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

[Ext User(Chock)]

Background: Seven has Prison Break scheduled at 8.30pm on Wednesdays, and it
rates quite well. Last week Nein broadcast the State Of Origin in the same
timeslot as per usual, and Seven decided that rather than take a certain
ratings loss (in the northern states) it would skip showing PB that week
(although it did show a double episode the week before in lieu).

It occurred to me that the TV networks competition for viewers is a perfect
example of how the free market system ultimately fails consumers (viewers in
this example).

Seven's decision is of course perfectly rational from a business point of
view. They only have 22 episodes of Prison Break to show per season, and so
they want to maximise the ratings of all of the episodes. Why would they
want to waste an episode on a certain ratings loss? So they decide to not
show it for that week. But this is ultimately a short-sighted strategy.

Result: some (many?) viewers get frustrated by this and look to source the
program via other means. Other viewers who are unable to do this endure the
inconvenience but remember it nevertheless. Why? Because a show like PB
relies on viewers becoming emotionally attached to it to a degree, and when
they are shafted, they take it personally to some degree.

Consequences: viewers remember how well they have been treated by particular
networks in the past when they decide what new shows to spend their time
with. If a network consistently shafts its viewers, they will remember it,
and the attraction of a new (unknown) show will be lessened, and so fewer
viewers will choose to watch it when it airs.

So what could Seven have done differently? Showing a double episode the week
before was a good gesture on their part, I'll admit. But it still didn't
stop me from downloading the final 3 episodes. why? I felt the 2 week gap
was too much for this type of show; there were only 3 eps to go and I wanted
to watch them in "one hit"; and yes, because I could. So perhaps it was just
unfortunate timing with Origin on that week that Seven lost me as a viewer.
I won't hold it against them as far as other shows like Lost are concerned.
As Ian Galbraith suggested, possibly their best strategy would have been to
show the episode as normal on the Wed night, and then encore it the
following night after Lost. After all, Amazing Race was finished and they
clearly had a free slot, enough so as to have a "Dad-a-thon" with American
Dad and Family Guy. It's not an ideal solution, but it still provides an
alternative for regular viewers who don't watch Origin, and doesn't shaft
those who do.

My thought is that the networks are so focussed on their competition with
each other, that they lose sight of what should be their real focus: the
viewers. This can be equated with businesses and their relationship with
customers. It is far cheaper to keep an existing customer than to attract a
new customer. The same principle can apply to viewers. Why was Nine "still
the one" for so many years? Partly because it treated its viewers well and
delivered programs they wanted. Only recently has Nine begun losing the
ratings battle to Seven. Why? I would argue that their quality of programs
has decreased, and their contempt of viewers has increased, with program
shuffling and repeating. The viewers are far more informed these days and
aren't tolerating it. And they have other options to source their favourite
programs.

Viva la (Bittorrent) revolution!


--
- 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(Roger)]

I'd have thought that it was driven by a revenue versus cost
issue for 7. The advertisers on 7 were hardly likely to be paying
anything like they normally would at that time slot, but the cost
of the programme (PB) would still be the same, so they show
some crap that probably came as a freebie for buying some other
American crap shows.

Dont forget that the only customer any business has nowadays are
the shareholders, as long as the return to shareholders is increasing
each year then the viewers and advertisers can go fuck themselves!

[Ext User(woods)]

forward it to 7 and see what sort of reply (if any) you get.

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Chock wrote:
> Background: Seven has Prison Break scheduled at 8.30pm on Wednesdays, and it
> rates quite well. Last week Nein broadcast the State Of Origin in the same
> timeslot as per usual, and Seven decided that rather than take a certain
> ratings loss (in the northern states) it would skip showing PB that week
> (although it did show a double episode the week before in lieu).
>
> It occurred to me that the TV networks competition for viewers is a perfect
> example of how the free market system ultimately fails consumers (viewers in
> this example).
>

Ah, but you see, the "consumers" in this case are *not* viewers, but
advertisers. The viewers are *the product* to be sold. The program
content is a tool to construct the product. The market works well here,
once you read the cast list properly.

> Seven's decision is of course perfectly rational from a business point of
> view. They only have 22 episodes of Prison Break to show per season, and so
> they want to maximise the ratings of all of the episodes. Why would they
> want to waste an episode on a certain ratings loss? So they decide to not
> show it for that week.

Exactly.

> But this is ultimately a short-sighted strategy.
>
> Result: some (many?) viewers get frustrated by this and look to source the
> program via other means. Other viewers who are unable to do this endure the
> inconvenience but remember it nevertheless. Why? Because a show like PB
> relies on viewers becoming emotionally attached to it to a degree, and when
> they are shafted, they take it personally to some degree.
>

They do, but on balance, most won't and the net effect is negligible.
It's a lesser evil.

> Consequences: viewers remember how well they have been treated by particular
> networks in the past when they decide what new shows to spend their time
> with.

Some do, but most won't.

> If a network consistently shafts its viewers, they will remember it,
> and the attraction of a new (unknown) show will be lessened, and so fewer
> viewers will choose to watch it when it airs.
>

There's absolutely no research evidence top support this contention.

> So what could Seven have done differently? Showing a double episode the week
> before was a good gesture on their part, I'll admit. But it still didn't
> stop me from downloading the final 3 episodes. why? I felt the 2 week gap
> was too much for this type of show; there were only 3 eps to go and I wanted
> to watch them in "one hit"; and yes, because I could. So perhaps it was just
> unfortunate timing with Origin on that week that Seven lost me as a viewer.
> I won't hold it against them as far as other shows like Lost are concerned.
> As Ian Galbraith suggested, possibly their best strategy would have been to
> show the episode as normal on the Wed night, and then encore it the
> following night after Lost. After all, Amazing Race was finished and they
> clearly had a free slot, enough so as to have a "Dad-a-thon" with American
> Dad and Family Guy. It's not an ideal solution, but it still provides an
> alternative for regular viewers who don't watch Origin, and doesn't shaft
> those who do.
>
> My thought is that the networks are so focussed on their competition with
> each other, that they lose sight of what should be their real focus: the
> viewers.

I'm sure there's a Mencken quote that works here, or one from Murdoch.

> This can be equated with businesses and their relationship with
> customers. It is far cheaper to keep an existing customer than to attract a
> new customer. The same principle can apply to viewers.

Viewers aren't their customers. They are their product.

> Why was Nine "still
> the one" for so many years? Partly because it treated its viewers well and
> delivered programs they wanted. Only recently has Nine begun losing the
> ratings battle to Seven. Why? I would argue that their quality of programs
> has decreased, and their contempt of viewers has increased, with program
> shuffling and repeating. The viewers are far more informed these days and
> aren't tolerating it. And they have other options to source their favourite
> programs.
>

There's a lot of competing media out there now. Apparently males aged
25-40 spend a bundle playing playstation and computer games. TV viewing
is down.

Fran

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On 17 Jun 2006 05:31:12 -0700, FRAN wrote:

> Chock wrote:
[snip]

>> This can be equated with businesses and their relationship with
>> customers. It is far cheaper to keep an existing customer than to attract a
>> new customer. The same principle can apply to viewers.

> Viewers aren't their customers. They are their product.

They may regard viewers as product but that is just one way of looking at
it and doesn't make them product 'in fact'.

[snip]

--
You Can't Stop The Signal

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2006 05:31:12 -0700, FRAN wrote:
>
> > Chock wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> This can be equated with businesses and their relationship with
> >> customers. It is far cheaper to keep an existing customer than to attract a
> >> new customer. The same principle can apply to viewers.
>
> > Viewers aren't their customers. They are their product.
>
> They may regard viewers as product but that is just one way of looking at
> it and doesn't make them product 'in fact'.

Audiences are what is sold to advertisers. Commercial media produce
audiences for sale.

Fran

[Ext User(Chock)]

"FRAN" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150547472.892207.37750@i40g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Chock wrote:
>> Background: Seven has Prison Break scheduled at 8.30pm on Wednesdays, and
>> it
>> rates quite well. Last week Nein broadcast the State Of Origin in the
>> same
>> timeslot as per usual, and Seven decided that rather than take a certain
>> ratings loss (in the northern states) it would skip showing PB that week
>> (although it did show a double episode the week before in lieu).
>>
>> It occurred to me that the TV networks competition for viewers is a
>> perfect
>> example of how the free market system ultimately fails consumers (viewers
>> in
>> this example).
>>
>
> Ah, but you see, the "consumers" in this case are *not* viewers, but
> advertisers. The viewers are *the product* to be sold. The program
> content is a tool to construct the product. The market works well here,
> once you read the cast list properly.
>
>> Seven's decision is of course perfectly rational from a business point of
>> view. They only have 22 episodes of Prison Break to show per season, and
>> so
>> they want to maximise the ratings of all of the episodes. Why would they
>> want to waste an episode on a certain ratings loss? So they decide to not
>> show it for that week.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> But this is ultimately a short-sighted strategy.
>>
>> Result: some (many?) viewers get frustrated by this and look to source
>> the
>> program via other means. Other viewers who are unable to do this endure
>> the
>> inconvenience but remember it nevertheless. Why? Because a show like PB
>> relies on viewers becoming emotionally attached to it to a degree, and
>> when
>> they are shafted, they take it personally to some degree.
>>
>
> They do, but on balance, most won't and the net effect is negligible.
> It's a lesser evil.
>
>> Consequences: viewers remember how well they have been treated by
>> particular
>> networks in the past when they decide what new shows to spend their time
>> with.
>
> Some do, but most won't.
>
>> If a network consistently shafts its viewers, they will remember it,
>> and the attraction of a new (unknown) show will be lessened, and so fewer
>> viewers will choose to watch it when it airs.
>>
>
> There's absolutely no research evidence top support this contention.
>
>> So what could Seven have done differently? Showing a double episode the
>> week
>> before was a good gesture on their part, I'll admit. But it still didn't
>> stop me from downloading the final 3 episodes. why? I felt the 2 week gap
>> was too much for this type of show; there were only 3 eps to go and I
>> wanted
>> to watch them in "one hit"; and yes, because I could. So perhaps it was
>> just
>> unfortunate timing with Origin on that week that Seven lost me as a
>> viewer.
>> I won't hold it against them as far as other shows like Lost are
>> concerned.
>> As Ian Galbraith suggested, possibly their best strategy would have been
>> to
>> show the episode as normal on the Wed night, and then encore it the
>> following night after Lost. After all, Amazing Race was finished and they
>> clearly had a free slot, enough so as to have a "Dad-a-thon" with
>> American
>> Dad and Family Guy. It's not an ideal solution, but it still provides an
>> alternative for regular viewers who don't watch Origin, and doesn't shaft
>> those who do.
>>
>> My thought is that the networks are so focussed on their competition with
>> each other, that they lose sight of what should be their real focus: the
>> viewers.
>
> I'm sure there's a Mencken quote that works here, or one from Murdoch.
>
>> This can be equated with businesses and their relationship with
>> customers. It is far cheaper to keep an existing customer than to attract
>> a
>> new customer. The same principle can apply to viewers.
>
> Viewers aren't their customers. They are their product.
>
>> Why was Nine "still
>> the one" for so many years? Partly because it treated its viewers well
>> and
>> delivered programs they wanted. Only recently has Nine begun losing the
>> ratings battle to Seven. Why? I would argue that their quality of
>> programs
>> has decreased, and their contempt of viewers has increased, with program
>> shuffling and repeating. The viewers are far more informed these days and
>> aren't tolerating it. And they have other options to source their
>> favourite
>> programs.
>>
>
> There's a lot of competing media out there now. Apparently males aged
> 25-40 spend a bundle playing playstation and computer games. TV viewing
> is down.
>

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)

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.

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. 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?

--
- 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:1150547472.892207.37750@i40g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> > Chock wrote:
> >> Background: Seven has Prison Break scheduled at 8.30pm on Wednesdays, and
> >> it
> >> rates quite well. Last week Nein broadcast the State Of Origin in the
> >> same
> >> timeslot as per usual, and Seven decided that rather than take a certain
> >> ratings loss (in the northern states) it would skip showing PB that week
> >> (although it did show a double episode the week before in lieu).
> >>
> >> It occurred to me that the TV networks competition for viewers is a
> >> perfect
> >> example of how the free market system ultimately fails consumers (viewers
> >> in
> >> this example).
> >>
> >
> > Ah, but you see, the "consumers" in this case are *not* viewers, but
> > advertisers. The viewers are *the product* to be sold. The program
> > content is a tool to construct the product. The market works well here,
> > once you read the cast list properly.
> >
> >> Seven's decision is of course perfectly rational from a business point of
> >> view. They only have 22 episodes of Prison Break to show per season, and
> >> so
> >> they want to maximise the ratings of all of the episodes. Why would they
> >> want to waste an episode on a certain ratings loss? So they decide to not
> >> show it for that week.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> >> But this is ultimately a short-sighted strategy.
> >>
> >> Result: some (many?) viewers get frustrated by this and look to source
> >> the
> >> program via other means. Other viewers who are unable to do this endure
> >> the
> >> inconvenience but remember it nevertheless. Why? Because a show like PB
> >> relies on viewers becoming emotionally attached to it to a degree, and
> >> when
> >> they are shafted, they take it personally to some degree.
> >>
> >
> > They do, but on balance, most won't and the net effect is negligible.
> > It's a lesser evil.
> >
> >> Consequences: viewers remember how well they have been treated by
> >> particular
> >> networks in the past when they decide what new shows to spend their time
> >> with.
> >
> > Some do, but most won't.
> >
> >> If a network consistently shafts its viewers, they will remember it,
> >> and the attraction of a new (unknown) show will be lessened, and so fewer
> >> viewers will choose to watch it when it airs.
> >>
> >
> > There's absolutely no research evidence top support this contention.
> >
> >> So what could Seven have done differently? Showing a double episode the
> >> week
> >> before was a good gesture on their part, I'll admit. But it still didn't
> >> stop me from downloading the final 3 episodes. why? I felt the 2 week gap
> >> was too much for this type of show; there were only 3 eps to go and I
> >> wanted
> >> to watch them in "one hit"; and yes, because I could. So perhaps it was
> >> just
> >> unfortunate timing with Origin on that week that Seven lost me as a
> >> viewer.
> >> I won't hold it against them as far as other shows like Lost are
> >> concerned.
> >> As Ian Galbraith suggested, possibly their best strategy would have been
> >> to
> >> show the episode as normal on the Wed night, and then encore it the
> >> following night after Lost. After all, Amazing Race was finished and they
> >> clearly had a free slot, enough so as to have a "Dad-a-thon" with
> >> American
> >> Dad and Family Guy. It's not an ideal solution, but it still provides an
> >> alternative for regular viewers who don't watch Origin, and doesn't shaft
> >> those who do.
> >>
> >> My thought is that the networks are so focussed on their competition with
> >> each other, that they lose sight of what should be their real focus: the
> >> viewers.
> >
> > I'm sure there's a Mencken quote that works here, or one from Murdoch.
> >
> >> This can be equated with businesses and their relationship with
> >> customers. It is far cheaper to keep an existing customer than to attract
> >> a
> >> new customer. The same principle can apply to viewers.
> >
> > Viewers aren't their customers. They are their product.
> >
> >> Why was Nine "still
> >> the one" for so many years? Partly because it treated its viewers well
> >> and
> >> delivered programs they wanted. Only recently has Nine begun losing the
> >> ratings battle to Seven. Why? I would argue that their quality of
> >> programs
> >> has decreased, and their contempt of viewers has increased, with program
> >> shuffling and repeating. The viewers are far more informed these days and
> >> aren't tolerating it. And they have other options to source their
> >> favourite
> >> programs.
> >>
> >
> > There's a lot of competing media out there now. Apparently males aged
> > 25-40 spend a bundle playing playstation and computer games. TV viewing
> > is down.
> >
>
> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

Fran

[Ext User(Chock)]

"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.

>> 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.


--
- 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 17 Jun 2006 14:44:32 -0700, FRAN wrote:

> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>> On 17 Jun 2006 05:31:12 -0700, FRAN wrote:
[snip]

>>> Viewers aren't their customers. They are their product.

>> They may regard viewers as product but that is just one way of looking at
>> it and doesn't make them product 'in fact'.

> Audiences are what is sold to advertisers. Commercial media produce
> audiences for sale.

Thats the network answer.

--
You Can't Stop The Signal

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2006 14:44:32 -0700, FRAN wrote:
>
> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> >> On 17 Jun 2006 05:31:12 -0700, FRAN wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >>> Viewers aren't their customers. They are their product.
>
> >> They may regard viewers as product but that is just one way of looking at
> >> it and doesn't make them product 'in fact'.
>
> > Audiences are what is sold to advertisers. Commercial media produce
> > audiences for sale.
>
> Thats the network answer.
>


And they have no reason to lie, at least on this matter -- quite the
reverse, in public.

Fran

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On 18 Jun 2006 02:39:27 -0700, FRAN wrote:

> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>> On 17 Jun 2006 14:44:32 -0700, FRAN wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>>>> On 17 Jun 2006 05:31:12 -0700, FRAN wrote:
[snip]

>>> Audiences are what is sold to advertisers. Commercial media produce
>>> audiences for sale.

>> Thats the network answer.

> And they have no reason to lie, at least on this matter -- quite the
> reverse, in public.

I'm not saying they're lying, I'm saying they have a POV which is maybe not
entirely incorrect but certainly incomplete and largely theoretical, and
like most economic theories...............

--
You Can't Stop The Signal

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2006 02:39:27 -0700, FRAN wrote:
>
> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> >> On 17 Jun 2006 14:44:32 -0700, FRAN wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ian Galbraith wrote:
> >>>> On 17 Jun 2006 05:31:12 -0700, FRAN wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >>> Audiences are what is sold to advertisers. Commercial media produce
> >>> audiences for sale.
>
> >> Thats the network answer.
>
> > And they have no reason to lie, at least on this matter -- quite the
> > reverse, in public.
>
> I'm not saying they're lying, I'm saying they have a POV which is maybe not
> entirely incorrect but certainly incomplete and largely theoretical, and
> like most economic theories...............


It's not theoretical, 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.

Call it a POV if you want, but someone who says their customers are
viewers will shock the sales team into asking where the money is coming
from and whether their jobs and bonuses are safe as they don't talk to
any viewers.

Fran

[Ext User(Ian Galbraith)]

On 18 Jun 2006 03:26:49 -0700, FRAN wrote:

> Ian Galbraith wrote:
[snip]

>> I'm not saying they're lying, I'm saying they have a POV which is maybe not
>> entirely incorrect but certainly incomplete and largely theoretical, and
>> like most economic theories...............

> It's not theoretical,

Calling consumers product isn't theoretical?

> 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.

[snip]

--
You Can't Stop The Signal

[Ext User(FRAN)]

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.

> >> 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 evne there, they try and map
out the mix to fit the demographic they're aiming for.

TV isn't the cash cow it once was of course. Young Packer is now more
interested in getting into the South East Asian gaming industry. New
technology threatens to cut the broadcasters substantially out of the
loop over the next decade, and make it possible for content providers
to go directly to advertisers.

Fran

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2006 03:26:49 -0700, FRAN wrote:
>
> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> I'm not saying they're lying, I'm saying they have a POV which is maybe not
> >> entirely incorrect but certainly incomplete and largely theoretical, and
> >> like most economic theories...............
>
> > It's not theoretical,
>
> Calling consumers product isn't theoretical?
>

Calling viewers consumers is what's "theoretical". In *theory* they are
"consuming" program content, but in practice they aren't because it's
all just IP. Viewer figures are theoretical in any event -- an educated
guess *at best*. Nobody really knows who watched what and when. That's
so unlike a can of soup, which really is consumed at the moment of
final purchase.

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.

> > 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"?

Fran

[Ext User(Anthony Horan)]

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

> Calling viewers consumers is what's "theoretical". In *theory* they are
> "consuming" program content, but in practice they aren't because it's
> all just IP.

The concept of "IP" has absolutely *nothing* to do with the panic-button
method of running TV stations that's employed in this country.

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, and neither can be expected to
happen any time soon. There's a revolution happening, and the networks are
still stuck in 1978 and haven't noticed.

[Ext User(FRAN)]

Anthony Horan wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2006 05:29:42 -0700, FRAN wrote:
>
> > Calling viewers consumers is what's "theoretical". In *theory* they are
> > "consuming" program content, but in practice they aren't because it's
> > all just IP.
>
> The concept of "IP" has absolutely *nothing* to do with the panic-button
> method of running TV stations that's employed in this country.
>

I meant the viewers were "IP" rather than the program content,
(although that is too). Here I was underlining a point -- that viewers
were marketable for revenue.

> 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.

Fran

[Ext User(Chock)]

"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"?


--
- Chock

Google is the Chinese government's friend

[Ext User(Chock)]

"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.

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.


> > >> 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 evne 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.

> TV isn't the cash cow it once was of course. Young Packer is now more
> interested in getting into the South East Asian gaming industry. New
> technology threatens to cut the broadcasters substantially out of the
> loop over the next decade, and make it possible for content providers
> to go directly to advertisers.
>

Yep, the writing's on the wall.


--
- 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