-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
2014-15 TV Cancellations: Under the Dome canned, what will CBS do with CG cows next?
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
jamesinclair
Banned
I understand the total cost is less, because there's less total viewers...
But on a per impression basis, why not?
TheAbsolution
Member
It's getting better. I like it.NOOO Red Band..Fuck.
Blackish is doing good I haven't seen it yet.is it good?
AngmarsKing701
Member
I think we've had this discussion (DarkFlow, read: argument) before, and I've probably been the one to start it. And I'll apologize up front because I know Ivy is "in the business" and so I have sort of this expectation that he knows how things "really" work vs. how things work if you Google them.
And I get that my viewing habits are not perhaps the norm, though I guess I'm surprised by that. I watch live sporting events, mostly football and hockey. I expect the advertisers pay more for those blocks of time because networks can assume a majority of the people watching a sporting event are watching it live and will mostly watch the ads as they wait for a return to the action. It's why we see ridiculously massive agreements between sports associations and networks, and why those networks then charge huge fees to buy the ad space. It's probably also why after what seems like every NFL play there's a commercial.
But for everything else, I skip the ads. I DVR pretty much everything I watch, and even when I watch it "live," I watch it time-skipped so I can FF through the ads. I don't like watching ads. It's usually 20 minutes of my life I can be doing something else and when you're watching as much TV as I watch, 20 minutes per show adds up to some serious time doing other stuff (like writing
on GAF
So I was basically assuming that almost everyone was doing this, but I guess maybe I'm wrong.
To me, companies are spending a ton of money to produce ads that I'm not watching, that I am, in fact, actively avoiding. What percentage of people watch TV like me? If that was 80%+ then I could see where networks would be pushing something like VOD over DVR or more OD instead of being able to DVR things. Essentially: you have to watch these ads. Which sucks. Because I don't want to lose my time.
However, I recognize that the entire industry is built on the notion that this all works. That a network can fund shows and the people (like Ivy) to entertain us by selling time for advertisers to sell their product. Which means if everyone was watching TV like I am, maybe there wouldn't be any more TV (except for sports).
Now I also assume that networks are getting some cut of my DirecTV bill and every cable bill, etc. so there's some income coming in from that, but I'd anticipate the majority of income is driven by selling ad space.
And in case this post isn't already too long, the question I then have is how advertisers are able to tell how effective TV commercials are. I mean, on a web page, you click on an ad and the owner of the ad has you on their site and they can track what you look at, buy, etc. But if I buy Halo MCC because I saw a cool ad, how would MSFT know it was from the TV ad and would they care?
beat
Member
Ads can also be timely and therefore time-shifted viewing of ads is less valuable?
I thought I read somewhere that half of DVR viewers don't skip ads, but I guess that's wrong by now, if C3 is closer to L+SD rather than L+3.
They measure this too, with surveys. But it is far less accurate and precise than web ads. Web ads (all kinds, text, banner, and esp video) would be enormously more valuable if they weren't grievously underpriced back at the start of web advertising, but there's an anchoring effect, IMO, that makes them far cheaper (per impression) than TV ads.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Short version: they have a variety of indirect metrics. They do focus groups and ask people "Have you heard of <product x>? Do you intend to buy <product x>? Have you told anyone else about <product x>?" and track those measures, particularly intent to buy, over a period of time. Sometimes they ask if you've seen a specific commercial--for example, Superbowl ads are typically produced specifically for that event and they can ask if you've seen it. In your example, which is a video game, they'd also be tracking pre-order numbers at all the different retailers. So they get a sense of how interest increases as marketing increases. Causality for marketing is a very difficult thing to prove.
I'd also note that to some extent, the system has perverse incentives. Companies want to make money, but each department of a company (or each outsourced partner) is only responsible for one segment of the picture. So this creates a situation where an advertising department or advertising firm's primary job is not really to sell a product, but to make it look like they're selling a product when they report to their supervisor. It's a "the messenger gets shot" situation, which incentivizes lying or at least loose statistical practices on the part of advertisers.
I recently heard a story from a statistician who primarily works in campaigns and politics but was called in to consult on a major film at Universal circa 2005-2006. And basically the advertising people found that "40% of people who haven't seen advertising for the film plan to see it, while 60% of people who have seen advertising for the film plan to see it! A 20% increase". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to show why that's not a good inference, but the advertising folks apparently had no interest in increasing the rigour of their practices because it'd make it seem like their advertising was less effective.
jamesinclair
Banned
I wonder if the delay in renewing Dome had anything to do with complaints about quality
Extant is the mystery show.
TheAbsolution
Member
CBS let's Reckless drive itself home. Eh? Maybe? nah.
Having a difficult time with this one. Maybe somebody could tweak it.
Under the Dome will continue to drop next season me thinks.
Having a difficult time with this one. Maybe somebody could tweak it.
Alrighty then. I'm alright with this.
Under the Dome will continue to drop next season me thinks.
CreeperBlocks
Banned
Damn it. Ah well. I think Extant is okay but I can't believe dome is still on the air. Season Two was really bad.
Vert boil
Member
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
Halle Berry wants that TV money
CBS wants that international sales/Amazon money.
Cornballer
Member
Father_Brain
Banned
I asked because, as I said above, the C3 numbers that actually track commercial viewership are much closer to L+SD than to L+3. This can and likely will change as VOD takes off, but for now, most timeshifters are indeed skipping the ads.
Damn, I like Stalker. I'm guessing it'll be dead by the end of the season.
TheAbsolution
Member
Aww man. I don't like the show but I do love Dylan McDermott.
