Our Ratings, Ourselves

Ant writes "This long New York Times article (10 pages; no registration required) reports on the mismeasure of television (TV)." From the article: "One of the great contradictions of modern American life is that almost everyone watches TV while almost no one agrees anymore about what it really means to watch television....when it comes to figuring out how many of us are watching these shows, and whether we're paying attention while we're watching and even whether we're actually noticing the advertisements among the shows we may or may not be watching -- well, this is where things get tricky..."

Comments

The Dumbing-Down of America

[TripMaster Monkey]

From the article:

For the past decade or so, watching television in America has been defined by the families recruited by Nielsen Media Research who have agreed to have an electronic meter attached to their televisions...

Obviously, these 'Nielsen' boxes are emitting some sort of toxic radiation that slowly poisons the brains of all in the area.

No? Well, then, YOU explain reality TV shows!

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[bonch]

No? Well, then, YOU explain reality TV shows!

Phoney human drama that is cheap to produce. No screenwriters or plotlines needed. Just find various "personalities" that will grate on each other, stick them together, and film it. Reality TV is so prevalent because it's so cheap and easy to make. Compare to, say, Law & Order, where you actually have to hire actors, write stories, and go film at various locations.

Even friggin' TLC has reality shows now. It's insane. And sad (anyone remember when TLC was shown in schools because it always ran educational content?).

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Kevin Khatchadourian]

You're exactly right, though some reality tv isn't all that cheap to make, example, The Amazing Race, which I watch because I find it interesting not just the team dynamics but all the absolutly beautiful places they go around the world. On the other hand, there is plenty of crap, as there are always exceptions to a rule.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[TripMaster Monkey]

Reality TV is so prevalent because it's so cheap and easy to make.

While this is certainly true, it doesn't really matter how cheap a show is to produce if no one will watch it. Somewhere out there, somebody is watching this crap. And they're fucking it up for the rest of us.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[bonch]

They're watching it because programming execs have made it the only thing to watch. They love that it's cheap to make. You can film it in a month and already have it ready to go. These things don't get mammoth ratings (with an exception or two like American Idol, which thankfully isn't saturated everywhere like Survivor was), but the ratings they do get is enough to justify the cheap cost to make them. And since it's so damn easy, why bother starting a new sitcom with actors and writers when you can just put an ad in the paper for college kids and stick them in a situation to film it?

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Jardine]

Even friggin' TLC has reality shows now. It's insane. And sad (anyone remember when TLC was shown in schools because it always ran educational content?).

What exactly am I supposed to be learning from TLC now? All I ever see on TLC is decorating shows and cameras following pregnent women around. Do they even show documentaries anymore?

Even Discovery Channel has turned away from what used to be its core programming. Motorcycles, Monster Garage, and Mythbusters. Early episodes of Mythbusters concentrated more on the myths and testing them. New episodes seem to like to show build competitions between the two hosts with lots of "conflict" between them. What does any of this have to do with science, technology, and history?

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[rsmith-mac]

What does any of this have to do with science, technology, and history?

Meanwhile, real shows with truly relevant and important content like The Eyes of Nye are disregarded even on public broadcasting, and only seen in a handful of markets. Science is being increasingly dumbed down and compromised to be entertaining first and science second; consumers don't want entertaining science, they just want no-work entertainment. Heaven forbid someone actually has to think around here.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Umbral Blot]

Although I don't like reality tv it doesn't bother me that it exists. Its not like I am exceptionally happy with the other kinds of tv out there. All I want is my battlestar galactica, and if some people out there like reality tv, more power to them. Dropping reality tv will not make good shows appear.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[solios]

The problem isn't cable, the problem is having a Nielsen or other ratings-relvant "family" in an area where reception is limited. For example- due to several factors, the ONLY channel you could get in via antenna in the area I grew up in (northcentral PA) was the CBS affiliate out of Binghampton, NY. The only game in town, as it were - if you wanted to tube out, you watched WBNG TV12 or you watched Off.

It being CBS, they're broadcasting bullshit like Survivor to what's more or less a captive audience.

I did learn about demographics indirectly through growing up with that station - their target market was apparently over sixty. Golden Girls in syndication, and shitloads of commercials for preparation H, Depends, and Cadillacs.

Made my stint through a college filled with kids who'd been able to watch stuff that hit their demographic head-on fairly... weird.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[bani]

Welcome to the bush administration anti-science agenda. Enjoy your stay.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[OAB_X]

> Dropping reality tv will not make good shows appear.

Well, it does, because the good expensive shows that dont have high enough ratings are canceled to make way for the shovelware.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations! You've managed to rationalize sitting on your ass and staring and something completely worthless for a large portion of your day.

(Yes, I realize the irony in posting this to Slashdot.)

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Mancat]

They don't care about basic cable subscribers anymore. If you look at your digital/satellite listings, Discovery (TLC too, I think) now offer their former scientific content on a number of pay-per-view or package channels.

Always follow the money.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Koiu Lpoi]

How many time has family guy been canceled?

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[ath0mic]

Reality TV is so prevalent because it's so cheap and easy to make.

I think another reason reality TV is so popluar is because it's still somewhat anew genre. I mean has the sitcom really changed much in the last 40 years? Is there much of a difference between I Love Lucy/The Brady Bunch/Friends?

I think people want to watch good TV (there isn't much of it) and they think since reality TV is new it must necessarily be good.

Though is there anything wrong with watching TV? I think we all have a choice to make. Some people chose to watch reality shows (I recall an interview with Steven Spielberg who said he enjoyed Cops because it displayed human nature), some people choose to read those mangasines displayed in the checkout line of the grocery store, some people choose to read /. Isn't all really the same thing? I think it's fairly contempous to pass judgement on someone for doing something they enjoy.

With the expection of Jeopardy! and the Daily Show, I haven't watch TV for the last two years. Am I better than someon who treats Surviour as a religion? Hardly. I just have different hobbies.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[SerialEx13]

> Dropping reality tv will not make good shows appear.

Well, it does, because the good expensive shows that dont have high enough ratings are canceled to make way for the shovelware.

This is presuming that in order for a show to be good it also must cost a lot of money. There is no reason why a show cannot be low-budget but be a good show due to it's great writing.

You can throw all the money you want at a bad show, but it doesn't mean it'll become great.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[ath0mic]

..ugh, ignore my last post, I pasted the wrong version...

Reality TV is so prevalent because it's so cheap and easy to make.

I think another reason reality TV is so popular is because it's still somewhat of a new genre. I mean has the sitcom really changed much in the last 40 years? Is there much of a difference between I Love Lucy/The Brady Bunch/Friends?

I think people want to watch good TV (there isn't much of it) and they think since reality TV is new it must necessarily be good.

Though is there anything wrong with watching TV? Some people choose to watch reality shows (I recall an interview with Steven Spielberg who said he enjoyed Cops because it displayed human nature), some people choose to read those magazines displayed in the checkout line of the grocery store, some people choose to read slashdot ... I think it's fairly contemptuous to pass judgment on someone for doing something they enjoy.

With the exception of Jeopardy! and the Daily Show, I haven't watch TV for the last two years. Am I better than someone who treats Survivor as a religion? Hardly. I just have different hobbies.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Hans Lehmann]

TLC used to stand for 'The Learning Channel'; not too much profit in that. Then they discovered bored housewives. Now when I flip through the guide I see them playing, in order, 'The Makeover Show', 'The Wedding Show', and 'The Baby Show'. That pretty much encapsulates everything that too many women aspire too; attract a man, get him to marry you, and have his baby (though not necessarily in that order.)

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Hans Lehmann]

If a show costs zero dollars to produce and air, then ir will turn a profit even if it only got one viewer.

I'm 47, so I spent my high school & college Saturday nights watching Saturday Night Live. It was good then. Thirty years later the show sucks, and has sucked immensely for at least the last 15 years. Why is it still on? Because it still gets high enough ratings in relation to it's production costs, and bacause there's nothing else on in that time slot that really competes with it. If Jay Leno ever decided to do a show on Saturday nights, the 30 year reign of Saturday Night Live would quickly grind to a halt.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[myowntrueself]

"No? Well, then, YOU explain reality TV shows!"

I'm just waiting for the next logical step in reality TV shows;

Networks start offering *free* cable and/or satellite, as much as you can 'eat', all you have to do is get a 'webcam' installed in your lounge.

Of course, all that will be on TV will more reality TV; the view through everyone elses 'webcam'...

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[dswartze]

If Jay Leno ever decided to do a show on Saturday nights, the 30 year reign of Saturday Night Live would quickly grind to a halt.

well yeah... they're on the same network

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[philg8]

No? Well, then, YOU explain reality TV shows!

Phoney human drama that is cheap to produce.

I think that, combined with the fact that many people crave social interaction in an increasingly isolated society, is why reality TV is popular. Only televison is a one-way communication, therefore not really an "interaction." But it IS easy to sit there and think to yourself, "I sure know who I would have voted off the island!" and maybe even talk to co-workers about it around the water cooler the next day.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[Osty]

with an exception or two like American Idol, which thankfully isn't saturated everywhere like Survivor was

American Idol isn't saturated everywhere? It's on three nights a week! It's advertised everywhere! All I want to do is watch an episode of 24, or House, and I have to deal with American Idol. I have to hear about it at work. American Idol winners have made movies. Radio stations have parodied the American Idol formula, as have porn movies. American Idol is everywhere, and I can't recall Survivor being spread around this much.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[BrainInAJar]

Exactly!

Quite a few foreign shows ended up excellent, despite the budget of what seems to be what the producers pulled out of their couch. Red dwarf (uk), corner gas (ca), etc.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[zambuka]

This is very very close to the mark. Other things to consider when looking at the drivel that "rates" is to look at when this stuff is aired.
Prime time usually coincides with the typical family dinner time and an hour or so afterwards, in otherwords when people plonk themselves in front of the tube and shovel down their evening meal. The next rating slot is set for after the kids go to bed and mom and pop veg on the couch.

Almost anything will rate in this timeslot. The trick is to have one or two good shows in that slot during the week, that way the mindless masses get into the habit of tuning in at a certain time of day to watch. Once the habit is set you can then air whatever the latest garbage some smack addled exec dreamt up.

One other thing of note is that you don't want something to rate too well, you want it to rate just above your competitor. This way you keep the price for advertising high without it going through the roof. If something rates too high, because the price for advertising is proportional to the ratings, it will often be pulled because the advertisers are no longer willing to pay.

This is often why shows that rate well will somtimes get bumped to later, non rating timeslots. It brings up the advertising revenue for these later slots while keeping prime time affordable.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[FireFury03]

Quite a few foreign shows ended up excellent, despite the budget of what seems to be what the producers pulled out of their couch. Red dwarf (uk)

And notably, Red Dwarf went significantly down hill as soon as the beeb started shovelling money at them. The tackyness was part of the comedy and they just completely lost that part of it (also didn't help that the writers split up causing the script to turn to crap).

Having said all this, I haven't seen a good piece of comedy come out of the Beeb since Red Dwarf VI, which is really sad... especially since I fund them through my licence fee.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[taxevader]

How the hell did that post get modded +4 Funny?

Put it this way, does anyone really think that something like this wont happen? Of course it will. Whether with free cable or all you can eat or whatever other prizes the marketing execs will invariably dream up, coupled with the fact that 95% of the population would give an arm and a leg to be famous like Britney.. why the hell wouldnt this be an inevitable shift in programming?

It will happen.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[fermion]

The same argument can be used for law and order. It is a cheap show that requires minimal acting, minimal set dressing, minimal plots, and any hack can direct and edit it. It is in fact the ultimate solution in drama where a low price point is the overwhelming goal.

In the case of reality tv, and the virus of staged court tv, it comes down to cost. When profits are at stake, would a network rather have an expensive show suceed, even that expensive show would attract more viewers, or a show that cost half as much but attract 20% less viewers. Also in the equation, to the staged court tv advantage, is the fact the reality tv cannot be syndicated to generate additional profits.

A few producers still try to create interesting TV. The problem is that with the costs of sets, competant actors, reasonable writers, and simply trying to do a good job directing, the costs are too high. A network does a much better job giving stockholder value with Law and Order than with a traditional TV show. And since so much in entertainment is a matter of promotion, all they need to do is not promote the more expensive shows. That way they can claim that no one wants anything but reality, or psuedo reality, tv.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[CastrTroy]

Of course its cheap. Compare that to a sitcom. The stars of "Friends" were paid $1,000,000 an episode for the last few seasons. That's $6,000,000 an episode, just for 6 actors. Find me a reality show that costs them that much. Even "Extreme Makeover" where they tear down and rebuild an entire house every episode doesn't cost that much. A bunch of plane tickets for crew doesn't cost even close to what actors cost.

Re:The Dumbing-Down of America

[operagost]

Yes because the Bush administration forces these companies to air bullshit. You are all a bunch of morons. Spouting random anti-Bushisms does not constitute enlightenment.

My experiences with advertising

[DarkHelmet]

and whether we're paying attention while we're watching and even whether we're actually noticing the advertisements among the shows we may or may not be watching -- well, this is where things get tricky...

As someone who is recently starting to advertise (see below), that's one of the things that I'm finding much more difficult to determine.

For instance, advertising on google adwords, I see that my link gets 4,000 or so impressions. Does that mean that the person is even looking at the sponsored links on the side of the page? Taking it a step further, I had one day on google syndication that had 100,000 impressions. Only 60 or so people clicked through. I think a lot more internet viewers nowdays just glaze over ads.

I started doing advertisement by promoting on StumbleUpon. How do I know that the people reaching aren't annoyed with being redirected to a page they have absolutely no interest in? After all, on StumbleUpon, my page ends up fitting under web development. I'm sure all those people who are looking for things like SQL, CSS, or PHP tutorials must love me. 1600 hits. 0 emails. 0 signups. Maybe if they added a hosting section.

I'm thinking of moving my campaign off the internet, and into print / radio. But even then, how many people are just going to glaze through the ad when it's being played on the radio? For how many people I *might* appeal to, how many people will I *not* appeal to?

Ultimately, I guess advertising comes down to how much money I spend, versus how much I get back, relevance be damned. And I guess that's why spammers are around, after all. No, I will not start spamming people. That's just evil. Then again, Bill Hicks said, "Those of you who are in marketing and advertising, kill yourselves. You are satan's little helpers."

I really wish there were a way to just have my ad pop up for people who actually are interested in what I have to offer. Then I can leave everyone else the hell alone.

Re:My experiences with advertising

[bonch]

I really wish there were a way to just have my ad pop up for people who actually are interested in what I have to offer.

Well, I'll give you a little friendly advice. Whatever you do, please do NOT have your ad "pop up"! Pop-ups suck.

Why do they suck? Because it's forcing its message on me instead of me seeking it out. The only times I've ever interested in ads are when they are off to the side as a normal part of the site, often a text ad. "Here are some Thinkgeek shirts." I automatically tune out "FREE t-shirts! Click here!"

I tune out exclamation points, capital letters, and anything else that is actually done to get attention.

I like text ads. I will tolerate small banner ads, or benign ones that don't try to look like Windows dialogs and shake with a "YOU HAVE 1 NEW MESSAGE" message.

Without actually being able to see your ad specifically, it's harder to give you suggestions. But take it from a consumer you are targetting--don't make it look like an ad. Make it look like a bit of handy information. "Here's a good web development page" or whatever it is you're advertising. Don't do "WEB DEV--starting at $12.99 per month! Click here." I like to be told in a friendly way about stuff that is out there. I don't like it thrown at my head.

Re:My experiences with advertising

[F�an�ro]

I really wish there were a way to just have my ad pop up for people who actually are interested in what I have to offer. Then I can leave everyone else the hell alone.

Those who are really interested in what you want to offer, are seeking for you.
Those who are not seeking for you, but instead are reading some website, or watching tv, or listening to the radio, are right now not interested in you.

If you honestly only want to target people that are interested in you, you could for example try placing an add on google for the keyword "hosting". Or you could just make sure your site is found on google when someone searches for it. lots of options, none is perfect, but placing ads on random websites/stumbleupon/radio will not help you there.

Some of the people you target there might get interested, but all of them are at that time obviously more interested in someting else.

Re:My experiences with advertising

[SharpFang]

A real good way to draw attention is actually to DO provide some valuable free content. Give them some of that SQL, PHP or CSS, enough to draw links, enough to go up in pagerank, enough to prove your competence. From 5000-10000 people a day who will roll through your help files, 50-100 will actually need a place to host their content as well, and 5-10 will think "Oh, the guy who made these great instructions provides some decent webhosting space! How convenient".

I'm "banner-blind". I just don't notice most of banners on pages I quickly click through. But if for some reason I'm "forced" to stay on one website for a few days, I start noticing banners they display. The place gets familiar, I start noticing less visible elements, features, extras. I may throw a glimpse at the credits in the footer. I may check some other pages of the site, than the ones I just needed. And I start to see banners - usually sites display a small family of banners and I start recognizing them. Sometimes I will click them too, if I find them interesting (but not "smartass" - be sure I won't click on a banner that reads "don't click this banner"). I got a free shell account once. I was using it frequently and I liked it so much, that when the server went commercial, I started paying for it...
So - draw persistent attention to your website - make people stay there, provide quality free service. There's enough incompetent jerks who just look to rip people off, to trust my money to someone who has just empty words to support his claims. Penis enlargement pills are risk free too. And the price is quite low as well.

Re:My experiences with advertising

[periol]

A simple little url trick you can do is to advertise with a different entry page than you're main page. Say mydomain.com/google, with that page redirecting to your main site. At that point, you pretty much know any traffic to that page is from people who clicked on your advertisement, so you know just who's interested. It's not perfect, but it sounds like step-up from where you are now. Remember, with advertising, it's impossible to know whether or not it's worthwhile if you're not getting the right information.

Re:My experiences with advertising

[nacturation]

Well, here's some free advice. As with all free advice, consider what you paid for it. :)

First off, what kinds of keywords are you looking at? The web hosting market is one of the most saturated markets out there. If your keywords are all generic, then you're not likely to differentiate your service from any other service. So, try and find something that you're insanely great at. Maybe it's hands-on Perl/PHP scripting advice, maybe something else.

Once you've found that, target those keywords but don't just send them to your home page. Create separate pages for each of your keyword combinations. Whatever paragraph you supplied in Google Adwords, for example, should entice the person to click through for some specific benefit to them. So they get to this custom page which catches their interest with a great title and opening sentence or two. You have to make it look like it's something they want to keep reading. Then, for the rest of the page, go into detail about whatever benefit you outlined in your ad. At various points throughout, you should offer a reason for them to want to keep receiving information from you. Maybe you have a weekly article on making the most out of PHP/MySQL, available only through your newsletter. Maybe you have a draw for a free iPod shuffle. Find something that inspires your viewers to provide you with their email address.

Then, if they sign up for more information with their email address, you've achieved your goal. It'd be great to sell them on the first visit, but you're likely going to have to build a relationship. I've heard the statistic (lies or damned lies?) that it takes someone viewing your product/service an average of six times before they make a purchase decision. So that's why getting their permission for continued information is critical. If your content really is valuable and they see that you know your stuff, maybe they'll trust you enough to give hosting a try especially if there's a compelling reason to go with your hosting -- again, you should have something which differentiates your service.

In the end, sadly, it's a numbers game. But that doesn't mean that you can't still be ethical and above board in playing the game.

Re:My experiences with advertising

[xSauronx]

i never knew about netflix, despite them showering ads on sites i frequented for months...and i mean *never* knew about them. i didnt even notice bright red ads saying something about movies. i read a review of them linked from somewebsite once and have loved the service...but i never ever once noticed their advertisements

Re:My experiences with advertising

[cmacb]

I'm thinking of moving my campaign off the internet, and into print / radio. But even then, how many people are just going to glaze through the ad when it's being played on the radio? For how many people I *might* appeal to, how many people will I *not* appeal to?

Well, ya hit the nail right on the head missed by the NYT article (of course they have their own bias).

With almost any form of Internet advertising you know EXACTLY how many people paid attention to the ad. Nobody clicks on an ad for something they are totally disinterested in.

But for TV and print advertising even with the futuristic gadgets they are talking about deploying it is still a lot of guesswork.

The irony is that print and TV medias LIKES it that way. They entice advertisers with how many MILLIONS of viewers/readers they have and leave it to the advertisers imaginations as to how effective an ad with them will be.

Why do you think national print media is so timid about putting their entire content on the web? Wouldn't it make sense for them to say "Hey, in addition to our MILLIONS of subscribers your ad will be seen by tens of MILLIONS of people who view our content on the Internet!"

The only problem is they would be asked to offer some proof of that, and the results would cast doubt on how many people even read each article much less pay attention to the ads.

They don't get it, because they don't want to get it. After some of the current media conglomerates collapse, or their top execs die of old age there will be some change. While the predictions of that Flash presentation titled "EPIC" are a bit far fetched, the gist of it is true, these newspapers are going to end up being newsletters and all broadcast media will be the domain of short-wave hobbyists as Internet based on-demand media displace them.

Re:My experiences with advertising

[DarkHelmet]

Nono, you're thinking ads on google. The 100k impressions were on google syndication. You know those ads that appear on the side of webpages?

Those are allowed a FAR less clickthrough rate, since they figure people aren't actively looking for something the way they are on google.

Re:My experiences with advertising

[spagetti_code]

How do they do that?

Its pretty cool. After a program is recorded, a process starts up that scans the video file for what looks like ads. I believe it detects these by finding slow fades to black, still pictures and logos appearing.

When I get to watch a program (usually the next day, or a few days later), all the ads are gone.

It does occasionally get it wrong, and for those occasions (or when I am watching it as its being recorded) I have the trusty skip-30 and back-5 buttons.

Message to advertisers - dont overdo it!

[firehorsey]

Just last night we watched a movie on free to air and there was a 2-3 minute commercial break every 8 minutes. It was absurd (but a reminder why we pay $85 a month for Foxtel - which still gives you adverts, but not quite so often]).

We had plenty of time to go to the toilet, get drinks, fix snacks, let the cat in, feed the cat, let the cat out - cripes, and check emails.By the end of the movie we were so sick and tired of these products that we actively resolved to not ever by the damn things again.

Advertising works, but if you try and force feed and literally brainwash your potential customers we will eventually say - up yours!

Minority Report gets closer and closer

[Grrr]

RFID first, apparently - they're determined to mainstream it, either mixed under the audio (as detailed in the article) or Ad-ID...

<grrr>

american television = propaganda

[orufet]

okay, so that's not totally true, but for all intents and purposes, it is. and what isn't propaganda is mostly shows for stupid people ("lets see who'll get voted off the island next!") or for people who need to be told what they like ("you'll love this new mccdonalds deal").

Re:american television = propaganda

[Eternally optimistic]

That describes television in most countries.

I with honor can say...

[jvd]

I do not watch TV! -- Oh believe me, Puerto Rican TV stations suck man! You sit in your sofa, get confortable to watch TV and after 3 minutes you go like "Oh-ah, sckk!!" and pass out. Seriously, stay way off the Puerto Rican TV channels!

As long as it's on...

[djinn2020]

If it's on, anywhere in your general vicinity, you are "watching" it

Whether or not you're doing it consciously is debatable, but I know that when it's on in the background I zone back in to it and all of a sudden have a craving for Whataburger... mmm, Whataburger...

"Free" TV is a terrible deal

[btempleton]

One of the reasons for the failure path of advertising is that free, advertising-supported TV is a terrible deal for the viewer.

Common CPM for TV ads is $10, meaning one cent per viewer. The network gets a penny to show you a 30 second ad. If you watch 5 hours of TV, you will see an hour of those ads, and they get $1.20.

In other words, you get $1.20 worth of programming for watching an hour of advertising. $1.20 per hour is an illegal wage by a long margin in most places these days, and a terrible deal. It's no wonder we want to reject it.

The other big mistake the TV industry has made was in thinking the grail was full video on demand. Tivo and Netflix have shown that delayed-gratification video is more than satisfactory, and a lot cheaper to produce.

Some of these ideas are explored in my essay on the future of TV advertising and Poor Man's Video on Demand, which you may want to read.

Re:"Free" TV is a terrible deal

[RichDice]

While your posting has given me a lot of insight into the economics of TV advertising that I didn't have before, there is something you wrote I have to take to task:

In other words, you get $1.20 worth of programming for watching an hour of advertising. $1.20 per hour is an illegal wage by a long margin in most places these days, and a terrible deal. It's no wonder we want to reject it.

Another way of looking at this is that I get several millions of dollars' worth per hour of advertising I watched. After all, it cost that much to make those 4 hours of TV.

