Subject: Debating Ratings
From: cksvih01@ulkyvx.bitnet
Date: 1991-08-31, 17:36
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

There's been a lot of debate about the validity of TV ratings and the demise of
TV since the cancellation of Twin Peaks posted here lately.  My first response
was "Oh, no, not again", but then I got into the whole circular Zen spirit of
the thing and decided to post my comments as well.

1. Commercial TV has been basically crap for a long time.  If you're looking
for intellectual stimulation, you chose the wrong medium.  I certainly
wouldn't claim that "Twin Peaks" was a consistent tonic for the intellect
either. It had its moments with some memorable images and some (early) cute
dialogue, but had its share of dross as well.  It was one of the three or
four network TV shows I made a point of watching (along with "Northern
Exposure", "Murphy Brown", and "The Simpsons"), but I was never under the
impression I was watching a great work of art.  They should have ended the
series after Leland's death, the quality of the late episodes wasn't up to
the earlier snuff.  

2. The Nielson ratings are probably valid for average shows watched in
average ways by average households.  They will, of course, underestimate the
audience for cult shows like Twin Peaks which tend to be viewed in packs. I
think that entirely too much is claimed for statistics these days, what with
political analysis being largely replaced by the gentle art of polling (i.e.
instead of discussing the merits of giving aid to the Soviets, all we hear is
the results of public opinion polls) but I stray from my topic.  The basic
idea of rating shows is to allow the networks to set advertising rates, isn't
it?  Most TV advertising makes me nauseous, and I try to avoid the products
of sponsors with particularly egregious ads.  In fact, the most cost efficient
way for a corporation to attract my consumer dollar is to sink its funds into
shows I don't watch.  That way, I won't be repelled by their insipid ads and
will be less likely to avoid their products.  I may be atypical, but I don't
think I'm sui generis.  Do the Nielson ratings take all this into account?

3.  I don't think the proliferation of "real drama" shows is signalling the 
demise of intelligent viewing alternatives.  I'm actually far more alarmed by:

1. Info-mercials
2. Local news broadcats
3. Pro wrestling

but it's always been a pretty mixed bag.  If you habitually view more than 
four or five network shows a week, you're probably watching too much TV 
anyway.  There's always PBS and cable, and they're still printing books the
last I heard.  

4.  The major problem with  TV (and with most general release) movies is that
scheduling is driven by marketing and economics.  It made perfect economic
sense for ABC to cancel Twin Peaks, although you could argue against the 
aesthetics of the decision.  The free market is a great way to run an economy,
but don't expect it to stimulate your mind.  The entertainment industry is
a moneymaking machine, just like the auto industry, the electronics industry or
the chemical industry.  You wouldn't expect Chrysler to continue producing a
car at a loss just because you and a select group of your friends thought it
was spiffy, would you?  It's too bad, but I don't think it's going to 
change anytime soon - not till the Revolution, anyway :^).  There are talented
people in Hollywood, however, and some worthwhile series and films will 
continue to be produced.  Pick your spots and don't expect too much from the 
main.
  
 
 
_______________________________________________________________________________
C. Kurt Svihla                            |                                   |
cksvih01@ulkyvx.bitnet                    |                 Pax               |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------