Great points Bill and on target as always.....I could learn a lot from you, no doubt..
Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" > <pdelongchamp@> wrote: > > > > 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. > > That's true. Nobody said that they do. :) Your statement assumes > direct contact between the production company and the advertisers. > You're cutting out the middleman, the network. > > The network pays the production company to make the show. The > advertiser pays the network to advertise ON that show (or on a > particular channel or whatever). The production team wouldn't be > interested in writing for advertisers because A) they get their money > straight from the network that picked up the show, and B) you'll > notice that there are often SEVERAL advertisers on a particular show, > AND they might switch advertisers to boot. > > To give an internet example... Ze Frank's last week of "The Show" was > sponsored by scotch-maker Dewar's > http://newteevee.com/2007/03/12/ze-frank-blip/ When he started his > show, Ze Frank didn't know A) that his show was going to be > successful, B) that anyone would want to sponsor it or C) that it > would be Dewar's, so there's no reason that he would write his show > "to control his audience into buying Dewar's". > > > 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. > > Agreed. Still, the demographic you choose is going to affect your > writing. Since you know a lot of Americans were crying about Michael > Vick killing dogs, you're *NOT* going to write an episode about > killing dogs, BECAUSE you don't want to alienate your demographic. > You're also not going to write an episode portraying Michael Vick as a > hero, for the same reason. > > > 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. > > I'm not sure which theory you're referring to, but the way shows get > on the air is you come up with an idea, you pitch it to a production > team, get them to make a pilot (or pay for professional shooters, > producers and editors to do it out-of-pocket yourself), shop that > pilot to networks and hope they buy it instead of stealing your idea > and making it themselves. :) There is *NO* part in the process where > average joes have any SAY over the creation OR picking up of shows. > Their input is useful for focus groups, but that's it. The viewers > are studied so you don't accidentally shop a pilot about killing dogs, > but other than that, the viewers don't have JACK to do with anything > except for tuning in or not after the fact. > > The show sinks or swims with the viewers, for sure, but that's because > the viewers are the product that's being sold to the advertisers. > It's like how you can't have a supermarket without food... that would > be just a useless building to someone that's hungry. :) > > -- > Bill Cammack > CammackMediaGroup.com > > > > 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 <frank@> 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
