On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 3:59 AM, JW <redbu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for posting that, Steve. > > The two big things I took away were (1) the mass of indistinguishable > cable networks are in trouble, including the once-niche ones whose > broadening we've often decried.There's not much value in being one of four > places to see Law and Order. (2) I think the idea of broadcast networks as > something viewers can turn on and absorb passively will remain more > powerful than visionaries foretell. There are many ways to get to something > you actively want to watch, but if you're just looking for something to > have on as you read the mail or whatever, there's still value to the > classic network LCD programming. As long as NBC is easily available to just > about everybody, there will a place for the Dick Wolf stuff that nobody > will wait in line for. >
Interesting, but also infuriating. I think JW's point #2 is particularly important. Americans do watch television programs, but they also just "watch television". I do much less of that than I used to, thanks to the DVR, but I notice family members and friends still want to be able to just lie down on the couch and graze the channels, settling on something almost at random and zoning out on it, or using it as background sound. I suspect passive television will be around a lot longer than the current conventional wisdom has been assuming (for some time now). I am also not sure of the math behind the "80%/30% formulation (see full quote below). If a population of 1000 viewers watch 20 programs a week, and 80% think Program X is "pretty good" (say, it is their 15th favorite program), while 30% think Program Y is "great", (their favorite program), is Program Y really more valuable? That depends on how many programs people watch. If we assume that they all watch at least 20 programs a week (and, in the on-demand environment, they are now able to watch each of their top 20 programs), then 800 people would watch Program X, while only 300 people would watch Program Y, and Program X is still more valuable. The better loved program is only more valuable if the less loved program is ranked below the lowest ranked program that the audience actually watches. In the completely on demand environment there probably is some advantage to targeting passionate viewers as opposed to broad spectrum viewers, but I think the author is overstating it. ************** “Let’s say you had a show where 80 percent of the people you show it to think it’s pretty good. They might watch it, but none of those people think it’s a great show nor is it their favorite show. But then you have another show where only 30 percent of people like it. For every single one of them, they’re going to watch every single episode and they love it. Well, in an on-demand world, show No. 2 is more valuable.” -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
