TVSquad

It's funny how people put 'arguably' in front of a phrase they probably pulled out of their asses to give the impression that the statement is true--with a few naysayers.

You prefer Hulu, I get it.

Reply

My question is why are there only 20 million people watching Lost on TV and 36.4 million on the internet? I'm thinking more people watch it on TV then on the internet - which is proof that the Nielson rating are obsolete and useless. Time for someone else to do ratings!

Reply

"arguably" because every metric or survey that's come out in the past ~6 months hulu is clearly the leader in online TV streaming.

If you want a quick-and-dirty comparison, just look at the unique visitor traffic to hulu.com (which people go only to stream videos) vs. network sites like abc.com and fox.com (which people go to stream videos as well as read or learn about other shows). Hulu, with it narrower mission, is still way ahead of the networks http://siteanalytics.compete.com/hulu.com+abc.com+fox.com/

Reply

There is a huge mystery here, and I wish someone could explain it to me. Nearly all of the most popular shows on TV are pathetically stupid reality shows, celebrity this, celebrity that, singing, cooking, dancing, or eating worms (celebrities eating worms). These shows require an IQ of 5 and a pulse.

As for scripted shows, all the popular ones are likewise simple shows for simple-minded people. Doctors saying "stat" and having sex. lawyers prosecuting guilty criminals and having sex, cops catching guilty criminals and having sex, etc. These shows require an IQ of 10 and a pulse.

But then there's Lost. Lost is by far the most complex show on TV. It has more characters, more plotlines, more timelines, more mysteries, more unknown variables (and "constants") than any other show I can think of. And with the time travel aspect started last season, Lost can quite often be a serious mindf*ck.

Based on everything else that's successful on TV, logic would dictate that Lost would be a complete failure. Granted, it does have attractive people having sex. But it's unlike anything else on TV, and it requires at least an average IQ (100 by definition) to appreciate. I'm not talking about being smart enough to "solve" the whole show and constantly figure out what's going on, just enough to keep up with it and to be able to enjoy it from one episode to the next.

So, how in the world is Lost able to be so successful in a world full of idiotic, semi-retarded viewers more interested in watching nobodies sing badly than watching a well-written, entertaining drama show?

One theory is that Lost is the only show like it, and there are actually a lot of people who would want that type of show - so they all watch Lost since it's the only thing on that satisfies their desire for "Lost" type shows.

But Terminator: TSCC was similar in that there was a lot going on, a lot of characters, a time-travel aspect, a lot of mysteries and unknowns, and it's the only other show on network television in the past year or so that I can think of that had the same things going for it as does Lost. Yet TSCC could not find an audience and was just cancelled after its second season. Granted, FOX screwed it by giving it the friday night death timeslot, moving it around and not promoting it very well. Is that the answer?

I don't know. With all the mysteries of "Lost" from the smoke monster to The Numbers to Jacob to ageless Richard Alpert, I think the biggest mystery of all is that Lost is as popular as it is. Whatever the reason, I'm thankful for it. Lost just gets better and better.

Reply

okay so i really dont get hulu..i decided to watch 30 rock on hulu this summer since tina fey reminded everyone in her emmy/golden globe? speech but there are only highlights not the full episodes.. and of course the main network site (nbc.com) only has season 3. any ideas where to watch the show?

Reply

Regarding the Nielsen ratings: I'm pretty sure they're never going to give as much weight to "other venues and/or devices" viewings as they do to "live on TV while it's airing" viewings, because they know their only chance of a human eyeball watching the commercials that the network paid for is those live viewings.
Even the commercials you're forced to sit through (no fast-forwarding option) on sites like Hulu mostly benefit those sites, not the networks that made the show.
We were talking about this on another post recently (summarized below); and I really think the bottom line is that none of this is in the control of the Nielsen people, or the TV people, or the video viewing sites people - it's all going to be up to the advertising people, and there's nothing anyone else can do to help.

Reply

Well, looking back at this post, it's redundant to say it again, but I said "summary below", so here ya go (sorry!)

"The key to all of television today, regardless of the individual show, is in the hands of the advertising community, not the show business community. There's nothing the TV writers, actors or producers can do, no matter how well they do it, to make their viewers watch THE COMMERCIALS. A person may be the most avid watcher of Dollhouse in the Western hemisphere, but that won't make them an avid watcher of it's commercial breaks - and in the end that's all that matters.
Until TV perfects a new way to pay for itself (product placement inside the body of the scripted shows or the like) anything the individual show runners do is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

Reply

Mike,

Any chance TV Squad could do more articles reviewing and comparing online sites like Hulu? Maybe you could team up with Cinematical and Engadget to create a site that covers online TV and movie sites. Compare the sites, review the content, show updates, tell us what are the best ways to view them. I think it would be a popular site. Just give me credit when you launch it.

Thanks

Reply