Comments on: Target Audience http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/12/16/target-audience/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:38:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ashley http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/12/16/target-audience/#comment-3191 Ashley Sat, 31 Jan 2009 04:24:39 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=698#comment-3191 I think the reason that there are so many paranormal shows these days has to do with "[James] Oberg's Law of Paranormal Sponsors", which notes that advertisers prefer audiences that are gullible, because they are likely to get suckered by the ads. Woo-woo shows attract such an audience. I think there's also a niche for skeptical shows, though. I think the reason that there are so many paranormal shows these days has to do with “[James] Oberg’s Law of Paranormal Sponsors”, which notes that advertisers prefer audiences that are gullible, because they are likely to get suckered by the ads. Woo-woo shows attract such an audience.

I think there’s also a niche for skeptical shows, though.

]]> By: Derek Colanduno http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/12/16/target-audience/#comment-1793 Derek Colanduno Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:01:04 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=698#comment-1793 There are a few these days. CBS has Numb3rs, The Mentalist, and you 'could' put a show like The Big Bang Theory into that camp as well. You have to keep in mind that TV is about entertainment first and foremost. So, shows like The Mentalist, and Numb3rs, are the best way to get the point across. That is if you want the show to be on a major network. Another way to go about this would be to get something like the Skeptologists on something like the Discovery Network, or another main stream Cable/Satellite channel. There are a few these days. CBS has Numb3rs, The Mentalist, and you ‘could’ put a show like The Big Bang Theory into that camp as well. You have to keep in mind that TV is about entertainment first and foremost. So, shows like The Mentalist, and Numb3rs, are the best way to get the point across. That is if you want the show to be on a major network.

Another way to go about this would be to get something like the Skeptologists on something like the Discovery Network, or another main stream Cable/Satellite channel.

]]> By: Resume http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/12/16/target-audience/#comment-1723 Resume Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:48:04 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=698#comment-1723 Using a scientific term, there must be a jillion paranormal shows on TV currently. It would be nice to counter these with a show dedicated to critical thinking. Using a scientific term, there must be a jillion paranormal shows on TV currently. It would be nice to counter these with a show dedicated to critical thinking.

]]> By: shoshidge http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/12/16/target-audience/#comment-1669 shoshidge Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:00:12 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=698#comment-1669 While I agree that making the show too nerdy and inscrutable for regular people willl doom it, you have to be careful not to aim too low. I compare it to firing old-fashioned artillery, you have to aim a little over your target to compensate for fall of shot. If you make the show a little more sophisticated than the average level of the type of person you want to attract, than they will understand most of it and also be motivated to explore the ideas independently in order to get the rest. While I agree that making the show too nerdy and inscrutable for regular people willl doom it, you have to be careful not to aim too low.
I compare it to firing old-fashioned artillery, you have to aim a little over your target to compensate for fall of shot.
If you make the show a little more sophisticated than the average level of the type of person you want to attract, than they will understand most of it and also be motivated to explore the ideas independently in order to get the rest.

]]> By: ejdalise http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/12/16/target-audience/#comment-1637 ejdalise Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:00:22 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=698#comment-1637 Ryan, no problem. I did not feel "singled out". Besides, there is no such thing as bad publicity . . . especially once you get used to it. Ryan, no problem. I did not feel “singled out”. Besides, there is no such thing as bad publicity . . . especially once you get used to it.

]]> By: Nathan Magill http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/12/16/target-audience/#comment-1632 Nathan Magill Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:43:02 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=698#comment-1632 If you're trying to reach everyone possible, especially those who have beliefs in woo-woo, you can find no better cast than the ones you have right now. Michael Shermer is at the top of my list for entertaining skeptics who can reach wide audiences. Obviously there are some controversial people, like Brian Dunning, but even though a lot of believers don't like him, he is very good at getting his point out to those who aren't skeptics and the middle ground. I know his podcasts have even made him controversial to other skeptics because of a few topics, but what mattered was that he was right and he changed a lot of minds of skeptics themselves (including me), which proves how great he really is. Phil Plait and Kirsten Sanford (I always forget her full name and just think of her as "Dr. Kiki") can show the awe and wonder of science, which is a big boost that science needs right now. I read Dr. Plait's blog about Mt. Wilson, and it definitely reached me. Dr. Kiki has a bright attitude, which could sway the average Joe from thinking that the group is a bunch of serious skeptics. If you're trying to make sure it's entertaining then a magician is the way to go. Since entertainment is how they make a living having them in a skeptic’s show is a necessity. I've seen very little of Mark Edward's act, but from what I've seen and heard from him in the skeptic world he's a great choice. Having a scientist in Medicine is absolutely mandatory. Medical woo-woo is the most dangerous of all. I'm glad you got Steve Novella on the cast, I enjoy his podcasts, and it's a shame I didn't get to go to the last TAM and meet him. Though I admit that I've never even heard of Yau-Man Chan (I'm afraid I don't watch Survivor), it's great that you've got a physicist in the crew. I'm a budding physicist myself and I would love to hear from someone in my own field talk about even more things that I care about. Everything I've seen from you guys (from skeptologists.com to the blogs here on skepticblogs.org) shows topnotch work. I'll be sure to watch every episode and buy your DVD box sets once you guys get on the air. I'm going to e-mail you guys as an e-mail recommendation (the kind of which you're asking for on http://skeptologists.com/support.php , for those of you who are asking how you can help) today! If you’re trying to reach everyone possible, especially those who have beliefs in woo-woo, you can find no better cast than the ones you have right now. Michael Shermer is at the top of my list for entertaining skeptics who can reach wide audiences.

Obviously there are some controversial people, like Brian Dunning, but even though a lot of believers don’t like him, he is very good at getting his point out to those who aren’t skeptics and the middle ground. I know his podcasts have even made him controversial to other skeptics because of a few topics, but what mattered was that he was right and he changed a lot of minds of skeptics themselves (including me), which proves how great he really is.

Phil Plait and Kirsten Sanford (I always forget her full name and just think of her as “Dr. Kiki”) can show the awe and wonder of science, which is a big boost that science needs right now. I read Dr. Plait’s blog about Mt. Wilson, and it definitely reached me. Dr. Kiki has a bright attitude, which could sway the average Joe from thinking that the group is a bunch of serious skeptics.

If you’re trying to make sure it’s entertaining then a magician is the way to go. Since entertainment is how they make a living having them in a skeptic’s show is a necessity. I’ve seen very little of Mark Edward’s act, but from what I’ve seen and heard from him in the skeptic world he’s a great choice.

Having a scientist in Medicine is absolutely mandatory. Medical woo-woo is the most dangerous of all. I’m glad you got Steve Novella on the cast, I enjoy his podcasts, and it’s a shame I didn’t get to go to the last TAM and meet him.

Though I admit that I’ve never even heard of Yau-Man Chan (I’m afraid I don’t watch Survivor), it’s great that you’ve got a physicist in the crew. I’m a budding physicist myself and I would love to hear from someone in my own field talk about even more things that I care about.

Everything I’ve seen from you guys (from skeptologists.com to the blogs here on skepticblogs.org) shows topnotch work. I’ll be sure to watch every episode and buy your DVD box sets once you guys get on the air. I’m going to e-mail you guys as an e-mail recommendation (the kind of which you’re asking for on http://skeptologists.com/support.php , for those of you who are asking how you can help) today!

]]> By: Ryan Johnson http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/12/16/target-audience/#comment-1631 Ryan Johnson Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:38:05 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=698#comment-1631 To SeanJJordan Your description of Target and Appeal and spot-on and I do understand your points made and you can bet that we're not waling into pitch meetings saying that 'Everyone" is our target market. I was casting a much wider net on this blog only, for the sake of discussing where this show could and should go. In retrospect I should have used "appeal" that much more accurately describes what I was talking about. The show's target demo will likely be "adjusted" depending on who we're pitching to as well. Commercial and advertising support is critical as is likely in-show integrated marketing. Trust me when I say, we've got those bases covered, but I chose not to delve into that droll here. Ejdalise: Sorry I singled you out, and I understand why you made your comment. It provided just the right catalyst to describe the type of viewer that might be interested. I still maintain that the characters of this show will drive the content and that will bring in the True-Believers, Skeptics and everyone in-between. We have a tough road ahead getting that wide of a viewership, but hey, no guts, no glory! And Susan B. Firstly your active voice on SkepticBlog is helping and we all appreciate that. It's important to have an active forum where we can point agents and execs to show them the power of this community. Right now the other most direct way of helping is by going to the main Skeptologist webpage (http://www.skeptologists.com) and making a small donation to the pilot fund. That helps us defray the cost of the materials, travel, legal and communications fees during this development phase. It's all money going out with nothing coming back in at this point. The better our resources, the better chance we have. As things continue to evolve we'll be sure to let you all know how else you can help! I am enjoying the discussion and appreciate the support and well-wishes! To SeanJJordan Your description of Target and Appeal and spot-on and I do understand your points made and you can bet that we’re not waling into pitch meetings saying that ‘Everyone” is our target market. I was casting a much wider net on this blog only, for the sake of discussing where this show could and should go. In retrospect I should have used “appeal” that much more accurately describes what I was talking about. The show’s target demo will likely be “adjusted” depending on who we’re pitching to as well. Commercial and advertising support is critical as is likely in-show integrated marketing. Trust me when I say, we’ve got those bases covered, but I chose not to delve into that droll here.

Ejdalise: Sorry I singled you out, and I understand why you made your comment. It provided just the right catalyst to describe the type of viewer that might be interested. I still maintain that the characters of this show will drive the content and that will bring in the True-Believers, Skeptics and everyone in-between. We have a tough road ahead getting that wide of a viewership, but hey, no guts, no glory!

And Susan B. Firstly your active voice on SkepticBlog is helping and we all appreciate that. It’s important to have an active forum where we can point agents and execs to show them the power of this community. Right now the other most direct way of helping is by going to the main Skeptologist webpage (http://www.skeptologists.com) and making a small donation to the pilot fund. That helps us defray the cost of the materials, travel, legal and communications fees during this development phase. It’s all money going out with nothing coming back in at this point. The better our resources, the better chance we have. As things continue to evolve we’ll be sure to let you all know how else you can help!

I am enjoying the discussion and appreciate the support and well-wishes!

]]> By: Ian Mason http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/12/16/target-audience/#comment-1630 Ian Mason Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:04:20 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=698#comment-1630 One of the problems is that skeptics are seen as negative. I've even been on the receiving end of it being used as an insult. Homer and Bart may like watching programmes about buildings being blown up or demolished but come anywhere near their "cherished beliefs" and they get annoyed.On the other hand, Mythbusters has been good because 1) things get blown up and 2) there is the opportunity for the viewer to be the first one in his/her crowd to be the deflater of urban myths. It's a difficut path to walk, between killjoy and "truth is fun" advocate, but it can and chould be done. Bon chance, mes braves! One of the problems is that skeptics are seen as negative. I’ve even been on the receiving end of it being used as an insult. Homer and Bart may like watching programmes about buildings being blown up or demolished but come anywhere near their “cherished beliefs” and they get annoyed.On the other hand, Mythbusters has been good because 1) things get blown up and 2) there is the opportunity for the viewer to be the first one in his/her crowd to be the deflater of urban myths.
It’s a difficut path to walk, between killjoy and “truth is fun” advocate, but it can and chould be done. Bon chance, mes braves!

]]> By: Devil's Advocate http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/12/16/target-audience/#comment-1618 Devil's Advocate Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:37:21 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=698#comment-1618 Using the popularity of Mythbusters as an example, it might be more illustrative to ask not who watches it, but why. Urban legends and common myths are very popular. Science is not. But, combine the two and.. voila! Using the popularity of Mythbusters as an example, it might be more illustrative to ask not who watches it, but why. Urban legends and common myths are very popular. Science is not. But, combine the two and.. voila!

]]> By: ejdalise http://www.skepticblog.org/2008/12/16/target-audience/#comment-1609 ejdalise Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:56:28 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=698#comment-1609 My comment was based on the assumption your target audience consists of people who are at least open to hear the reasoned argument. I know people who swear to the efficacy of magnets, and no amount of information will sway them otherwise. They don't even want to hear the argument, let alone to skeptically evaluate the claims. Same with power drinks, vitamins (and associated pyramid schemes), homeopathy, Bigfoot (just had a long discussion regarding hair samples found to not match any known species), ghosts, orbs (especially frustrating since I'm an amateur photographer). I provide countless links on all this stuff whenever I have occasion to do so, most of which, if not all, gets ignored. Perhaps I am wrong, but these people are not likely to tune into your show for the same reason I have no interest in watching The Ghost Hunters. So, much as I am not The Ghost Hunter's target audience, most of the people I know would not watch your show (I say this based on my understanding of it). Then again, I may be discounting what really good production value might be able to accomplish; you might draw people I've not been able to affect. The bottom line is I should hang around a different class of people. My comment was based on the assumption your target audience consists of people who are at least open to hear the reasoned argument.

I know people who swear to the efficacy of magnets, and no amount of information will sway them otherwise. They don’t even want to hear the argument, let alone to skeptically evaluate the claims. Same with power drinks, vitamins (and associated pyramid schemes), homeopathy, Bigfoot (just had a long discussion regarding hair samples found to not match any known species), ghosts, orbs (especially frustrating since I’m an amateur photographer). I provide countless links on all this stuff whenever I have occasion to do so, most of which, if not all, gets ignored.

Perhaps I am wrong, but these people are not likely to tune into your show for the same reason I have no interest in watching The Ghost Hunters. So, much as I am not The Ghost Hunter’s target audience, most of the people I know would not watch your show (I say this based on my understanding of it). Then again, I may be discounting what really good production value might be able to accomplish; you might draw people I’ve not been able to affect.

The bottom line is I should hang around a different class of people.

]]>