Tim Shearon wrote:
> The wisest point made on the list so far was that this
> was so obviously a publicity stunt and it surely seems to have worked
> for that. Let's not forget that the game, the half time, and the
> commercials are all part of the SAME larger source. They are all
>entertainment and we either were or were not entertained by them. I'd
> rather go back to the bookstore which, lest I get to feeling at all
> sanctimonious, is also largely entertainment. :) Tim
I've been very entertained by my own recent feelings of sanctimony,
sparked by the fact that I threw out my television set over two years ago in
order to avoid exactly the kind of nonsense we're discussing here (I
listened to the game on the radio, and spent halftime listening to a
reasonably well-laid-out analysis of the first half).
What mystifies me about the whole event is why there is still a halftime
show at all. I don't believe that anyone watches the show except because
they're interested in seeing the commercials, and if that's the case, it
would seem to make sense for them to forget about the show and sell more
commercials during that time. Surely no-one believes that a cheesy halftime
show is bringing in an audience of eyeballs for the commercials (as is the
normal television model for selling advertising - get 'em to watch the show,
and they'll sit through the commercials). It's exactly the opposite here,
and that makes no sense - using the paid advertisement to bring in people to
watch a halftime show they (the network) pay to put on. ??
I know, the conventional wisdom is that these "big stars" (the
lip-synching dancers) have all sorts of fans who will tune in to the show to
see them do their thing. I don't think that's really true, though, or at
least that it's anywhere near true enough to justify a halftime show
(instead of more commercials). I suppose there may have been some 13 year
old girls somewhere squealing about how they couldn't wait to see Janet
perform, but I'd think that folks like her must be already so overexposed
(pun intended) elsewhere on tv/cable/etc. that there's really nothing
special for those fans about seeing her once more. I'll bet there are
EXTREMELY few fans who tune in to see the halftime show (I'm thinking
CSPAN-sized audiences) as opposed to the commercials during the halftime
show.
The other possibility is that they may think people would be offended at
the suggestion that they tune in at the half just to watch commercials. I'm
sure that someone would complain, but let's face it, we're there already,
and have been for years. MSN.com has clips of the commercials online, and
I'll bet they got a LOT of hits.
My best guess is that there's pure unthinking momentum at the top - a
groupthink kind of situation in which a room full of execs order up yet
another cheesy show with a bunch of inappropriate celebrities without ever
asking themselves whether or not there is really an audience for such a
show. Perhaps then they look at the numbers on people who watch during the
halftime show, and forget that those numbers can't distinguish between those
watching for the show (practically none, in my opinion) and those watching
for the commercials (essentially all of them, in my opinion). The standard
model (again) would say that the show's popularity makes that slot valuable
advertising time, but in fact it's the other way around. Jackson and
Timberlake should pay CBS to appear, rather than vice versa.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
