You talked up the NBC comedies, and now you respond with a cop out post like that throwing your fellow cronies under the bus as not being able to understand the importance of quality because they were duped by "marketing." Which is it? NBC comedies are quality? Or no one is watching because they don't know quality because they were duped by marketing. Personally, I'm losing faith in your ability to tell me how to STFU.
No one's telling you to shut up, I'm just asking you to use your inside voice.
Not all NBC comedies are quality. I'm not going to re-state my earlier post. Stop being lazy.
What more do you want me to say? Good content isn't driven by ratings. People working on-set don't consider your "hidden psychology" while working hard to make the best television program they know how. Sometimes it works, often times it doesn't. That's life.
The shows that are "stickiest" typically derive from a producer/manager simply looking for something that sells. They're drawn up in executive boardrooms where "stickiness" reigns supreme. All of reality TV begins in a boardroom.
However, most written episodic programming begins with a writer's brain and a pen/laptop. Pilots are created and content is king. Whether or not said content is "quality" depends on the talent involved.
Just like record sales shouldn't be viewed as a qualitative indicator, Nielsen ratings shouldn't either. Yes, taste is subjective, but we as humans have built up basic parameters for judging content. Your inability to comprehend that is beyond asinine and your half-wit responses have all but proven it.
Let's give a real-world example for good measure:
My mother doesn't care much about music. She doesn't make any attempts to see what exists in the vast and near-endless pantheon of records that have been and will be created. This is fine.
To that end, my mother only listens to music on the radio in the car because of it's ease of accessibility. It's right in front of her and all she has to do is turn the car on. No extra process of finding the correct station (and she has Sirius/XM to boot!), no research in her off time finding records/discs she will thoroughly enjoy, nothing. It's simple, easy, and stupid.
This isn't to say she's a bad person for not having acquired a taste for music, she just simply doesn't.
And that's where the record labels come in. They pay tons of money to produce artists and albums with the broadest appeal possible in order to
make the most money possible. Because the majority of people are like my mother, occupied by other things (like raising my sister and I) in life to afford themselves the luxury of frequently researching music, the majority of people only want art at arms length. Labels pay these huge sums largely for distribution and marketing purposes in order to
create a normative of quality that is often lower than expected. After all, it's exponentially more difficult, time-consuming, and financially burdensome to actually create something of artistic value in the face of enormous profits (this is, of course, before piracy).
The same applies to film and television. Last year,
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse grossed a little over $300 million at the box office. In comparison,
Black Swan grossed $106 million. Does that mean
Eclipse has a better constructed story with characters more developed and engaging than
Black Swan? Does that mean that the cinematography, direction, and overall aesthetic was received as well as
Black Swan? Clearly not.
In much the same way American Idol's 21 million viewers says nothing about it's overall quality as a production over Parks & Recreation and it's measly 5 million viewers.
