< PREVIOUS ] [ 1993 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Some years had passed since I'd talked to Dr. Factor Fixx, a senior fellow at the Institute for Numerical Chicanery. However, rumor had it that he was doing some work for the television industry, and that's a hot topic.
Actually, we're working on two television-related
projects,
he explained. The first one demonstrates
the effectiveness of television exposure, and the second
demonstrates the minimal effects of television
exposure.
Nice work if you can get it. So, how effective is TV exposure?
Extremely. Look at it this way. Pepsi-Cola spent $6.8
million for four minutes during the 1993 Superbowl.
That's not exactly chump change.
The rest is difficult to figure,
he conceded.
The cost of ingredients and the like are apparently a
closely held industry secret. But if you check at the
grocery store, a six-pack of generic soda goes for 99
cents, and the cheapest I've ever seen Pepsi is $1.29. That
30-cent difference, 5 cents a can, must represent the Pepsi
edge.
Sounded reasonable to me.
Given that, then four minutes of TV time at $1.7
million per minute must translate into increased sales of
at least 136 million cans, or else Pepsi would go
bankrupt,
he said.
That seemed logical, and I did a little calculating of my own. TV exposure is so powerful that just one second of it will sell at least 560,000 cans of flavored sweet water with no known nutritional value.
Precisely,
Dr. Fixx agreed. Similarly, one
second will sell about 400,000 cans of beer, 2,800 pairs of
running shoes, or 57 cars. That's the awesome influence of
TV exposure.
Impressed, I asked about the second study, which demonstrates that TV has no effect whatsoever on the viewer.
As you know, the do-gooders are trying to get the
networks to cut down on violent programming with the
specious argument that seeing murders, rapes and mayhem on
the tube might influence people's behavior.
I had read of that, but before I could mention voluntary ratings, he went on.
The average American watches TV for almost three
hours a day,
he said. During each of those three
hours, on average, there are 11.2 pistol murders, 2.7 rifle
murders, 4.3 fatal stabbings or slashings, 1.8 lethal
bludgeonings with a blunt instrument, 0.4 successful
poisonings, and 2,147.9 serious automobile wrecks.
I questioned his numbers, since the wreck figure seemed low, and he said they weren't firm, but were close enough for his purposes.
Now, if Americans actually emulated what they saw on
TV, then we'd have 20.4 murders per hour, or 179,000
murders each year. However, there were only 24,700 murders
last year. That's just 13 per cent of what you'd expect if
life imitated art -- or death imitated programming,
whichever you prefer -- and thus there is absolutely no
correlation.
Given that, there's no reason to suspect that
watching television has any influence upon people's
actions.
His second analysis impressed me, but it appeared to conflict with his earlier conclusion that TV exposure was indeed worth the millions that it costs because it so powerfully affected people's behavior. I mentioned that, and then asked who had paid for the contradictory studies.
The first was financed by the Network Advertising
Sales Department to demonstrate the power of their
product,
he answered, and the money for the second
came from the Network Programming Division to demonstrate
why no one needs to be concerned about violence on
TV.
So the same company paid for both studies. When will they be released?
This fall in a prime-time docu-drama called 'Having
it Both Ways,'
he said. And if you'll excuse me,
I've got to attend to some work for the Republican Senate
Committee, proving how federal health insurance would be
bad for the country, even if it's good for them.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1993 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >