Paul certainly brings up some interesting points to ponder. What amazes me is that most of us seem to forget that exactly the kind of blatant commercial-in-place-of-half-time scenario was done this year. But I haven't heard word one about it. What happened to that half-time pay-per-view semi-nude supermodels playing "football" in their undies "event"? Not only did they come up with the notion to replace half-time with a commercial but it was one you had to pay for. Does any one know whether they pulled that one off? We haven't thrown out our TV, largely because of my film courses (should I say addiction?). But I must admit if it weren't for the discovery channels, the BBC, A&E, and a few other channels I would not watch TV at all. I can't help but think that there are a hundred research questions bubbling beneath the surface here (to connect this to our discussion list). I wonder why we are so willing, even eager, to simply debate the sorry state of our culture rather than investigate the environmental variables that so completely control us. Certainly Professor Chomsky and others are providing us with a fodder of research questions to pursue (perhaps even a new level emerges of the addiction to doing research on video games, TV, the movies, etc.). :) Back to the psychopharmacology syllabus. Tim
_________________________________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Albertson College of Idaho 2112 Cleveland Blvd. Caldwell, ID 83605 [EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: History and systems; Intro to Neuropsychology; Child Development; Physiological Psychology; Psychology and Cinema -----Original Message----- From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 6:26 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: CBS 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] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
