WHEN we’re invited to address media fora and conferences, we don’t just share what we know, but also take advantage of the opportunity to learn from the members of the audience, specifically polling them on how they relate to the shows and films they watch.
This is our way of helping complete the communication process, since viewers are not heard from enough in the generally one-sided media-viewer discourses.
Last month, we posed a provocative query for the audience to candidly answer: When they watch a TV show, what prompts them to decide to choose to view it rather than the many other shows on view—and, what makes them stop watching a program and switch to another channel? Their hopefully eye-opening responses:
In general, people watch programs and program types that they have become habituated to.
This helps explain the decades-long “reign” of shows like “Eat Bulaga” and “Maalaala Mo Kaya?”
On the other hand, trendiness is another big come-on, as witness the popularity of teleseryes, which some viewers say they watch regularly, because they don’t want to be left in the dark when sharing daily plot updates with friends and neighbors.
Finally, program type is a key factor for people who variously prefer to get their regular “fix” of the news, comedy, show biz goings-on, etc.
What about the factors that make people stop watching a show, and instead channel-surf to explore other viewing options?
Some respondents confess that their attention span has steadily been shortening, so during commercial breaks, they switch to other shows—and, if they turn out to be more interesting or eventful than the program they were watching, they stay tuned to that other channel. So much for viewer “loyalty!”
We have so many viewing options now that it’s become more the exception than the operative rule when it comes to reliably “loyal” televiewing.
Also turn-offs are some TV talents’ “irritating” comments or mannerisms, like a talk or magazine show hosts’ penchant for bringing up her personal preferences, even when the topic at hand has little or even nothing to do with her.
Viewers similarly get ticked off when a TV star name-drops her celebrity chums or the brand of her expensive wardrobe or toiletries of personal choice.
On-cam news people rile viewers when they insert their subjective and sometimes even shallow opinions into what is supposed to be an objective piece of reportage.
Increasingly, too, some viewers are becoming less gullible when it comes to some on-cam talents’ self-serving actuations or hidden agenda.
These include some TV personalities’ ostensibly “public service” features that turn out to be biased endorsements of certain products and services, for which they receive illicit compensation in cash or kind.
Hey, we know what you’re shadily doing, so stop pretending to be doing the public a service when you’re just making more money on the side!WHEN we’re invited to address media fora and conferences, we don’t just share what we know, but also take advantage of the opportunity to learn from the members of the audience, specifically polling them on how they relate to the shows and films they watch.