Television ratings re Prison Break vs Origin, as a example of the failings of a free market system (Attn Duggy, Fran)

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Chock wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150666558.660055.216600@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Anthony Horan wrote:
> > > On 18 Jun 2006 05:29:42 -0700, FRAN wrote:
> > >
> <snip>
> > > If "IP" mattered one little bit to the networks, two things would
> happen.
> > >
> > > 1. They'd start a series not too long after it airs in its country of
> > > origin, and they'd let it run weekly till the end, and
> > >
> > > 2. They'd go after "illegal" (ha!) downloaders with the full force of
> the
> > > US-driven law.
> > >
> > > Neither of those things are happening,
> >
> > *is* happening. Tidiness counts.
> >
>
> Anthony has stated 2 events, and has thus used the plural "things", so
> shouldn't it be "are" instead of "is"?

No.

Neither = not either

"Either of those things is happening" is simply the negative of "Not
either (neither) of those things is happening". Making something
negative doesn't change its numeric value. Not either doesn't mean
"both".

Fran

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150671286.603218.156070@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
> > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1150666558.660055.216600@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> > >
> > > Anthony Horan wrote:
> > > > On 18 Jun 2006 05:29:42 -0700, FRAN wrote:
> > > >
> > <snip>
> > > > If "IP" mattered one little bit to the networks, two things would
> > happen.
> > > >
> > > > 1. They'd start a series not too long after it airs in its country
of
> > > > origin, and they'd let it run weekly till the end, and
> > > >
> > > > 2. They'd go after "illegal" (ha!) downloaders with the full force
of
> > the
> > > > US-driven law.
> > > >
> > > > Neither of those things are happening,
> > >
> > > *is* happening. Tidiness counts.
> > >
> >
> > Anthony has stated 2 events, and has thus used the plural "things", so
> > shouldn't it be "are" instead of "is"?
>
> No.
>
> Neither = not either
>
> "Either of those things is happening" is simply the negative of "Not
> either (neither) of those things is happening". Making something
> negative doesn't change its numeric value. Not either doesn't mean
> "both".
>

Okay, cool :-)


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Chock wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150633318.623612.132250@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Chock wrote:
> > > "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1150615270.110730.20490@f6g2000cwb.googlegrou ps.com...
> > > >
> > > > Chock wrote:
> > > >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:1150547472.892207.37750@i40g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Chock wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >>
> > > >> Interesting idea Fran, and yes it does work when you abstract it to
> the
> > > >> next
> > > >> level. But I still think that at the base level the theory holds,
> like
> > > >> so:
> > > >>
> > > >> Base level: the networks create or buy program content (product) to
> > > >> attract
> > > >> viewers (consumers)
> > > >> Higher level: the networks sell this viewership (product) to
> advertisers
> > > >> (consumers)
> > > >>
> > > >> In much the same way, public companies work on both levels, eg banks:
> > > >> Base level: Banks create banking products (product) to attract
> customers
> > > >> (consumers)
> > > >> Higher level: Banks use their customer base and associated revenue
> > > >> streams
> > > >> and forecasts (product) to attract investors (consumers)
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > The analogy fails because the bank's consumers are not sold to
> > > > investors in the way audiences are. They are a *leverage* to attract
> > > > funds that allow the bank to trade in financial instruments but they
> > > > are also a significant source of revenue. Your use of the word
> > > > "attract" blurs these boundaries semantically, without rendering both
> > > > realtionships equivalent. Even your term "investors" is rubbery. Some
> > > > investors buy shares in the bank, some are borrowers of one kind or
> > > > another or are partners in some joint venture. The borrowers are
> > > > consumers, but the stockholders and partners are not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not saying that investors are seeking access to a bank's customers
> > > directly, but rather to the revenue they generate (and especially to the
> > > expected revenue) and pay out in dividends. Also, my use of "investors"
> was
> > > quite deliberate, in that I only meant individuals or companies that
> trade
> > > in shares, not those who become entangled in the other financial
> dealings of
> > > a bank. Note also that the banking domain was just an example and can be
> > > substituted more or less for any other industry.
> > >
> > > >> Of course, the investor level abstraction can be applied to the
> > > >> commercial
> > > >> television networks as well since they are public companies, so they
> in
> > > >> fact
> > > >> have 3 tiers.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > That has nothing to do with who is a consumer of televsion services.
> An
> > > > investor in a cannery wants to know how much of the company capital is
> > > > tied up in unsold product or about to be sold product or how good the
> > > > factory is at producing product for sale, and the same goes for
> > > > investors in TV. How good is the TV station at producing saleable
> > > > audiences to generate advertising or other revenue streams is what
> they
> > > > want to know. Big Bother may be the exception that proves the rule,
> > > > since they get revenue directly from audiences. In *this* case, the
> > > > audience really is consuming their content, and that crucial change in
> > > > the relationship does slightly alter how channle ten treats the
> > > > program. It goes on regardless of what else is on and even runs late
> > > > across schedules. The audience data from paying customers is far more
> > > > valuable to onsell than TV ratings figures.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Granted, my model is at the extreme end of simplicity, but that was done
> as
> > > a means to understand the programming choices made by the networks. Of
> > > course nothing is that simple these days and there are many more factors
> > > involved, but I don't want to look at a model that emulates reality to
> that
> > > extent.
> > >
> >
> > If you're going to do analogy, you have to.
> >
>
> To a degree. There's not much point constructing a model that is so complex
> that it approaches reality, or you may as well just try to study the
> reality.
>


