Slashdot Mirror
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..."
From the article:
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!
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
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!
RFID first, apparently - they're determined to mainstream it, either mixed under the audio (as detailed in the article) or Ad-ID...
<grrr>
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").
The Cryptography Forum is new and needs help
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...
Mens et Manus
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.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
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?
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
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.
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?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
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..
Don't go silently into that peaceful night
You made the news!
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....
Monstar L
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.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
I am a free man!
What?
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
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
FOX News Channel
Score: -1 Flamebait
Family Guy
Score: +5 Funny
Golf Channel
Score: 0 (who the hell watches it?)
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.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
"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.
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
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.
Never forget, YOU are the PRODUCT being sold to the advertisers. The shows are produced to maximize sales. Of you. To advertisers.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
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.
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.
--
make install -not war
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.)
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.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
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 has gone from The Learning Channel to The Ladies Channel.
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.
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.