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: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

"intermediary"

> and so is not necessary
> to understand the relationship. The consumer/producer relationship still
> exists without the council being explicitly referenced.
>

But it's to The Council that the company is responsible. If someone
sues, The Coucil will be a defendant and may seek to have The Company
joined in the action as a joint tortfeasor. They can sue The Company
for breach of contract, but the viewer has only tort law on his side.

> > 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?

Almost certainly, because it helps me understand this reality rather
better.

> (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.)
>

I've no problem with systems analysis. I think you need to reconsider
some of the system components.

>
> >> 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.
>

Yes OK

> >> 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.
>

Define "consumer".

> > 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 ;-)

I rather doubt that anyone was *born* an arsehole. That's something you
have to work at.

Fran

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2006 21:23:38 -0700, Duggy wrote:
> > Yes. Anything that the networks do that you don't agree with is
> > contempt.
> You already know thats not true.

What do they do that you disagree with that isn't contempt?

> They're about human behaviour but they don't necessarily factor in actual
> observed human behaviour.

They observed that when a TV show has a continuing arc that a ratings
drop will stop some people coming back. They observed that the State
of Origin causes a rating drop in other shows. They decided not to
show an episode of a continuing arc

> 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.

Ah. You know nothing about Economics then.

> Its why economic theories are often regarded as a joke.

No, they're regarded as a joke because they try to encompass rational
and irrational behaviour.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> 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?

I'm a Marxist. I neither agree nor disagree with their point of view.
It's no part of my role to work out what's best for them (at least,
unless I was on a retainer to do just that -- and I'm not). I do
however, *note* the context in which *they* decide what, in broad
terms, would be good for them.

If the world were organised on lines a lot closer to something I'd
support, the relationships between content providers and viewers would
be rather different and multifarious, but that's an entirely different
story.

> Maybe they can't because
> their world view is skewed one way but it doesn't mean they shouldn't.
>

And if my aunt were a man, he'd be my uncle, and people would look
strangely at me if I sat on his knee. That's not how the world is.

> 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.


But the original post was not about how viewers see themselves but why
networks act as they do. Sure we're all annoyed when our personal
favourite disappears because of some more pressing revenue-raising
event, but that's how it goes. We don't run the place and we largely
don't have any pull with those who do.

We can change the world of course, but we won't just do it because Law
and Order has been skipped this week.

Fran

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150701742.240740.317390@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
>> "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
>
> "intermediary"
>

Thanks Miss :-)

>> and so is not necessary
>> to understand the relationship. The consumer/producer relationship still
>> exists without the council being explicitly referenced.
>>
>
> But it's to The Council that the company is responsible. If someone
> sues, The Coucil will be a defendant and may seek to have The Company
> joined in the action as a joint tortfeasor. They can sue The Company
> for breach of contract, but the viewer has only tort law on his side.
>

Of course. That's the practicality of the relationship in the real world.
But in the model, it can be abstracted to bypass the council.

>> > 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?
>
> Almost certainly, because it helps me understand this reality rather
> better.
>

I guess my point here was that the world doesn't run to your ideal vision,
but you are still interpreting the world through your ideal vision, and so
are perhaps missing or disregarding a view that more accurately reflects it.

>> (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.)
>>
>
> I've no problem with systems analysis. I think you need to reconsider
> some of the system components.
>

Of course.

>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>
> Yes OK
>
>> >> 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.
>>
>
> Define "consumer".
>

Consumer: Someone who partakes in consumption.

Consumption: "The act of using goods and services to satisfy wants. This
normally involves purchasing the goods and services." (from my
microeconomics textbook). The "normally" in that definition would allow for
my more loose interpretation to be satisfied.