TV productions, once made, are non-rivalrous. That is, your having a zero-marginal-cost copy of it doesn't diminish the value of my copy of it. If it cost $10 million to make, and you and I each get a copy, then we only have to spend $5 million apiece to get $10 million worth of TV. What it sounds like in your advertising model is that we've got 8 million people sharing the cost, each paying about $1.20 for $10 million worth of production. That's a pretty good deal. (A similar economics is in play with cars: the marginal cost of a car is $20,000, but in buying it you receive the benefits of $100,000,000s worth of R&D effort. Economies of scale make the world go 'round.)

Cheers,
Richard

Re:"Free" TV is a terrible deal

[Weirsbaski]

Common CPM for TV ads is $10, meaning one cent per viewer. The network gets a penny to show you a 30 second ad. If you watch 5 hours of TV, you will see an hour of those ads, and they get $1.20.

In other words, you get $1.20 worth of programming for watching an hour of advertising. $1.20 per hour is an illegal wage by a long margin in most places these days, and a terrible deal.

By that logic, if networks upped their fee to 25 cents per ad per viewer (which amounts to $30 per hour of ads per viewer), then the deal automatically becomes a great one for viewers?

Re:"Free" TV is a terrible deal

[Capt'n Hector]

You too make a good point. But I think the grandparent was saying this: instead of watching that hour of advertising, you work for an hour and make anywhere between $5 and $50 dollars. Beyond that, fuck you. You send that money to the TV networks, and they give you not just 5 hours as they would had you sat in front of the TV watching ads but something more like 50 hours for the same amount of time.

Re:"Free" TV is a terrible deal

[RichDice]

Thanks... between this explanation and another reply posting, I understand your point a lot better.

I'm still trying to figure out how this is a bad deal in terms of who pays what to whom. The people who watch 1 hour of commercials in return for 4 hours of programming at least find this to be an acceptable trade. The people who pay broadcasters $1.20 per viewer-hour find this acceptable too. Whatever the differential is, this is the profit of the broadcasters. And it's not like they exerted no effort / spent no money to occupy this middleman position. It seems like a pretty standard business arrangement to me.

This is not to suggest that I'm a fan of the great gratis spectrum giveaway and the legal apparatus that perpetuates it in an age when it no longer makes any sense to, from a public interest point of view.

Obviously we're now in an age where disintermediation of the broadcasting middleman is practical and sensical to perform. It should be done. Production facilities are likely to get a better deal, and viewers (who now rightfully would be the paying consumers of the production) will certainly get more of what they want and at better prices, too. And I won't loose any more sleep for the passing of the broadcasting industry than I would for those who depend on another business model that fails in the face of technological innovation.

Cheers,
Richard

Invisible advertising

[darnok]

One thing I've noticed over the past few years is that TV advertising just doesn't register with me any more. I'll be watching TV with my partner, ads will come on and she'll ask me what I think about product X. I'll ask "What brought that question on?", she'll point at the TV and the ad will still be showing. It simply never registered with me at all.

After 42 years, it seems I've developed an excellent TV content filter, that just needs a bit more tweaking to filter out reality and "talent contest" programs to make me happy.

I'm curious: is anyone else in the same boat? Has advertising become effectively invisible to you?

Re:Invisible advertising

[darnok]

Another aspect is that, more than any other form, TV advertising seems to target *only* e.g. 12-15 year olds. I'm sure that's been the case for some time, but the advertising seems to have become more skewed away from other age groups over the past few years. Or maybe I've just gotten older ;->

It always amazes me that this age group is targetted above any others. At my age (early 40s), I've actually got money in the bank to spend (unlike many teenagers). My income is higher than 99.9% of teenagers, and more and more of it is becoming available for discretionary spending; my kids are close to starting work which will free up considerably more of *my* money for stuff I may want to buy. Unlike many teenagers, I'm not constrained by peer pressure when it comes to buying stuff; I'm more likely to be swayed by other peoples' experiences than anything else.

Why, why, WHY doesn't advertising target people my age? I don't particularly want to be targetted, but it just seems such a waste of time and effort to spend SO much effort selling things to teenagers when people in their 40s and 50s have so much more money to spend.

Re:Invisible advertising

[soupdevil]

If you're an advertiser, what pays off in the long run? Building brand loyalty for life with a 12 year old, or a 42 year old?

Ford vs Chevy, Coke vs Pepsi, these meaningless ways the average person uses advertising campaigns to define themselves, these loyalties are formed in the teen years. That's why cigarette and alcohol companies can't help but keep advertising to kids, even though it's now illegal. It's the only advertising that pays for itself for decades.

Re:Invisible advertising

[timeOday]

I found this thread interesting enough to look for some info, and I'm responding to what you wrote because it confirms what you said.

This is not from some media critic, or academic, but from the "Cable TV Ad Beaureau":

Our audience is deciding what they want. MTV's median age is exactly when a majority of young American adults begin to form life-long brand loyalties. Young adults 15-17 are excited consumers and extremely impressionable. Now is the time to influence their choices. 12-34 year olds have higher brand recall and more recognition than 35-49 year olds. In fact 69% make their purchasing decisions based on brand name, not price.

In short, they're looking to build lifelong loyalties, and hitting up the demographic with the highest cash-to-brains ratio.

Re:Invisible advertising

[16K Ram Pack]

Have a read of what you wrote: Unlike many teenagers, I'm not constrained by peer pressure when it comes to buying stuff; I'm more likely to be swayed by other peoples' experiences than anything else.

Why would advertisers want to target you, then? Advertising is the anti-word-of-mouth. It's about making you feel emotionally associated with a product so you will trust it over a competitor. Word of mouth is about trusting the product based on the experience of others. Advertising is often about selling a product for more than its real value - a pair of sunglasses for 3 times the price of an unbranded pair, just because it has a logo on it, and therefore will impress people. Once you realise that the only people it impresses are shallow bastards you wouldn't want to know anyway, the only advertising that works on you is fact-based advertising.

Advertising prefers young people because they are more easily persuaded by flashy, gimmicky things that they think will make their lives better. And over time realise that they rarely do. Meet people of certain ages and check out their hi-fis - young people have things with loads of LEDs, older people have a simple but better performing amp.

You've also learnt how to deal with things like peer pressure and how to live your own life for your own happiness. That makes you much harder to sell overpriced junk to.

You want to know a real kicker for advertisers? The internet is making it that the people who write about products are a massive group of individuals now. The fight used to be small-scale word-of-mouth and the odd newspaper column about a product. Now, the factual information and personal opinion base is massive.

I'd say that more often than not, before buying something over $100, I hit the net for opinions and scour around. Occassionally, I find a manufacturing trick, or a cute bit of lock-in and I move to another product. People post their experiences - little annoyances and the like that never come out from advertising.

Conflicts of Interest & a House of Cards

[G4from128k]

So many aspects of marketing are so squishy that it is easy for everyone to fool themselves into thinking that the ads are effective. All of the participants have a vested interest in spinning the impact of ads -- TV stations, ad agencies have obvious conflicts of interest in promoting TV ads. But even the marketing execs at companies do to as they judge their personal "size" by how many millions they spend on big ad campaigns.

I have no idea if TV ads are really seen or not or if they really work or not - they may well create some subliminal warm fuzzy about some heavily promoted product or brand.

I do know that ads can backfire. When a major (potato) chip maker launched a multi-million dollar "taste-test" TV ad campaign against its biggest competitor, the competitor's sales went up because the campaign got people thinking about the chips and they bought more of the competitor's brand. This anecdote suggests that ads are seen, but may not have the intended effect.

I suspect that the real problem is that companies are so desperate to reach and influence buyers that they will try anything.

Re:Conflicts of Interest & a House of Cards

[Saeger]

I recently did some web work for a big, evil pharma company via a marketing firm, and I found it amazing how much money they're willing to throw away on "marketing websites" that get virtually no traffic.

I submitted a "6month website status report" last week (because detailed webstats weren't wanted for some reason), and for all the thousands they've spent and will continue to spend on maintenance, the site only averages 12 unique visits per day (including SE bots)... and they're happy with this. *shrug*. The air up there...

Americans love punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans love watching punishment. So many of these reality shows have as their basis a climax which determines who amongst the contestants will be punished, either by banishment, being fired, or being told to eat disgusting things.

Re:Americans love punishment

[jericho4.0]

But it's so much more rewarding to mod them down.....

TV? Who needs it?

[mincognito]

"What percentage [of viewers] were young white men? .... The marketers -- the people who want to make sure they're reaching the right fragment with the right ad -- would love to know. But it's been getting hard to say." As a member of that particular demographic I'd wager it's less than they think. I cancelled my cable a few years ago and barely watch TV at all anymore. Most of my friends don't watch as much TV as they used to either. My entertainment hours are mostly spent on gaming and movies. I get my news from the web (IMHO TV is a medium unsuited for news). I do rent TV shows on DVD now and again.

Impact of TV on my life

[John Seminal]

TV is the worst possible waste of time a person can have. Episodic television is mind numbing. It is designed to have somoene sit in front of a television while countless hours go away, never to come back. For example, what good has come from Sinfield on humanity? Yada, yada, yada. Point made.

The only reason television exists is because of advertising, for companies to sell you stuff you don't need. They don't care about you, and in many instances insult you. You don't need a doctor to diagnose you, instead we'll tell you what you need and you shop to find a doctor to write you a prescription.

I wish I had back all the hours I had watching TV. It has harmed me. It lowered my attention span. It made me blow my money on crap I don't need, and really did not want, but was so taken in by models who look so hot convincing me I really do need it.

How many people come home from a long day at work, pop open a beer while tossing a frozen pizza in the oven, and then spend the rest of the night laughing at 3rd grade jokes?

And even for the good things that TV can do, it has failed us miserably. Did anyone catch Dean's comments to Democrats? Dean said democrats need to get better at the 10 second soundbyte, more catchy phrases, and to mainstream their message. The TV could be so much more. Chances are you can get more from the editorial section of the newspaper than in a half hour news program. And where is the science and history on TV? Maybe we will get a science channel once cable hits channel 700. *sigh*

How do I get all those hours back? How do I go on living knowing my formative years were spent watching the Dukes of Hazzard?

Re:Impact of TV on my life

[0racle]

It lowered my attention span. It made me blow my money on crap I don't need, and really did not want, but was so taken in by models who look so hot convincing me I really do need it.

You can whine all you want, it doesn't make it true. Ever heard of personal responsibility? Self Control? Watching TV didn't make you do anything, you chose to.

Re:Impact of TV on my life

[Mac Mini Enthusiast]

TV is the worst possible waste of time a person can have.
[SNIP]
It is designed to have somoene sit in front of a television while countless hours go away, never to come back.
[SNIP]
I wish I had back all the hours I had watching TV. It has harmed me.

And so says Slashdot user John Seminal, who has already posted 15 times to slashdot today within the past 8 hours, and at least 9 posts yesterday (there might be more posts prior to those 9, slashdot cuts off backposts after some number).

How do I get all those hours back? How do I go on living knowing my formative years were spent watching the Dukes of Hazzard?

Well, apparently your post-formative years were spent lapping up the postings and dupes of Taco and company, is that really much of an improvement?

This is where people start debating that internet is better than TV for whatever reasons - you can learn from it, you can choose your content, you can interact with people, etc. I'll put in my two cents and say that all those things are true, but on the other hand surfing the web is an all-engaging experience. As opposed to the other things as you watch TV.

So I don't see why it is necessarily worse if I watch, in your words, third-grade jokes as I'm folding laundry, cleaning my room, eating dinner by myself, etc, as opposed to the incessant hours you apparently spend reading and posting to slashdot.

Re:Impact of TV on my life

[dustinbarbour]

And where is the science and history on TV?

In Las Vegas those channels reside in the following locations:

• Discovery Channel (though it is generally lacking now - OCC anyone?): 25
• History Channel (love it): 43
• Discovery Science (what the Discovery Channel was supposed to be): 102
• Discovery Times: 104
• Military Channel (Discovery CHannel for military history, etc): 105
• Discovery HD (digital subscription): 700
• PBS HD (same as above): 730 (?)

There are others, I'm sure. I just don't watch enough TV to remember them all off hand. So, the channels do exist.

Maybe we will get a science channel once cable hits channel 700.

Such seems to be the case.

Re:Impact of TV on my life

[John Seminal]

You can whine all you want, it doesn't make it true. Ever heard of personal responsibility? Self Control? Watching TV didn't make you do anything, you chose to.

The television producers and stations hire psychologists to think of ways to make people keep watching. Plus, they hook you as a kid.

Television is addictive like smoking cigarettes. You can get hooked to stupid storylines. They do use simple emotional manipulation to keep interest.

So no, it is not about personal responsibility because it is not a pure choice a person can make without outside influence. It is stacked to favor television. With all the money for just one show, such as when Friends paid each cast member one million dollars per episode, can you honestly say the television producers are not using unfair tactics to make people watch.

I'll give you one example. You make a show and get some simple story arch with emotional attachment. You add to that show some new style, say bell bottom pants. You make the "uncool" people look different. Welcome to CHiPs and the 70's. Then you make shows that exude wealth and prestege. A $100 haircut is no longer a waste of money, it is a status symbol. Shoes, that never crossed the $100 mark all of a sudden start costing multiples of $100. Welcome to the 1980's.

People who do not join the new style become outcasts. I knew a smart kid back in high school. His life was a living hell because no matter how hard he tried finding cool clothing, they just did not have it at K-Mart in the early 1990's. The only expensive thing this kid owned was a HP 48gx. His father was a person who insisted everyone get haircuts at home, and he forced them to watch nothing but PBS. This kid went on to an Ivy league school, but I bet you he is unhappy about being excluded from everything as a child.

People stop thinking critically while watching television, it is called suspension of disbelief. If it is on television, there is a large group of people who will believe it. Yet put it in print, and people become more sceptical. I guess it is easier to believe something if you see Bill O'Rielly telling it to you.

Re:Impact of TV on my life

[maxpublic]

You're (presumably) sentient. You have free will. Regardless of the psychology involved the replying poster is correct: TV didn't "make" you do anything. You chose to do what you did. And that's entirely your own fault. Blaming anyone or anything else is just ducking responsibility for your actions.

Max

OMG long article

[Cytlid]

Well, I read the first few pages. Let me start out with a disclaimer, lately, I've come to hate TV. There's very few shows I watch and most are a waste of time.

I've always thought... isn't there some technical way to find out what people are watching, anonymously? Like, from PVR prefs or recordings, draw on broadcast antennas (radio or broadcast tv/cable)? I mean, I know my website sucks because it gets like 150 hits a month if I'm lucky. And that's only the ones I probably do myself.

Hell throw out incentive. My grocery store gets my "vote" for what sort of laundry detergent I like because our family buys it all the time, amd obviously its popular because there's tons of coupons for it. Can't they do that with TV? I'll sign up for HBO if you knock a couple of bucks off the bill every month for having me do some (online and accurate) poll.

Maybe this is some kinda weird test by the NYT. Since when did they start having articles you could read without going through their silly registration process?

Re:OMG long article

[thebes]

Maybe this is some kinda weird test by the NYT. Since when did they start having articles you could read without going through their silly registration process?

It's called partner=rssnyt. Why more don't post NYT articles with it is beyond me.

Living without a tv is entirely possible

[BassZlat]

I'm sure many others will say this.

I've been living without a TV for almost 2 years now, and honestly I missed it badly only during the first few months. After that, I discovered that I'm actually getting much more rest while at home, feel generally less-stressed, and most importantly - can concentrate on strenous coding tasks for longer stretches at a time.

And following the tv show "you can't live without" is just as easy thanks to bittorrent.. ;-)

I'm an oddball

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a teen, yet I never (NEVER) watch TV. Ironically, I have one in my room.. It gets used as a blue light source but nothing else. Honestly, I don't miss it. Programming is crap from what I'd experienced, and it bores me. I'd rather chill out with any book on my shelf. (Several Jim Morrison biographies and The Outlaw Bible of American Poetry right now)

TV is boooring. Get my news online, get my entertainment from playing guitar, writing poetry, reading, listening to music, playing games, hanging out with my gf. Honestly, it doesn't hurt to work the brain muscles a tad. Or the fingers. ;)

Another weird thing I've noticed

[bonch]

Anyone remember when there were 2-3 seconds of black silence between commercials? I remember noticing it, as the years passed, decrease and decrease. Now, there is no gap at all. One commercial blasts away, ends, and the next one comes immediately blasting away.

At least let me take a breather between "commercial messages!" I genuinely think commercial watching was a more pleasant experience just ten years ago. There are a few gems ("It's so easy, even a caveman can do it"), but for the most part even the jokes are completely unfunny, and the car commercials are so phoney that I know nothing about the car other than it looks good on a wet mountain turn.

