Correction to my above post: They started at over 20K/week (they were up to 100K per episode by season 3 or 4, I believe...I don't know how the "/year" in my post crept in.)
Yeah, they must have been suffering on the $100,000/year they were making. Poor nobodies. The show was costing ~2-3 million per episode even back then; my point is that all the numbers in TV production are inflated by the cost of marketing and promoting the shows. Before the show was popular, a lot of people were still making good money (certainly better than 100K) for doing the work involved with putting on a national production on a major network.
That's a pretty reasonable explanation. I've got family in production, but the actual operations of affiliate broadcasting are a mystery to me. Thanks!
"The problem is that what you're saying is crap. Of course they use focus groups -- but you seem to think this means it's some sort of programming of people, rather than (duh!) figuring out what shows people like and what they don't."
No, you're just not paying enough attention. I'm not asserting that people are "programmed" to like TV. The discussion started about the big numbers involved in TV production. You asserted that it was a function of the show's popularity, and I pointed out that your view is naive: successful shows require enough money to pay the in-demand specialists who can craft shows based on what people like, and to launch successful nationwide advertising in every market to encourage folks to give the show a chance.
"That you can reduce human behavior to such simplistic concepts tells me that you know zip about cognitive psychology."
That you can reduce the finished product of a highly refined production process to "it's a good show that people like" tells me that you know zip about television production and advertising, and I base this opinion on my personal experiences and conversations with the people who, you know, produce television shows and advertising.
"What an asinine thing to assume about a 26-year-old military vet."
'Oh, well, if you're TWENTY-SIX... sheesh. Normally an arrogant personality like yours doesn't lose their youthful arrogance at 26.'
A cute comment, especially from a 40-year-old arrogant enough to make unqualified statements about another's personality based on a few/. comments. I think you've confused your own prejudgments with some sort of "wisdom of age," and are now trying to somehow apply this to an industry with which you obviously have no connection.
"I'm always willing to modify my understanding of things, but so far, you haven't given me any rational arguments, only paranoid rantings. Sorry, but cynicism is not a replacement for logical thinking."
I don't know why any of this is cynical or paranoid. Nothing I've said is any sort of industry secret, and the firms that make money in this enterprise publicly advertise their consulting services. You're too lazy to do any research, you write off another's personal experience based on their age and a perception of cynicism, you make snap judgments about another's character, and then have the audacity to question my ability to think rationally and logically? Good night.
"If and when iTunes content becomes an ad-fest, there's always bittorrent... and if the ads get annoying enough, that's precisely where I'll end up. The surest way for the networks to ensure that they get no revenue at all is to take desperate, panicked steps to increase their revenue."
I've been part of a few conversations about replacing one's cable with bittorrent. The only thing I watch that isn't already in syndication is TDS and Colbert, and hell, they can have my money through iTunes if regular TV becomes too onerous.
"Sorry, I didn't realize I was conversing with a high-level television executive, clearly responsible for ground-breaking productions. "
No, just a student of marketing and cognitive psychology, with family in the production industry and a partner who has worked with television focus groups. Sorry, I didn't realize I was conversing with someone silly enough to think that anything I've been saying is some kind of secret known only to "high level television executives," since any marketing intern at a major network could explain these things (and would be more likely to.)
"When you graduate from college and actually live in the real world for some amount of time,"
What an asinine thing to assume about a 26-year-old military vet.
"maybe you'll have more than the faintest clue about how the world works. Ah, to be young again and live in absolute certainty that all of life has simple answers... I remember those days."
Fuck being young. I want to be so old that I feel inclined to write off anything I don't understand as the product of inexperience whenvever it seems to run counter to my well-established worldview, and with a "simple answer," something really uninformed like "I thought it was just a fun show." It seems to work for you.
Your ignorance just points out the delicious irony of your username. If you're the "Reality Master," then why are you only at 101? Will they not let you into the higher-level courses until you at least graduate from "Introduction to Television 051?"
"Gee, and I thought it was just a funny show that people tuned in so they could laugh for half-an-hour."
That's understandable, seeing as you obviously have no experience with the television industry, nor even the faintest idea of how it functions. Live a little, study some marketing, then get back to me. Ignoramus.
I agree, and its funny when people ask, "Sure, you avoid ads now that you can, but won't you wind up watching them again once this function gets circumvented by advertisers?" As though anything on television were so very compelling that the whole damned thing can't be avoided once its value is degraded through unavoidable advertising.
"The program makes that much money because a LOT of people like the show."
Wrong. The program costs that much money to make so that a LOT of people WILL like the show. Advertising, hiring writers capable of keeping in line with heavily-researched viewer desires, and the competitive market for photogenic actors who can forge an illusory "connection" with the viewer make major television production an expensive business all around. Indeed, the costs are elevated by the need to recover money sunk into terrible flops.
"Weren't these people just using the fast forward button on their VCR before?"
I don't know what the data would suggest, but my anecdotal experience indicates otherwise. Everyone I hang out with uses DVR to avoid ads; none of these people were previously using their VCR for the same function. It probably is a matter of convenience; although I don't know anyone (I hope) who is befuddled by VCR programming, it is undeniably easier to use a DVR, connected as it is to the technology which lets the viewer find shows in the first place.
Advertisers and networks are getting clever at sneaking ads past us DVR users. So far, I've seen:
1. Ads styled to resemble the program they interrupt: this is common during the Daily Show, especially during the last commercial break.
2. Experienced DVR users note that the blank-screen pause length between shows and commercials is generally longer than that between two commercials. I've observed other people responding both consciously and unconsciously to this, unpausing shows quickly during that period of blackness. Who doesn't like being precise with the remote and avoiding the post-commercial rewind? I've noticed that some networks, for the greater part of this past year, put a longer pause between the second-to-last and last commercial. Usually, some of the ad's audio is played before the FF function is rapidly restored; sometimes, people will just sit through the ad. The fact that I've only seen this with this particular timing (it wouldn't make sense to do this between two early commercials, because the viewer's brain isn't cued up to unpause the DVR) is what leads me to suspect it as a deliberate ploy; perhaps some/.er in the broadcast industry knows more?
Anyone noticed any more of these little tricks? If I was an advertiser in a market with a high proportion of people likely to use DVR, I'd try a 15-second, unchanging, large-text ad with voice-over to at least propagate the brand and slogan for a few seconds of FF time.
Now that Mr. Sherman's exposed the vileness of the CEA's motives with regard to fair use, maybe some of the viral marketing used by the CEA will come to light. Obviously all these posters on/. attacking the RIAA are PR shills, since no genuine consumers might agree with the CEA's position otherwise.
The only reason people want fair use rights is to support the manufacturers of music players. Brilliant.
I would think that anyone involved in the political process would be aware of the whorishness of even the most "ideologically committed" candidates, but perhaps this interview with PA Green Party Senate candidate Carl Romanelli will disabuse you of your idealistic notion.
My first reaction was of the "Bad idea to tamper with highly successful idea" sort.
Then again, I remember more than a few people casting aspersions on the click wheel interface, myself included, generally focusing on the perceived unreliability of touch-sensitive inputs, especially in the environments where people will use an iPod.
I'm going to assume that the marketing and design folks at Apple aren't going to commit production to a change this major until they're certain, beyond cursory focus group research, that their new interface won't turn people off to the iPod. I expect high demand among the target demographic for a cool new toy, and if there's one thing at which Apple's proved itself with regard to portable electronics, it's the manufacture of cool new toys (the jury's still out on functionality, reliability, and DRM issues, of course).
The most uncanny thing about these is that, every time I see a new one in the news, the skin looks better and better. That aspect of realism is the most striking, I wonder if this is driven by the prosthetics industry?
...to discover just how many steps it takes to get from one end of a continent to another in WoW. Would it be an appropriately arduous hike, or could one just adjust the treadmill to increase the movement ratio?
A real world which, apparently, is immune to scientific study. Lazy scientists, not having jobs and all. Or does this just apply to the scientists whose conclusions you find distasteful?
Don't worry about answering; it's a rhetorical question, as I'm sure you're philosophically consistent enough to reject all the works of an institution as apparently corrupt as modern scientific endeavor.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction to my above post: They started at over 20K/week (they were up to 100K per episode by season 3 or 4, I believe...I don't know how the "/year" in my post crept in.)
Yeah, they must have been suffering on the $100,000/year they were making. Poor nobodies. The show was costing ~2-3 million per episode even back then; my point is that all the numbers in TV production are inflated by the cost of marketing and promoting the shows. Before the show was popular, a lot of people were still making good money (certainly better than 100K) for doing the work involved with putting on a national production on a major network.
That's a pretty reasonable explanation. I've got family in production, but the actual operations of affiliate broadcasting are a mystery to me. Thanks!
