<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for John</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/fbe6754c35ecdff353ac7dc74727b75c/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:05:06 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Top Syndicated Shows, March 31 - April 6</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/top_syndicated_shows_march_31_april_6/#comment-1820031</link><description>Are these cumulative totals or daily averages?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:21:40 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Gossip Girl vs. The Hills: Don&amp;#8217;t Believe CW&amp;#8217;s Positive Spin!</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/gossip_girl_vs_the_hills_don8217t_believe_cw8217s_positive_spin/#comment-1820498</link><description>Fact is, The Hills is actually a good show made in a novel way.  The focus is not on the dialog but on the style and the blurring of reality.  TV needs more good looking rich kids and less Ugly Betty's and obviously The Hills got it right more so than Gossip Girl.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:45:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top Syndicated Shows, March 31 - April 6</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/top_syndicated_shows_march_31_april_6/#comment-1820033</link><description>Thanks.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:49:24 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Throwing Up Gossip Girl</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/throwing_up_gossip_girl/#comment-1820559</link><description>Gilmore Girls was not streamed over the internet last year.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:29:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: An Open Letter to The CW&amp;#8217;s Dawn Ostroff</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/an_open_letter_to_the_cw8217s_dawn_ostroff/#comment-1820648</link><description>Fox and the CW are mini-networks which means they have less programming to worry about.  Fox became the ratings leader following the strike mostly because of one "unscripted" show.  I wonder why the CW didn't hedge their bets more in this direction.  They seem to be mired by their conservative CBS programming bosses and studio based Warner Bros. scripted shows.  I suggest the network forget convention and try out controversial topics and formats and more "event" based shows.  If they are also targeting young women, why do they show wrestling and urban sitcoms?  They need to define their audience and go after them 100% which would help them differentiate their brand just like Fox did in the early years.  What's there to lose?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:04:38 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Univision: It&amp;#8217;s a Big Deal When It Comes to Ratings</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/univision_it8217s_a_big_deal_when_it_comes_to_ratings/#comment-434240</link><description>I don't speak a word of Spanish but Univision seems to be a much stronger brand than most of the major broadcast networks.  They have a stronger mix of local and international news and sports and they have attractive women in corny soaps.  I don't care much for local ratings but it will be interesting to see if Univision comes out with an English language station in the future.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 16:45:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Nielsen Ratings May 7, 2008: Worst May Sweeps EVER!</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/nielsen_ratings_may_7_2008_worst_may_sweeps_ever/#comment-434365</link><description>Farmer Wants a Wife is another example of American executives destroying a proven foreign concept.  The US version looks like a low budget and boring version of The Bachelor, a show I happen to enjoy.  In the original, and successful, conception of the show, multiple farmers bring a single partner home and it either works out or doesn't.  This show has no credibility and is straight out boring.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 17:00:26 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: CW Gives Up On Sunday Night</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/cw_gives_up_on_sunday_night/#comment-436090</link><description>Isn't Sunday when kids do their weekend homework?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 02:18:24 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Les Moonves, Meet Your New Best Friend Steve Jurvetson</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/thread_77/#comment-473150</link><description>This has little effect on an advertiser based company.  No matter how old a population gets, older consumers are seen as less willing to be affected by advertising.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;On the other hand, channels with subscription revenue could target this segment.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 16:34:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Looking Back At The Eras Of Network Television</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/looking_back_at_the_eras_of_network_television/#comment-676591</link><description>Beyond the networks, it would be interesting to see the shares by format: sit-com, soap, crime, sports, variety, reality, etc.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:55:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Wimbledon Tennis Viewership, 1973-2008</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/wimbledon_tennis_viewership_1973_2008/#comment-760651</link><description>Aging boomers prefer golf</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:43:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: NBC Serves Up Billions and Billions of Minutes</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/nbc_serves_up_billions_and_billions_of_minutes/#comment-1230479</link><description>- Sinophobia/Sinophelia&lt;br&gt;- Michael Phelps&lt;br&gt;- Non-Nascar/X-Games Sporting Events</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 02:56:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: NBC Olympics Ratings Success Makes Les Moonves Smile</title><link>http://tvbtn.disqus.com/nbc_olympics_ratings_success_makes_les_moonves_smile/#comment-1594301</link><description>For whatever reason your post includes multpile annoying ??? sambols when read in Google Reader.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:05:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: More Is (Sadly) Still More</title><link>http://treehuggercomments.disqus.com/more_is_sadly_still_more/#comment-17503166</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Your cell phone comment strikes a chord.  Sadly, the American consumer and marketing execs love the "buy one, get second at 50% off" mentality all too much.  While teenagers from Turkey to Thailand wouldn't be caught dead with the pathetic models these companies have to offer it seems that third world nations donate their cell phones to US wireless providers so that Americans can share in this thing called cellular communication.  Maybe eventually the FCC will admit their stupidity and allow for some economies of scale on the antenna side of things.  Then the providers could actually afford to offer us good phones, or we all just get the second generation of the iphone once all the bugs get fixed.  Then eventually we can get some bulk service plans like Base in Germany and then we're only 10 years behind the rest of the world!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:51:36 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>