>>Just to be clear- content ratings are guidelines for parents to know what their kids are likely to see.
>>
>>But 'ratings' in the TV industry is often used to mean how many people are watching and therefore how many people the advertisers are reaching. It is often the determining factor of a show's success or continuation.
>
>Which is bull... the ads aren't reaching us even when we do watch :). These guys are just playing with probabilities, they have no facts at all.
>
>BTW, is the rating system the main reason why nothing ever happens on TV that was accidental? Why there is no live TV at all? Even what is live is staged. When was the last time something unscheduled happened and was let to be seen on TV (not counting 9/11, which is only a measure of how strong an event has to be to break this "no surprises" rule)?

Think about it - rating would go *way* up for live shows where it was possible something bizarre would happen.

The FCC holds networks financially responsible for violations of content standards. The Janet Jackson thing cost them a bundle, and recently there we a huge fine for something on NYPD Blue about ten years ago. Stupid FCC, but networks are a business and incuring fines for things that don't increase profits is bad business.

As for advertising on TV - may not work on me because I never watch TV in realtime and never watch commercials, but there is reason to believe advertising works. Especially beer, trucks, and cell phone plans <g>