>> > 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 ;-)
>
> I rather doubt that anyone was *born* an arsehole. That's something you
> have to work at.
>

LOL - I shall incorporate that adjustment into my model ;-)


--
- 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:1150701742.240740.317390@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Chock wrote:
> >> "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
> >
> > "intermediary"
> >
>
> Thanks Miss :-)
>
> >> and so is not necessary
> >> to understand the relationship. The consumer/producer relationship still
> >> exists without the council being explicitly referenced.
> >>
> >
> > But it's to The Council that the company is responsible. If someone
> > sues, The Coucil will be a defendant and may seek to have The Company
> > joined in the action as a joint tortfeasor. They can sue The Company
> > for breach of contract, but the viewer has only tort law on his side.
> >
>
> Of course. That's the practicality of the relationship in the real world.
> But in the model, it can be abstracted to bypass the council.
>
> >> > 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?
> >
> > Almost certainly, because it helps me understand this reality rather
> > better.
> >
>
> I guess my point here was that the world doesn't run to your ideal vision,
> but you are still interpreting the world through your ideal vision, and so
> are perhaps missing or disregarding a view that more accurately reflects it.
>

It's not my view of the world as-I'd-like-it-to-be that is central
here. It's my reading of actual relationships associated with trade. In
this respect, inhabit the same world you do.

<snip>

> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > Define "consumer".
> >
>
> Consumer: Someone who partakes in consumption.
>
> Consumption: "The act of using goods and services to satisfy wants. This
> normally involves purchasing the goods and services." (from my
> microeconomics textbook). The "normally" in that definition would allow for
> my more loose interpretation to be satisfied.
>


Well there's your problem. If I eat food (and I do) I consume it. That
makes me a consumer -- just not in the sense that is important to
people running businesses. They are interested in people who pay them
money. That's associated with consumption of course, so we call them
"consumers" but the assumption in business is that they pay.



> >> > 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 ;-)
> >
> > I rather doubt that anyone was *born* an arsehole. That's something you
> > have to work at.
> >
>
> LOL - I shall incorporate that adjustment into my model ;-)
>

Good. We Marxists are experientialists.

Fran

[Ext User(Duggy)]

Chock wrote:
> 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.

They aren't the consumer, they're the end-user.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150707543.959576.282690@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1150701742.240740.317390@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
>> >
>> > Chock wrote:
>> >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1150695482.789122.283200@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...
<snip>
>>
>> >> > 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?
>> >
>> > Almost certainly, because it helps me understand this reality rather
>> > better.
>> >
>>
>> I guess my point here was that the world doesn't run to your ideal
>> vision,
>> but you are still interpreting the world through your ideal vision, and
>> so
>> are perhaps missing or disregarding a view that more accurately reflects
>> it.
>>
>
> It's not my view of the world as-I'd-like-it-to-be that is central
> here. It's my reading of actual relationships associated with trade. In
> this respect, inhabit the same world you do.
>
> <snip>
>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Define "consumer".
>> >
>>
>> Consumer: Someone who partakes in consumption.
>>
>> Consumption: "The act of using goods and services to satisfy wants. This
>> normally involves purchasing the goods and services." (from my
>> microeconomics textbook). The "normally" in that definition would allow
>> for
>> my more loose interpretation to be satisfied.
>>
>
>
> Well there's your problem. If I eat food (and I do) I consume it. That
> makes me a consumer -- just not in the sense that is important to
> people running businesses. They are interested in people who pay them
> money. That's associated with consumption of course, so we call them
> "consumers" but the assumption in business is that they pay.
>
>

Yes, and in both the fireworks and free newspaper examples, the producers
are being paid, just not by the observers or readers, respectively. Using an
analogy: if my sister buys me a CD for my birthday, am I not still the
consumer of that CD?

>
>> >> > 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 ;-)
>> >
>> > I rather doubt that anyone was *born* an arsehole. That's something you
>> > have to work at.
>> >
>>
>> LOL - I shall incorporate that adjustment into my model ;-)
>>
>
> Good. We Marxists are experientialists.
>

We? Are you trying to recruit me? ;-)


--
- 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:1150707543.959576.282690@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Chock wrote:
> >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1150701742.240740.317390@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Chock wrote:
> >> >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1150695482.789122.283200@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...
> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> > 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?
> >> >
> >> > Almost certainly, because it helps me understand this reality rather
> >> > better.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I guess my point here was that the world doesn't run to your ideal
> >> vision,
> >> but you are still interpreting the world through your ideal vision, and
> >> so
> >> are perhaps missing or disregarding a view that more accurately reflects
> >> it.
> >>
> >
> > It's not my view of the world as-I'd-like-it-to-be that is central
> > here. It's my reading of actual relationships associated with trade. In
> > this respect, inhabit the same world you do.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Define "consumer".
> >> >
> >>
> >> Consumer: Someone who partakes in consumption.
> >>
> >> Consumption: "The act of using goods and services to satisfy wants. This
> >> normally involves purchasing the goods and services." (from my
> >> microeconomics textbook). The "normally" in that definition would allow
> >> for
> >> my more loose interpretation to be satisfied.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Well there's your problem. If I eat food (and I do) I consume it. That
> > makes me a consumer -- just not in the sense that is important to
> > people running businesses. They are interested in people who pay them
> > money. That's associated with consumption of course, so we call them
> > "consumers" but the assumption in business is that they pay.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, and in both the fireworks and free newspaper examples, the producers
> are being paid, just not by the observers or readers, respectively.

I'm sorry Chock, but that's just not correct. They are being paid by
The COuncil or the advertisers, respectively.

> Using an
> analogy: if my sister buys me a CD for my birthday, am I not still the
> consumer of that CD?
>

>From the business point of view, no. My dogs consume pet food, but I
buy it. Who is the consumer? Whom will the butchers listen to?

Suppose I decide to take a dozen friends and hold a picnic in the local
fruit and vege shop. Are we consumers? Technically yes. Will we be
welcome? No. Why not? Because we are consuming but we are not the
consumers that the business wants.

> >
> >> >> > 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 ;-)
> >> >
> >> > I rather doubt that anyone was *born* an arsehole. That's something you
> >> > have to work at.
> >> >
> >>
> >> LOL - I shall incorporate that adjustment into my model ;-)
> >>
> >
> > Good. We Marxists are experientialists.
> >
>
> We? Are you trying to recruit me? ;-)
>

No. What you think is a matter for you. "We" refers to my adherence to
a belief system shared with other Marxists.

Fran

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150711612.747657.239870@f6g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1150707543.959576.282690@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >
>> > Chock wrote:
>> >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1150701742.240740.317390@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Chock wrote:
>> >> >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1150695482.789122.283200@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...
>> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> >> > 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?
>> >> >
>> >> > Almost certainly, because it helps me understand this reality rather
>> >> > better.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I guess my point here was that the world doesn't run to your ideal
>> >> vision,
>> >> but you are still interpreting the world through your ideal vision,
>> >> and
>> >> so
>> >> are perhaps missing or disregarding a view that more accurately
>> >> reflects
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It's not my view of the world as-I'd-like-it-to-be that is central
>> > here. It's my reading of actual relationships associated with trade. In
>> > this respect, inhabit the same world you do.
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Define "consumer".
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Consumer: Someone who partakes in consumption.
>> >>
>> >> Consumption: "The act of using goods and services to satisfy wants.
>> >> This
>> >> normally involves purchasing the goods and services." (from my
>> >> microeconomics textbook). The "normally" in that definition would
>> >> allow
>> >> for
>> >> my more loose interpretation to be satisfied.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Well there's your problem. If I eat food (and I do) I consume it. That
>> > makes me a consumer -- just not in the sense that is important to
>> > people running businesses. They are interested in people who pay them
>> > money. That's associated with consumption of course, so we call them
>> > "consumers" but the assumption in business is that they pay.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yes, and in both the fireworks and free newspaper examples, the producers
>> are being paid, just not by the observers or readers, respectively.
>
> I'm sorry Chock, but that's just not correct. They are being paid by
> The COuncil or the advertisers, respectively.
>
>> Using an
>> analogy: if my sister buys me a CD for my birthday, am I not still the
>> consumer of that CD?
>>
>
>>From the business point of view, no. My dogs consume pet food, but I
> buy it. Who is the consumer? Whom will the butchers listen to?
>

The difference is that you are buying petfood *for* your dogs - ie, you are
making the decision as to which brand or what butcher's shop to purchase
from, and so of course you are the consumer.

My sister is buying a CD *on my behalf*, from a list that I gave to her. I
am making the decision of which particular CD to buy (or giving her an
option from a shortlist) and so I am the ultimate consumer.

> Suppose I decide to take a dozen friends and hold a picnic in the local
> fruit and vege shop. Are we consumers? Technically yes. Will we be
> welcome? No. Why not? Because we are consuming but we are not the
> consumers that the business wants.
>
>> >
>> >> >> > 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 ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > I rather doubt that anyone was *born* an arsehole. That's something
>> >> > you
>> >> > have to work at.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> LOL - I shall incorporate that adjustment into my model ;-)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Good. We Marxists are experientialists.
>> >
>>
>> We? Are you trying to recruit me? ;-)
>>
>
> No. What you think is a matter for you. "We" refers to my adherence to
> a belief system shared with other Marxists.
>

LOL I know - I was having a joke :-)


--
- 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:1150711612.747657.239870@f6g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> > Chock wrote:
> >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1150707543.959576.282690@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Chock wrote:
> >> >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1150701742.240740.317390@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Chock wrote:
> >> >> >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:1150695482.789122.283200@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...
> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > 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?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Almost certainly, because it helps me understand this reality rather
> >> >> > better.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess my point here was that the world doesn't run to your ideal
> >> >> vision,
> >> >> but you are still interpreting the world through your ideal vision,
> >> >> and
> >> >> so
> >> >> are perhaps missing or disregarding a view that more accurately
> >> >> reflects
> >> >> it.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > It's not my view of the world as-I'd-like-it-to-be that is central
> >> > here. It's my reading of actual relationships associated with trade. In
> >> > this respect, inhabit the same world you do.
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Define "consumer".
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Consumer: Someone who partakes in consumption.
> >> >>
> >> >> Consumption: "The act of using goods and services to satisfy wants.
> >> >> This
> >> >> normally involves purchasing the goods and services." (from my
> >> >> microeconomics textbook). The "normally" in that definition would
> >> >> allow
> >> >> for
> >> >> my more loose interpretation to be satisfied.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Well there's your problem. If I eat food (and I do) I consume it. That
> >> > makes me a consumer -- just not in the sense that is important to
> >> > people running businesses. They are interested in people who pay them
> >> > money. That's associated with consumption of course, so we call them
> >> > "consumers" but the assumption in business is that they pay.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, and in both the fireworks and free newspaper examples, the producers
> >> are being paid, just not by the observers or readers, respectively.
> >
> > I'm sorry Chock, but that's just not correct. They are being paid by
> > The Council or the advertisers, respectively.
> >
> >> Using an
> >> analogy: if my sister buys me a CD for my birthday, am I not still the
> >> consumer of that CD?
> >>
> >
> >>From the business point of view, no. My dogs consume pet food, but I
> > buy it. Who is the consumer? Whom will the butchers listen to?
> >
>
> The difference is that you are buying petfood *for* your dogs - ie, you are
> making the decision as to which brand or what butcher's shop to purchase
> from, and so of course you are the consumer.
>
> My sister is buying a CD *on my behalf*, from a list that I gave to her. I
> am making the decision of which particular CD to buy (or giving her an
> option from a shortlist) and so I am the ultimate consumer.
>

The retailer isn't going to know that. (S)he will treat your sister as
the consumer.


Fran

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150713696.322417.71650@i40g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
>> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1150711612.747657.239870@f6g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>> >
>> > Chock wrote:
>> >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1150707543.959576.282690@g10g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Chock wrote:
>> >> >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1150701742.240740.317390@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Chock wrote:
>> >> >> >> "FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:1150695482.789122.283200@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> <snip>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > 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?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Almost certainly, because it helps me understand this reality
>> >> >> > rather
>> >> >> > better.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I guess my point here was that the world doesn't run to your ideal
>> >> >> vision,
>> >> >> but you are still interpreting the world through your ideal vision,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> so
>> >> >> are perhaps missing or disregarding a view that more accurately
>> >> >> reflects
>> >> >> it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > It's not my view of the world as-I'd-like-it-to-be that is central
>> >> > here. It's my reading of actual relationships associated with trade.
>> >> > In
>> >> > this respect, inhabit the same world you do.
>> >> >
>> >> > <snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 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.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Define "consumer".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Consumer: Someone who partakes in consumption.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Consumption: "The act of using goods and services to satisfy wants.
>> >> >> This
>> >> >> normally involves purchasing the goods and services." (from my
>> >> >> microeconomics textbook). The "normally" in that definition would
>> >> >> allow
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> my more loose interpretation to be satisfied.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Well there's your problem. If I eat food (and I do) I consume it.
>> >> > That
>> >> > makes me a consumer -- just not in the sense that is important to
>> >> > people running businesses. They are interested in people who pay
>> >> > them
>> >> > money. That's associated with consumption of course, so we call them
>> >> > "consumers" but the assumption in business is that they pay.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and in both the fireworks and free newspaper examples, the
>> >> producers
>> >> are being paid, just not by the observers or readers, respectively.
>> >
>> > I'm sorry Chock, but that's just not correct. They are being paid by
>> > The Council or the advertisers, respectively.
>> >
>> >> Using an
>> >> analogy: if my sister buys me a CD for my birthday, am I not still the
>> >> consumer of that CD?
>> >>
>> >
>> >>From the business point of view, no. My dogs consume pet food, but I
>> > buy it. Who is the consumer? Whom will the butchers listen to?
>> >
>>
>> The difference is that you are buying petfood *for* your dogs - ie, you
>> are
>> making the decision as to which brand or what butcher's shop to purchase
>> from, and so of course you are the consumer.
>>
>> My sister is buying a CD *on my behalf*, from a list that I gave to her.
>> I
>> am making the decision of which particular CD to buy (or giving her an
>> option from a shortlist) and so I am the ultimate consumer.
>>
>
> The retailer isn't going to know that. (S)he will treat your sister as
> the consumer.
>

True, but that doesn't change the nature of the transaction - that I am
controlling the choice of product and therefore participating in the market
by proxy, and thus am choosing which band is being paid and ultimately what
type of music will be produced. But I will grant that since my sister
purchases the CD she chooses from which shop, and participates in that
aspect of the market, and thus is choosing which retailer is being paid, and
by extension what marketing, location, etc., choices are most successful.

Again, it's not clear-cut by any means - a further example of how the free
market system is becoming increasingly complex?


--
- 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(Anthony Horan)]

On 19 Jun 2006 02:15:11 -0700, Duggy wrote:

> Chock wrote:
>> 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.
>
> They aren't the consumer, they're the end-user.

The end-user IS the consumer. Duh.

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Anthony Horan wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2006 02:15:11 -0700, Duggy wrote:
>
> > Chock wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > They aren't the consumer, they're the end-user.
>
> The end-user IS the consumer. Duh.

Not necessarily. Businesses are consumers of what are called
"consumables" (e.g office supplies) which they may then pass on to
other consumers. A business that produced a hardcopy newsletter would
need paper, ink, prestamped envelopes, and would pass on the actula
newsletterts to its own paying subscribers, who would be the end users.


Similarly, a company that configures computers passes them on to
consumers who might or might not be end users, but they will rarerly be
the producers of the component parts. Further up the chain, the
suppliers of the component parts may be consumers of circuit boards or
transistors, and they in turn, consumers of tool and die machines and
raw materials.

To be a consumer in the business sense you just need to trade something
valuable for it. An end user is simply a subset of the class
"consumers", and in the case of my dogs, who are certainly the
end-users of the dog food I buy, they are consumers in a non-business
sense. Perhaps such entities should be described as "non-commercial
consumers" in order to distinguish them.

Fran

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150759074.993904.176720@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Anthony Horan wrote:
> > On 19 Jun 2006 02:15:11 -0700, Duggy wrote:
> >
> > > Chock wrote:
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > > They aren't the consumer, they're the end-user.
> >
> > The end-user IS the consumer. Duh.
>
> Not necessarily. Businesses are consumers of what are called
> "consumables" (e.g office supplies) which they may then pass on to
> other consumers. A business that produced a hardcopy newsletter would
> need paper, ink, prestamped envelopes, and would pass on the actula
> newsletterts to its own paying subscribers, who would be the end users.
>
>
> Similarly, a company that configures computers passes them on to
> consumers who might or might not be end users, but they will rarerly be
> the producers of the component parts. Further up the chain, the
> suppliers of the component parts may be consumers of circuit boards or
> transistors, and they in turn, consumers of tool and die machines and
> raw materials.
>
> To be a consumer in the business sense you just need to trade something
> valuable for it. An end user is simply a subset of the class
> "consumers", and in the case of my dogs, who are certainly the
> end-users of the dog food I buy, they are consumers in a non-business
> sense. Perhaps such entities should be described as "non-commercial
> consumers" in order to distinguish them.
>

I see your point that your dogs are merely end-users and you are the
consumer. That fits in with my definition that the consumer is the one who
makes the purchasing decision, and thus participates in the market. But I
still stand by my other example that since I direct my sister what CD to
purchase, I am the one making the purchasing decision, and thus
participating in the market by influencing what specific band and what type
of music is rewarded.

In the fireworks example, it is a little more "fuzzy", but the people
attending are making a "buy/not buy" decision by turning up or staying away,
and so are driving the decision made by the council as to what fireworks
company to procure based on their proposal and budget. The council is still
merely the proxy. The council has to anticipate what the people want based
on previous attendances, public opinion, and perhaps surveys, but the people
are still making the decision, just not explicitly.


--
- 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(David Barnett)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150687890.709068.99700@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...

> Viewers aren't decisive.

That's self-evident from the scheduling decisions made.
--
David Barnett

[Ext User(David Barnett)]

"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.

"Sensible" (sic) business practise may, nevertheless, be contempt for
viewers.
Contempt for viewers may make it not so "sensible".

--
David Barnett

[Ext User(David Barnett)]

"Ian Galbraith" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:oz0tcqlwtocp$.m9rcgpuslox6.dlg@40tude.net...
> 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.

Exactly.
Diminishing numbers of viewers would have some impact.
--
David Barnett

[Ext User(Chock)]

"David Barnett" <dbarnett@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:GFGlg.12431$ap3.3182@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "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.
>
> "Sensible" (sic) business practise may, nevertheless, be contempt for
> viewers.
> Contempt for viewers may make it not so "sensible".
>

And that's exactly what I've been arguing all along - that whilst a
particular scheduling decision may be good business sense, it can still be
comtemptuous to viewers. (Not so much in the Prison Break example, as I have
conceded was more of a personal threshold decision on my part and would
probably not affect most other people in the same way. But definately on the
Enterprise example.)

BTW your sic should have been on "practise" and not "sensible" :-)


--
- 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)]

"David Barnett" <dbarnett@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:HFGlg.12433$ap3.4475@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Ian Galbraith" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:oz0tcqlwtocp$.m9rcgpuslox6.dlg@40tude.net...
> > 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.
>
> Exactly.
> Diminishing numbers of viewers would have some impact.
> --

As perhaps evidenced by the dismal ratings figures last week for the return
of Veronica Mars. Sucked in Ten.

--
- 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 19 Jun 2006 00:55:00 -0700, Duggy wrote:

> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>> On 18 Jun 2006 21:23:38 -0700, Duggy wrote:
>>> Yes. Anything that the networks do that you don't agree with is
>>> contempt.
>> You already know thats not true.

> What do they do that you disagree with that isn't contempt?

Forgotten my message from a couple of days ago where I stated something
one of the stations did was because of stupidity not contempt?

>> They're about human behaviour but they don't necessarily factor in actual
>> observed human behaviour.

> They observed that when a TV show has a continuing arc that a ratings
> drop will stop some people coming back. They observed that the State
> of Origin causes a rating drop in other shows. They decided not to
> show an episode of a continuing arc

Ah I see you're slipping back into non-sequiturs.

>> 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.

> Ah. You know nothing about Economics then.

I have a Bachelor of Economics so I think I know something about it.

Take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics

Classical economic theory originally had a close relationship to
psychology but it moved away from that basis to more rational based
theories in the last 100-150 years. Its only in the last 20 years that
actual human behaviour is being integrated back into economic theory.

[snip]

--
"Read less, more TV" - House