The following appeared as part of an article on trends in television:
“A recent study of viewers’ attitudes toward prime-time television programs shows that many of the programs that were judged by their viewers to be of high quality appeared on (noncommercial) television networks, and that, on commercial television, the most popular shows are typically sponsored by the best-selling products. Thus, it follows that businesses who use commercial television to promote their products will achieve the greatest advertising success by sponsoring only highly rated programs—and, ideally, programs resembling the highly rated noncommercial programs on public channels as much as possible.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The assertion made in that argument implies that the highest ratings and the most publicity for television programs, and thus the greatest advertising return on investment, are achieved by sponsoring highly rated, noncommercial programs on public channels. Implicit in the assertion, however, is the assertion that the highest rated and most popular programs on commercial networks are inferior to those programs, and that advertisers who seek to advertise on those networks would be better off sponsoring the top rated and most popular programs on those networks. Is that true?The case presented in this article relies largely on anecdotal evidence, or the opinions of a small number of individuals, to support its conclusions. The evidence is at best anecdotal and at worst completely anecdotal
The first problem with the assertion is that television ratings are calculated using a complex formula that takes many factors into account, including demographics, performance, and how long a program is being watched. A program might have a high rating when only 30% of the audience is watching it, while on the other hand, a program might have a low rating when everyone watching television is watching. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether a program with a high rating is actually the most popular, or if its rating is artificially inflated by a small number of viewers who are watching with extreme enthusiasm. Furthermore, ratings are adjusted over time to reflect changes in viewership, so even programs with today’s low ratings might have high ratings when they were first broadcast. The popularity of a program also depends on other factors, such as the programming schedule and its time slot. For example, shows in prime-time slots, which tend to be the most popular, also tend to be the most violent, negative, and graphic. The highest rated programs on television might also be the most repetitive, and thus the least interesting to watch
Thus, while it is true that many highly rated programs on television are on noncommercial channels, it is not true that the highest rated or most popular programs on television are those programs. The highest rated programs on television may be the least popular, or they could be the most violent and negative, and the most repetitive
The second problem with the assertion is that the ratings of television programs do not always correlate directly with sales of the products that are advertised on the show. Some advertisers pay to sponsor programs with audiences who are unlikely to be interested in their products. For example, advertisers might sponsor programs aimed at teenagers, but teenagers rarely purchase their products. While programs with viewers who are strongly interested in a product have greater success than programs without such viewers, those programs are not always the highest rated or most popular programs on television. Rather, the highest rated or most popular programs on television are programs that have attracted the largest audiences, either because they are highly rated or because they have become very popular through word of mouth. Thus, it is not the case that advertisers are more successful when they sponsor highly rated programs, but rather that sponsors of highly rated programs are more likely to be successful
The third problem with the assertion is that advertisers who sponsor highly rated shows on noncommercial channels might have more success than advertisers who sponsor highly rated programs on commercial channels. Commercial networks strive to maintain their high ratings, and they tend to broadcast the highest rated programs, which tend to be more popular. Thus, if a commercial network starts airing highly rated programs, it risks being downgraded by the broadcasting standards commission. On the other hand, if a commercial network starts airing highly rated programs on noncommercial channels, it gains a new source of viewers who might not otherwise watch commercial television. Thus, if a commercial network seeks to increase its ratings, it might choose to air highly rated programs on noncommercial channels, while commercial networks that wish to keep their ratings high might choose not to air highly rated programs on noncommercial channels. Implicit in the argument, therefore, is an assumption that advertisers on commercial networks do not seek to increase their ratings, and that advertisers on noncommercial channels seek to increase their ratings
That assumption is questionable. Advertisers are always looking for new ways to attract customers, and a popular program with new viewers may provide them an opportunity to reach a much larger audience. Furthermore, advertisers who sponsor highly rated shows on noncommercial channels have a greater opportunity to reach viewers who might not be regular viewers of commercial television. For example, the advertisers of highly rated programs on public channels might sponsor programs that appeal to people who watch public television, viewers who are attracted by the programs because they are highly rated, or viewers who are attracted by the programs because they are produced by noncommercial organizations. On the other hand, advertisers who sponsor highly rated shows on commercial networks have a smaller audience to choose from. If advertisers seek to reach viewers of highly rated programs on commercial networks, they have to pay large fees to sponsor those programs, but advertisements that appear on highly rated programs are unlikely to reach these viewers. Thus, while it is common for advertisers to be attracted to programs with high ratings, that does not necessarily imply that advertisers on commercial networks have little interest in increasing their ratings
The fourth problem with the argument, and the one that weakens its conclusion, is that the influence of advertisers on television programs and advertising techniques has changed greatly in recent years. In the past, television advertisements were relatively brief and featured catchy jingles that people could hum and whistle while they worked. By contrast, television advertisements today often feature actors who create an image for the advertiser in the minds of viewers. These actors may be known for their acting skills, or they might be celebrities who are famous for appearing in films, shows, or video games. For example, advertisements for Mazda vehicles feature actors