Lovely, Allyson. Especially this:

and unnecessarily large trucks. He who dies with the most toys not only wins, but also decides what the rest of us poor schmucks watch on television.

Also?

Based on the promise the network has made to the advertiser regarding the number of boys who spend money [on] useless crap who will be watching during that time period,

Much better without the fishing, methinks.

Here’s a little primer for those of you wondering how the inner financial world of broadcast television works.

Yes! Introductory bridge for me to walk across. Thankee, ma'am.

An hour-long drama can cost about 2 million dollars to produce, which includes actors’ salaries, the dental plan for the guy who holds the boom, donuts, wardrobe…you get the picture.

I'm assuming this is per-ep? Might want to add that info, since this is in fact a primer.

Networks make money by selling 30-60 second timeslots to advertisers. A teevee show is just succulent bait to lure unsuspecting hard-working Americans into watching commercials. The network promises the advertisers that a particular show will attract millions of viewers called a demographic. The most precious demographic is 18-40 year-old males, who supposedly have the most disposable income. So networks invest in television shows that they believe will appeal to the people who spend the most money on things like Sega games, pizza delivery, and unnecessarily large trucks. He who dies with the most toys not only wins, but also decides what the rest of us poor schmucks watch on television.

Stone perfect clear. If I knew nothing about television at all, I would after reading that paragraph.

(and just read the rest)

Yes, indeed.

Fixed and fixed. Ahhhhh. Thanks for helping me sort it all out, guys. It was a huge source of frustration.

It's that whole "keep it clear in the informational bits, so you can really punch the personal and creative bits" way of handling non-fiction. Works a treat, doesn't it?

Thanks for helping me sort it all out, guys. It was a huge source of frustration.

It probably didn't help that you were describing a system that is insane.

Oh man, Allyson. That is loads better, somehow. I mean, I liked the fish metaphor, but the way you've explained it now is not only clearer but funnier. The snark is well integrated.

Loved

Surprisingly, television executives did not get into the business as a purely altruistic endeavor to provide free entertainment to the public.

and

The Super Bowl will never be canceled, no matter how lame I think it is.

I don't think I've explained Nielsen well enough.

It seems clear enough to me, but then again, I'm not unfamiliar with it.

Just, wow, Allyson. You really improved the hell out of it.

Love it, Allyson. Although I kind of miss the statement about how fans are deeply wrong in their conviction they are the consumers of television. Because that's such a misconception, and it's so very pervasive.

Although I kind of miss the statement about how fans are deeply wrong in their conviction they are the consumers of television. Because that's such a misconception, and it's so very pervasive.

I'll get it back in there when I discuss the night that I had the Bluegloves/Apples meltdown.

Heh. Without knowing anything at all about the Bluegloves/Apples meltdown, I already know I'm pleased with the idea of having the deeply wrong conviction in there.

I'm betting I'm going to be shown, not just told, bigtime.

I'm buying kettlecorn for when you post that part.

Love it, Allyson. The one place I'd say you might need to explain a bit more is that you mention Neilson boxes without explaining what they are. Just something along the lines of "Neilson selects a supposedly representative sample of families and gives them boxes that hook up to their TVs to keep track of what they watch. This information is then used to estimate how many people in the general population watched the show." Or something like that.