View Full Version : Could This Be a New Way for CAG's to Make Money?
PittsburghAfterDark
08-03-2004, 09:48 PM
CNBC MCENROE HITS '0' RATING... 10 PM ET SLOT IN TOTAL COLLAPSE 0.0 RATING FOR NIELSEN, PULLS ONLY 37,000 HOUSEHOLDS NATIONWIDE... NBC NOW PAYING JOHN MCENROE $27 FOR EACH TV HOME WATCHING, BASED ON CLAIMED MILLION-DOLLAR YEARLY SALARY.
I wonder if we collectively wrote to GE/NBC/CNBC and pledged 1,000 viewers if they'd give us $20 each so we could all go get a cheap game.
Stargun007
08-03-2004, 11:26 PM
What? I understand each word individually, but when you put it together, I have no idea what you just said.
bignick
08-03-2004, 11:31 PM
That guy gets 1mil to be on tv, there is only 37000 viewers, so its like he is getting 27 per person watching. We will watch for 20. get it?
epobirs
08-03-2004, 11:34 PM
HE said John McEnroe (former tennis star?) has a show that is so poorly viewed it has fallen below the Nielsen measuring system. When this is reflected against McEnroe's salary (not to mention production cost that are at least equal) it means the broadcaster is paying an extraordinarily high amount per viewer. The advertising air time prices are based on ratings so it is completely hopeless that the company will make enough on ad sales to come anywhere near recouping its costs unless it viewer feels obligated to buy a new high-end SUV or some other major purchase as a result of viewing.
I'm sure PAD will recall the last wonderboy to achieve this was Phil Donahue, and well deserved it was.
enlightenedgamer
08-03-2004, 11:40 PM
Pretty cool idea.
The only hiccup is that only 3000 or so homes matter for Neilson ratings. They just pick a representative random sample, hook monitoring devices to those TVs, and get a very close approximation of what Americans watch.
The upside of this system is that 1 CAG participating in the Neilson survey who watches McEnroe would represent about 100,000 of his/her fellow CAGs. We should probably ask for more money...
Zenithian Legend
08-04-2004, 12:18 AM
Wow, well count me in
epobirs
08-04-2004, 12:20 AM
It certainly challenges the phrase "You couldn't pay me to watch that... how much did you say? Sold!"
Stargun007
08-04-2004, 12:41 AM
That guy gets 1mil to be on tv, there is only 37000 viewers, so its like he is getting 27 per person watching. We will watch for 20. get it?
Ah, I get it. If it would work, that would be awesome, but that's not going to happen. If it does, I'll donate $10 off every $20 I make.
Murcielago77
08-04-2004, 12:50 AM
count me in. 20 bucks a week and all i have to do is have it on picture in picture for an hour
epobirs
08-04-2004, 01:09 AM
count me in. 20 bucks a week and all i have to do is have it on picture in picture for an hour
After a month you'd be able to afford to send your avatar to Victoria's Secret to get a harness on those beasts and allow her some freedom of movement.
XboxMaster
08-04-2004, 01:13 AM
I'll do it!!!
Kaijufan
08-04-2004, 02:14 AM
That would be cool. I would waste an hour a week for $20. Its more then I get paid at work.
tc49821
08-04-2004, 02:18 AM
count me in
That would be cool. I would waste an hour a week for $20. Its more then I get paid at work.
Couldn't you just turn on a tv and walk away? Then you get $20 for no work.
SilveRaven
08-04-2004, 02:50 PM
Hypothetically speaking if it were to happen I don't see anything they could do to prevent you from doing anything else :wink:
Good luck (of course I would so be in if they did lol).
Ericnmel99
08-04-2004, 02:51 PM
Thank you big nick to help me understand what the heck he was saying.