I have to agree with Frank here. I don't believe sitcom writers sit down and discuss how to control their audiences into buying toasters strudel. I think they just try to write funny shows, or dramatic shows, etc. (keyword: try) Shows that are likely to get good ratings/demographics get picked up. I'd be interested in hearing a specific example to support the other theory, let alone examples showing that that theory represents the majority of TV content.
People will watch good tv and advertisers will spend their money on the demographics they seek. On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Frank Sinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Great discussion - perhaps the briefness of my post was > misinterpreted. I'll focus my comments on TV. In the traditional TV biz: > > 1) Ratings are king. > 2) Ratings / demographics / content as a package are sold to advertisers. > > Studios evaluate new projects based on who and how big the audience is > going to be, then how attractive the total package would be to > advertisers. The ultimate influence is up to the viewers in deciding > what to watch. (ok, that was made very simplistic - but at the end of > the day, it is the viewers with that remote control who decide what to > watch that influences these decisions.) > > The great part of new media is that you have direct contact with > audiences. You don't need that studio exec middle man to decide if > they think there will be an audience or not. > > Regards, > -Frank > > http://www.mefeedia.com - Discover the Video Web > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson <k9disc@> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry I couldn't quote, something weird with the formatting.... > > > > > > Frank, > > > > > > I think you are mixing up different segments of the corporate > media a > > > bit here. > > > > > > There are the loyal viewers of the repetitive television market with > > > the one shot nature of the movies. > > > > > > They are entirely different markets with entirely different sales > > > models and entirely different customers. For the most part, the > > > movies are owned by corporations and TV is sponsored by > corporations. > > > Of course this is starting to change a bit with product placement > and > > > such, but it's still quite true. > > > > > > > > > > > In television the viewer is the product being sold. The idea that > the > > > viewer gets what they want on TV is laughable. The corporate > > > advertisers are the customers and they get what they want. That's > why > > > we have more and more commercials and less and less content. > > > > I agree. It's not possible for the viewer to be the consumer in the > > televison model. The viewer gives ZERO dollars *directly* towards > > video production. > > > > The viewer has the money that the Advertisers are hoping to get. You > > get that money by serving them advertisements that hopefully imprint > > in their minds what they need to buy or eat or where they need to go > > for vacation. You can't serve an "advertisement channel", because > > nobody would watch it, so you have to make content to get the people > > to sit there and watch your advertisements. > > > > The content is made by a production team. The production team gets > > its money from the channel or whatever it's broadcasting on. To sell > > a show, you need to make a pilot for use as Proof of Concept and also > > to run by focus groups. You play your pilot for viewers, but, again, > > they don't give the production team any money towards the creation of > > their show, AND even though their responses are recorded and paid > > attention to, they don't have any actual SAY over what happens with > > the show. > > > > So that leaves the channel or network as the provider of the funds for > > the show. Plus they have to pay for their real estate, electricity, > > lights, equipment, staff.... Where does this money come from? > > Advertisers. While you're pitching shows to stations, they're > > "pitching" advertising time to advertisers based on the demographic > > that they feel are going to tune in to your show. Of course, there > > are other income sources for the networks, AND for the production > > teams (like the team could also do corporate video work to keep the > > lights on), but I'm talking about the specific flow of money affecting > > decision-making around shows. > > > > Except for stuff like viewer donations to PBS, the viewer has ZERO > > monetary involvement with the creation of shows, AND there is nowhere > > you can go as a viewer to vote for the next show you'd like to see. > > Viewers are not consulted when a new show is coming on. All of a > > sudden, marketing teams start "selling you" the show. You see stuff > > on the internet. They use commercial space on popular shows to > > publicize the upcoming shows. The buzz is created BY the marketing > > teams because THEY'RE the ones that know a show is coming on. Even if > > the buzz appears to come from the viewers, it was created by marketers. > > > > So, like Jan and Ron are saying, the viewer is the huntED, not the > > huntER. While it's true that a mass exodus by viewers can make a show > > go down the tubes, that's because the station won't be able to sell > > advertising space on that show for more $$,$$$ than some other show, > > and it would be bad business to leave it running. > > > > The viewers pay for cable subscriptions, for instance, which is spread > > out amongst ALL the channels they get and ALL the shows on all those > > channels. Advertisers pay SPECIFICALLY to advertise on a certain > > channel or a certain block of shows or a certain show. The cable > > company gets the viewers' money REGARDLESS of whether they watch a > > particular show, so they can't be the ones who "get what they want" in > > this scenario. > > > > The goal for the advertisers is to get their money back by having the > > viewers remember their products and/or services and buy them. So, as > > far as shows, the advertisers pay to have customers (the viewers) in a > > particular demographic delivered to them. The viewers pay > > subscription fees, which cover ALL of their television entertainment. > > Even if you pay for HBO, for instance, you get The Sopranos and Oz > > and everything else on that network. There is no sole subscription to > > "The Sopranos", so it's not possible that the viewers have ANY say > > whatsoever in how it's made, except for not showing up. > > > > The viewers aren't the Romans in the stands, making decisions. > > They're the victims in the pit. Run out of victims, and there's no > show. > > > > -- > > Bill Cammack > > CammackMediaGroup.com > > > > > > > In the movies, the movie is the product being sold, and the viewers > > > are, to a large degree the customers. > > > > > > The movies are not based on the repetitive 'subscriber' based model, > > > which means a movie can be totally shitty viewing experience but > > > still be profitable due to a great marketing campaign from it's > > > corporate media parent companies. > > > > > > "It's the greatest movie EVER!" can be heard on all the News Corps > > > media properties, and if it's sold right, a big fat stinking turd of > > > a flick can recoup it's money. > > > > > > I believe that there is far less advertiser control over the movie > > > business than the TV business because of the divergent business > models. > > > > > > TV on the other hand is all but entirely controlled by the > > > advertisers. With TV there is a relationship. Customers, corporate > > > sponsors, pay to interact with the corporate media's product, the > > > audience. They pay for a captive audience. > > > > > > It's not the viewers that force the shutting down of a program, it's > > > the corporate advertisers getting cold feet and abandoning it. > > > Remember, viewers are the product being sold when it comes to a > heavy > > > advertising based market like TV. > > > > > > Listening to your audience is important, and new media allows for > > > that dialogue to take place, but as the show scales up, there is a > > > high degree of probability that your customers, those paying your > > > bills, are going to take issue with your product, the viewers, and > > > that dialogue becomes a nasty triangle of interests. > > > > > > So, I guess I kind of agree with your point, but I think that your > > > point falls short of being totally valid when you look at the > > > different segments of the corporate media. > > > > > > Corporations sponsor TV and own the Movies. > > > > > > I am one who thinks that the corporate media creates reality, and > > > we're just along for the ride. Sure there are some of us who buck > the > > > system and don't buy into it, but we're few. Corporations dominate > > > our society: they sponsor our information, they sponsor our schools, > > > they sponsor our politicians, they sponsor our legislation, they > > > sponsor our sports teams, they sponsor our community functions, and > > > if they're not sponsoring it, they own or control it: the internet, > > > our personal information, our communications systems, mass > transit, etc. > > > > > > I don't think that audiences, media consumers, actually control > > > anything that happens within that power structure. Audiences are > > > manipulated through saturation, cutting edge psychological science, > > > limited competition and sheer volume. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Ron > > > > > > Ron Watson > > > http://k9disc.blip.tv > > > http://k9disc.com > > > http://pawsitivevybe.com/vlog > > > http://pawsitivevybe.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > >
