|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
Exclamation Marx posted:This week's Mediawatch, around 9:40 is interesting re: Campbell Live thank you
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
puchu posted:Note how I said original, not necessarily 'good'... I think the last thing that wasn't an election debate I watched on TV3 was a time-shifted series of Underbelly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:This week's Mediawatch, around 9:40 is interesting re: Campbell Live mediawatch is so great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
puchu posted:If the news doesn't rate the rest of the night doesn't rate and then advertisers start demanding makegood which results in less inventory meaning less money coming in meaning the potential to not have a running station which means no news. So either way in your made up scenario, we have no news, but in one instance someone decided to get rid of it for money and in the other they failed honourably but did the right thing. That could happen, I guess, or here is another made up scenario: the news doesn't rate but the rest of the night still does rate and then advertisers are still happy. Or: If the news doesn't rate the rest of the night doesn't rate and then advertisers start demanding makegood which results in TV companies finding other ways to generate revenue and the news is still on. Or: If the news doesn't rate the rest of the night doesn't rate and then advertisers start paying less and the station just operates on less money and the news is still on. I can play games with stories as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
puchu posted:Was Brains always Indian in the original series? Also I saw that pink Rolls Royce Lady Penelope was riding in and immediately thought 'Elton John??' which is a poor reflection on my train of thought tbh No. And apparently that car is iconic. Got roped into watching it with a coalition of Hawkes Bay Landowners because one of their daughters is the production coordinator. Still, at least they know I'm willing to voice act?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
klen dool posted:So either way in your made up scenario, we have no news, but in one instance someone decided to get rid of it for money and in the other they failed honourably but did the right thing. That could happen, I guess, or here is another made up scenario: First, I just want to point out that it's highly unlikely that something so iconic as the nightly news will be cut. Even if it rates poorly on any of the networks, it would have to be absolute throw the whole thing out because no one apart from one grandma in Kaikoura is watching levels of bad to cut it. So what I'm going to write about isn't necessarily about the news but more general in nature. The TV companies are already finding other ways to generate revenue in response to the changing media environment. It's just a lot more difficult to come up with several new, profitable ideas than it is to do the easy fix of cutting an underperforming programme that bleeds money. If you're an executive who has been told to make the company profitable ASAP, which one do you think will give more promise of a result in the short term? I know it's very easy to say 'well the station just gets less money and the news [or any other programme] is still on' but it's a business. If something costs too much and isn't making enough cash to keep it on the air, then it's just not common sense to keep it on the air. What I see through audience flow analysis (not with the news but with other programmes over the past couple of years) is that one poor programme that doesn't keep audience flowing through can smash a night. Each programme isn't an independent event, which is why being a programmer isn't just slapping any old thing on. Also, I've worked in advertising for a few years now and there is no way that any ad agency worth their salt would be happy if a peak-time programme on a network fell over, because someone's going to have their ad in there when a programme nosedives and if there's ever an industry with anorexic margins it's the ad industry. When clients see that their campaigns are underperforming and falling short of audit benchmarks, they begin to question the choices of their agency. If the agency doesn't hit agreed KPIs because of the accumulation of poor performance, that means less money for the agency and could possibly trigger an agency review with subsequent loss of client. Everything agency-side is so focussed on bottom line these days. It's rather brutal. WarpedNaba posted:No. And apparently that car is iconic. Got roped into watching it with a coalition of Hawkes Bay Landowners because one of their daughters is the production coordinator. Still, at least they know I'm willing to voice act? Please let us know when you appear on the show
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
How do tv ratings even work? Like there's no way to tell exactly who is watching what right
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
puchu posted:What I see through audience flow analysis (not with the news but with other programmes over the past couple of years) is that one poor programme that doesn't keep audience flowing through can smash a night. Each programme isn't an independent event, which is why being a programmer isn't just slapping any old thing on. This blows my mind; I hadn't realised that I'd become so detached from reality (by not having a TV). People actually sit down and watch multiple tv programmes in a row? Don't they have anything better to do?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This blows my mind; I hadn't realised that I'd become so detached from reality (by not having a TV). People actually sit down and watch multiple tv programmes in a row? Don't they have anything better to do? This is why One News seams straight into Seven Sharp - it's specifically to promote flow-through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Yeah, there are several occasions where I realised I'd been watching Seven Sharp for about 5 minutes without noticing the news had ended.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
puchu posted:What is this in reference to because by itself it makes no sense Doing what ever you need to survive is perfectly fine and never psychopathic no matter what the effect on other members of society. I'm applying your corporate approach to the individual level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
focal ischemia posted:mediawatch is so great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:How do tv ratings even work? Like there's no way to tell exactly who is watching what right
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Nielson has boxes in I think 600 homes hooked up to their tvs that does, in fact, tell exactly who is watching what. Then they multiply that by the nation's population. I've heard as low as 200, which is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Nielson has boxes in I think 600 homes hooked up to their tvs that does, in fact, tell exactly who is watching what. Then they multiply that by the nation's population. I wonder how they know which people in the houses are watching tv at any time. Also if the people are watching tv but hating it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
If it was 600 homes you would think I would have heard of them before too :S
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
I'm at work so can't write a whole lot right now but I'll provide an overview of how the system works tonight Also it has never been 200 households and was increased from 500 to 600 households a couple of years ago. puchu fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Everyone who thinks a few hundred Nielsen households aren't enough to judge viewership across a country has no idea how polls and surveys work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Statistically you only need a randomly sampled 389 people to get a 95% confidence interval representation of the entire population. Of course the sampling provably isn't as random as they'd like so more is better. Statistically though, 600 people is sound. The thing that stands out to me from this conversation is that, if Campbell Live is axed, they probably won't replace it with a current affairs show. Given what puchu was saying about news ratings vs the rest of the night, Campbell Live is already doing a drat good job (for a current affairs show) of maintaining ratings and keeping people on the channel. So they want something different to draw people over after Shortland St and One News finish, which its true Campbell Live isn't really doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
fong posted:Statistically you only need a randomly sampled 389 people to get a 95% confidence interval representation of the entire population. Of course the sampling provably isn't as random as they'd like so more is better. Statistically though, 600 people is sound. Sadly it's not doing well enough ratings wise, and it won't until people vote with their eyes and switch over from shorty and seven sharp to Campbell Live. People just don't seem to care for current events shows when they can watch soaps. Also it's 600 homes and there's usually multiple people in each home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This blows my mind; I hadn't realised that I'd become so detached from reality (by not having a TV). People actually sit down and watch multiple tv programmes in a row? Don't they have anything better to do? Blows my mind too. I can't imagine sitting down with nothing better to do than idly flip between channels until bed-time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
what do people who don't own computers even do?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
fong posted:Statistically you only need a randomly sampled 389 people to get a 95% confidence interval representation of the entire population. Of course the sampling provably isn't as random as they'd like so more is better. Statistically though, 600 people is sound.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
If you people are bored at all this weekend, you should get in on the 54 hours of trivia... http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3700363
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This blows my mind; I hadn't realised that I'd become so detached from reality (by not having a TV). People actually sit down and watch multiple tv programmes in a row? Don't they have anything better to do? Yeah it's bizarre, don't these people realize there is the entire internet to waste hours on watching youtube videos of people falling over?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
puchu posted:People just don't seem to care for current events shows when they can watch soaps. Yeah, no poo poo. It all stems from this horribly erroneous idea that people actually know what's good for them and can be trusted to make decisions en masse that benefit everyone. See also: democracy. Wandle Cax posted:Yeah it's bizarre, don't these people realize there is the entire internet to waste hours on watching youtube videos of people falling over? I can't make myself just sit and channel surf youtube either. If there's something specific I want to watch, like a race or a documentary or something, then yeah, but gently caress sitting down for several hours and switching my brain off watching cats jump off things (hint: this is not intellectually better than watching MKR or the block or some other dumb poo poo). Just read a book or go for a walk or some poo poo, loving hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Yeah, no poo poo. It all stems from this horribly erroneous idea that people actually know what's good for them and can be trusted to make decisions en masse that benefit everyone. See also: democracy. but do you ever find yourself idly browsing gbs? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:but do you ever find yourself idly browsing gbs? No. I follow two threads in DnD (one of which is this one) and spend the rest of my time in AI and CA. If there's nothing new on the forums, I find something else to do like exercise develop photos play a vidjer game read a book beat up my cat beat up my missus
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
I'm so stupid that if the tv is on I can't stop watching it until someone breaks the spell. I wish this was a fakepost e: at least I'm not stupid enough to vote for this guy
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
"We will be incapable of telling you if the country has any money before we decide how much money we're going to spend" - the supposed fiscally responsible party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
puchu posted:First, I just want to point out that it's highly unlikely that something so iconic as the nightly news will be cut. Even if it rates poorly on any of the networks, it would have to be absolute throw the whole thing out because no one apart from one grandma in Kaikoura is watching levels of bad to cut it. So what I'm going to write about isn't necessarily about the news but more general in nature. Yes, I realise that is how it currently works. It doesn't mean its not selfish and should be condemned. The executive that would cut the news for profit is still acting in an anti social manner, and so is the companies charter and probably the shareholders as well. I want it to change, I want a TV executive to pubicaly say "we would never stop broadcasting news in some form despite its costs, as its a public good" - I want all of them too. The first step is to condemn the attitude that money is more important than society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
klen dool posted:I want it to change, I want a TV executive to pubicaly say "we would never stop broadcasting news in some form despite its costs, as its a public good" - I want all of them too. We have a state broadcaster for this exact reason?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Had. We currently only have a state-funded broadcaster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Had. Yes but clearly there are some aspects of the old Charter still working because otherwise it would be cooking shows and real estate programs 24/7. That's what a state broadcaster is, right, a channel that doesn't show that poo poo around the clock?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
klen dool posted:The first step is to condemn the attitude that money is more important than society. The problem with that is that we live in a capitalist society where individuals feel the benefits of having more money instantly whereas the benefits of ~~doing social good~~ are ephemeral at best. The problem with the internet (and everyone else really) is that saying this automatically makes you a communist. A TV executive will never say that they would never stop broadcasting the news because it's in the public good, because a TV executive's job is to make his company profits and screening an unprofitable programme is not how you do that. Doing the socially good thing in that instance would mean negative personal consequences for said executive, eventually leading to him/her being replaced by a more morally flexible individual. This is how literally every share-holding company on the planet works and how they're supposed to work; you make profits or you get kicked out. When given the choice between taking a moral stand in the name of the nightly news or having a job to go back to on monday, people will naturally choose the latter because we're wired to think that personal well-being is more important than vague notions of social good. The entire purpose of corporations is to amass wealth at the expense of people outside the company - that's how capitalism works. I don't know why you have such difficulty grasping this. Yes it's terrible and ultimately unsustainable and socially destructive but badgering people about it won't help anything; the capitalist society we live in allows such entities to exist and is therefore fundamentally faulty. You won't somehow fix this by attempting to convince people to be nicer to eachother with no incentive aside from the feel-good factor swelling in their chest at the knowledge that they've done something 'good'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:Yes but clearly there are some aspects of the old Charter still working because otherwise it would be cooking shows and real estate programs 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:It's ~1500 people and the sampling isn't random at all. How is it sampled?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:That's what's left of TVNZ's charter. I feel it's also worth adding that Freeview has been, from a content point of view, an unmitigated disaster. Take a look at what has come and gone: TVNZ 7 TVNZ Kids (I think this got rolled into something else) TVNZ's Sport channel Summit Is there anything else I'm missing? One of of the big promises from when Freeview was discussed was that there'd be more channels but most of it is just the regular networks with +1 schedules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
fong posted:How is it sampled?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 08:40
|
|