# Bunch of cancellations



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Some cancellation news. Some surprising, most not.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/05/13/nashville-csi-cyber-castle-and-more-canceled-by-networks.html?intcmp=hpff


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

The Chicago Justice doesn't surprise me. After watching this week's PD with the majority of the episode featuring an all star guest cast, it was pretty obvious they were prepping a spin off.


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

I'm bummed about "The Grinder" and "Grandfathered", mostly because I thought they were pretty good shows and I liked all of the leads. "The Grinder" especially had good dialogue and a good chemistry among the entire cast.


----------



## RBA (Apr 14, 2013)

Looks like another ton of CRAP for next year.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Here's Deadline Hollywood's list to date for broadcast network cancellations this year with more to come next week during the upfronts:


Blood & Oil (ABC) Duration: One Season
Castle (ABC) Duration: Eight Seasons
The Family (ABC) Duration: One Season
Galavant (ABC) Duration: Two Seasons
Marvel's Agent Carter (ABC) Duration: Two Seasons
The Muppets (ABC) Duration: One Season
Nashville (ABC) Duration: Four Seasons
Of Kings And Prophets (ABC) Duration: Two Episodes
Rookie Blue (ABC) Duration: Six Seasons
The Whispers (ABC) Duration: One Season
Wicked City (ABC) Duration: Three Episodes
Angel From Hell (CBS) Duration: Five Episodes
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (CBS) Duration: 15 Seasons
CSI: Cyber (CBS) Duration: Two Seasons
Extant (CBS) Duration: Two Seasons
The Good Wife (CBS) Duration: Seven Seasons
Mike And Molly (CBS) Duration: Six Seasons
Person Of Interest (CBS) Duration: Five Seasons
Under the Dome (CBS) Duration: Three Seasons
Rush Hour (CBS)Duration: One Season
Limitless (CBS)Duration: One Season
American Idol (Fox) Duration: 15 Seasons
Bordertown (Fox) Duration: One Season
Cooper Barrett's Guide To Surviving Life (Fox) Duration: One Season
Grandfathered (Fox) Duration: One Season
The Grinder (Fox) Duration: One Season
Knock Knock Live (Fox) Duration: Two Episodes
Minority Report (Fox) Duration: One Season
Second Chance (Fox) Duration: One Season
Best Time Ever With Neil Patrick Harris (NBC) Duration: One Season
Hannibal (NBC) Duration: Three Seasons
Heroes Reborn (NBC) Duration: One Season
Mr. Robinson (NBC) Duration: One Season
Telenovela (NBC) Duration: One Season
Undateable (NBC) Duration: One Three Seasons
Crowded (NBC) Duration: One Season
Heartbeat (NBC) Duration: One Season
Game of Silence (NBC) Duration: One Season
You, Me and the Apocalypse (NBC) Duration: One Season
Americas Next Top Model (The CW) Duration: 16 Seasons
Beauty And The Beast (The CW) Duration: Four Seasons
Containment (The CW) Duration: One Season


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

Agent Carter? Noooooo!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

jeffshoaf said:


> Agent Carter? Noooooo!


Well, there's always hope *After 'Marvel's Agent Carter' gets the ax from ABC, fans turn to Netflix to save it.*


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Hmmm. NBC and Fox are still at it as they add these to the cancellation list:
> 
> 
> Telenovela (NBC) Duration: One Season
> ...


Undateable lasted three seasons.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

David Ortiz said:


> Undateable lasted three seasons.


You are so right, I got too copy-and-pastey. We watched all three. Enjoyed it immensely and can't even explain why - just fun.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

You, Me and the Apocalypse was a great show which I suspect might become a classic someday. There was no need for a second season. I also enjoy Undatable.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Containment and Crowded are two that I'm sorry to see go away. The ones that had a longer history were ones I felt had lived long enough.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

CSI: Cyber, deservedly gone. Ted Danson failed to save an abysmal series that was unbelieveably hokey. :barf:


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

The cancellation of Containment surpises me as we are only 4 weeks into the first season. I am recording it but have not watched any yet so I cant give an opinion on the show but I would think they would give more than 4 weeks for a show to prove itself.

It looks like I am one of the few people who enjoyed CSI: Cyber. I just enjoy the story and let the unrealistic technical details go by


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I liked CSI: Cyber but wasn't watching it as if it was a technical manual. There are a few other shows on the list above that I watched. I can't believe Galavant got a second year (and they even mentioned that as part of the show). Perhaps it will get a third year run similar to the first two. A few weeks of double episodes.

Reading through the list all I can think of is "and THE LAST MAN ON EARTH is still on the air".


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

So the super funny "Crowded" is gone but the not funny at all, slightly racist, "Carmichael Show" stays?? Wow...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

yosoyellobo said:


> You, Me and the Apocalypse was a great show which I suspect might become a classic someday. _*There was no need for a second season*_. I also enjoy Undatable.


Oh, good. I had to buy the first episode, missed it. Good to know I didn't make that purchase for nothing.

I rarely say anything negative about TV series because I know lots of people have different opinions and different tastes. I really don't see much on the list that I care about. I had hopes for the _Heroes Reborn_ series but never really enjoyed it. My wife really likes _Castle_, she won't be happy. One series really sticks out, one both of us enjoyed, _The Good Wife_. That, I will miss.

Rich


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

jeffshoaf said:


> Agent Carter? Noooooo!


My daughter feels the same, but me not so much. Season 2 went a bit weird.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

phrelin said:


> Well, there's always hope *After 'Marvel's Agent Carter' gets the ax from ABC, fans turn to Netflix to save it.*


I agree with Herdfan, season two wasn't the greatest, but I still like the show overall. It would be great if Netflix were able to save it, especially if the people from Daredevil/Jessica Jones/The Defenders could get involved. With Atwell getting another show on ABC it's hard telling if she would be available enough.

It's also disappointing to hear that the Agents of Shield spinoff with Bobby and Hunter didn't get picked up. I really liked their characters. Maybe they can figure out a way to bring them back in season 4?


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I've always had a soft spot for The Muppets so I'll miss that show. Yeah I know it wasn't the same as the classic Muppet Show from back in the day but still put Muppets on tv and I'm watching.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I''m adding "Rush Hour" to the list as CBS has decided not to renew it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

tsmacro said:


> I've always had a soft spot for The Muppets so I'll miss that show. Yeah I know it wasn't the same as the classic Muppet Show from back in the day but still put Muppets on tv and I'm watching.


I think the best of the series was Karaoke night, with the Swedish Chef rapping.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> I think the best of the series was Karaoke night, with the Swedish Chef rapping.


Without a doubt!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The closer The Muppet Show came to being The Muppet Show of old the better. The early season soap opera wasn't what I wanted. The later shows where the show within the show became more ensemble had a chance to do the old style skits. Or at least enough of the skit to trigger fond memories.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I have added "Limitless" to the list as has been cancelled formally by CBS. According to *CBS' 'Limitless' Officially Canceled*:



> Sources say producers CBS Television Studios had taken Limitless to Amazon and Netflix, with both streaming services now opting to pass on picking up the series for a second season.
> 
> The freshman drama averaged a 2.4 rating among adults 18-49 with impressive DVR numbers factored in, but its live-plus-same-day stats (1.4) placed it well behind that of Tuesday night counterparts NCIS (2.2) and NCIS: New Orleans (1.8). With all three NCIS shows returning as well as cop dramas Training Day and MacGyver, CBS has opted to see if it can improve on Limitless' performance.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

phrelin said:


> I have added "Limitless" to the list as has been cancelled formally by CBS. According to *CBS' 'Limitless' Officially Canceled*:


Well, I guess that means I get to free up some space on my DVR. Was saving this for the summer.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Well, I guess that means I get to free up some space on my DVR. Was saving this for the summer.


Or you might watch it. Great show! I think I have 8 episodes left to watch.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

I agree, it ended with a relatively decent conclusion. It didn't end with some huge cliffhanger, it tied up most of the stuff that was going on, but left some stuff out so there would be a reason to continue and tie season 2 back to season 1. I would still recommend people watch it, and I'm the type of person that gets really upset when shows they like get cancelled with unsatisfactory endings. For example if Blindspot had not been renewed for season 2 I would be very upset about how season 1 ended.

I am sad to see it go, I actually liked the show more than the movie. Probably my favorite new show this year.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Well, I guess that means I get to free up some space on my DVR. Was saving this for the summer.


Yup, same here. Same with Rush Hour. Buh bye...


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Not trying to knock anybody down but I really dont understand the concept of "it sounded good enough to me to record it but now that it is not going to have a second season I am just deleting it" I thoroughly enjoyed the one season of Limitless and while I am sad it was not renewed the one season was some good entertainment. Also as others have said they wrapped the story up in a way that gave it a good ending or it could continue. The only other show I can think of that did such a good job after season one was Helix on SyFy


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

I understand, and I do the same thing quite a bit now days. It is extremely frustrating to watch a show and then have it end on a major cliffhanger that will never get resolved. It has happened to me many times over the years. So many so that I have done the exact same thing quite a few times. Record a show but never watch it until it is renewed, delete it if it doesn't. Like I said though, this show does have a decent enough ending that I would still recommend people watch it.

I have recently recorded/deleted the following series without watching a single episode. Almost Human, Minority Report, Rush Hour, Heroes Reborn, Bastard Executioner.

Now Firefly (Fox), Drive (Fox),Terriers (FX), Lights Out (FX), Stargate Universe (SyFy) are some shows that I can think of over the last few years that I watched and was very annoyed with how they ended because they left a lot of questions unanswered and they will likely never be answered. I don't recommend anyone even bother watching those shows even though I liked them and think others might.

I really wish all showrunners would just drop the whole cliffhanger gimmick altogether. If your show is good enough people will come back to watch it later, there is no need to end on some cliffhanger. All it does it tick people off if your show doesn't get renewed.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I like how some of the channels have done, like when Mr. Robot was renewed even before it aired based on the number of views the pilot got when it was put online. I don't think any of the networks would do that.

Some shows, like Almost Human, I think the network had a hand in it not being successful. I think that may have been different if they would have aired them in order.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> For example if Blindspot had not been renewed for season 2 I would be very upset about how season 1 ended.


I was a bit unhappy with the finale. My wife and I both thought that the next-to-last episode should have been the finale and the finale should have been S2/E1.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

longrider said:


> Not trying to knock anybody down but I really dont understand the concept of "it sounded good enough to me to record it but now that it is not going to have a second season I am just deleting it" I thoroughly enjoyed the one season of Limitless and while I am sad it was not renewed the one season was some good entertainment. Also as others have said they wrapped the story up in a way that gave it a good ending or it could continue. The only other show I can think of that did such a good job after season one was Helix on SyFy


Why waste time on a show you know is already dead? I've got plenty of other things to watch that did get a second season. It's that simple.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> Well, I guess that means I get to free up some space on my DVR. Was saving this for the summer.


We liked the first few episodes then it became...kinda something we just didn't want to watch.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Why waste time on a show you know is already dead? I've got plenty of other things to watch that did get a second season. It's that simple.


I view this show good enough and wrapped up plenty to be considered a one time event series. It's not a waste of time if it's good and contained in the season. Otherwise why watch any show. You know they will all end eventually.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I view this show good enough and wrapped up plenty to be considered a one time event series. It's not a waste of time if it's good and contained in the season. Otherwise why watch any show. You know they will all end eventually.


You completely missed the point. lol

It was never intended to be a one time event, it was cancelled, therefore it never ended as intended. I have other shows I can watch that do continue on and will eventually come to a conclusion chosen by the writers.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I believe thy intended to write a season and conclude the season as they did and that it would be a fitting end to the series if it didn't get picked up. What they leave you with at the end is the same kind of thing they leave you with at the end of any series. An idea of where life could go next but not a cliffhanger...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If a show is good enough (in each person's own opinion) to watch that person may get some enjoyment out of even a truncated season. I enjoyed the one season of Studio 60 a few years ago even though it didn't get a second year. I watched Pushing Daises to the end even though it was truncated (with the last show showing a series of stories they wanted to tell).

Everyone has their preferences. Some (including me) don't consider a cancelled show a "waste of time".


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I believe thy intended to write a season and conclude the season as they did and that it would be a fitting end to the series if it didn't get picked up. What they leave you with at the end is the same kind of thing they leave you with at the end of any series. An idea of where life could go next but not a cliffhanger...


That's the thing though... You believe... You aren't a writer on the show.

I really don't get why you guys all think you can tell me how to watch TV and have a problem with the way I watch it. I'll watch TV how I want and you do what you want.

It's over, done, show deleted, quit harping on me. Seems like a bunch of you always have to pile on every time I mention I've deleted recordings for a show without watching them. It's been going on for years now...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> If a show is good enough (in each person's own opinion) to watch that person may get some enjoyment out of even a truncated season.


It wasn't "good enough" to keep it from being cancelled. That means it's not "good enough" for me to watch if I haven't already started watching it.

I've been burned 1 too many times by starting to watch a brand new show, getting involved in the story, anticipating, etc, only to have the show cancelled. I'm not going to let it happen again. It's my preference.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> I really don't get why you guys all think you can tell me how to watch TV and have a problem with the way I watch it. I'll watch TV how I want and you do what you want.


I don't get where you get that anyone is trying to tell you how to watch TV.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

James Long said:


> Everyone has their preferences. Some (including me) don't consider a cancelled show a "waste of time".


I don't necessarily consider it a waste of time, but if a show is not good enough to get renewed, then was it really that good in the first place? I know sometimes you have to consider the "CBS factor" of canceling shows any other network would love to have.

We have enough to watch to keep us busy without taking a chance on a show that got cancelled.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I have learned on this issue to just live and let live as there is no convincing the other side you are right. Plus I completely agree there is no "wrong", it is just how you like to consume your entertainment. While I have been burned a couple times with the unresolved cliffhanger issue there have been far more one season series that I enjoyed and am glad I watched. A funny story on the cliffhanger issue and how ingrained it is, when Scorpion ended the season (I thought) on a both figurative and literal cliffhanger and then one week later there was one more episode resolving all the issues I was sure the show had been cancelled and they got one more episode to wrap it up, That was not the case and the show continued the next year.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RunnerFL said:


> I really don't get why you guys all think you can tell me how to watch TV and have a problem with the way I watch it. I'll watch TV how I want and you do what you want.


The trouble is you are not letting us do what we want. You keep telling others they are wasting their time for watching a show that has been cancelled. It is practically to the level of spam ... a show gets cancelled and you post that you're deleting it without watching it. Basically insulting everyone who decided to make an effort to watch the show.

People like me who WATCH new shows that have potential are voting for the shows to continue. We raise the shows ratings by giving the shows viewership. People who record full seasons without watching might as well not waste their DVR space. They are voting against the shows by not watching.

The "I'll watch it if it gets renewed" people are as bad as fair weather sports fan. Fans of teams only when they are popular and winning but unwilling to show support when success is in question.

So please - you can keep Scoreguide and all the shows that you like that have not been canceled. There is no reason to keep telling us that you are deleting shows that other people like and wish that you would have given a chance so that they could have continued. The repetition gets old.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

David Ortiz said:


> I don't get where you get that anyone is trying to tell you how to watch TV.


Read the posts in this thread where everyone piled on..


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> I don't necessarily consider it a waste of time, but if a show is not good enough to get renewed, then was it really that good in the first place? I know sometimes you have to consider the "CBS factor" of canceling shows any other network would love to have.
> 
> We have enough to watch to keep us busy without taking a chance on a show that got cancelled.


Exactly my point as well. Let's see if they get it from you and it's just me they are singling out.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> The trouble is you are not letting us do what we want. You keep telling others they are wasting their time for watching a show that has been cancelled.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So please - you can keep Scoreguide and all the shows that you like that have not been canceled. There is no reason to keep telling us that you are deleting shows that other people like and wish that you would have given a chance so that they could have continued. The repetition gets old.


NOWHERE did I tell anyone they were wasting their time. I said I wasn't going to waste my time. Don't put words in my mouth.

And bringing in a discussion from another thread against me? Seems like an attack to me. I have just as much right to say I'm deleting recordings as you guys do to say you're watching them. Why not attack the other person who said they deleted recordings without watching them???


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Read the posts in this thread where everyone piled on..


Oh, okay. I'll let you know when I find it.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

David Ortiz said:


> Oh, okay. I'll let you know when I find it.


You only have to go as far as 4 posts up for the closest one...


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> It wasn't "good enough" to keep it from being cancelled. That means it's not "good enough" for me to watch if I haven't already started watching it.
> 
> I've been burned 1 too many times by starting to watch a brand new show, getting involved in the story, anticipating, etc, only to have the show cancelled. I'm not going to let it happen again. It's my preference.


And then there are shows like Firefly. Like Almost Human and American Gothic in the 90s, the network certainly didn't help by airing out of order.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RunnerFL said:


> I said I wasn't going to waste my time.


No, you didn't. You said "Why waste time on a show you know is already dead?" Referring to another poster's time. Perhaps you should be clearer in your writing? And if you are going to argue that the "you" were referring to was actually yourself then don't get so out of shape when others refer to the audience as a whole as "you" not a personal jab at "RunnerFL".

And then you (RunnerFL) told us how we must enjoy television shows according to your opinion. Doing exactly what you claimed others were doing. If you believe it is wrong, don't do it.

(Thank you for your later clarification that your "you" meant yourself.)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> That's the thing though... You believe... You aren't a writer on the show.
> 
> I really don't get why you guys all think you can tell me how to watch TV and have a problem with the way I watch it. I'll watch TV how I want and you do what you want.
> 
> It's over, done, show deleted, quit harping on me. Seems like a bunch of you always have to pile on every time I mention I've deleted recordings for a show without watching them. It's been going on for years now...


I wasn't harping on you. Do what you like. I was pointing out that unlike the vast majority of shows that do get canceled and feel completely unfinished this show was not like that. It actually feels finished at the end of the first year. In fact I feel better about it then some other shows actual specifically written final episode. .

Just giving you the point of view from someone who has actually seen the show and generally feels like you do. I hate when shows get canceled after a season and feel totally unfinished. I hate that. This one was different and I think others here agree. That's all. Not telling you you have to watch it.

And what the writers want means nothing really, but I do believe they did that on purpose though. How it actually comes across is what really matters. If there was one show all year to watch that isn't making it past one season this is it IMHO.

No reason I can't state my opinion as you did yours. Doesn't mean I care if you delete it. I said something in general because I'm unhappy they canceled the show I think was best of all the new dramas this year and was expressing how well it was done.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> I don't necessarily consider it a waste of time, but if a show is not good enough to get renewed, then was it really that good in the first place? I know sometimes you have to consider the "CBS factor" of canceling shows any other network would love to have.
> 
> We have enough to watch to keep us busy without taking a chance on a show that got cancelled.


I think a lot of shows get renewed or canceled based on how much money it costs to make the show and such before ad revenue is even considered anymore. And then add in stupid people who think they have tiny target audiences. Look at Longmire. Stupidest canceled show in the last ten years IMHO. Thank goodness Netflix picked it up and doing another season too.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> NOWHERE did I tell anyone they were wasting their time. I said I wasn't going to waste my time. Don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> And bringing in a discussion from another thread against me? Seems like an attack to me. I have just as much right to say I'm deleting recordings as you guys do to say you're watching them. Why not attack the other person who said they deleted recordings without watching them???


I agree with you. I don't think you where insulting or telling anyone else what to do at all. Some people don't always interpret things the way they where meant.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> No, you didn't. You said "Why waste time on a show you know is already dead?" Referring to another poster's time. Perhaps you should be clearer in your writing? And if you are going to argue that the "you" were referring to was actually yourself then don't get so out of shape when others refer to the audience as a whole as "you" not a personal jab at "RunnerFL".
> 
> And then you (RunnerFL) told us how we must enjoy television shows according to your opinion. Doing exactly what you claimed others were doing. If you believe it is wrong, don't do it.
> 
> (Thank you for your later clarification that your "you" meant yourself.)


You and I read the same posts and came to very different conclusions. Runners been around long enough I don't know why you would think he was saying everyone else is wasting their time. History says that's not what he meant... His writing was plenty clear when he posted that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps it is time for everyone to sit back and do more reading?

My use of "everyone" was:
Everyone has their preferences. Some (including me) don't consider a cancelled show a "waste of time".

(And "everyone" didn't pile on. A couple of people who disagreed stated their disagreement.)

And now, back to cancelled TV shows.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

James Long said:


> People who record full seasons without watching might as well not waste their DVR space. They are voting against the shows by not watching.
> 
> The "I'll watch it if it gets renewed" people are as bad as fair weather sports fan.


Got to disagree with this. My wife and I get basically an hour a night to watch shows. So we can't watch everything we might be interested in. So we will record an entire season of some new shows with the intent of watching them over the summer.

If they get cancelled before we watch, then we delete them. If they don't get cancelled and we get a chance to watch over the summer, then if we like the show, it will make it into the regular rotation in S2. So a show will get us as viewers in its second year.

So the two choices for us are: 1) Record and watch in the summer if not cancelled, or 2) Don't bother recording it therefore almost guaranteeing we will never watch future seasons of the show. A great example of this for us was Blue Bloods. We did not have time to watch during its first season, but since it was renewed, we watched it over the summer. Turns out we liked it, so we now watch it during the season.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to watch a 1 season show, we usually just don't have the time.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I generally binge watch at least a few episodes off and on. I often will watch a one-season show if the first couple episodes interest me. Just personal preference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> And then there are shows like Firefly. Like Almost Human and American Gothic in the 90s, the network certainly didn't help by airing out of order.


Nope, sure didn't. Great examples. At least with FireFly we got a movie after the series was screwed by FOX.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> No, you didn't. You said "Why waste time on a show you know is already dead?" Referring to another poster's time. Perhaps you should be clearer in your writing? And if you are going to argue that the "you" were referring to was actually yourself then don't get so out of shape when others refer to the audience as a whole as "you" not a personal jab at "RunnerFL".
> 
> And then you (RunnerFL) told us how we must enjoy television shows according to your opinion. Doing exactly what you claimed others were doing. If you believe it is wrong, don't do it.
> 
> (Thank you for your later clarification that your "you" meant yourself.)


Not referring to another person's time at all. Perhaps you should study the English language and quit putting words in other people's mouths. I also never said anyone must do anything... More words put in my mouth...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I wasn't harping on you. Do what you like. I was pointing out that unlike the vast majority of shows that do get canceled and feel completely unfinished this show was not like that. It actually feels finished at the end of the first year. In fact I feel better about it then some other shows actual specifically written final episode. .
> 
> Just giving you the point of view from someone who has actually seen the show and generally feels like you do. I hate when shows get canceled after a season and feel totally unfinished. I hate that. This one was different and I think others here agree. That's all. Not telling you you have to watch it.
> 
> ...


Feeling finished and being finished are 2 different things...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I agree with you. I don't think you where insulting or telling anyone else what to do at all. Some people don't always interpret things the way they where meant.


Nope, certain people read post over and over just to see how they can twist them.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Perhaps it is time for everyone to sit back and do more reading?


Pot, meet kettle...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Got to disagree with this. My wife and I get basically an hour a night to watch shows. So we can't watch everything we might be interested in. So we will record an entire season of some new shows with the intent of watching them over the summer.
> 
> If they get cancelled before we watch, then we delete them. If they don't get cancelled and we get a chance to watch over the summer, then if we like the show, it will make it into the regular rotation in S2. So a show will get us as viewers in its second year.
> 
> ...


Same here, with the exception of the Blue Bloods part. There are many shows I have not watched until S2, once they got renewed, that are now shows I watch regularly. Scorpion, Blindspot, Last Ship, Person of Interest and yes even LOST just to name a few. Imagine watching S1 of something like LOST and having it cancelled on you?

And before the pile on... Yes, I realize LOST is now off the air but it was brought to a full conclusion as the writers intended. Big difference from being cancelled.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Herdfan said:


> If they get cancelled before we watch, then we delete them. If they don't get cancelled and we get a chance to watch over the summer, then if we like the show, it will make it into the regular rotation in S2. So a show will get us as viewers in its second year.


Hopefully you find the time to thank the people who made enough commitment to the show to keep it alive during season one.

There have been a few shows that grabbed my interest enough that I set a recording but due to time constraints I never got around to watching. The difference is my decision to delete was not based on the show being cancelled. I didn't let the apathy of others decide whether or not I watched the shows on my DVR.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I watch a lot of TV... and since getting a DVR years ago, I record a lot more TV to watch than I would have ever imagined. Some shows I already know I like, other shows I strongly suspect I'll like and some I'm just curious or have heard something about.

When I get time, I first watch my known favorites... then if I catch up with all those, I'll first try the suspected "I'll like it" shows... last on the list are the "maybe" new shows. Since I don't always have time to watch everything in a given week, some shows pile up on the DVR over multiple weeks. IF a new show that I haven't yet watched gets halfway through the season without me watching... then my DVR is starting to get full and I have to start asking myself "will I ever" watch that show. IF I have heard good things, I'll let it ride until the end of the season.

IF I get to the end of a season and I still haven't watched... then I have to start making tough decisions. I have more time during the summer with less (on average) new shows to watch... so I can catch up with some over the summer. BUT if a show gets canceled and I never was tempted to watch it all season long, and my DVR is getting full... then I have no problem deleting stuff.

I 100% get why people might do that, because I do it too.

As for the "viewer needs to watch shows so they don't get canceled" arguments... the problem is... its an unwinnable scenario. You as an individual can watch every episode and your show still gets canceled because the network didn't see enough total viewers OR they find something they can buy cheaper to fill the timeslot. I don't allow myself to be "blackmailed" that it is somehow my fault for not watching the show that they may or may not renew anyway.

It's like when studios say "you better buy season 1 or we might not release season 2" on DVD... so you buy season 1 and then they never release season 2. Ok... so my buying it doesn't guarantee it either apparently! So... IF I love the show, I buy whatever exists... but if I merely like it... I wait and see if the whole series comes out before I consider a purchase. And for watching new shows, IF it might get canceled without a satisfactory ending AND they network might decide to not even air the last few episodes either... unless I know I'm going to LOVE it... I DVR it and wait to see if it gets a renewal. Once I hear it has been canceled, delete hits the DVR and I reclaim the space for something else.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are no guarantees that supporting a show will keep it alive. But not supporting a show is not going to help keep it alive.

Binge watching doesn't help broadcast and other linear television. They want weekly ratings and immediate advertising viewings - not "perhaps people will see my September ad next June when they binge watch the season". If a show cannot get enough viewers to watch it NOW when the ads are still relevant on linear channels the new "second chance" is to release it via streaming. Via streaming they can either charge you enough to pay for the show without ads or insert relevant ads for the day of viewing - ads that still have all of their value.

If one casts the "maybe later" vote by recording but not watching perhaps they are hoping that the program ends up on a service they are already paying for. I am hoping that the program stays on a service I am already paying for.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Ads these days are more and more less immediately timely. Ones with sales may only be relevant this week but ones about brands are universal for months.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Binge watching doesn't help broadcast and other linear television.


Sure it does. Recording a show looks the same on their end as someone tuned in live.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Sure it does. Recording a show looks the same on their end as someone tuned in live.


Actually I think the DVRs tell them both. If it's recorded and when it's actually watched. Otherwise how would they know the difference in the ratings between live, live plus same day, live plus 7 day and now evidently live plus 35 days?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Actually I think the DVRs tell them both. If it's recorded and when it's actually watched. Otherwise how would they know the difference in the ratings between live, live plus same day, live plus 7 day and now evidently live plus 35 days?


Good point.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Actually I think the DVRs tell them both. If it's recorded and when it's actually watched. Otherwise how would they know the difference in the ratings between live, live plus same day, live plus 7 day and now evidently live plus 35 days?


But does it tell them if I skip every commercial?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> But does it tell them if I skip every commercial?


No, that information is gathered by the men in the black helicopters.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> But does it tell them if I skip every commercial?


Yes and no. Advertisers have to subscribe to more data from Tivo, DIRECTV, etc.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Per *Wikipedia's entry for Nielsen ratings*:



> Nielsen also provides viewership data calculated as the average viewership for only the commercial time within the program. These "Commercial Ratings" first became available on May 31, 2007. Additionally, Nielsen provides different "streams" of this data in order to take into consideration delayed viewing (DVR) data, at any interval up to seven days. C3 was the metric launched in 2007, and refers to the ratings for average commercial minutes in live programming plus total playback by digital video recorder out to three days after. By the end of 2012, some television executives wanted to see C7, ratings for live plus seven days, with CBS Corporation chief executive officer Les Moonves making the claim C7 made ratings increase by 30%.


In May 2014 Advertising Age had a piece Agency Viewpoint: It's Time to Move to C7 Ratings indicating:



> Next week, members of the media industry will converge at various New York midtown venues to view program schedule pitches by the major national broadcasters. It signals the seventh anniversary of Nielsen Media Research's move to C3 ratings -- providing standardized ratings for commercials during live broadcasts of programs, plus three days of playback.
> 
> The deal was groundbreaking at the time. Advertisers and their agencies wanted to pay for the audience that actually saw their ads. Previously, ratings measured average audiences for live programs, not specific commercials. The quid pro quo for the networks was recognition for later audiences of their programs that they hadn't been earning credit on. They negotiated with the agencies and settled on C3.
> 
> ...


However, in October 2015 the headline was Fox and ABC Are Winning the C3 Ratings War with a kicker subhead _'Empire,' 'Scream Queens,' 'Quantico,' Soar in TV's Only Metric That Matters_ which gives a sense of what commercial ratings are like, though if I were an advertiser I would be uncomfortable with the numbers.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

One problem with pay based on commercial views is the networks can't control if the commercials themselves are bad. They only can control the show itself. 

So advertisers pay for the right to place in a slot. If they want viewers, they have to have interesting commercials. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RunnerFL said:


> Sure it does. Recording a show looks the same on their end as someone tuned in live.


Nope. The ratings system is based on when the show is watched. The devices and diaries used to register ratings track viewership.

_*Electronic and proprietary metering technology is at the heart of Nielsen audience measurement. In addition to capturing what channels viewers are watching on each television set in the home, our meters can identify who is watching and when, including "time-shifted" viewing-the watching of recorded programming up to seven days after an original broadcast.*_

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/solutions/measurement/television.html


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> One problem with pay based on commercial views is the networks can't control if the commercials themselves are bad. They only can control the show itself.


The better the show the more likely people will turn it into "appointment television" and watch it live with commercials. Sports are good at being appointment TV - most people either watch live or not at all. Scripted and non-scripted shows can also be appointment TV. The goal is to create something that MUST be watched as soon as it airs lest one be behind the rest of the world on the story.

In today's market "appointment television" includes live social media sharing between friends (and others) watching the show live. Tweeting or using other social media to extend the shared experience of watching a compelling show.

Bad commercials can harm a show ... people changing channels or walking away during commercials and not coming back for the show. Or delaying their viewing to where people are watching alone (or as a single household) instead of as a nationwide shared experience. Killing the social media buzz.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Looks like Live +7 may become Live +35. Wow!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/introducing-live-35-day-ratings-898530

And don't put the dagger in _Nashville_ just yet:

http://www.vinereport.com/article/nashville-is-being-shopped-around-with-4-to-5-platforms-reportedly-interested/11218.htm


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

+35 should help some shows survive (I often miss the 8th day and if the ratings family that represent me do the same the viewership isn't reported).

The rolling ratings for +7 will be interesting. I wonder if stations that see a ratings spike three or four days after air will consider moving the show to a different night if the majority of their audience is waiting that long to view the programming?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Nope. The ratings system is based on when the show is watched. The devices and diaries used to register ratings track viewership.
> 
> _*Electronic and proprietary metering technology is at the heart of Nielsen audience measurement. In addition to capturing what channels viewers are watching on each television set in the home, our meters can identify who is watching and when, including "time-shifted" viewing-the watching of recorded programming up to seven days after an original broadcast.*_
> 
> http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/solutions/measurement/television.html


The broadcaster has no way of deciding whether it's me sitting in front of the tv or my dvr watching it for me.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Good point.


Add to that: We don't watch some series until the summer. I don't know how or if that skews the ratings. I'm sure we're not the only ones that do that.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RunnerFL said:


> The broadcaster has no way of deciding whether it's me sitting in front of the tv or my dvr watching it for me.


The ratings system knows. Please read the page linked in the post you quoted. Or at least read the post.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

My viewing habit is mostly to record one night and watch it the next.
The exception to that is live sports. I tend to start watching about an hour late and eventually catch up to live TV by skipping all the commercials.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> The broadcaster has no way of deciding whether it's me sitting in front of the tv or my dvr watching it for me.


But the DVRs tell DIRECTV and so forth and Nielsen when the program is actually played back... They know what's on screen or simply recorded in the background.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> The ratings system knows. Please read the page linked in the post you quoted. Or at least read the post.


The system does not know if I am sitting there on the couch. No way you can convince me of that. There are no cameras in my house for them to see anything.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> But the DVRs tell DIRECTV and so forth and Nielsen when the program is actually played back... They know what's on screen or simply recorded in the background.


Played back, yes. But when it is live on the air they have no way of knowing whether or not I'm sitting on the couch or in the bedroom watching it. If it's being recorded on the primary tuner I could be there, I may not be there. They have no way of knowing... Background tuner? Watching on a 61k live would look like a background tuner. Again, no way of knowing whether I'm sitting there watching or not.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RunnerFL said:


> The system does not know if I am sitting there on the couch. No way you can convince me of that. There are no cameras in my house for them to see anything.


You personally? No. Since you apparently are not a ratings family who is watching programming in your home is not registered in the same way as the ratings that we are discussing. But the ratings family that represents you (and similar demographic people) is accurately logged.

Going back to your last statement (which was different):


RunnerFL said:


> The broadcaster has no way of deciding whether it's me sitting in front of the tv or my dvr watching it for me.


I have yet to see a DVR that watches TV. The signal flow is the opposite. The content goes from the DVR to the TV. (I have had TVs with outputs where whatever one was watching was sent out and could have been recorded - but your DIRECTV DVR would not have inputs to record what was shown on the TV.) So your statement is fundamentally flawed. DVRs do not watch TV.

The limited statistics that DIRECTV can collect will show if and when a program is watched. If one records a program and deletes it without watching the program is not shown as viewed. Are you in the habit of starting playback and walking away (or leaving a receiver on while not watching)? That will skew DIRECTV's limited statistics.

Fortunately the TV industry uses the official ratings services that are more accurate than the statistics that DIRECTV can generate. Shows are not cancelled or renewed based on DIRECTV's statistics. Programmers use the official ratings as discussed (in addition to other factors).


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Played back, yes. But when it is live on the air they have no way of knowing whether or not I'm sitting on the couch or in the bedroom watching it. If it's being recorded on the primary tuner I could be there, I may not be there. They have no way of knowing... Background tuner? Watching on a 61k live would look like a background tuner. Again, no way of knowing whether I'm sitting there watching or not.


Well maybe maybe not. I really don't know because we don't know if the DVR can tell the difference between something on a tuner and something actually being played back. Personally I think they know that difference because its key to knowing if it's recorded or watched. And I also think it always knows the difference between a background tuner and something being watched on a c61 k live... It's a logical thing to me personally because of how the genies work in general.

You are right that it being on the tv screen vs you actually sitting there it doesn't know. I believe they flat out assume that if it's being displayed via a video output it's being watched. Heck you could technically do that and leave the thing unplugged from the tv and fake the ratings. But who'd do that?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> The system does not know if I am sitting there on the couch. No way you can convince me of that. There are no cameras in my house for them to see anything.


Ignoring the "Blue Circle of Integrated" camera conspiracy theories... 


RunnerFL said:


> The broadcaster has no way of deciding whether it's me sitting in front of the tv or my dvr watching it for me.


The system knows several things:
1) if the unit itself is in standby or turned on;
2) if the unit is connected to a TV via HDMI and if the TV is on;
3) (potentially knows) if connected via Composite or Component and the TV is turned on;
4) if the remote control has been used in the last few hours (from which it can guess if a human is around.)
5) some measure of which types of people might be watching based on complex heuristics of behavior and habits against surveys.

The DVR can also tell precisely when SKIP is pressed, something Nielsen doesn't normally track (though they are working on it.)

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> Well maybe maybe not. I really don't know because we don't know if the DVR can tell the difference between something on a tuner and something actually being played back. Personally I think they know that difference because its key to knowing if it's recorded or watched. And I also think it always knows the difference between a background tuner and something being watched on a c61 k live... It's a logical thing to me personally because of how the genies work in general.
> 
> You are right that it being on the tv screen vs you actually sitting there it doesn't know. I believe they flat out assume that if it's being displayed via a video output it's being watched. Heck you could technically do that and leave the thing unplugged from the tv and fake the ratings. But who'd do that?


If the TV is hooked up via HDMI the DVR knows the status of the TV on/off. Probably knows if that input is selected too.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> You personally? No. Since you apparently are not a ratings family who is watching programming in your home is not registered in the same way as the ratings that we are discussing. But the ratings family that represents you (and similar demographic people) is accurately logged.
> 
> Going back to your last statement (which was different):
> 
> ...


I'd like to expand on your thinking here. DIRECTV has different statistics than Nielsen, yet the data they do have is very accurate: which commercials are skipped, when the skipping starts, which commercials are actually played (especially interesting if the user has a pattern of skipping and yet stops the skip to watch a commercial), etc.

And with a combination of surveys and some fancy heuristics analysis, DIRECTV can get pretty good at figuring out who might be watching.

<rant> thus my biggest complaint with Tivo and how I think they really missed the boat. The real money was in the information they could have gathered if they priced their consumer side more appropriately. I had no problem with high monthly prices during the early adopter phase, but their pricing is completely off the map considering for the same amount, Netflix, hulu, Amazon, et al will stream real content--not simple guide data that is available for free via PSP. Had Tivo dropped their monthly to $2/month (via annual package), they could have truly cornered and held the DVR market--and made much more money off selling the info from a huge base of users.

Then again, Motorola decided they didn't need to make digital cell equipment... Thus started their end...

</rant>
Peace,
Tom


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

This remains me of how when I was a little kid and my family took me to The Bronx Zoo, the map would alway know where I was.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> I have yet to see a DVR that watches TV.


A tuner recording looks no different to the broadcaster than a person watching a show live. Every DVR watches TV, can't record if it's not watching...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Ignoring the "Blue Circle of Integrated" camera conspiracy theories...
> 
> The system knows several things:
> 1) if the unit itself is in standby or turned on;
> ...


The system may know but the broadcaster does not.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Well, we tried folks. Sometimes the truth cannot be accepted.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> The system may know but the broadcaster does not.


Consider... the broadcaster only knows what the DVR tells it. So do the DVR knows... So does the broadcaster.

That's how I see it anyway. Otherwise none of their ratings make any sense at all and you'd have double viewership for anything that was watched after it was recorded...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> Well, we tried folks. Sometimes the truth cannot be accepted.


Maybe try wording it another way rather than claim he doesn't accept the truth? :nono:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> The system may know but the broadcaster does not.


Going back to my earlier comment, if the DVR knows, DIRECTV knows. If DIRECT knows, they can sell the information. If DIRECTV sells the information, the broadcaster can know.

Like Nielsen knows, but the broadcaster does not... unless they pay for it. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Maybe try wording it another way rather than claim he doesn't accept the truth? :nono:


Feel free to try ... but several of us have hit the same wall.

It is the opposite of the paranoia we once saw when people realized that their receivers were reporting viewership habits back to the mothership. But instead of being in fear or anger over having one's receiver spy on them this time we are seeing complete denial.

But even if a customer has taken measures to prevent those reports back (not connecting to the Internet or a phone line) the bigger issue isn't any one individual's personal viewership but the national ratings that represent every viewer. And those people are most certainly tracked as accurately as possible.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Feel free to try ... but several of us have hit the same wall.


Maybe if you didn't always have a "pile on" mentality...

There's no one watching whether or not I'm here watching TV. You and your paranoia can't convince me otherwise.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Going back to my earlier comment, if the DVR knows, DIRECTV knows. If DIRECT knows, they can sell the information. If DIRECTV sells the information, the broadcaster can know.
> 
> Like Nielsen knows, but the broadcaster does not... unless they pay for it.
> 
> ...


Ok, sure they can sell the information but they get that information days or months later. I stand by what I say, broadcasters don't know if anyone is sitting there actually watching a show as it airs or if it is a DVR recording it.

This silly mentality of "if you don't watch the show live and you wait to bing watch later you're dooming the show" is just stupid.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> Ok, sure they can sell the information but they get that information days or months later. I stand by what I say, broadcasters don't know if anyone is sitting there actually watching a show as it airs or if it is a DVR recording it.
> 
> This silly mentality of "if you don't watch the show live and you wait to bing watch later you're dooming the show" is just stupid.


So your premise is they know immediately that either the DVR "watched" or the TV watched, yet they don't know for "days or months" if it was the DVR or the TV? Wouldn't the same mechanism that reported something was "watched" also be able to report recording vs watched?

Tivo and DIRECTV can get their information as quickly as the internet allows. Or nightly dialup.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RunnerFL said:


> Ok, sure they can sell the information but they get that information days or months later. I stand by what I say, broadcasters don't know if anyone is sitting there actually watching a show as it airs or if it is a DVR recording it.


Broadcasters who are paying for official ratings know. They pay a lot of money to know when their programs are viewed - whether it be same day, within three days, within seven days or (coming this fall) within 35 days of air (with more immediacy and more detail on the "within seven days" ratings).



RunnerFL said:


> This silly mentality of "if you don't watch the show live and you wait to bing watch later you're dooming the show" is just stupid.


Dooming the show and not helping the show survive are different things. There is no ratings category for "recorded but did not watch within the ratings window". Binge watchers might as well not watch at all when it comes to broadcast ratings.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Ok, here is a curve ball. Aside from my mom, is there anyone out there who records a show and then watches it later, but doesn't FF through commercials? Does the info the broadcasters get reflect if commercials were skipped or not?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> Ok, here is a curve ball. Aside from my mom, is there anyone out there who records a show and then watches it later, but doesn't FF through commercials? Does the info the broadcasters get reflect if commercials were skipped or not?


I would think it would. I remember years ago in the Janet Jackson incident at the Super Bowl, Tivo released data as to how many rewound at that moment.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> So your premise is they know immediately that either the DVR "watched" or the TV watched, yet they don't know for "days or months" if it was the DVR or the TV? Wouldn't the same mechanism that reported something was "watched" also be able to report recording vs watched?
> 
> Tivo and DIRECTV can get their information as quickly as the internet allows. Or nightly dialup.
> 
> ...


No my premise is, for the umpteenth time, the broadcasters DO NOT know if I'm sitting in front of my TV watching their show live or letting my DVR record it as it airs.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Broadcasters who are paying for official ratings know.


No, they don't. It would be impossibe for them to know unless they are sitting on my couch and either see me there next to them or don't see me at all.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Dooming the show and not helping the show survive are different things. There is no ratings category for "recorded but did not watch within the ratings window". Binge watchers might as well not watch at all when it comes to broadcast ratings.


Your line of thinking here couldn't be more wrong... I am in no way shape or form dooming a show by recording it to watch later. Not sure where on Earth you came up with that one.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> No my premise is, for the umpteenth time, the broadcasters DO NOT know if I'm sitting in front of my TV watching their show live or letting my DVR record it as it airs.


Yet for the umpteenth time you aren't explaining how broadcasters know if anything is being watched or recorded.

My premise is: as soon as broadcasters know that something is being watched or recorded, they know exactly if it was watched or recorded. (And I've shown my homework as to how.)

Peace,
Tom


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> No my premise is, for the umpteenth time, the broadcasters DO NOT know if I'm sitting in front of my TV watching their show live or letting my DVR record it as it airs.


If the show is being recorded on the foreground tuner you are correct. However if the show is being recorded on a background tuner the DVR and therefore DirecTV absolutely knows it is not being watched live. The big point is none of this is relevant as the Nielsen households are the ones that matter for ratings and Nielsen households have specialized hardware that knows what is being shown on the screen and how many people are in the room. Granted it can't know if you are paying attention to the screen but it knows if you are in the room.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:



> Ok, here is a curve ball. Aside from my mom, is there anyone out there who records a show and then watches it later, but doesn't FF through commercials? Does the info the broadcasters get reflect if commercials were skipped or not?


Part 1: Yes there are people who don't skip the commercials on DVRs. I'm typically not one, I normally skip. (And my great grandkids are getting pretty adamant if I don't start skipping soon enough!)  But my parents tended not to skip and I've seen others who've tended not to skip.

Part 2: The broadcasters and advertisers can pay for the information as to what is skipped, when the skipping started, etc. That was the real golden goose that Tivo didn't realize.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

longrider said:


> If the show is being recorded on the foreground tuner you are correct. However if the show is being recorded on a background tuner the DVR and therefore DirecTV absolutely knows it is not being watched live. The big point is none of this is relevant as the Nielsen households are the ones that matter for ratings and Nielsen households have specialized hardware that knows what is being shown on the screen and how many people are in the room. Granted it can't know if you are paying attention to the screen but it knows if you are in the room.


Actually if the DVR is connected via HDMI, Tivo and DIRECTV know if the foreground tuner are actively displayed. They also can estimate the likelihood someone is actually watching even if the TV is turned on.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

dpeters11 said:


> I would think it would. I remember years ago in the Janet Jackson incident at the Super Bowl, Tivo released data as to how many rewound at that moment.


Bingo! Yup, Tivo, DIRECTV, and probably Dish know. (I don't know with certainty about Dish.)

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RunnerFL said:


> No my premise is, for the umpteenth time, the broadcasters DO NOT know if I'm sitting in front of my TV watching their show live or letting my DVR record it as it airs.


The ratings system is not all about YOU. It is about the representative sample of people who watch TV and have their viewing habits monitored to the level needed to provide accurate statistics as to WHEN shows are watched.

And if your DIRECTV receiver is connected to the network (phone or Internet) you are part of DIRECTV's statistics.



RunnerFL said:


> Your line of thinking here couldn't be more wrong... I am in no way shape or form dooming a show by recording it to watch later. Not sure where on Earth you came up with that one.


You are the one who introduced the word "doomed". Apparently you are starting an argument with yourself.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Your line of thinking here couldn't be more wrong... I am in no way shape or form dooming a show by recording it to watch later. Not sure where on Earth you came up with that one.


Wouldn't you think just the act of recording a show would be enough? The presumption would be that the recorded show would be watched at some time. I'd think that would be enough for the ratings folk.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> Wouldn't you think just the act of recording a show would be enough? The presumption would be that the recorded show would be watched at some time. I'd think that would be enough for the ratings folk.


What ratings category have you seen that reports shows not watched?

Ratings are reported based on viewing.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Rich said:


> Wouldn't you think just the act of recording a show would be enough? The presumption would be that the recorded show would be watched at some time. I'd think that would be enough for the ratings folk.
> 
> Rich





James Long said:


> What ratings category have you seen that reports shows not watched?
> 
> Ratings are reported based on viewing.


Yes, ratings track when a program is watched, which is why you'll see live plus same-day, live plus 3 day, live plus 7 day, and soon live plus 35 day, referring to how long after the airdate the program is watched.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

David Ortiz said:


> Yes, ratings track when a program is watched, which is why you'll see live plus same-day, live plus 3 day, live plus 7 day, and soon live plus 35 day, referring to how long after the airdate the program is watched.


I get that. What I was suggesting was a presumption that a recorded show would be watched at some time in the future. That seems rational to me. Seems like that would simplify things. Just a quick opinion.

Rich


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Rich said:


> I get that. What I was suggesting was a presumption that a recorded show would be watched at some time in the future. That seems rational to me. Seems like that would simplify things. Just a quick opinion.
> 
> Rich


As long as it's renewed.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> I get that. What I was suggesting was a presumption that a recorded show would be watched at some time in the future. That seems rational to me. Seems like that would simplify things.


They are not looking for simple ... they are looking for accurate.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Let's be frank...

They don't know if you are actually watching anything ever. This is true. They only know if the DVR is tuned to a program and whether or not it was recorded and if it was played (or replayed later). From there, they make certain assumptions since they have no spies inside your house to make sure you actually ever watch anything.

Assumptions (including, but not limited to the following):

1. Tuned or recording on the primary tuner means a person could be watching. Not guaranteed, but at least possible.
2. Recording on a secondary (non-primary) tuner means a person is not likely watching live.
3. Initiation of playback of a recording indicates a person is probably watching. Again, not 100% guaranteed but more likely than #1 because it required interactivity by the user to start the playback.

These, and other, assumptions are made by broadcasters to determine viewership estimates. Estimating is all they can do right now. But they do estimate, and they do so based on DVR/receiver data that is made available to them either for free or for a fee. Are their assumptions wrong? Sure, sometimes... but it's all they've got, so it's the data they work with for now.

Arguing over whether or not they "know" you are watching is pointless. They don't "know" if you are watching... but they extrapolate from what they do know, and guess at the rest. So, IF you are recording things and watching them later they are definitely making different assumptions about you than other people.

As for me... in the VCR days, I only recorded stuff when I wasn't going to be home OR in the rare case when two things came on at the same time that I wanted to watch. But, a lot of shows I watched live were still canceled... and over the years I've been trained that shows I like might be canceled even if I watch them live... so I've given up worrying about that. I watch as much live as I can, watch same-day stuff for my favorites as much as I can, and let marginal or new stuff pile up to see what happens. They've succeeded in training me as a viewer to prioritize, which ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy with more shows getting poorer "live" estimates and shorter leashes... but I just don't have the time to invest in all shows just to keep them from being canceled. I hit my favorites first, and see what I have time for after that.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> Wouldn't you think just the act of recording a show would be enough? The presumption would be that the recorded show would be watched at some time. I'd think that would be enough for the ratings folk.
> 
> Rich


It used to never be enough. But I believe as time has passed ads have been changed to allow for being watched in certain time frames in general make it worth while vs watched that night. But not for everything.

Ads are often bought for not just specific shows but specific time and day because they can be timely. Simplest example right now is the election. When they are buying ads they will want them on channels that have programs being watched live or same day. No point of putting up an ad on a program that is usually recorded today and watched within say 35 days in California since our primary is tomorrow.

It's all very dependent on the actual specific ad.

That's why news programs likely have the largest ad buys for politically right now. News is one thing we still watch a lot of live. Wait till football and baseball playoffs. They'll have more political ads than a lot of prime time shows I bet.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> No my premise is, for the umpteenth time, the broadcasters DO NOT know if I'm sitting in front of my TV watching their show live or letting my DVR record it as it airs.


Well I think the thing most here disagree with is the idea that you say they can't tell the difference between what's being recorded or what's being watched.

I guess the question may be what constitutes "watched" according to a DVR...

I most certainly guarantee they know the difference between what's being recorded and what's being output via the video outputs of the DVR... All the ratings data they release proves that.

However that isn't necessarily the same thing as being watched mind you...

I might suggest that all networks make the following assumption.

If your DVR is turned on to output video whatever video is being output at that moment is being watched.

I believe that is how "watched" is defined for DVRs and ratings.

That's how they always used to decide ratings right? They had a little box that collected data and sent in when the tv was on and what it was tuned too. (Ok after they did the hand noted journals they used to do but before DVRs took over the world) so that's the exact same premise as they've always used.

They also know what's being recorded because the DVRs also tell them what's being recorded and not watched at the same time. Heck they can even tell if something was watched and recorded live and then watched recorded again latter. ( there is no reason to think foreground tuner exsist in ratings reports. All that makes sense to exist is what was recorded and what was output via the DVRs video outputs and if it was live or recorded.

They may not know if you are physically there but it stands to reason for most that if your tv is turned on you are watching whatever is being displayed on it. And since the DVR can tell them that that's how they determine their ratings.

As someone mentioned if you use HDMI then they always know for sure. Now if you use a connection other than HDMI and you leave your DVR on all the time then yes they might think whatever is being output is being watched even if the tv is turned off. But I doubt that scenario happens very often in the grand scheme. Most people turn "off" their DVRs with their tvs.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Yet for the umpteenth time you aren't explaining how broadcasters know if anything is being watched or recorded.
> 
> My premise is: as soon as broadcasters know that something is being watched or recorded, they know exactly if it was watched or recorded. (And I've shown my homework as to how.)
> 
> ...


"as soon as" is different than "live", my entire point that no one seems to be getting.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> The ratings system is not all about YOU.


I NEVER SAID IT WAS!!! Once again putting words in my mouth. You REALLY need to stop that.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

I give up... You guys maintain your paranoia that everyone knows everything about everything and that you're being watched at all times. I'll sleep better at night not being paranoid.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

From what I understand and have experienced, the majority of Nielsen ratings right now are done with the paper journals. That is what I was asked to do last year for 2 weeks.

With most people getting their service through different cable/satellite boxes these days they can't use the old boxes like they used to. I believe the only ones who can use the boxes are people who watch mostly OTA, and I think they still have them keep journals if they watch programming online through Netflix etc.

While the cable companies, DirecTV, etc. do collect information on what you are watching through their boxes, as far as I know Nielen does not buy that information from them, so it doesn't really count toward the ratings system that most stations use for programming decisions.

I honestly believe the current system is ridiculously outdated and in need of a severe overhaul. But, Nielsen has been around forever and large companies like the networks are notoriously resistant to change. I mean Nielsen still has you filling out a paper book with scantron circles and a number 2 pencil. My wife refused to do it, so I had to try to get her to tell me what she watched every day and fill it in for her, my daugther, and myself. Why Nielsen hasn't come up with a simple website or phone/tablet app that could do the same thing much easier is a mystery to me. Or maybe even use technology like Viggle to listen to what is playing on your TV so it can report everything for you.

Either way I will just say it like this. Unless Neilsen is paying a you a dollar a week (or whatever goofy amount of money it was) to fill out a diary, the channels don't care what you are watching.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RunnerFL said:


> I NEVER SAID IT WAS!!! Once again putting words in my mouth. You REALLY need to stop that.


Well you put "doomed" in my mouth ... so perhaps if you consider that a standard please follow it yourself.

I have been trying to have a rational discussion about the ratings system including references and descriptions explaining how that works. Your counter arguments have been "no cameras in my home" and other absurdities that have nothing to do with the ratings system that broadcasters are paying for.

Broadcasters know through the ratings system when shows are watched. The first reports about how many people watched a show come overnight. Numbers are adjusted as more data comes in. Numbers are reported to the broadcasters paying for the information based on when the programs were watched. No cameras in your home ... but a ratings system that has been in place for a long time that is trusted by the broadcasters.

The official ratings system is the "they" that I have been attempting to discuss. But there is another they in the equation and that is your service provider. That other "they" has their own separate statistical system that can track channels and shows watched and recorded. In general the service provider's tracking is used for their own internal purposes.

Perhaps that is part of your confusion ...the two "they"s. One that provides accurate national ratings and the other that tracks their own customers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Beerstalker said:


> From what I understand and have experienced, the majority of Nielsen ratings right now are done with the paper journals. That is what I was asked to do last year for 2 weeks.


The diaries supplement the electronically gathered ratings. It is a good check to make sure that their regular ratings families are representative of the larger viewing audiences.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> I give up... You guys maintain your paranoia that everyone knows everything about everything and that you're being watched at all times. I'll sleep better at night not being paranoid.


No, I'm not paranoid. I know that DIRECTV can measure what is displayed on my TV. The can infer somethings about if anyone is watching, but they can't really know if anyone is in the room actually watching unless I press keys on the remote. When I'm watching Bloomberg whilst trading or listening to music, I might not use the remote for hours, yet still be appreciating the service. (And if I'm not skipping Bloomberg commercials, the advertisers are happier.) 

Where I don't follow you is how you think broadcasters "know something." If a broadcaster can know that a DVR recorded something, how can they not also know if the TV was displaying it? The same mechanism that sends information ultimately to the broadcasters that a DVR tuner was used, can also report how that tuner was used: record, record and display, or later playback.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

I think it's getting too easy to become almost "deluded" into self-importance thinking that how one uses or doesn't use their DVR or TV really even matters all that much in terms of whether a network TV show gets cancelled or not.

It's just not that important (unless of course you happen to be part of a functioning Nielsen household). Use your system however you want. You're paying for it for your own convenience. Not so that you can worry about how your viewing data may or may not be being interpreted by whatever entity. That's just silly.

If folks really wanted a show to *not* go away, there were such things as letter-writing campaigns (nowadays probably Twitter). I seem to recall CBS being convinced into keeping _Jericho_ on another season, for example.

On the other hand, if people wanted a show *to* go away, they use the threat of advertiser boycott.

Although the "landscapes" are continually changing with reference to TV shows' ownership and streaming rights, etc, it's important to just keep your head and simply enjoy the shows you like with whatever technology and viewing habits work best for you.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> I think it's getting too easy to become almost "deluded" into self-importance thinking that how one uses or doesn't use their DVR or TV really even matters all that much in terms of whether a network TV show gets cancelled or not.
> 
> It's just not that important (unless of course you happen to be part of a functioning Nielsen household). Use your system however you want. You're paying for it for your own convenience. Not so that you can worry about how your viewing data may or may not be being interpreted by whatever entity. That's just silly.
> 
> ...


Pretty much anyone with a current DVR is a neilsen home now.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> And don't put the dagger in _Nashville_ just yet:
> 
> http://www.vinereport.com/article/nashville-is-being-shopped-around-with-4-to-5-platforms-reportedly-interested/11218.htm


According to _The Hollywood Reporter_ *'Nashville' Nearing Season 5 Renewal at CMT*.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

phrelin said:


> According to _The Hollywood Reporter_ *'Nashville' Nearing Season 5 Renewal at CMT*.


Situations like this make the broadcast networks less relevant every day.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> Situations like this make the broadcast networks less relevant every day.


How so? Cable networks cancel shows too... and even a show that moves from one network to the other, likely wouldn't exist to move to that other network if the original one hadn't first bought in at a higher price.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Tom Robertson said:


> Actually if the DVR is connected via HDMI, Tivo and DIRECTV know if the foreground tuner are actively displayed.


Mmmm. Sounds like science fiction to me. HDMI does not have hooks like that. The only thing HDMI knows is if it has an active handshake, and that data stays in the HDMI xmit chip. The DVR has no idea, other than that, if the TV is even on, or working properly, so it can't tattle tale back to the mothership one way or the other.

I think all they know is if something is being recorded, what channels the tuners are on, which is foreground, whether something is being played back, and what parts are being skipped. And of course when, and at what service address.

But they have no clue if anyone is watching live, or even not live. They don't know if you are asleep, walking the dog, or out making a sandwich. They don't even know if the sound is muted. Maybe you put the game on, and then got busy with the maid. Let's hope they can't figure that one out.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> How so? Cable networks cancel shows too... and even a show that moves from one network to the other, likely wouldn't exist to move to that other network if the original one hadn't first bought in at a higher price.


I think herdfan has a point. At least now, the network can't say 'sorry, you're going to have to watch this show instead', like they could in 1976. _Nashville_ (which I would not be caught dead watching) is popular, and now that show is in direct competition with whatever replaced it, and with every other show on that network. They created a monster that they can't kill.

A few years ago, the nets were worried about competition against their 10 PM show, from people playing back the shows they just recorded on that same network at 8 and 9 PM. Now second lives for shows they canned, are haunting them. Streaming only made that worse for them. Reboot fever isn't helping.

Big nets never served the niche audiences, and never bothered with who might be watching in the fly-over states. Chickens come home to roost.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Beerstalker said:


> From what I understand and have experienced, the majority of Nielsen ratings right now are done with the paper journals. That is what I was asked to do last year for 2 weeks.
> 
> ...Nielsen still has you filling out a paper book with scantron circles and a number 2 pencil. My wife refused to do it, so I had to try to get her to tell me what she watched every day and fill it in for her, my daugther, and myself. Why Nielsen hasn't come up with a simple website or phone/tablet app that could do the same thing much easier is a mystery to me. Or maybe even use technology like Viggle to listen to what is playing on your TV so it can report everything for you.
> 
> Either way I will just say it like this. Unless Neilsen is paying a you a dollar a week (or whatever goofy amount of money it was) to fill out a diary, the channels don't care what you are watching.


I was sent a couple of those crisp dollar bills once myself. Worked in TV, so had to send the diary back (sure, I did).

But the diary concept is severely inaccurate. The single reason the 12-34 demo (people with little or no discretionary cash to spend) is chased by the networks is because people who 'count' (those who get randomly sent ratings diaries) GIVE THE DIARIES TO THEIR KIDS TO FILL OUT. It's a nuisance for the guy making the dough and going to work, but it's a lark for a 14-year-old.

So what happens? The Nielsen data says THESE shows (shows that kids watch) are what is popular, which is a bald-faced lie. And the networks know exactly who is filling out the diaries, so they program directly to the 12-18 demo. To middle school kids. It's been going on for decades. Nielsen is a total sham. A house of cards. And the only game in town. Never mind that man behind the curtain...

And where do you think that has gotten us? Now we have a world of TV programmed to 11-year-olds. There probably isn't an actor over 23 on The CW (Victor Garber, I guess). People over 50, with actual cash to spend on what is advertised, are the consumers, yet ironically, they don't count.

Up is down. Down is up. But it's all coming crashing down pretty quickly.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> Pretty much anyone with a current DVR is a neilsen home now.


That is an urban myth, and by 'myth', I mean completely false.

There is a rich storehouse of data available, that is true. But the industry has not embraced it. Not because it would not be valuable to them, but because they are afraid it would reveal what people are NOT watching, that their ratings, based on the imperfect data, might go down, and their management might be in mortal danger of being booted. No one wants to take a chance on losing a good gig.

This has already happened; there are legendary uproars that have occurred because of this already, just in the last few years. New technologies proposed by Nielsen and others just get shown the door. When Nielsen tries anything new, their rich clients lose their minds and demand they maintain the status quo. I have seen this, firsthand.

What they have and have had for decades is working for them, even if it is a total sham. So they are not about to upset the applecart.

I'm not saying that this data never reaches the research departments; I'm saying that it is completely ignored, out of one thing: fear. Fear that the truth might be too horrible to know or accept. Human nature at work.

Honestly, Nielsen, Arbitron (RIP) and everyone else has never had the first clue what people are really watching. So a narrative, a fantasy, was needed to be created in its place. And that is the fantasy that the big nets hang their hats on every day.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

TomCat said:


> I think herdfan has a point. At least now, the network can't say 'sorry, you're going to have to watch this show instead', like they could in 1976. _Nashville_ (which I would not be caught dead watching) is popular, and now that show is in direct competition with whatever replaced it, and with every other show on that network. They created a monster that they can't kill.
> 
> A few years ago, the nets were worried about competition against their 10 PM show, from people playing back the shows they just recorded on that same network at 8 and 9 PM. Now second lives for shows they canned, are haunting them. Streaming only made that worse for them. Reboot fever isn't helping.
> 
> Big nets never served the niche audiences, and never bothered with who might be watching in the fly-over states. Chickens come home to roost.


I don't disagree that the OTA broadcast nets aren't far less significant than they were say 20+ years ago... I just meant that this specific news of a show maybe moving to a cable net in modern times isn't a sign of decreasing significance of broadcast networks.

I believe the ship sailed at least 10-15 years ago on the broadcast networks having the kind of pull they used to have... but once that new equilibrium was established... they are all on equal footing, to me... such that USA and TBS and ABC and NBC are more like peers in the modern TV age... so a show being canceled by ABC and moving to TBS (or whatever example works) isn't a sign of the broadcast net losing any more power than they already lost a couple of decades ago.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

TomCat said:


> Mmmm. Sounds like science fiction to me. HDMI does not have hooks like that. The only thing HDMI knows is if it has an active handshake, and that data stays in the HDMI xmit chip. The DVR has no idea, other than that, if the TV is even on, or working properly, so it can't tattle tale back to the mothership one way or the other.
> 
> I think all they know is if something is being recorded, what channels the tuners are on, which is foreground, whether something is being played back, and what parts are being skipped. And of course when, and at what service address.
> 
> But they have no clue if anyone is watching live, or even not live. They don't know if you are asleep, walking the dog, or out making a sandwich. They don't even know if the sound is muted. Maybe you put the game on, and then got busy with the maid. Let's hope they can't figure that one out.


It knows if it is on. That's been sorta round about proven by how the DVRs react with multiple outputs connected and HDMI tv being turned off.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

inkahauts said:


> It knows if it is on. That's been sorta round about proven by how the DVRs react with multiple outputs connected and HDMI tv being turned off.


As far as I know, this is only for HDCP. Other than that I don't think it "cares" one way or the other. If fact, my relatively-new TV connected to a relatively-new DVR (HR44) releases the HDCP when that connected TV is off, but not when it's tuned to another input and on.

Although that's very convenient for me (while using component in another room) I'd have hard time being convinced of this "data" being important to anyone else, other than by design to reduce customer complaints of HDCP problems.

While it's not hard at all to believe detailed viewing data _can_ be collected, who's using it, how long it's stored and what exactly it's being used for (if anything other than making improvements to the system) could always be disputed, I suppose.

If they're going to get data from the HR44 that I'm using, then it would have to be "funneled" through the DECA system into the old HR20 and sent through its modem (connected for CID that room) and it would be a quite a stretch to believe that the system is that elaborate (prioritizing data collection over just making these things work like they're supposed to)!

I just don't think anyone really cares that much what you're watching on these systems. Heck, as far as I know there isn't even any real requirement (for DirecTV, at least) of _any_ kind of phone or internet connection. Only for remote ordering of PPV or downloading of on-demand and rewind feature (or caller ID display). PPVs can be ordered by other means (text, phone and online).


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> As far as I know, this is only for HDCP. Other than that I don't think it "cares" one way or the other. If fact, my relatively-new TV connected to a relatively-new DVR (HR44) releases the HDCP when that connected TV is off, but not when it's tuned to another input and on.
> 
> Although that's very convenient for me (while using component in another room) I'd have hard time being convinced of this "data" being important to anyone else, other than by design to reduce customer complaints of HDCP problems.
> 
> ...


No I don't think it cares either but the point is it knows.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

TomCat said:


> That is an urban myth, and by 'myth', I mean completely false.
> 
> There is a rich storehouse of data available, that is true. But the industry has not embraced it. Not because it would not be valuable to them, but because they are afraid it would reveal what people are NOT watching, that their ratings, based on the imperfect data, might go down, and their management might be in mortal danger of being booted. No one wants to take a chance on losing a good gig.
> 
> ...


Except that they have started to embrace it. You know there's another thread somewhere where you've been discussing political ads in how they're being inserted into previously recorded stuff being played way later. There's a joint venture (started a few years ago, somewhere the press release is on this site) between dish network and DirecTV to do that. It's a marketing plan. There's a reason you have to opt out of all of your information being shared. It's because they're selling it and using it to show ratings demographics and so forth to better their programming for their dollar. They then send targeted political ads to specific people's DVRs.

Why else do you think neilsens can get such information about DVR Useage and such as well. It wouldn't surprise me if they only use data from people who haven't opted out of sharing their info so they can extrapolate a full view with ages and all but still... I do t buy the Nielsen isn't getting some of its info directly from DIRECTV dish cable companies and TiVo.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Oh, I don't disagree. Nielsen is all over all of this new data. My point was that those who might be customers for the data are like ostriches with their heads in the sand, because they are afraid what this data might reveal. So they are not embracing it, they are instead just whistling through the graveyard.

And by customers, I mean the execs that make the final decisions. I would imagine that there are propellor heads in their research departments that are trying to convince them to embrace this data. It's a no-brainer to embrace it, but fear is irrational, and those who make these decisions are the ones that have the most to lose.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

In my experience, people will buy ratings that make them look good. Some markets have several #1 stations (one has to read the asterisks and footnotes to see what they are claiming). I saw one station a few years ago that claimed #1 in some narrow category for five years after they got that position (the year was in the footnote).

Why buy numbers that don't make you look good?


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Point taken. I mean, they all buy them. You have to buy them to find out if they're good or not. So everybody does. Then they find the arcane demo, daypart, and skew that they can manipulate into sounding good. KXYZ is the most-watched station!* (*between the hours of 2 and 3 AM on Thursdays by kids of islamic terrorists age 11-13).

BMW is the number one car. Audi is number one. Chrysler (!) is #1.

We expect a little blatant marketing. What irks me is how every show is a hit. Shows that haven't aired yet are dubbed 'hits', which by definition, they can't be. I am yawning when shows are called 'hits' and then their 13-ep order gets trimmed to 7 and they end up getting booted to Saturday at 8 o'clock. But it happens a lot.


----------



## dennispap (Feb 1, 2007)

According to my guide, Sat July 2nd CBS is showing episodes 6 and 7 of Angel From Hell. Evidently they are going to show the remaining episodes( like i suggested at the time of cancellation


----------



## dennispap (Feb 1, 2007)

_I thought this past season was way funnier than the first 2. 
Spoilers in the article.

"The Carmichael Show_ quietly wrapped its acclaimed three-season run Wednesday with one last surprise twist:"

'The Carmichael Show' Boss Talks Finale Surprise, Cancellation and Series Legacy


----------

