Used to, there would be shows that had 20-some odd million viewers. They still exist, but there are so few. Why? Increase in DVR and online usage. Many networks, such as NBC, offer full episodes online to stream, for free. Then, there’s DVRs. Advertisers aren’t gonna pay-up for DVR viewings, because people can fast-forward their ads, which would defeat the purpose of them paying for ad-spots to be seen during the airing of a show. If people are skipping them, they are not viewing them, and if they are not viewing them, they aren’t gonna know of the product, and would be least likely to buy. If no one buys the product, the company can’t make any money, therefore, can’t afford to buy those ad-spots, which would keep a show from airing. Without sufficient funds, a network can’t buy episodes of the show to even air (dramas average 2 million an episode, this would include salaries for cast and crew, plus music used).
Yet, despite knowing this, instead of finding new ways to advertise (product-placement could work), they continue to rely on this info, canceling shows based on what I call flawed data. People could get pissed off with this next suggestion, but with digital technologies, there has to be some way to disallow fast-forwarding of certain (say the top advertisers, just to keep it from being too annoying). That more likely wouldn’t work, ’cause people would see it defeat the purpose of having a DVR (though not entirely, ’cause the point of a DVR is to record a show when you’re at work or had to run some errands, so you never miss a show.) I still feel there has to be a way to include counts with DVR usage, as well as online viewings, and one that shouldn’t be difficult, purchases from iTunes and Amazon unBox, as they are bought, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be counted, even if not high of a number.
Another way this data is flawed, is that Nielson Media Research may have a good formula, but I find that you can’t generalize a population, saying that because of the 5,000 or so Nielson boxes out there, that 20% (1,000) are white male in ages 18-49, so that of a majority of those, maybe 25% of that 20% (250), are watching say CSI Thursday nights, that doesn’t necessarily mean that 5% of the population are white male 18-49 (which I’m sure it is much higher than that, but this is an example) that watch CSI. If there is 130 million people watching TV, according to this, 6.5 million male adults 18-49 watched CSI. But what if, the people with the boxes, aren’t very constant with how they view TV, and if they switched out people every so often (which I think I read they did), and the next 5,000 people, what if it was 4% that did, bringing the number down. I can’t really put it into words well, but what I’m basically trying to say, you can’t say that a majority of women in this group watch Desperate Housewives, ’cause, guess what, I’m a female between 18-49, and I don’t watch Desperate Housewives, or Grey’s Anatomy, or Private Practice. No, I watch CSI, and Chuck, and Smallville, Supernatural, those targeted towards men. I don’t fit into any of the generalizations, and there are others that don’t either.
This is why I think, with new technologies out there, there’s no reason that these can’t be more accurate numbers. I am tired of good shows getting canceled based on flawed numbers, aren’t you?