Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 620873" data-attributes="member: 177">Okay, I have two people to respond to.  I'll take 'em one at a time.For Whodat:I find a fundamental inconsistency between your premises.  While I'm not certain, I can accept the notion that the Neilsen system is "broken" in the sense that it is simply inaccurate and inadequate.  However, given that, I find it hard to believe that the networks are really putting a lot of effort into finding out who watches what, and when.  If the system is broken now, it has been so for years.  If the networks really were making a good faith effort to fix it, then it would have gotten fixed.  They've had the money and the time, if they really wished to apply it.For Villano:I'll approach your "secondly" first.  Turn on most of your cable channels.  Don't you see the commercials there?  Most cable programming is still paid for by commercials, not by paying your monthly cable bills.  The exceptions are "premium" channels - HBO, Showtime, and the like, which commonly run without much in the way of commercial interruption.  Now, isn't it interesting how their in-house productions ("The Sopranos", "Oz", "Sex in the City", "Stargate SG1" to name a few) frequently get good viewership and critical acclaim?  Now, to approach your Firsts...Whoever said that I wanted or expected this notion to change the TV landscape?  I don't care about the landscape as a whole.  I'm only concerned with getting a couple of shows on the air.As for the investors not wanting profit - people have been investing in public TV for decades, without expecting any profit or creative control.  People have been paying for HBO without such expectations.  Why should this be all that different?The networks can go ahead and keep their ratings systems.  This notion works within the system.  They go ahead and figure out the ratings, and thus the value of advertising time during the show in the normal way.  By reducing the cost the network has to pay for the show to near zero, we make it profitable even if the ratings are low.I don't think that the general public would opt for such a thing.  Their television wants are already met by the usual system, so they have no pressure to pay out extra cash.  What I'm talking about only works when you have a whole bunch of people who are rabid about how their wants aren't  being met, and are willing to act to fill their own wants.  All I'm saying is the we could put our money where our mouths are.  If we really like a show that badly, wouldn't it be worth a measly $22 bucks a year to be able to see it?</blockquote>

Verification