It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Commander in Chief & The Neilsen Conspiarcy

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Following is a rant into some inside happenings of the TV industry. First, a little history about me.

I'm in the Film & TV industry and have been most of my life. I have been noted by many as a "TV geek". Not because I love watching TV, sure some shows I do, but my TV Geekyness comes from a much -- stranger area of the TV industry.

Ratings. Yup. You bet it. Ratings, i've been analyzing, attempting to predict and monitoring television ratings for the last several years. I have never before seen a case like Commander in Chief.

The series debued on a Tuesday night, marking the highest rated tuesday premiere in five years, on ANY network, with more than 16.4 million viewers.

Wikipedia on Neilsen Ratings for those that wish to know a little more about how the ratings system works.

Just a few months later, Geena Davis won a Golden Globe for her potrayl of President Mackenzie Allen on Commander in Chief.

As the show went on, its ratings slowly declined. Now yes, the show has been screwed around with by ABC on both the creative, and presentation side. It's been moved a bit, and they fired the guy who created the show after just a few episodes because production was 'so far behind'.

HOWEVER, I have been doing more research lately into the Neilsen, and who owns Neilsen. Of course, these days its owned by Super multinational billion dollar conglomorate VNU. (Which was just days ago bought out.. CNN )

In the last episode I saw, at the end she is giving her State of the Union Address. She does not make this to congress.



Wikipedia
In her speech, she states that she is giving the speech directly to the people because their elected representatives in both parties have become so incredibly corrupt and caring too much about politics instead of helping the people, using her homeless bill as an example, and that if the people support her, she will reform the system and make it more "independent".


I'm sure most of the people who saw this, will agree that it was very powefully delivered. "Politics as usual". She mentions that her homeless bill was changed and altered to be more about prisons simply so that a few people could make a buck off it.

Now, I think, this is the kind of teleivsion that gets you thinking. The kind, that really has the potential to make people stand up. The kind of Television, people in Washington don't want you watching, and certainly dont want a large number watching.

I herby, put it to you.. That as the storylines and scripts of Commander in Chief continued to step into the 'corrpupt nature of our politics'-themes and 'corporate injustice', Neilsen ensured that its ratings would slowly decline, because of its own corporate and political agendas.

I also wouldnt be suprised if Neilsen was 'paid off' to do this by some political party(s). When it first started people were saying, "shes my president" and it was the talk of the town -- this could be what gets hilary into the white house in '08. etc. etc. etc.

So its ratings weren't good. Big Deal.
In the television industry, this is a huge Deal. The only income television networks make is from advertising that is sold, and aired during shows. The number of viewers, and the demographic of those viewers DIRECTLY links to the advertising rates for the show, and thus the income the network can get.

TV Shows cost alot of money to produce, and one that is loosing the network money will see itself off the air quicker than you can say so, most of the time. The sad reality is, that a rerun of another succesfull show, costs the network NOTHING in production costs and in most cases is absolutely free (as a certain number of reruns are included in the contract). If a rerun is rating HALF aswell as a new episode of something, then it will stay there longer than that show can. It simply makes financial sence for the network. Something that costs 2 million an episode, and gets 1 million in ad revenue wont stay on nearly as long as an episode that costs nothing and gets half a million in ad revenue.

Am I for real with all this?
Sure. Why not. I hardly have proof, but it was a thought that crossed my mind and for some reason -- i felt like sharing.

Any thoughts?

[edit on 30-5-2006 by ekul08]




posted on May, 30 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Granted, I have yet to work seriously in the broadcast industry. However, I have a bachelors in Communication (TV News broadcast) and am currently working on a second (Meteorology) and have taken more than a share of media criticism classes. Much of what you said could be quite likely. If people hear a show's ratings are declining, they conclude the show must suck and stop watching it themselves. Although, Tuesday nights, most people are too busy dumbing themselves down with Idol to watch much else.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I think the reason the show failed, is that it went on a lengthy hiatous. When they take a break from a show for that long fans may loose intrest in the show, or not know when it comes back.

Commander in Chief was not even on at the same time American Idol was on. Completly different time slot when it was on tuesday nights. After the hiatous it was brought back on a different night, so American Idol viewers had nothing to do with Commander in Chief rattings.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I thought this thread would be about that bit in Scary Movie 4...........




new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join