sigh I miss Cupid. Damn ABC (Already Been Cancelled)
StG]
… and I’m still not recovered from the cancellation of SportsNight. Sniff.
SportsNight, we miss you.
One thing up in Canada-- the networks try to base their Id on news and current affairs programming, and everything else is up for grabs.
Thus Survivor and Friends run on the same network…
As for overnights-- well, Neilsen has its flaws, namely that it actually excludes lotsof ubder-35s because you can’t get a box if you rent…
Bring back Brimstone!
I’ll beat you all. I still haven’t forgiven Fox for cancelling Alien Nation thirteen years ago.
The problem with Firefly isn’t that it takes awhile to build up an audience. It took me one episode to get hooked. The problem is that no one knows this show exists! I haven’t seen a single advertisement for it yet. Not one. How do they expect people to watch the show when no one knows it exists?
I loved Alien Nation, too.
Network bastards. Give me my 500 cable channels, already!
Psst…Sports Night fans - you may not be able to see anything new, but DVD for the existing episodes, baby!
And although I know it’s a dollars and cents issue, it all still stinks. How can we make a show successful for a network if they won’t even give it time for us to get attached to it!
In the early 80’s, shows like Cheers & Night Court were kept alive because NBC was in the toilet and figured it had nothing to lose by keeping low rated shows.
That article is bullshit. The average Nash Bridges viewer has A LOT more money to spend then the average Dawson’s Creek viewer.
This is one of the things that makes the television industry seem so nonsensical to the average viewer. The decisions that advertisers make about how much to spend on an individual program are NOT based on total amount of income available for spending.
Yes, it would seem logical that the older viewers, with the higher incomes, would be the most highly prized by advertisers. But this is not the case. The most highly prized demographic is in fact women ages 18-35. These
Whoops – now the board really is too fast. I hit a key and somehow that submitted before I even had time to blink. Is it too soon to start complaining that we need to slow this puppy down?
To continue…
Advertisers believe (whether rightly or wrongly is the subject of much debate) that their best chance of actually convincing someone to buy stuff based on advertising is to target them when they are young. People over 35, and especially people over 50, are presumed to be pretty much impervious to advertisements. They already know what they want, and seeing the ad for the latest cereal or soap is not going to change their buying habits.
The goal of the advertisers is to hook the teenagers and those just starting to run a home or build a family on their particular products.
This doesn’t mean that there isn’t niche advertising for different groups. During golf tournaments, for instance, you will see mainly ads for financial investments, luxury cars, and golf-related products. That’s because the advertisers know that their audience consists almost entirely of men over 35 (and me), and these are the only products that the old guys are likely to buy based on ads.
But advertising rates are skewed tremendously by demographics, and the highest rates are paid for impressionable minds, rather than high amounts of disposable income.
I’m off to search for a few cites about ratings, demographics, and advertising rates.
Here’s a good article about Media Ageism
The Nash Bridges audience may have had a lot more money than the Dawson’s Creek audience, but that in no way negates my assertion that advertisers paid more for the Dawson’s Creek audience.
But history seems to show that a program often takes a while to establish itself. Better, I would think, not to be too hasty.