[mythtv-users] The Heidi Game: Why TV stays on the sports program

[Phil Bridges]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Nick Rout <nick.rout at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> playing nation.
>
> 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!


But how do you sell beer? :D