Wired has an interesting article about the changes in television ratings. Well, some of it is interesting. Like a lot of Wired, it has interesting ideas with a helping of speculation and techno-optimism, along with strange graphic design (Why all the pictures of Alison Brie? I'm not complaining, just confused.)
Anyway, much of the article revolves around the idea that traditional Nielsen ratings are not very useful in determining the success of TV programs in this age of DVR's, Netflix, and illegal downloading. That's interesting, but they also bring up a point that I wish more people would learn: Lots of "popular" TV shows aren't that popular.
Back in the day, when there were three American networks, and before cable channels, VCR's, DVD's, and the Internet, everyone was watching TV with limited choices, so a popular show had more people watching than not watching. It was a communal thing: you could assume most of the people around you were watching All in the Family last night just like you. But now with so many entertainment options, nothing short of the Superbowl even gets to half the audience. A cable show that gets most of its fame from critical acclaim will only be seen by a tiny percentage of the public.
There's nothing wrong with this, of course. I'm a big proponent of individualized entertainment options, so I'm glad to see it. I just wish everyone would get used to the idea that our TV choices are not as universal as our parents' were. Stop making references to Breaking Bad and Downton Abbey expecting that we've seen them; we probably haven't. There isn't much that's universal in entertainment any more, so you'll just have to learn how to talk about politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment