A good argument. I reread the posts a bit a I understand what is meant by "the viewer is the product".
I think everyone here seems to be saying the same thing in a different way. It's hard to argue that money isn't at the root of everything. Because of this, it's hard to say "at the root of it, it's about making the viewer happy" because, of course, it isn't. At the root of it, it's the money. Executives may hold a passion for making great entertainment (keyword: may) but in the end they're going to work everyday to put food on their families. Ok, so i'm willing to agree that viewers are the product but I'd have to say it's Network execs that control TV, not the advertisers. There's always a way to make more money. It's the execs, not the advertisers that are the ones aiming to high. Advertisers will purchase viewers but the viewers will always be *somewhere* to purchase. It's the executives that have created a model where all the eggs go into a few select baskets. TV could be riskier, but it's the greed of execs, not advertisers that makes it bland. Reality TV is a perfect example of how to make riskier, better TV without having to worry so much about Advertisers because they can be made on the cheap. Anyway, now I'm just rambling. This is a really interesting conversation though. On Dec 28, 2007 2:45 PM, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Advertisers normally like safety. This makes certain kinds of content risky > to them, and so > if content only gets made to suit them, it has a seriously limiting effect. > We now live in an > era where if you dont seek ad revenue, then you have the possibility to > make stuff that is > free from this limitation, and still have more than a few people see it. > This has not thus far > lead to a huge quantity of radical alternative stuff emerging, so > advertising is far from the > only factor. There are tons of reasons why the masses could be considered > to be asleep, > and why there are not all that many people making compelling content to > wake them up. > > I suggest that in places such as the USA and the UK, we are at a peak of > free speech. The > barriers to speaking your mind are the lowest they will ever be, but its > not much of a > threat because it occurs at a timer where there arent so many free ears and > free minds to > do anything with the free speech. > > If circumstances change, then free speech may become a threat and will be > crushed using > all the laws being passed this decade. But for now we are doped up on > consumption, so its > easier to ignore than crush. > > If people are having a nice dream, why would they want to be woken up? When > the > nightmare arrives, they will be desperately seeking a saviour to wake them. > I dread to > think what & who they will end up listening to, hopefully some people will > be talking a lot > of sense and wont get eliminated. Maybe the net will be a tool that > sometimes helps > humanity make the right decisions in a difficult era, maybe it will end up > a mess of > competing propaganda, time will tell. > > Better Bad News seems to cover several of the themes at hand, including > being a show > that isnt 'safe', being political, being very worried about the future, and > in the latest video > mentioning Scoble, in relation to Obama and the S-1959 bill which is seen > as a an anti- > thought crimes on the net thang! Anyway that particular bill is probably > worthy of its own > conversation. > > http://www.betterbadnews.com/ > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "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" <billcammack@> > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > >
