It's also a high-concept issue. More interesting shows are harder to explain and therefore to sell. I've never seen an episode of Survivor, but I know what it's about and whether I care to see it. Despite its popularity among many of my friends, I have NO IDEA what Community's about. And the more I hear references to it, the more baffled I become. I'm not saying that's a bad thing artistically, and I'll check out Community, but marketing wise it isn't doing the show any favors.

On the other hand, we did neglect in our Nielsen discussion to mention an example of a recently announced resurrected show: Arrested Development. An outlier, to be sure, but an interesting one. I wonder what data the Penguins have been seeing to make them decide this was worth doing.

EDIT: Oh, I see.

Disclaimer:  I am totally Eddie

Dorkman has it mostly right.  The thing to keep in mind is that there is not one docu/reality series on the air that doesn't have some kind of trade out with some company for something.  For instance when I was working on Real World 9, we had what we call a "trade out" with Snapple and Dr. pepper.  Cast got free beverages, and we just simply had to show them drinking it several times a season.

I bring this up because the main reason we blur logos is to not piss off the PAID advertisers by allowing logos on that have no trade outs.  A recent, famous example of this is on John and Kate.  When their marriage was in its death rattle, John went out and got an endorsement deal with Ed Hardy.  He swaddled himself in a cocoon of douche whereever he went, including and especially taping days for his show.  Except, surprise, he didn't clear it with TLC, so my good buddy John spent most of that summer turning John Gosselin into a blurry cloud.

Last edited by Eddie (2011-11-19 08:08:19)

Shows are expensive, and people are expensive, and you have to pay people for their time while they make the shows. Ultimately it's just a numbers thing. Can you make that all profitable somehow, or can't you? It's tricky. So tricky that nobody seems to have figured it out.

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2011/ … e-2012.ars

I'm reminded of when the Japanese first discovered the idea of creating original cartoons for release on video. Creators and studios saw a huge potential for creative freedom: you could make a show as long or short as you wanted, with content that didn't have to abide by either TV or theatrical censorship restrictions. Early OAVs followed through on that, letting them experiment with single episodes that spawned a series if they did well.

However... it didn't take long for the dream to die. By the early 90's, OAVs were basically just TV episodes you had to pay for. They were all 25 minutes long, had standard opening and closing credits, and even a spot for a commercial break in the middle.

So now I'm in an argument with people I've never heard of?   Awesome. 

EDIT:  Is the linked article supposed to be presented as a rebuttal?  It says the same things I've been saying.

Last edited by Trey (2011-11-20 20:22:38)

I've been advised to stop intermediating, as it's only causing confusion and annoyance on both sides. I apologize and thus, I wash my hands of the mess I've made.

P.S. I'm told they will listen to the Intermission episode, so that's good, right? Maybe at least some new listeners might stem from this. If not for The Intermission, maybe for Down In Front proper.

what is even happening

Well I hope you've learned your lesson alt-Trey.

Based on the available evidence, probably not. 

For the record I'd like to reiterate that I know nothing about slashfilm, its podcast, or principal players.  While I am tempted to get into detail over the most recent reply posted above - oh BOY am I tempted, even though I'm still not sure where it even came from - I'll hold back for now. 

I will also reiterate that I am not a Nielsen "expert",  nor am I a statistician by training.  I do work in the industry, and I have a fairly good ability to spot logical fallacies.  My interest in doing Nielsens as an Intermission topic was two-fold - first, to point out the oft-repeated claim that the Nielsens are meaningless is rarely presented with any valid evidence.  Second - to talk about the oft-repeated parallel claim that streams and DVD sales and Hulu, etc, should be used instead.

The second is easier to refute than the first, because the data is more publicly available.  As we said in the episode, and as this article also says, and as Craig Engler of Syfy says here, all those other metrics are indeed a "more accurate" measurement of viewers,  because the data is not based on polling, but on a 1:1 ratio.  If you buy a tv episode from iTunes, or watch it on Hulu, or stream it from Netflix, it counts. 

All well and good, but as I and those other articles also point out, sadly it doesn't count the same as a Nielsen point, when it comes to deciding if a show stays on the air.

The first argument - that Nielsens are so flawed as to be meaningless - is harder to make, either for or against, because Nielsen doesn't give out a lot of info about their methodology (for obvious reasons, see also: Coke formula).  But  I haven't been trying to defend the accuracy of Nielsen's data, so much as pointing out the flaws in the so-called arguments against it.   Which - I still maintain - are often  based on false logic, anecdotal evidence, or cherry-picking data.   

The "arguments" presented by the good folks from slashfilm, at least the ones reprinted here, contain enough examples of all three to keep us busy for quite a while.   But I spent nearly a decade arguing with UFO believers about the alien autopsy, and this has a depressingly familiar ring to it.  So I'll hold off for now, if it heats up when the episode actually goes live then maybe I'll get into it then. 

But for now, I offer this as a topic for consideration: 

Big Bang Theory airs directly opposite Community.   Big Bang has been on the air for five years, and every year its ratings have risen, to the point that it is now one of the top ten shows on television.   As a result, it has already been renewed not only for next year, but for the next three years.   

If you share the widely-held belief that Nielsen ratings discriminate against "geek favorites", then explain the success of Big Bang Theory.

Extra credit:  make a virtual field trip to a Big Bang Theory fansite of your choice, and see if they spend much time complaining about Nielsen discrimination there. 

Last edited by Trey (2011-11-21 05:12:31)

I'm not sure if people are complaining that Nielsen is discriminating against "geek favorites", but I do often hear/read that they believe Networks are doing that. The biggest offender being Fox. What they fail to realize is that the only reason Fox seems like the bigger culprit in this, is because they actually buy/air more "geek favorites" (heretofor named "genre shows") than most. They tend to pick up some of the more high-concept (or riskier), more off-the-beaten-path programming such as The X-Files, Werewolf, VR 5, Strange Luck, Millennium, Brimstone, Freaky Links, Greg The Bunny, Harsh Realm, The Adventures Of Brisco County Jr., Night Visions, Firefly, The Tick, Wonderfalls, Drive, Dollhouse, Fringe, etc. If these shows get canceled, Fox didn't do it to piss you off. They did it to patch a big hole in their boat. To stay afloat and relevant, they have to give the general public what they want, which is "general" content, meaning safe, familiar, easy and disposable.

Sure, every once in a while a smarter, more unique production will capture people's imagination. The X-Files and The Simpsons, for example. These are exceptions that prove the rule. The X-Files was full of monsters, aliens, brainy scientists and Canadians. At its core, it was a cop show. A police procedural. The Simpsons was animated, but it had swearing and more adult subject material. Not to mention, the characters were all yellow-skinned weirdos. At its core, it was a comedy-drama about a dysfunctional, lower-middle to middle class family, with kids, pets and a mortgage payment.

The other important point is at the time, Fox was a new network, just starting out. They were able to take such risks and allow shows to find an audience way easier back then. The same goes for UPN and The WB. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Roswell and Supernatural are all genre shows that would've most likely died halfway through their first seasons on the bigger networks, provided they could even get picked up in the first place.

I am still angry that Manimal got canceled.

BRING BACK MANIMAL!

/and 1980s melody anderson