NationStates Jolt Archive

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/zd/20090401/tc_zd/238802
The important quote:
When asked if they would prefer people to watch content on DVRs or online – provided live TV was not an option – the executives primarily voted for the DVR, but only if watched within three days of recording so it would count toward final ratings tallies.

The tv networks want to kill online television and DVRs because they arn't factored into ratings tallies. Seriously? That's the real problem? I have a fucking idea - expand online offerings and fight with the ratings board to expand what is included in "ratings" counts. But of course they won't do that because they are both incompetent and hate their customers.

I concur with this sentiment...

I got an even better Idea.

Improve the digital Broadcast so that more people can watch TV without paying the frikken cable company!

heck, put analog signals back on so that I can watch my TV without the signal going out due to a stiff breeze!

Eh, I got sick of the terrible programming and poor reception and constant interminable advertising years ago and stopped watching it. These days I just buy the series on DVD if I want to watch it. That way I get to watch it whenever I want, and I don't have to wait a week for the next episode, and I don't have to endure twenty minutes of ads in a forty minute program.

Our national TV network put everything they produce on their web page the same day it is shown, would be nice if everyone could do that.

I know that The Daily Show can do it so it can't be that hard. And I prefer to wach it online from anywhere when I have time, not when someone else think it fits the schedule.

Except of course that that wouldn't work nor do ratings function that way. Ratings, despite what you want them to say or do, are not a measure of how many people watch the show ever, but when it was broadcast. If no one watches the show when it is broadcast or within the three day window then they can't set the advertising rates for the initial broadcast. You know, what pays for 90% of the show and is the determining factor on whether they continue to purchase episodes.

To use online viewings to set broadcast rates would be deceptive at best and downright stupid at worst. No one is going to go for that because if they use a nielson report that is skewed by heavy online viewing the advertiser has no way of knowing if they are actually paying for impressions that will happen when the show was broadcast or paying for impressions garnered only by those who sponsor the online 'broadcast.' There is zero interest in melding those two measurements because they in fact measure two different things. Nielsons give a real time impression of what is being viewed and what isn't allowing them to make decisions on what shows to keep and what shows not to. Using online ratings for that not tied to initial broadcast disables that and increases the risk of spending money after money on losers.

Online might be a growing segment of their audience, but the bread is still buttered by broadcast advertising and they still need to make their major decisions on that, so they prefer if the viewing that happens can be rated that way. Online is still a second market.

But don't let any real understanding of what ratings are supposed to do get in the way of stamping around in the dirt and cursing the sun.

i have a better idea, screw the ratings and let corporate media go to hell in a hand basket the way its meant to.

not that video gaming is all of it all that wonderful, but it DOES seem to be replacing other forms of organized for profit entertainment.

personally i find entertainment as such inheirently boring/nongratifying anyway.

the whole fanatical fixation on profit ahead of gratification thing.

Luckily in this country the commerical broadcasters all have catch-up services and wouldn't get rid of them even if they wanted to.

Why? Because BBC iplayer will still be there and they'll just loose viewers to that.

I understand what you're saying Ctoan but surely the answer is more to try and find a ratings model that benefits broadcasters and companies whilst still allowing online broadcasting, rather than blanket banning? People want to watch TV online and if the broadcasters don't get involved in this ultimately they're just going to loose viewers without gaining any benefit. If however they get in ahead of the curve they may even increase their viewer share. Realistically it's of benefit to them to embrace the technology but it will require different thinking about how ratings work.

Luckily in this country the commerical broadcasters all have catch-up services and wouldn't get rid of them even if they wanted to.

Why? Because BBC iplayer will still be there and they'll just loose viewers to that.

I understand what you're saying Ctoan but surely the answer is more to try and find a ratings model that benefits broadcasters and companies whilst still allowing online broadcasting, rather than blanket banning? People want to watch TV online and if the broadcasters don't get involved in this ultimately they're just going to loose viewers without gaining any benefit. If however they get in ahead of the curve they may even increase their viewer share. Realistically it's of benefit to them to embrace the technology but it will require different thinking about how ratings work.
That's great. They're not talking about banning it, in fact the article is about the broadcaster's own online network Hulu and has many quotes from various broadcasters talking about the benefit of having their content online. They're simply trying to make the model work since they're not creating programing because they think it would be neat. In fact, in the article they seem to understand:
"We find that as long as you're careful about it that viewers want to be able to get content any place they can, any time they can," Hammer said. "If you don't allow it … they may steal it. You have to provide it legally and find out how to monetize it."
...
"It's a matter of balancing and holding back in a way that doesn't destroy the business model," NBC's Hammer said. "We don't want our entire lineups out there streaming, [but] you have to embrace some of that change or you really will be left behind. We also can't be so naïve that we're going to hold back all content."

The article isn't about banning it, it's about how effective their efforts to provide have been and are being, and on balance there is a lot of positive found in offering online content that is recognized.

This thread is just swinging at shadows.

That's great. They're not talking about banning it, in fact the article is about the broadcaster's own online network Hulu and has many quotes from various broadcasters talking about the benefit of having their content online. They're simply trying to make the model work since they're not creating programing because they think it would be neat. In fact, in the article they seem to understand:


Bah teach me to comment without reading the article.

I have just woken up, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it *nod*

Here's one for Hulu.com, make it available, to people who live outside of US!

Except of course that that wouldn't work nor do ratings function that way. Ratings, despite what you want them to say or do, are not a measure of how many people watch the show ever, but when it was broadcast. If no one watches the show when it is broadcast or within the three day window then they can't set the advertising rates for the initial broadcast. You know, what pays for 90% of the show and is the determining factor on whether they continue to purchase episodes.
Which ignores the point that this is a shitty way to define ratings this day and age.

Nielsons give a real time impression of what is being viewed and what isn't allowing them to make decisions on what shows to keep and what shows not to.
Family Guy, Jericho, and I'm sure other shows would like to disagree.

Using online ratings for that not tied to initial broadcast disables that and increases the risk of spending money after money on losers.
...so tv watched online isn't being watched? What?

Online might be a growing segment of their audience, but the bread is still buttered by broadcast advertising and they still need to make their major decisions on that, so they prefer if the viewing that happens can be rated that way. Online is still a second market.
Online is still a market where they can put ads and make money.

But don't let any real understanding of what ratings are supposed to do get in the way of stamping around in the dirt and cursing the sun.
Maybe you shouldn't let being an elitist dick get in the way of common sense and trying to understand the point.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/zd/20090401/tc_zd/238802
The important quote:


The tv networks want to kill online television and DVRs because they arn't factored into ratings tallies. Seriously? That's the real problem? I have a fucking idea - expand online offerings and fight with the ratings board to expand what is included in "ratings" counts. But of course they won't do that because they are both incompetent and hate their customers.

That's too abd, as about half the world was born after Monty Python ended. Sure, there are reruns and specials, but...

Which ignores the point that this is a shitty way to define ratings this day and age.
No, it doesn't. I'll try and slow it down for you...the...two...mediums...draw...different...ad...revenue. Do you understand? Do you need a chart? Little drawings? Using the viewing figures from them combined will not be a way to set the ad revenues for one of them.


Family Guy, Jericho, and I'm sure other shows would like to disagree.
For every Family Guy there is a Jericho, which despite fan reaction never got the viewer figures needed to actually justify its renewal. The article talks about using online content to bolster broadcast viewing, they seem to agree with that. But that does not in any way make combining their rating system meant to set advertising rates for the broadcast make any sort of sense.


...so tv watched online isn't being watched? What?
Yeah, didn't say that at all. Nice just picking up meanings at random. Relying on a secondary market viewing not tied to the schedule means that you have to run a show past watershed in the hopes that it suddenly and magically catches on in some way online. Not every show is going to have some sort of Family Guy revival, it is in fact so rare that a single show gets to name the phenomenon.



Online is still a market where they can put ads and make money.
Gosh, really? Why, I hadn't fucking noticed...yes, different revenue. You do understand that, right? No, you don't because if you did you wouldn't be chewing on your foot right now.


Maybe you shouldn't let being an elitist dick get in the way of common sense and trying to understand the point.

Maybe you should make some effort to understand the things you criticize before making stupid points.

No, it doesn't. I'll try and slow it down for you...the...two...mediums...draw...different...ad...revenue. Do you understand? Do you need a chart? Little drawings? Using the viewing figures from them combined will not be a way to set the ad revenues for one of them.
Woo, woo, cluelessness in vicinity. A television show's continued existence is based solely on its ratings, which are judged solely on their tv airings. The point has nothing to do with ad revenue divisions but without how a tv show's worth is judged.


For every Family Guy there is a Jericho, which despite fan reaction never got the viewer figures needed to actually justify its renewal. The article talks about using online content to bolster broadcast viewing, they seem to agree with that.
But the point is online viewing isn't taken into account when deciding if a show is popular enough to keep alive.

Gosh, really? Why, I hadn't fucking noticed...yes, different revenue. You do understand that, right? No, you don't because if you did you wouldn't be chewing on your foot right now.

I'm not recognizing anything irrelevant to the point, which you are ignoring in order to go on some elitist rant about revenue streams. Tv show's are judged solely on their ratings which are judged solely on broadcast viewings, and thus live or die by broadcast viewings. But broadcast television is not the only place people watch a television show and thus it doesn't make sense to base a show's existence solely on it's nielsen ratings REGARDLESS of how revenue is defined. You can embed the same exact commercials in online shows, that's exactly what they do on Hulu, so the question remains, why shouldn't online viewing be taken into account.


Maybe you should make some effort to understand the things you criticize before making stupid points.
Maybe you shouldn't let being an elitist dick get in the way of common sense and trying to understand the point.

I think they need to actually focus on making things that are fun to watch first.

I think they need to actually focus on making things that are fun to watch first.

Too expensive. More reality shows!

I think they need to actually focus on making things that are fun to watch first.

This is the reason that ratings go down, people have to high demands! You should be happy with reruns and new seasons of such great programs as "Idol" and "Top Model"...
</irony>

I love how "knowing what the fuck I'm talking about" is "being an elitist dick."
Woo, woo, cluelessness in vicinity. A television show's continued existence is based solely on its ratings, which are judged solely on their tv airings. The point has nothing to do with ad revenue divisions but without how a tv show's worth is judged.
No, ratings are how ad rates are set. They are also closely related to whether or not a show lives or dies because if a show gets bad ratings it cannot attract ad revenue, and therefore it dies. The simplest of school children can understand the correlation. I know your 'point' has nothing to do with ad revenue divisions, but that is exactly why your point is invalid.

They have a method of determining whether online viewing bolsters the popularity of the show, so there is no need to muddy a system built to set advertising rates because some random person on the internet doesn't know how it works and is jamming his fingers in his ears going "lalala! I can't hear you!" Hell, the article talked about the various ways they use online content, but you laser focused on the one thing you clearly didn't understand and started kicking up dust like you found something.



But the point is online viewing isn't taken into account when deciding if a show is popular enough to keep alive.
Yeah, except it is. Read your own fucking article.


I'm not recognizing anything irrelevant to the point, which you are ignoring in order to go on some elitist rant about revenue streams. Tv show's are judged solely on their ratings which are judged solely on broadcast viewings, and thus live or die by broadcast viewings. But broadcast television is not the only place people watch a television show and thus it doesn't make sense to base a show's existence solely on it's nielsen ratings REGARDLESS of how revenue is defined. You can embed the same exact commercials in online shows, that's exactly what they do on Hulu, so the question remains, why shouldn't online viewing be taken into account.
First of all, it is. Just not the way you insist it should because that would be fucking stupid. Second of all, advertising is a timely element. Let's say, for a random example, Macy's wants to advertise a three day sale. Well, Neilsons have tied online viewing and viewing tied to the actual broadcast together, so there's no fucking way of differentiating the audience like there once used to be when the system made fucking sense. The ad rate is set, Macy's pays their $50,000 to air their ad...but oh no! Most of the viewers in that demographic are online viewers who watch the show at about a one week delay! That's swell, Macy's just paid $50,000 to tell their shoppers that if they had a fucking Wayback Machine they can go to this great sale that happened four days ago!

It may not seem like it, but advertising dollars are carefully spent. There is no reason to muddle up a system for...well, for no fucking good reason. There's a system used to rate online viewership that is different than Nielsons and would do fuck all to accomplish what the nielsons accomplish. You can stamp your feet and insist that it's something else, but it's simply not. Sorry.


Maybe you shouldn't let being an elitist dick get in the way of common sense and trying to understand the point.
Understanding the point does not necessitate believing it is valid, especially when it is not.

Just download the stuff off the internet. shoot half the time youtube has it up. It might be illegal but that only matters when you get caught.

I love how "knowing what the fuck I'm talking about" is "being an elitist dick."

It's an anachronism from the days of the Bush administration: People who know what they're talking about and actually work in the field in question should be bruntly disregarded. The attitude may have trickled down to the general public. Hopefully, things will change...


*Kicks puppy*