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.

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.

I thought about that too, and then I decided an intelligent reader would be able to infer from the words "boxes" and "diaries" and the whole nature of Nielsen as Allyson has described it, that the boxes do in fact monitor the viewing habits, and they probably record their viewing habits in diaries. Although it might be good to have a line or two about the representative sample and how it spans demographics and all that, since demographics have been an important part of the essay so far.

I honestly felt the demographic span was implicitly there, in the language she has in place.

Adding it certainly wouldn't damage the piece, but I honestly don't think it's needed, either.

Very nice piece, Allyson! You did a great job incorporating the notes while still keeping it distinctively yours--not the easiest thing to do.

Thanks, Robin! It's so ultra-important to me to get my pointiness across. Great Write has been a good place to get big helpings of real non-egostrokey thoughts. Except when I yell, "please stroke my ego, I'm falling apart."