Forums - Gaming Discussion - Pachter goes berserk. Insults questioner. "scumbag" "Idiot" "bastard"

JPL78 said:

Wrong. DVR ratings are counted. T.V guide lists the amount of shows watched live and on DVR within 3 days. I've seen several articles over the years claiming DVRs have actually helped certain shows viewership because people are able to watch it on their own schedule so are more likely to be able to follow shows easier.

I guess if you record something and just don't watch it for a long time that might not count but I would assume most people interested in a show watch it pretty quickly like I do.

Ratings that include people watching shows on their DVR within 3 days is called Live+3 and has only begun to gain importance because the networks tried their best to convince the advertisers to accept those ratings a few years ago. But for many years the advertisers didn't really consider Live+3 ratings because people can just skip through adverts.

Live+7 which includes ratings of people who view shows on their DVR within a week are not really considered when calculating advertising rates. Because of declining ratings for all shows every year, networks are trying their best to convince advertisers to now consider a show's Live+7 ratings when calculating rates. It still isn't accepted by advertisers.  

DVR's can increase popularity but they do not necessarily increase Live ratings for shows. This is the most important thing for a show. You'll notice that today shows are no where near as huge as they were in the past. This is because of all the alternate viewing methods available and all that lowers a show's Live ratings, thus lowering advertising rates. 

 

 



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

Around the Network
PDF said:
Nicklesbe said:
PDF said:
Nicklesbe said:

Just like he gave a genuine opinion that he does it for free. Even tho GT gave him connections to the developers and publishers and an outlet to create content that gave the same developers and publishers a reason to furnish him with games. Not to mention the fact that he owns stock in GT which is compensation in its own right.

GT is not a publicly traded company.  Unless you are talking about Viacom, and thats really digging deep.  I own viacom stock so I guess GT pays me too.  I am not sure how you would even know if he personally has stock in the company or not anyways.


You are right it's not publically traded which means the fact that he was given stock options means he was given compensation. Go ahead ask him on his next show if he owns stock in GT. He will tell you he does. Hes mentioned stocks a few times on his twitter feed. 

Yeah, I'll pass I don't want to look like an idiot on his show.  Unless you can show me those tweets where he claims to own GT stock you're full of it. 

How would you look like an idiot? You'd be asking a legitimate question. The only way you'd look like an idiot is if I was right. Hell you could use my name and I wouldn't care. If I'm full of it you can easily prove me wrong, but you know I'm not which is why you won't ask him on his show. Also read what I said. I said he talks about stocks a few times on twitter which he does. You can see for yourself https://twitter.com/michaelpachter. 



http://www.youtube.com/v/AoOOpLpcF28 http://www.youtube.com/v/CphFZGH5030

All Hail the Jester King. The King is back, and I am still a dirty girl prof ;)

MoHasanie said:
JPL78 said:

Wrong. DVR ratings are counted. T.V guide lists the amount of shows watched live and on DVR within 3 days. I've seen several articles over the years claiming DVRs have actually helped certain shows viewership because people are able to watch it on their own schedule so are more likely to be able to follow shows easier.

I guess if you record something and just don't watch it for a long time that might not count but I would assume most people interested in a show watch it pretty quickly like I do.

Ratings that include people watching shows on their DVR within 3 days is called Live+3 and has only begun to gain importance because the networks tried their best to convince the advertisers to accept those ratings a few years ago. But for many years the advertisers didn't really consider Live+3 ratings because people can just skip through adverts.

Live+7 which includes ratings of people who view shows on their DVR within a week are not really considered when calculating advertising rates. Because of declining ratings for all shows every year, networks are trying their best to convince advertisers to now consider a show's Live+7 ratings when calculating rates. It still isn't accepted by advertisers.  

DVR's can increase popularity but they do not necessarily increase Live ratings for shows. This is the most important thing for a show. You'll notice that today shows are no where near as huge as they were in the past. This is because of all the alternate viewing methods available and all that lowers a show's Live ratings, thus lowering advertising rates. 

 

 


Okay, well I still don't think you should just completely put a networks decision to cancel a show on DVR users. As far as my experience goes most DVR users wouldn't be watching most of what they watch if it wasn't for the ability to record it. So as far as I'm concerned those are just extra viewers the providers wouldn't have otherwise.

BECAUSE of DVR I watch EVERY episode of the shows I like. I'm also able to share those shows with other people who in turn become fans. My parents however who don't use DVR love NCIS and want to watch every episode. But because they get busy, or are at work or just forget, end up missing half the episodes. So the providers can decide if a person not watching at all or watching a few days later is better. I think ultimately the latter is.

Also, this isn't the 80's. Content manufacturers have internet ad revenue, DVD/blu ray sales, on demand, syndication, digital purchases and merchandise to make profits off of.

I'm only being so argumentative because I don't like you basically saying that people like me are the reason shows die. I contribute to the growth of media non-stop throughout my life. More than most people I've known. I never steal anything and am very loyal to the things I like.



JPL78 said:

Also on the topic of shows being cancelled because people DVR them, another reason DVR helps shows is because it opens up schedules on certain stations more. Look at Breaking Bad, before the last season AMC started showing a few episodes every night at like 3 in the morning. Hardly prime time.

But it allowed people like me who had never followed the show to get caught up and then become a fan of the show and then, in turn, watched the last season as it happened.

You think that hurt their ratings? Give me a break. We live in a busy world, you can't expect everyone to just stop what they are doing and watch a show right then and there. We have hundreds of channels, DVRs allow you to watch multiple shows from the same period when previously you would watch just one. Smart companies like AMC fully embrace DVR usage because it helps their viewership.

Not to mention ad revenue, which does include DVR ratings, is paid to the network whether you watch the commercials or not. Oh my god, I skipped some commercials for financial retirement consultants, cleaning products and boat insurance.... Man I must be destroying the entire economy.

Edit: in terms if people watching online I'm not sure how you are defining that exactly. People stealing everything and downloading it all illegally? Okay, I'll give you that. But you can't honestly put that in the same catagory as paying a cable provider 100 dollars a month and utilizing a DVR to allow you to watch television on your own schedule. As far as people legitimately watching television online they are either paying for episodes on services like iTunes or watching free streams on websites like NBC or Adult Swim. In either of those scenarios the provider is still benefitting.

Well that's how it used to be in the past. People didn't have DVR's and if you missed an episode of something, it was almost impossible to get a chance to watch it until after the season was finished. If two shows were being brodcast at the same time, then you could only watch one. This used to result in TV shows getting huge ratings throughout their seasons. Now its unimaginable to expect shows to get ratings as huge as those in the past with the exception of sporting events and award shows. 

Even ad revenue which includes DVR ratings is not the same as if all those viewers were watching the show live as it aired. 

People streaming includes all those viewers who view episodes online. If they download it ilegally then the network and gets no money. If they view it legally through other methods like Netflix, or Hulu, the network does get money, but its no where near the same as if all those people watched the shows live. 



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

i think he is right... and of course, there are ads that are well build n placed and are others that fail at every thing, but we are not talking about implementation, we are talking about the principle.

i like VGChartz approach to ads and i buy my time here with them and i am ok with that.



Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

Around the Network
MoHasanie said:

Well that's how it used to be in the past. People didn't have DVR's and if you missed an episode of something, it was almost impossible to get a chance to watch it until after the season was finished. If two shows were being brodcast at the same time, then you could only watch one. This used to result in TV shows getting huge ratings throughout their seasons. Now its unimaginable to expect shows to get ratings as huge as those in the past with the exception of sporting events and award shows. 

Even ad revenue which includes DVR ratings is not the same as if all those viewers were watching the show live as it aired. 

People streaming includes all those viewers who view episodes online. If they download it ilegally then the network and gets no money. If they view it legally through other methods like Netflix, or Hulu, the network does get money, but its no where near the same as if all those people watched the shows live. 

Alright, well I see what you are saying but I still take offense that you consider anyone using DVR as like a plague killing television production.

Times change, they have to adapt. Movie rental died because of digital video. When I order pay per view I don't shed a tear for the death of Blockbuster. I'm still paying for and consuming said programming even if the method of delivery has changed.



Nicklesbe said:

How would you look like an idiot? You'd be asking a legitimate question. The only way you'd look like an idiot is if I was right. Hell you could use my name and I wouldn't care. If I'm full of it you can easily prove me wrong, but you know I'm not which is why you won't ask him on his show. Also read what I said. I said he talks about stocks a few times on twitter which he does. You can see for yourself https://twitter.com/michaelpachter. 


Of course he talks about stocks, thats what he is in the business of doing.  That is no indication of owning stock in GT.  I have never seen him to claim he owns any of GT.  You have 0 proof that he does.   I can direct you to a twitter comment where he once again claims to not get paid.  If you are so confident you ask him.



 

My Real Redneck friends


I gladly pay for quality content, even on internet. I refuse and reject as many ads as I can, with adblock or through other means. And I don't give a shit about what Pachter or anyone else thinks about it.



People are using Adblock because too many websites are being irresponsible and disrespectful to viewers with their advertising model. Customer service doesn't cease to be relevant just because the entity providing the service is a website.

The ones to blame are those responsable for intrusive advertising model (Like this site) not the people using Adblock in response to that.



Adblock is my Internet condom, it helps me avoid garbage like this.