Re: Turns out it was all for nothing, George is back too. -- X-PHILES WORLD-TV Watchers Room

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:52:52 07/26/04 Mon
Author: Islandgirl
Subject:

Re: Turns out it was all for nothing, George is back too.
In reply to: SMH 's message, "Turns out it was all for nothing, George is back too." on 03:41:01 07/26/04 Mon

Well, I'm really glad Nick is remaning in the cast! BTW, are we going to discuss the CSI eps every week on this board? Apparently, given the amount of interest in this topic, most people here watch it. However, it seemed like last season when I'd post comments on specific eps, I didn't get a lot of replies.
I don't understand the whole demographics thing, either. Young males are prized simply because they watch less primetime network TV than women or older people, and thus are harder for advertisers to reach. (I think men actually watch more TV than women, but a lot of it tends to be sporting events broadcast on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, or cable shows.) What *I* don't understand is why advertisers are so desperate to reach people in their 20s and 30s, while writing off viewers in the 40+ age range. My hubby and I (in our 40s) have more "disposable" income now than we did 10 or 15 years ago and our parents (in their 60s) have more than we do. So why do advertisers most want to reach the age segments that are least likely to have money for impulse purchases?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

I know what you mean -- CW, 23:04:17 07/26/04 Mon
- well -- SMH, 23:40:23 07/26/04 Mon
  - The advertisers mindset -- detoured, 16:23:12 07/27/04 Tue
    - More CSI News-this time on Petersen -- detoured, 00:37:44 07/29/04 Thu