because when a advertiseing sales rep approaches Nike Corporation, and say's if you advertise with us...90,000 people will see it on a daily basis. Then another ad rep comes in saying they have 130,000 people to see it. The advertising buyer at Nike will say..."Hmm how do I believe these guys, they could misrepresent themselves". So when that Ad Buyer goes to an Ad Buyer industry association meeting in Aspen, they all get drunk and say "We gotta figure out a way to know if we're being stuffed"..."let's make them prove it...and this auditing system is probably the result of meetings similar to my hypothetical example of Aspen.

I know that in the case of a newspaper, the auditing organization gets the whole year's circulation numbers broken down by day, then reconciled with numbers from the printer of the paper, then verified through the newspapers accounting figures and financial reports along with last getting verification from the tax statements from the IRS. It's a full circle.

It's the price media pays to operate on advertising for income, the other way is to rely solely on the often far less lucrative subscription sales.

Now...help me understand what would motivate Nielson Ratings to jeopardize thier reputation for accuracy, which advertisers pay them for, to hatch some plot to get the shows they "like" either cancelled or picked up?

Are you saying It's politicians who are corrupting Nielson? Is it the producers of the Media corrupting Nielson?

Exactlty who is corrupting Nielson and how do they gain by it? Have you implied that thier is intent towards favoritism by media and ratings?

Sorry to be so confused

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Hill: Democrats and the lemmings of the left
Thu, December 12, 2024 08:11 - 13 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, December 12, 2024 01:38 - 4931 posts
COUP...TURKEY
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:38 - 40 posts
Dana Loesch Explains Why Generation X Put Trump In The White House
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:21 - 7 posts
Alien Spaceship? Probably Not: CIA Admits it’s Behind (Most) UFO Sightings
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:18 - 27 posts
IRAN: Kamala Harris and Biden's war?
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:34 - 18 posts
Countdown Clock Until Vladimir Putins' Rule Ends
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:32 - 158 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:04 - 251 posts
Who hates Israel?
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:02 - 77 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:59 - 4839 posts
Jesus christ... Can we outlaw the fuckin' drones already?
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:55 - 3 posts
Turkey as the new Iran
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:42 - 45 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL