Allyson, I'd say putting bridges between, and also before, your linked ideas is a good idea. Right now, to open, you've got
Fans sometimes make the mistake that they are consumers of television shows. The viewers are actually bait for the real consumers, the advertisers.
I'd give that a couple of bridges, something along the lines of. "There's a common mistake in the minds of many television viewers: they think they're the end market, the consumers. (paragraph, a new paragraph, with a bridge) The reality is, in the minds of the (insert whoever, network, producer, whoever is in charge), the viewer is actually bait for the real consumers: the advertisers. (paragraph) People hawking laundry soap, douches, and/or sport utility vehicles purchase time from networks to advertise their products and services to the audience watching a television program.
Then an explanation.
Not sure if I'm even remotely clear, there.
I'm not sure I buy that the advertisers are the consumers of the television shows
And yet. They are.
Thanks for the help guys.I know where to tighten it and what to lose.
It still certainly looks like something I want to read.
The fishing metaphor is getting a bit muddled too.
So networks create shows that will appeal to a certain demographic, and then roll the dice. The network tells the advertiser that the television program will attract a few million viewers in a coveted demographic. The advertiser buys a minute or two of commercial time from the network in anticipation of chomping on a tasty bit of the audience.
How about "Networks create shows they think will attract a certain demographic and cast them out into the sea of viewers. The network tells the advertiser that the television program will attract a few million viewers in a coveted demographic. The advertiser buys a minute or two of commercial time from the network in anticipation of chomping on a tasty piece of audience fish."
Thanks for the suggestion, but I gotsa write all by myself. Will rework it over lunch, simplify, repost to see if I can make it all less muddled.
Art education
Classical music was boring. Long. Not much of a melody. It was supposed to *mean* something, too, and I didn't hear it.
Music 101, or, Beat Culture into the Heads of Freshmen. Easy grade, say something good about Mozart or Beethoven and pass. Auditorium full of slouching people catching up on their sleep.
"This is by Smetana, The Moldau."
My feet hit the floor as my mind surrendered to the sound.
The professor grinned when I demanded after class that he play it again.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I gotsa write all by myself.
I end up suggesting alternate wordings because I'm lousy at explaining what I think should happen to someone else's work. I'm just trying to explain what I mean, not saying "There are the words you should use."
Hell yes. Allyson, any and every suggestion I will ever make on anyone's work is prefaced by "maybe something like", to illustrate an idea, rather than a wording.
Connie, that's pretty much the same reaction I had to The Moldau, when I first heard it as a college freshman. It's still one of my favorite pieces of music.
And I'd never heard of Smetana till I hit college. There needs to be more Slavic music taught in schools. And Russians and all those other people.