Tragicomedy
Member
That is precisely how I watch TV, as well as people I talk to at work about certain shows. There are two main selling points for DVRs:
1) Time shifting to watch a show whenever you want.
2) Avoiding all commercials.
The entire premise of C3 or Live/SD data is fine, so long as you honestly believe those people are tuning into the ads. Live viewers, which I'm assuming represent fewer and fewer people each year, are watching some ads. I doubt they're watching all of them, or even most of them. Before DVR technology was so proliferated, we would get up and go to the rest room or get a drink during commercials. We might even mute our TV.
With DVR technology, we actively avoid all commercials. I time shift all my shows and skip over the ads. Who doesn't do that?
The push for more of a VOD approach makes sense, as it approximates the live viewing approach of not allowing you to skip over the ads. I can see why the networks value that over DVR services. I still think that's a losing proposition long-term, as DVRs are here to stay, but we'll see.
Please stop saying this. They are.
From largest to smallest:
L+7 >>>>>>>> C7 >> L+3 >>>> C3 >> L+SD >> L
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
I totally expected to hear this a few days ago. The buzz on that show has been insane so Amazon would have been insane not to renew it asap.
Inadvertently, it seems, since Arrow was in fact up over last year's premiere!
Congrats to tim.mbp for being the first person to correctly guess Ivy's Mystery Show! What's his prize, ivy?
Fucking hell. I literally had a dream about this show last night too, which has never happened before.
The second season ended with multiple (and huge) cliffhangers too. :/
Cornballer
Member
AHS numbers:
Adalian said:
I guess the HBO version will get to answering those in....2018? :/
We can hear it in Gillian Flynn's singular voice because she can't get that from a writers' room oh wait that's the whole fucking point of a showrunner on a show with a writers' room.
I called it. Yay! Thank you for keeping hope aliiiive, ivy!
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
The premiere wasn't very good but I guess that didn't turn anyone away.
:/
What?
TheAbsolution
Member
Yes. Its been laugh out loud funny for me so far.
http://uproxx.com/tv/2014/10/gone-girl-writer-gillian-flynn-will-write-every-episode-of-utopia/
The amount of stupid in one sentence is unfathomable. YOUR JOB AS THE SHOWRUNNER IS TO MAKE SCRIPTS HAVE YOUR VOICE AND TO HIRE WRITERS TO WRITE TO YOUR VOICE.
Nappuccino
Member
Does Fincher have a voice? I don't feel like he does.
He has a style and tone, visually . . . but the screenwriting in his movies is all over the place.
The entire job of a showrunner is to create a voice for every script that you get that is consistent with the show.
And Fincher said that, not Flynn. The makeup of the sentence was confusing. Let me rephrase: Fincher, you idiot.
beat
Member
Yeah, this. If you don't believe C3 is a measure of what it purports to measure, then why would you believe any of Nielsen's other numbers?
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
Oh interesting. I had no idea she was writing the entire thing or that she was even involved (although I may have forgotten that part). I really hope this adaptation is good and retains the sense of humor and wonder of the original.
But yeah, that's a really dumb comment. I feel like Fincher should know better.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Is Fincher the actual showrunner, though? If it's a similar deal as House of Cards, then Flynn might be the showrunner and he's tackling the directing to set the tone--except now for a whole season.
Wtf...
it's all nic pizziolo's fault guys, trying to convince people you only need one writer on a tv show, good lord, this better not become some stupid trend on cable
/s
Seriously though I hope it just means he has no clue what he's talking about.
It absolutely is Nic's fault. And that show would've been better with people who worked on cop shows and maybe understood how cop procedural works. Or that you can't set up something like the Yellow King and then just never pay it off, because you need a payoff and accountability.
or not.
Because American TV and British TV are run completely differently on different schedules, because the entire idea of a showrunner is to create scripts to have a singular voice, and the bigger question:
If Gillian Flynn has no TV experience, why would we expect that she knows how to write a TV show without any co-showrunner to guide her?
It's not innocuous. It's fucking stupid.
gillian flynn has lots of experience writing lengthy narratives and now has experience writing for the screen. she does not have experience writing as part of a team or organizing a team as novelist is a lonely role outside of the editing process. i would also guess that being a good writer and being a good showrunner are separate skills. if i wanted to partner with flynn, which fincher does as he likes her clearly, i don't see how this makes no sense, it seems to play to her strengths.
it's pretty innocuous as a comment. you're acting like fincher just came out and baldly stated that all team written tv shows are made by committee blandness. he didn't. he just said you get a single vision with a single writer, which is true. at worst he just uttered an bland, meaningless platitude while doing pr - which is a sea of bland meaningless platitudes. whatever.
That paragraph is horribly written. I think it's supposed to be Flynn quoting or paraphrasing Fincher, not a direct Fincher quote provided to Buzzfeed or any other outlet.
I think I'd refrain from making any big conclusions about his reasoning based on only that. There are a lot of ways that secondhand quote is misrepresenting the truth.
I think I'd refrain from making any big conclusions about his reasoning based on only that. There are a lot of ways that secondhand quote is misrepresenting the truth.
It's not whatever -- it's, again, fucking stupid, to say: "I don’t want a big writers room, I want a voice". It's a stupid, ignorant comment that is film prestige bullshit.
She has no experience writing television. Fincher has never run a show before. As of now, Gillian Flynn will be on her own, without anyone partnered with her, trying to write a television show, with absolutely no experience of being a showrunner and absolutely no experience being a television writer. What a fucking joke.
I wanna be nice and consider writing a feature could be very close to writing episodics, but umm, there's also that above. So I don't know if that would even be close to true anymore, considering the large gap of experience.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked