[wplug] [OT] ooh ooh ...

[Chester R. Hosey]

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 22:17 -0400, Bill Moran wrote:

> Firefly is the Star Trek of recent history.  It ran for one season.  It was
> the best show on telivision during that time, but the WB canceled for some
> unexplanable reason (perhaps they aren't in favor of TV that's actually
> good)

You, sir, have hit it right on the head. Television makes much more
sense to me since someone pointed out to me the simple fact that you,
the viewer, are not the customer -- you're the product.

Television is a way to sell advertising. The ideal target is someone
with more money than bills who is easily convinced that they need the
latest-and-greatest just because some commercial told them that Mazda
has 'zoom-zoom'.

The product being sold is the field of vision of anyone who is easily
convinced by a product pitch. Most advertising doesn't cater towards
intelligent people, because intelligent people are above average in
their demands for useful information. The eyeball-time being sold here
is prime, um, cornea -- the kind that's easily convinced by commercial
advertisements.

The reason why genres tend to take off isn't that everyone watches
every... single... reality show out there. The reason why genres take
off is because when one show makes it big, advertisers are willing to
pay above-average prices for a given time slot if they think that the
show is likely to be what the mass audience wants. Wanting to sell those
ads, networks are glad to produce episode after episode of pointless
television show, because the advertisers are hoping that one of them
will be the next Survivor or Amazing Race. It's a speculative market.

In short, Bill, you are a defective product. Advertisers don't want to
buy your attention because you're probably a more discerning consumer
than average. If they happen to attract your attention, well, that's
okay, but they're not going to pay top dollar for a show which you love
but isn't raking in the more impulsive consumer. You're enjoying the
product of their advertising dollars without giving nearly as much back
as the average Survivor fanatic.

Think of television as a means to sell attention to advertisers, and
you'll understand much better why they really honestly "aren't in favor
of TV that's actually good". The customers most likely to respond to
advertising and the customers most likely to watch good television are
in generally disjoint sets.

I actually hate television since this realization, since it really helps
to explain why the established franchises are crap and the good shows
don't last. Add in the fact that sit-coms which at one time were
somewhat ironic reflections of society (Married... With Children and All
in the Family spring to mind) would now be condemned as being too racy
for prime-time viewing, and it makes total sense that modern shows are
superficial and bland.

Comments?

Chet