[mythtv-users] The Heidi Game: Why TV stays on the sports program
nick.rout at gmail.com
Wed Nov 2 20:59:49 UTC 2011
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Phil Bridges <gravityhammer at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Brian J. Murrell <brian at interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 14:53 -0400, Phil Bridges wrote:
>>> "CBS enjoyed a 9.1 rating from 7:00-7:30 (New England at Pittsburgh),
>>> and 60 Minutes (airing 30 minutes late) averaged a 4.2 rating"
>> An unfair comparison for a number of reasons. The first is that it's
>> not considering how many people didn't watch 60 Minutes when they found
>> out it was not on at 7PM when they expected it to be and just watched
>> their second choice show at that time and additionally chose not to
>> switch away from that program in mid-showing to catch 60 minutes late?
>> The second problem is that you need to add the non-overlapping share
>> rating from all of 60 Minutes, The Amazing Race, The Good Wife and
>> whatever runs after that on a night where those shows are not running
>> late (for the same reason as above).
>> The reason you need to add the non-overlapping share ratings of all of
>> those programs is that all of those programs represent the viewers who
>> are being inconvenienced by the overrun.
>> CBS simply needs to stop trying to have their cake and eat it too.
> I guess you can try to explain to CBS how the football game wasn't
> twice as popular as 60 Minutes.
> Don't get me wrong - I hate having to adjust my recordings on Sunday
> to run an extra hour, but I also realize that worrying about won't get
> me anywhere, and ranting on a DVR mailing list won't get me anywhere.
> BTW, this past week, 60 Minutes had 18,558,000 viewers. Last season,
> 60 Minutes averaged 13.36 million viewers per week. I dare say 60
> minutes may regularly get more viewers when it follows football, which
> typically means it's delayed.
The interesting thing when looking at this whole debate from an
outsiders point of view is that I live in a Rugby, not Gridiron
Until comparitively recently rugby was strictly amateur. When it went
pro, it was largely funded by TV rights bidding, with Murdoch/Sky
being the major funder. Individual teams have corporate sponsorship,
but most of the money goes from TV companies to the Rugby Union and
then trickles down to various teams.
That being the case, the TV companies rule the game, when they are
played (to maximise global audience), where they are played (stadiums
with good TV facilities) and the length of the games.
Most games other than competition semi finals and finals have a set
time limit. If the game is a draw, the teams share the available
points. A game will never go over time to the extent that American
Football seems to.
If a player is injured, he is quickly assessed. If he can play on he
does, if he is badly injured, he goes off and a substitute goes on. If
he is in between he may be blood binned (ie goes off with a substitute
coming on for 10 minutes until he is patched up). Yes the clock stops
for some of these things, but the delays are not long.
There are no "time outs" - there are limited substitutions available
for tactcal (as opposed to injury) reasons.
The game keeps going, because that's the nature of the game and the
way TV companies want it.
So stop mucking about, play the game and get it finished!
More information about the mythtv-users