Pages

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Network Wars

Nakakatawang nakakainis.

That's the perfect description one can give with this ABS/GMA ratings cheating brouhaha. Yes, it's about image; about building and protecting credibility.

But who really cares about ratings?

Of course, the advertisers (where to place ads) and the networks (earn from ad placements of course). I guess it's less of an issue for the audience.

I don't think anyone would watch a show simply because it's rated number 1. Well, true enough, being number one can attract possible viewers. But at the end of the day, what will make these viewers stay is not the idea that you're number 1 but if he/she likes the show (or at least finds something interesting about it) -- the quality of a show.

A thinking-viewer wouldn't stop watching a show from GMA/ABS simply because he /she thinks that the station cheated. Meanwhile, an avid fan of a specific show would also care less about the 'cheating issues' and still continue following his/her favorite show. Taking into consideration those who are loyal to the networks (those who claim themselves as Kapuso at Kapamilya), the cheating brouhaha wouldn't even affect their loyalty, I think. A Kapuso fan would remain loyal to GMA and even more abhor ABS. Likewise, a Kapamilya would remain loyal to ABS and think that GMA is a cheater.

Would any of the networks gain additional sympathizers? Most likely not.

Both of the networks claim they are number 1. Of course, they have to do that, else they'll lose advertisers. The thing is their fight over the position, I guess, should be least of the concerns of the viewers. We must demand these networks to give us good-quality shows (not mere rip-offs, re-makes). They must provide us with responsible news shows and truly mind-awakening public affairs program.

ADDENDUM: So it seems that I missed a point in saying that we must demand quality shows from TV Networks. We still have the right to rant but such wouldn't affect them much as we're the products. But isn't it that we're partly consumers, too? I'd like to believe that part of the program development is still dependent on the audience perception of a show in terms of quality (there's probably still a research on the effectiveness of a program). But then again, sometimes if we don't have a choice, we just consume whatever it is that's offered (they still have the power to dictate). Probably, we're created to like shows for them to be able to sell us to advertisers. Okay, thinking, thinking, thinking...

8 comments:

missingpoints said...

You can still demand better shows, the threat being you won't watch otherwise. The "product" mentality is a network executive's perspective.

News is a different animal. Stations are required to air public service programs in exchange for the government granting them rights to use the airwaves (which the state owns).

jenpot said...

Di ba tayo ay end consumers at hindi "products" ng mga networks na yan? Yun ang rason kung bakit pwede talaga tayong magdemand. well, depende naman talaga sa demand ng audience kung anuman ang pinapalabas ng mga TV networks. plus, syempre katulad sa anumang medium sa pop culture, merong formula na sinusundan ang mga producers ng TV shows para mapanatili ang pagtangkilik ng mga tao. dun sila kikita e. lastly, sa tingin ko ang problema rin kung bakit hindi ganun ka-ok ang quality (well, of course sa standards natin) ng mga shows na ino-offer ay dahil sa escapist nature ng panonood sa TV. karaniwang nanonood ang isang karaniwang Pilipino upang maaliw, kahit ano pa mang kababawan ang nakikita niya sa TV, dahil pagod na siya sa kung anu-anong problemang personal at panglipunan.

alwaysanxious said...

^Na-expose ka ba sa process kung paano dinedetermine ng network ang mag-click na show? May 'consumer/viewer research' of sorts din, right?

BTW, winner ito: "Well, of course sa standards natin" (arogante).

jenpot said...

syempre naman may research divisions (lalo na ang mga big) TV stations. bago mag-come-up ng isang show e itetest muna nila yan through FGD or survey. kaya minsan, may mga reporters o celebreties na lang na biglang nawawala sa mga shows nila kasi ayaw sa kanila ng mga tao. o kaya, kahit gaano mukhang chaka yung isang show e nagsusurvive pa rin hanggang ngayon dahil maraming nanonood. at, yan din ang rason kung bakit minsan, pare-parehas na mga mukha ng mga artista na lang ang napapanood natin. angel kung angel. richard kung richard. at tungkol sa standards, totoo naman di ba? ang sama man ng dating pero iba kasi talaga yung "certain" standards ng "target" audience ng mga big networks sa standards "natin". di ba? oh well, i mean no harm sa ibang tao... peace tayo :P

missingpoints said...

But the relationship is not producer-consumer. The networks' goal is to get more eyeballs so that they can sell ad space to advertisers. The reason for research is to determine the cheapest way to get more eyeballs.

jenpot said...

hi missingpoints :) sa akin kasi, kaya ko nasabing consumers ang audience/tayo, the fact that we're watching the (TV) shows aired, whether we're paying or not, we consume/use them whether for pleasure, info or whatever. And, yes, TV networks would want their shows to be viewed by its target audience (get lots of eyeballs), and thus rate, is to get more advertisers and earn more money. (network war on ratings = battle for more money)

however, I disagree that TV networks do research to determine the "cheapest" way to get more eyeballs - It's (more of) knowing the easiest and most efficient way to get those eyeballs.

alwaysanxious said...

Apparently, viewers play two roles. First as a consumer of shows produced (given that their preferences are still considered) then eventually as the product (number of eyeballs)that the network sells to advertisers.

missingpoints said...

Think of it as a poultry farm. While farmers feed the chickens, they're not the end consumers. They consume only because they need to grow large enough to be sold to the actual people who give the farmers money.

Finding out what the viewers want is akin to determining preferred chicken feed.