Scifi article

[MartinRoth]

An US wide industry with 4 distributors (TV stations) would automatically use categories with at least 10 million in them. Probably the A B C D groups used by the automobile industry in the 1930s. Now they need smaller categories.

Quite honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about here, so it's difficult to fashion a response. But I'll try.

The US TV industry, even before the advent of cable, was never as simple as you suggest. There have always been local stations in addition to the networks. Even the network-affiliated stations produce their own local programming, purchase syndicated programming from sources other than the network, and sell advertising on all of it, including designated local spots on the network programs. This differs greatly from the model in the UK -- it has to, since the country is so much larger.

And the TV industry is now and always has been very different from the automobile industry -- especially when you're discussing attracting audiences, since the audiences are the industry's product, not its paying customers -- so I highly doubt that any categories used by the automobile industry would have been used in television in any context other than the selling of advertising to auto makers.

If you describe these "A B C D groups" you're talking about, perhaps I can say something more specific.

 

[MartinRoth]

An US wide industry with 4 distributors (TV stations) would automatically use categories with at least 10 million in them. Probably the A B C D groups used by the automobile industry in the 1930s. Now they need smaller categories.

Quite honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about here, so it's difficult to fashion a response. But I'll try.

The US TV industry, even before the advent of cable, was never as simple as you suggest. There have always been local stations in addition to the networks. Even the network-affiliated stations produce their own local programming, purchase syndicated programming from sources other than the network, and sell advertising on all of it, including designated local spots on the network programs. This differs greatly from the model in the UK -- it has to, since the country is so much larger.

And the TV industry is now and always has been very different from the automobile industry -- especially when you're discussing attracting audiences, since the audiences are the industry's product, not its paying customers -- so I highly doubt that any categories used by the automobile industry would have been used in television in any context other than the selling of advertising to auto makers.

If you describe these "A B C D groups" you're talking about, perhaps I can say something more specific.

 

[KoshN]

However, it's just not enough to sustain a Farscape budgeted series ($1.4 million/ep

The $1.4 mil or $1.5 mil was the *production* budget for Farscape. SciFi's deal picked up roughly half of that. The rest was funded through the sales to other markets.

And in Season 5, $1.4 million/ep. would have been Sci-Fi's cost, correct?

 

[KoshN]

However, it's just not enough to sustain a Farscape budgeted series ($1.4 million/ep

The $1.4 mil or $1.5 mil was the *production* budget for Farscape. SciFi's deal picked up roughly half of that. The rest was funded through the sales to other markets.

And in Season 5, $1.4 million/ep. would have been Sci-Fi's cost, correct?

 

[PillowRock]

And in Season 5, $1.4 million/ep. would have been Sci-Fi's cost, correct?

My understanding is that S5 was originally structured very similarly to S4, with SciFi (US) paying roughly half of Henson's production costs or $750 K or so (I have not seen any precise numbers published anywhere). This was a noticable increase in everyone's budgets from S1 - S3 (due, at least in part, to increases production costs in Oz because of a few major projects' impact on the supply / demand balance), but I don't believe there was any significant jump in the middle of the 2 year contract signed in 2001 for S4 and S5.

 

[PillowRock]

And in Season 5, $1.4 million/ep. would have been Sci-Fi's cost, correct?

My understanding is that S5 was originally structured very similarly to S4, with SciFi (US) paying roughly half of Henson's production costs or $750 K or so (I have not seen any precise numbers published anywhere). This was a noticable increase in everyone's budgets from S1 - S3 (due, at least in part, to increases production costs in Oz because of a few major projects' impact on the supply / demand balance), but I don't believe there was any significant jump in the middle of the 2 year contract signed in 2001 for S4 and S5.

 

[ElScorcho]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It used to be that programmers tried to gauge what the audience wanted. People like Bonnie Hammer want to tell the audience what they want. That really pisses me off.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Huh?

I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say here, unless you're trying to make the case that what the "audience" wants is simply what you want.

Yes. I am the only one who doesn't want to watch something a little dumber. Who needs Farscape when I have Tremors and Scare Tactics? Perhaps a Monica Lewinsky guest spot would boost the ratings. If I wanted to watch television for idiots, I wouldn't have far to look.

[sigh]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And after reading this article, I still haven't heard a reasonable argument for the cancellation of Farscape.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then you weren't reading carefully enough. Here it is:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the show's ratings -- consistently at the 1.1 or 1.2 level -- weren't high enough to justify the cost of bringing it back for a fifth season.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I actually read it just fine, thank you. But I also have the luxury of knowing what it doesn't say. Those numbers don't look good for other networks, but they're good for SFC. In fact, it was the channel's highest rated original show (not miniseries, show) and that fans of the show (i.e. the "audience") have flooded her office with complaints and are to this day trying to bring the show back. I don't think there would be as much stir if Enterprise were cancelled.

I'm not buying the party line on the financial issue. Another season would have meant syndication, which could well have been quite lucrative for SFC. Most channels don't cancel their successes while renewing their failures.

And, as a scifi fan, I do consider myself the target audience for the "SciFi Channel". I'm sorry if that confuses you, Martin.

Do you work for them or something?

 

[ElScorcho]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It used to be that programmers tried to gauge what the audience wanted. People like Bonnie Hammer want to tell the audience what they want. That really pisses me off.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Huh?

I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say here, unless you're trying to make the case that what the "audience" wants is simply what you want.

Yes. I am the only one who doesn't want to watch something a little dumber. Who needs Farscape when I have Tremors and Scare Tactics? Perhaps a Monica Lewinsky guest spot would boost the ratings. If I wanted to watch television for idiots, I wouldn't have far to look.

[sigh]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And after reading this article, I still haven't heard a reasonable argument for the cancellation of Farscape.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then you weren't reading carefully enough. Here it is:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the show's ratings -- consistently at the 1.1 or 1.2 level -- weren't high enough to justify the cost of bringing it back for a fifth season.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I actually read it just fine, thank you. But I also have the luxury of knowing what it doesn't say. Those numbers don't look good for other networks, but they're good for SFC. In fact, it was the channel's highest rated original show (not miniseries, show) and that fans of the show (i.e. the "audience") have flooded her office with complaints and are to this day trying to bring the show back. I don't think there would be as much stir if Enterprise were cancelled.

I'm not buying the party line on the financial issue. Another season would have meant syndication, which could well have been quite lucrative for SFC. Most channels don't cancel their successes while renewing their failures.

And, as a scifi fan, I do consider myself the target audience for the "SciFi Channel". I'm sorry if that confuses you, Martin.

Do you work for them or something?

 

[MartinRoth]

Yes. I am the only one who doesn't want to watch something a little dumber.

Not the only one, no. But you certainly seem to be in the minority among the general population if you're interested in watching intelligent SF shows.

In fact, it was the channel's highest rated original show (not miniseries, show)

Maybe. But I believe it was also the channel's most expensive original show. So it had to be the highest rated by a significant margin, and with good demographics, if it was going to make them any money.

And I don't have access to the numbers or their research, but I know what kinds of numbers and research they'd have. They'd know how well the show fitted into the rest of their lineup. They'd know whether the Farscape audience was also watching other shows on their channel, and whether the audience that watched whatever preceded Farscape kept watching or tuned away to a different channel or turned the TV off. Even if its own ratings were good, if showing it caused the ratings for the rest of the schedule to go down, it wouldn't be helping.

And based on all that information, they'd make their decision.

I don't think there would be as much stir if Enterprise were cancelled.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But that doesn't matter. What matters is the size and profile of the audience. Whether the viewers actually care about the show means nothing except to the extent it means they keep watching. And whether they've kept watching can be seen based on the ratings information.

Another season would have meant syndication, which could well have been quite lucrative for SFC.

Probably not, since I believe SFC didn't produce the show in house and did not own the rights. It would have been lucrative for somebody, but not SFC.

Most channels don't cancel their successes while renewing their failures.

Correct. But their views of what is a success and what is a failure are going to be quite a bit different than yours and mine.

And, as a scifi fan, I do consider myself the target audience for the "SciFi Channel".

What you consider yourself doesn't enter into their decision-making process at all. They want an audience. If they can sacrifice you and gain two other people in the process, they'll do it every time.

And the one indisputable fact here is that their ratings have been going up. Which is pretty good evidence that the people running Sci-Fi aren't as clueless as you suggest.

Do you work for them or something?

No, but I did spend over six years working in the ratings industry, developing software used by advertisers and media programmers (mostly radio, but some TV). So I did get to know a bit about what they look at and how they think.

I don't like the way they think, I don't like many of the decisions they make, and I can't even bear to watch or listen to most of the stuff they use to attract audiences. But I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend that, despite all evidence to the contrary, they're idiots because their choices don't agree with my tastes.

 

[MartinRoth]

Yes. I am the only one who doesn't want to watch something a little dumber.

Not the only one, no. But you certainly seem to be in the minority among the general population if you're interested in watching intelligent SF shows.

In fact, it was the channel's highest rated original show (not miniseries, show)

Maybe. But I believe it was also the channel's most expensive original show. So it had to be the highest rated by a significant margin, and with good demographics, if it was going to make them any money.

And I don't have access to the numbers or their research, but I know what kinds of numbers and research they'd have. They'd know how well the show fitted into the rest of their lineup. They'd know whether the Farscape audience was also watching other shows on their channel, and whether the audience that watched whatever preceded Farscape kept watching or tuned away to a different channel or turned the TV off. Even if its own ratings were good, if showing it caused the ratings for the rest of the schedule to go down, it wouldn't be helping.

And based on all that information, they'd make their decision.

I don't think there would be as much stir if Enterprise were cancelled.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But that doesn't matter. What matters is the size and profile of the audience. Whether the viewers actually care about the show means nothing except to the extent it means they keep watching. And whether they've kept watching can be seen based on the ratings information.

Another season would have meant syndication, which could well have been quite lucrative for SFC.

Probably not, since I believe SFC didn't produce the show in house and did not own the rights. It would have been lucrative for somebody, but not SFC.

Most channels don't cancel their successes while renewing their failures.

Correct. But their views of what is a success and what is a failure are going to be quite a bit different than yours and mine.

And, as a scifi fan, I do consider myself the target audience for the "SciFi Channel".

What you consider yourself doesn't enter into their decision-making process at all. They want an audience. If they can sacrifice you and gain two other people in the process, they'll do it every time.

And the one indisputable fact here is that their ratings have been going up. Which is pretty good evidence that the people running Sci-Fi aren't as clueless as you suggest.

Do you work for them or something?

No, but I did spend over six years working in the ratings industry, developing software used by advertisers and media programmers (mostly radio, but some TV). So I did get to know a bit about what they look at and how they think.

I don't like the way they think, I don't like many of the decisions they make, and I can't even bear to watch or listen to most of the stuff they use to attract audiences. But I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend that, despite all evidence to the contrary, they're idiots because their choices don't agree with my tastes.

 

[KoshN]

Yes. I am the only one who doesn't want to watch something a little dumber. Who needs Farscape when I have Tremors and Scare Tactics? Perhaps a Monica Lewinsky guest spot would boost the ratings. If I wanted to watch television for idiots, I wouldn't have far to look.

I couldn't agree more.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the show's ratings -- consistently at the 1.1 or 1.2 level -- weren't high enough to justify the cost of bringing it back for a fifth season.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those numbers don't look good for other networks, but they're good for SFC. In fact, it was the channel's highest rated original show (not miniseries, show) and that fans of the show (i.e. the "audience") have flooded her office with complaints and are to this day trying to bring the show back. I don't think there would be as much stir if Enterprise were cancelled.

If Enterprise was cancelled, it wouldn't bother me much. I hope Farscape can continue in some form, enough to have a good wrap-up.

I'm not buying the party line on the financial issue. Another season would have meant syndication, which could well have been quite lucrative for SFC. Most channels don't cancel their successes while renewing their failures.

Well, clearly they're not telling us the whole story, probably because their actions would look unjustifiable, and fans would storm the place with torches and pitchforks (ala the Frankenstein castle). Personally, I don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths.

Renewing their failures? What has Sci-Fi renewed? Crossing Over with John Edward? Isn't it just syndication for them? They cancel their successes, finance cheap, horrible new series, and cancel them too (Dream Team, and hopefully Scare Tactics and Tremors: The Series).

And, as a scifi fan, I do consider myself the target audience for the "SciFi Channel".

We used to be the target audience for The "Sci-Fi" Channel. Now, we're considered a marginal group (by Hammer & Co.), not important enough to care about. Sure, she still lists us in her pidgeon hole (sci-phile), but really she wants mainstream viewers more than us.

 

[KoshN]

Yes. I am the only one who doesn't want to watch something a little dumber. Who needs Farscape when I have Tremors and Scare Tactics? Perhaps a Monica Lewinsky guest spot would boost the ratings. If I wanted to watch television for idiots, I wouldn't have far to look.

I couldn't agree more.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the show's ratings -- consistently at the 1.1 or 1.2 level -- weren't high enough to justify the cost of bringing it back for a fifth season.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those numbers don't look good for other networks, but they're good for SFC. In fact, it was the channel's highest rated original show (not miniseries, show) and that fans of the show (i.e. the "audience") have flooded her office with complaints and are to this day trying to bring the show back. I don't think there would be as much stir if Enterprise were cancelled.

If Enterprise was cancelled, it wouldn't bother me much. I hope Farscape can continue in some form, enough to have a good wrap-up.

I'm not buying the party line on the financial issue. Another season would have meant syndication, which could well have been quite lucrative for SFC. Most channels don't cancel their successes while renewing their failures.

Well, clearly they're not telling us the whole story, probably because their actions would look unjustifiable, and fans would storm the place with torches and pitchforks (ala the Frankenstein castle). Personally, I don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths.

Renewing their failures? What has Sci-Fi renewed? Crossing Over with John Edward? Isn't it just syndication for them? They cancel their successes, finance cheap, horrible new series, and cancel them too (Dream Team, and hopefully Scare Tactics and Tremors: The Series).

And, as a scifi fan, I do consider myself the target audience for the "SciFi Channel".

We used to be the target audience for The "Sci-Fi" Channel. Now, we're considered a marginal group (by Hammer & Co.), not important enough to care about. Sure, she still lists us in her pidgeon hole (sci-phile), but really she wants mainstream viewers more than us.

 

[KoshN]

Yes. I am the only one who doesn't want to watch something a little dumber.

Not the only one, no. But you certainly seem to be in the minority among the general population if you're interested in watching intelligent SF shows.

You could delete "SF" from that sentence and be a lot more correct.

In fact, it was the channel's highest rated original show (not miniseries, show)

Maybe. But I believe it was also the channel's most expensive original show.

More expensive than Stargate SG-1? That one has to be pretty close to Farscape in costs to Sci-Fi.

So it had to be the highest rated by a significant margin, and with good demographics, if it was going to make them any money.

Maybe if they'd aired the show sensibly, they would have gotten better ratings. You know...not had six month intervals between pseudo-seasons with no reruns.

And I don't have access to the numbers or their research, but I know what kinds of numbers and research they'd have.

I have about as much faith in their research as I have in the "top people" mentioned at the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" --> Indiana Jones: "What people?" Bureaucrat: "Top people." 1. I doubt they seriously researched anything. 2. Even if they did, I doubt that they could interpret the numbers any better than the average chimpanzee.

They'd know how well the show fitted into the rest of their lineup. They'd know whether the Farscape audience was also watching other shows on their channel, and whether the audience that watched whatever preceded Farscape kept watching or tuned away to a different channel or turned the TV off.

Why should viewers of Farscape watch any other shows on the channel, other than SG-1? Personally, I used to skip the airing of the Dead Zone, record Farscape, and skip the first airing of SG-1 (because I was recording John Doe), and then record the second airing of SG-1. Here's what my Friday Night recording schedule used to look like:

Friday Nights This Season:

7PM-8PM
The Dead Zone (only if I'd missed the USA airing, due to the glut of other stuff on 10PM-11PM Sunday nights: Boomtown, Dragnet, Mail Call, Conquest)

8PM-9PM
Farscape
Firefly (up 'till the last airing in Dec. 2002)

9PM-10PM
John Doe (DVD-RAM)
Hack (VHS)

10PM-11PM
can't remember. What was on Sci-Fi?

11PM-12 Mid.
Stargate SG-1

12 Mid.-1AM
Farscape (if I missed the first airing)

Even if its own ratings were good, if showing it caused the ratings for the rest of the schedule to go down, it wouldn't be helping.

If they'd expect Farscape viewers to stay tuned in to watch stuff like Dream Team, Scare Tactics and Tremors: The Series, they'd be greatly disappointed.

Most channels don't cancel their successes while renewing their failures.

Correct. But their views of what is a success and what is a failure are going to be quite a bit different than yours and mine.

Correct. If a show costs them next to nothing to make and air, it doesn't have to get as good ratings. What I think they're discounting is the damage it's doing to the reputation of the channel. The more cheap, rotten shows I see on a channel, the less likely I am to even look at that channel's listing in the TV Guide.

If a channel has truly contemptable shows on it, I'm even likely to deprogram it from the TV Tuner in my DVD Recorder and VCRs, just so I don't run into shows that I absolutely can't stand, by accident when channel surfing. For example:

<ul type="square">
[*] If Enterprise was cancelled, I'd deprogram UPN because I absolutely cannot stand rap.
[*] Once SG-1 is gone, I'll deprogram The Sci-Fi Channel because I can't stand Crossing Over and Scare Tactics.
[/list]

To paraphrase an old saying, the Scare Tactics ads. are like shit; they're everywhere on the channel. Whenever I see a Crossing Over or Scare Tactics ad. I reflexively switch the channel (unless I'm recording). That's how much I HATE those shows. It's like "Gah!" <shudder> (revulsion), dive for the remote and hit the channel button. If I'm recording, I mute the sound and read, or leave the room.

And, as a scifi fan, I do consider myself the target audience for the "SciFi Channel".

What you consider yourself doesn't enter into their decision-making process at all. They want an audience. If they can sacrifice you and gain two other people in the process, they'll do it every time.

True. The only possible exception would be if they lost a person in a favored demo. and gained two in an unfavored demo.

And the one indisputable fact here is that their ratings have been going up. Which is pretty good evidence that the people running Sci-Fi aren't as clueless as you suggest.

Tremors: The Series and Scare Tactics ratings have been going down, not up.

 

[KoshN]

Yes. I am the only one who doesn't want to watch something a little dumber.

Not the only one, no. But you certainly seem to be in the minority among the general population if you're interested in watching intelligent SF shows.

You could delete "SF" from that sentence and be a lot more correct.

In fact, it was the channel's highest rated original show (not miniseries, show)

Maybe. But I believe it was also the channel's most expensive original show.

More expensive than Stargate SG-1? That one has to be pretty close to Farscape in costs to Sci-Fi.

So it had to be the highest rated by a significant margin, and with good demographics, if it was going to make them any money.

Maybe if they'd aired the show sensibly, they would have gotten better ratings. You know...not had six month intervals between pseudo-seasons with no reruns.

And I don't have access to the numbers or their research, but I know what kinds of numbers and research they'd have.

I have about as much faith in their research as I have in the "top people" mentioned at the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" --> Indiana Jones: "What people?" Bureaucrat: "Top people." 1. I doubt they seriously researched anything. 2. Even if they did, I doubt that they could interpret the numbers any better than the average chimpanzee.

They'd know how well the show fitted into the rest of their lineup. They'd know whether the Farscape audience was also watching other shows on their channel, and whether the audience that watched whatever preceded Farscape kept watching or tuned away to a different channel or turned the TV off.

Why should viewers of Farscape watch any other shows on the channel, other than SG-1? Personally, I used to skip the airing of the Dead Zone, record Farscape, and skip the first airing of SG-1 (because I was recording John Doe), and then record the second airing of SG-1. Here's what my Friday Night recording schedule used to look like:

Friday Nights This Season:

7PM-8PM
The Dead Zone (only if I'd missed the USA airing, due to the glut of other stuff on 10PM-11PM Sunday nights: Boomtown, Dragnet, Mail Call, Conquest)

8PM-9PM
Farscape
Firefly (up 'till the last airing in Dec. 2002)

9PM-10PM
John Doe (DVD-RAM)
Hack (VHS)

10PM-11PM
can't remember. What was on Sci-Fi?

11PM-12 Mid.
Stargate SG-1

12 Mid.-1AM
Farscape (if I missed the first airing)

Even if its own ratings were good, if showing it caused the ratings for the rest of the schedule to go down, it wouldn't be helping.

If they'd expect Farscape viewers to stay tuned in to watch stuff like Dream Team, Scare Tactics and Tremors: The Series, they'd be greatly disappointed.

Most channels don't cancel their successes while renewing their failures.

Correct. But their views of what is a success and what is a failure are going to be quite a bit different than yours and mine.

Correct. If a show costs them next to nothing to make and air, it doesn't have to get as good ratings. What I think they're discounting is the damage it's doing to the reputation of the channel. The more cheap, rotten shows I see on a channel, the less likely I am to even look at that channel's listing in the TV Guide.

If a channel has truly contemptable shows on it, I'm even likely to deprogram it from the TV Tuner in my DVD Recorder and VCRs, just so I don't run into shows that I absolutely can't stand, by accident when channel surfing. For example:

<ul type="square">
[*] If Enterprise was cancelled, I'd deprogram UPN because I absolutely cannot stand rap.
[*] Once SG-1 is gone, I'll deprogram The Sci-Fi Channel because I can't stand Crossing Over and Scare Tactics.
[/list]

To paraphrase an old saying, the Scare Tactics ads. are like shit; they're everywhere on the channel. Whenever I see a Crossing Over or Scare Tactics ad. I reflexively switch the channel (unless I'm recording). That's how much I HATE those shows. It's like "Gah!" <shudder> (revulsion), dive for the remote and hit the channel button. If I'm recording, I mute the sound and read, or leave the room.

And, as a scifi fan, I do consider myself the target audience for the "SciFi Channel".

What you consider yourself doesn't enter into their decision-making process at all. They want an audience. If they can sacrifice you and gain two other people in the process, they'll do it every time.

True. The only possible exception would be if they lost a person in a favored demo. and gained two in an unfavored demo.

And the one indisputable fact here is that their ratings have been going up. Which is pretty good evidence that the people running Sci-Fi aren't as clueless as you suggest.

Tremors: The Series and Scare Tactics ratings have been going down, not up.

 

[MartinRoth]

1. I doubt they seriously researched anything. 2. Even if they did, I doubt that they could interpret the numbers any better than the average chimpanzee.

And what, exactly would lead you to believe that? The fact that your own preconceptions have no apparent connection to reality? Or do you have sources of information you're not telling us about, other than inventing things out your imagination?

They do research. Lots of it. They spend lots of money on research tools and data and on people to do the research. In fact, the common complaint throughout the industry is that programmers do too much research and follow the results too slavishly, meaning that they're much less willing to try new things and take risks than they were before.

If they'd expect Farscape viewers to stay tuned in to watch stuff like Dream Team, Scare Tactics and Tremors: The Series, they'd be greatly disappointed.

Yes! Exactly!

Which is probably one of the reasons they're no longer showing Farscape. Because it was easier to change that piece than to change all of the pieces around it.

What I think they're discounting is the damage it's doing to the reputation of the channel.

Damage to the reputation of the channel? There's no damage going on to the reputation that matters to them -- the reputation for delivering audiences to the advertisers.

You seem to be forgetting the most important point here. The Sci-Fi Channel does not exist to show quality programming. The Sci-Fi Channel exists to make money. The Sci-Fi Channel makes money by selling the viewing time of audiences to their advertisers.

Any argument that doesn't consider that fact is an absurd irrelevancy.

True. The only possible exception would be if they lost a person in a favored demo. and gained two in an unfavored demo.

Yes. But that apparently hasn't been happening.

Tremors: The Series and Scare Tactics ratings have been going down, not up.

Which is why they've been repeatedly preempted and are likely to disappear if that pattern continues.

 

[MartinRoth]

1. I doubt they seriously researched anything. 2. Even if they did, I doubt that they could interpret the numbers any better than the average chimpanzee.

And what, exactly would lead you to believe that? The fact that your own preconceptions have no apparent connection to reality? Or do you have sources of information you're not telling us about, other than inventing things out your imagination?

They do research. Lots of it. They spend lots of money on research tools and data and on people to do the research. In fact, the common complaint throughout the industry is that programmers do too much research and follow the results too slavishly, meaning that they're much less willing to try new things and take risks than they were before.

If they'd expect Farscape viewers to stay tuned in to watch stuff like Dream Team, Scare Tactics and Tremors: The Series, they'd be greatly disappointed.

Yes! Exactly!

Which is probably one of the reasons they're no longer showing Farscape. Because it was easier to change that piece than to change all of the pieces around it.

What I think they're discounting is the damage it's doing to the reputation of the channel.

Damage to the reputation of the channel? There's no damage going on to the reputation that matters to them -- the reputation for delivering audiences to the advertisers.

You seem to be forgetting the most important point here. The Sci-Fi Channel does not exist to show quality programming. The Sci-Fi Channel exists to make money. The Sci-Fi Channel makes money by selling the viewing time of audiences to their advertisers.

Any argument that doesn't consider that fact is an absurd irrelevancy.

True. The only possible exception would be if they lost a person in a favored demo. and gained two in an unfavored demo.

Yes. But that apparently hasn't been happening.

Tremors: The Series and Scare Tactics ratings have been going down, not up.

Which is why they've been repeatedly preempted and are likely to disappear if that pattern continues.

 

[MartinRoth]

We used to be the target audience for The "Sci-Fi" Channel. Now, we're considered a marginal group (by Hammer & Co.), not important enough to care about. Sure, she still lists us in her pidgeon hole (sci-phile), but really she wants mainstream viewers more than us.

Almost. She wants any viewers. Since there are a hell of a lot more mainstream viewers than SF viewers in the population, it's only common sense to target the mainstream.

 

[MartinRoth]

We used to be the target audience for The "Sci-Fi" Channel. Now, we're considered a marginal group (by Hammer & Co.), not important enough to care about. Sure, she still lists us in her pidgeon hole (sci-phile), but really she wants mainstream viewers more than us.

Almost. She wants any viewers. Since there are a hell of a lot more mainstream viewers than SF viewers in the population, it's only common sense to target the mainstream.

 

[PsionTen]

Almost. She wants any viewers. Since there are a hell of a lot more mainstream viewers than SF viewers in the population, it's only common sense to target the mainstream.

This discussion reminds me a lot of what was going on in the rap industry in the late 80s and early 90s. The big thing back then was for black rappers to produce "softer" material so that they could cross-over better to the white teenager audience.... so you had rappers like M.C. Hammer, Tone Loc and others producing "soft" material, while people like N.W.A., Ice-T, Public Enemy and others were continuing to produce the "hard" material.

What eventually happened was the reverse... white audiences (for whatever reason) went for the "hard" material, while the cross-over artists were left out in the cold. They had completely alienated their core audience and their targeted audience wanted nothing to do with them.

 

[PsionTen]

Almost. She wants any viewers. Since there are a hell of a lot more mainstream viewers than SF viewers in the population, it's only common sense to target the mainstream.

This discussion reminds me a lot of what was going on in the rap industry in the late 80s and early 90s. The big thing back then was for black rappers to produce "softer" material so that they could cross-over better to the white teenager audience.... so you had rappers like M.C. Hammer, Tone Loc and others producing "soft" material, while people like N.W.A., Ice-T, Public Enemy and others were continuing to produce the "hard" material.

What eventually happened was the reverse... white audiences (for whatever reason) went for the "hard" material, while the cross-over artists were left out in the cold. They had completely alienated their core audience and their targeted audience wanted nothing to do with them.