Broadcast TV audiences are cratering faster than ever.

[Philip Chee]

[[
TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest
drop ever. �American Idol� is losing nearly 25% of its audience in a
year. Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old staples like
�Survivor� and �Dancing with Stars� are in free fall.

Everyone has long known that the broadcast dinosaurs are in trouble but
it is only now becoming clear just how rapidly they are losing their
grip on consumers in the United States. This coincides with rapid growth
of time spent on mobile apps: American iPhone owners now waste two hours
per day on apps and annualized growth of daily engagement still tops
30%. But it also opens up completely new vistas for Netflix, Amazon,
Google and Apple when it comes to video distribution.
]]

<http://bgr.com/2013/05/17/google-fiber-broadcast-television-impact-analysis/>

Phil

--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.

[Edward McArdle]

In article <6j3naq....@news.alt.net>, Philip Chee

<phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:

>[[
>TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
>decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
>the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest

>drop ever. “American Idol” is losing nearly 25% of its audience in a

>year. Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old staples like

>“Survivor” and “Dancing with Stars” are in free fall.

>
>Everyone has long known that the broadcast dinosaurs are in trouble but
>it is only now becoming clear just how rapidly they are losing their
>grip on consumers in the United States. This coincides with rapid growth
>of time spent on mobile apps: American iPhone owners now waste two hours
>per day on apps and annualized growth of daily engagement still tops
>30%. But it also opens up completely new vistas for Netflix, Amazon,
>Google and Apple when it comes to video distribution.
>]]
>
><http://bgr.com/2013/05/17/google-fiber-broadcast-television-impact-analysis/>
>
>Phil

There could be a problem if sufficiently few people watch programs that
they cease to be made. Then there would be no programs to download,
pirate, buy on DVD.

--
Edward McArdle

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <6j3naq....@news.alt.net>,
phi...@aleytys.pc.my "Philip Chee" observed:
>
>[[TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the

>decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
>the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest

>drop ever. [..]

>
>Everyone has long known that the broadcast dinosaurs are in trouble but
>it is only now becoming clear just how rapidly they are losing their

>grip on consumers in the United States. [..]

>But it also opens up completely new vistas for Netflix, Amazon,
>Google and Apple when it comes to video distribution.]]
><http://bgr.com/2013/05/17/google-fiber-broadcast-television-impact-analysis/>

- with freeview+, made possible by the switch-over to digital
broadcasting, plus paid-for digital channels, satellite cable
and digital tv, as well as on-demand delivery by broadband,
the effect has been noticed in the uk, with commercial broad-
cast stations' advertising rates falling precipitously -
though i believe they've levelled off, albeit on a decidedly
lower plateau, now. it seems also a lot more common than
formerly for regular programmes and even entire swathes of
some commercial channels' programming to be sponsored by an
outside company, in addition to selling space in the normal
advertising breaks. all the commercial stations that carry
weather forecasts (many do not) have these sponsored, too,
often by energy or package holiday companies.

- love, ppint.

[0] - s/cratering/?/

(crater, from gr kratehr [it's a "long e"] = a dish, a shallow
bowl, hence a dish- or shallow bowl-shaped geographical feature
most often created by impact: so "cratering" is presumably not
the looked-for word.)(the original kratehr was i think most used
for drinking wine from.)(or watered wine.)

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"Some men are okay now. [..] We still have to keep them in line,
of course, but we no longer have to shoot them on sight."
- _Sex Tips for Girls_ cynthia heimel 1983

[Philip Chee]

On 18/05/2013 18:44, Edward McArdle wrote:
> In article <6j3naq....@news.alt.net>, Philip Chee
> <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>
>>[[
>>TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
>>decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
>>the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest

>>drop ever. �American Idol� is losing nearly 25% of its audience in a

>>year. Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old staples like

>>�Survivor� and �Dancing with Stars� are in free fall.

>>
>>Everyone has long known that the broadcast dinosaurs are in trouble but
>>it is only now becoming clear just how rapidly they are losing their
>>grip on consumers in the United States. This coincides with rapid growth
>>of time spent on mobile apps: American iPhone owners now waste two hours
>>per day on apps and annualized growth of daily engagement still tops
>>30%. But it also opens up completely new vistas for Netflix, Amazon,
>>Google and Apple when it comes to video distribution.
>>]]
>>
>><http://bgr.com/2013/05/17/google-fiber-broadcast-television-impact-analysis/>

> There could be a problem if sufficiently few people watch programs that
> they cease to be made. Then there would be no programs to download,
> pirate, buy on DVD.

Oh they are watching all right, just not on free-to-air channels.

[Lowell Gilbert]

mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) writes:

> In article <6j3naq....@news.alt.net>, Philip Chee
> <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>
>>[[
>>TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
>>decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
>>the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest

>>drop ever. �American Idol� is losing nearly 25% of its audience in a

>>year. Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old staples like

>>�Survivor� and �Dancing with Stars� are in free fall.

>>
>>Everyone has long known that the broadcast dinosaurs are in trouble but
>>it is only now becoming clear just how rapidly they are losing their
>>grip on consumers in the United States. This coincides with rapid growth
>>of time spent on mobile apps: American iPhone owners now waste two hours
>>per day on apps and annualized growth of daily engagement still tops
>>30%. But it also opens up completely new vistas for Netflix, Amazon,
>>Google and Apple when it comes to video distribution.
>>]]
>>
>><http://bgr.com/2013/05/17/google-fiber-broadcast-television-impact-analysis/>
>>
>>Phil
>
> There could be a problem if sufficiently few people watch programs that
> they cease to be made. Then there would be no programs to download,
> pirate, buy on DVD.

Perhaps. But perhaps another business model (or three) might succeed instead.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") writes:

> - hi; in article, <6j3naq....@news.alt.net>,
> phi...@aleytys.pc.my "Philip Chee" observed:
>>
>>[[TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
>>decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
>>the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest
>>drop ever. [..]
>>
>>Everyone has long known that the broadcast dinosaurs are in trouble but
>>it is only now becoming clear just how rapidly they are losing their
>>grip on consumers in the United States. [..]
>>But it also opens up completely new vistas for Netflix, Amazon,
>>Google and Apple when it comes to video distribution.]]
>><http://bgr.com/2013/05/17/google-fiber-broadcast-television-impact-analysis/>

...
>
> [0] - s/cratering/?/

Common idiomatic expression for "forming a crater", i.e. falling into
the ground at high velocity.

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Keith F. Lynch]

Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently
> the decline has turned into a plunge.

I suspect it has to do with the ever-increasing number of commercials
and promos. I remember when commercials took up six minutes of every
hour. Now it's more like four times that, with no end in sight. Plus
distracting junk that repeatedly intrudes into the bottom third of the
screen during the program itself, constantly pulling watchers out of
the experience.

Also, a lot of stations fell off the "digital cliff." Except for
those willing to *pay* to watch commercial-filled TV shows. I'm not
surprised that people don't want to pay to watch worse content than
they used to be able to get for free.

> \223American Idol\224 is losing nearly 25% of its audience in

> a year. Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old

> staples like \223Survivor\224 and \223Dancing with Stars\224 are
> in free fall.

Interesting that they only mention so-called reality shows. Those
were a novelty, worth watching once, but what people mostly want to
watch are shows that tell a story. If competent script writers have
priced themselves out of the market, they deserve their fate on the
scrap heap of history.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 18, 12:58 am, Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> [[
> TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
> decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
> the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest

> drop ever. “American Idol” is losing nearly 25% of its audience in a

> year. Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old staples like

> “Survivor” and “Dancing with Stars” are in free fall.

>
> Everyone has long known that the broadcast dinosaurs are in trouble but
> it is only now becoming clear just how rapidly they are losing their
> grip on consumers in the United States. This coincides with rapid growth
> of time spent on mobile apps: American iPhone owners now waste two hours
> per day on apps and annualized growth of daily engagement still tops
> 30%. But it also opens up completely new vistas for Netflix, Amazon,
> Google and Apple when it comes to video distribution.
> ]]
>

> <http://bgr.com/2013/05/17/google-fiber-broadcast-television-impact-an...>

I find it curious that the author regards time spent interactively
using a smartphone as 'wasted', while time spent sitting passively
watching 'Dancing with the Stars', is not.

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 18, 11:20 am, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >    - hi; in article, <6j3naq.g01.1...@news.alt.net>,

> >      phi...@aleytys.pc.my "Philip Chee" observed:
>
> >>[[TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
> >>decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
> >>the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest
> >>drop ever. [..]
>
> >>Everyone has long known that the broadcast dinosaurs are in trouble but
> >>it is only now becoming clear just how rapidly they are losing their
> >>grip on consumers in the United States. [..]
> >>But it also opens up completely new vistas for Netflix, Amazon,
> >>Google and Apple when it comes to video distribution.]]

> >><http://bgr.com/2013/05/17/google-fiber-broadcast-television-impact-an...>

> ...
>
> >    [0] - s/cratering/?/
>
> Common idiomatic expression for "forming a crater", i.e. falling into
> the ground at high velocity.

...and to close the loop, I'll point out that the name of the
geographical feature is presumably derived from the Greek bowl.

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 18, 11:50 am, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> > TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently
> > the decline has turned into a plunge.
>
> I suspect it has to do with the ever-increasing number of commercials
> and promos.  I remember when commercials took up six minutes of every
> hour.  Now it's more like four times that, with no end in sight.  Plus
> distracting junk that repeatedly intrudes into the bottom third of the
> screen during the program itself, constantly pulling watchers out of
> the experience.

For most people (not Keith) the ads aren't such a big deal, since DVRs
allow one to skip them.

> Also, a lot of stations fell off the "digital cliff."  Except for
> those willing to *pay* to watch commercial-filled TV shows.  I'm not
> surprised that people don't want to pay to watch worse content than
> they used to be able to get for free.

The digital conversion is only an issue for a small fraction of the 9%
of households with OTA only TV. In other words, its too small a factor
to matter.

> > \223American Idol\224 is losing nearly 25% of its audience in
> > a year.  Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old
> > staples like \223Survivor\224 and \223Dancing with Stars\224 are
> > in free fall.
>
> Interesting that they only mention so-called reality shows.  Those
> were a novelty, worth watching once, but what people mostly want to
> watch are shows that tell a story.  If competent script writers have
> priced themselves out of the market, they deserve their fate on the
> scrap heap of history.

On this, at least, I heartedly agree. Netflix, HBO, etc are producing
new content superior to any seen on the major OTA networks.

pt

[David Friedman]

In article
<a79fb6cb-ca1b-4c4f...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 18, 12:58 am, Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> > [[
> > TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
> > decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
> > the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest

> > drop ever. łAmerican Idol˛ is losing nearly 25% of its audience in a

> > year. Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old staples like

> > łSurvivor˛ and łDancing with Stars˛ are in free fall.

> >
> > Everyone has long known that the broadcast dinosaurs are in trouble but
> > it is only now becoming clear just how rapidly they are losing their
> > grip on consumers in the United States. This coincides with rapid growth
> > of time spent on mobile apps: American iPhone owners now waste two hours
> > per day on apps and annualized growth of daily engagement still tops
> > 30%. But it also opens up completely new vistas for Netflix, Amazon,
> > Google and Apple when it comes to video distribution.
> > ]]
> >
> > <http://bgr.com/2013/05/17/google-fiber-broadcast-television-impact-an...>
>
> I find it curious that the author regards time spent interactively
> using a smartphone as 'wasted', while time spent sitting passively
> watching 'Dancing with the Stars', is not.

I don't think you can tell, at least from the quoted passage, whether
the author regards watching TV as wasted or not.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Kevrob]

Then their are those who receive their TV signal via home-based
antennae aimed at a satellite, in other words, by dish.

Kevin

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <ylfkhai0...@dd-b.net>,
dd...@dd-b.net "David Dyer-Bennet" evidently overlooked:

> "ppint. at pplay") writes:
>> phi...@aleytys.pc.my "Philip Chee" observed:
>>>
>>>[[TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
>>>decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
>>>the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest
>>>drop ever. [..]

>...
>> [0] - s/cratering/?/
[replacing relevant text cut by d-db:]

>> (crater, from gr kratehr [it's a "long e"] = a dish, a shallow
>> bowl, hence a dish- or shallow bowl-shaped geographical feature
>> most often created by impact: so "cratering" is presumably not
>> the looked-for word.)(the original kratehr was i think most used
>> for drinking wine from.)(or watered wine.)

>

>Common idiomatic expression for "forming a crater", i.e. falling into
>the ground at high velocity.

- and the multiple, massive(?), bowl-shaped areas created by
falling tv audiences may be observed in which merkin cities?

- love, a ppint. as'd've thought so many plummetting people
in cities all over merkia'd've made the world news...

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--

"Kryten! Unpack Rachel, and break out the Puncture-Repair Kit!"
- Arnold "Bonehead" Rimmer, Red Dwarf - "Grant Naylor"

[Keith F. Lynch]

ppint. at pplay <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> - and the multiple, massive(?), bowl-shaped areas created by falling
> tv audiences may be observed in which merkin cities?

The metaphorical craters can be observed in every American city.

[Ben Yalow]

In <6j3naq....@news.alt.net> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> writes:

>[[
>TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
>decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
>the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest

>drop ever. ?American Idol? is losing nearly 25% of its audience in a

>year. Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old staples like

>?Survivor? and ?Dancing with Stars? are in free fall.

>Everyone has long known that the broadcast dinosaurs are in trouble but
>it is only now becoming clear just how rapidly they are losing their
>grip on consumers in the United States. This coincides with rapid growth
>of time spent on mobile apps: American iPhone owners now waste two hours
>per day on apps and annualized growth of daily engagement still tops
>30%. But it also opens up completely new vistas for Netflix, Amazon,
>Google and Apple when it comes to video distribution.
>]]

Also note that the cable channels are doing an increasing amount of
original programming, which takes away from the broadcast networks.

Cable shows like Sopranos in the past, or Game of Thrones (to pick a
current cable show) are as much a part of the current culture as most
broadcast shows.

><http://bgr.com/2013/05/17/google-fiber-broadcast-television-impact-analysis/>

>Phil

Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody

[Jette Goldie]

On 18/05/2013 23:13, Ben Yalow wrote:
> In <6j3naq....@news.alt.net> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> writes:
>
>> [[
>> TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
>> decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
>> the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest
>> drop ever. ?American Idol? is losing nearly 25% of its audience in a
>> year. Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old staples like
>> ?Survivor? and ?Dancing with Stars? are in free fall.
>
>> Everyone has long known that the broadcast dinosaurs are in trouble but
>> it is only now becoming clear just how rapidly they are losing their
>> grip on consumers in the United States. This coincides with rapid growth
>> of time spent on mobile apps: American iPhone owners now waste two hours
>> per day on apps and annualized growth of daily engagement still tops
>> 30%. But it also opens up completely new vistas for Netflix, Amazon,
>> Google and Apple when it comes to video distribution.
>> ]]
>
> Also note that the cable channels are doing an increasing amount of
> original programming, which takes away from the broadcast networks.
>
> Cable shows like Sopranos in the past, or Game of Thrones (to pick a
> current cable show) are as much a part of the current culture as most
> broadcast shows.
>

Eventually those made-for-cable-original shows filter down to the
broadcast stations.

--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com

Living in the Future!

[Ben Yalow]

Some do, in some countries -- but it often takes years. The DVDs go on
sale much earlier, of course.

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <kn8voq$ve3$1...@dont-email.me>,

More to the point, they filter down to optical disks.

[Richard Todd]

Some do make it to broadcast, some don't, and some probably can't. Game of
Thrones, for instance, is one that hell would freeze over before it ever
aired on broadcast television.

[Jette Goldie]

huh, looks like BBC fare to me. Post watershed, of course.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") writes:

> - hi; in article, <ylfkhai0...@dd-b.net>,
> dd...@dd-b.net "David Dyer-Bennet" evidently overlooked:
>> "ppint. at pplay") writes:
>>> phi...@aleytys.pc.my "Philip Chee" observed:
>>>>
>>>>[[TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
>>>>decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
>>>>the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest
>>>>drop ever. [..]
>>...
>>> [0] - s/cratering/?/
> [replacing relevant text cut by d-db:]
>
>>> (crater, from gr kratehr [it's a "long e"] = a dish, a shallow
>>> bowl, hence a dish- or shallow bowl-shaped geographical feature
>>> most often created by impact: so "cratering" is presumably not
>>> the looked-for word.)(the original kratehr was i think most used
>>> for drinking wine from.)(or watered wine.)
>
>>
>>Common idiomatic expression for "forming a crater", i.e. falling into
>>the ground at high velocity.
>
> - and the multiple, massive(?), bowl-shaped areas created by
> falling tv audiences may be observed in which merkin cities?

This is a metaphorical usage, certainly. But it's a very common one;
nobody talked about the fertilizer factory in Texas "cratering" that I
saw, though it actually *did*.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>> TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently
>> the decline has turned into a plunge.
>
> I suspect it has to do with the ever-increasing number of commercials
> and promos. I remember when commercials took up six minutes of every
> hour. Now it's more like four times that, with no end in sight. Plus
> distracting junk that repeatedly intrudes into the bottom third of the
> screen during the program itself, constantly pulling watchers out of
> the experience.

An hour long episode of the series we watch, including Criminal Minds,
CSI, Elementary, and Castle, take about 45 minutes to watch via DVR,
fast-skipping over the commercials. We have nothing like 24 minutes of
commercials per hour in these shows.

I also hate the distracting junk, though. Big win for Netflix!

> Also, a lot of stations fell off the "digital cliff." Except for
> those willing to *pay* to watch commercial-filled TV shows. I'm not
> surprised that people don't want to pay to watch worse content than
> they used to be able to get for free.

The question is, how many people lost access to stations in the digital
transition? In my case, I believe we gained hugely (single stations
replaced by multiple channels). But, we never watched over-the-air TV
before and we don't now, never had an antenna for either kind.

>> \223American Idol\224 is losing nearly 25% of its audience in
>> a year. Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old
>> staples like \223Survivor\224 and \223Dancing with Stars\224 are
>> in free fall.
>
> Interesting that they only mention so-called reality shows. Those
> were a novelty, worth watching once, but what people mostly want to
> watch are shows that tell a story. If competent script writers have
> priced themselves out of the market, they deserve their fate on the
> scrap heap of history.

Given the overall budget for a show, halving or doubling the payment to
the writer is nearly invisible in the bottom line; they're a tiny part
of the total.

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 19, 2:35 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> > Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> >> TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently
> >> the decline has turned into a plunge.
>
> > I suspect it has to do with the ever-increasing number of commercials
> > and promos.  I remember when commercials took up six minutes of every
> > hour.  Now it's more like four times that, with no end in sight.  Plus
> > distracting junk that repeatedly intrudes into the bottom third of the
> > screen during the program itself, constantly pulling watchers out of
> > the experience.
>
> An hour long episode of the series we watch, including Criminal Minds,
> CSI, Elementary, and Castle, take about 45 minutes to watch via DVR,
> fast-skipping over the commercials.  We have nothing like 24 minutes of
> commercials per hour in these shows.

I've done a good deal of editiing of broadcast tv, and I can say with
certainty that the non-advertising material amounts to about 43
minutes per hour.

> I also hate the distracting junk, though.  Big win for Netflix!

yes.

> > Also, a lot of stations fell off the "digital cliff."  Except for
> > those willing to *pay* to watch commercial-filled TV shows.  I'm not
> > surprised that people don't want to pay to watch worse content than
> > they used to be able to get for free.

> The question is, how many people lost access to stations in the digital
> transition?  In my case, I believe we gained hugely (single stations
> replaced by multiple channels).  But, we never watched over-the-air TV
> before and we don't now, never had an antenna for either kind.

If every single household that used OTA TV was 100% cut off, only 9%
of US households would be affected. As only a small fraction of such
households had problems with the digital conversion, its safe to say
that the number is lost in the weeds. Not everyone is Just Like Keith.

> >> American Idol is losing nearly 25% of its audience in

> >> a year.  Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old

> >> staples like Survivor and Dancing with Stars are

> >> in free fall.
>
> > Interesting that they only mention so-called reality shows.  Those
> > were a novelty, worth watching once, but what people mostly want to
> > watch are shows that tell a story.  If competent script writers have
> > priced themselves out of the market, they deserve their fate on the
> > scrap heap of history.
>
> Given the overall budget for a show, halving or doubling the payment to
> the writer is nearly invisible in the bottom line; they're a tiny part
> of the total.

