Monday, June 27, 2011

How Ratings Work

The rating can be a shows best friend or worst enemy. The rating system for television shows single-handedly determine whether or not a TV show continues or is cancelled. In the Must-See TV era and  earlier, it used to be that networks gave ample time for a freshman show to gain an audience. Both "Cheers" and "Seinfeld" were ratings bombs for NBC for its first couple of seasons. Now, many shows don't make it past its first season or better still, don't make it past its first few episodes. A few shows were even recently cancelled before they aired their pilot episode. The idea, today, is that the economy is still slugging along, broadcast networks are hemorrhaging audiences and most shows are just too expensive to produce. The consequence of all this is a ratings decline and the instant this happens, the show has to be cancelled. Broadcast networks are, and for some time, have been trying to figure out how to compete and give its shows an edge in order to equally compete with cable networks. There are a lot of supremely edgy and provocative shows on cable and broadcast networks are just trying to re-find its place in the television world. But, like everything else in life, it's cyclical. We will see another golden age in broadcast network television. Below are definitions of both ratings and shares:

RATING: Audience measurement unit representing the percent of the potential total audience tuned to a specific program or station.

By 1997's data there were an estimate of 98 million television household homes in the country. The rating is a percentage of the total television households. So a rating of 1.0 represents 1% of all TV homes or about 980,000. A rating of 12.5 or 12.5%, would of course, equal about 12,250,000 potential TV homes watching the program.

SHARE: A measurement for comparing audiences; represents the percentage of total viewing audience tuned to a given station. The share gives information specifically on the percentage of homes that are using their television (HUT).

HUT: The rating percentage for every minute of television when in use. The rating fluctuates throughout the day as people turn on and off their televisions.

The relationship between a rating, share and HUT can be plugged into an equation to determine missing data. If a rating is unknown, the share and HUT percentage can be taken and put into this equation:
        
                                                                                 R
                                                                ________________________
                                                                   40 (S)                  5 (HUT)

In this case, 40 and 5 are multiplied together to make 200 and then divided by 100. The rating for this show becomes 2 or 2%.


Nielsen Media Research has been the primary company for recording ratings of TV shows. There have been other lesser known companies, but Nielsen has been far more successful and has since overtaken the market. Incidentally, Arbitron used to be one of these lesser known television rating companies, but has since moved on to recording ratings for radio stations.

Nielsen Media Research has employed several different kinds of methods for recording ratings for TV shows. When Nielsen Media Research began they had to first find a sample of the American population in which to get their data from. Originally, willing families were mailed surveys or "diaries" that required them to fill it out information about what shows they watched that week. These families were usually paid some nominal amount and become affectionately known as "Nielsen families." The "diary" method, however, was deemed inaccurate and biased. Since these were only mailed out in specific intervals to "Nielsen families", most people filling out the information forgot what they watched a week earlier and there was no way to prove what they actually watched. Surprisingly, this method is still being used by Nielsen, perhaps in very rural areas of the country, but much more high-tech ways of recording what people watch are more mainstream today. Since 1986, most "Nielsen families" today are set up with "people meters." This device is connected directly to the TV set and allows for viewing data to be separated by gender and age of each "Nielsen family." Each member of the family is assigned a certain viewing button where information like age and gender are pre-recorded. This method is, however, also likely to change in the next few years.

*Statistics, equations and definitions obtained from:

 Ferguson, D. & Walker, J. (1998). The Broadcast Television Industry. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. (APA, baby!)

Thursday, June 23, 2011

News Media Theories and You: Part 2

Viewers of television news are often bombarded by stories of doom-and-gloom. It is the act of Agenda-setting that is helping the violent stories take precedence over any other tamer subject matter. These are the stories, of course, that hook the audience from a previous show into watching that ultimately equates to ratings and ad revenue. There is, however, a relationship that has been studied between light and heavy television news viewers and how one perceives the world around them. As you might expect, heavy television news viewers perceive the world as scarier and gloomier than viewers who don't watch much news. The theory and relationship is referred to as CULTIVATION THEORY or SCARY-WORLD THEORY. Local television news might be the best example of how this theory works. Local television news programs, like national news, put their most pressing and often violent stories up front.  Violence is being localized for many television viewers creating the Cultivation effect, but on a much more personal, regional level. Moreover, major national or international news events like coverage of earthquakes or hurricanes from across the world become local interest issues in your town. Many of these stories become "what if it happened here" scenarios where all the information conveyed is purely speculative. This certainly brings home destructive events occurring elsewhere for viewers and creates a brief heightened sense of awareness in everyone.

Piggybacking off Cultivation theory is another theory that attempts to discover what people get out of watching television, such as gratification. This theory or construct is called the USES AND GRATIFICATIONS APPROACH. Expected consequences of using the medium is that viewers have psychological or sociological needs to be fulfilled by watching TV, and are only fully gratified when a pattern of watching television is developed and is used habitually. This approach is finally broken down into three areas of study: information or surveillance gratification, personal identity gratification and cognitive gratification. The viewer could watch a program simply to be entertained, or with an active involvement where they become briefly affected and may even respond more strongly to ads during the program. Keep all this in mind next time you're watching TV, just don't become like this kid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atv4SBq_MVE   

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

News Media Theories and You: Part 1

What does "the media" even mean anymore? There are innumerable amounts of information out there in which to get our news, gossip, videos and articles from each of our many personal tech devices. These devices, however, give us much of the same information or entertainment but, accessible in different environments. We view incoming e-mail messages from our smart phone when we're on the go, but use our laptops at home for the rest of our e-mails. This overload of information and sources where information is obtained is no less confusing and daunting for TV news. They're largest competitor is well, you. They now have to fight for their viewers attention. Because, even if ratings show a certain demographic and age bracket are watching their program, it doesn't mean they're watching whole-heartedly. Often, while the TV's on, we're on the phone, writing e-mails, checking our Facebook pages or Tweeting what we had for lunch. In fact, there is some simple terms for viewers attention spans while watching a TV show:

AVOIDANCE: Intentionally not watching commercials, through the use of the remote control or physically leaving the room.

Out of this term comes two actions that viewers take once the commercials of a show begin. There is passive avoidance where the viewer will simply leave the room or turn their attention to tech devices. And their is active avoidance where the viewer flips to a another channel.

ZIPPING: Fast-forwarding through commercials of shows that are taped.

ZAPPING: The removal altogether of each commercial block of a recorded show; the action of flipping the channel to avoid commercials.

These last two terms might be becoming outmoded, but the general action of zapping is still prevalent, especially with devices such as DVRs and TiVOs.

Now, news organizations and television networks like CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. deserves credit where credit is due. Many networks have wised up to their viewers and stepped up their "audience-capturing" methods. Many of these networks have expanded their presence online to include social media. CNN, CBS News and the like have their own Twitter pages where they can deliver second-by-second breaking news to a large online demographic rapidly. These messages can pop up to alert you of their presence at any time or at any place: Starbucks, while driving, in a meeting or even while watching a news show on TV of the same network.

In the last year, CNN has also drastically changed the appearance and presentation of their news programs. In fact, some anchors now stand and deliver the news. One obvious "audience-capturing" method they now employ on us is to present the newscast like the applications on a common IPhone or IPOD. They have several video windows stored on a large TV screen next to them and activate each video by touching it and then expanding the window with their fingers. Once one video is over they move the window across the screen and out of the way. And, of course to bring every a visual home for the viewers, they employ the screen writing utensil of the NFL to literally circle seemingly interesting items on the screen. CNN is novel in employing this high-tech method of presenting news, but the change was probably employed to save revenue, viewership and to create an edge amongst other news organizations. I think newscasts presented in this manner want to convey the message that the stories are unbiased, random and without an agenda. But, unfortunately, as long as there are TelePrompters, agendas follow.

AGENDA THEORY: The media's power to increase the importance of an issue in the public's mind by giving it more coverage.

This theory is as old as TV news itself. The very definition of news is structure, story and appeal. Every newscast has to have an ordered set of stories from most important to least important. Most important stories at the top of the newscast are given enough coverage where we as viewers can easily form our own opinions about the subject matter. But, what's to say this issue is actually important compared to any other story in the newscast?  It is this unbalance of news that we have to decipher for ourselves and decide which issue is actually important to us. I'll leave you today with a video example of this phenomenon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbCYr-U7MAQ

        

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

In the Sitcom World: Single-Cam v. Multi-Cam

This question has plagued creators and producers in the sitcom world for some time now. In the past ten years there has been a resurgence, or renaissance if you will, of single-camera comedies. At first glance, it would appear that the single-camera comedy might be winning the war, but this could be just smoke and mirrors. The single-camera comedy is still experimental and will most likely continue to evolve until it finds its most comfortable format. I don't think the newness has wore off yet as an overwhelmingly amount of new sitcoms are introduced to us as single-camera comedies. The ratio of failure then reflects this phenomenon with a large number of single-camera comedies cancelled within its first season, leaving the number of successful multi-cam and single-cam shows about even. Hence, "The Paul Reiser Show," "Running Wilde," "Mr. Sunshine" versus just "Better Together."

If you were able to deduce my opinion on this argument, I prefer multi-camera comedy, especially with a live studio audience. I feel like a old man saying it but, I think for someone who wants to be a writer in the television industry, the writer can heavily benefit from having a live studio audience present. It is the instant gratification that is most thrilling to writers and show staffs. The writer instantly knows if a joke they wrote works with an live audience or not. Depending on the degree of laughter attached to a certain joke, the writer can determine how much to ratchet it up to get a more satisfying laugh. I think the experience is also beneficial for the actor who has scenes to perform in front of the audience. Each scene is taken a couple times until they get just the right one where the actor displays impeccable timing, high energy and is in sync with the audience. 

Some notable elements of a single-camera comedy is of course the use of single camera instead of three or four. A major absence for single-camera comedies is the laugh track and a live studio audience. In the usually mockumentary style concept of many successful single-camera comedies, a live audience would not make sense. Often characters of this genre directly reference the camera because in their world, they know that a documentary is being filmed about their life. So, for a documentary's sake, it wouldn't make sense to also reference a random group of people laughing at them! But, then again, it doesn't make sense in the multi-camera world either. The notion that there's a group of unseen people laughing at jokes told by a cast of characters that don't know they're there is absurd! The benefit of a single-camera comedy is namely the freedom of camera angles and movement. These shows have a much more "in-your-face" feel. Sometimes a certain angle or motion can convey a story plot point, reveal or even be the punchline for a joke. The camera becomes another member of the family, one that's intrusive and bombarding, but also available when a character needs to vent their angry or cry their eyes out, in private and seemingly without judgement. This idea is innovative, unique and very effective in story telling.

Of course, no matter what format of sitcom is used, it helps as a writer to be surrounded by a staff of other writers where ideas are continuously thrown against the wall until something sticks. Both genres of sitcoms have a staff and above all, that is most important for any writer. However, the virtue of a live audience for multi-camera comedies have that Classical Greek and Roman feel that is undeniable. Performing in front of a live audience is an institution and should be preserved as such. It's hard to really say which genre is winning right now, CBS is one of top networks in the Nielsen's and the network produces solely multi-camera sitcoms. But, on the other hand, ABC has received a much-needed resurgence from their single-camera sitcoms. I think both genres will continue to perform their dance while fighting to lead until they finally draw a line in the sand and agree not to cross it. Yes, you can find relief in the fact that one day both genres will live harmoniously and fluidly as one in TV land!  

Monday, June 20, 2011

An Incarnation of Sorts

I'm an aspiring television writer and live in Los Angeles, CA. I've been dedicated to the television medium all my life and consider television to be anything but the passive activity it's portrayed to be. Television has had a bad rap in the last few decades, especially when regarding children and their television-viewing consumption, but everything in moderation, right? Television is a powerful, imagery-laced portal that transports its viewers into another realm that at the very least, stirs up viewer's emotions who might otherwise not be so extroverted. Every once in a while, you hear about some man, usually one living in a kind of house that's supported by wheels, blows out their television set with a shot gun because they were watching their favorite TV show and was pissed when they learned "so-and-so" was caught cheating on their boyfriend in an episode. Case and point, I believe popular past shows like: "Friends", "Seinfeld", "Roseanne", "Lost" and "Law and Order" would not be the powerhouses they once were if viewers didn't emote positive or NEGATIVE responses from their favorite characters.

The same logic of a character's likeability can be applied to the news as well. The images of certain news events like the 1969 moon landing, Apollo 13 incident, 1992 L.A. riots, O.J. Simpson murder trial and the 9/11 attacks brought to us live on television has elicited hundreds of emotions from its viewers.

One thing is clear: television is a powerful tool of imagery and raw emotion that keeps us coming back for more. In this blog, I want to explore the many facets of television that incorporates a deep and imbedded social history and impact, the influence of corporate news media and reviews and the sociology of some of your favorite TV shows. I hope to write entries once a day and I hope you get as much out of this blog as I will inevitably get out of it. Until tomorrow!