> On May 9, 10:13 am, "TruthSlave"
home.com> wrote:>>
>>> NEW YORK (AP) - Maybe they're outside in the garden. They could be
>>> playing softball. Or perhaps they're just plain bored. In TV's worst
>>> spring in recent memory, a startling number of Americans drifted away
>>> from television the past two months: More than 2.5 million fewer
>>> people were watching ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox than at the same time last
>>> year, statistics show.
>>
>>> Everyone has a theory to explain the plummeting ratings: early
>>> Daylight Savings Time, more reruns, bad shows, more shows being
>>> recorded or downloaded or streamed.
>>
>> There's an obvious parallel to be drawn to the flagging musical
>> industry of the early 80's. Back then sales suffered supposedly
>> because of the new video games industry. Yet that industry soon
>> recovered when it once again offered more interesting content to
>> the public..
>>
>> If the numbers are out there, then one has to ask the same questions
>> of TV, and the formula the networks are obliged to pander to. Like
>> the music industry of old, they will recover when they offers what
>> the audience look elsewhere for, namely that sense of wonderment.
>>
>> Its not enough to be occupied, one needs also to be challenged.
>> A notion of the unanswered question, ideas people are prepared to
>> make room for. There are only so much hours in the day and so much
>> else to see, hear and do.
>>
>
> I agree in general with what you say, but like in evolutionary theory,
> when the environment changes radically, some individuals are more
> prepared to survive than others and the gene frequencies change
> radically as well. Like how some cockroaches survived DDTspraying and
> then created a roach genome mostly resistent to DDT. Non-the-less many
> corporate entities die in the process of business adaptation to the
> new niche attractions. Then the survivors sell the new hip and the
> market bounces back to normal?
As ever, there's quite a bit to take in with your replies, I'll
just say aside from one or two noisy protests, it was well received.
First we would do well to clarify the initial headline. Its a
sensation seeking headline, which, as these things go, often has
a relatively small poll at their center. From these smallish polls
a projection is made for the corresponding percentage in the fixed
target population. [It would be interesting to know just how many
samples this figure of 2.5m related to, and the likely magin for error.]
That said, I'm not sure your analogue quite applies here. Once
adapted your cockroaches, can't go back to how they were. They
remain changed, perhaps even dependent on the conditions which
changed them for their continued survival.
The market such as it is, would reflect a need to be entertained
and a lack of alternative entertainment, or to put it another way
an unwitting adaption to the current environment. Then there's a
question of what exactly the Market is, when it's not informed by
information and opinions.
> Acclimatization is the process of an organism adjusting to changes in
> its environment, often involving temperature or climate.
> Acclimatization usually occurs in a short time, and within one
> organism's lifetime (compare adaptation). This may be a discrete
> occurrence or may instead represent part of a periodic cycle, such as
> a mammal shedding heavy winter fur in favor of a lighter summer coat.
> Where acclimatization occurs naturally, some authors have used
> acclimation to describe the process of an organism being forced to
> adjust to changes in their environment by artificial means, such as in
> a laboratory setting.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acclimation
>
> The ability of an organism with a given genotype to change its
> phenotype in response to changes in the environment is called
> phenotypic plasticity. Such plasticity in some cases expresses as
> several highly morphologically distinct results; in other cases, a
> continuous norm of reaction describes the functional interrelationship
> of a range of environments to a range of phenotypes.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity
>
> ...Natural selection operates on mutations in a number of different
> ways. Arguably the most common form of selection is
> "stabilizing_selection", which decreases the frequency of harmful
> mutations...
>
> ...Another common misunderstanding is the idea that one species, such
> as humans, can be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. It
> is often assumed that evolution must lead to greater complexity, or
> that devolution ("backwards" evolution) can occur. Scientists consider
> evolution a non-directional process that does not proceed toward any
> ultimate goal; advancements are only situational, and organisms'
> complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending
> on which is advantageous, and thus selected for...
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
>
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm/printable
>
> So-called rebellion not only perpetuates the market economy, it's the
> economy's biggest driving factor. ...you can't "sell out" or be "co-
> opted," because you're already participating in the market, where
> rebellion is just another word for relentless innovation, fashion and
> cool. ...consumerism [is] motivated by competitiveness rather than
> conformity...
>
> ...our lifestyles and spending habits reverberate throughout every
> facet of our lives. The lesson is, if one wants to participate in the
> consumer culture, continue with the current lifestyle, but if one
> desires to be a genuine rebel, move to the forest and become a hunter-
> gatherer like our ancestors (and Ted Kaczynski).
>
> Nation of Rebels:
> Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture
> by Joseph Heath, Andrew Potter
>
http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Rebels-Counterculture-Consumer-Culture/dp/006074586.../
>
> Remember Macrobiotics? The Frug? The Animals? Baba Ram Dass,
> Millionaire Michael Brodie, and Wavy Gravy? What about smoked bananas,
> can-you-dig-it, and fa-a-ar out? Do DMT, STP, and LBJ ring a bell?
> Okay, then, how about lovebeads, RYM-II, the Diggers, and the League
> for Spiritual Discovery?
>
> The real question, then: has the counterculture seen the light at the
> end of the social tunnel? Consider some of the evidence:
>
> American campuses, according to Esquire, are quiet; the Weathermen
> have abandoned the scene; rock-and-roll has entered a phase of such
> overt decadence that it may never recover; many of those who so
> hopefully went back-to-the-land have since returned to the city
> streets; brown rice sales have plummeted; cheap booze is back; the
> Haight is long dead, and so is the Lower East Side; Bill Graham has
> sold his theaters; underground papers are in trouble everywhere; Abbie
> and Jerry are embarrassments; the West Coast has accepted Jesus.
>
> Have the fruits of the counterculture rotted upon the vine even while
> America was a-greening? Have both Marx and Jesus prevailed over the
> Big Beat after all? Did the counterculture do its own thing and,
> having done so, had done with it? Stay tuned.
>
> The answers to these questions is, and must be, an unequivocal "Nah."
>
> To answer otherwise would leave us in the role of Mr. Dylan's Mr.
> Jones who knows that something's happening, but doesn't know what it
> is. That something is happening, or continues to happen, is obvious.
> The directions of American culture are more self-consciously opposed
> from within than they have ever been.
>
> To assert that the counterculture is dying is to confuse change with
> death and culture with its artifacts. If the counterculture has failed
> to fulfill the prophecies of Reich, Revel, and Rubin, then it is their
> vision which is debunked and not the culture itself. We do not blame
> nature for its complex organization, but Thales for asserting a
> simplicity that wasn't to be found. To say that the counterculture is
> sick because the Haight-Ashberry is dead would be as foolish as to
> conclude that the end of slavery signalled the demise of the United
> States....
>
> A Word From Our Sponsor
> Jim Hougan
> November 20, 1972 London
>
http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001972/Hougan/Hougan09/Hougan09.html
>
>
http://images.google.com/images?q=counterculture&btnG=Search+Images&svnum=10&hl=en&gbv...
>
>> "The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It
>> is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art
>> and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer
>> wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are
>> dimmed."
>>
>> From An essay by Albert Einstein, 1931
>>
>>> Scariest of all for the networks, however, is the idea that many
>>> people are now making their own television schedules. The industry
>>> isn't fully equipped to keep track of them, and as a result the
>>> networks are scrambling to hold on to the nearly $8.8 billion they
>>> collected during last spring's ad-buying season.
>>
>> On another level there is a point to be made on the part played by
>> advertisers to dictate the demographic profile of cable channels. Where
>> before a few[analogue] channels offered a focused family viewing
>> experience with a wider variety of program types, adverts now seem
>> to dictate policy, leading to a multiplicity of niche channels each pander
>> to a limited aspect of the market. .
>>
>> One result would be a kind of segregated viewing, an almost
>> unconscious typing of the audience, projecting an idea of who they are,
>> or who they should be. All this might suite the advertiser looking to
>> target a particular audience but I wonder about longer term implications
>> and the cross fertilisation of ideas which once followed naturally with
>> a balanced family profile.
>>
>> Then there are the digital implication, digital in the sense that selection
>> of one channel type over another now has the potential to make a
>> recordable statement about the viewer, a statement which would means
>> future implication of being targeted or profiled on that basis. [data being
>> what it is, it will find a use.]. The viewer, obliged to obey his so obvious
>> demographic profile, might find there are questions asked when he fails to.
>> You might call this the unconscious implication of the technology.
>>
>> Little wonder that the audience would seek to create their own schedules
>> where they are not part of the data set which comes with the digital age.
>>
>> There are other questions, the whole area of profiles for one, the
>> restrictions which must come as its function dominate our systems, and
>> those systems become dependent on it for their function.
>>
>> Other questions might look at the trends which are fueled as the viewer
>> is unconsiciouly held to a narrow viewing experience, as dictated by his
>> demographic type..
>>
>> Orwellian :
>> "This is who you are - why have you deviated from your designated type?"
>>
>>
>>
>>> "This may be the spring where we see a radical shift in the way the
>>> culture thinks of watching TV," said Sarah Bunting, co-founder of the
>>> Web site Television Without Pity.
>>
>>> The viewer plunge couldn't have come at a worse time for the networks-
>>> next week they will showcase their fall schedules to advertisers in
>>> the annual "up front" presentations.
>>
>>> The networks argue that viewership is changing, not necessarily
>>> declining. Some advertisers respond that they are no longer willing to
>>> pay full price up front to reach viewers that may not tune in later.
>>
>>> This fall, both sides will be watching what happens with families like
>>> Tony Cort's. During prime-time, Cort, his wife and four kids tend to
>>> scatter to computers or other activities in different parts of their
>>> New Jersey home. (Not during "American Idol" or "Lost," though.)
>>> They're definitely watching less TV, said Cort, who runs a Web site
>>> for martial arts aficionados.
>>
>>> "I remember when `24' was on, that was something there was a lot of
>>> interest and excitement about," he said.
>>
>>> News flash: "24" is still on. Its ratings are down, too, amid a
>>> critically savaged season.
>>
>>> More bad news abounds. NBC set a record last month for its least-
>>> watched week during the past 20 years, and maybe ever-then broke it a
>>> week later. This is the least popular season ever for CBS' "Survivor."
>>> ABC's "Lost" has lost nearly half its live audience-more than 10
>>> million people-from the days it was a sensation. "The Sopranos" is
>>> ending on HBO, and the response is a collective yawn.
>>
>>> Events like "American Idol" on Fox (which is owned by News Corp.) and
>>> "Dancing With the Stars" on ABC (owned by The Walt Disney Co.) are
>>> doing the most to prop up the industry. But still, in the six weeks
>>> after Daylight Savings Time started in early March, prime-time
>>> viewership for the four biggest broadcast networks was down to 37.6
>>> million people, from 40.3 million during the same period in 2006,
>>> according to Nielsen Media Research.
>>
>>> Millions of missing viewers could translate into millions of missing
>>> dollars for the networks heading into the up-front sales season.
>>
>>> Advertisers don't believe that the drop in viewership is as dramatic
>>> as the numbers suggest, but they're no longer willing to spend what
>>> they once did in the spring market, said Brad Adgate of Horizon Media,
>>> an ad buying firm. Johnson & Johnson and Coca-Cola sat out the spring
>>> market last year-betting they could get lower prices later-and it's
>>> likely other companies will do the same this year, he said.
>>
>>> The early start to Daylight Savings Time has hurt ratings. Prime-time
>>> viewership traditionally dips then as people do more things outside,
>>> and this year folks had a three-week head start to get into the habit
>>> of doing something else. More network reruns during March and April
>>> dampened interest, too.
>>
>>> "We let them get out of the habit of watching television a little bit,
>>> and it's going to take some time to get these people back in front of
>>> their television sets," said David Poltrack, chief researcher for CBS
>>> (owned by CBS Corp.).
>>
>>> Strategic decisions to send some popular serial dramas on long
>>> hiatuses appeared to backfire. NBC's "Heroes," CBS' "Jericho" and
>>> "Lost" lost significant momentum when they returned. Besides HBO's
>>> "The Sopranos," there are no lengthy countdowns toward the end of very
>>> popular series, unless you count "The King of Queens."
>>
>>> There also are technical reasons that this apparent diminished
>>> interest in television may be overstated.
>>
>>> This year, for the first time, Nielsen is measuring viewership in the
>>> estimated 17 percent of homes with digital video recorders-but it only
>>> counts them in the ratings of a specific show if they watch it within
>>> 24 hours of the original air time.
>>
>>> If you recorded "Desperate Housewives" this spring and watched it two
>>> days later, you're not counted in the show's ratings. And you're not
>>> counted by Nielsen under any circumstances if you downloaded a show on
>>> iTunes and watched it on your iPod or cell phone, or streamed an
>>> episode from a network Web site.
>>
>>> Since last year's Nielsen sample contained no DVR homes and this
>>> year's sample does, logic dictates that fewer Nielsen families are
>>> watching TV live this year, deflating ratings.
>>
>>> "People are not consuming less television, they're watching it in
>>> different ways, and the measurements haven't caught up," said Alan
>>> Wurtzel, chief research executive at NBC (owned by General Electric
>>> Co.).
>>
>>> The numbers can be significant. When "The Office" aired on NBC on
>>> April 5, Nielsen said there were 5.8 million people watching. Add in
>>> the people who recorded the episode and watched it within the next
>>> week, and viewership swelled to 7.6 million, a 32 percent increase,
>>> Nielsen said.
>>
>>> "The Sopranos" is another interesting case study. For its first four
>>> episodes this season, the show averaged 7.4 million viewers for its
>>> weekly Sunday night premiere, down from 8.9 million at the same point
>>> its last season.
>>
>>> But HBO shows each new episode eight times a week. Between the
>>> multiple plays and DVR viewing, each episode this spring gets 11.1
>>> million viewers, down from 13 million last year. And these figures
>>> don't count people who watch on demand.
>>
>>> Numbers for "The Sopranos" may be down because people can watch
>>> whenever they want. They may not be as interested in the show as they
>>> used to be-or it could be a combination of both.
>>
>>> Television has made billions based on how many people watch a show at
>>> its regular time. That idea may already be obsolete. So should the
>>> industry use DVR viewing when setting ad rates? If so, how quickly
>>> must people watch the shows-within two days? A week? What about people
>>> who watch shows on their cell phones or on network Web sites, which
>>> Nielsen doesn't measure yet? Later this month Nielsen will begin
>>
>
