Slingerland Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 especially if the drywall guys are installing Chinese drywall. It's drywall, it's dogfood, it's aspirin. What's the diff? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 (edited) It's drywall, it's dogfood, it's aspirin. What's the diff? Near as I can tell not much, as it appears the Chinese Mfg's exported us drywall mixed with dogfood, tylenol, etc. Edited May 14, 2013 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 It doesn't ignore that premise. It's true that many of us (me included) found drum corps on TV in the past. Today, there's no such requirement. You can find drum corps video on YouTube 24 hours a day, 365 days a years no matter what's on television. We just don't need TV anymore to make drum corps video available to potential marchers and watchers. Moreover, nearly two decades of the live broadcast and even more of the taped show didn't result in growth in either members or audience. On the contrary, the activity lost more of each when the PBS broadcast was at its peak. There is no correlation I can find that connects drum corps on broadcast television to the health of the activity. HH here's one more caveat: finals are on Saturday night. Saturday night has the lowest tv viewership of any night of the week. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Saturday night has the lowest tv viewership of any night of the week. Yes. And the networks don't program anything very strong because of it. Which means that if you have something that isn't a re-run or a newsmagazine show, you have a better chance of standing out among the crowd. Look at it this way. If you're going to get a 2 share on a night when there are 100 million viewers, or a 4 share on a night when there are 55 million viewers, you're still better off having the larger share on the night with the smaller viewership, since the absolute numbers (which is what really counts) are better. Less competition for eyeballs - even if there are fewer eyeballs watching the tube - is actually good for DCI. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Yes. And the networks don't program anything very strong because of it. Which means that if you have something that isn't a re-run or a newsmagazine show, you have a better chance of standing out among the crowd. Look at it this way. If you're going to get a 2 share on a night when there are 100 million viewers, or a 4 share on a night when there are 55 million viewers, you're still better off having the larger share on the night with the smaller viewership, since the absolute numbers (which is what really counts) are better. Less competition for eyeballs - even if there are fewer eyeballs watching the tube - is actually good for DCI. you do have a better chance.....but if we're pipedreaming PBS, forget it. If DCI is footing the bill forget it. The amount of $$ you'd need to pay to advertise the show on enough of other networks would be astronomical to get any attention. DCI on ESPN wasn't even getting a 2 share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 (edited) If DCI is footing the bill forget it. Can we take that "if...." and stick a fork in it? DCI will never again pay for someone to run their show. They found out the first time how dumb that was. Any discussion about getting television in the mix again has to begin with the assumption that DCI will figure out how to find a decent corporate sponsorship team who will be able to put together a funding package to make television viable. Paying for airtime is a commercial, and DCI simply doesn't have the means - which is why I never take that concept into account in any discussion of the topic. Edited May 14, 2013 by Slingerland 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim K Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Can we take that "if...." and stick a fork in it? DCI will never again pay for someone to run their show. They found out the first time how dumb that was. Any discussion about getting television in the mix again has to begin with the assumption that DCI will figure out how to find a decent corporate sponsorship team who will be able to put together a funding package to make television viable. Paying for airtime is a commercial, and DCI simply doesn't have the means - which is why I never take that concept into account in any discussion of the topic. When PBS broadcast DCI, they did a wonderful job and managed to capture the grit and excitement. ESPN's quality was greater, but it may have been a bit too glitzy though I will admit, I do appreciate the quality when I watch the DVD's. However, you make a valid point about costs, but i would like to add another factor: viewership. I'm sure there are not stats available, but my guess would be that a good number of the viewers would have been in the age group of people marching today. I base this on Big, Live, and Loud audiences, at least those I've attended. About 3/4 of teh theater is filled with high school kids, which is a good thing. They'll be marching and attending live shows in the future. Kids generally do not watch TV as they once did, at least when they are high school or college age, and if they are watching TV on a Saturday in the summer, they're probably sick in bed or being punished by their parents (if they're high school age). They do go to the movies (though that is shrinking too) so events such as Big, Live and Loud for finals would work and they watch podcasts. Instead of television, DCI should continue to use new technologies and if they want to give a nod to all the fossils out there who may watch TV on Saturday (I'll admit, I'm one), there's always Pay per View. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmhurstmusiced Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 When PBS broadcast DCI, they did a wonderful job and managed to capture the grit and excitement. ESPN's quality was greater, but it may have been a bit too glitzy though I will admit, I do appreciate the quality when I watch the DVD's. However, you make a valid point about costs, but i would like to add another factor: viewership. I'm sure there are not stats available, but my guess would be that a good number of the viewers would have been in the age group of people marching today. I base this on Big, Live, and Loud audiences, at least those I've attended. About 3/4 of teh theater is filled with high school kids, which is a good thing. They'll be marching and attending live shows in the future. Kids generally do not watch TV as they once did, at least when they are high school or college age, and if they are watching TV on a Saturday in the summer, they're probably sick in bed or being punished by their parents (if they're high school age). They do go to the movies (though that is shrinking too) so events such as Big, Live and Loud for finals would work and they watch podcasts. Instead of television, DCI should continue to use new technologies and if they want to give a nod to all the fossils out there who may watch TV on Saturday (I'll admit, I'm one), there's always Pay per View. I don't know, I teach high school and my kids seem like they are watch is tv. They're always talking about the Kardashians, Bad Girls Club, etc. I think one thing missing is marketing on TV. I don't recall promos and adds on Comcast, Time Warner, etc. about DCI even when it was on ESPN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted May 14, 2013 Author Share Posted May 14, 2013 Can we take that "if...." and stick a fork in it? DCI will never again pay for someone to run their show. They found out the first time how dumb that was. Any discussion about getting television in the mix again has to begin with the assumption that DCI will figure out how to find a decent corporate sponsorship team who will be able to put together a funding package to make television viable. Paying for airtime is a commercial, and DCI simply doesn't have the means - which is why I never take that concept into account in any discussion of the topic. Fair enough. But your sponsorship assumption is an "if" almost as large. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim K Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I don't know, I teach high school and my kids seem like they are watch is tv. They're always talking about the Kardashians, Bad Girls Club, etc. I think one thing missing is marketing on TV. I don't recall promos and adds on Comcast, Time Warner, etc. about DCI even when it was on ESPN. They certainly watch TV, probably too much. My point is that they do not watch TV in a traditional sense. TV is watched via podcast, TiVo, etc, or so it seems. Although as I write this, sporting events are still watched by young people on large screen TV's at the time they are broadcast and "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" is viewed as broadcast, although this could change io the Disney Channel star gets voted off the show, though that's unlikely since she has both talent and fans. Maybe better marketing as you suggest would work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.