I didn't used to feel this way. There used to be a time I'd sit through commercials and didn't mind them. They've gotten steadily stupider and repetitive, even ripping each other off.

Re:Another weird thing I've noticed

[Otter]

Anyone remember when there were 2-3 seconds of black silence between commercials? I remember noticing it, as the years passed, decrease and decrease. Now, there is no gap at all. One commercial blasts away, ends, and the next one comes immediately blasting away.

This is a wholly uninformed guess, but -- I'd imagine that is a result of technological improvement in TV studio equipment, not a policy change.

I didn't used to feel this way. There used to be a time I'd sit through commercials and didn't mind them. They've gotten steadily stupider and repetitive, even ripping each other off.

Yeah, and remember how music used to be cool and now it all sucks? Sorry -- you're just getting old.

Re:Another weird thing I've noticed

[MyLongNickName]

Commercials used to be more informative, that's for sure. Now commercials are designed to elicit emotions more than the brain. I'm not too old (early 30's)... but I had to do a small research project where I was looking at old 50's television. The commercials were plain bad from a cinemographic point of view, but I actually got facts about the product, not "you need this to look cool, and if you don't you are a loser that will be made fun of by all of your coworkers and neighbors".

But, that is just my two cents :)

Did you hear?

[Senjutsu]

You made the news!

Americans need a serious wake up call

[antifoidulus]

I saw something at Best Buy the other day that really stopped me in my tracks: A refridgerator with a television built in. I thought to myself, "Who the fuck watches television to the point that they need one on their fridge?" And yet there it was, manufactured by LG(Koreans taking us down!). Now, I'm not saying that TV is totally worthless, I personally enjoy the Daily Show and South Park, but I think Americans are way too addicted to the television....it's time to back away before it's too late....

Re:Americans need a serious wake up call

[robstamack]

Actually, I used to make the exact same comments about the exact same refrigerators until a (not so close) friend moved to Korea. Apparently the living space in the majority of apartments there is excruciatingly small, thus they learned to combine appliances to reduce wasted space.

Inevitably an international company is going to inject new products into a foreign market with the hope that the recipient country will be as receptive as the domestic market.

Re:Americans need a serious wake up call

[Spock_NPA]

Some people like to have a television set in the kitchen so they can follow along the cooking program while preparing a televised recipe.. and guess where the refrigerator is found in most homes? That's right, the kitchen.

So in fact, I think combining TV and refrigerator is a brilliant move if targeted at the right audience.

In Partial Disagreement With the Above

[Staplerh]

I'll admit that you make several valid points, but overall your post reaks of intellectualistic superiority. First of all, it's dangerous to condemn the 'masses' for enjoying television after a long day at work. I'm sure you waste your time on something as well, although slashdot.org may seem like a more stimulating pursuit, for example, it is still really not accomplishing anything.

The TV could be so much more. Chances are you can get more from the editorial section of the newspaper than in a half hour news program. And where is the science and history on TV? Maybe we will get a science channel once cable hits channel 700. *sigh*

Perhaps it's because I'm up here in Canada, but it seems as if we have plenty of quality programing. Documentaries on CBC constantly interest; a recent one documented a National Guard battallion deploying to your ongoing War in Iraq. Television as a media can convey things that you can't read about to the same degree, and television allows lower-quality productions.

As for history, our History channel here does occasionally present valuable historical documentaries, although I'll conceed that their presentation of 'JAG' three times a day does diminish their esteem. But heck, sometimes it's fun to kick back and watch 'JAG', ridicule the rediculous plotlines and turn off the brain.

So while I do understand your argument, and conceed its validity in some parts, I find it hard to pass blanket condemnation of television.

I am not a Nielsen!

[iminplaya]

I am a free man!

Kill your Television!

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

I did, in 1989, and haven't looked back since.

I've seen some shows at friend's houses. Sienfield, 90120, etc. It's crap, tripe, purile and pointless.

In place of a TV, I have a library of over 2000 books. History, sciences, arts (H.R. Giger rules!), fiction, biographies, the list goes on.

I've taken up writing (short stories written already, novel due soon) playing the guitar, building models, doing SCCA Solo II, and find the time not wasted by watching the boob tube to be so much more.....valuable, productive, enjoyable, you name it.

There was a video link on ebaumsworld recently which was a compliation of the crap that's currently on TV. I was appalled and it only reinforced my view that killing my TV in 1989 was a good thing.

Re:Kill your Television!

[back_pages]

I did, in 1989, and haven't looked back since.

I don't recall asking...

I've seen some shows at friend's houses.

So you're saying you've got a friend? I can't help but notice your use of the singular possessive...

It's crap, tripe, purile and pointless.

HOLY COW TV IS CRAP?! Someone get this guy on Dateline! Jesus man, thanks for TELLING me!

In place of a TV, I have a library of over 2000 books.

You either had a gigantic TV or you buy some tiny ass books.

History, sciences, arts (H.R. Giger rules!), fiction, biographies, the list goes on.

I've heard of the Dewey Decimal system too. Quit being a showoff.

I've taken up writing (short stories written already, novel due soon) playing the guitar, building models, doing SCCA Solo II, and find the time not wasted by watching the boob tube to be so much more.....valuable, productive, enjoyable, you name it.

Ok, thanks for the invitation. Pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, and a plea for attention.

There was a video link on ebaumsworld recently which was a compliation of the crap that's currently on TV. I was appalled and it only reinforced my view that killing my TV in 1989 was a good thing.

This one time, in 1987, I saw a magazine catch on fire. That's all the proof I know that owning magazines will burn your house down.

I think you and I should get together sometime and put together model airplanes or something.

(I guess this is a flame or whatever but only if you have to take yourself so seriously that you can't laugh at yourself. Hm, gloating that you threw away your TV and bought 2000 books... Taking yourself too seriously to laugh at yourself... Screw it, I'll just take a hit on this one.)

Re:Kill your Television!

[porcupine8]

But how much time do you spend perusing equally pointless content on the web? Like, say, ebaumsworld? I watch 1.5-2 hours of TV a week. But I easily spend 20 or more hours a week reading shit on the web that is only marginally more "intellectual," if that. I'm not fooling myself into thinking I'm better than anyone else for not watching much TV - I know I get my share of media junk food one way or another.

Re:Kill your Television!

[clambake]

I did, in 1989, and haven't looked back since.

If you happen to read a newspaper by chance, the war in Iraq is the SECOND one, and George Bush is actually the SON of the guy you're thinking about. Yeah, I know.

Slashdot ratings for TV?

[nxtr]

FOX News Channel
Score: -1 Flamebait

Family Guy
Score: +5 Funny

Golf Channel
Score: 0 (who the hell watches it?)

Re:P.S. Just saw your sig

[DarkHelmet]

You have an interesting point there... As you can see, I changed my sig to something that sounds a little bit more like a sentence, and less like an exclamation.

Here's something of interest, though:

https://adwords.google.com/select/tips.html

From the page here:

Use a strong call-to-action.

• Use a call-to-action to prepare your audience for what you want them to do.
• Make sure that this phrase is unique and specific to your business so that it is more informative and compelling and distinguishes you from the competition.

Example: "Register for membership now," "Save on DVDs," "Get cheap stereos," or "Join now for 20% discount."

I think what's going on here is that I'm targetting a different market (oh God, what have I become), than on Google adwords. Since it's an expected advertising environment, they want you to use strong "advertiser" words like that.

Here, since it's just a forum, people don't want stuff that's as blaring or strong.

Lesson learned. I do programming for a living, so I'm new to add this. Thanks for being patient :)

what you are missing

[bluGill]

You (and most internet advertisers) are missing one important part of advertising: name recognition. McDonald's is well aware that nobody suddenly says "I'm hungry, lets go to McDonald's" when their ads come on. They just need me to remember them when I am hungry latter.

If they thought the ad was a factor in the decision they wouldn't waste their money advertising outside of meal hours. There is no reason to think I will go to McDonald's at 3pm when their ad comes on. They just want to be sure when I'm hungry their name is considered. (And because it is fast food, when I'm hungry I get satisfied then)

You need to target your ads in the same way. It isn't about click thorough, it is about name recognition. So long as you are targeting the right people, and they see/hear your name, you have succeeded even if they don't click your ad.

Well, there is one other reason to advertise: You like and want to support a program. Not a good one, but if you are choosing between two otherwise equal (band for buck) forums, it is a good one.

McDonald's is a good example. I haven't been to one in a long time, but they are the first thing that comes to mind when I want an example.

Paid at both ends

[FullCircle]

What really pissed me off (thus no more cable) is that I'm paying for cable channels and after prime time almost all of them are infomercials!

Why should I pay for content that I'm not getting while these TV spammers pay to show their commercials all night?

I think we deserve 50% off for those 12 hours of infomercials.

Don't even get me started on 8 minutes of content between commercials. You barely get interested again before the next break. Then they run another lower third animated graphic over the top of the current show telling what comes on later.

Greedy bastards.

My take on television

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

When I used to watch TV regularly, it was during the work week, to relax a bit before sleeping. Ads did not help that at all. I would get interested in a program, until the advertisements came on, at which point I would start flipping channels. Inevitably I would stop on something else that I found entertaining, until it got to ads, where I would start flipping again, and often return to the original program I was watching. Of course, this habit led me to watch three or four different programs simultaneously, and not really understanding any of them. To address this, I started staying on one channel, but would mute the ads as soon as they came on. I kept a novel at hand to read while the ads were on, and would periodically glance up to see if my programming was back on. More often than not, I got absorbed in the book I was reading and ended up ignoring the TV. Now, my television sits on a shelf collecting dust. I read more, I get my news from the BBC and CBC websites, and I seem to be much better insulated from the juvenile and nonsensical drivel that is popular culture. The television medium needs to improve, or die.

Re:My take on television

[zpok]

"Television is ... for forgetting that there are thousands of people somewhere in the world that want to kill you."

Geez, it's really true then, Americans are pathetically scared of everything.

Every time a US star doesn't want to go to Luxembourg or France or whatever because of fear for the Taliban, the world is laughing.

Let's say that given the state the world today is in, if your only concern is fear for your life in the most militarized police state/democracy in the world, you should consider watching TV to forget you're the laughing stock of the world.

Not an attack on the US or US citizens, but on a state of mind that's too stupid for words. Go outside your borders and find out what the rest of the world looks like. You might be pleasantly surprised and forget your ridiculous fear. Ye gods, do you see the Irish or Spanish cowering in front of their TV set?

There's a whole lot more to be scared about than ONE attack in a couple of hundred years with less than two thousand dead as a result - all horrible and sad, but gods, compare with the rest of the world and be happy, or go out and fight in Bush's proud army and make others fear you, either way, get over it.

OK, I'm starting to flame here, but instead of deleting this, I'll just risk my precious karma in the hopes that you'll get angry and after that think about this fear thing a bit more open minded.

The world is not out to Kill Americans. Not more than it's out to Kill Frenchies, Blacks, Whites, Christians, Arabs, whatevers!!!! There's always a crazy person when you don't need one.

And compared to a lot of places, the US is a haven of freedom and opportunity to make something of your life. Maybe not my favourite country, but who cares? You? Don't. Fear, my friend is a lousy companion.

Thanks for that

[dimator]

"This long New York Times article (10 pages; no registration required) reports on the mismeasure of television (TV)."

Thanks for letting us know that "TV" refers, in fact, to "television" in the article synopsis. I was ready to pull up Webster's, had you not interceded.

Re:P.S. Just saw your sig

[DarkHelmet]

Here's the strange thing...

There actually are lots of people who have clicked.

I get more referrals from slashdot than I do from google adwords. I wouldn't have imaged that either.

But then, there are a lot of things that people order online that I wouldn't fathom.

For instance, I could never imagine buying jewelry online. There's a large market for it. I couldn't imagine buying flowers, or gift baskets. I couldn't imagine buying sunglasses. I'm one of those people who has to simply buy some things in person.

But yes, people actually do click the links on this site. Strange as that may be.

Agree 100%

[bani]

I disconnected cable long ago. I was tired of paying $50/mo for tripe.

TLC killed off all their worthwhile shows and turned into the "home improvement and biker channel".
Scifi channel turned into the "John edwards show".
Paramount pretty much permanently killed star trek with "Voyager" and "Enterprise".
FOX cancelled Futurama.

The rest? Well, I can get them in DVD box sets, an entire season at a time, with commentary and extras, without any commercials, and watch them whenever I want. It's a hell of a lot cheaper, too.

I recall reading somewhere that for the first time in history since the introduction of television, viewership is actually going down . It honestly wouldn't suprise me.

YOU ARE THE PRODUCT

[disposable60]

Never forget, YOU are the PRODUCT being sold to the advertisers. The shows are produced to maximize sales. Of you. To advertisers.

Re:P.S. Just saw your sig

[Electroly]

I think Slashdot signatures are actually an *exceptional* way to advertise geek-related things. What other way can you get advertising INLINE with the comments people are already reading? Additionally, people subconsciously trust "real humans" (as much as a Slashdotter can be considered a real human) more than faceless ads on webpages.

I know I myself signed up with my current hosting provider because I saw a link in someone's sig that looked like a great deal. Turned out to be a fantastic deal, I signed up, and that guy assuredly got a kickback.

Re:P.S. Just saw your sig

[kbranch]

I think people follow links in sigs because it's coming from an individual that's promoting something that actually means something to them instead of some corporation that's just trying to squeeze more cash from people. I completely ignore all web ads (text or otherwise), but I followed your sig.

I currently have 500 MB of space and 5 GB/month free for 3 years through 1and1, but I'll probably check your site out again when that expires.

My wife watches TV as background noise..

[the_rajah]

When she's gone the TVs in the house are OFF. If she's gone for several days, the TV is OFF for all that time. When I'm in a room by myself, the TV is OFF. When we started living together six years ago, she had a TV going 24 hours a day including while we were sleeping. I finally convinced her that she could sleep if it was off and she told me the next day that she had not slept so well in years, I said, "DUH!".

I get my news from the Internet and I get it when I want it and in the degree of detail that I select. I don't want things predigested into a 30 second story and force fed to me. Entertainment on TV? Blech!! There's no entertainment worth watching on TV. "Reality" shows are NOT reality, they are garbage. The various series are uninspired nowadays, or maybe I'm just jaded, but what's the difference?

I don't know if there's much hope for TV, but given the braindead majority of the population, it'll probably go on like this for decades to come. I'm just glad those of us who are capable of thought have options like the Internet, books, live performances and lots of activities that don't involve TV.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Watching the Detectives

[Doc Ruby]

They're measuring the wrong test point. There's no real understanding of the causal relationship between watching an ad and buying the product, let alone watching a show containing an ad and purchase, or hearing a show and making a purchase. It's all statistical correlation, which implicitly takes many causal paths into account, like word of mouth. They should stop pretending they have the mechanics understood, and just need some data about the human/receiver interface. They should instead study the mass psychology, sociology of ad messages, and other statistical dynamics that actually help predict the group behavior they're trying to control. But of course they won't: Arbitron and Neilsen are in the "measurement" business, and don't know how to sell anything else. However, as measurable webcasts become more of the media market, they'll get their data easily at the servers, and their model stil won't be complete. So they'll eventually have to turn to the statistical analysis anyway. Bottom line: TV will continue to suck indefinitely, and misinformed TV execs will continue to think they're geniuses.

RIP Junkyard Wars

[edremy]

I remember the first time I saw this show. I was totally hooked. Nutty people, hosts who knew enough to ask interesting questions, and a whole pile of basic engineering in simple crayon animations. What a briliant idea. Then again, it was from Britain.

Then the american version appeared. Louder, noisier, with inane hosts and manufactured "conflict" between the teams where there used to be good natured competition. Less and less science, more and more "garage cam". Builds where clever engineering was forgotten in favorite of getting the best planted junk.

Now, it is no more. Instead, I can watch decorating show marathons. Or not- I haven't turned on TLC in months.

Re:RIP Junkyard Wars

[edremy]

Nope, that was the British version, save for some multi-country specials. The American version had some posturing idiot called Rossi.

The British version also had Cathy, the ultimate geek dream girl. Not only both easy on the eyes and a talented singer, but the entire series was her idea. She dreamed it up after watching Apollo 13 with the bit where they had to make a filter housing out of junk laying around the capsule.

Re:RIP Junkyard Wars

[eyeball]

Then the american version appeared. Louder, noisier, with inane hosts and manufactured "conflict" between the teams where there used to be good natured competition. Less and less science, more and more "garage cam". Builds where clever engineering was forgotten in favorite of getting the best planted junk.

This trend disturbs me so much. I don't watch that much TV, but I caught a commercial for "Impossible Heist" on court TV. Looked interesting, teams would compete do all kinds of "Oceans 11" types of staged break-ins and robberies. Well, I had to turn it off it after 10 minutes. It started out with the team members bitching about the people on the other teams, and even people on their own team.

From what glimpses I've seen of reality TV is they're all like this. What really gets me is that people will probably accept this as normal behavior, and do this in real life -- badmouth co-workers, spouses, children, parents, etc, all for attention. I know people do this anyway, but I'm afraid it will increase this behavior.

Re:P.S. Just saw your sig

[FLEB]

Along those lines, it's also more convincing because it's a real person who is putting their personal credibility on the line on a board like this, as opposed to a blurb written by someone you'll never meet, much less be able to bark out should it be fake.

My take on television

[isny]

Television is not for education. Or entertainment. It's for idling your mind after a stressful day of work or for forgetting that there are thousands of people somewhere in the world that want to kill you. After 9/11 (in a post 9/11 world...), I watched so much news, I got addicted. Now, I try not to watch or listen to the news due to the depression I got afterwards. I still am addicted to checking the news on the web, but reading about it doesn't burn out the mind as much as seeing and hearing images of death and misery.

Portable People Meter flawed

[RyatNrrd]

I can't remember whose law it was, but whoever said it was certainly right here: you cannot measure something without changing the measurement. Of course it's easy to see how entrusting someone to keep a diary of what they've watched can be abused. The set-top people meter illustrates this: if my preferences were being recorded, of course I'd be much more discerning in what I watched. If I came home one evening and really wanted to switch my brain off and rest, without a people-meter box I might ... conceivably ... though of course this has never happened ... I might watch Survivor or Idol. But if this activity was directly supporting the creation of such crap I would make sure I NEVER watched it.

Same goes for the Portable Meter. If my perferences were being recorded, I would OF COURSE avoid commercial radio stations, Muzak I didn't like, and the myriad other things that I'd suddenly become aware of. I'd want to buck the system, baby. Everything I did would suddenly become a moral judgement: "If this little box detects that I'm doing this, then there'll be more of this in the world: Do I want that?"

And anyway, what type of person volunteers to wear a Portable People Meter? Is it someone extroverted enough to not mind having their lives analysed by advertising industry grunts? Is it someone idealistic enough to want to mess up these measurements? Is it the cunning and selfish person who is willing to sacrifice a little privacy in order to get more of the type of TV shows that they like? Are these normal people?

TV propaganda evolved the American culture

[Cryofan]

American television is in the business of farming, farming willing consumers, farming willing corporate citizens, farming conformance. THey are in the business of breeding, of evolving a particular brand of American, one who works a lot and consumes a lot. One who is patriotic (translation: is easily manipulated by trigger cues appealing to sentimentality). One who is for the most part apathetic about voting and who accepts authority. One who accepts people of different cultures/races in the workplace (the better to flood the labor supply, my dear). One who is easily scared by TV propaganda so that military power can be used to invade and open new markets for the corporations that own the TV stations and networks.

Just as prehistoric hunters, pastoral peoples and farmers domesticated cattle and sheep and dogs, etc., so too has the economic elite (through TV, primarily) domesticated a certain breed of homo sapiens. Just as those humans of long ago bred their domesticated animals generation after generation for certain desirable characteristics, so too has the economic elite produced us Americans by altering our culture. THey didn't evolve us physically, but culturally. And TV is the primary tool.

Re:Battlestar Galactica

[steve_bryan]

I was around when the original BG came out and I don't know why anyone considers it as anything but embarrassing. It was so bad I almost didn't give the new show a chance but decided to watch because of the actors. I'm pleased that I did and have been quite pleased with their efforts. I suppose it might be a little like the relationship between the original Star Trek and TNG. I still have a fondness for the original series and for most of its run TNG is better and many ways, especially the quality of the acting and writing.

Maybe its a formative thing and you were the right age when the original was shown. I was probably too old by the time the original BG appeared. In any case I would stongly recommend that others who were uninterested in the original BG take a look at the current series, especially since it is now going to be available in HD.

TLC

[YrWrstNtmr]

Even friggin' TLC has reality shows now. It's insane. And sad (anyone remember when TLC was shown in schools because it always ran educational content?).

TLC has gone from The Learning Channel to The Ladies Channel.

The secret of coppper mountain

[Anonymous Coward]

I will reveal the dark secret of the 0-15 demographic.

Outside of brand and product awareness, most people over the age 25 are "statistically unaffected by advertising"*. Most people under the age of 16 are heavily influenced, with a significant decrease each year after, ending at the age of 25. This is not because "brand loyalty" is established by that age. "Brand loyalty" does not exist. "Brand laziness" does exist, but it is really the opposite of loyalty and is almost impossible to advertise for.

The 0-15 demographic is called the 18-24 demographic when speaking to the public for obvious reasons. This is the dirty secret of the industry: You are not targeted because it is so much easier to convince a seven year old of something than a 40 year old. The amount of money it would cost to convince you is more than the profit to be had.

On an end note: The 0 - 15 demographic was previously known as the 4 - 18 demographic. We all seem to be getting more sophisticated.

* "statistically unaffected by advertising" = cost to influence > profit

I had a Nielsen STB.

[azmeith]

Thats 'set top box' for those not in the know. They paid me and my roommate 50 bucks for every six months we had it and handed us a remote. Everytime one of us turned on the TV, the person(s) were supposed to press a number on the remote. If there were any outsiders, they were to press yet another number. We kind of did it for about a week, after that we sort of _lost_ the remote. And its crap anyway. My roomie would leave CSPAN on all day and night on Saturday just to _quote_ fuck with the eggheads ... with MBA's _quote_. Since then I have met a two more people who had the STBs and did pretty much the same, although their sentiments regarding that were expressed differently.

And I still havent figured out how they can extrapolate from the miniscule (relatively speaking) slice of society that they listen in on (a large %age of whom would most probably behave like us). I am no expert in polling, but even assuming that they have a statistically relevant set of subjects as in a scientific poll, it still seems flaky at best. And yes I know that estimating properties/behaviors on a collection is far easier and more accurate than estimating properties of an individual entities. Its just that humans are not atomic particles who have to obey the laws of physics, and AFAIK group pschycology still has some way to go.

I do not doubt the fundamental correctness of their assumptions, algorithms and techniques, but somehow I have a feeling that someone quite like Karl Rove figured out that they could fleece a shitload of money off of PHBs in tv land by using fancy math/science words, which they knew the PHBs wouldnt understand (and probably wouldnt care about), while promising them the marketing dept's holy grail, did it, and are still getting away with it.

Ahh, The American Dream

[KZigurs]

"Look, Ma, I'm ON TV!"

And that's, I'm afraid, is the main reason why the programming will just go worse and worse. Because at any time there will be a guaranteed watchers base, if not for the sheer excitement over watching those poor dumbasses being abused in front of the camera, then for the chance that "ONE DAY I could be THERE too, Ma!"

Badger, badger?

[wild_berry]

Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger mushroom mushroom.

Flash animations, they really replace low-quality television with something better...

Re:P.S. Just saw your sig

[wild_berry]

Don't worry, I'm in the process of patenting it. The methods detailed include the specification of a "(1),(2),'(3) ???','(4) Profit!'" system, the registry of computer-directed users, the use of computer-directed users to post contextually appropriate messages and the inclusion of advertising taglines in the signatures.

I'm at the ??? stage with respect to guaranteeing succesful sales from this method: I can't find a way to ensure that the materials advocated by my system will be attractive and high-enough quality to get sales. Perhaps that's Someone Else's Problem.

I call it: the slashbot. Comes with Free iPod.

Re:Flaimbait Fodder

[Trinn]

The only trouble with novels (and I watch very little TV and would love to read more) is that for someone like me who can go through an average sized to large novel in one to two days, this quickly becomes an expensive proposition, especially when you aren't the sort of person who tends to re-read books (or re-watch movies, etc.). About the only books I've ever re-read are books with some sort of reference quality to them...maybe I'm strange, but I just don't get the same enjoyment out of a story once I've already experienced it once. The rare exception comes when its something I haven't read in a long time, or, especially in the case of a movie, something that's really funny / quotable (and thus fun w/ friends).