CreeperBlocks
Banned
I never liked POI. My Parents do. I kinda hope it doesn't get cancelled.
-
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
I never liked POI. My Parents do. I kinda hope it doesn't get cancelled.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
Shaw and Root are incredibly integral to the show, just as much as John and Harold.
nooooooooooooo Person of Interest
pls dont die
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DON'T SAY THAT
Aww, I have this whole season on my DVR but haven't watched a single episode. It's too bad as those two were definitely favorite characters of mine. (also, Garcelle Beauvais is awesome IRL. We were talking about the diner they eat at in earlier seasons actually being a set and not an actual restaurant.)
I just remembered this:
http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7Vxg/luxor-hotel-and-casino-franklin-and-bash
Their cross promotion with the Luxor hotel to "Party like Franklin and Bash" and if you reserve their overpriced package, I believe it included a special Franklin and Bash-related gift.
http://www.vegaschatter.com/story/2...ird+Vegas+Hotel+Promos:+Love+'Em+Or+Bash+'Em?
http://vegashipster.blogspot.com/2012/06/where-douchbags-are-franklin-and-bash.html
beat
Member
Haven't seen her in POI at all - I only watched the first season sporadically - but Shahi was great in NBC's Life.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Company facing declining relevancy asks other people to pay money to buy their product
Dead Prince
Banned
glad to see RBS hanging in there.
The 100 needs way more love.
The 100 needs way more love.
Yeah, that was the first reaction too.
BlackBuzzard
Banned
Sad to see Franklin and Bash go especially with a damn cliffhanger.
Amy Acker hate thread in this thread? What's this nonsense fellas. But seriously, PoI developed into something great over the course of the seasons. People who stopped watching probably didn't want an interesting background story that keeps developing but enjoyed the more CSI kind of way the show started with. I'm so glad I sticked with it despite it's procedural start up.
Tragicomedy
Member
But Stump, I was told in this very thread that Nielsen is reliable and everyone fully trusts their ratings.
They are and they do, they're just trying to force obsolescence.
jamesinclair
Banned
I remember reading the same thing in this thread, the very day before it was announced theyd been fucking up the ABC numbers for months.
I believe the reasoning was "people wouldnt use them if they werent good," which I believe is the same reason so many people use Comcast.
dead souls
Member
Hanging in there? Like from a noose? Its ratings are hideous.
Fox probably wishes they still had The X Factor--and the fact that I can type that sentence and 100% mean it demonstrates just how bad their fall has been.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
So is this the death knell for Nielsen or something?
Tragicomedy
Member
Bingo. Admittedly, that opinion came from someone who works in TV and likely depends on solid Nielsen ratings for their livelihood.
I understand the concept of sample sizes as an effective measuring tool, but I think the Nielsen numbers are still based on the incorrect premise that families are gathering around to watch live network television at nights. They can repackage the numbers any way they see fit (+3, +7, +50, whatever). It doesn't change the fact that we're either watching on demand, or we're DVRing our favorite shows and fast-forwarding through the commercials.
How can you kill that which has no life? I highly doubt Nielsen is going anywhere. Networks depend on them extensively to determine their programming every year, almost exclusively for the worse. If Nielsen says your brand new show isn't pulling in 1990s-era viewership numbers, you have to rush out and cancel it immediately only to replace it with a new show that pulls in every worse numbers. Rinse and repeat.
jamesinclair
Banned
It's a lot like political polling which relies extensively on landlines. People eat it up because they have no other choice.
Of course with polling, every 2 years we get actual numbers that tell us how right or wrong they are. With Nielsen there is literally no way to check. They could be off by 10 million people every night and theres no way to check.
Why should networks care about ways of watching shows that aren't helping them? Nielsen is giving them the numbers that matter to them.
spookyfish
Member
HA! Love it.
Root and Shaw were important to the show for the end of Season 2. I wasn't personally (personal preference, and all that) interested in their story lines, and was not willing to invest my time in their stories. Has nothing to do with my feelings on the show: I loved the show. I didn't like the direction it was going. And neither did most people, as it *was* one of the highest rated shows on TV, and then fell like a rock in season 3.
And Shahi's performance in the context of Caviezel is exactly WHY I hated it: 'I talk quietly, too, and don't show emotion. I'm tough.' It was redundant.
Good to hear about Miles. I just figured -- wrongly, as I don't watch the show anymore -- that he would be part of the "NEW AND IMPROVED!!!" cast.
I already said I was old. And cranky.
Tragicomedy
Member
Red Band Society has 10+ million viewers confirmed.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
My parents love Person of Interest. They also watch those CSI shows. I still don't get any of them.
jamesinclair
Banned
Revenue doesnt exclusively come from commercial breaks, for one.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
RE: Nielsen, since I have some time to expand and not be so snip;
No one cares about ratings. Well, stat nerds do. But networks don't. Networks care about making money. The primary way in which they have historically made money is by selling advertising. Advertisers are willing to spend money on advertising, but want good bang for their buck. The more people they reach for their products, the more they're willing to spend. So networks care about ratings because ratings have been historically useful for getting advertisers to buy in.
If advertisers didn't care about ratings, if they just went with their gut when selling ads, if they sold ads to the shows with the most vowels in their names (Shonda presents: An Aquatic Queueing Adieu), if they had some measure other than ratings, then no one would subscribe to ratings. This would not be good for Nielsen.
The debate about whether we can "trust" Nielsen ratings is a faulty premise. It doesn't matter if we trust Nielsen ratings. The reason why fans of shows raise issues with Nielsen methodology is not because they are legitimately interested in ensuring statistical accuracy, but rather because they perceive the shows or types of shows they enjoy watching are being disadvantaged by the particular choices Nielsen makes. The idea is that we want to root for stuff we enjoy, so we do. That's fair. But it's also not really useful, because Nielsen, the networks, and the advertisers are more interested in making money.
The reason I made the comment above is because I do think advertising is declining in relevance as an income source for networks. In its place, I see international syndication, domestic syndication, and sales to streaming services. Advertising is still highly relevant, but I think as years go by it becomes less so. Nielsen is not magically going to be able to become a hot dog sales company, so it is likely that if their product declines in relevance, they will still do their best to frame it as important. I believe that's what that statement was designed to do.
The question is whether networks and advertisers care. I think there is some extent to which they do. It makes no sense if half your audience watches a show with commercials a day or two later that networks aren't getting paid for those commercial impressions. Advertisers might still want to try to avoid having to pay for them--look, advertisers would love to pay $0 for a twenty minute infomercial in the middle of the Super Bowl, this is pretty basic--but in general they don't mind paying more for more popular shows and less for less popular shows. And that's why we've seen a move from L to L+SD to C+3 and now increasingly people selling on weekly ratings.
But let's remember what they're paying for. Advertisers will never care about pirates watching the show. Networks might, because maybe they can turn some of that piracy into paying customers later--like, I think HBO cares how many people are pirating their shows because it can help inform their HBO GO strategy and their digital transition. It's a measure of how many people are interested but aren't paying yet. But advertisers will never care. They don't care about the show. They don't care how popular the show is. They care about selling advertising.
So the question isn't "Do people watch shows 14 days later and skip the commercials on their DVR?". The question is whether advertisers can monetize those people, and thus whether they're be willing to pay a differential rate for those ratings, and thus whether networks should try to ell those people. Note that we're not really talking about advertisers paying more, we're talking about a slight redistribution of what they currently pay.
It's not comparable to political polling because at the end of the day, some people actually vote and the votes are what actually matter. Political polling has to capture a real thing. The real thing here simply can't be captured, and won't be able to be. It's a very indirect thing, a competition between networks and advertisers back and forth to outwit and profit off each other. It's abstract.
No one cares about ratings. Well, stat nerds do. But networks don't. Networks care about making money. The primary way in which they have historically made money is by selling advertising. Advertisers are willing to spend money on advertising, but want good bang for their buck. The more people they reach for their products, the more they're willing to spend. So networks care about ratings because ratings have been historically useful for getting advertisers to buy in.
If advertisers didn't care about ratings, if they just went with their gut when selling ads, if they sold ads to the shows with the most vowels in their names (Shonda presents: An Aquatic Queueing Adieu), if they had some measure other than ratings, then no one would subscribe to ratings. This would not be good for Nielsen.
The debate about whether we can "trust" Nielsen ratings is a faulty premise. It doesn't matter if we trust Nielsen ratings. The reason why fans of shows raise issues with Nielsen methodology is not because they are legitimately interested in ensuring statistical accuracy, but rather because they perceive the shows or types of shows they enjoy watching are being disadvantaged by the particular choices Nielsen makes. The idea is that we want to root for stuff we enjoy, so we do. That's fair. But it's also not really useful, because Nielsen, the networks, and the advertisers are more interested in making money.
The reason I made the comment above is because I do think advertising is declining in relevance as an income source for networks. In its place, I see international syndication, domestic syndication, and sales to streaming services. Advertising is still highly relevant, but I think as years go by it becomes less so. Nielsen is not magically going to be able to become a hot dog sales company, so it is likely that if their product declines in relevance, they will still do their best to frame it as important. I believe that's what that statement was designed to do.
The question is whether networks and advertisers care. I think there is some extent to which they do. It makes no sense if half your audience watches a show with commercials a day or two later that networks aren't getting paid for those commercial impressions. Advertisers might still want to try to avoid having to pay for them--look, advertisers would love to pay $0 for a twenty minute infomercial in the middle of the Super Bowl, this is pretty basic--but in general they don't mind paying more for more popular shows and less for less popular shows. And that's why we've seen a move from L to L+SD to C+3 and now increasingly people selling on weekly ratings.
But let's remember what they're paying for. Advertisers will never care about pirates watching the show. Networks might, because maybe they can turn some of that piracy into paying customers later--like, I think HBO cares how many people are pirating their shows because it can help inform their HBO GO strategy and their digital transition. It's a measure of how many people are interested but aren't paying yet. But advertisers will never care. They don't care about the show. They don't care how popular the show is. They care about selling advertising.
So the question isn't "Do people watch shows 14 days later and skip the commercials on their DVR?". The question is whether advertisers can monetize those people, and thus whether they're be willing to pay a differential rate for those ratings, and thus whether networks should try to ell those people. Note that we're not really talking about advertisers paying more, we're talking about a slight redistribution of what they currently pay.
It's not comparable to political polling because at the end of the day, some people actually vote and the votes are what actually matter. Political polling has to capture a real thing. The real thing here simply can't be captured, and won't be able to be. It's a very indirect thing, a competition between networks and advertisers back and forth to outwit and profit off each other. It's abstract.
It only took all the other networks taking a dump in the ratings.
BodiesWithoutOrgans
Member
I heard American Dad! doing great in the ratings is this true
beat
Member
Hang on, but surely international syndication and domestic syndication are ultimately monetized via advertising too?
I remember when it seemed like Tivo had a shot at dethroning Neilsen by selling aggregated tracked viewing habits of its customers... am I misremembering?
CreeperBlocks
Banned
SHIT. I actually thought that show was alright. I only watched the First Season.
jamesinclair
Banned
A couple of notes:
One of the problems with the methodology is how ratings are collected, which is aimed squarely at old people with lots of time, who dont move homes. Nielson doesn't have boxes in dorm rooms, for example. So nobody knows how many groups of five high bros are getting together every night to watch the Daily Show. That put shows that target that kind of audience at a high disadvantage, even though theyre watching the ads and theyre the target.
Also, because their methodology requires Nielson families to do work, that again eliminates a whole bunch of people. I watch a lot of TV, make $500k, and buy a new car every month (example). Why the fuck would I waste my time on some journal?
You also ignore how valuable product placement has become. You know that ridiculous 7 second shot of the ALL NEW 2015 FORD FOCUS WITH REAR-VIEW CAMERA AND LEATHER SEATS AND OMG EVERYTHING that gets shoved down our throat? Yeah, people who skip ads and pirate are exposed to that too. Fuck, the pilot of Constantine used that as a plot point even though the character was making minimum wage as some retail jockey. Incidentally, I had Subway for lunch today. Just thought I'd share.
Theres also the issue of how much importance is placed on 19-35 market. Last I checked, Viagra doesnt spend millions on Super Bowl ads targeting that group.
Edit:
I also think advertisers are dumb.
When Hulu launched, it was THE PERFECT targeting method. For those too young to remember, when Hulu launched, you had to sign in, and give them your age and sex and location.
That means, for whetever show I watched, they could have targeted the ads DIRECTLY to me. All Axe ads, all day.
Im watching 24? Axe and Nissan. Im watching Dancing with the Stars? Axe and Nissan. Im watching CSI? Axe and Nissan.
It doesnt matter what Im watching, they know Im the target for the ad. One long in, one viewer, one impression. So smooth!
Instead, they dropped the sign in, and if you watch a feminine skewing show like Greys Anatomy, you get tampon ads, regardless of who you are, because of the assumption that if youre watching, youre a woman.
How the fuck does that make sense?
I hope you're not implying PoI is the same kind of show as CSI and all those other shitty cop shows right? A real Abed would know better.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
If you're Universal TV and you have a show that's domestically airing on FOX, you get paid a finite amount by FOX. FOX gets paid by advertisers (there's also the issue of carriage/retransmission fees, but we set those aside for now). Universal TV sells the show to networks for syndication. Universal doesn't care how those networks make money, because they get paid for the syndication rights. Those networks use advertising, but they might not be syndicating in primetime, and the types of advertisers (and thus types of demographics they're willing to sell to) might be different so it's not like C+3 demo ratings are necessarily what they're selling on. Of course they can also sell to pay networks, who are making money from membership (there's nothing that prohibits HBO from buying syndicated network content--they simply don't). They also sell to foreign networks. Some of those foreign networks use advertising, but they don't use US Nielsens, they use domestic TV tracking services. Some of those foreign networks might get a state subsidy. Some of the foreign networks might be paid for carriage or sell memberships.
Of course, during the sale process the domestic producer is going to be accentuating the show's domestic success, including information about domestic ratings and stuff. So it's not like it's wholly relevant. But as I said, the amount of emphasis being placed on domestic ratings is going to continue to decline.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I wonder if that Major Crimes SWAT spinoff is still happening? Riley seems to be cleaning house.
Jason Frost
Member
Wait, I remember seeing that Perception was renewed this week?
Byronic Hero
Member
Damn. Oh well, it had a good run. It lasted a season longer than I thought it would. It was a good Monk-clone. I hope it gets a proper ending.
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
Deadline is saying that Netflix might save Longmire. So.
Incoming 500 posts containing the sentence, "Could Netflix possibly save [show I watch that just got canceled]?"
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
In that case:
No, guys, Netflix isn't going to bring back Almost Human.
No, guys, Netflix isn't going to bring back Almost Human.
Who cares about Almost Human, they should bring back The Playboy Club!
please don't hurt me
Jeez, Riley is cleaning house.
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
Secret Circle/Star Crossed tbh
electroflame
Member
Awesome news -- Longmire really didn't deserve to be cancelled.
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
That's not how you spell Dollhouse!
electroflame
Member
Hey, even so, it's better than nothing.
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
Jason Frost
Member
I think it's written Ringer.
This is America, learn to spell things in English. I'll make it simple for you and spell it out for you.
R-E-A-P-E-R
Reaper.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked