# "Please, don't TiVo our show" - How TiVo can kill a series



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Ars Technica has an interesting article up about how DVR users almost caused Jericho to be canceled because recorded programs don't count towards ratings. Now the actors are begging people to watch the show live to bring up the ratings.

Is TiVo (and other DVRs) truly causing the premature death of programs that would otherwise have lived on or would the shows not be watched at all if not for TiVo?

I don't understand why DVR use can't be considered for ratings purposes, especially when it's readily available to Nielsen. I think the Nielsen ratings system is out-dated anyway and needs to be replaced. There may have been a time when the Nielsen rating system was needed, but its time has passed.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DVR use is indeed now considered for rating purposes.

However, it is well-established that only a percentage (some say 50%) of viewers via DVR watch the commercials, and that itself decreases the value of such viewership. The hard-cold reality is that what makes television work (viewers watching commercials) is generally the part of television that viewers seek to reduce or eliminate.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Unless you are a "Nielsen Family" what you watch and if you use a DVR is irrelevant. All the ratings are based on statistics so it only matters what the people in their sample are doing. 

Thanks,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

it is kind of like all the flap about how email was killing the postal service when email first came out. I agree that the network execs need to figure out how to deal with the technology of the day instead of lamenting for the past


they knew full well what numbers were DVR users
from the article
"According to internal research at CBS, 8 percent of Jericho's viewers were recording the show and watching it later, amounting to some 700,000 households. The implication is that such a small slice of DVR usage can hurt a struggling show. "


but like others have said, unless it is a Nelson house then watching it live will make no difference in those numbers. This will be interesting to watch as the 7 episodes progress. Will CBS keep on message that you need to watch live? Will Jericho be held hostage, not by a neighboring post apocalyptic warlord or power hungry megalomaniac but by network execs too scared to move forward into a new TV viewing world. Stay tuned......


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Advertisers don't want to include DVR viewers in calculating the number of viewers (which determines ad rates).

Many (probably most) DVR viewers don't watch commercials.

A number of commercials are time-sensitive. Commercials that promote a movie that's opening this weekend. A commercial for a TV special. A commercial for a holiday sale. A commercial for some kind a limited promotion. A DVR viewer that watches that commercial weeks later may be of little value to the advertiser.

Networks are dealing with DVR users by turning to "product placement" as an increasing source of revenue.

Networks are also reducing the number of prime time shows. How many Saturday night shows are now re-runs. Networks have more shows that are cheap to produce. Reality shows and Game shows.

edited to say this has nothing to do with network executives living in the past. It's a straight economic issue. Advertisers don't pay for DVR viewers so networks have no reason to include them in their decision making process.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Hay Advertisers it could be worse people could actually wake-up and use their brains instead of mindlessly spending money because they saw some add on TV. The fact that anyone actually buys a car (or whatever) because they saw some commercial blows my mind, I can see adds for movies/DVDs but not much else. I can remember back before my DVRs some adds pissed me off so much I wouldn't have taken the product if you gave it to me. 

Thanks,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Hay Advertisers it could be worse people could actually wake-up and use their brains instead of mindlessly spending money because they saw some add on TV. ,


apply directly to forehead


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I attended a very interesting talk about this a few years ago. The issue really comes down to how to develop value. In this environment, in many sectors, it is becoming unprofitable to develop value based on product quality. That's often because the barriers to entry to the quality market have been lowered and so basically all suppliers can achieve adequate product quality -- driving quality from "extremely good" to "very extremely good" is a losing proposition. Beyond a certain point, driving quality incrementally higher costs far far more than the supplier can ever recover from increased sales from such incremental improvements. So in many sectors, value is also enhanced by creating a market through branding: Making people feel like they want something because it fits their lifestyle, for example. It isn't a cold-hard-unemotional-stoic perspective, but rather a perspective that is focused on people and feelings.

Anyway, it was an interesting talk. The bottom-line though is that advertising is how you develop value for those touchy-feely things. A cold, unemotional customer wouldn't care or see such value, but the vast majority of customers do.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

lew said:


> Advertisers don't want to include DVR viewers in calculating the number of viewers (which determines ad rates).
> 
> Many (probably most) DVR viewers don't watch commercials.


This assumes that people without TiVo's do watch commercials. In my pre-Tivo days, commercials were the time to check the score of the Yankees game, go to the bathroom, get something to eat, go out for a smoke, etc. I'm assuming the numbers showing that only 50% of DVR users watch commercials is from polls that were taken? Are there any numbers showing what percentage of non-DVR people sit and stare at the TV for 4 minutes while commercials are running?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

WhiskeyTango said:


> This assumes that people without TiVo's do watch commercials. In my pre-Tivo days, commercials were the time to check the score of the Yankees game, go to the bathroom, get something to eat, go out for a smoke, etc. I'm assuming the numbers showing that only 50% of DVR users watch commercials is from polls that were taken? Are there any numbers showing what percentage of non-DVR people sit and stare at the TV for 4 minutes while commercials are running?


To bicker's point, the approach of changing people's feelings about a product probably works best if you are not paying direct attention to the ad.


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

I remember seeing Jason Bateman on Conan when he was playing "Michael Bluth" on "Arrested Development" and Conan asked about the impact DVR users had on ADs ratings. "It's not really helping", was Jason's reply. Sad, but true.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

I suspect the 50% number is low. Probably includes customers that haven't learned how to use FF or a 30 second skip button.

I don't want to miss part of Lost. Assume I'm watching it Live, not DVR live. I might quickly switch to get a score but the station will be tuned to abc for much of the commercial break. I won't be giving commercials my 100% attentention but I'll certainly be listening to some of the commercials, even if it's from another room while I'm getting food. Live TV a clever commerical has a chance of grabbing my attention. That same commerical has zero chance when I'm using my DVR.



WhiskeyTango said:


> This assumes that people without TiVo's do watch commercials. In my pre-Tivo days, commercials were the time to check the score of the Yankees game, go to the bathroom, get something to eat, go out for a smoke, etc. I'm assuming the numbers showing that only 50% of DVR users watch commercials is from polls that were taken? Are there any numbers showing what percentage of non-DVR people sit and stare at the TV for 4 minutes while commercials are running?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

I remember reading somewhere that "DVR live" counted if the show was watched within 24 hours of the original airing. That does exclude all of my viewing, so I guess I'm not watching any TV. That's strange for someone who bought a DVR.

This is just one of the things draining network TV. Eventually, networks won't get enough money, so they'll just produce cheap (i.e. reality-based) TV shows. The good original shows will move over to premium channels like HBO, or to the niche channels (i.e. original sci-fi shows will be only shown on Sci-Fi channel). Actually, that's already happening, isn't it?


----------



## shaggy314 (Feb 18, 2007)

I remember that "within 24 hours counting" as well.

I thought TiVo was trying to sell their inherent spy... err data collecting to Nielsen like companies... Ie. You watch "24" 3 days after airing, and you saw x commercials skipping the rest type thing. You have the option of telling TiVo not to monitoring it...

I think they also were talking about a less details listing of x people with TiVos recorded the Monday 8 PM showing of "24" type thing.

Also i agree, If you aren't a Nielsen family, it doesn't matter how you watch it, you don't get counted. Now producers DO want to start counting DVR and iTunes as some % over not getting counted. If nothing else we are likewise buyers of merch and DVDs, etc.

Josh Whedon is still cashing Firefly checks despite a cancelled show (DVD, comics, toys, posters) so live viewers shouldn't be the whole story. Imagine if they had had a whole season and 2 movies.

It's all about the money and right now it's mostly advertising dollars that pay for free TV. It could be like England where each TV has a tax.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

shaggy314 said:


> I remember that "within 24 hours counting" as well.
> 
> I thought TiVo was trying to sell their inherent spy... err data collecting to Nielsen like companies... Ie. You watch "24" 3 days after airing, and you saw x commercials skipping the rest type thing. You have the option of telling TiVo not to monitoring it...
> 
> I think they also were talking about a less details listing of x people with TiVos recorded the Monday 8 PM showing of "24" type thing.


yes, TiVo will report by zip code and maybe a few other lump sum demographics on what was watched, when and for a few dollars more throw in what commercials were watched or skipped. The default privacy level is this anonymous aggregated data level but you can call and opt out of that and not have DVR data shared at any level.

You can also opt in further and answer a demographic questionaire on some other general data but even at that level your specific indentifying data is never released


----------



## shaggy314 (Feb 18, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yes, TiVo will report by zip code and maybe a few other lump sum demographics on what was watched, when and for a few dollars more throw in what commercials were watched or skipped. The default privacy level is this anonymous aggregated data level but you can call and opt out of that and not have DVR data shared at any level.
> 
> You can also opt in further and answer a demographic questionaire on some other general data but even at that level your specific indentifying data is never released


Yup, just reminding us that is was there. I let them use the grouping data in the hopes it offsets future monthly fee increases :-D


----------



## Celusil (Aug 13, 2002)

I read 'The view within 24 hours' too. So Me and a couple of my friends decided to start playback of a couple of our shows shortly after it was recorded. I wasn't watching that tivo feed, but it was playing back (complete with comercials) I did this just in case my stats were being collected. unfortunately the 2 shows I used this on (Studio 60 and Veronica Mars) were still canceled


----------



## Lord Nimon (Apr 3, 2001)

What about renting DVDs of the show? I watch very few shows live these days. Normally, I just wait a year and rent the shows via Netflix. I presume that that generates more revenue than someone who uses a DVR to skip commercials. At least technically I'm paying for the show itself, albeit indirectly.


----------



## mike3775 (Jan 3, 2003)

Maybe the people saying to not DVR or Tivo the show should go to the network execs and tell them to not put the show up against another popular show as well.

Also they should be complaining about the 3 month hiatus the show took as well, like that helped the ratings as well.

See they are misplacing the blame on this to appease the networks. Its the networks fault for the piss poor ratings, not DVR or Tivo users.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

The point is tivo viewers don't really count in ratings. Advertisers aren't willing to pay for viewers who fast forward through commercials or who might watch after the commercial become "stale".

Declining ratings probably comes from increased competition. We now have premium movie channels, many basic channels, regional sports and DVDs.

Previous posters gave the "solution". More product placements. More lower budget shows such as reality and game shows. More of the higher quality shows winding up on premium channels like HBO.

Budget and time contraints limit the number of new episodes to around 22. Sweeps periods dictate the months new episodes have to run. The result is re-runs or hiatus during other months. Maybe May sweeps should go away so shows can go to a more natural run cycle.



mike3775 said:


> Maybe the people saying to not DVR or Tivo the show should go to the network execs and tell them to not put the show up against another popular show as well.
> 
> Also they should be complaining about the 3 month hiatus the show took as well, like that helped the ratings as well.
> 
> See they are misplacing the blame on this to appease the networks. Its the networks fault for the piss poor ratings, not DVR or Tivo users.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Actually, I think it's 3 days that is the time they are interested in, not 24 hours.

There was an interesting article about this in EW recently, and yes, DVR usage is becomeing quite the issue when selling ads. I think "Lost" added something like 1 million viewers when factoring in DVR usage. Not to mention DVD sales later on.


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

morac said:


> Ars Technica has an interesting article up about how DVR users almost caused Jericho to be canceled because recorded programs don't count towards ratings. Now the actors are begging people to watch the show live to bring up the ratings.


Technology is shifting and business models need to shift, too. Networked DVR's like tivo also have the capability to take advertisers out of the picture entirely - hopefully unbox will be only one of many ways to cut out the middlemen and let content producers sell directly to the viewers. I'd rather subscribe only to the series I watch instead of buying a package from the cable tv guys including dozens of home shopping channels I don't ever watch...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

sommerfeld said:


> Technology is shifting and business models need to shift, too. Networked DVR's like tivo also have the capability to take advertisers out of the picture entirely - hopefully unbox will be only one of many ways to cut out the middlemen and let content producers sell directly to the viewers.


The price-point might come as a pretty big shock to some folks, though.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> The price-point might come as a pretty big shock to some folks, though.


No kidding.

Let's say you watch 5 shows a week, that's $40/month with current iTunes pricing right there - about what extended analog basic cable costs here. And that doesn't include any live sports or news.

I doubt that model will replace the advertiser-supported model anytime soon.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

TV advertisers just need to *suck it*. Like we didn't skip commercials when we were all using VCR's!  
Did they (advertisers) make such an outcry when VCR's were cheap enough for people to have one?

What they need to do is use ALL data available about what shows are watched, and I'm fine with the "within 3 days" limit. The advertisers need to understand that ad skipping is not going to change and the more people that watch the show, whether it be live or via DVR, the better the chance that _someone_ will see their commercial.

Also, I'm all for product placement. Hell, make it blatent, in your face product placement, and do away with the commercial breaks. Then there would be nothing to "skip".


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

steve614 said:


> Also, I'm all for product placement. Hell, make it blatent, in your face product placement, and do away with the commercial breaks. Then there would be nothing to "skip".


That might be difficult for certain genres, where the sponsor's product does not exist in the reality of that program. How would you promote an SUV in a Western? Any brand at all in Battlestar Galactica?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CharlesH said:


> Any brand at all in Battlestar Galactica?


whiskey, cheap cigars and Bicycle cards comes to mind


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> whiskey, cheap cigars and Bicycle cards comes to mind


cigarettes and cars too.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> TV advertisers just need to *suck it*.


Not necessarily. They could apply measures and means that will force eyes to advertising, such as invasive product placement; they'll be as happy with that as anything, as long as it is imminently effective. Alternatively, they may reduce budgets to track reduction in advertising effectiveness. This is a zero sum game. There is no way one side or the other can "win". Either alternatives are win-win propositions or they're impractical.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

CharlesH said:


> That might be difficult for certain genres, where the sponsor's product does not exist in the reality of that program. How would you promote an SUV in a Western? Any brand at all in Battlestar Galactica?


Indeed, it could mean that genre programming could especially suffer, as it become a less effective vehicle for effective advertising.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

That makes no sense. There is absolutely no reason for an *advertiser * to pay for viewers that skip commercials. AFAIK viewers who time shifted with VCRs *never * counted in the ratings. Advertisers don't want to pay for DVR viewers, even if they watch within 3 days, since statistics show those viewers are likely to skip the commercials.



steve614 said:


> TV advertisers just need to *suck it*. Like we didn't skip commercials when we were all using VCR's!
> Did they (advertisers) make such an outcry when VCR's were cheap enough for people to have one?
> 
> What they need to do is use ALL data available about what shows are watched, and I'm fine with the "within 3 days" limit. The advertisers need to understand that ad skipping is not going to change and the more people that watch the show, whether it be live or via DVR, the better the chance that _someone_ will see their commercial.
> ...


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

steve614 said:


> Also, I'm all for product placement. Hell, make it blatent, in your face product placement, and do away with the commercial breaks. Then there would be nothing to "skip".


That'll be great. I already enjoy when networks advertise their upcoming shows during programming with those wonderful banners at the bottom of the screen which cover the 20% of the program's video. I especially like when they contain sound effects so I can't hear dialog in the program. I eagerly await when they start putting product ads down there during the show.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

the up side

Victoria's Secret product placement on 'Lost"


the dark side

Victoria's Secret product placement on 'Jerry Springer"


----------



## captain_video (Mar 1, 2002)

> That'll be great. I already enjoy when networks advertise their upcoming shows during programming with those wonderful banners at the bottom of the screen which cover the 20% of the program's video. I especially like when they contain sound effects so I can't hear dialog in the program. I eagerly await when they start putting product ads down there during the show.


I'm guessing you watch a lot of TNT since they seem to be the most blatant offenders in this regard. I gave up trying to record shows on that channel that I might want to archive for that very reason.

Network execs need to wake up and smell the coffee. DVRs are a fact of life and should be embraced by them. It gives more viewers opportunites to view programming that would otherwise be a coin toss as to whether or not it will get watched. The VCR introduced consumers to timeshifting and it has forever changed our lifestyles and viewing habits. DVRs just take it one step further by adding more convenience and, in some cases, dual tuners to the mix.

I'd like to see a feature added to all DVRs that would allow consumers to rate commercials, similar to the Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down buttons we use on our Tivos. I think if consumers had the ability to provide feedback then there would be a completely different approach to developing commercials. Shows live or die by ratings so why do we have to suffer through really bad commercials without having a say in the matter?

Most people FF through commercials simply because they're an insult to our collective intelligence and just plain horrible. If I knew commercials were going to be insightful or entertaining I'd hang around to watch them. There are a few I go out of my way to watch for this very reason. I don't have a Capital One card or drink Bud Lite but I usually enjoy their commercials.

Broadcasters could also insert a flag to alert the viewer to any time sensitive commercials such as local events or movie premieres. I'd like to be able to filter the commercials I can watch as well as skip by selecting them from a menu. That way, when a commercial of interest does appear, the DVR would drop out of FF and allow me to view it. I miss a lot of stuff I'd actually like to watch, but unfortunately the good stuff gets skipped along with the bad, mainly because there's generally more bad than good.


----------



## hdhdliving (May 29, 2007)

steve614 said:


> TV advertisers just need to *suck it*. Like we didn't skip commercials when we were all using VCR's!
> Did they (advertisers) make such an outcry when VCR's were cheap enough for people to have one?


They made the same argument when VCR's were first introduced and you're absolutely right we skipped over the commercials with VCR's too.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

morac said:


> That'll be great. I already enjoy when networks advertise their upcoming shows during programming with those wonderful banners at the bottom of the screen which cover the 20% of the program's video. I especially like when they contain sound effects so I can't hear dialog in the program. I eagerly await when they start putting product ads down there during the show.


Yeah, me too. I can hardly wait until they start running the program in a window on the screen surrounded on all sides by constantly running ads. Won't that be fun.....


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

captain_video said:


> I'm guessing you watch a lot of TNT since they seem to be the most blatant offenders in this regard. I gave up trying to record shows on that channel that I might want to archive for that very reason. Network execs need to wake up and smell the coffee.


Rather, it is we who need to wake up and smell the coffee. As long as we (as a group) continue to respond positively to these things, then networks will continue to employ them. The real problem is that the vast majority of viewers aren't like "us" -- they're "normal" and unfortunately everything in this world is structured for normal people much more so than the "special" people.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

captain_video said:


> Broadcasters could also insert a flag to alert the viewer to any time sensitive commercials such as local events or movie premieres. I'd like to be able to filter the commercials I can watch as well as skip by selecting them from a menu. That way, when a commercial of interest does appear, the DVR would drop out of FF and allow me to view it. I miss a lot of stuff I'd actually like to watch, but unfortunately the good stuff gets skipped along with the bad, mainly because there's generally more bad than good.


you know, the main problem I have with commercials is that they come in the middle of shows. Since I have a pause button I do not need the breaks in the show and would rather just watch it. I really just FF commercials because I want to get back to the show. Of course we all have been caught in the trap of seeing some time sensitive thing - l"looks like rain tomorrow" or what a cool show, oh, it was on last week.

so a solution here might be adding current commercials to the front or back of shows That I could watch or walk away from. They stay as fresh as the supply of commercials allow and TiVo has the technology to not actually add them as space on the hard drive to each show but keep one copy of the commercial in a separate area. That way even MRV is not effected as the other TiVo has the commercials already. TiVo tracks which shows the commercials are watched(OK not FFed) on and that show gets a credit from the DVR viewership of the commercial. So what if 700,000 people watched Jericho on a DVR, the show still got credit for 400,000 commercial "viewings" and we still were able to watch it 3 weeks later and/or skip all the commercials in the middle. Heck, they could extend this and if the commercials at the beginning and end are not skipped then automatically skip over the ones in the middle on the DVR.


----------



## hdhdliving (May 29, 2007)

RoyK said:


> Yeah, me too. I can hardly wait until they start running the program in a window on the screen surrounded on all sides by constantly running ads. Won't that be fun.....


Watching a sports event is pretty much like that. Sponsored trivia questions, score updates, instant replays. Not to mention right there at home plate in the back ground you have the rotating ads for everything in the world.

What happen to the days when the cameras use to go out into the stands and focus on pretty scantly clad young ladies? :up:


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

RoyK said:


> Yeah, me too. I can hardly wait until they start running the program in a window on the screen surrounded on all sides by constantly running ads. Won't that be fun.....


...until television manufacturers give us more flexible zoom functions, allowing us to cut off the on-screen adds.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

Martin Tupper said:


> ...until television manufacturers give us more flexible zoom functions, allowing us to cut off the on-screen adds.


Which will then be defeated by moving the program window around the screen at random intervals....


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I think the advertisers are actually getting it right - if anyone is going to make an effort to avoid commercials it's highly unlikely that they are of any real value even if they do watch some commercials. 

I do use adds to help with some of my purchases, but it is rarely (or never) TV adds. Advertisers are effectively providing me with free OTA TV and I think some of them are figuring it out. Hollywood may have to adjust to lower upfront revenue streams and rely more on secondary income sources. The current "Value" assigned to many entertainment executives, athletes and actors/actresses may not be sustainable, which in my opinion would not be the end of the world. 

Thanks,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

RoyK said:


> Which will then be defeated by moving the program window around the screen at random intervals....


that kind of advertising is ineffective though save for simple name recognition. Like atmuscarella many of us are not looking for specific info from TV commercials. It isa deeper message they are trying to place in our minds than just this truck has a HEMI in it, or a movie by the name "yet another animated flick" is out. the internet is a better place with better ROI for banner ads.

The only "fix" for this is viewers somehow agree to have video ads play on their TV or the content providers find a different way to collect revenue from shows. Product placement can account for some of this but obviously will not be a cure all for either the advertisers or the content providers.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I think the advertisers are actually getting it right - if anyone is going to make an effort to avoid commercials it's highly unlikely that they are of any real value even if they do watch some commercials.
> 
> I do use adds to help with some of my purchases, but it is rarely (or never) TV adds. Advertisers are effectively providing me with free OTA TV and I think some of them are figuring it out. Hollywood may have to adjust to lower upfront revenue streams and rely more on secondary income sources. The current "Value" assigned to many entertainment executives, athletes and actors/actresses may not be sustainable, which in my opinion would not be the end of the world.
> 
> Thanks,


Yep, I agree. It might be that we'll have to pay for NFL games in a different way than by buying Campbell's Chunky soup. I don't think it's the end of "free" TV.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The only "fix" for this is viewers somehow agree to have video ads play on their TV or the content providers find a different way to collect revenue from shows. Product placement can account for some of this but obviously will not be a cure all for either the advertisers or the content providers.


I'm guessing that DVRs will have more ads too. Personally, I like the "yellow star" ads better than commercial interruptions during the program.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

RoyK said:


> Which will then be defeated by moving the program window around the screen at random intervals....


Nah, they'll just make it illegal to have zoom functions on the TV.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

My HR10-250 is monitored by Nielson and has been since I got it.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Nah, they'll just make it illegal to have zoom functions on the TV.


Why not, they already tried to outlaw fast-forwarding through commercials. And the there's the ABC method.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MickeS said:


> I'm guessing that DVRs will have more ads too. Personally, I like the "yellow star" ads better than commercial interruptions during the program.


I agree - see my POST #38 for my ideas on ways they can put ads on the DVR that benefit shows recorded on the DVR - so it matches back up with the idea of ratings


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

MickeS said:


> I'm guessing that DVRs will have more ads too. Personally, I like the "yellow star" ads better than commercial interruptions during the program.


Like saying I like a stubbed toe better than a toothache...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

RoyK said:


> Like saying I like a stubbed toe better than a toothache...


I can ignore yelow stars - I can not ignore stubbed toes or toothaches


----------



## mike3775 (Jan 3, 2003)

The main reason I have a Tivo, is to watch TV at my own leisure. 

I could care less about new movies, or the local news, etc, so the point of me missing something that I may have missed because I have time shifted when I watch a TV show is moot to me.

If it gets to the point where the networks are going to be that obnoxious and putting things on the bottom of the screens, I'll simply wait and buy the seasons when they come out on DVD or download them.

Product placement doesn't bother me, hell Coors Light is sponsoring the "After the Catch" specials on Discovery Channel(airs after the Deadliest Catch on Tuesdays), and that doesn't bother me, it will bother me when they have that kind of stuff on shows where they do not belong though(like on Deadliest Catch when they are at sea), and that would be my breaking point.

I understand that networks have 3 sweeps periods to worry about, but when they send a show on hiatus for 3 months like Jericho, they should bring it back in its same time slot or a different day, but putting it up against American Idol is a disaster waiting to happen, and the decline proved it. DVR'ing the show didn't hurt the show ratings wise at all, piss poor planning on the networks side is what caused the shows huge rating decline after it returned from a 3 month hiatus, when it went head to head against the #1 show on TV. Common sense should have told the network to not put the show against it, because even ABC conceded Lost on Wednesday's to CBS, and moved Lost back 1 hour so that it wouldn't go head to head with the show on CBS(I forgot which show it was), when it came back for its second half of the season this year.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

I don't think it's such a big problem for advertisers. I remember reading an article that 70% of DVR users watch "most" of their TV live. The fact is that most people still use their DVRs as digital VCRs. This statistic doesn't even surprise me as I constantly hear from people at work that watch shows live even though they have a DVR.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

NYHeel said:


> I don't think it's such a big problem for advertisers. I remember reading an article that 70% of DVR users watch "most" of their TV live. The fact is that most people still use their DVRs as digital VCRs. This statistic doesn't even surprise me as I constantly hear from people at work that watch shows live even though they have a DVR.


Some shows are so good that you want to watch the next episode "now". There's also certain shows/events you have to watch "live" (or at least within an hour or two) under penalty of spoilers from basically anyone you meet (sporting events, award shows and season finales come to mind). Most programming though doesn't lose anything if watched later.

Personally I'm usually backlogged several hours on my TiVo so I rarely watch shows "live" as I'm trying to catch up on old programming. My S2 is nearly caught up (only a few hours left of unseen programming), but I'm hopelessly behind on my S3 (I think there's about 30 hours of programming on there).


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

morac said:
 

> so I rarely watch shows "live" as I'm trying to catch up on old programming. My S2 is nearly caught up (only a few hours left of unseen programming), but I'm hopelessly behind on my S3 (I think there's about 30 hours of programming on there).


that is the irony in all this. With a DVR a log can be made of shows specifically recorded and then specifically played. The manual skipping of cpommercials even shows the person was there. Very accurate info on what was *actually * watched by people.

with just a TV there is no promise of actual eyes and even a nielson family is allowed to go to the bathroom I suppose


----------



## ZachTac (Jun 13, 2007)

This is yet another case of blaming technology for the results of bad management.



> Is it really any surprise that Jericho had ratings problems running up against the most popular show on TV?


The article says it best.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

lew said:


> AFAIK viewers who time shifted with VCRs *never * counted in the ratings.


I don't think they were counted in the electronic ratings gathering, but I would swear I heard people interviewed about the ratings books they kept manually were at one point able to say that they videotaped a show and it counted for ratings.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> whiskey, cheap cigars and Bicycle cards comes to mind


But how are going to show a _particular_ brand of whiskey, cheap cigars, or Bicycle cards? And aren't the cards different than ours? (OT: only one more season of BSG  ) Unless they are like some of those commercials where we get to the end, and have to ask my 17-year-old son what the #*&@ they were advertising. Roll-eyes and point out all the occurrences of some logo in the background or whatever.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CharlesH said:


> But how are going to show a _particular_ brand of whiskey, cheap cigars, or Bicycle cards? And aren't the cards different than ours? (OT: only one more season of BSG  ) Unless they are like some of those commercials where we get to the end, and have to ask my 17-year-old son what the #*&@ they were advertising. Roll-eyes and point out all the occurrences of some logo in the background or whatever.


well yah, they would just show the brand logo in a way to make sure it is registered by viewers. Heck they could even show it as coveted by the crew as now being rare. They already said some things are just the same as mythical earth so why not a brand. That is how product placement gets worked out, of course the writers for BSG may not be all that into making such a thing work out. Product Placement really only works well when it is infrequent or just fits right into the script - like campbell soup did on American dreams


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Maybe there's something I'm just not getting, but how do DVR users even affect the ratings in the first place? The ratings are done through a representative sample, right? So unless the neilsens are getting data from DVR users saying they didn't even watch TV, wouldn't they just reject a DVR user as a neilsen family and pick someone else instead?

The only way I could see DVR use having an effect on the ratings would be if DVR users were disproportionally watching a certain show compared to non-DVR users, who are representatively sampled through neilsen families.


----------



## captain_video (Mar 1, 2002)

> My HR10-250 is monitored by Nielson and has been since I got it.


Can we send you a list of programs to record?  I'm tired of seeing good shows get axed after only four episodes.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

JETarpon said:


> Maybe there's something I'm just not getting, but how do DVR users even affect the ratings in the first place? .


TiVo sells info to Nielsen and yes, some Nielsen families have a DVR and report their viewing habits while using the DVR.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

captain_video said:


> Can we send you a list of programs to record?  I'm tired of seeing good shows get axed after only four episodes.


There's a long list of shows that I watched regularly that saw the sharp edge of an ax.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo sells info to Nielsen and yes, some Nielsen families have a DVR and report their viewing habits while using the DVR.


Nielsen also directly recruited some TiVo users without making them a "Nielsen family". Nielsen collects user specific data from these TiVos, but only for statistical purposes. That data is not part of the official ratings.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Who do we need to write to to start a movement to revamp the ratings system so that DVR data is more reckognized?

The way it is now doesn't seem fair for us who use DVRs, not to mention the people involved with the shows, unless they still get paid for 13 shows even though the networks only air 4.


----------



## Fraser+Dief (Nov 18, 2005)

WhiskeyTango said:


> This assumes that people without TiVo's do watch commercials. In my pre-Tivo days, commercials were the time to check the score of the Yankees game, go to the bathroom, get something to eat, go out for a smoke, etc.


Bingo. The cold dirty truth - viewers have *always* ignored commercials. We flip the channels, we mute the tv until the show is back on, we do what's on your list, etc.

The only difference between Tivo and then is that now they *know* how much it's being done. In the past, they were simply oblivious to how much we ignored them. I don't believe there's one shred of difference between how many commercials get watched with tivo or without. It's all perception, and guessing, and assuming it must be hurting them.

Personally, I actually see more commercials now, as they speedily zip past. Pre-tivo, I'd be doing something else and wouldn't hear or see any of it.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

Fraser+Dief said:


> Personally, I actually see more commercials now, as they speedily zip past. Pre-tivo, I'd be doing something else and wouldn't hear or see any of it.


 Ditto! :up: I might even stop and watch one or two that look interesting now...one's I would have ignored PT (Pre-Tivo  ).


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

PJO1966 said:


> My HR10-250 is monitored by Nielson and has been since I got it.


 Have you tried putting an aluminum foil "hat" on it? It works for the aliens that try and listen to my thoughts!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> The way it is now doesn't seem fair for us who use DVRs


I don't think you want to go down the "fairness" path, given that the point of ratings is to measure how many people watch specific commercials.

Let's keep in mind that ratings aren't supposed to gauge popularity. They're really aimed at commercial viewing, specifically.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fraser+Dief said:


> Bingo. The cold dirty truth - viewers have *always* ignored commercials. We flip the channels, we mute the tv until the show is back on, we do what's on your list, etc.


Some do. Many don't. Business, like everything else in life, relies on playing the odds.


----------



## Bill_GS3 (Jan 28, 2007)

I don't know about all of you but commercial breaks are where I get up and do something, and sometimes forget about my show. I have no interest in watching commercials.

DVR is not doing anything the VCR didn't do before, my folks had, and my grandmother still now have the VCR set to record "their" shows.

Next step for TV execs will be more of what they already do, the commercials in the bottom of your screen DURING the show. I hate that. I was watching something the other night and it was a slow quiet scene and all of a sudden there is an explosion in the bottom right of my screen advertising a movie. WTF!


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

Advertisers *****ed when people started recording with VCRs too, just not as loudly.

Not only have people always ignored commercials, even when we watch, we don't always make the connection with the product. I remember years ago overhearing someone talking about how much she loved the Bud Lite commercial where they played the song "Rocky Mountain High." Well, hell, if Coors hadn't solidified the association with Colorado and the Rocky Mountains, then advertisers all over are wasting their time.


----------



## rockislandmike (Sep 20, 2005)

mike3775 said:


> Also they should be complaining about the 3 month hiatus the show took as well, like that helped the ratings as well.


That's what lost my interest --- just like Heroes, actually. Both shows took a lengthy hiatus, and even though Tivo kicked in automatically to record new eps, I never ended up watching those shows, there was always something else on Tivo that I wanted to watch more, so I eventually killed the Jericho SP (My wife still watched Heroes so I obviously left that one alone!).

Stop taking a super-long hiatus in the middle of new ep season, that may have gone a long way to helping Jericho stick around.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

mqpickles said:


> Advertisers *****ed when people started recording with VCRs too, just not as loudly.
> 
> Not only have people always ignored commercials, even when we watch, we don't always make the connection with the product. I remember years ago overhearing someone talking about how much she loved the Bud Lite commercial where they played the song "Rocky Mountain High." Well, hell, if Coors hadn't solidified the association with Colorado and the Rocky Mountains, then advertisers all over are wasting their time.


there is also the concept of a target audience for a product. She was probably not the target for Coors beer.

PS - yes I hate the little ads over shows as well. I stopped watching rescue me as a result. I am considering bit torrenting Mighty Evan as it had a little ad at the bottom of some show and though I like the Office and think the movie will be funny I have no desire to give them my money now


----------



## evertivo (Mar 20, 2004)

I am not watching your show when it is on because I have to work. Be thankful that the nightshift people have DVR's and can watch anything at all! Can't the networks or anyone else, see that it is being recorded, commercials and all? Or does that not count as being watched? I watch live shows all the time, and the Tivo records all the time, so technically the recorded shows are being watched.


----------



## Mars (Sep 13, 2001)

Bill_GS3 said:


> I was watching something the other night and it was a slow quiet scene and all of a sudden there is an explosion in the bottom right of my screen advertising a movie. WTF!


You can make a pop up blocker that will get rid of this stuff. Cut a piece of cardboard 4" wide and 37" long and tape it to the bottom of your screen!


----------



## Mathmn (Mar 24, 2006)

We've been in this TV induced consumerism for decades. We now "need" all kinds of products we never knew existed. That's the American corporate way. Forget about farms, we've seen Paris.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

bicker said:


> DVR use is indeed now considered for rating purposes.
> 
> However, it is well-established that only a percentage (some say 50%) of viewers via DVR watch the commercials, and that itself decreases the value of such viewership. The hard-cold reality is that what makes television work (viewers watching commercials) is generally the part of television that viewers seek to reduce or eliminate.


True, but 30 years ago a 30 minute show had 26 minutes of content, now it has, at most, 22 min of content (much less for some cable channels). This may be partly because cable competition has caused per viewer costs to go up (higher costs plus less viewers). And they are running commercials and previews during the credits. A year or two back they were trying to eliminate the credits entirely.

I remember watching Saturday Night at the Movies on NBC in the early 60's. It ran from 9PM to 11PM EST. If the combination of movie plus commercials didn't fill out the two hours, they showed some guy's Hollywood home movies (Ken something, I believe). That was the environment of 50's & 60's broadcast TV, when content was live or on film.

Remember the early 70's, when water pressure in New York City took a nose dive when "All in the Family" went to commercial?


----------



## ShadyCharacter (Jun 20, 2003)

If they're asking not to Tivo because they worry that Tivo Time Shifters are missing their commercials why don't they ask live viewers not to make pee-pee trips during commercial breaks?


----------



## mike3775 (Jan 3, 2003)

rockislandmike said:


> That's what lost my interest --- just like Heroes, actually. Both shows took a lengthy hiatus, and even though Tivo kicked in automatically to record new eps, I never ended up watching those shows, there was always something else on Tivo that I wanted to watch more, so I eventually killed the Jericho SP (My wife still watched Heroes so I obviously left that one alone!).
> 
> Stop taking a super-long hiatus in the middle of new ep season, that may have gone a long way to helping Jericho stick around.


Thats the exact reason why I didn't watch Lost this season until after the last episode aired. The 6 weeks worth of new shows in the fall, then knowing that the show was going to be gone until Feb, made me decide to just Tivo the show, transfer them to my external hard drive and delete them from the Tivo until after the seaon was over. Then I transferred the 6 eps back and watched them from the beginning to the end at my leisure.

I got into Jericho thanks to torrents, but if it comes back on, my Tivo will record the eps, but I won't watch until the season is over though, because I do not want to get hooked and then have it go on hiatus again.

Just pick a time for the show to start and leave it at that, quit trying to cater to all 3 sweeps periods as well(like ABC did with Lost) and just focus airing it like Fox does with 24, straight through, no repeats from beginning to end.


----------



## wolflord11 (Jan 17, 2007)

richsadams said:


> Have you tried putting an aluminum foil "hat" on it? It works for the aliens that try and listen to my thoughts!


LMFAO


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Mathmn said:


> We've been in this TV induced consumerism for decades. We now "need" all kinds of products we never knew existed. That's the American corporate way.


Indeed -- the extent of consumerism in this country just points out how incredibly effective advertising has been, and continues to be.


----------



## John Sydney (Sep 12, 2006)

morac said:


> That'll be great. I already enjoy when networks advertise their upcoming shows during programming with those wonderful banners at the bottom of the screen which cover the 20% of the program's video. I especially like when they contain sound effects so I can't hear dialog in the program. I eagerly await when they start putting product ads down there during the show.


Yea, BBC America is great for banners I just love it when subtitles for a foreign language are obliterated by endless banners advertising Footballers wives.

This along with a huge compliment of regular adverts is just wonderful.
As they can't advertise on TV at home they seem to make up for it over here.
The board of Governors kicked their arses for churning out cheap mindless drivel - (Trading places, What not to wear, and a million variations thereof.) So it seems these programmes got dumped on the US too! 
There are some great programmes amoungst the garbage and as a native of the UK I like to watch them commercial free. Desktop and VideoReDo takes care of that! Now, I just need someone to develop software to remove the banners.


----------



## captain_video (Mar 1, 2002)

> That's what lost my interest --- just like Heroes, actually. Both shows took a lengthy hiatus, and even though Tivo kicked in automatically to record new eps, I never ended up watching those shows, there was always something else on Tivo that I wanted to watch more, so I eventually killed the Jericho SP (My wife still watched Heroes so I obviously left that one alone!).
> 
> Stop taking a super-long hiatus in the middle of new ep season, that may have gone a long way to helping Jericho stick around.


Unfortunately, many network shows now have the habit of starting much later in the season, some as late as November. I remember when ALL the new shows would start within the same timeframe in September, usually within the same week but sometimes stretched out over two weeks. The months of November and December are a wasteland as far as new shows are concerned. Most people are involved in things during the holidays and may not watch as much TV so a lot of new shows are placed on temporary hiatus so they can air holiday specials and reruns. New shows won't get aired unless the networks feel they have a large enough audience so they can recoup their investment.

The gap created between new episodes is extremely annoying and it's getting worse all the time. I think a lot of shows lose viewership simply because no one is aware that new episodes are actually being aired when they finally resume. Even with season passes your Tivo can record reruns if they're not flagged as such in the guide or haven't aired within the past 28 days.

Personally, I like the idea of product placement within programs to promote advertising. It makes the shows more realistic when you see products you actually recognize instead of some prop they use with a generic logo. I can't recall the last time I saw a Dell computer ad on TV like I used to (who doesn't remember "Dude, You're getting a Dell!") but I see Dell PCs used on shows all the time. Apple laptops also seem to be the favorites for portable computers.

I'd be more inclined to recognize a product in this manner than be forced to sit through some insipid commercial that was badly written and produced. Then again, that's just me. I'm the kind of guy that notices all the little discontinuities in shows, mostly because it's fun to do. Just check out any scene where the actors have a drink in front of them and watch the level in the glass fluctuate all over the place. That's probably one of the most common things and easiest to spot. What's even more fun is when the other props star moving all over the place and the actors' hair and clothing takes on a mind of its own. Things like a sweater being off the shoulder in one scene and then buttoned up in the next and then who knows what else. It makes mundane programming fun to watch.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

captain_video said:


> I'm the kind of guy that notices all the little discontinuities in shows, mostly because it's fun to do. Just check out any scene where the actors have a drink in front of them and watch the level in the glass fluctuate all over the place. That's probably one of the most common things and easiest to spot. What's even more fun is when the other props star moving all over the place and the actors' hair and clothing takes on a mind of its own. Things like a sweater being off the shoulder in one scene and then buttoned up in the next and then who knows what else. It makes mundane programming fun to watch.


 Oh yeah...that drives my wife nuts. "Honey...did you see that car had a hubcap missing in the last scene, but it's there in the next one...and missing again in the next one? No? Wait...let's rewind..." "Honey? Where'd you go? Honey?" Gotta love TiVo!


----------



## Fraser+Dief (Nov 18, 2005)

bicker said:


> Some do. Many don't. Business, like everything else in life, relies on playing the odds.


And what about tivo users skipping commercials? Some do. Many don't.

The odds are exactly my point. The odds of users skipping commercials haven't changed. They just think they have. What's changed is the method, FF instead of bathrooom or mute.

Regardless, we watch more tv, and recall the ads just as well anyway.
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=41938

This whole issue is a red herring.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

The 1 thing I haven't seen mentioned, wich far outstrips TIVO use not being counted:

The biggest truth is that when the water levels in NYC were affected.. we had 13 channels at most, now we have 100+.

That is why the final episode of MASH is the all time most watched show to date. Back then.. you didn't have 99 other programs airing at the same time.
Remember being able to go into work and saying, "Did ya see the part where...." and your co-worker finished your sentence? Well.. those days are mostly OVER.

Honestly.. I don't feel bad if Jericho or any other show gets cancelled because of too many other shows are being aired at the same time. The TV studios did it to themselves by owning/starting multiple channels. What are the chances that out of 100+ channels that at 8:12pm, your watching the Tylenol commerical on channel 78?

Economically (simplified alot here).. if your running 3 stations now.. and still only getting the same amount of viewers you had with only 1 station.. that at any given time.. you can really only support 1 new program and 2 repeats. Now who's fault is it? Tivo's or (MTV,MTV2,VH1,MSNBC,CNN,FOX NEWS,etc, etc, etc, etc)

Also, personally.. I always changed channels during commericals... with only 13 channels.. I used to have to sit through some commercials.. but now.. NEVER.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Why even the focus on DVR's commercial skipping and delayed viewing. This is nothing new VCR's have performed these functions for years and there are still a lot more of them out there recording on a daily basis. If you want to know where the viewers really are they are at work putting in overtime and working second jobs to stay afloat. Live viewing is slipping because people just aren't home and not always by choice.


----------



## weymo (Jan 26, 2003)

shaggy314 said:


> Josh Whedon is still cashing Firefly checks despite a cancelled show (DVD, comics, toys, posters) so live viewers shouldn't be the whole story.


Guilty as charged. I've actually subscribed to "Buffy Season Eight" (Dark Horse) comics for my wife. Whedon kept on writing story...just found a new medium...I think that's pretty cool.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fraser+Dief said:


> The odds are exactly my point. The odds of users skipping commercials haven't changed.


They absolutely, positively have changed. A digital device with fantastic FF capability providing close to point-point accuracy supports skipping commercials far far more than other means. We skip a lot more commercials now than we did when we used VCRs, and even more so than when we watched live. That's the case for typical viewers AFIAC.



Fraser+Dief said:


> They just think they have.


I just think that you're mistaken.



Fraser+Dief said:


> What's changed is the method, FF instead of bathrooom


If you need to go to the bathroom six times an hour, you should see a urologist.



Fraser+Dief said:


> or mute


That's ludicrous. It shows to me how little you believe your own assertion. I suppose you'll assert next that Average Joe American will pick up a book and read for the three minutes...


----------



## TivoZorro (Jul 16, 2000)

I took a new attitude this year in regard to the new shows. Tivo and save them until I see if they get a full season and if they get renewed. I'm tired of investing my time in a storyline that will never be completed. Here is what happened, Studio 60 episodes unwatched and deleted, the same with The Nine and probably other shows.

There were some exceptions, Justice which I liked and Raines which I'd like to see and that other show called Andy something will get watched. 

I have full seasons of Borthers & Sisters and Ugly Betty waiting. Now that they have been renewed I'll watch.

This is the newtworks fault. Didn't it used to be that networks gave a show a whole season before they cancelled it? 

And as far as the commercials, haven't watched any since the VCR came out and I recorded my shows.


----------



## porsche944 (Apr 9, 2007)

Ya know, I'm not sure I buy any of this entire thread. I don't know that much about Nielsen technology. I don't think any of the posters here do either, even those that say they are Nielsen families. I haven't seen even one single verifiable FACT about ANYTHING in this entire thread.

Also, TV is an open standard, DVR recording is not. Tivo, as great as it is, is a very small company. Every cable company uses its own proprietary format and hardware for DVRs. I just don't believe that Nielsen does or even can tell what you're doing with your DVR, or VCR other than whether you have one or not, and then ONLY if you TELL them you have one.

Next, even if DVR viewing were treated differently (and I don't think that it is), it wouldn't get your favorite show or any show canceled or not. If 2% of Nielsen families were DVR users, then 2% of ratings on ALL shows would be equally affected, all other things being equal. EVERY show that the DVR viewers watched would be affected the same, duh.

Also, if Nielsen were to discount the viewing habits of DVR users, wouldn't they just not include them as viewers? It would be incredibly stupid for a marketing company to spend money to install equipment to monitor a viewer to get statistics that they weren't going to use. They're pretty smart people. People a lot stupider than that, fire people for doing things a lot less stupid than that.

Next, nearly everyone on the planet has a VCR. Sure, people watch live TV, but do you think the networks are fools? Haven't you all noticed for many, MANY years now, that just about every commercial is designed so that when you fast forward through it, you still get the main gist of the message? Yeah, you lose the cleverness and production values of the better ads, but you still see the company's name, product, main message, etc. only condensed into 7 seconds instead of 30. Unless you hack your tivo, and, face it, most don't, you can ony fast forward, not skip.


----------



## porsche944 (Apr 9, 2007)

oh, and a little common sense here. the purpose of the ratings is to see what's popular and predict what the population at large will watch. It doesn't matter one tiny little bit if a if one, ten, or a hundred Nielsen families fast forwards through commercials or not. What matters is that statistically, if, say, 90% of nielsen families watch a show, then they're projecting that 90% of the viewing population is also. If some number of Nielsen families fast forward, that doesn't have anything to do AT ALL with the projected statistics of what other non-Nielsen families will fast forward through. This has to be the most ill-conceived poorly thought-through thread I have read so far on the internet.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

porsche944 said:


> Ya know, I'm not sure I buy any of this entire thread. I don't know that much about Nielsen technology. I don't think any of the posters here do either...
> 
> This has to be the most ill-conceived poorly thought-through thread I have read so far on the internet.


 So what youre saying is that you're new to the Internet and that you make friends easily? 

To your credit you've had the foresight to admit that you don't have much knowledge about what you're talking about. However making blanket statements like those above are not helpful and they completely obfuscate any point(s) you were trying to make. Overall they don't do anything more than make you out to be an arrogant a**.

If you want to share your thoughts you're more than welcome but spare us the high and mighty hyperbole. And before you go into the truth hurts nonsense dont bother; youll only end up on everyones ignore list.

The nice thing about these forums is that they are like a television program; if you don't like what you see...turn it off.


----------



## jmace57 (Nov 30, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Unless you are a "Nielsen Family" what you watch and if you use a DVR is irrelevant. All the ratings are based on statistics so it only matters what the people in their sample are doing.
> 
> Thanks,


We were a Nielsen family, and we filled in what shows we watched - it had sections for when it aired...and when we watched it on our TiVo. Maybe it was a test, but maybe someone else can comment.

Jim


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> The hard-cold reality is that what makes television work (viewers watching commercials)


That is a pernicious lie. I mean no offense - you're not the one who told it - but it's a downright lie, nonetheless, and it is told again and again by the biggest thieves in the world: the network television industry and its affiliated content providers. The fact is HBO, Showtime, several of Turner Network's offerings, QVC, and many others make plenty of money without a single commercial content sponsor - no ads. Until recently, PBS also did not sell commercial advertising, and they still do not in the way the national networks do.

Completely without my permission or that of any consumer, companies across the United States seek advertising on network and affiliate stations using not their own money but that of every consumer who buys a can of corn, a broom, shampoo or an automobile.

Last year these companies in collusion with the networks increased the cost of almost every item I or anyone else purchased typically between 10% and 30%, depending on the item. In return the networks and their affiliates produced virtually nothing of any significant value - certainly almost nothing worth wasting my time watching, but even if they did produce anything worth watching, it is still theft. In my particular case, they stole something over $7000, and what did they offer back in return? Survivor. The Batchelor. Sports. Donald Trump's piece of crap (I don't even recall the name). Desperate Housewives. I'd rather grate my tongue with a cheese grater, thank you. And since I don't watch or intend ever to watch that !#@[email protected]#$%, I'll take my money back, if you don't mind.



bicker said:


> is generally the part of television that viewers seek to reduce or eliminate.


That is true, of course. The problem is, they are going about it the wrong way, and more importantly, they don't have the ability to do so. The Nielsen ratings are not based upon the viewing habits of the American public, but on the Nielsen families and to some extent on opinion polls. If every Nielsen family and every person who filled out the network opinion poll spent zero time watching network television, the commercials would vanish completely in a flash, and the networks would be forced to find other sources of funding, which they should be forced to do anyway.

Theft:
A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly or without permission appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jmace57 said:


> We were a Nielsen family, and we filled in what shows we watched - it had sections for when it aired...and when we watched it on our TiVo. Maybe it was a test, but maybe someone else can comment.


You are not a Nielsen family. You merely filled out one of their polls. The members of a Nielsen family sign very strict Non-Disclosure Agreements and have special devices installed which monitor their every channel change and when the set is on or off, as well as what shows they record and when they fast-forward.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

porsche944 said:


> Ya know, I'm not sure I buy any of this entire thread. I don't know that much about Nielsen technology.


Then why comment on it?



porsche944 said:


> I don't think any of the posters here do either


It's not my specific field of expertise, or at least not any longer, but I do know a bit about the hardware and I've seen some reports on the ND agreement the heads of household of every Nielsen family signs.



porsche944 said:


> even those that say they are Nielsen families.


If they were Nielsen families, they would be breaking the law announcing it. I think most of us have filled out one of their polls. When I was a kid, they used to send them out with a quarter in them as thanks for filling it out. I haven't seen one in decades.



porsche944 said:


> I haven't seen even one single verifiable FACT about ANYTHING in this entire thread.


Well, it's mostly an opinion thread, so what do you expect, really?



porsche944 said:


> Also, TV is an open standard, DVR recording is not.


Now who is displaying their ignorance? Broadcast and CATV television signals must meet FCC specifications. Television sets must only meet the requirement that they not produce any emissions of their own above specified levels in specific bands. Otherwise, it's no more an open standard than any other. DVRs are no less or more based upon open or closed standards than a TV, and there are far more TV patents out there than DVR patents - at least for the time being.



porsche944 said:


> Tivo, as great as it is, is a very small company.


It is not a small company. It is not a giant corporation like General Motors or AT&T, but it's not a small company. With 4.5 million subscriptions sold, they are bringing in over 40 million dollars a month or half a billion dollars a year just in subscriptions, let alone in licenses on the TiVo hardware and software patents to Philips, Sony, Magnavox, Humax, etc., and their own hardware sales. The series III alone has garnered them more than $250 million gross.



porsche944 said:


> Every cable company uses its own proprietary format and hardware for DVRs.


There you go again. The cable companies' hardware is no more proprietary than any TV manufacturer. Indeed, much less so since their equipment must meet rigid standards set by the FCC that Televisions do not have to meet. For example, since July last year, every CATV company has been required to produce CableCard compatible signals. Every CATV company is going to move to CableCard based set tops and DVRs in the next few years.

Not only that, but there are dozens of manufacturers of Televisions, but only a very small handful of CATV equipment manufacturers. The main ones are C-Cor, Scientific Atlanta, Magnavox, RMS, Jerrold, Zenith, and Siemens. I've heard reports that Comcast and Time Warner are going to start manufacturing their own set top equipment, but I'm skeptical. I'd be fairly surprised if they don't just have one or two of the big manufacturers make the boxes and them OEM them.



porsche944 said:


> I just don't believe that Nielsen does or even can tell what you're doing with your DVR, or VCR other than whether you have one or not, and then ONLY if you TELL them you have one.


'Sorry, wrong again, or at least you are if by "you" you mean a Nielsen family. If you mean the average bloke on the street, then you are correct. The only thing Nielsen knows directly about the average Joe on the street comes from the voluntary surveys they send out at random asking people to keep a journal. These are not Nielsen families. Nielsen families agree to have some very sophisticated (not to mention bulky and expensive) electronic equipment installed in their homes which monitors every second of viewing - both live and via DVR - done by the household. Actually, it's much easier for a DVR (including TiVo) viewing, since any DVR box can be easily modified to spit out a log of what is watched millisecond by millisecond.

If you want to know a bit more about how Nielsen families are monitored, you can get some information from t he horse's mouth, as it were. Nielsen Media Research maintains a website where you can learn a bit about the technology they use to play Big Brother to their contract families.

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/port...toid=cf3447f8b5264010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCRD



porsche944 said:


> Next, even if DVR viewing were treated differently (and I don't think that it is)


It is.



porsche944 said:


> it wouldn't get your favorite show or any show canceled or not. If 2% of Nielsen families were DVR users, then 2% of ratings on ALL shows would be equally affected, all other things being equal. EVERY show that the DVR viewers watched would be affected the same, duh.


That's not necessarily true in general, although it may well be true for the most part. I have not seen the specifics, but it is at least possible that TiVo owners may on average prefer a particular show in statistically significantly greater numbers than the general population. Given two shows of otherwise equal ratings, the advertisers can maximize their penetration by dropping support for the show the greter percentage of whose viewers are TiVo owners and put the funds into the show the non-TiVo owners like. I'm not saying this is the case - merely that it is possible.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Indeed -- the extent of consumerism in this country just points out how incredibly effective advertising has been, and continues to be.


Rampant consumerism in this country far predates television and the contemporary advertising practices. It started mainly with the industrial revolution, and is little if any more prevalent in the middle and upper classes now than in 1850. The only real difference is now the middle class is much larger, and we can get goods much faster than in 1850, or even 1950, for that matter, and we can get them over the internet or via phone. When I was kid, one had to wait 6 weeks for most items, and had to send a check or money order.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Rampant consumerism in this country far predates television and the contemporary advertising practices. It started mainly with the industrial revolution, and is little if any more prevalent in the middle and upper classes now than in 1850. The only real difference is now the middle class is much larger, and we can get goods much faster than in 1850, or even 1950, for that matter, and we can get them over the internet or via phone. When I was kid, one had to wait 6 weeks for most items, and had to send a check or money order.


 All true. :up: The added element is that back in the late 1800's most consumer products had less competition and little marketing by today's standards. So buying Acme soap was the rule of the day. Now products which are identical can be sold for a little or a lot depending on advertising/marketing campaigns. Aspirin is aspirin for example. But at the store 50 tablets of Bayer might sell for the same price as 300 tablets of a generic brand. There's absolutely no difference between the two products other than how much one company spent on advertising and how much margin they think they can demand based on being a branded product (taking into account that R&D costs have already been recovered).

Ads persuade people to pay top dollar for brand name products for a laundry list of reasons. Granted, some products are of a higher quality than others and companies can use that differentiation to market whatever it is they are selling. But the perceived "need" to purchase brand name items is generally the result of advertising.

Advertising is a powerful medium that can truly impact the world...for better or worse; unfortunately a lot would say it's the latter.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

bicker said:


> I suppose you'll assert next that Average Joe American will pick up a book and read for the three minutes...


I hadn't thought about it, but I read much less now that I have a DVR, because yes, I DID read for three minutes during commercials.


----------



## minckster (Aug 31, 2006)

richsadams said:


> Aspirin is aspirin for example. But at the store 50 tablets of Bayer might sell for the same price as 300 tablets of a generic brand. There's absolutely no difference between the two products other than how much one company spent on advertising and how much margin they think they can demand based on being a branded product (taking into account that R&D costs have already been recovered).


 That's not the only difference. Given that China exports toothpaste "sweetened" with anti-freeze, another difference is the buyer's assurance that the manufacturer cares about and will enforce quality control. Colgate and Bayer are motivated to protect those profit margins, while Joe-Fly-by-Night brand is not. I'm much more inclined to look for Made in the US and a high-profit-margin brand name for anything that I ingest than I was just a few weeks ago.

Another difference is aesthetic. Bayer's tablet look nicer and there's less dust in the bottle. It may be an unimportant difference to you and me, but not to everyone.

There may be another difference. Are Bayer tablets coated to be easier to swallow?

I'm sure that Bayer could come up with a longer list of differences. Just because you (and I) don't value those differences, is no reason to assume that no one values them or that buyers of Bayer are stupidly allowing themselves to be snookered. The mere fact that people voluntarily part with their money for Bayer supports my argument that they do indeed value those differences.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

minckster said:


> That's not the only difference. Given that China exports toothpaste "sweetened" with anti-freeze, another difference is the buyer's assurance that the manufacturer cares about and will enforce quality control. Colgate and Bayer are motivated to protect those profit margins, while Joe-Fly-by-Night brand is not. I'm much more inclined to look for Made in the US and a high-profit-margin brand name for anything that I ingest than I was just a few weeks ago.
> 
> Another difference is aesthetic. Bayer's tablet look nicer and there's less dust in the bottle. It may be an unimportant difference to you and me, but not to everyone.
> 
> ...


 More good points indeed. Not only are those companies interested in protecting their profit margins, they are keenly concerned about protecting their market share.

Knowing where products are produced and by who is certainly important. But buying a branded product doesn't necessarily protect you either. A good example is the recent Colgate toothpaste episode on the East Coast. Everything about the packaging was exactly the same as the legitimate product...but as you mentioned, it was apparently imported from overseas and sweetened with diethylene glycol.  The only reason it was found to be counterfeit was through random testing by the FDA. Neither the stores nor the distributor realized it was fake.

The fact is that a major number of the companies that sell branded products also manufacture the generic or "store brand" equivalent and will even advertise that the branded product is betterwhen they know better. Or they may manufacture a store brand based on the store's specifications. For instance there isn't a "Kenmore Corporation"; a brand which is marketed by Sears or "Kirkland" products which are sold in Costco.

In addition many of the products (branded and unbranded) we consider to be "made in the U.S.A." becuase they have familiar names are actually made elsewhere...perhaps in Mexico, often in China. Regulations regarding how and when companies are required to disclose that fact are complicated at best.

So there is certainly value to be found in some branded products, be it safety, quality, etc., but there are no guarantees. So when it comes to paying more for a Ralph Lauren shirt over a shirt without the little polo logo  but of equal quality  that's marketing and the demand is created by advertising. Hopefully whichever we buyits the real deal.

PhewI think Ive strayed OT again.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

TivoZorro said:


> This is the newtworks fault.


Be careful assigning fault. This is like saying that the gunk in the engine caused the engine to fail, when *in reality* the gunk in the engine was there because the owner of the car never changed the oil.

This is the viewers' fault. The viewers are unreliable, flaky, inconsistent, unwilling to give shows a chance, etc., and so the viewers have trained the network to respond to the clear indications viewers give that a show's chances of success are less than what is necessary to justify the continued expense and opportunity cost of presenting the show.

Remember when you point your index finger at something, at least three fingers are pointing back at you.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> > The hard-cold reality is that what makes television work (viewers watching commercials)
> 
> 
> That is a pernicious lie.


Gosh wouldn't it be nice if it was. I know that it pains you to embrace the reality, and I do sympathize, but it isn't constructive to wallow in fantasy when interacting with the real world.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Rampant consumerism in this country far predates television and the contemporary advertising practices.


Yet since the introduction of mass-marketing, the effect has grown exponentially. It's simple math: You reach more people with a more effective message, and your efforts are more effective.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JETarpon said:


> I hadn't thought about it, but I read much less now that I have a DVR, because yes, I DID read for three minutes during commercials.


With respect, then, I submit that you're weird.  Seriously, you are not typical, and (by definition) what atypical folks do doesn't count. Most people who zip through commercials with DVRs today would have sit through many commercials when they watched television live. This goes back to what I mentioned earlier about embracing reality and not wallowing in fantasy. This is the reality of the situation -- accept it or prepared to be bitter and frustrated with what you get from the television medium in perpetuity.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

bicker said:


> With respect, then, I submit that you're weird.  Seriously, you are not typical, and (by definition) what atypical folks do doesn't count. Most people who zip through commercials with DVRs today would have sit through many commercials when they watched television live. This goes back to what I mentioned earlier about embracing reality and not wallowing in fantasy. This is the reality of the situation -- accept it or prepared to be bitter and frustrated with what you get from the television medium in perpetuity.


Actually one can make productive use of commercial time by simply hitting the mute button and having an actual conversation with those around you - remember conversations?

Come to think of it more frequent use of the off button would be even more productive.....


----------



## mike3775 (Jan 3, 2003)

bicker said:


> Be careful assigning fault. This is like saying that the gunk in the engine caused the engine to fail, when *in reality* the gunk in the engine was there because the owner of the car never changed the oil.
> 
> This is the viewers' fault. The viewers are unreliable, flaky, inconsistent, unwilling to give shows a chance, etc., and so the viewers have trained the network to respond to the clear indications viewers give that a show's chances of success are less than what is necessary to justify the continued expense and opportunity cost of presenting the show.
> 
> Remember when you point your index finger at something, at least three fingers are pointing back at you.


How is it the viewers fault if a show goes on hiatus for 3 months because the networks want to be greedy and place a show on all 3 sweeps periods?

If I am into a show, and then it goes *poof* for 3 months, and I happen to find something else to watch at that time slot immediately, and that show is still on when the original show returns, why is it my fault that I decided to stay with the new show and not return to the other show that had disappeared for 3 months? Thats not my fault, its the networks for being greedy.

You also claim that viewers are unwilling to give new shows a chance. I and probably hundreds of thousands more, have given hundreds of shows a chance, but the shows stunk that people did not care to watch it anymore. The ratings showed that people gave "Jericho" a chance, but then the network got greedy, wanting the show to be in all 3 sweep periods, so it pulled it for 3 months, and when it returned, the ratings tanked. Hmm wonder why the ratings tanked so bad, of course going up against American Idol wouldn't cause that would it? Oh no, the networks are not that stupid are they? No its because the viewers refused to give it a chance right?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mike3775 said:


> How is it the viewers fault if a show goes on hiatus for 3 months


The show goes on hiatus for 3 months because the viewers responded negative to similar shows that exhibited the standard new episodes-mixed-with reruns arrangement necessary to spread 22 episodes over 35 weeks, and because viewers in general refuse to watch programming in the same numbers during the World Series, and during the Christmas holidays, as during other weeks, etc.

This is the viewers' fault. The viewers are unreliable, flaky, inconsistent, unwilling to give shows a chance, etc.



mike3775 said:


> because the networks want to be greedy


With respect, that's incredibly out-of-touch with reality. The networks exist to maximize shareholder value. It isn't greed. It is fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility. They are required to do that *by law*. The networks do have responsibilities beyond that -- they're spelled out very clearly by the FCC. They have to provide a certain amount of educational programming, and have to provide a sufficient amount of informational programming. They are NOT responsible to pander to your specific preference with regard to how and when they schedule their programming, and instead are obligated to schedule their programming in accordance with the arrangement that best serves the interests of their owners. There may not be a good answer, but when doing what you want degrades shareholder value, they MUST decline to accede to your preference. And until it is your money that they're playing with, exclusively, then your claims that you know better than they do fall on deaf ears.



mike3775 said:


> If I am into a show, and then it goes *poof* for 3 months, and I happen to find something else to watch at that time slot immediately, and that show is still on when the original show returns, why is it my fault that I decided to stay with the new show and not return to the other show that had disappeared for 3 months?


Are you putting yourself in the position of being "viewers"? You are just one viewer, Mike, and that's really critical for you to understand: None of us, individually, are that important, and therefore none of us, individually, is who I was referring to in my message. I used the word "viewers" instead of "you" deliberately. It wasn't a typo.



mike3775 said:


> You also claim that viewers are unwilling to give new shows a chance.


No. I stated that viewers are unwilling to give new shows a chance. There is so much friggen evidence of that in the public domain that it is silly to even try to defend J6P in this regard.

If you really feel as strongly about your unrealistic perspective as you seem to, why don't you risk your own money producing the show instead of criticizing others for electing not to risk theirs? It does seem really unreasonable of you to expect others to assume risks with their money that they, in their informed, experienced and professional opinion, believe are bad risks.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> The show goes on hiatus for 3 months because the viewers responded negative to similar shows that exhibited the standard new episodes-mixed-with reruns arrangement necessary to spread 22 episodes over 35 weeks, and because viewers in general refuse to watch programming in the same numbers during the World Series, and during the Christmas holidays, as during other weeks, etc..


Ok then, how about "The networks got cocky and thought "Jericho" would survive a 3 month hiatus"? Also I would submit that scheduling a simple drama that was doing just average ratings up against American Idol did not show much professional acumen on the network's part.

Sure putting breaks in the show is better than repeats any day of the week in my book becasue I have a TiVo and got all the episodes the first time around but for other viewers who watch what is on right now it might make sense to schedule some repeats and get them interested in a show they might have not checked out originally or else help them cacth up and stay interested.

TV used to have a much simpler seasonal schedule, I can understand dealing with significant live events and holiday schedules but with all the various permutations on a seasonal schedule even on the same network I simply do not understand how someone keeps up with a show if they only watch live TV. That is something the networks had better start doing a better job of.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TV used to have a much simpler seasonal schedule, I can understand dealing with significant live events and holiday schedules but with all the various permutations on a seasonal schedule even on the same network I simply do not understand how someone keeps up with a show if they only watch live TV. That is something the networks had better start doing a better job of.


 "1 :up:


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

There's so much interesting to comment on in this thread, but in the interest of time, I am going to say something different...

I'll bet a lot more TiVoes (and other DVRs) could have "remembered" to record the episodes in the the case of Jericho when it started up again than people would have remembered to start watching again - provided DVRs are equiped to properly recognize shows in the Season Pass sense that TiVo does.

The comments by the actor regarding watching during broadcast are ignorant and self-serving. This thread does a good job ignoring them and discussing the broad issues about the subject.

http://hdtivo.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/canceling-tv-shows/


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Ok then, how about "The networks got cocky and thought "Jericho" would survive a 3 month hiatus"?


Better. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, and to suggest that individual viewers, who's primary responsibility in this realm is strictly what's better for themselves, are better judges of what is best for the networks than experienced professionals, who's primary responsibility is to determine what's best for the networks.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Also I would submit that scheduling a simple drama that was doing just average ratings up against American Idol did not show much professional acumen on the network's part.


What program would have done better against American Idol? What proof do you have of your guess in that regard?

The network cannot just go dark.



ZeoTiVo said:


> That is something the networks had better start doing a better job of.


I don't think it is up to the networks. They cannot unilaterally change the environment within which they must operate. I think advertisers have to get together (as if that were possible) and decide that a change in the environment is good for THEM, then they can prompt a change in the way ratings are assessed. I think the best way of addressing the problem is doing away with sweeps periods completely -- setting advertising rates based actual ratings each night individually, or based on full-year ratings.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Better. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, and to suggest that individual viewers, who's primary responsibility in this realm is strictly what's better for themselves, are better judges of what is best for the networks than experienced professionals, who's primary responsibility is to determine what's best for the networks.
> 
> What program would have done better against American Idol? What proof do you have of your guess in that regard?
> 
> The network cannot just go dark.


 true, they might have done some analysis and decided Jericho was their best sacrifice, but I think the backlash is that these execs then say DVRs are to blame. That is pretty similar to us saying it was American Idol. Network execs should be held to a higher standard than some Internet forum posters, I would think.


> I don't think it is up to the networks. They cannot unilaterally change the environment within which they must operate. I think advertisers have to get together (as if that were possible) and decide that a change in the environment is good for THEM, then they can prompt a change in the way ratings are assessed. I think the best way of addressing the problem is doing away with sweeps periods completely -- setting advertising rates based actual ratings each night individually, or based on full-year ratings.


 true - I do think they adjust those sweep numbers to try and account for reality though. Still the networks could change things by meeting with the advertisers and coming up with something better. My main point though is that many viewers get tired of the scheduling games, for whatever reason they exist, and just move on. This is why reality shows that will be on a promised number of weeks, will not repeat and move toward a conclusion work. People like the idea they can invest that night and time and it will pay off in a complete package. When dramatic series should supposedly offer that same promise and then fail to deliver on that promise as things change then why are the execs tisk-tisking at ratings drops.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bicker said:


> This is the viewers' fault. The viewers are unreliable, flaky, inconsistent, unwilling to give shows a chance, etc.


By viewers I guess you mean the Nielsen families. The whole Nielsen thing is based on statistics and you know what they say about statistics, that statistics can be used to prove anything.

Everyone in the country could watch a show, but if none of the Nielsen families watched it, it would have a 0 rating and be canceled. On the flip side, if all Nielsen families watched a specific show, but no one else did, it would be considered the highest rated show on TV and that "everyone" was watching it. Personally I doubt that a Nielsen family could represent a single viewer, let alone a few hundred thousand.


----------



## mike3775 (Jan 3, 2003)

> I don't think it is up to the networks. They cannot unilaterally change the environment within which they must operate.


They can to, and have done so a lot of times in the past and recently as well.

In 2003, ABC, NBC, and CBS all decided that if the Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs had won the ALCS and NLCS respectivally, they would have shown repeats during the World Series, because they knew that the ratings for that would have probably beaten M*A*S*H's all time record(and in todays times, thats quite the feat). Once the Cubs lost the NLCS, all the networks then went back to the original plan and aired new episodes.

ABC moved Lost back 1 hour to avoid competing with CSI, when Lost's ratings continued to drop, so instead of competing against the better show, they moved their show back, to avoid it, and it did help with the ratings for Lost when it came back on the air somewhat.

Networks can unilaterally change whenever they want, why else would shows that are on Tuesday one week be on Thursday next week, or make the biggest mistakes like oversaturating the air with stupid ass shows to try and lure people in, like Fox loves to do with any new show that they come up with?(my god when War at Home debuted, it was on Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday and even Saturday, then they even showed the pilot again before the 2nd ep the following week, they also did that with The Loop, which is airing twice tonight in fact)

Network execs want to place blame on everything but themselves for shows doing bad. Instead of looking in the mirror, they want to blame everything else, which most of the time it isn't anything but their own fault for the show stinking up the joint.

As far as the one persons suggestion on me creating my own tv show, sorry, the only thing networks like now seems to be reality based, and thats just not my cup of tea.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> true, they might have done some analysis and decided Jericho was their best sacrifice


Not even that. Remember that Grey's Anatomy just moved from a real safe spot on Sunday to a pretty competitive spot on Thursday and has basically taken over that lucrative timeslot. If ABC didn't take that risk, then they wouldn't have yielded that great reward. I personally wouldn't have thought Jericho was as powerful as Grey's Anatomy, but then again, I'm not an expert and THEY ARE. Their taking that change has more credibility than me saying that they shouldn't, even after-the-fact knowing that their strategy didn't work out.



ZeoTiVo said:


> but I think the backlash is that these execs then say DVRs are to blame.


I wouldn't doubt that DVRs had a more negative impact on Jericho than most other programs; or perhaps it would be better to say that DVR use resulted in less positive impact than Jericho would probably have enjoyed without DVR use.



ZeoTiVo said:


> My main point though is that many viewers get tired of the scheduling games, for whatever reason they exist, and just move on.


I disagree. I think curmudgeons simply use scheduling as yet another excuse to launch off-target criticisms about what they don't like, instead of just being satisfied with saying, "I don't like it."


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> By viewers I guess you mean the Nielsen families.


Nielsen families reflect the viewers.



morac said:


> The whole Nielsen thing is based on statistics and you know what they say about statistics, that statistics can be used to prove anything.


Which is what people say when they don't *like *the reality that statistics do reveal. Remember, the networks, the Nielsen folks, and the advertisers all have a vested interest in ensuring that the statistics help them optimize their returns. They have no reason to distort the statistics to deflect them from doing what's best for themselves.



morac said:


> Everyone in the country could watch a show, but if none of the Nielsen families watched it, it would have a 0 rating and be canceled.


That's never happened. Let's keep this discussion on Planet Earth, okay? When what you're suggesting here actually happens (even just once), then we can talk about it as a relevant issue.



morac said:


> Personally I doubt that a Nielsen family could represent a single viewer, let alone a few hundred thousand.


You skepticism doesn't obviate the reality that statistics actually is a valid science, that works in the *real* world.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mike3775 said:


> They can to, and have done so a lot of times in the past and recently as well.


I disagree. Your examples are off-target. We're talking about ratings and advertising rates, not saving one specific show, which is comparatively insignificant. You're talking about comparatively insignificant scheduling changes, totally within their own control and that of one other company.



mike3775 said:


> As far as the one persons suggestion on me creating my own tv show, sorry, the only thing networks like now seems to be reality based, and thats just not my cup of tea.


The point isn't for you to work within the current environment -- YOU are the one suggesting that folks work outside reality, so why not start with yourself?


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

bicker said:


> That's never happened. Let's keep this discussion on Planet Earth, okay? When what you're suggesting here actually happens (even just once), then we can talk about it as a relevant issue.


A number of responses to that involving aliens landing crossed my mind.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Nielsen families reflect the viewers.
> 
> Which is what people say when they don't *like *the reality that statistics do reveal. Remember, the networks, the Nielsen folks, and the advertisers all have a vested interest in ensuring that the statistics help them optimize their returns. They have no reason to distort the statistics to deflect them from doing what's best for themselves.
> 
> ...


Man Bicker, Now I am starting to think you made the decison on scheduling Jericho 

anyhow, so are you amintaing that putting jericho on a 3 month hiatus and then scheduling against a proven audience grabber like American Idol did NOT effect its ratings? Because it is moves like this I am referring to that network execs make and screw up good shows that might have done well otherwise.
Some like Gray's or American Idol are strong enough that they can be scheduled in a way to drive leadership in a night time slot. Others like Jericho have a good following but not to the point they can switch their schedules around to suit the network. I am of course NOT saying I have the magic touch and should be in charge of network scheduling. I would find the many variables just as hard to pinpoint to ensure always making the right decision, but some are just obvious like Jericho NOT pulling viewers away from American Idol after being out for 3 months.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> anyhow, so are you amintaing that putting jericho on a 3 month hiatus and then scheduling against a proven audience grabber like American Idol did NOT effect its ratings?


I haven't amintained anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, re-read the example I gave; Grey's Anatomy. Its ratings went down. Its profits went up.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Because it is moves like this I am referring to that network execs make and screw up good shows that might have done well otherwise.


That reflects a terribly myopic perspective. "Screwing up good shows" is, first, a personal opinion, and second, not a network perspective. The networks is suppose to address the needs of the network.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Some like Gray's or American Idol are strong enough that they can be scheduled in a way to drive leadership in a night time slot. Others like Jericho have a good following but not to the point they can switch their schedules around to suit the network.


One thing that keeps getting lost in this discussion is how expensive Jericho is to produce. A show that expensive cannot afford to be mediocre in its reach. Doing second place Wednesday at 8PM isn't good enough.

The hope, now, is that with all the free publicity, Jericho will hopefully win its time-slot, and perhaps win an even more lucrative time-slot.



ZeoTiVo said:


> some are just obvious


Don't get me wrong -- you have every right to type what you want, but it is important to keep it in the proper perspective. You're right; you don't have the magic touch, and neither do I. What I do have is the appropriate respect for the professional expertise of people who actually do know this business.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

bicker said:


> One thing that keeps getting lost in this discussion is how expensive Jericho is to produce. A show that expensive cannot afford to be mediocre in its reach. Doing second place Wednesday at 8PM isn't good enough.


If that other town kicks their @ss and takes most of Jericho and kills more cast members, production costs could plummet, and they could survive as an Unbox download.


----------



## mike3775 (Jan 3, 2003)

Its ok bicker, I accept the blame for every single show being cancelled in the past 32 years of my life. Its all my fault that I never once watched any recent reality show since 1999, my fault I never got into any show on UPN(except Star Trek Voyager, Enterprise), WGN(except the noon news), WB(except Unhappily ever after). I'm so sorry that I as a viewer caused UPN and WB to go belly up and merge into whatever they are called now. Its all my fault, because as a loyal TV viewer, I need to watch every single show to make sure that it stays on the air, regardless of whether or not it may air when something better is on. I guess Tivo better rush the quadtrillion tuner into production, so that I, as a loyal TV viewer can personally save each and every TV show on TV right now, because its all my fault that TV shows got cancelled because I was "unreliable, flaky, inconsistent, unwilling to give shows a chance"

I'm so sorry Bicker, I will make it my life's goal to right the wrongs of the TV world, and as soon as the quadtrillion tuner Tivo comes out, I shall make sure I watch every single TV show to ever be produced so that networks never have to admit that they screw up, and thus they can have me to blame for all the woes.

Maybe I should carbon copy this post to all the TV networks, that way when a show gets cancelled, they just have to say that I was to blame for a show getting cancelled.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

mike3775 said:


> I accept the blame for every single show being cancelled in the past 32 years of my life. ...
> my fault I never got into any show on UPN(except Star Trek Voyager, Enterprise


But not the first 60 years? Did you close any Picture Houses?

There were other shows on UPN????


----------



## mike3775 (Jan 3, 2003)

HDTiVo said:


> But not the first 60 years? Did you close any Picture Houses?
> 
> There were other shows on UPN????


No sorry, I'm only to blame for the past 32 years, 3 months, 10 days.

Well thats why UPN is no longer around HDTivo, I never watched any of the other shows on UPN.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bicker said:


> Nielsen families reflect the viewers.


Nielsen families are a sample of viewers which are extrapolated to reflect all viewers. This does not mean they actually reflect the viewers. I know they don't reflect my tastes.



bicker said:


> Which is what people say when they don't *like *the reality that statistics do reveal. Remember, the networks, the Nielsen folks, and the advertisers all have a vested interest in ensuring that the statistics help them optimize their returns. They have no reason to distort the statistics to deflect them from doing what's best for themselves.


They may not intentionally distort the statistics, but the reality of it is, that the views of 5000 families is not a true reflection of the views of over a 100 million TV viewing households. The sample size is simply not large enough.



bicker said:


> That's never happened. Let's keep this discussion on Planet Earth, okay? When what you're suggesting here actually happens (even just once), then we can talk about it as a relevant issue.


There have been shows that have a 0.0 share despite having an audience so it does happen albeit not to the extremes I posted.



bicker said:


> You skepticism doesn't obviate the reality that statistics actually is a valid science, that works in the *real* world.


The problem with statistics is that is is an inexact science. If statistics were perfect then every poll ever taken on a specific subject would match and would predict reliably the subject the poll was on. If you've ever watched politics polls you know that never happens, even with fairly large sample sizes.

If I poll 5000 people and half say red is their favorite color I can't just conclude that red is the favorite color of half the people in America, yet that is what Nielsen Media does every day.

This is just one of the reasons why the Nielsen Ratings System has been criticized as being inaccurate.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

mike3775 said:


> Maybe I should carbon copy this post to all the TV networks, that way when a show gets cancelled, they just have to say that I was to blame for a show getting cancelled.


Better idea.
Everyone carbon copy *this entire thread* and send it to all the networks, ad firms, neilson execs, etc., through the "contact us" section on their websites.
Add a message that they need to change with the times.
At the very least, maybe we'll crash their e-mail servers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

HDTiVo said:


> If that other town kicks their @ss and takes most of Jericho and kills more cast members, production costs could plummet, and they could survive as an Unbox download.


Definitely and don't forget that when the time comes. They've already gotten rid of one of the big expenses (McRaney). I wouldn't be surprised (and would actually prefer it) if they dropped the whole "war with the other town" storyline, and go back to just focusing on interpersonal relationships in a town cut-off from what we would consider civilization. No special effects; limited outdoor filming.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mike3775 said:


> Its ok bicker, I accept the blame for every single show being cancelled in the past 32 years of my life.


Why? You're just one viewer. You don't matter that much. Don't be so hard on yourself.



mike3775 said:


> I'm so sorry Bicker, I will make it my life's goal to right the wrongs of the TV world, and as soon as the quadtrillion tuner Tivo comes out, I shall make sure I watch every single TV show to ever be produced so that networks never have to admit that they screw up, and thus they can have me to blame for all the woes.


In case you really are dense and didn't get my point, I'll try to state it clearer for you.... If you don't like what's on television, then blame the viewers -- all of them. Their flakiness is to blame. Their unpredictability is to blame.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> Nielsen families are a sample of viewers which are extrapolated to reflect all viewers. This does not mean they actually reflect the viewers. I know they don't reflect my tastes.


How do you know? Do you know every single Nielsen family? What makes you think there aren't an insignificant number of them reflecting the tastes of insignificant minorities of viewers, including you? The reality is that they do reflect all viewers, and you just *don't like* the results of that. They reflect all viewers in such a way to make it clear that your personal preferences are either reflective of an insignificant minority, or reflective of a niche that is an unprofitable niche to pander to.



morac said:


> They may not intentionally distort the statistics, but the reality of it is, that the views of 5000 families is not a true reflection of the views of over a 100 million TV viewing households. The sample size is simply not large enough.


You're 100% absolutely wrong.

If you don't know anything about the reality of statistics you should just keep quiet. You're embarrassing yourself.



morac said:


> There have been shows that have a 0.0 share despite having an audience so it does happen albeit not to the extremes I posted.


You've decided to fixate on insignificant distinctions due to rounding. That's your problem, not mine. I do give you credit, at least, for acknowledging the relative insignificance of your own point, in this regard.



morac said:


> The problem with statistics is that is is an inexact science.


So is cooking, yet restaurants serve wonderful meals every night. Inexact sciences are still sciences, and statistics still drive returns *better* than just pandering to your specific personal preferences. You're just upset because you're not getting your way, so you're banging your hands and feet on the ground demanding they please you, regardless of what the best information available indicates. It's self-centered and myopic, and it is no way to run a network.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

I think it's the fact that Jericho (and most other network shows) simply isn't a good show. I've watched a couple of episodes, and frankly I have better things to do with my time. It's OK, I suppose, if I'm intensely bored and I have nothing else to watch. But thanks to Tivo and the Internet, as well as the 200 other channels or so I receive, that isn't likely to happen.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

bicker said:


> Definitely and don't forget that when the time comes. They've already gotten rid of one of the big expenses (McRaney). I wouldn't be surprised (and would actually prefer it) if they dropped the whole "war with the other town" storyline, and go back to just focusing on interpersonal relationships in a town cut-off from what we would consider civilization. No special effects; limited outdoor filming.


They could do that version for you, a version with everyone shooting and killing each other for me, and a version where the aliens land and prove Neilsen is subverting American culture in preparation for a take over by version 2.0 of the Soviet Union for morac.



BobCamp1 said:


> I think it's the fact that Jericho ... simply isn't a good show.


It may be the _fact_, but it apparently isn't the _point_.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> They could do that version for you, a version with everyone shooting and killing each other for me, and a version where the aliens land and prove Neilsen is subverting American culture in preparation for a take over by version 2.0 of the Soviet Union for morac.
> 
> It may be the _fact_, but it apparently isn't the _point_.


 the show did change from one of intrigue and conspiracies to refocus on the people in the town and their relationships etc.. That slowed it down too much for many and was at the start of the ratings slump. For me it was kind of cool in hindisght because now I am rooting for the people since I "know them".

*NOTE- show info follows- don't read if you do not want a spolier*
I was definitely looking forward to the larger conspiracy coming to light nd coming to jericho since they have the last bomb there. the next town seems like a big problem but is small potatoes compared to thehelicopter that was flying in at the end.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

HDTiVo said:


> They could do that version for you, a version with everyone shooting and killing each other for me, and a version where the aliens land and prove Neilsen is subverting American culture in preparation for a take over by version 2.0 of the Soviet Union for morac.


How would that be less expensive than just doing the one version with minimal ballistic special effects? I think you've lost your train of thought.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the show did change from one of intrigue and conspiracies to refocus on the people in the town and their relationships etc.. That slowed it down too much for many and was at the start of the ratings slump.


I need to make a point of whenever we actually agree about something.... this is one of those times.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

bicker said:


> How would that be less expensive than just doing the one version with minimal ballistic special effects? I think you've lost your train of thought.


I wasn't thinking.


----------