Keith is apparently unaware of the renaissance of TV currently
underway; it's all on media he has decided to ignore. Its the opinion
of many that we are now in a second Golden Age of American television.

pt

[Lowell Gilbert]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:

> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>
>> I suspect it has to do with the ever-increasing number of commercials
>> and promos. I remember when commercials took up six minutes of every
>> hour. Now it's more like four times that, with no end in sight. Plus
>> distracting junk that repeatedly intrudes into the bottom third of the
>> screen during the program itself, constantly pulling watchers out of
>> the experience.
>
> An hour long episode of the series we watch, including Criminal Minds,
> CSI, Elementary, and Castle, take about 45 minutes to watch via DVR,
> fast-skipping over the commercials. We have nothing like 24 minutes of
> commercials per hour in these shows.

For prime-time network shows, at least, advertising consumes a maximum
of 18 minutes for an hour show, and 8 minutes for a half-hour show.

On the other hand, there are hour-long (or other lengths, I'm sure)
commercials where the whole channel timeslot has been purchased. In
between, though, I don't run into anything that corresponds to 24
minutes of commercials in an hour. Admittedly, I don't really watch
commercials in general, but like DD-B, I find that hour shows take at
least 45 minutes to watch while speeding through commercial breaks.

> Given the overall budget for a show, halving or doubling the payment to
> the writer is nearly invisible in the bottom line; they're a tiny part
> of the total.

Sure, but different kinds of "non-scripted" shows vary a lot on
this. Game shows aren't scripted, but they depend on a substantial
writing staff to produce the questions for the show. Given the variance
in production costs, they may well expend a larger fraction of their
budgets on writers than do shows that need actual scripts. And yet
there's no subterfuge involved: it's not the same thing as claiming that
"Jersey Shore" is plotted out ahead of time.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
> For prime-time network shows, at least, advertising consumes a
> maximum of 18 minutes for an hour show, and 8 minutes for a
> half-hour show.

Why isn't the former exactly twice the latter?

Does that include both network and local ads? And promos? And, on
so-called non-commercial stations, does it include the time they spend
begging for donations, the time they spend saying what company's grant
made the show possible (including mentioning what the firm does and
where their stores are), and the time they spend boasting that they
have no ads?

> Game shows aren't scripted, but they depend on a substantial writing
> staff to produce the questions for the show.

I'd think that expense would be dwarfed by the expense of the prizes.
I could single-handedly write all the question/answer pairs for
Jeopardy, and I wouldn't charge much. (Well, okay, I couldn't do
sports or celebrity gossip. Maybe I could be one of two writers.)

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <knb1a8$ul4$2...@dont-email.me>,
jgold...@btinternet.com "Jette Goldie" commented:

> Richard Todd wrote:
>>Some do make it to broadcast, some don't, and some probably can't. Game of
>>Thrones, for instance, is one that hell would freeze over before it ever
>>aired on broadcast television.
>
>huh, looks like BBC fare to me. Post watershed, of course.

- haven't seen it yet, so i can't judge it; but did the bbc
dramatisation of robert graves' _I, Claudius_ (& _Claudius
the God, and his wife, Messalina_) then not reach merkin tv?

- love, ppint.

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--

"for those of you who don't know me, i have 2 husbands...
they are like kittens ...they play together and keep each other company,
but it adds to the general clutter"
- kitten on alt.pub.coffeehouse.amethyst, 3/11/98 (11/3/98 for merkins)

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Given the overall budget for a show, halving or doubling the payment
> to the writer is nearly invisible in the bottom line; they're a tiny
> part of the total.

Where does most of the money go? To pay the actors? Special effects?
Wherever it goes, why is it no longer practical to produce shows worth
watching that are entirely paid for by six minutes of commercials per
hour -- no hundred-dollar-a-month cable fees, no ads taking over the
bottom third of the screen during the show, etc.?

[Ben Yalow]

And not a chance of it ever being shown on broadcast in the US.

[rksh...@rosettacondot.com]

ppint. at pplay <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> - hi; in article, <ylfkhai0...@dd-b.net>,
> dd...@dd-b.net "David Dyer-Bennet" evidently overlooked:
>> "ppint. at pplay") writes:
>>> phi...@aleytys.pc.my "Philip Chee" observed:
>>>>
>>>>[[TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
>>>>decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
>>>>the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest
>>>>drop ever. [..]
>>...
>>> [0] - s/cratering/?/
> [replacing relevant text cut by d-db:]
>
>>> (crater, from gr kratehr [it's a "long e"] = a dish, a shallow
>>> bowl, hence a dish- or shallow bowl-shaped geographical feature
>>> most often created by impact: so "cratering" is presumably not
>>> the looked-for word.)(the original kratehr was i think most used
>>> for drinking wine from.)(or watered wine.)
>
>>
>>Common idiomatic expression for "forming a crater", i.e. falling into
>>the ground at high velocity.
>
> - and the multiple, massive(?), bowl-shaped areas created by
> falling tv audiences may be observed in which merkin cities?

My presumption has always been that it's derived from the image of
something falling so fast that it will form a crater when it hits.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> writes:

> On May 19, 2:35 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>
>> > Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>> >> TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently
>> >> the decline has turned into a plunge.
>>
>> > I suspect it has to do with the ever-increasing number of commercials
>> > and promos.  I remember when commercials took up six minutes of every
>> > hour.  Now it's more like four times that, with no end in sight.  Plus
>> > distracting junk that repeatedly intrudes into the bottom third of the
>> > screen during the program itself, constantly pulling watchers out of
>> > the experience.
>>
>> An hour long episode of the series we watch, including Criminal Minds,
>> CSI, Elementary, and Castle, take about 45 minutes to watch via DVR,
>> fast-skipping over the commercials.  We have nothing like 24 minutes of
>> commercials per hour in these shows.
>
> I've done a good deal of editiing of broadcast tv, and I can say with
> certainty that the non-advertising material amounts to about 43
> minutes per hour.

That matches my experience with Netflix versions of shows, and is
entirely compatible with my observation of DVR times (where our manually
fast-forwarding commercials takes some time and is somewhat variable).

This is entirely possible; certainly we're watching multiple shows, and
there are others just under the threshold that we might watch if extra
time magically appeared in the day.

[Jay E. Morris]

On 5/19/2013 4:20 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
>> For prime-time network shows, at least, advertising consumes a
>> maximum of 18 minutes for an hour show, and 8 minutes for a
>> half-hour show.
>
> Why isn't the former exactly twice the latter?
>
> Does that include both network and local ads? And promos? And, on
> so-called non-commercial stations, does it include the time they spend
> begging for donations, the time they spend saying what company's grant
> made the show possible (including mentioning what the firm does and
> where their stores are), and the time they spend boasting that they
> have no ads?
>

Damn, I knew I forgot something. Last time you mentioned this about
public radio I did a little tracking for a few days. Five-six minutes
per hour, total. But of course, that's for my local NPR-affiliate
station and may not be the same for yours as San Antonio is not the
standard for the US.

[Ben Yalow]

In <ylfkbo86...@dd-b.net> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:

>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

>> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>>> TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently
>>> the decline has turned into a plunge.
>>
>> I suspect it has to do with the ever-increasing number of commercials
>> and promos. I remember when commercials took up six minutes of every
>> hour. Now it's more like four times that, with no end in sight. Plus
>> distracting junk that repeatedly intrudes into the bottom third of the
>> screen during the program itself, constantly pulling watchers out of
>> the experience.

>An hour long episode of the series we watch, including Criminal Minds,
>CSI, Elementary, and Castle, take about 45 minutes to watch via DVR,
>fast-skipping over the commercials. We have nothing like 24 minutes of
>commercials per hour in these shows.

Since I still had the season finale of Castle, I could check -- 43:29,
including the credits.

So Keith's approximately 24 minutes is clearly wrong.

And, to pick a point many decades ago, I checked some old Star Trek
(original, so we're looking at almost five decades ago -- 50:25.

So, in five decades, rather than going from 6 minutes to 24, it really
went from about 9-1/2 to 16-1/2. In short, about a 70% increase, not a
factor of four.

>I also hate the distracting junk, though. Big win for Netflix!

>> Also, a lot of stations fell off the "digital cliff." Except for
>> those willing to *pay* to watch commercial-filled TV shows. I'm not
>> surprised that people don't want to pay to watch worse content than
>> they used to be able to get for free.

>The question is, how many people lost access to stations in the digital
>transition? In my case, I believe we gained hugely (single stations
>replaced by multiple channels). But, we never watched over-the-air TV
>before and we don't now, never had an antenna for either kind.

Most of the people I know who are in the 9% who don't have cable, or some
other such system, have gotten a lot more channels, and are quite happy
with them.

>>> \223American Idol\224 is losing nearly 25% of its audience in
>>> a year. Most of the big new shows have been disasters and old
>>> staples like \223Survivor\224 and \223Dancing with Stars\224 are
>>> in free fall.
>>
>> Interesting that they only mention so-called reality shows. Those
>> were a novelty, worth watching once, but what people mostly want to
>> watch are shows that tell a story. If competent script writers have
>> priced themselves out of the market, they deserve their fate on the
>> scrap heap of history.

>Given the overall budget for a show, halving or doubling the payment to
>the writer is nearly invisible in the bottom line; they're a tiny part
>of the total.

I hadn't realized anybody still thought that the writer budget was
anything other than a tiny fractin of the cost of a TV show.

Reality TV has the huge advantage of lesser sets, production costs, etc.
And the huge disadvantage of not making the money off syndication that you
can with a scripted show.

American Idol has spent most of its life as the most watched weekly show
on TV. American Idol doesn't get seen much in reruns.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
>> For prime-time network shows, at least, advertising consumes a
>> maximum of 18 minutes for an hour show, and 8 minutes for a
>> half-hour show.
>
> Why isn't the former exactly twice the latter?

Yeah, I wondered that too. I'm presuming Lowell is giving legal limits
for those categories; if so, then the answer is that Congress or the
regulatory agency decided that. Why...you'd have to ask all the people
who had input in the decision, I guess.

One guess that comes to mind is that, because of titles and credits and
stuff, there's less than half the time for actual show in a half hour
slot than their is in a one-hour slot, and they decided to someaht
equalize things. Another different guess is that they decided to create
an incentive for one-hour shows.

> Does that include both network and local ads? And promos? And, on
> so-called non-commercial stations, does it include the time they spend
> begging for donations, the time they spend saying what company's grant
> made the show possible (including mentioning what the firm does and
> where their stores are), and the time they spend boasting that they
> have no ads?

My observed times include everything that isn't the show. I don't know
about Lowell's numbers. Clearly public radio can vastly up the amount
of non-show material during pledge week, at least; that wouldn't be
legal in general. I don't know what the overall numbers are like (I
don't listen to recorded public radio shows where I see time-stamps on
what's going past me).

>> Game shows aren't scripted, but they depend on a substantial writing
>> staff to produce the questions for the show.
>
> I'd think that expense would be dwarfed by the expense of the prizes.
> I could single-handedly write all the question/answer pairs for
> Jeopardy, and I wouldn't charge much. (Well, okay, I couldn't do
> sports or celebrity gossip. Maybe I could be one of two writers.)

I'm pretty sure they don't feel they can easily find people who will do
the job for little money, though. Maybe they're wrong, or maybe their
requirements are harder to meet than you think. (I don't watch Jeopardy
myself. I, also, would not be much use for pop-culture topics.)

[Ben Yalow]

In <a915eef8-1342-40a1...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> writes:

>On May 19, 2:35=A0pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

<snip>

>>
>> > Interesting that they only mention so-called reality shows. =A0Those

>> > were a novelty, worth watching once, but what people mostly want to

>> > watch are shows that tell a story. =A0If competent script writers have

>> > priced themselves out of the market, they deserve their fate on the
>> > scrap heap of history.
>>
>> Given the overall budget for a show, halving or doubling the payment to
>> the writer is nearly invisible in the bottom line; they're a tiny part
>> of the total.

>Keith is apparently unaware of the renaissance of TV currently
>underway; it's all on media he has decided to ignore. Its the opinion
>of many that we are now in a second Golden Age of American television.

My personal feeling is that the best scripted show originally on US
television is Burn Notice, and has been for years. It's on USA, which
Keith doesn't see.

(The qualifier was so I don't need to decide about where I'd rank BBC
shows, which means I don't need to think about the places that most of my
recent BDP-Short Hugo nominations have come from.)

>pt

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Given the overall budget for a show, halving or doubling the payment
>> to the writer is nearly invisible in the bottom line; they're a tiny
>> part of the total.
>
> Where does most of the money go? To pay the actors? Special effects?
> Wherever it goes, why is it no longer practical to produce shows worth
> watching that are entirely paid for by six minutes of commercials per
> hour -- no hundred-dollar-a-month cable fees, no ads taking over the
> bottom third of the screen during the show, etc.?

I haven't done this professionally; but there are going to be dozens of
people working all day on the set, only a very few of which actually
appear in the final footage. And there will be more dozens of people
working for weeks ahead of that day, getting everything ready for it.
And they use very expensive equipment, which has maintenance costs and a
working life. And then there are a lot of people doing a lot of work in
post-production for weeks afterwards, including any special effects,
editing, sound effects, credits, captioning, and whatever. (Special
effects are rare on TV, they're not a big component of many shows. Star
Trek TOS was a trail-blazer there.)

I don't know current professional TV numbers, but very vaguely I'm
claiming it costs many thousands of dollars per final minute. I can
find unsourced claims online that network-level TV shows (drama, not
simpler cases) cost high tens of thousands of dollars per minute.

One reason reality shows are so popular with the networks is that they
cost only 10% of that to produce. Clearly they can be considerably less
popular and still be more profitable -- and the most popular of them are
exceedingly popular (for reasons I don't understand personally, but the
networks are businesses, it makes sense they keep making them if people
keep watching them). I suspect game shows are even cheaper than that.

Okay, so if a half hour game show costs $120k to produce...mostly I
think the prizes aren't that big a chunk of the cost. Especially since
some of the merchandise prizes were probably not purchased at normal
retail price, but are there partly as a product placement by the
manufacturer.

[Jay E. Morris]

On 5/19/2013 4:34 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Given the overall budget for a show, halving or doubling the payment
>> to the writer is nearly invisible in the bottom line; they're a tiny
>> part of the total.
>
> Where does most of the money go? To pay the actors? Special effects?
> Wherever it goes, why is it no longer practical to produce shows worth
> watching that are entirely paid for by six minutes of commercials per
> hour -- no hundred-dollar-a-month cable fees, no ads taking over the
> bottom third of the screen during the show, etc.?
>

The following was from 2007, and it's per episode.

Ray Romano Everybody Loves Raymond $1.8 million
William Petersen CSI: Crime Scene Investigation $600,000 Mariska
Hargitay Law & Order: Special Victims Unit $500,000
Simon Baker The Mentalist $425,000
Chris Meloni Law & Order: Special Victims Unit $350,000
Zach Braff Scrubs John "J.D." Dorian $350,000 Hugh Laurie House
Gregory House $700,000
Julia Louis-Dreyfus The New Adventures of Old Christine $225,000
Ellen Pompeo Grey's Anatomy $200,000
Eva Longoria Desperate Housewives $200,000

The cast and crew list for one episode of _The Mentalist_ shows about a
hundred people. Then there equipment rentals, locations rentals, and
all the stuff any business needs.

[Ben Yalow]

Prizes are quite trivial -- many thousands of dollars per show, in
general.

Writing questions is really hard. Tooo easy, and it becomes a test of
reflexes. Too hard, and you get a lot of cases of nobody ringing in and
getting it right. Either one is boring.

[rksh...@rosettacondot.com]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Given the overall budget for a show, halving or doubling the payment
>> to the writer is nearly invisible in the bottom line; they're a tiny
>> part of the total.
>
> Where does most of the money go? To pay the actors? Special effects?
> Wherever it goes, why is it no longer practical to produce shows worth
> watching that are entirely paid for by six minutes of commercials per
> hour -- no hundred-dollar-a-month cable fees, no ads taking over the
> bottom third of the screen during the show, etc.?

To simplify, you've got the "cost" side of the equation...what the
network has to pay for the show, covering all of the writers, producers,
directors, performers, technicians, soundstage, equipment, travel,
royalties, profit for the production company, etc., along with some portion
of running the network itself and the affiliate stations.
You've got the "income" side of the equation...where the network makes its
money. This is primarily direct advertising and payments from cable/satellite
providers for rebroadcast rights.
The income side of the equation has to be sufficiently above the cost side
of the equation for the network to be worth continuing as a business.
Cable adds another layer of complexity, since it has both direct delivery
costs and content costs.
You seem to treat "television" as a monolithic entity. You're doing the
equivalent of assuming that because you buy a box of cereal at the store
then the store must own farms to raise the grain and is making a huge
amount of money. That's not the way it works.
The show ("the content") is produced by someone ("the production company")
who convinces someone else ("the network") to buy it. The network sells
advertising on the show to help pay for it and the effort of distributing
it. They also charge others ("the cable company") for the right to
rebroadcast the content. The cable company passes along their cost for
the content along with some of the coast of delivering it to the
subscriber. And yes, I'm aware that it's a heck of a lot more
complicated than that, with a lot more things to consider.
If you waved the great regulatory wand and said "six minutes per hour,
tops", you're roughly cutting the amount of time by 2/3. I'm sure
someone has already done an analysis of what that would do, but it's
going to be some combination of (a) less money available per show,
reducing the production values and the attraction of televion production
in general, (b) increased advertising costs, resulting in increased
product cost at the store, and (c) increased cable/satellite cost.
(a) would likely cost them viewership as more people move toward premium
channels. Broadcast TV is already struggling. As a personal example, we
probably have one or more TVs turned on for an average of 4-5 hours per
day, but we don't watch OTA TV at all and haven't watched a "broadcast"
channel for more than 4-5 hours per YEAR in the last 20 years.

[David Harmon]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:50:01 -0400 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Lowell
Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote,

>For prime-time network shows, at least, advertising consumes a maximum
>of 18 minutes for an hour show, and 8 minutes for a half-hour show.
>
>On the other hand, there are hour-long (or other lengths, I'm sure)
>commercials where the whole channel timeslot has been purchased.

Presumably, nobody watches those.

[David Harmon]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:22:23 -0700 (PDT) in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote,
>I find it curious that the author regards time spent interactively
>using a smartphone as 'wasted', while time spent sitting passively
>watching 'Dancing with the Stars', is not.

He never said that. He said time spent on the smartphone is wasted,
but presumably 'Dancing with the Stars' goes the same category.
without saying

[Ben Yalow]

In <knbghj$q4g$5...@reader1.panix.com> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Given the overall budget for a show, halving or doubling the payment
>> to the writer is nearly invisible in the bottom line; they're a tiny
>> part of the total.

>Where does most of the money go? To pay the actors? Special effects?
>Wherever it goes, why is it no longer practical to produce shows worth
>watching that are entirely paid for by six minutes of commercials per
>hour -- no hundred-dollar-a-month cable fees, no ads taking over the
>bottom third of the screen during the show, etc.?

The WGA minimum for a staff writer was about $4000/week, with non-staff
writers getting a few tens of thousands per episode above that (staff
writers don't get the script fee; it's part of their weekly salary).

Lead actors in really successful shows get a few hundred thousand per
episode (during the last season of Friends, each of the 6 lead actors got
a million dollars/episode -- but Friends was a really successful show).

I won't say writers' costs are totally negligible -- but, compared to
actors, they pretty much are.

[David Friedman]

In article <knbl4e$arm$1...@dont-email.me>,

I did a very bit part in a low budget movie not long ago, and it was
quite interesting--in part just how many people were involved in doing
it.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> I did a very bit part in a low budget movie not long ago, ...

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2628308/

[Keith F. Lynch]

Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
> The WGA minimum for a staff writer was about $4000/week, ...

Why don't they use non-union staff writers?

> Lead actors in really successful shows get a few hundred thousand

> per episode ...

I know that not everyone can be a good actor. But surely at least one
percent of the population can, and of those, many are willing to work
for far less. I for one would actually prefer to see more different
faces. It's distracting when I recognize a familiar face in a new
movie; it takes me out of the story.

ObFantasy: When I saw Kyle Chandler in _Argo_, I couldn't help but
wonder why he didn't just look at tomorrow's newspaper to see whether
the plan would work. :-)

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 19, 5:20 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> Lowell Gilbert <lguse...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
> > For prime-time network shows, at least, advertising consumes a
> > maximum of 18 minutes for an hour show, and 8 minutes for a
> > half-hour show.
>
> Why isn't the former exactly twice the latter?
>
> Does that include both network and local ads?  And promos?  And, on
> so-called non-commercial stations, does it include the time they spend
> begging for donations, the time they spend saying what company's grant
> made the show possible (including mentioning what the firm does and
> where their stores are), and the time they spend boasting that they
> have no ads?
>
> > Game shows aren't scripted, but they depend on a substantial writing
> > staff to produce the questions for the show.
>
> I'd think that expense would be dwarfed by the expense of the prizes.
> I could single-handedly write all the question/answer pairs for
> Jeopardy, and I wouldn't charge much.  (Well, okay, I couldn't do
> sports or celebrity gossip.  Maybe I could be one of two writers.)

My father worked in advertising, and had a lot of contact with tv
shows. The cost of the prizes in game shows is almost lost in the
noise. Major costs are the salaries for the principals (Regis Philbin
was getting 18-20M/year.

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 19, 5:03 pm, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
wrote:
>          - hi; in article, <knb1a8$ul...@dont-email.me>,
>         jgoldie...@btinternet.com "Jette Goldie" commented:

>
> >                   Richard Todd wrote:
> >>Some do make it to broadcast, some don't, and some probably can't.  Game of
> >>Thrones, for instance, is one that hell would freeze over before it ever
> >>aired on broadcast television.
>
> >huh, looks like BBC fare to me.  Post watershed, of course.
>
>         - haven't seen it yet, so i can't judge it; but did the bbc
>         dramatisation of robert graves' _I, Claudius_ (& _Claudius
>         the God, and his wife, Messalina_) then not reach merkin tv?

It did, a long time ago, but PBS has got more timid since then.

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 19, 10:55 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
> > The WGA minimum for a staff writer was about $4000/week, ...
>
> Why don't they use non-union staff writers?

1. Because 4k/week is cheap for quality work.
2. If they hired scabs in one area, no one in the other unions would
work on the show.

> > Lead actors in really successful shows get a few hundred thousand
> > per episode ...
>
> I know that not everyone can be a good actor.  But surely at least one
> percent of the population can, and of those, many are willing to work
> for far less.  I for one would actually prefer to see more different
> faces.  It's distracting when I recognize a familiar face in a new
> movie; it takes me out of the story.

This is yet another place where Keith's 'But surely...', 'why don't
they', and 'I would assume that...' run up against actual facts, and
fail badly.

pt

[rksh...@rosettacondot.com]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:

> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> The WGA minimum for a staff writer was about $4000/week, ...
>
> Why don't they use non-union staff writers?
>
>> Lead actors in really successful shows get a few hundred thousand
>> per episode ...
>
> I know that not everyone can be a good actor. But surely at least one
> percent of the population can, and of those, many are willing to work
> for far less. I for one would actually prefer to see more different
> faces. It's distracting when I recognize a familiar face in a new
> movie; it takes me out of the story.

I think you're very much an outlier in this, given the number of times
I've heard comments along the lines of "I've got to see that, it's got
so-and-so in it. I love him/her." Followed by general murmurs of approval
or, sometimes, names of other stars that they like.

[Jay E. Morris]

On 5/19/2013 9:50 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> I did a very bit part in a low budget movie not long ago, ...
>
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2628308/
> ?
>

You mistake the King for a mere Duke? Knave!

[Jay E. Morris]

On 5/19/2013 9:55 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> The WGA minimum for a staff writer was about $4000/week, ...
>
> Why don't they use non-union staff writers?

Because all the other union employees, including the actors, would walk
off the set.

>
>> Lead actors in really successful shows get a few hundred thousand
>> per episode ...
>
> I know that not everyone can be a good actor. But surely at least one
> percent of the population can, and of those, many are willing to work
> for far less. I for one would actually prefer to see more different
> faces. It's distracting when I recognize a familiar face in a new
> movie; it takes me out of the story.
>
> ObFantasy: When I saw Kyle Chandler in _Argo_, I couldn't help but
> wonder why he didn't just look at tomorrow's newspaper to see whether
> the plan would work. :-)
>

Because a new show staring Joe Famousguy is more likely to get viewers
that a new show staring Joe Whohasneverbeenheardof.

[Keith F. Lynch]

<rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
> I think you're very much an outlier in this, given the number of
> times I've heard comments along the lines of "I've got to see that,
> it's got so-and-so in it. I love him/her." Followed by general
> murmurs of approval or, sometimes, names of other stars that they
> like.

Well, with some actors, knowing they are in it tells you exactly what
kind of movie it is. For instance I recently bought _Hostage_ because
it was in the discount bin. Knowing that Bruce Willis was in it, I
knew exactly what kind of movie it was, and I was right. He only ever
plays one character.

That may be the reason _Last Action Hero_ did poorly, though it
was (in my opinion) a good movie -- because it wasn't what people
excpected a Schwarzenegger movie to be. Ironically, a character
in it explicitly discusses typecasting.

[Ben Yalow]

In <knc3ab$a5a$4...@reader1.panix.com> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> The WGA minimum for a staff writer was about $4000/week, ...

>Why don't they use non-union staff writers?

Becuase other unions might not cross the picket lines.

>> Lead actors in really successful shows get a few hundred thousand
>> per episode ...

>I know that not everyone can be a good actor. But surely at least one
>percent of the population can, and of those, many are willing to work
>for far less. I for one would actually prefer to see more different
>faces. It's distracting when I recognize a familiar face in a new
>movie; it takes me out of the story.

Since the people who actually pay for this (you don't watch TV, so you
don't count) disagree with you, your opinion of the value of good acting
is pretty much irrelevant in the real world.

>ObFantasy: When I saw Kyle Chandler in _Argo_, I couldn't help but
>wonder why he didn't just look at tomorrow's newspaper to see whether
>the plan would work. :-)

[Keith F. Lynch]

Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:

It's true it doesn't quite accord with what he said. Unless 22 years
is "not long ago."

[Keith F. Lynch]

Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
> ... (you don't watch TV, so you don't count) ...

I don't watch TV *at home*. I watched the Simpsons season finale
earlier this evening, with my brother at his house.

[Jay E. Morris]

On 5/19/2013 10:36 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>>> I did a very bit part in a low budget movie not long ago, ...
>
>>> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2628308/
>>> ?
>
>> You mistake the King for a mere Duke? Knave!
>
> It's true it doesn't quite accord with what he said. Unless 22 years
> is "not long ago."
>

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5633347/

[David Friedman]

In article <knc31h$a5a$3...@reader1.panix.com>,

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > I did a very bit part in a low budget movie not long ago, ...
>
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2628308/
> ?

No.

Neil Schulman's Alongside Night movie.

[Jette Goldie]

On 20/05/2013 03:55, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> The WGA minimum for a staff writer was about $4000/week, ...
>
> Why don't they use non-union staff writers?
>
>> Lead actors in really successful shows get a few hundred thousand
>> per episode ...
>
> I know that not everyone can be a good actor. But surely at least one
> percent of the population can, and of those, many are willing to work
> for far less. I for one would actually prefer to see more different
> faces. It's distracting when I recognize a familiar face in a new
> movie; it takes me out of the story.
>

You are not most people.



--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com

Living in the Future!

[Jette Goldie]

On 19/05/2013 23:36, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
>

>> On May 19, 2:35 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>>

>>>> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>>>>> TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently
>>>>> the decline has turned into a plunge.
>>>
>>>> I suspect it has to do with the ever-increasing number of commercials
>>>> and promos. I remember when commercials took up six minutes of every
>>>> hour. Now it's more like four times that, with no end in sight. Plus
>>>> distracting junk that repeatedly intrudes into the bottom third of the
>>>> screen during the program itself, constantly pulling watchers out of
>>>> the experience.
>>>
>>> An hour long episode of the series we watch, including Criminal Minds,
>>> CSI, Elementary, and Castle, take about 45 minutes to watch via DVR,
>>> fast-skipping over the commercials. We have nothing like 24 minutes of
>>> commercials per hour in these shows.
>>
>> I've done a good deal of editiing of broadcast tv, and I can say with
>> certainty that the non-advertising material amounts to about 43
>> minutes per hour.
>
> That matches my experience with Netflix versions of shows, and is
> entirely compatible with my observation of DVR times (where our manually
> fast-forwarding commercials takes some time and is somewhat variable).
>


The US has more minutes of advertising per hour than the UK or the EU.
Can't remember about Canada, but I remember one show I used to follow
that was fimed in Canada and France and marketed to the US and the rest
of the world, the US "domestic edition" was about 4 minutes shorter -
they filmed the longer version and edited it accordingly. The fan group
mailing list used to share the "eurominutes" - transcript the missing
four minutes line by line and post the comparison.

(when the official sell through videos - and later DVDs - were released
they included the "eurominutes")

[Andy Leighton]

The EU limit is a maximum of 12 mins per hour of advertising.
The UK limit is a maximum of 7 mins per hour of advertising for ITV,
C4, S4C and Five. 9 mins per hor for other channels.

These are all averages. So some programs may have a bit more, as long
as others have correspondingly less time given over to ads.

There was a recent extension to 12 mins per hour in the UK for films
and single dramas (as a one year pilot). I have no idea how much the
broadcasters increased the adverts by, nor whether the pilot was
extended.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Andy Leighton]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 07:07:29 +0100, Jette Goldie <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 20/05/2013 03:55, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> The WGA minimum for a staff writer was about $4000/week, ...
>>
>> Why don't they use non-union staff writers?
>>
>>> Lead actors in really successful shows get a few hundred thousand
>>> per episode ...
>>
>> I know that not everyone can be a good actor. But surely at least one
>> percent of the population can, and of those, many are willing to work
>> for far less.
>

> You are not most people.

TBH there are cheaper actors - even if you don't go to the bargain-
basement of actors that Keith wants to. However certain actors
pull people in who might not otherwise watch. They can also breathe
some life in to a not so great script (although bad directors can kill
that).

[Paul Dormer]

In article <1KKdndDBhqZN9gTM...@earthlink.com>,

sou...@netcom.com (David Harmon) wrote:

>
> >On the other hand, there are hour-long (or other lengths, I'm sure)
> >commercials where the whole channel timeslot has been purchased.
>
> Presumably, nobody watches those.
>

I've wondered about that. For instance, the Syfy channel on satellite in
the UK doesn't start broadcasting till 11 a.m. If I switch to that
channel before then, I find it is showing one long commercial. Do people
actually watch that?

[Paul Dormer]

In article <slrnkpjnmt...@azaal.plus.com>, an...@azaal.plus.com

(Andy Leighton) wrote:

>
> The EU limit is a maximum of 12 mins per hour of advertising.
> The UK limit is a maximum of 7 mins per hour of advertising for ITV,
> C4, S4C and Five. 9 mins per hor for other channels.

Although I believe trailers for other shows on that channel don't count
as adverts. They still show a 43 minute programme in a one hour slot,
and pad the nine minutes out to 17 with trailers.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <knbje4$nt$1...@reader1.panix.com>, yb...@panix.com (Ben Yalow)
wrote:

>
> >huh, looks like BBC fare to me. Post watershed, of course.
>

> And not a chance of it ever being shown on broadcast in the US.

I recall that when the Olympics were held in Australia a few years ago,
there was an article in a US paper that got reprinted in the UK of
differences between Australia and America. One was that Sex and the City
got shown on regular broadcast TV in Australia.

The BBC showed The Wire uncut a few years back and the major complaint
was nothing to do with the nudity, sex and swearing, it was that you
couldn't understand the accents, and people were switching on the
subtitles for the deaf to try and follow what some characters were saying.

[Lowell Gilbert]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
>> For prime-time network shows, at least, advertising consumes a
>> maximum of 18 minutes for an hour show, and 8 minutes for a
>> half-hour show.
>
> Why isn't the former exactly twice the latter?

I don't know. I can guess that it might have to do with credit sequences
(i.e., half-hour show credits are just as long as those for hour shows),
but it's just a guess.

> Does that include both network and local ads? And promos? And, on
> so-called non-commercial stations, does it include the time they spend
> begging for donations, the time they spend saying what company's grant
> made the show possible (including mentioning what the firm does and
> where their stores are), and the time they spend boasting that they
> have no ads?

There's no law on this, so it's probably not consistent. The National
Association of Broadcasters (an organization of stations, not of
networks) has a standard of 10 minutes of commercial per half hour and
20 minutes per full hour, but I suspect there are few cases of following
that exactly.

The 18-minute standard I quoted is a common convention, not a rule or an
average. It's driven by the amount of program content sent out by the
network, so it would probably be more accurate to say it's a standard of
42 minutes of program per hour; some of the remaining time is filled
with commercials and promo spots by the network, but the time left for
the local stations may not all be commercials (some stations slip in a
weather forecast every hour, for example) although most of it will be.

Public television isn't distributed the same way as the commercial
networks (it's often not even sent out in real time), so it's another
whole story. I don't know how pledge breaks are scheduled in public
television, but in public radio's major news shows the structure of the
show stays the same. That is, particular blocks are set aside for
pre-emption; the network still provides programming for stations not
running pledge breaks, and some stations might shift the major blocks
(for the big news shows, those are the ones that -- I think -- start on
the hour, :22, and :42) but most do their fundraising during the
designated blocks. I also note in passing that while Public Radio pledge
breaks don't actually take more air time per hour than commercials on
other stations, they *seem* to do so.

>> Game shows aren't scripted, but they depend on a substantial writing
>> staff to produce the questions for the show.
>
> I'd think that expense would be dwarfed by the expense of the prizes.
> I could single-handedly write all the question/answer pairs for
> Jeopardy, and I wouldn't charge much. (Well, okay, I couldn't do
> sports or celebrity gossip. Maybe I could be one of two writers.)

I am (not for the first time) surprised that you are not wealthy beyond
dreams of avarice.

But on the other hand,, the prizes are trivial costs. Cash prizes don't
go beyond a few million per year tops, I don't think. And other prizes
(especially the large ones) are provided for promotional value; which
means that they are sort of like commercials themselves even though
they're part of the program content. But even just the value of the
prizes is smaller than the cost of producing the program. Technology has
reduced the size of the production staff, but there are still several
people involved, and there's backstage staff as well.

For some show (don't remember which one, sorry) in particular, I've read
that picking out a balance of questions takes more staff time than
writing questions. And they don't write a show at a time; they write
lots of questions, keep thousands of them on hand, and pick out sets by
topic, difficulty, and some kind of aesthetic qualities.

For somebody who doesn't wastch much television at all, I'm surprised
how much information I dredged out of the back of my skull for this
posting. But I'd better stop now or I'll be late for the first day at my
new job.

Be well.
--
Lowell Gilbert LGUsenet (et. al.) @Be-Well.Ilk.Org
http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/

[James Nicoll]

In article <knceto$a9a$1...@dont-email.me>,

From the CRTC site

Limits to advertising time

There are limits on the amount of time most broadcasters can air commercials.
They are:

Specialty services: 12 minutes per hour
Pay services (pay television and pay-per-view): don't carry advertising
Commercial AM and FM radio stations: no limits
TV stations: no limits
CBC radio networks: prohibited from carrying advertising except for
programs that are available to networks only on a sponsored basis

These time limits don't include: the promotion of Canadian programs, public
service announcements, political ads, product placements within a TV program
and virtual ads.

Advertising on community-based television and radio

There are also limits on the amount of time that community-based
television and radio services can air commercials:

Cable community channels: don't carry commercial advertising, but can
air sponsorships and contra advertising
Community-based, low power TV and digital services: 12 minutes of
local advertising per hour
Campus radio stations: 504 minutes per week; up to 4 minutes per hour
Community radio stations: no limits

It's my impression there used to be limits on TV stations but our current
government, hoping to make life worse for the average Canadian in every
possible way, changed the rules.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 20, 7:45 am, Lowell Gilbert <lguse...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:

> For somebody who doesn't wastch much television at all, I'm surprised
> how much information I dredged out of the back of my skull for this
> posting. But I'd better stop now or I'll be late for the first day at my
> new job.

Congrats!

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 19, 11:36 pm, Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:

> In <knc3ab$a5...@reader1.panix.com> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
> >Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> The WGA minimum for a staff writer was about $4000/week, ...
> >Why don't they use non-union staff writers?
>
> Becuase other unions might not cross the picket lines.

Instead of just guessing, Keith and others might want to look at the
effects of the 2007-2008 Writer's Guild of America strike (ObSF: SFWA
stood with them). A *lot* of shows went dark, and it led to a bump on
"unscripted" "reality" shows.

pt

[David Harmon]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:49:02 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Ben
Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote,
>My personal feeling is that the best scripted show originally on US
>television is Burn Notice, and has been for years. It's on USA, which
>Keith doesn't see.

Now running OTA. It's tolerable. I like the sarcastic guy.
The premise is absurd.

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <1KKdndDBhqZN9gTM...@earthlink.com>,
sou...@netcom.com "David Harmon" commented:
> Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote,

>>On the other hand, there are hour-long (or other lengths, I'm sure)
>>commercials where the whole channel timeslot has been purchased.
>
>Presumably, nobody watches those.

- ghu only knowses - though i've more than once watched
for ~half an hour in wonder at attempts to sell me "the
100 greatest country & western songs ever" when this came
in on an apparently eternally looped ad, after the end of
a programme i'd actually intended to catch. /confession

- oh - another was something like, "the 100 songs that
define your life" - many of which were very good, but
some of which were *dreadful*. /second confession.

- but then, so were many of "the 100 greatest country &
western songs ever".

- love, a ppint. as doesn't _usually_ indulge in watching
such dreadful musical fare - honest, guv!

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"I was a philistine and enjoyed it anyway."
- helen highwater, 2/96 (2/ /96 in merkia)

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <knblc3$f0t$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
yb...@panix.com "Ben Yalow" pointed out:

> Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

>> Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
>[]

>>> Game shows aren't scripted, but they depend on a substantial writing
>>> staff to produce the questions for the show.
>>I'd think that expense would be dwarfed by the expense of the prizes.
>>I could single-handedly write all the question/answer pairs for
>>Jeopardy, and I wouldn't charge much. (Well, okay, I couldn't do
>>sports or celebrity gossip. Maybe I could be one of two writers.)
>

>Prizes are quite trivial -- many thousands of dollars per show, in general.
>Writing questions is really hard. Tooo easy, and it becomes a test of
>reflexes. Too hard, and you get a lot of cases of nobody ringing in and
>getting it right. Either one is boring.

- i've set questions, many years ago now, for lancaster city
quiz league, then one of the largest pub & club-based quiz
leagues in the country. setting a balanced-difficulty quiz
of eight rounds of eight questions and two spares every two
weeks (alternating with another setter) on named subjects
(other setters had had a habit of setting up to half "pot-
luck", themeless rounds, which give quizzers no chance of
guessing from within the subject area, if they don't know
the answer for certain - objecting to which had landed me
with half the job :-) ) is easy.

easy, for the first four or five questions per subject.

easy, if you don't bother to attempt to balance the diff-
iculty of each pair of questions, asked alternately of each
team.

easy, if you don't try to allow for the fact that most
teams find it difficult fielding a full side every week,
especially if their weakest members find almost every
question difficult, so some must be trivially easy to get.

easy, if you don't _also_ bear in mind that the top six
to twelve teams can answer almost any question you care to
set, even in your own areas of specialist study (and the
top six, usually without having to pass for another to an-
swer, for lower score), so enough must be truly difficult,
to differentiate between the better and the very best.

- one season - setting the questions for _half_ the season's
quizzes - was tough; three seasons burned me out.


- good professional quiz question-setters have my respect,
and should be able to command a decent rate of pay; i trust
they get it.

- love, ppint.

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--

"the quiz-labourer is worthy of his, or her, hire."
(- my emendment mayn't be original)

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <knbjkk$ul4$1...@memoryalpha.rosettacon.com>,
rksh...@rosettacondot.com advised:
> ppint. at pplay wrote:
>> dd...@dd-b.net "David Dyer-Bennet" evidently overlooked:
>>> "ppint. at pplay") writes:
>>>> phi...@aleytys.pc.my "Philip Chee" observed:
>>>>>
>>>>>[[TV show audiences have been falling for a long time, but recently the
>>>>>decline has turned into a plunge. According to Goldman Sachs, ratings in
>>>>>the 18-49 year demo dropped by a hideous 17% last winter, the steepest
>>>>>drop ever. [..]
>>>...
>>>> [0] - s/cratering/?/
>> [replacing relevant text cut by d-db:]
>>
>>>> (crater, from gr kratehr [it's a "long e"] = a dish, a shallow
>>>> bowl, hence a dish- or shallow bowl-shaped geographical feature
>>>> most often created by impact: so "cratering" is presumably not
>>>> the looked-for word.)(the original kratehr was i think most used
>>>> for drinking wine from.)(or watered wine.)
>>>Common idiomatic expression for "forming a crater", i.e. falling into
>>>the ground at high velocity.
>> - and the multiple, massive(?), bowl-shaped areas created by
>> falling tv audiences may be observed in which merkin cities?
>
>My presumption has always been that it's derived from the image of
>something falling so fast that it will form a crater when it hits.

- "crateringly hard" would, i suppose <fx: dubiously>, not
having ever seen the adverb _either_, convey this: it isn't
the speed, but the force of the impact that is "cratering" -
elsewise, we'd all constantly be being cratered by _light!_

- love, a ppint. as has no objection to the neologism, but to
its appropriateness in the context, without a single crater

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--

"I fancied Donny Osmond at that age, but I wouldn't _marry_ him !"
- helen highwater, bristol 2.0
23:30 bst (22:30 gmt) 25/5/97 (5/25/97 for merkins)

[Ben Yalow]

In <knceto$a9a$1...@dont-email.me> Jette Goldie <jgold...@btinternet.com> writes:

<snip>

>The US has more minutes of advertising per hour than the UK or the EU.
>Can't remember about Canada, but I remember one show I used to follow
>that was fimed in Canada and France and marketed to the US and the rest
>of the world, the US "domestic edition" was about 4 minutes shorter -
>they filmed the longer version and edited it accordingly. The fan group
>mailing list used to share the "eurominutes" - transcript the missing
>four minutes line by line and post the comparison.

>(when the official sell through videos - and later DVDs - were released
>they included the "eurominutes")

Another thing to keep in mind is that US shows have different running
times in the US and the UK, even when the content is identical.

In the US, if it's shot on film, it's 24 frames/sec. If it's shot on
video, it's NTSC 29.97i or 59.94p. Converting 24 fps to (roughly) 30 is
pretty straightforward -- you just add the equivalent of one extra frame
in every four, by duplicating frame content. For example, in 3:2 pulldown
(which is pretty standard), looking at four frames A-B-C-D, you show A for
the normal time, then B for 1.5 times the normal time, then C for the
normal time, and D for 1.5 times the normal time. It's really easy to do,
and things run at normal speed.

But to convert to PAL (25 frames/sec), what normally happens is that you
just play is 4% faster.

So the running times are 4% off.

[rksh...@rosettacondot.com]

How do you feel about nuking food?

[David Dyer-Bennet]

p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) writes:

> The BBC showed The Wire uncut a few years back and the major complaint
> was nothing to do with the nudity, sex and swearing, it was that you
> couldn't understand the accents, and people were switching on the
> subtitles for the deaf to try and follow what some characters were saying.

We did that here, too.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Jette Goldie]

On 20/05/2013 01:16, David Harmon wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:50:01 -0400 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Lowell
> Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote,

>> For prime-time network shows, at least, advertising consumes a maximum
>> of 18 minutes for an hour show, and 8 minutes for a half-hour show.
>>

>> On the other hand, there are hour-long (or other lengths, I'm sure)
>> commercials where the whole channel timeslot has been purchased.
>
> Presumably, nobody watches those.
>
>

only in the middle of the night when you can't sleep and they are the
only thing on!

[Alan Woodford]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:06:21 +0100, Jette Goldie
<jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On 20/05/2013 01:16, David Harmon wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:50:01 -0400 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Lowell
>> Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote,
>>> For prime-time network shows, at least, advertising consumes a maximum
>>> of 18 minutes for an hour show, and 8 minutes for a half-hour show.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, there are hour-long (or other lengths, I'm sure)
>>> commercials where the whole channel timeslot has been purchased.
>>
>> Presumably, nobody watches those.
>>
>>
>
>
>only in the middle of the night when you can't sleep and they are the
>only thing on!

Isn't that what the intertubes are for? :-)

Alan Woodford

The Greying Lensman

[David Friedman]

In article <memo.2013052...@pauldormer.compulink.co.uk>,

Hard to see why anyone would air them otherwise.

I don't normally watch television. My impression is that when for some
reason I am in a room with a television that's on, the ads are sometimes
entertaining. Obviously the people making them have some incentive to
try to make them entertaining--especially now that skipping them has
become much easier.

I wonder if part of the negative view of ads comes from seeing the same
add multiple times, and forgetting that the jokes were funny the first
time.

[Jette Goldie]

uh uh, Ben, the sell through videos of the show were only available in
NTSC, never in PAL, but since UK fans have had access to video players
that play NTSC without having to convert and "region free" DVD players
for several decades this wasn't an issue - we just bought the US
versions. These NTSC videos still had between 4 and 6 extra minutes of
material compared with the "domestic edition" aired on US tv.

I'm told some US stations cut the show even further.

[Jette Goldie]

strangely enough not everyone is online yet :-)

Indeed there are still people who are extremely suspicious of the
internet. I have had colleagues tell me that I should "get a real life
instead of wasting my time on them internetty things" - I pointed out to
said colleagues that I had been to more places, further flung places,
and done more 'stuff' than they had - and this was _because_ of "them
internetty things". (this was a few years ago when I was just back from
a trip to Canada, where I'd met up with email pen-pals, visited the set
of a tv show while they were filming, been to a blues festival then
hired a car and driven around the mountains of British Columbia. they'd
been to Benidorm again, to the same hotel as every year)

I'm not just talking about elderly people - one of the problems with the
new 'joined up benefit' the government are trying to introduce is that
you will have to apply and manage your claim online - and a LOT of
people of working age have never touched a computer, never mind the
internet!

[Alan Woodford]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:03:05 +0100, Jette Goldie

I know just what you mean... most of the people at work don't have me
down as a "Snorkelling on the Great Barrier Reef" type, but it would
have been rude to fly out for Aussiecon and not do things like that,
wouldn't it? :-D

>I'm not just talking about elderly people - one of the problems with the
>new 'joined up benefit' the government are trying to introduce is that
>you will have to apply and manage your claim online - and a LOT of
>people of working age have never touched a computer, never mind the
>internet!

And some of the ones that have, absolutely refuse to do anything to do
with money via the net, because "It will all be stolen before I can
blink!"

The fact that my Old Man is probably more likely to be mugged coming
out of the bank with his and Mum's spending money for the week just
doesn't seem to sink in.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Jette Goldie <bosslady...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Indeed there are still people who are extremely suspicious of the
> internet.

Not surprising, given that there are news stories every week about
malware, spam, data breaches, privacy loss, etc.

> I have had colleagues tell me that I should "get a real life instead

> of wasting my time on them internetty things" ...

For a long time, there was a widespread view that the Internet was
something totally separate from real life. Unlike, say, television.
I never understood that attitude. I would have thought it was gone
now that almost everyone is online.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Jette Goldie <bosslady...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Ben Yalow wrote:
>> But to convert to PAL (25 frames/sec), what normally happens is
>> that you just play is 4% faster.

>> So the running times are 4% off.

And all music is pitched 4% higher? Pachelbel's Canon in D becomes a
Canon in D#? And nobody is bothered by this?

> uh uh, Ben, the sell through videos of the show were only available
> in NTSC, never in PAL, but since UK fans have had access to video
> players that play NTSC without having to convert and "region free"

> DVD players for several decades ...

*Several* *decades*? Just when were DVD players introduced in the UK?
And how many is several? Are you and I several people?

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
>> I've wondered about that. For instance, the Syfy channel on
>> satellite in the UK doesn't start broadcasting till 11 a.m. If I
>> switch to that channel before then, I find it is showing one long
>> commercial. Do people actually watch that?

> Hard to see why anyone would air them otherwise.

Ask whoever is broadcasting on channel 49.1 in the DC area. Color
bars at all times, no sound.

Or on analog channel 6, except I know the answer to that. It's
intended to be listened to on an FM radio, and the video is only
present because it's an FCC requirement. They usually show
unwatchably bad transfers of Charlie Chaplin silent films.

> Obviously the people making them have some incentive to try to make
> them entertaining--especially now that skipping them has become
> much easier.

Indeed. Entertaining or informative. It's always been trivial to
skip over print ads, and yet print ads still exist.

> I wonder if part of the negative view of ads comes from seeing the

> same add multiple times, ...

That's certainly true in my case. The second time in an evening that
I see the same commercial, I tend to think "this is where I came in,"
and turn it off.

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) writes:
>> The BBC showed The Wire uncut a few years back and the major
>> complaint was nothing to do with the nudity, sex and swearing,
>> it was that you couldn't understand the accents, and people were
>> switching on the subtitles for the deaf to try and follow what
>> some characters were saying.

> We did that here, too.

I've never seen that show, but Wikipedia says it's set in Baltimore,
so I'm puzzled. Maybe Paul can't understand a Baltimore accent, but
I'd think any American could.

ObFandom: I'll be going to Balticon next weekend. In Baltimore.
I hope I'm able to understand people there, as I don't think the
convention is subtitled. :-)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in
news:kneavj$2uj$3...@reader1.panix.com:

> Jette Goldie <bosslady...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ben Yalow wrote:
>>> But to convert to PAL (25 frames/sec), what normally happens
>>> is that you just play is 4% faster.
>
>>> So the running times are 4% off.
>
> And all music is pitched 4% higher? Pachelbel's Canon in D
> becomes a Canon in D#? And nobody is bothered by this?
>
>> uh uh, Ben, the sell through videos of the show were only
>> available in NTSC, never in PAL, but since UK fans have had
>> access to video players that play NTSC without having to
>> convert and "region free" DVD players for several decades ...
>
> *Several* *decades*? Just when were DVD players introduced in
> the UK? And how many is several? Are you and I several people?

He did say "video players" not "DVD players." The same issues existed
with various tape systems, too, after all.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in

news:knebfs$2uj$4...@reader1.panix.com:

I can live with twice in one evening. I can even, if I put my mind
to it, live with twice in the same program. But twice in the same
commercial break just kinda pisses me off. And it's happening more
and more. (And it's obviously on purpose - there's one that flashes
a question about "why do we . . . " on the screen, acknowledging
it's running twice in the same commercial break. I have no idea
what the answer is, as I do not _listen_ to commercials at all.)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in

news:kneblu$2uj$5...@reader1.panix.com:

> ObFandom: I'll be going to Balticon next weekend. In
> Baltimore. I hope I'm able to understand people there, as I
> don't think the convention is subtitled. :-)

That'd be a good app for Google Glass. Live, real-time subtitles.

[Keith F. Lynch]

James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:

> Jette Goldie <bosslady...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> The US has more minutes of advertising per hour than the UK or the
>> EU. Can't remember about Canada

> From the CRTC site ...

> Pay services (pay television and pay-per-view): don't carry
> advertising

If Canadian cable systems can make a profit without showing ads, why
can't US cable systems?

> These time limits don't include: the promotion of Canadian programs,
> public service announcements, political ads, product placements
> within a TV program and virtual ads.

Sigh. Ads are ads (with the possible exception of discreet product
placements). What the heck is a virtual ad?

> It's my impression there used to be limits on TV stations but our
> current government, hoping to make life worse for the average
> Canadian in every possible way, changed the rules.

What's puzzling to me is why the rules would even do anything. When
channels show excessive minutes of commercials, why don't people just
stop watching?

[Keith F. Lynch]

Lowell Gilbert <lgus...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
> I also note in passing that while Public Radio pledge breaks don't
> actually take more air time per hour than commercials on other
> stations, they *seem* to do so.

Around here, stations often have pledge *weeks*, in which more than
half the time -- possibly more than 3/4 of the time -- is taken up
with pledge "breaks."

> I am (not for the first time) surprised that you are not wealthy
> beyond dreams of avarice.

I am good at lots of things. Unfortunately, two things I'm not good
at are selling myself and judging the public taste.

For instance with some innovations my response is, "Why didn't I think
of that?" But with others, such as Facebook, GUIs, and pet rocks, my
response is, "How can that possibly be of interest to more than a tiny
number of people?" I'd no more have come up with those ideas than I'd
have come up with the idea of dog-poop-flavored candy.

> But on the other hand,, the prizes are trivial costs. Cash prizes
> don't go beyond a few million per year tops, I don't think. And
> other prizes (especially the large ones) are provided for

> promotional value; ...

How much are the average winnings on Jeopardy, and how many episodes
are broadcast each year?

> For somebody who doesn't wastch much television at all, I'm
> surprised how much information I dredged out of the back of
> my skull for this posting.

Do you read about television a lot?

> But I'd better stop now or I'll be late for the first day at my
> new job.

Congratulations. I hope it's a good job.

[Philip Chee]

On 20/05/2013 23:21, David Harmon wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:49:02 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Ben
> Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote,
>>My personal feeling is that the best scripted show originally on US
>>television is Burn Notice, and has been for years. It's on USA, which
>>Keith doesn't see.

But I thought Keith lives in the US? Now I'm confused....

> Now running OTA. It's tolerable. I like the sarcastic guy.
> The premise is absurd.

Phil

--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 20, 9:08 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> Lowell Gilbert <lguse...@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
> > I also note in passing that while Public Radio pledge breaks don't
> > actually take more air time per hour than commercials on other
> > stations, they *seem* to do so.
>
> Around here, stations often have pledge *weeks*, in which more than
> half the time -- possibly more than 3/4 of the time -- is taken up
> with pledge "breaks."
>
> > I am (not for the first time) surprised that you are not wealthy
> > beyond dreams of avarice.
>
> I am good at lots of things.  Unfortunately, two things I'm not good
> at are selling myself and judging the public taste.
>
> For instance with some innovations my response is, "Why didn't I think
> of that?"  But with others, such as Facebook, GUIs, and pet rocks, my
> response is, "How can that possibly be of interest to more than a tiny
> number of people?"  I'd no more have come up with those ideas than I'd
> have come up with the idea of dog-poop-flavored candy.
>
> > But on the other hand,, the prizes are trivial costs.  Cash prizes
> > don't go beyond a few million per year tops, I don't think.  And
> > other prizes (especially the large ones) are provided for
> > promotional value; ...
>
> How much are the average winnings on Jeopardy, and how many episodes
> are broadcast each year?

A competent internet user can find this out in a trice, but we're
dealing with Keith.

The average payout is $39k/show.

There are about 200 episodes a year - they film a weeks worth in one
day.

As for expenses, Alex Trebek get 10M/year. - ie; about 50k/show.
There are 12 writers, which should add a few million.

So, despite Keith's fantasies, the prizes aren't the major cost.

Of course, he won't see this.

pt

[Keith F. Lynch]

Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> David Harmon wrote:
>> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote,

>>> It's on USA, which Keith doesn't see.

> But I thought Keith lives in the US? Now I'm confused....

Ben is referring to a cable channel that's confusingly named USA.
I don't have cable.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Network

[rksh...@rosettacondot.com]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Jette Goldie <bosslady...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The US has more minutes of advertising per hour than the UK or the
>>> EU. Can't remember about Canada
>
>> From the CRTC site ...
>
>> Pay services (pay television and pay-per-view): don't carry
>> advertising
>
> If Canadian cable systems can make a profit without showing ads, why
> can't US cable systems?

Pay television would be channels like (in the US) HBO, Showtime, Cinemax,
etc. They're sometimes called premium channels. Pay-per-view would be
single programs which carry an individual charge, like "first-run" movies,
certain sports events, a few concerts, etc. I've never seen one of those
with commercial advertising in the US either, except for ads for upcoming
shows. Neither category includes redistributed broadcast channels, "basic"
cable channels and such.

>> These time limits don't include: the promotion of Canadian programs,
>> public service announcements, political ads, product placements
>> within a TV program and virtual ads.
>
> Sigh. Ads are ads (with the possible exception of discreet product
> placements). What the heck is a virtual ad?
>
>> It's my impression there used to be limits on TV stations but our
>> current government, hoping to make life worse for the average
>> Canadian in every possible way, changed the rules.
>
> What's puzzling to me is why the rules would even do anything. When
> channels show excessive minutes of commercials, why don't people just
> stop watching?

Why do you think they show approximately 17 minutes of commercials per
hour in the US rather than 25, 35, 45, etc.?

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 20, 9:20 pm, Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
> On 20/05/2013 23:21, David Harmon wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:49:02 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Ben
> > Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote,
> >>My personal feeling is that the best scripted show originally on US
> >>television is Burn Notice, and has been for years.  It's on USA, which
> >>Keith doesn't see.
>
> But I thought Keith lives in the US? Now I'm confused....

USA is the name of a network here. But Keith refuses to get cable, and
apparently can't get OTA TV in his basement apartment since the
digital conversion.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:
>>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>>>> I did a very bit part in a low budget movie not long ago, ...

>>>> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2628308/
>>>> ?

>>> You mistake the King for a mere Duke? Knave!

>> It's true it doesn't quite accord with what he said. Unless 22 years
>> is "not long ago."

> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5633347/

Both these entries are obviously him. Someone should merge them.

I wonder how that works. Would one turn into a pointer to the other,
or would one just cease to exist? The latter would be annoying to
those who bookmark them. For instance my online list of all the DVDs
I have has links to the IMDB entries of all of them.

[Keith F. Lynch]

<rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
> Pay television would be channels like (in the US) HBO, Showtime,
> Cinemax, etc. They're sometimes called premium channels.
> Pay-per-view would be single programs which carry an individual
> charge, like "first-run" movies, certain sports events, a few
> concerts, etc. I've never seen one of those with commercial
> advertising in the US either, except for ads for upcoming shows.
> Neither category includes redistributed broadcast channels, "basic"
> cable channels and such.

Pay TV is TV that you don't get for free: Cable, satellite, FiOS, etc.

Maybe the meaning of "ISP" has changed so that a bare pipe qualifies.
But don't tell me that the meaning of "pay" has changed. If money
goes from my pocket to a company, and in return they provide me with
TV programs, that's pay TV.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
> Writing questions is really hard. Tooo easy, and it becomes a test
> of reflexes. Too hard, and you get a lot of cases of nobody ringing
> in and getting it right. Either one is boring.

There have been some of each in every episode of Jeopardy I've ever
seen. Granted, that's only about one or two dozen episodes.

If it's that difficult, why are there trivia contests at cons with
such good questions? And how have I been able to contribute questions
to them?

[Keith F. Lynch]

Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:

> Last time you mentioned this about public radio I did a little
> tracking for a few days. Five-six minutes per hour, total.

Don't forget to average over pledge week. Skipping that is
like trying to estimate annual rainfall at a location by taking
measurements only during one sunny day.

[Keith F. Lynch]

<rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
> My presumption has always been that it's derived from the image of
> something falling so fast that it will form a crater when it hits.

Likewise.

[Jay E. Morris]

On 5/20/2013 9:51 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Jay E. Morris <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:
>> Last time you mentioned this about public radio I did a little
>> tracking for a few days. Five-six minutes per hour, total.
>
> Don't forget to average over pledge week. Skipping that is
> like trying to estimate annual rainfall at a location by taking
> measurements only during one sunny day.
>

Ours has reduced pledge time over the last two or three years by first
setting a goal and quitting when that's reached and second by stressing
online renewal.

Besides, 3 or 4 days twice a year, maybe a total of three hours each day
isn't going to add that much. At least here it's not a continuous
24-hour pledge drive. Ten minutes and back to the show. Hardly worth
noticing.