Originally posted by Holly: Predictably, the C-3 results (which measured how many people were watching commercials) showed that almost all the DVR viewers fast forward through commercials.
Actually, I just read the opposite the other day, that more and more advertisers are finding out that their commercials are increasingly being watched on playback. I'll look for the article and add it here.
I never read that article, but I have a really hard time believing that. I have had a DVR for about 4-5 years now, and I have never watched a commercial for a program I have recorded.
Well, when it happens you can come back to this and tell me I'm wrong. You would LOVE to do that anyways.
1)I'm not going anywhere, so why would I be 'coming back'?
2)If it does happen, you promise you'll be around to take your medicine?
3)Oh c'mon, are you that offended here? I have no idea what Lost's ratings will be a year from now, or even if it'll still be on. I just know it's silly to talk about what can't happen, when in fact anything can happen, short of George W. Bush saying something intelligent, or Dick Cheney developing empathy.
pisher, could you do me a favor? Stop being an asshole. Your snark is occasionally funny, but you are getting tiresome. All those things you say about Lost, you say them like they're fact. But it's not fact, it's just your opinion.
And okay, maybe you do realize that, so then do try to make it CLEAR that you are just stating your opinion, not being obnoxious. Because it sure seems like you're being obnoxious.
So yeah, stop being such a pain. Please. You can be funny without being so mean, yeeeah, you can, baby.
Twin Peaks ending was great (let's just forget about season 2).
quote:
Originally posted by pisher: And when are you going to figure out what a waste of film PD was from the first minute of the pilot?
I know you are joking, but you can't compare Lost and PD. (yes, PD ratings are much lower, for one)
PD doesn't pretend to be more than a fantasy, and you can enjoy each episode for what it is. Lost, on the other hand, is incredibly pretentious. It is a show entirely based on the idea that viewers should be kept in the dark as long as possible about the very basis of the story.
Is it a good show? Not since the first season, but fans will continue to believe there is "more" to it, coming the next episode/year.
And yes it would become better if they ended the series earlier than planned. No need for 10 episodes, they can wrap everything up in a couple of hours, given how superficial the story and characters have become. (see the completely artificial "Survivors"-dividing of the cast in two groups at the beginning of this season)
And pisher, you'll be happy to learn that a movie adaptation of "Land of the Lost" is coming, starring Will Ferrell, and Anna Friel of PD fame.
Posts: 636 | Location: NYC | Registered: 02 November 2007
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: Well the show was dipping considerably until they started loading a million dollars into all those suitcases. This stunt though can only be found appealing until someone wins and then the numbers will be dipping back to how it was before.
quote:
Originally posted by A.C.: DEAL OR NO DEAL...I still don't get the appeal of watching people opening suitcases for an hour. IF it were only ONE night of the week maybe I could understand the popularity...but the same thing MULTIPLE times a week being so popular I just don't get. Anyway I hope it doesn't overtake SURVIVOR in the ratings.
This DOND overexposure on NBC is so reminiscent of the demise of Who Wants to be a millionaire on ABC -- I know it's very tempting for NBC to strip it to 3-4 times a week, especially when it seems to be doing so well and nothing else they have right now works, but it's reached saturation level and I agree, after this giveaway deal is over, this Deal will never be the same in the ratings again.
I disagree with you. NBC had had DOND on its regular schedule 2 times per week max since it started its run. Before the strike they did occasionaly have extra shows on, but it was not that often. Since the strike, they have increased the number of extra shows, but with the lack of fresh content due to the strike, who can really blame them?
On the other hand, ABC had Millionaire on its regular schedule for 5 times per week at one time. But I still believe that what killed this show was the constant celebrity editions, where the celebrities did not care, and there were always other celebrities shouting out answers.
Originally posted by pisher: I'm not hating this season of Lost so far, but I'm not really loving it either. It's watchable, but it's just getting to be too much of a grind, going through the same tired paces, over and over. Yes, Sayid and Desmond are actually getting off the island (we'll see if Desmond is one of The Oceanic Six--hey, do they do weddings?).
Having been keeping us guessing about where the island is, they're now implying the real question may be WHEN. In other words, some kind of time warp. But that's not a startling enough revelation to make us wait months for it. I mean, C'MON--I watched Land of the Lost on Saturday mornings when I was a kid. What's the big deal here? S***t or get off the damn pot, people.
My problem with Lost has always been that they had a good story that simply didn't need so many episodes to tell it. So they have to keep adding on stuff, and it dilutes the impact of the revelations.
But that being said, I've yet to see a bad Sayid-centric episode--which begs the question--why do they do so few of them? I mean, he should at least get as many as Kate.
This is all reminding me of last season--in that last season people kept yelling here about how Lost was better than ever, it was BACK baby, and the ratings were bound to go up.
And please note, last week Lost had over 15mil viewers, and a 6.4 in the demo.
They are not answering the questions people want to see answered. They are asking new questions people don't care about "Who are the Oceanic Six?" So far, they've been Jack, Kate, Hurley, and Sayid. Wow. Shocksville. I know the underlying question is "Which of the main characters is either dead or still on the island", but honestly, that's just not the question we need answered. It's a question they made up to keep us around while they decide when to answer the real questions.
Anyway, I'm still watching, apparently.
I'm one of the Oceanic 13.62 million. And falling.
I totally disagree with you on everything! Just goahead and fall now. Fall on out. Lost is under contract until the year 2010 so it is not going anywhere no matter what you think. Season 4 is the best seasonso far.
Heroes, Smallville, Lost Fan
Posts: 35 | Location: Texas | Registered: 18 October 2007
I have a question as a non-viewer of Lost. If this show is so frustrating and predictable, why do millions and millions of people watch it? Why are they CONSTANTLY talking about it. Why was there so much hype for the return? Given all this, It seems like it must be better than most things on network television??? After 3 or 4 years, it seems stupid to have the same complaints about a show. You should all know what you're getting by being a viewer, right?
pisherafferty-free since 2008
Posts: 416 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006
Exactly! I kept on waiting for them to get back to the normal editions and it never happened.
quote:
Originally posted by AL: On the other hand, ABC had Millionaire on its regular schedule for 5 times per week at one time. But I still believe that what killed this show was the constant celebrity editions, where the celebrities did not care, and there were always other celebrities shouting out answers.
Originally posted by Zitrone: Dumont, shouldn't you exclude the Superbowl for the Sweep ratings? Including it makes year changes rather meaningless for Fox and CBS.
If he excludes the SuperBowl then the numbers will not be accurate.
Why shouldnt FOX get credit for the SuperBowl ratings in a game that they paid millions of dollars to acquire?
Originally posted by Holly: Predictably, the C-3 results (which measured how many people were watching commercials) showed that almost all the DVR viewers fast forward through commercials.
Actually, I just read the opposite the other day, that more and more advertisers are finding out that their commercials are increasingly being watched on playback. I'll look for the article and add it here.
I never read that article, but I have a really hard time believing that. I have had a DVR for about 4-5 years now, and I have never watched a commercial for a program I have recorded.
I found the article -- I'll qualify this by saying that this specific article is for SuperBowl ads, which are different than regular show commercials in that generally there's greater interest, but the same holds true, even if to a lesser degree, for commercials elsewhere -- I left the article intact, including the part that a typical commercial suffers a 5% decline in "regular" shows -- to me not a significant loss. Also, any time a commercial is watched more than the SuperBowl itself, I'd say that's a success...
Big kick for late-game Super Bowl ads
Advertisers with fourth-quarter spots scored big
By Kevin Downey Feb 14, 2008
If this year's Super Bowl was a nail-biter for New York Giants fans, if was even more so for the handful of advertisers who ran ads in the fourth quarter. They were betting $2.7 million against history that the game would be close and their ads in those final minutes would be seen by huge numbers of viewers.
They got it right, for sure, when the Giants kept the game close all the way into the fourth quarter and then pulled off a last-minute touchdown against the undefeated New England Patriots to win the game.
Airing on Fox on Feb. 3, it was the most-watched Super Bowl in history--just under 98 million people tuned in--and those final minutes saw even higher viewership; 49 percent of homes were watching the last 22 minutes.
But the payout to advertisers went beyond that. Their ads got even higher veiwership than the three-hour game averaged.
They became among the most-watched commercials in history, surpassing those of all past Super Bowls and even such major TV events as the 1983 "M*A*S*H" finale.
A commercial pod airing in those final minutes generated a 47.9 household rating, delivering huge audiences for advertisers Victoria’s Secret, Amp energy drink and a promotional spot for Fox’s "American Idol."
The Victoria’s Secret commercial was seen by 103.8 million people, ranking No. 1 among all spots, according to Nielsen’s analysis of its ratings. Amp was close behind with 103.6 million people watching.
"Certainly, on average at least, this is among the most-watched programs ever, so these are among the most-watched commercials ever," says Steve Sternberg, executive vice president of audience analysis at Magna Global, which released a report on the game that analyzes minute by minute ratings.
But while commercials airing late in the game were the most watched on the Super Bowl, the matchup between the Giants and Patriots delivered big for all advertisers.
Virtually every commercial break generated higher ratings than the few minutes of the game that preceded it, on average 1 percent higher.
For example, the first few minutes of the Super Bowl averaged a 37.4 household rating but a commercial pod with spots from Bud Light and Audi that followed had a 38.6 rating. In third quarter, a commercial pod with Cars.com, Salesgenie.com and Vitamin Water averaged a 43.3 rating, compared to 42.9 for the six minutes of the game that led into it.
"That’s pretty significant and vastly different from what you see in most primetime programs," notes Sternberg. Typically, commercials on primetime shows lose more than 5 percent of a program’s rating.
And as it turns out, most commercials also got a decent bump in viewing in DVR playback, according to Nielsen.
Highest among these was a spot for the Disney movie "Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian," which was watched by an additional 4.2 million people in DVR playback the same day of the game.
I know you are joking, but you can't compare Lost and PD. (yes, PD ratings are much lower, for one)
And Lost was actually good, for another--and is still far better than PD, which really weakens your position when you critique other people for not seeing how Lost is deteriorating. Take the beam from your own eye, Z.
quote:
PD doesn't pretend to be more than a fantasy,
No, it just pretends to have a reason to exist and an interesting story to tell, is all.
quote:
and you can enjoy each episode for what it is.
If you enjoy watching derivative twee overproduced rubbish pretending to be meaningful and/or funny. Agreed.
quote:
Lost, on the other hand, is incredibly pretentious.
Its FANS are pretentious, I'll grant you. But not compared to PD fans.
quote:
It is a show entirely based on the idea that viewers should be kept in the dark as long as possible about the very basis of the story.
You mean as opposed to a show based on the idea that two bland drippy people with not a dram of chemistry between them, who love each other for absolutely no reason one can discern, can't touch each other, or one of them will drop dead?
quote:
Is it a good show? Not since the first season,
It was really good in the second season, and the ratings were very strong. Online fans started complaining then, but for the wrong reasons. I only complain for the right reasons.
And there IS 'more to it'--there's just not ENOUGH to fill out all the allotted episodes. And everybody working on the show is suffering from understandable weariness. The kind of excitement and "Wow, we're famous now!" enthusiasm has worn off, and they're just wondering if they'll still have careers after it's all over. I've seen it many many times before.
quote:
And yes it would become better if they ended the series earlier than planned.
Hopefully, but that would depend on a lot of variables.
quote:
No need for 10 episodes, they can wrap everything up in a couple of hours, given how superficial the story and characters have become.
And now I will wrap up PD in five seconds--Piemaker, Chuck, come over here a minute--(pisher seizes P&C by the scruffs of their skinny white necks and bashes their heads together, face first, until what passes for their brains has exited their shattered craniums. pisher bows. The End). See?
I dont see how this in ANY way supports your original statement. There are millions of people who watch the Super Bowl just for the commercials. I have NEVER heard anyone say they watch Greys, Housewives, Lost, or any other show "just for the commercials" Nice try, but not even close.
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera:
quote:
Originally posted by AL:
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera:
quote:
Originally posted by Holly: Predictably, the C-3 results (which measured how many people were watching commercials) showed that almost all the DVR viewers fast forward through commercials.
Actually, I just read the opposite the other day, that more and more advertisers are finding out that their commercials are increasingly being watched on playback. I'll look for the article and add it here.
I never read that article, but I have a really hard time believing that. I have had a DVR for about 4-5 years now, and I have never watched a commercial for a program I have recorded.
I found the article -- I'll qualify this by saying that this specific article is for SuperBowl ads, which are different than regular show commercials in that generally there's greater interest, but the same holds true, even if to a lesser degree, for commercials elsewhere -- I left the article intact, including the part that a typical commercial suffers a 5% decline in "regular" shows -- to me not a significant loss. Also, any time a commercial is watched more than the SuperBowl itself, I'd say that's a success...
Big kick for late-game Super Bowl ads
Advertisers with fourth-quarter spots scored big
By Kevin Downey Feb 14, 2008
If this year's Super Bowl was a nail-biter for New York Giants fans, if was even more so for the handful of advertisers who ran ads in the fourth quarter. They were betting $2.7 million against history that the game would be close and their ads in those final minutes would be seen by huge numbers of viewers.
They got it right, for sure, when the Giants kept the game close all the way into the fourth quarter and then pulled off a last-minute touchdown against the undefeated New England Patriots to win the game.
Airing on Fox on Feb. 3, it was the most-watched Super Bowl in history--just under 98 million people tuned in--and those final minutes saw even higher viewership; 49 percent of homes were watching the last 22 minutes.
But the payout to advertisers went beyond that. Their ads got even higher veiwership than the three-hour game averaged.
They became among the most-watched commercials in history, surpassing those of all past Super Bowls and even such major TV events as the 1983 "M*A*S*H" finale.
A commercial pod airing in those final minutes generated a 47.9 household rating, delivering huge audiences for advertisers Victoria’s Secret, Amp energy drink and a promotional spot for Fox’s "American Idol."
The Victoria’s Secret commercial was seen by 103.8 million people, ranking No. 1 among all spots, according to Nielsen’s analysis of its ratings. Amp was close behind with 103.6 million people watching.
"Certainly, on average at least, this is among the most-watched programs ever, so these are among the most-watched commercials ever," says Steve Sternberg, executive vice president of audience analysis at Magna Global, which released a report on the game that analyzes minute by minute ratings.
But while commercials airing late in the game were the most watched on the Super Bowl, the matchup between the Giants and Patriots delivered big for all advertisers.
Virtually every commercial break generated higher ratings than the few minutes of the game that preceded it, on average 1 percent higher.
For example, the first few minutes of the Super Bowl averaged a 37.4 household rating but a commercial pod with spots from Bud Light and Audi that followed had a 38.6 rating. In third quarter, a commercial pod with Cars.com, Salesgenie.com and Vitamin Water averaged a 43.3 rating, compared to 42.9 for the six minutes of the game that led into it.
"That’s pretty significant and vastly different from what you see in most primetime programs," notes Sternberg. Typically, commercials on primetime shows lose more than 5 percent of a program’s rating.
And as it turns out, most commercials also got a decent bump in viewing in DVR playback, according to Nielsen.
Highest among these was a spot for the Disney movie "Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian," which was watched by an additional 4.2 million people in DVR playback the same day of the game.
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: Well the show was dipping considerably until they started loading a million dollars into all those suitcases. This stunt though can only be found appealing until someone wins and then the numbers will be dipping back to how it was before.
quote:
Originally posted by A.C.: DEAL OR NO DEAL...I still don't get the appeal of watching people opening suitcases for an hour. IF it were only ONE night of the week maybe I could understand the popularity...but the same thing MULTIPLE times a week being so popular I just don't get. Anyway I hope it doesn't overtake SURVIVOR in the ratings.
This DOND overexposure on NBC is so reminiscent of the demise of Who Wants to be a millionaire on ABC -- I know it's very tempting for NBC to strip it to 3-4 times a week, especially when it seems to be doing so well and nothing else they have right now works, but it's reached saturation level and I agree, after this giveaway deal is over, this Deal will never be the same in the ratings again.
I disagree with you. NBC had had DOND on its regular schedule 2 times per week max since it started its run. Before the strike they did occasionaly have extra shows on, but it was not that often. Since the strike, they have increased the number of extra shows, but with the lack of fresh content due to the strike, who can really blame them?
On the other hand, ABC had Millionaire on its regular schedule for 5 times per week at one time. But I still believe that what killed this show was the constant celebrity editions, where the celebrities did not care, and there were always other celebrities shouting out answers.
DOND had shows 3 times a week since mid December -- sometimes going back to 2, but more often than not it was 3. Millionaire only had 5 times a week when it was launched as a strip for 2 weeks initially. DOND was launched the same way. Like I said, DOND is following a very similar path -- while they haven't had celebrity contestants yet (which I agree is what ultimately killed Millionaire), they've had/will have celebrity "participants" like Donald Trump and Ellen Degeneres. When ABC started suffering, they extended Millionaire from once a week, to twice, then ultimately 3 times a week. DOND is doing exactly the same thing right now.