"The problem is that what you're saying is crap. Of course they use focus groups -- but you seem to think this means it's some sort of programming of people, rather than (duh!) figuring out what shows people like and what they don't."
/. comments. I think you've confused your own prejudgments with some sort of "wisdom of age," and are now trying to somehow apply this to an industry with which you obviously have no connection.
No, you're just not paying enough attention. I'm not asserting that people are "programmed" to like TV. The discussion started about the big numbers involved in TV production. You asserted that it was a function of the show's popularity, and I pointed out that your view is naive: successful shows require enough money to pay the in-demand specialists who can craft shows based on what people like, and to launch successful nationwide advertising in every market to encourage folks to give the show a chance.
"That you can reduce human behavior to such simplistic concepts tells me that you know zip about cognitive psychology."
That you can reduce the finished product of a highly refined production process to "it's a good show that people like" tells me that you know zip about television production and advertising, and I base this opinion on my personal experiences and conversations with the people who, you know, produce television shows and advertising.
"What an asinine thing to assume about a 26-year-old military vet."
'Oh, well, if you're TWENTY-SIX... sheesh. Normally an arrogant personality like yours doesn't lose their youthful arrogance at 26.'
A cute comment, especially from a 40-year-old arrogant enough to make unqualified statements about another's personality based on a few
"I'm always willing to modify my understanding of things, but so far, you haven't given me any rational arguments, only paranoid rantings. Sorry, but cynicism is not a replacement for logical thinking."
I don't know why any of this is cynical or paranoid. Nothing I've said is any sort of industry secret, and the firms that make money in this enterprise publicly advertise their consulting services. You're too lazy to do any research, you write off another's personal experience based on their age and a perception of cynicism, you make snap judgments about another's character, and then have the audacity to question my ability to think rationally and logically? Good night.
"If and when iTunes content becomes an ad-fest, there's always bittorrent... and if the ads get annoying enough, that's precisely where I'll end up. The surest way for the networks to ensure that they get no revenue at all is to take desperate, panicked steps to increase their revenue."
I've been part of a few conversations about replacing one's cable with bittorrent. The only thing I watch that isn't already in syndication is TDS and Colbert, and hell, they can have my money through iTunes if regular TV becomes too onerous.
"Sorry, I didn't realize I was conversing with a high-level television executive, clearly responsible for ground-breaking productions. "
No, just a student of marketing and cognitive psychology, with family in the production industry and a partner who has worked with television focus groups. Sorry, I didn't realize I was conversing with someone silly enough to think that anything I've been saying is some kind of secret known only to "high level television executives," since any marketing intern at a major network could explain these things (and would be more likely to.)
"When you graduate from college and actually live in the real world for some amount of time,"
What an asinine thing to assume about a 26-year-old military vet.
"maybe you'll have more than the faintest clue about how the world works. Ah, to be young again and live in absolute certainty that all of life has simple answers... I remember those days."
Fuck being young. I want to be so old that I feel inclined to write off anything I don't understand as the product of inexperience whenvever it seems to run counter to my well-established worldview, and with a "simple answer," something really uninformed like "I thought it was just a fun show." It seems to work for you.
Your ignorance just points out the delicious irony of your username. If you're the "Reality Master," then why are you only at 101? Will they not let you into the higher-level courses until you at least graduate from "Introduction to Television 051?"
"Gee, and I thought it was just a funny show that people tuned in so they could laugh for half-an-hour."
That's understandable, seeing as you obviously have no experience with the television industry, nor even the faintest idea of how it functions. Live a little, study some marketing, then get back to me. Ignoramus.
I agree, and its funny when people ask, "Sure, you avoid ads now that you can, but won't you wind up watching them again once this function gets circumvented by advertisers?" As though anything on television were so very compelling that the whole damned thing can't be avoided once its value is degraded through unavoidable advertising.
"The program makes that much money because a LOT of people like the show."
Wrong. The program costs that much money to make so that a LOT of people WILL like the show. Advertising, hiring writers capable of keeping in line with heavily-researched viewer desires, and the competitive market for photogenic actors who can forge an illusory "connection" with the viewer make major television production an expensive business all around. Indeed, the costs are elevated by the need to recover money sunk into terrible flops.
"If you're a rap artist, esp. "gangster rap". You look forward to being shot, as it could potentially help boost your record sales."
Really, only gangsta rap...I don't think Will Smith will be selling any more family-friendly hip-pop if he gets involved in a gang-related shooting.
Apply direc...oh, I just can't bear to repeat that horrid ad for homeopathic nonsense.
"Though I do welcome them every once in a while, when they enable me to take a leak without missing a bit of a lengthy movie."
You need to upgrade to DVR, friend. It enables you to take a shit without missing any of the film.
"Weren't these people just using the fast forward button on their VCR before?"
I don't know what the data would suggest, but my anecdotal experience indicates otherwise. Everyone I hang out with uses DVR to avoid ads; none of these people were previously using their VCR for the same function. It probably is a matter of convenience; although I don't know anyone (I hope) who is befuddled by VCR programming, it is undeniably easier to use a DVR, connected as it is to the technology which lets the viewer find shows in the first place.
"the "push it till they remember it" approach also works."
Apply directly to the forehead!
"I guess you'd have to put billboards into the category, though I (unfortunately) don't see legislation against those popping up in a hurry."
Not anymore, at any rate. Vermont's banned them since 1968. They're apparently illegal in three other states as well: Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii.
Advertisers and networks are getting clever at sneaking ads past us DVR users. So far, I've seen:
/.er in the broadcast industry knows more?
1. Ads styled to resemble the program they interrupt: this is common during the Daily Show, especially during the last commercial break.
2. Experienced DVR users note that the blank-screen pause length between shows and commercials is generally longer than that between two commercials. I've observed other people responding both consciously and unconsciously to this, unpausing shows quickly during that period of blackness. Who doesn't like being precise with the remote and avoiding the post-commercial rewind? I've noticed that some networks, for the greater part of this past year, put a longer pause between the second-to-last and last commercial. Usually, some of the ad's audio is played before the FF function is rapidly restored; sometimes, people will just sit through the ad. The fact that I've only seen this with this particular timing (it wouldn't make sense to do this between two early commercials, because the viewer's brain isn't cued up to unpause the DVR) is what leads me to suspect it as a deliberate ploy; perhaps some
Anyone noticed any more of these little tricks? If I was an advertiser in a market with a high proportion of people likely to use DVR, I'd try a 15-second, unchanging, large-text ad with voice-over to at least propagate the brand and slogan for a few seconds of FF time.
"This is where the baseless FUD comment about a censorship conspiracy theory goes, right?"
Yeah, right, like anyone would believe the government would suddenly ja
Anything is possible through the power of truthiness, I suppose.
...the TV networks and sports commissions (MLB, NFL, the English FA and the like) start on this type of legal saber-rattling?
Now that Mr. Sherman's exposed the vileness of the CEA's motives with regard to fair use, maybe some of the viral marketing used by the CEA will come to light. Obviously all these posters on /. attacking the RIAA are PR shills, since no genuine consumers might agree with the CEA's position otherwise.
The only reason people want fair use rights is to support the manufacturers of music players. Brilliant.
I would think that anyone involved in the political process would be aware of the whorishness of even the most "ideologically committed" candidates, but perhaps this interview with PA Green Party Senate candidate Carl Romanelli will disabuse you of your idealistic notion.
My first reaction was of the "Bad idea to tamper with highly successful idea" sort.
Then again, I remember more than a few people casting aspersions on the click wheel interface, myself included, generally focusing on the perceived unreliability of touch-sensitive inputs, especially in the environments where people will use an iPod.
I'm going to assume that the marketing and design folks at Apple aren't going to commit production to a change this major until they're certain, beyond cursory focus group research, that their new interface won't turn people off to the iPod. I expect high demand among the target demographic for a cool new toy, and if there's one thing at which Apple's proved itself with regard to portable electronics, it's the manufacture of cool new toys (the jury's still out on functionality, reliability, and DRM issues, of course).
The most uncanny thing about these is that, every time I see a new one in the news, the skin looks better and better. That aspect of realism is the most striking, I wonder if this is driven by the prosthetics industry?
...to discover just how many steps it takes to get from one end of a continent to another in WoW. Would it be an appropriately arduous hike, or could one just adjust the treadmill to increase the movement ratio?
A real world which, apparently, is immune to scientific study. Lazy scientists, not having jobs and all. Or does this just apply to the scientists whose conclusions you find distasteful?
Don't worry about answering; it's a rhetorical question, as I'm sure you're philosophically consistent enough to reject all the works of an institution as apparently corrupt as modern scientific endeavor.