Exactly. Studying reality is much better. That's why analogy is a poor
method of argument. The purpose of analogy is to illustrate ideas and
relationships that are arcane or abstruse in some way, rather than to
directly advance propositions about the world.

> The purpose of modelling is to strip back the overwhelming detail of reality
> enough so that it still functions well enough to emulate reality, but is
> simple enough for people to understand.
>

As I said above, but it's not apt for advancing arguments, precisely
because you then have to argue the parallelism between the two cases,
which is just the original proposition at one remove.

>
> > > >> I think in one of our previous threads I mentioned my thought that
> the
> > > >> dichotomy between a public company trying to attract customers as
> > > >> consumers
> > > >> and also trying to attract investors as consumers created a conflict
> in
> > > >> decision making, that more often than not favoured the investors.
> Thus
> > > >> short-term profit-driven decisions were the result most of the time.
> > > >> Perhaps
> > > >> in the same way, television networks making decisions favouring
> > > >> advertisers
> > > >> as consumers rather than viewers as consumers has led to programming
> > > >> decisions and program commissioning that favours the advertisers
> rather
> > > >> than
> > > >> viewers in the long run.
> > > >
> > > > There's no perhaps about it.
> > > >
> > > >> Eg., the infomercials running late at night -
> > > >> there's no way any right-minded viewer could find any viewing benefit
> > > >> from
> > > >> these programs, but because the advertisers pay for the timeslot
> directly
> > > >> the viewers are left out of the equation. And as for the Prison Break
> vs
> > > >> Origin example, I think it works also - Seven realised that it
> couldn't
> > > >> sell
> > > >> ad space to its advertising consumers enough so that it offset the
> cost
> > > >> of
> > > >> the program, and so offered a lower-cost program to advertise in that
> > > >> would
> > > >> have at least made their money back, if not a small profit.
> Consequently,
> > > >> viewers missed out on their regular episode of PB.
> > > >>
> > > >> And then you could apply that to the influence investors (3rd tier)
> have
> > > >> over advertising decision making (2nd tier) ...
> > > >>
> > > >> Are we headed for a scenario (or are we part-way there already?)
> where
> > > >> advertisers directly influence program content?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Years ago Chock. Did you see goodnight and good luck?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, not yet, but it's on my list. I guess I'm alluding to a scenario
> where a
> > > network has, say, several possible drama programs on its table and is
> only
> > > looking to commission one, and directly shops these program ideas around
> to
> > > its regular advertisers to see which gets the most nods and makes the
> > > decision based on that.
> > >
> >
> > It's a regular practice, at least in general terms, or so those who've
> > been involved tell me. When overseas purchases are being considered,
> > sales are *always consulted* as to who they think they can pull in.
> > Some of these are packages of course, but even there, they try and map
> > out the mix to fit the demographic they're aiming for.
> >
>
> I thought that may have been the case to some extent but didn't know how
> common it is.
>

It's a business Chock. They hate guesswork, if only because if
something goes wrong, they want to cover their butts with some
exculpatory data.


Fran

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On 18 Jun 2006 05:29:42 -0700, FRAN wrote:

> Ian Galbraith wrote:
[snip]

> Calling viewers product however, accurately expresses their role in the
> business. Advertisers really do consume them by trading money for
> access time, which like the can of soup, is consumed and gone.

But its not just a business, at least not to the viewers.

>>> and it's not incomplete. An accountant tells them
>>> where their revenue is coming from, and a financial controller sits
>>> down with programming and purchasing and sales and they nut out how to
>>> spend it to make the cycle go around.

>> Its incomplete because like most economic theories it doesn't actually
>> factor in real human behaviour.

> Advertisers paying broadcasters isn't "real human behaviour"?

I'm talking about viewer behaviour.

--
"Read less, more TV" - House

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> But its not just a business, at least not to the viewers.

Which is why viewers erroneously apply the term contempt to sensible
business practise. They've missed the point entirely.

> > Advertisers paying broadcasters isn't "real human behaviour"?
> I'm talking about viewer behaviour.

Because to you people who work at stations and for advertisers aren't
human?

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2006 05:29:42 -0700, FRAN wrote:
>
> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Calling viewers product however, accurately expresses their role in the
> > business. Advertisers really do consume them by trading money for
> > access time, which like the can of soup, is consumed and gone.
>
> But its not just a business, at least not to the viewers.
>

True, but irrelevant. We were discussing why TV programmers operate the
way they do, and the contexts in which decisions are made. How viewers
think of themselves is modestly intersting, if hard qualitative and
quantitative data can be cheaply collected and handed on to the sales
department of some TV station, but it's not really a consideration from
the POV of TV executives.

> >>> and it's not incomplete. An accountant tells them
> >>> where their revenue is coming from, and a financial controller sits
> >>> down with programming and purchasing and sales and they nut out how to
> >>> spend it to make the cycle go around.
>
> >> Its incomplete because like most economic theories it doesn't actually
> >> factor in real human behaviour.
>
> > Advertisers paying broadcasters isn't "real human behaviour"?
>
> I'm talking about viewer behaviour.
>

Oh, well why didn't you simply say so? Let's try that bit of argument
suitably adjusted:

Fran ....

||||
An accountant tells them
where their revenue is coming from, and a financial controller sits
down with programming and purchasing and sales and they nut out how to
spend it to make the cycle go around.
||||

Ian ...

||||
It's incomplete because like most economic theories it doesn't actually
factor in real viewer behaviour.
[typo corrected; sub "viewer" for "human" Fran]
||||


That was my point. Viewers aren't decisive.

Fran

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On 18 Jun 2006 20:21:38 -0700, Duggy wrote:

> Ian Galbraith wrote:

[snip-I'm not getting into the contempt issue again, we both know where
we stand]

>>> Advertisers paying broadcasters isn't "real human behaviour"?
>> I'm talking about viewer behaviour.

> Because to you people who work at stations and for advertisers aren't
> human?

If you want to debate an issue please do it honestly.

--
"Read less, more TV" - House

[Ext User(Chock)]

"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1150687298.245276.303560@f6g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> Ian Galbraith wrote:
> > But its not just a business, at least not to the viewers.
>
> Which is why viewers erroneously apply the term contempt to sensible
> business practise. They've missed the point entirely.
>

Why shouldn't they expect to be treated well by the networks? If you buy a
car or even a CD, do you not expect to be treated well through customer
service, refund policy, etc?


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(Chock)]

"Ian Galbraith" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1rxh76052tu3l.10j6bwmsbj6wk$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On 18 Jun 2006 05:29:42 -0700, FRAN wrote:
>
> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Calling viewers product however, accurately expresses their role in the
> > business. Advertisers really do consume them by trading money for
> > access time, which like the can of soup, is consumed and gone.
>
> But its not just a business, at least not to the viewers.
>

And people also invest emotion or "non-economically rational behaviour" to
other consumer/business relationships, eg. brand preferences and loyalty for
cars, electronic goods, etc.

[snip]


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Chock wrote:
> "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1150687298.245276.303560@f6g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> > > But its not just a business, at least not to the viewers.
> >
> > Which is why viewers erroneously apply the term contempt to sensible
> > business practise. They've missed the point entirely.
> >
>
> Why shouldn't they expect to be treated well by the networks? If you buy a
> car or even a CD, do you not expect to be treated well through customer
> service, refund policy, etc?


How does a TV station refund your viewing time or compensate you for
any inconvenience? It can't, precisely because you're not one of its
customers.

When something happens to damage the value of advertising, the
advertisers get compensated, precisely so the stations don't lose their
*custom*.

And when Big Bother had some snafu some years back with one of those
votes, the customers got a refund. See the principle -- paying money?

Fran

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2006 20:21:38 -0700, Duggy wrote:
> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> [snip-I'm not getting into the contempt issue again, we both know where
> we stand]

Yes. Anything that the networks do that you don't agree with is
contempt.

> >>> Advertisers paying broadcasters isn't "real human behaviour"?
> >> I'm talking about viewer behaviour.
> > Because to you people who work at stations and for advertisers aren't
> > human?
> If you want to debate an issue please do it honestly.

OK: "Its incomplete because like most economic theories it doesn't
actually
factor in real human behaviour."

Well, I only did first year Economics, and there's a reason for that.

I didn't learn much (My exam results will agree, and there's your
reason), but Economic theories did, seem to me, to be all about human
behaviour.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Chock wrote:
> "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> > > But its not just a business, at least not to the viewers.
> > Which is why viewers erroneously apply the term contempt to sensible
> > business practise. They've missed the point entirely.
> Why shouldn't they expect to be treated well by the networks? If you buy a
> car or even a CD, do you not expect to be treated well through customer
> service, refund policy, etc?

I don't expect to be treated like I'm the only custoner.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150690524.286006.242540@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
> > "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:1150687298.245276.303560@f6g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> > > > But its not just a business, at least not to the viewers.
> > >
> > > Which is why viewers erroneously apply the term contempt to sensible
> > > business practise. They've missed the point entirely.
> > >
> >
> > Why shouldn't they expect to be treated well by the networks? If you buy
a
> > car or even a CD, do you not expect to be treated well through customer
> > service, refund policy, etc?
>
>
> How does a TV station refund your viewing time or compensate you for
> any inconvenience? It can't, precisely because you're not one of its
> customers.
>
> When something happens to damage the value of advertising, the
> advertisers get compensated, precisely so the stations don't lose their
> *custom*.
>
> And when Big Bother had some snafu some years back with one of those
> votes, the customers got a refund. See the principle -- paying money?
>

Are you disputing my viewers-as-consumers "1st tier" idea? ;-)

The money-changing-hands component doesn't define whether the relationship
is consumer/producer. What defines it is that one party produces something
in order to "attract" the other into the relationship. People who pick up
those free music newspapers are still consumers of that newspaper, even
though they haven't paid for it.

When I wrote "customer service, refund policy, etc." they were just examples
of the concept of an added intangible value to the consumer in the
relationship. If a consumer had the choice of buying the exact same product
for the same price from Company A or Company B, but Company B offered a 3
year warranty, then the transaction is the same, but the value to the
consumer is not. The consumer still walks out of the shop with the same
tangible product, but has gained something extra from Company B that is
intangible (unless it is required). As applied to the TV networks example,
the intangible extra could be a netowrk policy that programs will always
begin on the scheduled time and not run over. This would make watching
Network B the better alternative (if all other things are equal, but of
course they're not).

Again, the model isn't perfect because it is only attempting to model
reality to a certain degree to reduce complexity.

--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(Chock)]

"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1150691104.205599.288560@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Chock wrote:
> > "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> > > > But its not just a business, at least not to the viewers.
> > > Which is why viewers erroneously apply the term contempt to sensible
> > > business practise. They've missed the point entirely.
> > Why shouldn't they expect to be treated well by the networks? If you buy
a
> > car or even a CD, do you not expect to be treated well through customer
> > service, refund policy, etc?
>
> I don't expect to be treated like I'm the only custoner.
>

You don't? When you buy a car, you don't expect the salesperson to throw in
something extra or reduce the price just that extra bit, like they wouldn't
do for other less assertive customers?


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Chock wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150690524.286006.242540@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Chock wrote:
> > > "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> > > news:1150687298.245276.303560@f6g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > > > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > But its not just a business, at least not to the viewers.
> > > >
> > > > Which is why viewers erroneously apply the term contempt to sensible
> > > > business practise. They've missed the point entirely.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why shouldn't they expect to be treated well by the networks? If you buy
> a
> > > car or even a CD, do you not expect to be treated well through customer
> > > service, refund policy, etc?
> >
> >
> > How does a TV station refund your viewing time or compensate you for
> > any inconvenience? It can't, precisely because you're not one of its
> > customers.
> >
> > When something happens to damage the value of advertising, the
> > advertisers get compensated, precisely so the stations don't lose their
> > *custom*.
> >
> > And when Big Bother had some snafu some years back with one of those
> > votes, the customers got a refund. See the principle -- paying money?
> >
>
> Are you disputing my viewers-as-consumers "1st tier" idea? ;-)
>

Yes. Semantically they "consume" in the amorphous Ron Cobb sense, but
as a matter of commercial reality, they don't consume anything. You
might as well say that people watching the New Years Eve Fireworks are
consumers of entertainment, or the services of the company putting it
on, but the company's contract is not with the New Year party goers but
the government or perhaps a sponsor. If the fireworks people could
charge admission to viewing areas and somehow ensure that mainly those
who paid them saw it, then the viewers who paid would be customers, but
not otherwise. Someone watching from a boat or a high rise building
would be a viewer, but not a customer, however they thought of
themselves.

I hate to be picky on this (well I don't actually) but we Marxists like
to get economic relationships right.

> The money-changing-hands component doesn't define whether the relationship
> is consumer/producer. What defines it is that one party produces something
> in order to "attract" the other into the relationship. People who pick up
> those free music newspapers are still consumers of that newspaper, even
> though they haven't paid for it.
>

Not really. Here they are *exactly* like TV viewers, albeit they now
possess hard copy rather than soft copy or mere momentary electrons.

> When I wrote "customer service, refund policy, etc." they were just examples
> of the concept of an added intangible value to the consumer in the
> relationship. If a consumer had the choice of buying the exact same product
> for the same price from Company A or Company B, but Company B offered a 3
> year warranty, then the transaction is the same, but the value to the
> consumer is not. The consumer still walks out of the shop with the same
> tangible product, but has gained something extra from Company B that is
> intangible (unless it is required).

Yes, but the intangible goes with the tangible *and is inseparable from
it* No tangible relationship = not a customer.

> As applied to the TV networks example,
> the intangible extra could be a network policy that programs will always
> begin on the scheduled time and not run over. This would make watching
> Network B the better alternative (if all other things are equal, but of
> course they're not).
>

It *could* be, (who would dispute it?) but if the network did that, it
would be to manage the quality of their audience in some way in order
to make it more valuable to an advertiser or sponsor, or to avoid
losses in compensation to advertisers who have paid for one slot but
haven't got it until later, or in the wrong program.

> Again, the model isn't perfect because it is only attempting to model
> reality to a certain degree to reduce complexity.

Sorry Chock, but your model is just wrong here, which is why you're
having trouble understanding why neworks play so fast and loose with
viewers.

Think of this Let's say you have two programs you can put to air:

Program 1 costs 2,000 per week to put to air and attracts a demographic
composed mainly of unemployed or underemployed people, or people on
less than $40,000 pa disposable income. Accordingly even though there
are 250,000 viewers, the advertising revenue the program can attract is
just $5000 per week.

Program 2 costs $10,000 per week to put to air and attracts a
demographic composed mainly of professional people or at worst, those
in full time employment on something like average weekly earnings.
Significantly, 20% of the demographic is on a PDI of 80k+ Accordingly
even though there are only 80,000 viewers, the advertising revenue the
program can attract is $50,000 per week.

Which program do you think is going to be more attractive to the
network?

It's not quite that simple of course. Some programs run as spoilers at
mere break even, as one network tries to disrupt the demographic being
built by the other. Some programs with an attractive demographic are
going to need to run where an existing program is already doing well,
revenue-wise and putting it on somewhere else would be wasteful of the
content, but revenue and ROI are key, as they are in any business that
wants to keep trading.

Fran

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Chock wrote:
> You don't? When you buy a car, you don't expect the salesperson to throw in
> something extra or reduce the price just that extra bit, like they wouldn't
> do for other less assertive customers?

No.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150695482.789122.283200@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1150690524.286006.242540@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> >
>> > Chock wrote:
>> > > "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
>> > > news:1150687298.245276.303560@f6g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>> > > > Ian Galbraith wrote:
>> > > > > But its not just a business, at least not to the viewers.
>> > > >
>> > > > Which is why viewers erroneously apply the term contempt to
>> > > > sensible
>> > > > business practise. They've missed the point entirely.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Why shouldn't they expect to be treated well by the networks? If you
>> > > buy
>> a
>> > > car or even a CD, do you not expect to be treated well through
>> > > customer
>> > > service, refund policy, etc?
>> >
>> >
>> > How does a TV station refund your viewing time or compensate you for
>> > any inconvenience? It can't, precisely because you're not one of its
>> > customers.
>> >
>> > When something happens to damage the value of advertising, the
>> > advertisers get compensated, precisely so the stations don't lose their
>> > *custom*.
>> >
>> > And when Big Bother had some snafu some years back with one of those
>> > votes, the customers got a refund. See the principle -- paying money?
>> >
>>
>> Are you disputing my viewers-as-consumers "1st tier" idea? ;-)
>>
>
> Yes. Semantically they "consume" in the amorphous Ron Cobb sense, but
> as a matter of commercial reality, they don't consume anything. You
> might as well say that people watching the New Years Eve Fireworks are
> consumers of entertainment, or the services of the company putting it
> on, but the company's contract is not with the New Year party goers but
> the government or perhaps a sponsor. If the fireworks people could
> charge admission to viewing areas and somehow ensure that mainly those
> who paid them saw it, then the viewers who paid would be customers, but
> not otherwise. Someone watching from a boat or a high rise building
> would be a viewer, but not a customer, however they thought of
> themselves.
>

LOL, actually I *would* say that spectators at a New Year's Eve fireworks
display can be considered consumers of the service provided by the fireworks
company. The city council is just an intermediatory and so is not necessary
to understand the relationship. The consumer/producer relationship still
exists without the council being explicitly referenced.

> I hate to be picky on this (well I don't actually) but we Marxists like
> to get economic relationships right.
>

Do you concede that your political leanings are influencing your view of the
relationship? (Not that I am claiming immunity from that effect either -
which probably explains why I envisioned the television network and viewer
relationship in terms of a model, as systems analysis is what I've been
studying at uni.)


>> The money-changing-hands component doesn't define whether the
>> relationship
>> is consumer/producer. What defines it is that one party produces
>> something
>> in order to "attract" the other into the relationship. People who pick up
>> those free music newspapers are still consumers of that newspaper, even
>> though they haven't paid for it.
>>
>
> Not really. Here they are *exactly* like TV viewers, albeit they now
> possess hard copy rather than soft copy or mere momentary electrons.
>
>> When I wrote "customer service, refund policy, etc." they were just
>> examples
>> of the concept of an added intangible value to the consumer in the
>> relationship. If a consumer had the choice of buying the exact same
>> product
>> for the same price from Company A or Company B, but Company B offered a 3
>> year warranty, then the transaction is the same, but the value to the
>> consumer is not. The consumer still walks out of the shop with the same
>> tangible product, but has gained something extra from Company B that is
>> intangible (unless it is required).
>
> Yes, but the intangible goes with the tangible *and is inseparable from
> it* No tangible relationship = not a customer.
>

I agree with that of course - I am just saying that products or even
services can sometimes be more than just the physical.

>> As applied to the TV networks example,
>> the intangible extra could be a network policy that programs will always
>> begin on the scheduled time and not run over. This would make watching
>> Network B the better alternative (if all other things are equal, but of
>> course they're not).
>>
>
> It *could* be, (who would dispute it?) but if the network did that, it
> would be to manage the quality of their audience in some way in order
> to make it more valuable to an advertiser or sponsor, or to avoid
> losses in compensation to advertisers who have paid for one slot but
> haven't got it until later, or in the wrong program.
>
>> Again, the model isn't perfect because it is only attempting to model
>> reality to a certain degree to reduce complexity.
>
> Sorry Chock, but your model is just wrong here, which is why you're
> having trouble understanding why neworks play so fast and loose with
> viewers.
>
> Think of this Let's say you have two programs you can put to air:
>
> Program 1 costs 2,000 per week to put to air and attracts a demographic
> composed mainly of unemployed or underemployed people, or people on
> less than $40,000 pa disposable income. Accordingly even though there
> are 250,000 viewers, the advertising revenue the program can attract is
> just $5000 per week.
>
> Program 2 costs $10,000 per week to put to air and attracts a
> demographic composed mainly of professional people or at worst, those
> in full time employment on something like average weekly earnings.
> Significantly, 20% of the demographic is on a PDI of 80k+ Accordingly
> even though there are only 80,000 viewers, the advertising revenue the
> program can attract is $50,000 per week.
>
> Which program do you think is going to be more attractive to the
> network?
>

I don't disagree with any of that. All viewers are not created equal in the
eyes of advertisers. As for my model, I have already conceded that it is
ultra-simplistic, but I don't concede that viewers are not consumers.

> It's not quite that simple of course. Some programs run as spoilers at
> mere break even, as one network tries to disrupt the demographic being
> built by the other. Some programs with an attractive demographic are
> going to need to run where an existing program is already doing well,
> revenue-wise and putting it on somewhere else would be wasteful of the
> content, but revenue and ROI are key, as they are in any business that
> wants to keep trading.
>

Yep, again there are so many more things that occur in reality that can't be
adequately included in my model, and perhaps not in any. For example, you
can't include that network execs were all born as arseholes ;-)


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(Chock)]

"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1150699130.860786.236860@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> Chock wrote:
>> You don't? When you buy a car, you don't expect the salesperson to throw
>> in
>> something extra or reduce the price just that extra bit, like they
>> wouldn't
>> do for other less assertive customers?
>
> No.
>

Then, my friend, you are doing yourself a disservice, as everyone else does.


--
- Chock

Current killfile population:
1. Suxxie (and all of his aliases)
2. Temuchin
3. Anyone who claims to be a Group Moderator

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On 18 Jun 2006 21:15:24 -0700, FRAN wrote:

[snip]

> How does a TV station refund your viewing time or compensate you for
> any inconvenience? It can't, precisely because you're not one of its
> customers.

Assuming you agree with their POV. Do you Fran? Maybe they can't because
their world view is skewed one way but it doesn't mean they shouldn't.

What I've been trying to get at is that viewers aren't just a product in
the relationship to be molded into whatever the networks want. Viewers
have some input into the process via their decision making which does
affect the result.

[snip]

--
"Read less, more TV" - House

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On 18 Jun 2006 21:23:38 -0700, Duggy wrote:

> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>> On 18 Jun 2006 20:21:38 -0700, Duggy wrote:
>>> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>> [snip-I'm not getting into the contempt issue again, we both know where
>> we stand]

> Yes. Anything that the networks do that you don't agree with is
> contempt.

You already know thats not true.

>>>>> Advertisers paying broadcasters isn't "real human behaviour"?
>>>> I'm talking about viewer behaviour.
>>> Because to you people who work at stations and for advertisers aren't
>>> human?
>> If you want to debate an issue please do it honestly.

> OK: "Its incomplete because like most economic theories it doesn't
> actually factor in real human behaviour."

> Well, I only did first year Economics, and there's a reason for that.

> I didn't learn much (My exam results will agree, and there's your
> reason), but Economic theories did, seem to me, to be all about human
> behaviour.

They're about human behaviour but they don't necessarily factor in actual
observed human behaviour. Too often they're based on entirely rational
behaviour and decision making, but human beings aren't entirely rational
in their behaviour and decision making. Its why economic theories are
often regarded as a joke.

--
"Read less, more TV" - House