Fox is showing too many Simpsons reruns

First the Xmas Special gets preempted, then the finale Anthology of Interest II, and countless of other Simpsons reruns during the week. Why can't Fox just show regular scheduled Futurama episodes plus those episodes missed because of NFL Football.

"Zikorn zat Insistent" wrote in message news:[email]...

Cuz they don't want to would be my guess. You're right about the damn Simpsons...it's about time to end that show. Jesus...there's ENOUGH FRIGGIN' SIMPSONS EPISODES IN THE WORLD. Whew. That felt good.

*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***

Amen to that, brother! Finally somebody who says what I say without the entire newsgroup replying "you shut up, simpsons-hater dude". ;)

In article , Leandro wrote in alt.tv.futurama:

Quiet, you.

<g>

-Jeff B. yeff at erols dot com

"Leandro" wrote in message news:[email]...

entire newsgroup

|

I love the Simpsons though, don't get me wrong. It's just that there's ENOUGH. If you showed every single episode straight thru, then looped it, by the time you got to the last episode and started viewing the first episode again, you wouldn't remember it. Thus, even the reruns are new. Now *that's* saturation. Unless they're going for filling all time, so that if you wanted to fill the time from big bang to gnab gib, you'd have more than enough Simpsons' episodes, without having to repeat.

Zikorn zat Insistent wrote:

Because Fox needs the unaired episodes for next Season because they only bought like 18 episodes for the 4th production run.

Hundsfurtz wrote:

Your assuming FOX will be consistent with their scheduling.

according to Fox's own website, they "strive" to do better than other networks by showing more than the average 22 new episodes of each program every season. Maybe their saving them all for the 4th season, but they didn't even get near the "average" 22 for Futurama in the thirs season. Lying hypocrits!!!

"Hundsfurtz" wrote in message news:[email]...

those

only

Mike Zaite wrote in message news:...

A good portion ofth ose 18 episodes will likely make it into season 6 knowing fox.

On Fri, 25 May 2001 02:32:38 GMT, Mike Zaite wrote:

How many of these episodes will get pre-empted by NFL Football? How many will get pulled because Fox deems the material too inappropiate for it's (still) sucky 7pm timeslot?

Zikorn zat Insistent wrote:

Who do I look like? A FOX Program Director? I don't Know.

Just got through reading an article of the top 20 TV shows this past season. Of the top 20 shows, The Simpsons was in that happy group. I think Futurama is somewhere at 70 or 80. Now let me put you in a hypothetical situation. Suppose you were trying to sell a product. Would you put your ads in the city square, or would you them in some alley on the outskirts of town? If you were serious about selling your product, would you not put your ads where people would most likely see them? If you can figure this out, then you know why the more heavily watched The Simpsons bumps out the marginally watched Futurama.

Soapbox Mode On. This is a naive, almost rhetorical reply. I'm an engineer not a 'marketer' but shoudn't Fox (or any network) be about producing and showing quality programming, above and beyond "trying to sell a product"? A race car design team designs the race car to go fast, then they put the product logos on wherever they fit. They don't design the car to have a hundred-foot billboard for advertising, because this interferes with the purpose of the car. The advertising is necessary, but incidental and should not be allowed to influence the design. In my view Fox should stick to a set program schedule.

If the advertisers want to sell their products on the Simpsons, fine, but they should have to conform to the programming schedule...not the other way around. If the advertisers want spots during the Simpsons then they ought to pony up the dough to make sure they get into the one 30-minute time slot the Simpsons is 'supposed' to have.

Further rambling off topic, I fundamentally don't understand the concepts of marketing or advertising, seems like a good product should sell itself, and anything that _needs_ heavy marketing should be viewed skeptically (as in, it's probably crap). I herewith propose that all advertising and marketing be restricted to legally supportable findings of fact, and scientifically peer-reviewed comparisons, with no hype or emotional appeals allowed. I also propose a guideline that no more than 12 minutes of ads shall be used in any one-hour time slot. Unfortunately I have no current connections or authority with respect to TV programming, TV networks, or TV advertising.

On Fri, 25 May 2001 20:04:44 -0700, in alt.tv.futurama you wrote:

The fundamental problem with this entire thread is that you're assuming that Fox gives a rat's behind what any of us think. Did you ever wonder why, when there's severe weather, the local weatherdork almost always interrupts the *program*, but not the commercials? Because the advertiser paid to get his commercial aired in a particular timeslot. The program is only important in that it's the medium in which the advertising is carried, because it generates no revenue for the network that's not associated with the advertising run within it.

Fox is not out to entertain you personally. Fox is out to create programming that will be popular enough to sell advertising in, so that Rupert Murdoch can make money. It's the price of "free" network TV. Even though I personally thought "The Lone Gunmen" deserved to live (I found it funny as hell), it didn't attract enough eyeballs to the Friday 9PM slot. Pure and simple. On the other hand, even as long in the tooth as X-Files is getting, it's going to get another season, because even without Duchovny, enough people tuned in to make it worth it.

Football draws more viewers than Futurama. There are more Joe Six-packs out there who want to see the end of the game than there are Joe Nerds who want to watch the antics of a cryonically-preserved loser, his cyclops captain and his alcoholic robot buddy. I love Futurama, but I also recognize that my "free" entertainment isn't driven by me, since I'm not a Nielsen household.

"ZMike!" wrote:

"Christopher J. Talbott" wrote:

Tell it Brother! Lone Gunman got axed already? That sucks.

It was a very good show. Not quite as good as the X-Files, and the humor was somehow a bit lowbrow for my liking, but it's got to be better than whatever garbage they have on in its place. (The whole "El Lobo" thing in the tango episode was hilarious.)

We wouldn't had this problem if Fox didn't move the X-Files from Friday to Sunday nights. All the shows Fox put into the old X-Files time slot: Sliders, Millennium, Harsh Realm, Lone Gunmen, have all failed.

On Wed, 30 May 2001 03:50:04 GMT, Doctor Worm wrote:

Zikorn zat Insistent wrote:

Well there is a reason for that. It's Friday. Most of the big demographics are not at home watching TV Friday night. That's kinda why they moved X-files to Sunday.

But they're counting on the loser geekboy types (like me) to be home then. I am home then, so it would probably work out. They just should expect a core group of fans, and not huge ratings. I can't think of any show that did better than Lone Gunmen in that time slot.

Doctor Worm wrote:

Fans. What the hell is it with you people and Fans. Fans don't make money, viewers make money. The only way to make a show worth airing is to have large amount of viewers to watch the commercials. A core group doesn't keep the sponsors. This isn't the pathetic 1/2 network desperate for anyone to watch anymore. FOX is gunning for the big money now. They can't be bothered with cult following shows from the creators of the shows that made FOX what it is today.

And I couldn't help but notice LG is scheduled to run a new episode tomorrow.

Today it's a network that screws over good shows in lieu of shows in the format of World's Blankiest Blank. Also, my point was still valid. Do they expect big ratings on a night when nobody's home? A small group of fans watching is probably the best they can hope for in that time slot.

"Doctor Worm" wrote in message news:[email]...

Not to mention Futurama's fan base is most likely people who'd be willing to stay home that night to watch it. Nah, it's just too logical.

Is it? Even on Sundays, because of the early (IMHO) timeslot, I find that I have to either remember to tape the show and wait and download it the next day somewhere. I would probably miss 80% of all Friday shows.

Luther

"LooseChanj" wrote in message news:3b1b0113$1_2@news3...

to

Advertising is used to raise product awareness. How is Business X going to sell its new car if no one knows about it.

For example, Ford release new car.

No advertising

People that know about new car are... Ford executives. Ford employees and Ford dealerships.

That's it.

Articles in car magazines, TV shows, posters at the dealership, its all advertising.

without advertising, Ford would hardly shift any units. thus complicating the process of running a business.

Now thats what im talking about, I hate it when i see and Ad on TV that has background music that in no way applies to the product or in no way relates to the product.

They are using the New Radical's song to advertise a car, you know the song about "the dreamer's disease" and how being a teenager is fun and you should just embrace youth n stuff. This song is not appropriate for a family car.

Soon they will be using "teenage dirtbag" to advertise adult diapers.

I didnt want this post to sound like a flame, but i fear it does.

I apologise in advance if it is taken in such a way.

Mike

Porsche. It's a little too small to get laid IN it, but you get laid the minute you get out of it!

If advertising were only to raise product awareness, ads would be like ZMike suggested...factual presentation of the product. Advertising doesn't just exist to make you aware of a product...it exists to create a fundamental need in you to acquire that product. Advertisers try to make the product so appealing that you can't imagine yourself without it (or its results). Even if a commercial is stupid, if you remember the name of the product, its done part of its job. If you see the product and for some reason it sounds familiar, and you decide to buy it, it's done all of its job. Ads generally target your sense of style (cool commercial = cool car), your self-esteem (better razor = better looks), your libido (drinking beer = hot women all over you), or your lifestyle (drinking Mountain Dew = cool extreme sports).

As far as ZMike's comment about not understanding advertising, I'd say you're just a little naive. Even good products can benefit from more people knowing about them. As for the scientific comparisons, there's a reason why commercials are more like mini-movies than Mr. Wizard outtakes...though commercials get weaved into the program, they're perfect opportunities to get up, take a whiz, get a snack, etc. If you're not watching the commercial, you're not doing the advertiser any good. So, the commercial has to be entertaining enough to keep your butt on the couch. That's why commercial-killer technology isn't more prevalent. The advertisers don't want it, the networks don't want it, the local affiliates don't want it, because if the ads don't get seen, the advertisers won't pay to have them put on, the networks and affiliates won't make any money, and "free" TV goes away.

Here's an interesting thought, though...what if the networks took a lesson from HBO and created two versions of their programming? One free, with commercials, and one premium-type service (pay by the month) with no commercials? Which one would you think was worth watching, given exactly the same shows? Would you pay $10 or $20 a month per network for the lack of commercials?

Michael Pretlove wrote:

Well, I'm, not right now and not planning to in the future.

I might get basic cable only if broadband internet is bundled with it.

DGH

doug holverson wrote:

And of course it isn't. That's why I ended up choosing ADSL. Cabelvision wants an additional $20 or so to get Cable TV with Cable Broadband.

"Christopher J. Talbott" wrote:

Assuming you don't get out by way of the jaws of life because you have more money then Driving ability.

Yeah Bring On Ugazzo Home Vision!! Nobody even knows what I'm referencing I'd wager.

Mike Zaite wrote:

Not to be pedantic, but the Porsche quote above comes from the movie "Crazy People", an early 90s satire on the advertising industry. If I could have remembered the Jaguar ad from the same movie (something about getting hand jobs from women you barely know), I'd have used it instead. I am not endorsing Porsche.

An SCTV sketch from 1981...but I only knew that because I know how to work a search engine... :-)

On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:29:46 -0500, "Christopher J. Talbott" wrote:

I remember the hotdog cooker satellite. But that's just because I've seen SCTV, when it was on the air and in repeats.

--Larry

"Christopher J. Talbott" wrote:

It doesn't make my comment any less true. The least worthy people always get the nice stuff.

1/2 credit then.

On Thu, 31 May 2001 20:53:19 +1000, "Michael Pretlove" wrote:

How many people bought the technically superior Macintosh and how many bought the better marketed DOS / Windows platform? Or the likewise superior Beta instead of the better marketed and slight cheaper VHS?

Look in any liquor dept. in America. Which do you see more of, Coors or hand crafted micro-brews? Bud or fine ale imported from one of the many countries that know how to make it right?

It's a purely emotional response. The song triggers positive emotions while you look at the car, or truck, or whatever product.

There is that minority of people who insist on reading the specs and doing some research before they buy a product. But, most people buy on a purely emotional response and then justify themselves with a few of the gee whiz features.

Another good one is using a baby. Stimulate parental instinct and show the product. They tell you that their tires are safer while showing you a cute baby. "If you buy any other tires, then I guess you just hate babies". Do they cite any real statistics or other data showing that the new "Quantum Paradigm tracking" (or whatever they are calling it) really makes your car safer? No, but if you don't buy them, you hate babies.

Now time for one of my favorites. There was a product, which I forgot, that was using The Who's "Who Are You" as the background music. Of course, all they used was the chorus, they never played the opening

"I was sleeping in a Soho doorway A policeman knew my name You can sleep it off at home tonight If you can get up and walk away."

Do they mean that this product is for people who are such alcoholics that the cops know them by name??

"Helter Skelter", the song the inspired Manson, selling Nike shoes! Oh, the irony.

Only towards the advertisers, and after all, they are the closest thing to pure distilled evil. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

TV fundamentally works like this: Networks sell a product call viewer attention (that's you) to their customers, the advertisers (that's not you). You are not the customer, you are the product that's being sold. From this prospective, the rest of the TV industry starts to make sense.

If they could do something as stupid as stick a camera in someone's house and people would watch it, they'd do it. Or for that matter, if they could just edit official police video and run it on TV, they would. Fortunately, no one would watch anything that inane, would they? Well I gotta run, "The World's Blankiest Blank" is on an I need to get a Diet Burpsee Cola and some Grease-O-Sticks.

--Larry

Larry F wrote:

IBM was cheaper then Mac that's all it needed. Apple spent tones on advertising. As for VHS who the hell knows. I hate it but I can't find a good Super BETA deck for less then $600.

You just have to learn the right places to go. Walls and walls of real imports and micro and regional brews, Budweis (not to be confused with Budweiser), Old Peculiar, Barly Wines, Bok's, Lambics. Exotic Stout's far as the eye can see. But only the high volume crap gets the coolers.

"Live the dream...., DeLorean"

I do a little of both myself. But I never enjoy the impulse stuff as much.

Been watching lots of Conan O'Brien lately?;) <...>

On American TV? No one would watch that.

<snip>

Have you tried Good Will or Salvation Army Stores or yard and garage sales?

DGH

doug holverson wrote:

No Super BETA the pro-sumer stuff they use in Local news remote cameras and stuff. Same price for media but better quality. Plus it's new equipment. Not 30 year old stuff with no replacement parts. Im sure CHUCK 5 will eventualy scrape up the cash to get one for mastering and shit. But for now I'm stuck with $75 VHS.

On Thu, 31 May 2001 23:09:28 GMT, Mike Zaite wrote:

Apple was the only company selling Apples. On the DOS/Windows side, there where, and still are, numerous companies selling clones. The combined sales force was more than any one company could compete with. Apple is now a niche product, where it will likely remain until they go out of business. Once the scales tip to far, there is no coming back. Thanks to the sales disparity, Microsoft, AMD and Intel can out spend Apple / Motorola on R&D.

Apple did finally license out it's OS a couple of years ago. Good move, but it was way too late in the game and they promptly stopped.

VHS vs Beta was very similar. VHS licensed to almost anyone who's machine could make a tape play. No matter how cheaply made. Beta limited licensing to higher quality products. So, 12+ companies were selling cheap VHS vs 4 companies selling high quality Beta.

In the long run, Beta would be cheaper. since the machines are better made, you could use one for many more years. The cost per year on a good Beta would be cheaper. "What cost per year mean? $300 less than $350! Me buy VHS." and the rest is history.

Oh, I have. I save 1 bottle of each new kind of beer I drink. Currently, I have 200+ bottles and I'm building high shelves around the kitchen to display them all. A&J's Fine Foods, in Phoenix at least, has a beer display that ruins the entire length of the store with single bottles to mix and match. There used to be a great store in Tucson, but I don't know if they are still open.

Old Peculiar is very good, though I go more for ales than lagers. I never was much for barly wines, the best I've tried is Sierra Nevada's Bigfoot (a barley wine style ale). Single and double boks can be quite good, the only time I tried a triple bok, it was terrible. Ummm, Lambec . . The best one I've had was a Belgian import. It's cork sealed and costs $5+ per bottle. Well worth it for a treat.

If you ever walked through a parking lot after a Grateful Dead show, there would be thousands of empty beer bottles, but rarely a single "Bud-Miller-Coors" We're picky that way.

He was framed! I mean it was entrapment! Oh, wait, they got it on tape.

No, I've never watched him much. I was a hard core David Letterman fan in college. I haven't seen his show in quite a while either. They used the same basic joke on Southpark too.

Tonight on Fox, live reality footage of other people watching reruns.

--Larry

Larry F wrote:

Lesson: Don't be too greedy with your licencing.

What's the deal with beer walls? My friend does that too. I just chuck my emptys. Recycled at least.

They have an increadable Stout made with a deep chocolate malt. Verry smooth and so dark it's scarry. Makes Guinness look and taste like an Amber Ale.

Yea that's the stuff my friend buys Usualy $5 is on the low side for him. I just typicaly mooch off his bottle.

No they got him doing Coke like most 80's big buisnessmen, on tape. He was being arested and charged for Tax Evasion regarding some creative accounting through his Ireland plant to keep it afloat. And of that he was aquited due to FBI entrapment. He may have goten a fine for possesion but that was it.

Oh boy I can't wait. That sounds great!!!!

On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 03:30:18 GMT, Mike Zaite wrote:

Most of my empties get recycled, I just save one of each type. I had a fair collection in college, but I dumped them when I moved back to Phoenix. When I got my house I thought 'Wow I have plenty of room to display beer bottles again'. I thought of just saving the labels, but they generally don't come off intact.

I haven't seen their stout, I'll have to look for it. I've had Watney's Cream Stout which is nearly black in color, but not the least bit bitter. Sam Adams Cream Stout is good, but not even close to Watney's.

There are two beers called Monk's Pale Ale and Monks Dark Ale that have the label silkscreened onto the bottle. They're brewed by Trappist monks in Belgium. Very good but delicate flavor. You have to decant the beer out carefully because the yeast is still in the bottom. Not cheap, but well worth the cost, usually about $11 for a four pack.

There are some inferior, though still good, lambecs around these days. Since I drink for quality rather than quantity, I generally hold out for the good stuff.

As I recall, he got off on all charges, but it was the end of his plant. Some of the leftover stainless steel body parts were cut up, sharpened and sold as novelty coke razors.

Video tape yourself watching it, so you can watch yourself over and over.

--Larry

Larry F wrote:

I just try to keep the stuff I like in the fridge.

I think the new place I found this weekend has it. In coolers along with everything else. I'll have to check that out.

I stand by my Mooch statement on Lambics ;)

True that killed his Ireland Catholic/Protestant mixed Assy. plant. But as for all the unused parts a company in Ohio bought all the old stock and was then bought out by a texas company that took over the Delorean Motor Company name that maintains 2 full very large warehouses one in Ohio and one in Texas where they also restore and sell refurbished DeLoreans with 0 time or rebuilt drive trains. http://www.delorean.com The Dies on the other hand were sunk in the deepest part of the Atlantic as cable anchors.

But new dies may be in the works to maintain the current spare parts stock. There's a lot of false statements floating around about DeLorean's this site covers most of them: http://www.entermyworld.com/

What a great Idea!!! I bet I can get FOX to buy it!!!!

A lot of PC's were sold before the Mac came out. For most people it was simply easier to adapt their PC to Windows than to have to learn an entirely different system. With the PC, you could still revert to DOS if Windows didn't do the task.

Actually a lot of the early appeal of VHS over Beta was that you could get a hour of so more of recording time on a VHS tape. After that it became a cumulative effect, more VHS machines where out there, so more VHS tapes were made, which led more people to buy VHS machines, which led to more VHS tapes being made than Beta tapes, which lead to more VHS machines being sold.... Eventually so few Beta machines were being sold, they were dropped. I actually had a Beta and a VHS machine, (Actually still do have the Beta machine) and frankly I can't detect any significant difference in picture quality.

McDonalds vs the local mom and pop hamburger stand. Walmart vs Joe's Sporting Goods, Jim's Hardware, Ann's Dress Shop, and all the other little stores on Main Street.

mmm semiotics

Mike

That comparison doesn't fit because the ads on a car are like product placement within a show (like a character drinking Coke onscreen, etc.). They make extra money for the show's producers or stars, not the networks. The race when broadcast on TV still has the full-length commercial time sold by the networks. You're right that the producers of the show, or sporting event, have much greater concerns than worrying about product placement. They've got to put together a good show people will watch and the networks will buy. The product placement is just some icing on the cake. But the networks have only one concern and one way to make money, by selling commercial time.

Who says a show is supposed to be aired only once a week? Reruns and cable definitely don't follow that format, nor do news or night-time shows.

Anyone can produce their show as a pay cable, movie, or direct-to-video venture free of ads and many do. Unfortunately it's much tougher to get anyone to pony up the money themselves to watch it in those formats. Most people would rather watch shows free and put up with the advertisements, so that is why that system has been more successful.

I don't think that's a problem so much as the taste the majority of people have in programming. They don't support a lot of bright, original, intelligent shows, and tend to go for dumbed-down, watered-down efforts. Like has been said about The Lone Gunmen here, the networks should realize that niche programming for smaller audiences is sometimes a good way to go overall rather than constantly looking for that monster hit with shows (or movies) that end up bombing flat on their face.

The flaw in the logic is that for people into racing, their first love is simply racing. But it has gotten so expensive to build and operate a race car, that they need the ads to fulfill their love of racing. I am sure most of them sort of cringe at all the ads, and would just as soon have a nice, clean looking car. These people could be considered the equivalent of the creators of Futurama. The Network is a whole nuther ball of wax. The network could really care less about what the programs themselves are all about, as long as they make money for them and don't violate to many community standards which would tend to generate unwanted political heat for them

It not up to the sponsors what shows get aired when. They could care less whether the ad gets run on the Simpsons or Futurama, just as long as it gets seen by the largest audience.

The lawyers would eat this alive. I am sure they are a myriad of constitutional issues this would violate, or at least they could use to their advantage

Bobbie said that Katie said that Susie said that her mommy told her that [email] (ZMike!) said this on Mon, 28 May 2001 18:53:50 GMT:

If people would pay to see enormous billboards race each other, then racecars WOULD be enormous billboards.

The advertising rates are high because lots of people want to watch The Simpsons. By airing shows people want to watch, Fox is at least pleasing both the advertisers and the fans to some degree.

There go the presidential debates.

There goes paid programming. I imagine Saturday Night Live and televised football would be a lot more strenuous on the performers, or very boring to watch. (Though I've heard football is specifically structured the way it is to allow more time-outs for more commercials.)

Unfortunately, "advertisement" cannot be differentiated from "speech" in general, so I feel we should endorse "free advertisement". Instead of restricting how we speak, we should concentrate on refining how we listen. 50 years ago, Aldous Huxley urged our society to incorporate into our educational systems the teaching of skills for differentiating between rational and non-rational propoganda ... but that may be too much to ask of our fine race.