Yet more proof that Fox knows how to screw things up

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Well, it appears that Fox has all but set Fringe up to be canceled after this year. Starting in January, Fox has decided to move American Idol from Tues/Wed to Wed/Thurs with Bones moving to 9/8c on Thursday and Fringe moving to that time slot on Friday. Now, moving a show to Friday is all but a death sentence these days (although I can remember when X-Files made Friday the night to watch tv). Well I guess I should have seen the writing on the wall to begin with this season, as after being very successful on Tuesdays, Fox decided to move Fringe to Thursdays opposite CSI (LV). And let's face it, nothing is going to compete with CSI on any night of the week. I'm not really sure why Fox decided to move it to begin with as it was one of the best shows on Tuesday when it was there. Lower ratings for Fringe on Thursdays most likely prompted the move to begin with most likely. As did the fact that I'm sure that with American Idol sliding the past few years (which I do not watch) they thought they had to make some sort of move. This for one really aggravates me as a big fan of Fringe, as in my opinion, they show has gotten better and better over the 2+ seasons it's currently been on. Especially since American Idol is on it's last legs, and once again Fox decides to all but kill one of it's more popular shows (especially before the night move).

[snoopy13a]

Even in its decline, American Idol still can bring in 20 million or so viewers. Additionally, it is shown twice a week and is relatively cheap to produce. It is a huge money-maker.

In its first season, and helped by being led into by the most popular show on TV, Fringe averaged about 10 million viewers. In its second season, after being moved to Thursday, it averaged about 7.5 million. In the third season, it is bringing in only 5 million viewers. Hence the move to Friday.

Fringe was greenlighted by Fox and given Fox's best time slot. Despite this generous start, it is only bringing in five million viewers. Fox gave Fringe every opportunity to succeed. Fringe has failed to do so and deserves to be in the Friday time slot.

[Lord Seth]

Well, it appears that Fox has all but set Fringe up to be canceled after this year. Starting in January, Fox has decided to move American Idol from Tues/Wed to Wed/Thurs with Bones moving to 9/8c on Thursday and Fringe moving to that time slot on Friday. Now, moving a show to Friday is all but a death sentence these days (although I can remember when X-Files made Friday the night to watch tv).Actually, being moved to Friday was quite likely Fringe's one and only chance of survival. It was doing very badly in the time slot it was in, and yes, I know it was a tough time slot, but that can only excuse so much. Now, there are a few possibilities:
1) Fringe manages to retain its current ratings or at least not drop too much on Friday. This is actually a possibility because while Friday has fewer viewers, Fringe is one of the stronger shows in DVR viewing, indicating that moving it to a less problematic time slot might help it. Plus, if it does work, then Fox finally has something on Friday.
2) Fringe fails and Fox ends up doing no worse on Fridays than it already is, and it's canceled, as it would have been had it remained on Thursday.

It's win/win for Fox!

Will Fringe survive on Friday? Maybe, maybe not. But it was likely not going to survive on Thursday, and this gives the show a chance.

As a note: Moving to Friday is a death sentence? Well, Smallville and Supernatural seem to be doing just fine there! (yes, Smallville is in its last season anyway, but ratings-wise it's doing fine is the point)


Well I guess I should have seen the writing on the wall to begin with this season, as after being very successful on Tuesdays, Fox decided to move Fringe to Thursdays opposite CSI (LV). And let's face it, nothing is going to compete with CSI on any night of the week.Well, ABC and NBC are going to be surprised to hear that they can't compete with CSI, considering The Office and Grey's Anatomy air at the same time and outdo it.


I'm not really sure why Fox decided to move it to begin with as it was one of the best shows on Tuesday when it was there.Likely they were trying to get a good presence on Thursdays as well as evaluate how much it depended on its lead-in to do well.


Lower ratings for Fringe on Thursdays most likely prompted the move to begin with most likely.I agree with this, but what's your point?


As did the fact that I'm sure that with American Idol sliding the past few years (which I do not watch) they thought they had to make some sort of move. This for one really aggravates me as a big fan of Fringe, as in my opinion, they show has gotten better and better over the 2+ seasons it's currently been on.I'll agree it's gotten better, but it's simultaneously gotten less accessible. There's a lot of stuff going on that if you don't know you'll be lost, and the "previously on..." sections aren't made very well and don't help much. I had been trying to get my mother to watch Fringe for a while and she finally tuned in when I was at work and found the previously on section so confusing that she actually quit watching after it. Luckily I got her to watch it again and I explained things to her, but it serves to show that the show is is simply put not accessible unless they make the previously sections better.

They also don't do a great job communicating what universe they're in. I know, I know, "if the title sequence is blue it's our universe, if it's red it's the other!" Great. Now, how is a new viewer supposed to know that...?


Especially since American Idol is on it's last legs,...the show that was, as recently as last season, consistently #1 in both overall viewers and the target 18-49 demographic is on its last legs?


and once again Fox decides to all but kill one of it's more popular shows (especially before the night move).I'm not sure Fringe was ever one of Fox's more popular shows, anyone happen to have any good ratings information for its first season? I'm not talking about overall viewers, I can find that, but I need the 18-49 demographic ratings, that's the thing that matters.

At any rate, moving Fringe to Friday is a smart move for Fox and gives it a chance for renewal that keeping it on Thursday most likely wouldn't have given it.

[SDF]

I DVR all the shows I watch so time slots are meaningless to me. (I don't even know when some of my favorite shows come on >_>) But, I suppose there are still a lot of people that don't have that technology. I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't effect me.

[BRC]

Even in its decline, American Idol still can bring in 20 million or so viewers. Additionally, it is shown twice a week and is relatively cheap to produce. It is a huge money-maker.

In its first season, and helped by being led into by the most popular show on TV, Fringe averaged about 10 million viewers. In its second season, after being moved to Thursday, it averaged about 7.5 million. In the third season, it is bringing in only 5 million viewers. Hence the move to Friday.

Fringe was greenlighted by Fox and given Fox's best time slot. Despite this generous start, it is only bringing in five million viewers. Fox gave Fringe every opportunity to succeed. Fringe has failed to do so and deserves to be in the Friday time slot.
Stop getting your logic in our blind anger! Okay seriously, while I wouldn't say it "Deserves" to be canceled, my feelings are more towards "Sigh, what a shame" than "KILLCRUSHBURN!"

Fringe is a great show, they've built a wonderful mythology, the writing and acting are all top notch. It's probably my favorite show on television right now.

However, in the end, it's Science Fiction, and that's always a tough sell. Despite some great successes, it's always an uphill battle. Sci-Fi shows tend to be more expensive to make (Or so I imagine), since they usually require more expensive special effects, scenes, and props, to account for the "Fantastic" elements. As Fringe has moved from "X-Files with smaller Cellphones" to it's current, brilliant storyline, it's probably become more expensive (more overtly fantastical elements with "over there") and less watched (People who do not watch the show regularly will have more trouble following the plot if they just "Tune in" to see an episode). Also, and this guess is more baseless than my others, I have a feeling that science fiction fans (Nerds) have turned to internet streaming (Hulu, ect) for watching shows in a higher proportion than most, which skews the numbers. It's a tragedy yes, but I can understand why it's happening.

Of course, I have another, more sinister theory: J.J. Abrams. Lost was a hugely successful show, and since then there have been several shows attempting to become the next Lost (Flashforward and The Event come to mind). Shows with just a splash of science fiction thrown in. Science fiction elements in a realistic world as opposed to Science-fiction settings. What if Fox is trying to cancel Fringe in order to get J.J. Abrams to work on a new show, one they can hype it from the beginning as "From the Creator of Lost". Publicity can be a huge thing, especially if they wrap the show in it from the beginning. They can slather the airwaves with it, "From the Creator of Lost comes a new show...". People will think "So this is what he's been working on since Lost ended", they'll watch the new show, able to start from the beginning. It might be good, it might be a terrible monstrosity slapped together quickly and then changed to be as Lost-Like as possible, but many people will be unaware of the masterpiece that was sacrificed so it could be made.

Edit: Disclaimer, I have done no research, have no experience or education concerning Television or the Television industry. I Know nothing, I only Thing.

Edit II: I think the "Friday Night Death Slot" This is slightly exaggerated in the Nerd community, especially where Fox is concerned. It was one of the many factors that led to Firefly's downfall (Personally, I think showing the series out of order was the biggest thing). It's certainly a factor, but probably not an automatic death sentence.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

@ Lord Seth, I have two points for you. First, CBS (CSI/The Mentalist) still owns Thursday nights, and consistently have more viewers than any other show on that night, including Grey's Anatomy and the Office (Example this past week CSI-14.2 million viewers, The Mentalist-14.7 million viewers, Grey's Anatomy-11.4 million viewers, The Office-7.2/5.5 million viewers. link (http://www.thetvbuff.com/da-juice/tv-ratings-bones-greys-rise-but-cbs-still-tops-thursday/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTvBuffDotCom+(The+TV+Buff+ dot+Com))). Second, you asked my point about Fringe being on Tuesday/Thursday. The show was quite successful on Tuesdays, and not as much after the move on Thursdays. My point is that it never should have been moved. And with the success of Glee on Tuesdays now, if it had stayed there in the time slot it was in, it would probably be doing well now, especially a the bump following Glee. I mean it seems only Fox messes with something that's good, then puts it up against a show (CSI) that it (and any other show on Thursday night) has no chance to compete against at that time.

[Lord Seth]

@ Lord Seth, I have two points for you. First, CBS (CSI/The Mentalist) still owns Thursday nights, and consistently have more viewers than any other show on that night, including Grey's Anatomy and the Office (Example this past week CSI-14.2 million viewers, The Mentalist-14.7 million viewers, Grey's Anatomy-11.4 million viewers, The Office-7.2/5.5 million viewers. link (http://www.thetvbuff.com/da-juice/tv-ratings-bones-greys-rise-but-cbs-still-tops-thursday/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTvBuffDotCom+(The+TV+Buff+ dot+Com))).Here's the thing: Outside of bragging rights, overall viewers don't matter. The 18-49 demographic does. And ABC (Grey's Anatomy) and NBC (The Office) outdo CBS on that. Last Thursday, in that demographic, Grey's Anatomy had a 4.3/11, The Office had a 3.8/10, and CSI had 3.1/8. (Outsourced, the half-hour show after The Office that also goes against CSI, only got a 2.6/7 though). So, yes, shows can compete quite well against CSI. (for the curious, Fringe got a 1.9/5)

To explain the numbers quick: The first number is the rating, which is the percentage of people who have TVs that were watching that show. The second number is the share, which is the percentage who were watching TV then that were watching that specific show. The rating is generally the number people pay more attention to. In this case, the numbers I provided are solely that of the 18-49 demographic.


Second, you asked my point about Fringe being on Tuesday/Thursday. The show was quite successful on Tuesdays, and not as much after the move on Thursdays. My point is that it never should have been moved.It is true Fringe got a drop after the move to Thursdays (well, not right afterward, it actually gained a few viewers when it debuted then but then dropped afterwards) and I'm sure Fox expected that and as a result had lower expectations. The thing is, its current ratings, even with those lower expectations, are too low, especially considering that Fox's schedule will be stuffed next season, which I'll get to in a moment.


And with the success of Glee on Tuesdays now, if it had stayed there in the time slot it was in, it would probably be doing well now, especially a the bump following Glee.If it had "stayed there" then it would've lost its House lead-in when House moved to Monday and ratings likely would've dropped anyway.


I mean it seems only Fox messes with something that's good, then puts it up against a show (CSI) that it (and any other show on Thursday night) has no chance to compete against at that time.As I already pointed out, other shows can and do outdo CSI in the ways that matter. The 18-49 demographic matters. Total viewers don't.

The other thing you need to remember is what's going down on Fox next fall. The X-Factor is premiering, and that'll take up three slots from what I understand. Now, disregarding Saturday (because it's, well, Saturday) and Sunday (that's the animated comedies' domain), that leaves Fox with 10 hours to program. Here's the shows, therefore, that will most likely be on the schedule next year:
1. The X-Factor
2. The X-Factor
3. The X-Factor
4. Terra Nova (new show)
5. House
6. Bones
7. Glee
8. Raising Hope (and some other half-hour comedy)
9. ?????
10. ?????

And that's not counting the possibility of Hell's Kitchen having a fall premiere again, or other new series (there's a very strong possibility of a Bones spin-off). As we can see, Fox's schedule is going to be pretty crowded. What they need are shows that can perform on a Friday, because two of those slots are going to Friday. If Fringe can perform adequately on Friday, then it has a good chance at renewal, because Fox is going to need to be moving some shows there due to their stuffed schedule. The only place Fringe can really fit will be on Friday. So, by putting it on Friday this season, they can evaluate it and see if it'll work, and if it does, it will be able to fill up a Friday slot next season.

[Abies]

Here's the thing: Outside of bragging rights, overall viewers don't matter. The 18-49 demographic does.

Interesting theory, and one that CBS does not agree with. CBS has historically placed great value on the higher age bracket demographics. While I'm sure they don't mind gettin numbers in the 18-49 range, old folks love their CSI and NCIS, and all the spinoffs.

Go ahead and look at CBS shows. You'll see that they do specifically target older populations

[Lord Seth]

Interesting theory,It's not a theory that networks want the 18-49 demographic in primetime above all else, it's fact.


and one that CBS does not agree with. CBS has historically placed great value on the higher age bracket demographics. While I'm sure they don't mind gettin numbers in the 18-49 range, old folks love their CSI and NCIS, and all the spinoffs.

Go ahead and look at CBS shows. You'll see that they do specifically target older populationsNot really. CBS's strategy is a bit different than the other networks. The other networks (NBC and Fox especially) try to go straight for the 18-49 demographic. CBS's strategy is apparently instead to get as many total viewers as possible, with the reasoning that even if they don't have as large a percentage of viewers in that demographic, they'll still do well in it due to the sheer number of viewers.

Basically, if Fox and NBC (and to a lesser extent ABC, which is kind of a compromise between what Fox/NBC and CBS are doing) are aiming at a dartboard where the bullseye is the 18-49 demographic, CBS is instead throwing a tomato at it and not really aiming at anywhere on the dartboard in particular. Sure, a lot of the tomato will splatter on areas other than the bullseye, but because there's so much of it rather than a dart, they'll still come out doing well because some of the tomato will hit the bullseye.

For a more numerical way of looking at it, suppose a show gets 5 million viewers, 100% of which are in that demographic. Now suppose another show gets 15 million viewers, 40% of which are in that demographic. The second show comes out ahead because the higher number of viewers compensates for the lower percentage. CBS isn't going for the older crowd, they're going for sheer numbers with the goal of those numbers overwhelming their low demographic percentage (which has the side effect of attracting a lot of the older crowd, but that's largely superfluous in terms of ratings).

[bloodtide]

It's not just Fox, it's modern TV.

Problem 1-Lots of people don't want a show live anymore. They simply record it or DVR it. And worse then that, tons of people watch the TV show Online. and even worse then that, some people wait for the whole season to come out on DVD and buy and watch the whole boxed set. This all translates into ratings lower then the fan interest in the show.

Problem 2-Shows like Fringe have a lot of mythology. This turns off a lot of viewers. And the viewers that like tons of mythology, they like to have it all...that is watch every single show and be a 'viewing expert'. The one minute recap at the start of the show is pointless, when you have a huge mythology. And to make this the worst possible, if you miss an episode of Fringe, you can feel very lost. What is going on, why did this happen, who is character x? And to top it all off, you can't watch the missed episode(unless you use the internet for pirate viewing). All cable channels, for example, re show the episodes several times over the next couple days(FX is great and does it the same day). This allows people to catch up. But on network TV, your screwed....you have to wait for the rerun...maybe..if it's shown and something else, like 'the two hour American Idol special' is not on.

Problem 3-Fringe just never had the 'hook'. It's a good show, and i like the couple episodes I've seen, but I make no effort to watch it. Eh, it's just another FBI/aliens show. Much of the show is just bland. Oh, a monster killing people...again(yawn..never seen that oh so original plot). And worse for a lot of people is the PG-13 crap. They tone down the violence and sex and nudity so much, that you might as well watch a Disney cartoon.

[Lord Seth]

It's not just Fox, it's modern TV.

Problem 1-Lots of people don't want a show live anymore. They simply record it or DVR it. And worse then that, tons of people watch the TV show Online. and even worse then that, some people wait for the whole season to come out on DVD and buy and watch the whole boxed set. This all translates into ratings lower then the fan interest in the show.This isn't that much of an excuse for Fringe though, because that applies to all shows. Plenty of shows are certainly doing well for themselves despite the aforementioned problems. (Glee, Modern Family, Grey's Anatomy, etc.)

And as a note, networks do get money from online viewing, they just don't get anywhere near as much as they do for a TV viewing, which is why TV viewing is more important (plus, we as the audience do not have access to information like view count for Hulu, so we can really only go by what's on TV ratings when estimating how a show is doing). DVR viewings *are* counted, by the way...but advertisers don't care much about them for the simple fact that people skip through commercials.

DVDs are an interesting case. The problem with DVD sales for some shows is that only the studio that produced the show gets money from them, and if that studio isn't the network, the network doesn't get anything. Fringe is produced by Warner Bros, not Fox, so it doesn't matter if the DVD sales are consistently #1; Fox sees no money from it and has no incentive to keep it on the air based on that (though if DVD sales are amazing, Warner Bros. could of course offer to charge Fox less money for the show, but I don't think DVD sales are *that* good). This is the same problem with syndication; Fox gets nothing from that syndication. Yet another reason (besides the high ratings) that Lost was so valuable for ABC was because they got money from the DVD sales, which were good.

Though come to think of it, I wonder if Fox gets any money from Hulu viewing, or if it's just Warner Bros?


Problem 2-Shows like Fringe have a lot of mythology. This turns off a lot of viewers. And the viewers that like tons of mythology, they like to have it all...that is watch every single show and be a 'viewing expert'. The one minute recap at the start of the show is pointless, when you have a huge mythology. And to make this the worst possible, if you miss an episode of Fringe, you can feel very lost. What is going on, why did this happen, who is character x? And to top it all off, you can't watch the missed episode(unless you use the internet for pirate viewing).Uh...why can't you watch the missed episodes? Even if the ones you missed aren't on Hulu, you can get them on iTunes or Amazon.com's Video on Demand. There's no need to turn to "pirate viewing" for it. (well, unless you really don't want to spend any money)


All cable channels, for example, re show the episodes several times over the next couple days(FX is great and does it the same day). This allows people to catch up. But on network TV, your screwed....you have to wait for the rerun...maybe..if it's shown and something else, like 'the two hour American Idol special' is not on.Because it's not like there's a completely free way to watch the most recent episodes, right (http://www.hulu.com/fringe)?

That said, a problem with a mythology-heavy series is that it is harder to get into. I'm not talking about serialization here, I'm talking about mythology. If you watch 24 for the first time, all you really need to know is the events of the last few episodes, which the recaps helpfully fill you in on. Plus 24 has some of the coolest recaps on TV. You don't need to understand the whole season to get what's going on in an episode halfway through it, just the last few episodes.

On Fringe this season, you really need to understand the backstory, which the recaps have not been good at telling you. I'm not blaming the recap problems for the ratings...but they're definitely not helping. Heck, someone I had been spending a lot of time trying to get to watch Fringe finally sat down for an episode...and found the recap so unhelpful they stopped watching the episode. It was only when I offered to watch the episode with them and explain things (and they had a lot of questions) that they gave it a chance. I can't imagine that that is an isolated occurrence.

As I've said before, heavy mythology can work on a series, but it needs to be popular in the first place. Lost was a smash hit, but it lost viewers when it focused more on the mythology. But Lost was such a smash hit that its ratings were great even after that loss.


Problem 3-Fringe just never had the 'hook'. It's a good show, and i like the couple episodes I've seen, but I make no effort to watch it. Eh, it's just another FBI/aliens show. Much of the show is just bland. Oh, a monster killing people...again(yawn..never seen that oh so original plot). And worse for a lot of people is the PG-13 crap. They tone down the violence and sex and nudity so much, that you might as well watch a Disney cartoon.That was more a problem with just the first season from what I understand, the show has moved away from that into having more continuity. Of course, that may have been part of the problem...

But really..."the PG-13 crap"? No broadcast primetime show really exceeds anything PG-13, so I have trouble believing that that has anything to do with it. 24 had violence/sex/nudity toned down just as much as Fringe, and it was hugely popular. Anyone who decides "ugh, I want more sex, violence, and nudity on my TV shows!" probably isn't watching much of primetime brodcast TV anyway.

[Abies]

It's not a theory that networks want the 18-49 demographic in primetime above all else, it's fact.

Not really. CBS's strategy is a bit different than the other networks. The other networks (NBC and Fox especially) try to go straight for the 18-49 demographic. CBS's strategy is apparently instead to get as many total viewers as possible, with the reasoning that even if they don't have as large a percentage of viewers in that demographic, they'll still do well in it due to the sheer number of viewers.

So you choose to disagree, just to turn around and agree with what I said in plain English a moment later.

Interesting. Totally unnecessary, but interesting non the less.

[Pie Guy]

So you choose to disagree, just to turn around and agree with what I said in plain English a moment later.

Interesting. Totally unnecessary, but interesting non the less.

Well, he's not really agreeing with you at all. He's saying that CBS is trying to get everyone to watch while (hopefully) getting the target audience for advertisements. Other networks aim for that demographic directly.

[Lord Seth]

So you choose to disagree, just to turn around and agree with what I said in plain English a moment later.

Interesting. Totally unnecessary, but interesting non the less....how?
You: CBS focuses more on getting the older demographic than the other networks.
Me: Actually, they seem to just try to get as many viewers--regardless of age--as possible because if they get enough, it'll more than make up for the fact that they have a lower percentage of their viewers in that demographic. They don't focus on getting the group older than the 18-49 demographic, getting that group is just a natural side effect of their strategy.

Though it is true that CBS seems to concentrate more on the older portion of the 18-49 demographic than the other networks, though it seemed you were talking about people older than that demographic. If you're attracting people in the upper portion of the 18-49 demographic whereas the other networks are principally going for people in the younger portion of that demographic, by extension you're going to be getting more people OLDER than 49 than the other networks. But, again, those 50 or older viewers are side effects of their strategy, not the people they're focusing on.

Here's an illustration to show what I mean about how CBS goes for the 18-49 demographic. Look at the most recent ratings for The Office and NCIS. The first two numbers are the rating/share in the 18-49 demographic, the second is the TOTAL viewers in millions.
The Office: 3.7/10, 7.24
NCIS: 3.9/11, 18.80

Reflect on that for a moment. Even though NCIS got over TWICE as many viewers, it only did a little better in the demographic. That's because, again, NCIS has a far lower percentage of viewers in that demographic. But because CBS had so *many* viewers, it still comes out in their favor. Admittedly, this is a particularly extreme example, but it still shows my point.

[bloodtide]

This isn't that much of an excuse for Fringe though, because that applies to all shows. Plenty of shows are certainly doing well for themselves despite the aforementioned problems. (Glee, Modern Family, Grey's Anatomy, etc.)

It's all three problems, together. And shows like Glee have a big ratings plus....and that is women watch it. The average woman is far more likely to watch a show live, then use a method to watch it later. The average Fringe fan will almost never watch anything live.





And as a note, networks do get money from online viewing, they just don't get anywhere near as much as they do for a TV viewing

You forget the 30 problem. A lot of shows are not realizing the latest episode until 30 days after the air date. This leads people to go to the 'bad' TV sites.





DVDs are an interesting case.

It is..and I know tons of people that do this. I first noticed it back for the Sopranos, when people did not watch the show(and did not even have HBO) bought the DVD boxes.

And Fringe is one of those shows where it's nice to sit down an watch a couple episode arc.





Uh...why can't you watch the missed episodes? Even if the ones you missed aren't on Hulu, you can get them on iTunes or Amazon.com's Video on Demand. There's no need to turn to "pirate viewing" for it. (well, unless you really don't want to spend any money)

The 30 day wait has not gotten to Fringe...yet. But we can guess it is coming.

And not everyone can afford to spend extra money. Even the $1 or whatever they charge, is a lot of money when you have $20 to your name to stretch for two weeks until your next pay day. And not every one has a credit card. Nor does everyone with a card trust giving that information away online.






I can't imagine that that is an isolated occurrence.

It's not, I've had similar occurrences.




But really..."the PG-13 crap"? No broadcast primetime show really exceeds anything PG-13, so I have trouble believing that that has anything to do with it. 24 had violence/sex/nudity toned down just as much as Fringe, and it was hugely popular.

24 also had the huge amount of action and was very fast paced, and people just love 'evil' characters like Jack.

The PG-13 thing is a good point. If you watch Glee, you expect everything to be rated G..it's a 'happy' show about high school.

Fringe is a mystery/thriller/cop/action show. The main character is a FBI agent with a gun. Violence is expected. Maybe not sex so much...but it never hurts.

Take the popularity of 24 over CSI. In 24 you knew you were gonna see lots of action and people die..every couple minutes. On CSI you could expect them to 'arrest and book' the criminal....wow, exciting.

The point is, the for a show like Fringe to be popular, it's needs to be different. When a show like Fringe is a safe as Glee, it's pointless. Shows like Fringe need to push the envelope, and be daring and different.

[Irbis]

What is a 'slot'? :smallconfused: Huh, probably yet another way of overcomplicating and overanalysing things :P

[Lord Seth]

You forget the 30 problem. A lot of shows are not realizing the latest episode until 30 days after the air date. This leads people to go to the 'bad' TV sites.Uh, what shows are those? Most of Fox's shows get put on Hulu the day after they air. The only show they have that isn't put on the day after is House, but even that's only 8 days. The CW doesn't put their shows on their site right away, but even then it's only like 5 days until they go up (though you can get them on iTunes or Amazon's Video on Demand much faster). I can think of only a handful of shows offhand that take more than 8 days to go online. I guess there's The Big Bang Theory (because they want to guard it for syndication or something) and some kid's shows, but the kid's shows's demographics probably aren't going to be watching the shows much online anyway. What are all these shows that don't get put online for 30 whole days? Because I'm having trouble thinking of any that are relevant to this discussion. (for example, Showtime and HBO don't put their shows online, but that's an entirely different deal)


The 30 day wait has not gotten to Fringe...yet. But we can guess it is coming.Why?


And not everyone can afford to spend extra money. Even the $1 or whatever they charge, is a lot of money when you have $20 to your name to stretch for two weeks until your next pay day. And not every one has a credit card. Nor does everyone with a card trust giving that information away online.And again, it's not like there's a place to watch those shows for free that doesn't require giving out money, right (http://hulu.com/)?
24 also had the huge amount of action and was very fast paced, and people just love 'evil' characters like Jack.

The PG-13 thing is a good point. If you watch Glee, you expect everything to be rated G..it's a 'happy' show about high school.

Fringe is a mystery/thriller/cop/action show. The main character is a FBI agent with a gun. Violence is expected. Maybe not sex so much...but it never hurts.And there is violence in Fringe. I'm really having trouble figuring out what your point is.


Take the popularity of 24 over CSI. In 24 you knew you were gonna see lots of action and people die..every couple minutes. On CSI you could expect them to 'arrest and book' the criminal....wow, exciting....except CSI was and still remains popular. I don't really know how they held up against each other in the 18-49 demographic (I can see total viewers but they can only tell you so much, especially because CBS has a higher percentage of viewers outside that demographic than Fox), but they were both popular.


The point is, the for a show like Fringe to be popular, it's needs to be different. When a show like Fringe is a safe as Glee, it's pointless. Shows like Fringe need to push the envelope, and be daring and different.How the heck is Fringe as "safe" as Glee? I'm again confused about what you're even trying to claim. If your claim is that they both share the TV-14 rating (for entirely different reasons, incidentally) then I'd like to again point out that all of broadcast is bound by that more or less, and the fact shows like 24 or Lost or Heroes (well, the first season anyway) do still manage to thrive despite it seems to prove you more than a bit wrong. I don't see Fringe as any more "constrained" than 24 was. "It can't go beyond TV-14" seems to be a pretty poor reason to claim for Fringe's ratings problems.
What is a 'slot'? :smallconfused:The time a show is shown. For example, a show at 8PM on Wednesday is referred to as being in the 8PM Wednesday slot.

[Irbis]

The time a show is shown. For example, a show at 8PM on Wednesday is referred to as being in the 8PM Wednesday slot.

I know, but you guys seem to have attached some kind of magic meaning to it. Around here, no one cares for "slots", you have news at 19:00, big hit at 20, and second grade at 22. No one mentions what is in which position, certainly not to the point saying program was ruined.

If you want to see ruined, try a move from 21:30 to 12:30, which was the only time in 20 years someone said move ruined popularity.

[Lord Seth]

I know, but you guys seem to have attached some kind of magic meaning to it. Around here, no one cares for "slots", you have news at 19:00, big hit at 20, and second grade at 22. No one mentions what is in which position, certainly not to the point saying program was ruined.

If you want to see ruined, try a move from 21:30 to 12:30, which was the only time in 20 years someone said move ruined popularity.Well I have no idea where "around here" is supposed to mean, but slots are pretty important, though more in terms of where other shows are rather than time or day (though time and day do play a role).

Here's an example. Suppose Show A is in the slot after Show B. If Show B is a strong performer, that makes Show A's slot a good one, because the viewers from Show A may stick around for Show B. Simultaneously, if Show A is on at the same time as Show C, and Show C is really strong, then Show A's slot is weaker, because Show C will be taking away viewers.

For a good example, let's take House. House's ratings earlier in its first season were okay, hovering around 7 million. Then it got the post-American Idol slot, and it exploded in popularity, almost reaching 20 million viewers in its first season finale (random note: It being after American Idol was how I discovered the show). Nowadays the post-House slot is a good one for a show to be in, because it means people who are watching House might happen to check out the show after it. So being after a strong show means a strong slot.

Getting back to American Idol, going against it is dangerous because it's so popular that it'll be taking viewers away from shows that are running against it. Not to say it's impossible to go against American Idol, of course; NCIS did fine last season when going against it, but part of that is the fact that the two have different demographics, so American Idol wouldn't be stealing that many viewers from NCIS.

So competition and strength of the show before it have a big effect on the strength of a slot. Shows in strong slots do better, and shows in weaker slots do worse. Though it should be noted that the strength of a slot also affects how much networks expects out of a show. Shows on Friday, for example, have lower expectations in terms of ratings because there's fewer people around to watch on Friday. Likewise, if a show is after American Idol, high ratings are expected.

So the bottom line is, a show's slot is important. Not just for what time or day it is (like I said, that does play a part; shows at 8PM, for example, don't really have a lead-in outside of whatever random show is being shown by the local affiliate at that time, and 10PM is often a weaker slot because it's so late), but for what's before it or at the same time.

I don't know where you're from or what the TV setup is like there, but I'm pretty sure that no matter where you live, two things are going to be true about TV: A show with a strong lead-in will be doing better as a result of that lead-in, and a show going against strong competition will be doing worse as a result of that competition. Again, not to say that a strong lead-in means a show will do well (Lone Star got the great post-House time slot and did so terribly it was gone after two weeks and as I mentioned, NCIS did fine against American Idol last season), but they do have an effect.

[rakkoon]

What is a 'slot'?

http://eatourbrains.com/EoB/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/sloth.jpg Ow. Different spelling

[The Big Dice]

So the bottom line is, a show's slot is important. Not just for what time or day it is (like I said, that does play a part; shows at 8PM, for example, don't really have a lead-in outside of whatever random show is being shown by the local affiliate at that time, and 10PM is often a weaker slot because it's so late), but for what's before it or at the same time.
In this day and age, when a show is on isn't really important. People don't follow the TV schedule that much these days. They DVR everything and make their own schedules. This is a distinction that the networks have yet to come to terms with.

The TV companies are still run by people who think the ability to watch a show online is borderline magic and that being able to record shows to watch them at your convenience rather than theirs is close to heresy.

And until that mindset changes, you're going to see focus on things that aren't really that important these days.

Also, 18-49 is a stupidly large demographic. 18=25, 25-35 and 35-45 are much more sensible and are the ones used in the UK. After all, the kind of shows most 18 year olds are likely to enjoy are probably going to be markedly different from the ones most 38 year olds would be interested in.

[Lord Seth]

In this day and age, when a show is on isn't really important. People don't follow the TV schedule that much these days. They DVR everything and make their own schedules. This is a distinction that the networks have yet to come to terms with.I think you're underestimating the power of scheduling. Also, here's the thing: Networks would love--dearly love--if DVR ratings made a difference. The reason they don't? Because the ones who are paying the bills are advertisers, and they're not that interested in paying money for viewers who are fast-forwarding through their commercials. People often seem to forget that it's the advertisers who decide which ratings are important.

And as it's the live ratings that decide things, and as scheduling very much affects live viewing, then yes, indeed, scheduling does make a big difference.


The TV companies are still run by people who think the ability to watch a show online is borderline magic and that being able to record shows to watch them at your convenience rather than theirs is close to heresy.Fascinating speculation. Do you have any actual statements from an executive to back this claim up? Because I highly doubt that the people who run TV companies do think the ability to watch online is "borderline magic."


And until that mindset changes, you're going to see focus on things that aren't really that important these days.You mean the focus on live viewings? They are important, for the reasons I just gave: It makes the most money. Online viewing doesn't produce as much money as live viewing because there's fewer commercials (and there's a lack of demographics data), and DVR viewing, as I pointed out, results in less commercial watching, so the advertisers are going to be basing their payments principally on the live viewings. Again: Advertisers are the ones calling the shots on what's important, not the studios.


Also, 18-49 is a stupidly large demographic. 18=25, 25-35 and 35-45 are much more sensible and are the ones used in the UK.Smaller demographics are counted (18-24 and especially 18-34 are ones I see sometimes cited) but I think you're missing the point. Obviously, shows generally are aimed at a particular part of that demographic (the younger portion, the older portion, the middle portion, or maybe even trying to go for the whole thing) but the total number of viewers in that demographic is what matters to advertisers. And that's why it's important.

We're not talking about demographics so much as who they're aimed at than we are who's watching it, so the differentiation between 18-25/25-35/35-45 isn't as applicable here. Though it could very well be that the advertisers want different demographics in other countries.


After all, the kind of shows most 18 year olds are likely to enjoy are probably going to be markedly different from the ones most 38 year olds would be interested in.Yes, but again, that's not my point. Though there certainly are some shows that manage general appeal across the demographic.

[The Big Dice]

Fascinating speculation. Do you have any actual statements from an executive to back this claim up? Because I highly doubt that the people who run TV companies do think the ability to watch online is "borderline magic."
Confused network attitudes towards watching shows online is plenty of evidence.

Consider this, 30 years ago, TV was ephemeral. Once it was broadcast, it was gone unless it was syndicated or repeated. Then came the VCR, but it was clumsy and not that efficient at recording shows. Still, that marks a paradigm shift in viewing habits.

Later come the DVR and the ability to either download or stream TV shows. Advertisers don't like either, because they claim that it devalues the time they pay for, without really thinking things through. Networks don't particularly like them because it puts control of viewing schedules in the hands of the consumer for the first time.

And worse, outdated copyright laws mean that it's technically illegal to download a show, even if it's been broadcast and therefore paid for in full by both advertisers and networks purchasing the show.

It's a confusing mess, and rather than try to ride the tiger, the networks and other authorities are instead trying to regulate the internet.


You mean the focus on live viewings? They are important, for the reasons I just gave: It makes the most money. Online viewing doesn't produce as much money as live viewing because there's fewer commercials (and there's a lack of demographics data), and DVR viewing, as I pointed out, results in less commercial watching, so the advertisers are going to be basing their payments principally on the live viewings. Again: Advertisers are the ones calling the shots on what's important, not the studios.
And those advertisers don't realise that by buying ad space in a broadcast, they've already paid for it. The viewing figures cease to be relevant the moment the money changes hands. They've fallen into a trap of their own making. As it stands, there are too many channels broadcasting at the same time for advertising to be anywhere near as powerful as it was 30 years ago.

And worse, American advertising strategies are an offputting mess. Topping and tailing commercials, that is cutting the first and last couple of seconds to squeeze in more commercials, as well as shortening the duration of shows and not letting the viewer know when the commercials have ended and the show is back on make for a very unsatisfying viewing experience.

Which drives more people to DVR or watch online. There's a vicious circle right there.

And have you noticed how much shorter TV shows are these days?

To give a franchise example, an episode of TOS Star Trek was 50 minutes. TNG, DS9 Voyager ran at 45 minutes, while Enterprise ran at 42 minutes per episode. Shows are written around the ad breaks, rather than the breaks being fitted into the shows. That's why so much TV has the same structure. It's also why so many shows these days don't have opening credits or a theme tune to speak of.


Smaller demographics are counted (18-24 and especially 18-34 are ones I see sometimes cited) but I think you're missing the point. Obviously, shows generally are aimed at a particular part of that demographic (the younger portion, the older portion, the middle portion, or maybe even trying to go for the whole thing) but the total number of viewers in that demographic is what matters to advertisers. And that's why it's important.

We're not talking about demographics so much as who they're aimed at than we are who's watching it, so the differentiation between 18-25/25-35/35-45 isn't as applicable here. Though it could very well be that the advertisers want different demographics in other countries.

Yes, but again, that's not my point. Though there certainly are some shows that manage general appeal across the demographic.
Knowing your demographic is a vital part of advertising strategy. You don't want to advertise the same products to someone at one end of the 18-45 range as you do to someone at the other end. Their needs, desires and expectations are totally different. Of course no demographic is going to be the only group of people watching a given show, but these days the internet allows the TV executives to precisely target their audience, thanks to the joy of internet forums and requiring people to give an age when they register to post on them.

[Lord Seth]

Confused network attitudes towards watching shows online is plenty of evidence.

Consider this, 30 years ago, TV was ephemeral. Once it was broadcast, it was gone unless it was syndicated or repeated. Then came the VCR, but it was clumsy and not that efficient at recording shows. Still, that marks a paradigm shift in viewing habits.

Later come the DVR and the ability to either download or stream TV shows. Advertisers don't like either, because they claim that it devalues the time they pay for, without really thinking things through.Erm...how are they not "really thinking things through"? It means people are watching the commercials less. And that means the advertisers will be paying less, because how much they pay is determined by how many people are watching their commercials. It seems to me they're thinking things through plenty.


Networks don't particularly like them because it puts control of viewing schedules in the hands of the consumer for the first time.The reason networks dislike it is more because the advertisers dislike it. Again, if DVR ratings or online viewing were counted as strongly as live ratings, they'd jump for it.

And the thing is, loads of people do still watch shows live. Maybe not as much as there used to be, but many--including me--do prefer to do that. Partially because not doing so causes me to procrastinate watching it online and I don't get around to it, and partially because it's the absolute earliest you can watch it, no need to wait. (though that's more a matter for more plot-heavy shows)


And worse, outdated copyright laws mean that it's technically illegal to download a show, even if it's been broadcast and therefore paid for in full by both advertisers and networks purchasing the show.Oh come now, it's not a matter of it being "technically illegal" it is illegal, non-technically, to download a show illegally. When you watch a show on TV, you "pay" for it by watching the commercials. As a lot of people would rather watch commercials than pay actual money, that's the way money is made. Downloading the episodes and not watching the commercials or giving any money whatsoever (whether that be indirectly in advertisements, or directly by paying) does cost revenue. And while you are correct that each episode has been "paid for in full", how many people watch that episode (or rather, watch the commercials of that episode) affects how much advertisers pay for future episodes.

Though, admittedly, a problem with the Nielsen ratings system is that if you're not a Nielsen household, it technically makes no difference to the TV advertisers whether you download stuff online illegally or not in terms of live viewing. It does make a difference in terms of online viewing though, as you're not either giving money via advertisements (e.g. Hulu) or money (e.g. iTunes). At any rate, I don't see how the copyright laws are "outdated" in this matter.

EDIT: Not to say copyright laws are perfect as they are, that's an entirely different matter...but I don't see a problem in this particular case.


It's a confusing mess, and rather than try to ride the tiger, the networks and other authorities are instead trying to regulate the internet.Yes, how dare they expect people to watch shows legally!

It's not like it's even hard in today's world to watch shows legally online. Hulu, iTunes, Amazon's Video on Demand, and any other similar services have been around for years. The main problem is that they're not particularly monetized. But I guess they could double or triple the amount of commercials on Hulu to make it more profitable, would you prefer that?


And those advertisers don't realise that by buying ad space in a broadcast, they've already paid for it. The viewing figures cease to be relevant the moment the money changes hands. They've fallen into a trap of their own making.As I pointed out, no it doesn't. Yes, when they pay for advertising space for a particular episode, it's already changed hands, but the ratings for that episode affect payment for future episodes.

Though there are cases--I don't know how common this is--where the network promises the advertisers that a show will get a minimum rating. If it doesn't, then they end up having to pay money to the advertisers in compensation. In such cases, it does matter (at least to the networks) that the shows get decent ratings for the advertisers. Though I don't know how common this practice is.


As it stands, there are too many channels broadcasting at the same time for advertising to be anywhere near as powerful as it was 30 years ago.While it's true that the higher number of channels does result in a reduced amount of viewers for each channel, that's really not so much a factor in what we're discussing. This is more of a problem for the broadcast networks, though; cable networks are used to not getting as many viewers as the broadcast networks, and they're fine with that because they get revenue via cable subscriptions. HBO and Showtime, in the meantime, get all their revenue through subscriptions (well, that and DVD sales of course).


And worse, American advertising strategies are an offputting mess. Topping and tailing commercials, that is cutting the first and last couple of seconds to squeeze in more commercials, as well as shortening the duration of shows and not letting the viewer know when the commercials have ended and the show is back on make for a very unsatisfying viewing experience.It's not particularly hard to figure out when the commercials end, it's when the show comes back on. I don't really get that claim.


And have you noticed how much shorter TV shows are these days?

To give a franchise example, an episode of TOS Star Trek was 50 minutes. TNG, DS9 Voyager ran at 45 minutes, while Enterprise ran at 42 minutes per episode. Shows are written around the ad breaks, rather than the breaks being fitted into the shows. That's why so much TV has the same structure. It's also why so many shows these days don't have opening credits or a theme tune to speak of.This is a bit frustrating, but again not terribly relevant.

Though in some cases I don't mind it too much. I felt a lot of TOS episodes were padded, whereas TNG/DS9 were for the most part better-paced. The cutting of those 5 minutes, if you asked me, helped improve pace.


Knowing your demographic is a vital part of advertising strategy. You don't want to advertise the same products to someone at one end of the 18-45 range as you do to someone at the other end. Their needs, desires and expectations are totally different.Still, the 18-49 demographic remains the most important demographic on primetime television (in some cases, 18-34 might be more important, like how The CW focuses on the 18-34 female crowd, but even then the 18-49 demographic is important).

The reason the 18-49 demographic is so important is because it's harder to reach them. People older than that watch more TV so it's easier to reach them, so they're worth less to advertisers. Which does give the ironic fact that TV is being produced to appeal to people who don't watch much TV, but that's another matter.

TV By The Numbers (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/numbers-102) has a really good FAQ on this subject, by the way.

...how does any of this relate to the issue of Fringe again?

[Syka]

Ya know something funny. I hate commercials. Oz hates commercials.

I insist on watching the commercials during Mad Men, and am beginning to with Walking Dead. Why? They tailor some of the commercials to the show, and particularly with Mad Men have interesting trivia and commercials even unrelated. Like, Oz has actually gotten confused and stopped fast forwarding the DVR 'cause he thought Mad Men was back on, the commercial was so realistic.

It really makes me want to see what they'll come up with. I particularly like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM37T_c-shM) commercial for Clorox, and there are a number of other ones.

AMC has gotten good at not only making amazing shows (it's like HBO for cable TV), but also tailoring their commercials to fit the people watching.

And yes, live viewership matters. Oz always fast forwards commercials 'cause he's so used to DVR. My family never gets impatient with commercials during shows we like (Mad Men, Walking Dead, Rubicon, Caprica, etc). Live viewership is how many people will see your ad. Thus, although money has exchanged hands by the time the ad airs, it does NOT exchange hands until that data has been pored over extensively and thus is not sunk yet. You bet any advertiser in their right mind is looking at the demographic data from previous showings and hoping it holds true for future ones.

[zyphyr]

AMC has gotten good at not only making amazing shows (it's like HBO for cable TV), but also tailoring their commercials to fit the people watching.

Other that ads for the network itself and its shows, the networks have nothing to do with the content of the ads. Your kudos belong to the advertising agencies.

[The Big Dice]

Oh come now, it's not a matter of it being "technically illegal" it is illegal, non-technically, to download a show illegally. When you watch a show on TV, you "pay" for it by watching the commercials.?
What about my subscription to the cable/satellite provider? I'mpayuing to watch TV twice in that case. And in the UK it's even worse. We pay a TV license, which goes to directly fund the BBC. So once a show has been broadcast, I have literally paid for it out of my own pocket. But I don't have the right to download it, other than from iPlayer. Which is slow, gives massive files and is so rife with digital rights management that it plays at glacial speeds.

The problem is, the people calling the shots are playing catch up. They ignored the internet during the 90s and now they're reaping the benefits of it. Plus they are so obsessed with the result of the music industry v Napster that they don't see possibility, just theft.

[Lord Seth]

What about my subscription to the cable/satellite provider? I'mpayuing to watch TV twice in that case.Which is necessary in the case of cable. Cable has fewer viewers than broadcast, so to compensate for that they get money from cable subscriptions.


And in the UK it's even worse. We pay a TV license, which goes to directly fund the BBC. So once a show has been broadcast, I have literally paid for it out of my own pocket. But I don't have the right to download it, other than from iPlayer. Which is slow, gives massive files and is so rife with digital rights management that it plays at glacial speeds.Well, I don't live in the UK, so I can't really make any comment on the issue of TV licenses.

[Dragosai]

Bah twas a terrible show anyway.

[Pie Guy]

Bah twas a terrible show anyway.

NERD RAGE!

[Don Julio Anejo]

My point of view is that as long as you have a cable or satellite subscription, you have as much right to download shows (or watch on Megavideo) as you want, since it works exactly like DVR. Why? It's exactly as been said, you've paid for it. Whether the network or advertising agencies think I have the right to do that is irrelevant, after all, I have the ability to watch the show should I choose to do so. What it means in effect is a restriction on when I can watch the show based on a medium it's on (DVR is legal, watching online is apparently not).

Also, I simply find it more convenient to watch shows on my computer - I have a big screen and it allows me to study (or procrastinate on places like GitP) at the same time.

Want advertising revenues? Offer free time-delayed feeds online. Like clicking on "How I Met Your Mother" and being able to watch the show how it aired, ads and all. Then either make the ads unskippable, or make the entire thing a feed so you can't choose where you're watching from. Financial channels have been using this system for years and they're doing great. People would love the convenience.

Embrace technology, not outlaw it.

[Dragosai]

My point of view is that as long as you have a cable or satellite subscription, you have as much right to download shows (or watch on Megavideo) as you want, since it works exactly like DVR. Why? It's exactly as been said, you've paid for it. Whether the network or advertising agencies think I have the right to do that is irrelevant, after all, I have the ability to watch the show should I choose to do so. What it means in effect is a restriction on when I can watch the show based on a medium it's on (DVR is legal, watching online is apparently not).

Also, I simply find it more convenient to watch shows on my computer - I have a big screen and it allows me to study (or procrastinate on places like GitP) at the same time.

Want advertising revenues? Offer free time-delayed feeds online. Like clicking on "How I Met Your Mother" and being able to watch the show how it aired, ads and all. Then either make the ads unskippable, or make the entire thing a feed so you can't choose where you're watching from. Financial channels have been using this system for years and they're doing great. People would love the convenience.

Embrace technology, not outlaw it.

Wow just wow. So lets say you get fired from a job, do you have the right to steel from the place that fired you since hell you worked hard for them and they owe you? Or lets say you buy a candy bar from a store do you go back the next day and steel a candy bar because you already paid more then you thought was fare for the candy yesterday?

I am not even going to get into the foolishness that is the claim that anyone is paying networks for TV. If you are watching something in a medium that the owners of said property did not make available to everyone you are steeling. People will make up all kinds of nonsense to try and justify it but they are thieves plane and simple. This kind of blase attitude is the crux of a lot of problems we face in our current culture.

[Don Julio Anejo]

It's not the same. Information has no physical form - if I take away a candy bar, the store doesn't have a candy bar anymore. If I peruse information (especially one that I've already paid for), it's still there.

Going by your logic, it's like saying "Okay, we trained you to make food at your job as a cook. But now that you're fired, you're never allowed to cook unless you pay us for the training." Now, sure, some (really specific) jobs, for example in software or military can have contracts like this (and it only applies if you quite yourself), but for the most part, it's completely BS.

There is also fair use. Are you going to say I'm, for example, not allowed to jailbreak an iPhone because Apple tells me that I can't? I'm sorry, but if I physically paid for an iPhone, I can do whatever I want with it. US government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States_legal_issues) agrees with me. Same with TV, if I paid for a TV subscription and instead of choosing to use a DVR I choose to watch it online for free, by all sense and logic networks should not be able to do anything about it, especially if it's broadcast TV, which is freely available. Or are you going to say doing things like taping TV broadcasts are illegal because it's stealing? I'd like to see you try to justify it other than "it's illegal because the company said so."

If they don't like it, well, they can make it restrictive, like PPV where you pay for a particular programme. Yes, no-one is going to pay for TV anymore unless a particular show is really, really good, but, well, in this case any concerns about someone watching it are actually justified.

[Lord Seth]

Same with TV, if I paid for a TV subscription and instead of choosing to use a DVR I choose to watch it online for free, by all sense and logic networks should not be able to do anything about it, especially if it's broadcast TV, which is freely available. Or are you going to say doing things like taping TV broadcasts are illegal because it's stealing? I'd like to see you try to justify it other than "it's illegal because the company said so."Taping TV broadcasts is not illegal according to the Supreme court case Universal v. Sony. However, that case said it was legal when the recordings are used for one's personal use. Putting the recordings online is not personal use.

I'm a bit surprised that a complaint about scheduling turned into an argument on piracy.

[Dragosai]

Taping TV broadcasts is not illegal according to the Supreme court case Universal v. Sony. However, that case said it was legal when the recordings are used for one's personal use. Putting the recordings online is not personal use.

I'm a bit surprised that a complaint about scheduling turned into an argument on piracy.

Yeah I didn't mean to throw this off course, so I'll just say Don Julio Anejo you could not be more wrong. All things that are against the law are illegal simple because as you say "the company said so" which is not true. US and international law say it is so, but that is how all laws work. Steeling is steeling is steeling, the piracy community will try and call it all kinds of different things and it matters not, it is steeling, people that do so are thieves. What you are saying is that you don't think it is illegal, which of course matters not at all. I could claim speeding should not be against the law since I do speed all the time but guess what still illegal.
Anyway people who pirate things never understand this so I am not going to bother posting on this issue again.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program er thread.

[BRC]

Personally, I think that Hulu has done more to stop Piracy (Of TV shows anyway) than anything else, and it will become less of a problem as more companies embrace free Online streaming, realizing that online ad time is just as good as broadcast ad time.

Here's the way I see it. Lets say there is a show I want to watch. I can't/don't feel like watching it on the television for a variety of reasons, so I go online.
Now, I could buy it from Itunes, which costs $3 and I have to wait twenty minutes for it to download. Good if I'm stocking up to watch on a plane, or I want to watch it many times, but usually I just want to watch the episode once, as if I was seeing it on TV, but when I want to watch it.
Now, I can track down an illegal version somewhere, which usually means spending time tracking down which links actually work, dealing with low video/audio quality, or going on shady sites I'm not sure I trust.
However, if it's there, my first option will be Hulu. It's safe, it's high quality, it comes with lots of features (Saving my progress in videos, watching stuff in smaller windows, ect). Yes there are Ads, but sitting through ads is a small price to pay for the convenience.


The thing is, people assume Pirates want to steal. Now, I'm not going to jump into the argument of whether online piracy is theft or not, that's not my point. My point is that pirates don't want to steal the shows, they just want to watch them the way they would watch them on television.
When watching on television, the big way the average viewer pays is with Time, they spend time watching the commercials, the networks sell the commercial time, the networks make money. Commercials are annoying, but they are an annoyance we can put up with. If networks want to stop people watching their shows illegally online, the best thing to do would be to put them online legally. If you want a metaphor, Pirates are not like shoplifters. Well, they are, but they are people who shoplift because they want what the store is selling, but the store doesn't accept their brand of credit card.
With Online Streaming, viewers get to watch shows on their own schedule. Networks get to sell ad space, need to worry less about timeslots, and can get more in-depth data about their viewers. Advertisers get to play with new forms of commercials besides the 30 second ad spot. They can target their advertisements more specifically. As I see it everybody wins. *



*except people who make TV's and sell television, but who cares about them.

[Lord Seth]

Personally, I think that Hulu has done more to stop Piracy (Of TV shows anyway) than anything else, and it will become less of a problem as more companies embrace free Online streaming, realizing that online ad time is just as good as broadcast ad time.Except it isn't just as good. There's both fewer online ads and they also don't make as much money because they don't have demographics data as good as that of TV (not unless you're registered anyway). If nothing else, they're going to have to greatly increase the number of ads on Hulu to make it "just as good" as broadcast ad time.


Here's the way I see it. Lets say there is a show I want to watch. I can't/don't feel like watching it on the television for a variety of reasons, so I go online.
Now, I could buy it from Itunes, which costs $3Actually I believe it's usually only $2 if you're willing to get standard definition.


and I have to wait twenty minutes for it to download.Unless I miss my understanding, isn't it possible to watch it as it downloads? That is, like YouTube, you can watch the video as it loads? If so, no need to wait 20 minutes. If it's not like that, you can always try Amazon.com's Video on Demand, which doesn't require downloading so you can watch the videos right after you buy them.


With Online Streaming, viewers get to watch shows on their own schedule. Networks get to sell ad space, need to worry less about timeslots, and can get more in-depth data about their viewers.They don't really get more in-depth data about their viewers on Hulu due to the lack of registration needed and of course the fact there are undoubtedly shared accounts; just because one person made the account on Hulu doesn't mean that other members of the family who share the computer aren't also using that account to check things out.

The time slots is a good and bad thing. On one hand, it means they don't have to worry about going against hard time slots. On the other hand, it means networks can't benefit from giving something a strong lead-in. For example, it's quite possible that Glee and House (especially House) wouldn't have become the big hits they were if not for being put after American Idol, which is certainly not something you can do online.

At any rate, most people do watch TV on, well, TV, so online streaming isn't as big as you might necessarily think. It's certainly much less of a money-maker.

[The Big Dice]

A lot of good reasons why TV companies are stupidly refusing to embrace the 21st century.
It's easier to get precise demographics data online than by using the system of having a certain amount of households registered and then extrapolating how many people might have watched.

A simple IP lookup can tell what town you're watching from. But like DVD region coding, the TV companies don't want you to be able to get access to shows wherever and whenever you want.

They want to control who sees their product and when.

[cdstephens]

Now, I can track down an illegal version somewhere, which usually means spending time tracking down which links actually work, dealing with low video/audio quality, or going on shady sites I'm not sure I trust.


Those aren't the real problems if your smart; the real problem is slow downloads, because most piraters use shareware sites like megaupload or rapidshare, and without a premium account you can only download so much. With a premium account, however, which costs some amount of money per year (not sure about the price, but probably easy to look up), there isn't any issue besides the fact that what you're doing is illegal (like that's stopped anyone before though...I mean look at the music industry!)

[Lord Seth]

So, you say the things I mentioned are "good reasons" but then say it's "stupid" that they follow those good reasons? Huh?


It's easier to get precise demographics data online than by using the system of having a certain amount of households registered and then extrapolating how many people might have watched.How is it easier? I just explained the problems.


A simple IP lookup can tell what town you're watching from.A shame that isn't information the advertisers are are particularly interested in.


But like DVD region coding, the TV companies don't want you to be able to get access to shows wherever and whenever you want.They would if they were getting the same amount of money from it as they were live viewing. People being able to watch it whenever they want would be perfect if the advertisers were going to pay the same amount of money for it. But of course, more people are watching it on TV than on Hulu anyway, so your point is somewhat moot in that area.

I will agree that DVD region coding is tremendously stupid, however.

[The Big Dice]

So, you say the things I mentioned are "good reasons" but then say it's "stupid" that they follow those good reasons? Huh?

How is it easier? I just explained the problems.
Hmm, let me think. Oh, I know. You know exactly how many people are viewing, that's how. By monitoring your site that is streaming, you get exact information on how many views a particular show gets. Oh wait, that's not one of the things the broadcasters want to know, in fact it's not the thing that they are most focused on.


They would if they were getting the same amount of money from it as they were live viewing. People being able to watch it whenever they want would be perfect if the advertisers were going to pay the same amount of money for it. But of course, more people are watching it on TV than on Hulu anyway, so your point is somewhat moot in that area.

I will agree that DVD region coding is tremendously stupid, however.
More people do watch on TV. But more and more people are watching through alternative means. Either a DVR or online. And online is easier to target with ads. And, as Facebook capably demonstrates, it's easier to aim commercials at the person viewing them.

But the problem is, there's still a generation of people who see computer use in terms of Star Trek computers. Big, clunky and bordering on the arcane.

Give it ten years and things will be different,but fornow you'vegot a bunch of people who are scratching their heads wondering how to deal with theis new fangled internet thing.

[Lord Seth]

Hmm, let me think. Oh, I know. You know exactly how many people are viewing, that's how. By monitoring your site that is streaming, you get exact information on how many views a particular show gets. Oh wait, that's not one of the things the broadcasters want to know, in fact it's not the thing that they are most focused on.Which was my point?

Though it's more an issue of what the advertisers want to know than what the broadcasters want to know.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Not being able to collect demographics data from sites like Hulu? Come on, seriously? Make a friggin' Facebook plugin to watch TV. All the demographics data you could ever want and viewers wouldn't even have to leave Facebook.

[Turcano]

Apparently Fox is also not planning to renew The Good Guys; that decision should warrant prison time.

But of course they steadfastly refuse to put The Simpsons out of its misery, even though no one I know feels anything but shame for the fact that it's still on the air. Then again, they'd probably replace it by giving Seth McFarlane a fourth show or some BS like that.

[Lord Seth]

Apparently Fox is also not planning to renew The Good Guys; that decision should warrant prison time.Why? Look, I love The Good Guys, but the show's ratings are terrible, and I mean terrible. Fox was in fact extremely generous to the show, not only renewing it past the initial 13 episode order, but also airing all the remaining episodes and not later cutting the episode order (for example, NBC renewed Chase up to 22 episodes, then cut the order to 18). Fans of The Good Guys should honestly be thanking Fox for their treatment of it.


But of course they steadfastly refuse to put The Simpsons out of its misery, even though no one I know feels anything but shame for the fact that it's still on the air.I have no problem with the fact The Simpsons is still on the air. While it's not as good as it used to be, it's still entertaining. And from a business perspective, there's simply no reason to take it off the air when it's consistently a good performer with great merchandise and syndication potential.

[Pie Guy]

Ok, now I have the silliest moral question ever: Is it better to pirate something or buy it with counterfeit money?

:smallamused:

[Turcano]

Why? Look, I love The Good Guys, but the show's ratings are terrible, and I mean terrible. Fox was in fact extremely generous to the show, not only renewing it past the initial 13 episode order, but also airing all the remaining episodes and not later cutting the episode order (for example, NBC renewed Chase up to 22 episodes, then cut the order to 18). Fans of The Good Guys should honestly be thanking Fox for their treatment of it.

Oh come on, don't bring rationality into a perfectly good internet discussion. :smalltongue:


I have no problem with the fact The Simpsons is still on the air. While it's not as good as it used to be, it's still entertaining. And from a business perspective, there's simply no reason to take it off the air when it's consistently a good performer with great merchandise and syndication potential.

I know the show will never be canceled as long as a single dime can be wringed out of it, but every time I see a commercial or catch a glimpse of it while channel surfing and I see how low it has fallen, I die a little inside.