Everyone knows that Facebook is where the numbers are. According to Trendstream's Global Web Index, Facebook had 693 million active users compared to Google+'s 343 million active users, and Twitter's 288 million active users for the last quarter of 2012. It would seem looking at just the numbers one would be best off focusing their energies in promoting a brand on Facebook. There is a problem with that, while a brand can reach every one of their followers on Google+ and Twitter theoretically, thanks to Facebook's EdgeRank a brand reaches only a small portion of their fans. Facebook filters the posts a brand makes on their page showing only the posts they feel are relevant to any given user. As a result only a small portion of a page's fans are reached. An example of this is my author page. It is a small page with only 1303 fans. Of those fans on any given post I reach at most only about 390 fans. For most posts I only reach about 200. So at most I am reaching less than a quarter of the people that have liked my page. Going by that if a brand has 1 million fans it will reach less than 300,000 people that like the page. This is not a big return on the time it takes to promote a page in order that folks will like it and see the posts. With Google+ and Twitter though a follower can, if they wish see nearly every post or tweet made by a brand.
Sadly though brands do not have a good track record with Google+. An example of this is CBS's page for the TV show NCIS on Google+. On Google+ the NCIS page has only about 14,093 followers. This is compared to over 16 million on its corresponding page on Facebook. Even given Facebook's filtering using EdgeRank, the NCIS page on Facebook is still reaching far, far more people than the NCIS page on Google+. Many Google+ pages are this way. They often have less than half a percent the number of followers on Google+ than they have on Facebook. There are probably a variety of reasons for this. Google+ is only a little over a year and a half old giving Facebook a big head start, people on Google+ do not seem interested in following brands, and Google+ does not promote following brands the way Facebook does, but probably the primary reason people do not follow brands is not the fault of Google+'s staff or its users. It is the fault of the brands themselves. Brands do not readily promote their pages on Google+, or if they do it is not obvious. Brands do not always update their Google+ pages as often as they do Facebook. An example of this again are the NCIS pages. The NCIS page on Facebook is updated nearly daily while the corresponding page on Google+ is only updated every few weeks. As of this writing on March 27, 2013 the +NCIS page on Google+ has not been updated since March 5. If folks see a page has not been updated on Google+ they are unlikely to follow it.
It need not be that way. In fact, the rock star of Google+ pages is the page of +Cadbury UK with almost 3 million followers (its Facebook page has less than 400,000 fans). Unlike most brands Cadbury has promoted their page. They post several times a day, and even operate a community (the equivalent of a group on Facebook) in connection with the page. When Daria Musk did a concert via a Google+ Hangout for Valentine's Day, Cadbury UK gave away chocolates. While not as impressive as Cadbury UK, +Android Central has 273,727 followers and like Cadbury updates their page often. They too operate a community and it has over 100,000 members. Android Central sometimes has promotions on its page like giving away free apps in Google Play to celebrate the page's first birthday. And they are always posting videos and other engaging content. +NASA's page is another successful page. Its page has over 473,000 followers. NASA posts several times a day often posting pictures or videos, and even hosts Hangouts on such topics as rising sea levels. The space agency even had a Hangout with the astronauts aboard the International Space Station. Each of these pages can reach as many people or more than their corresponding Facebook pages thanks to Facebook's EdgeRank. Google+ does not filter posts, and users can set put all their pages in a circle, and set it so they are notified when a post is made. Google+ actually makes it easier for a user to see a post made by a brand page unlike Facebook which has made it harder for posts to be seen.
Besides potentially reaching more fans with posts using Google+ as opposed to Facebook, there are other advantages to having a Google+ page. Posts from a brand page on Google+ appear in Google's search results. Facebook posts or tweets on Twitter do not do this. This gives posts on Google+ a sort of permanence. They will be waiting there to be found with a Google search time and time again (at least until and if they are deleted). What is more, these posts will come up higher in a Google+ user's personalized results. For example, if I do a search on Google for "space exploration" results from NASA's Google+ page come up near the top of the list. So even if a Google+ user misses a post on Google+ from a brand page they may still see that post in a search on Google. Further if a link is shared on Google+ it will rank higher in one's personalized results. Say if my brother +Terence Towles Canote shares a link to a BBC news story on Richard III and the finding of his body. If I do a search for "Richard III body" my brother's Google+ post will come up higher in the search results. In this way, Google+ users can refer other users to sites they like or recommend. If a business is promoting its Google+ page and posting links to relevant sites away from Google there is no end in how they can get their sites higher in search results on Google.
There is no reason a brand cannot have a successful Google+ page. And with it they can reach more people than they would with a Facebook page. With the fact a user can see every post made by a brand as well as the fact that a brand's posts and links will show up higher in search results there is no end to the amount of marketing a company or individual can do. Facebook may appear where the numbers are, but with closer examination it is easy to see one can potentially reach more people using Google+.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
Google+ Tools: Websites to Help in the G+ Experience
So you are on Google+, several people have you circled, but try as you may you cannot get people to interact. This nothing new, most people have suffered from this at one time or another. Most often it comes down to you are posting at the wrong time (when no one else is on) or you are not posting content folks want to engage with. Most learn what to post and when to post through trail and error. However it need not be that way. There are websites that can help you. I make use of these, and since I started using them I have had a much better Google+ experience. I use three websites: Google+ Timing, All My +, and Circle Count Of these, I probably use Google+ Timing the most, so I will cover it first.
Google+ Timing http://timing.minimali.se/ is a website that reports what time your posts have gotten the most responses. It lists your top five posts, and the days and times those posts were made. There is a handy chart showing your best days for posting and then an hour ranking giving the time that your posts were made that got the most interaction. For a long time I could not figure out why I would post something of interest to a lot of people, and yet, I would not get any response. Other times, I could post something very similar and get tons of responses. Timing took all the guesswork out of it. I now know my best days and times to post, and have been using it to increase my social interaction on Google+. Timing updates all the time, so it is helpful to check it at least once a week. Your best posting times change week to week, and can change drastically during the holiday season. For example my best days and hours for posting during Christmas were totally different from what they were prior to the holiday season and what they were after.
Another helpful site is All my + http://www.allmyplus.com. It is a site that gives a variety of statistics such as an overview of the number of posts you have made and whether those posts were public or part of a community. These stats are broken down into the type of posts you have made: posts, photos, gifs, videos, and links. It also gives how many comments you have gotten and how many +1s you have gotten. These stats are helpful in various ways. You can see what kind of posts you make the most of, and you can tell whether you get more interaction on communities or public posts. Myself for example I get more +1s on my posts to communities, but I get more comments on my public posts. In addition to this overview it gives a map of where most of your interactions are coming from. For me most of the folks that interact are in the United States and the United Kingdom. You also get a handy set of charts on this site showing your posting behavior by day and hour. This can be combined with what you learn from Google Timing can be used to figure out how many of your posts are reaching people. You can then change when you post to a time you will get more interaction, and stop posting at times you don't. For example, I know from Timing that one of my top posting days is Wednesday, yet I can see from All my + that the only day I post less on than Wednesday on is Tuesday. My highest days for the number of posts I make are on the weekend. And while Sunday according to Timing is my top day for interaction (I think the fact my recent birthday was on a Sunday is skewing those stats what with all the birthday wishes I got), Saturday ranks fifth, and Friday ranks sixth. Yet according to All my + this is when I post the most. What I learned from this is I need to post more on Wednesday, and less on Friday and Saturday if I want more folks to interact with me. Another thing All my + does is show you your most popular posts by which one got the most +1s, the most comments, and the most reshares. This gives you an idea of what sort of content those that have you circled enjoy seeing. Finally, you can export all this data as a CSV file. If you are a business and running a page this could be very helpful in mashing your numbers on reports of how well your social media efforts are doing.
The final website I am going to tell you about is Circle Count http://www.circlecount.com/. Of the websites to be used with Google+ is probably the one most people use. Circle Count gives you a record of how many people had you circled on a specific date. It can show whether you are having more people circle you or if you are losing people. For example, I can see in the past month I have steadily been having more people circle me than uncircle me with the exception of one day when I uncircled several inactives. You can also learn what circles people have you in. This is helpful in that it can tell you what you may have in common with the people that have circled you. For example I know that +steph wanamaker has me in a circle called "awesome men who comment" circle.This indicates to me, steph likes the fact I interact. Finally, it gives your latest postings and the average interaction on them as well as how many characters your average post contains. In addition to this information it gives your Profiles Rank both overall and by your gender, and Circle Rank both worldwide and for your country.
While these websites give information that is useful to the individual, I think for a businesses they are vital. If you are a brand you need to know when the best time to reach your customers is, what posts work best at getting their interest, and how people view your brand. It is these kind of stats that can help a business make marketing decisions that can make or break a marketing campaign. For the individual it can tell you when you get the most interaction on your posts, and what kind of posts folks want to interact with you on the most. I have been using these websites for some time now, and have found them useful. I am hoping you will as well.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Who is the Ghost Town Now?
Today, I maintained my friends list on Facebook and circles on Google+. I was expecting a few deactivated accounts on Facebook as I always do have a few and I had not done maintenance since June. Out of 1200 friends, I wound up unfriending over 100 accounts, a record for me. I now have to wonder of the accounts that had not been deactivated how many had not seen posts in months. It is not uncommon I check out a friend's profile if I had not seen a post from them for a while only to find that they had not posted in weeks maybe even months.
I then took to Google+ which I had not done any circle maintenance on since June either. Maintenance there is much easier. I installed the Chrome extension Uncircle Inactives. To my surprise after running it and taking out a couple of false positives I only removed 34 people out of over 1800 people I had in my circles. I was figuring since I had taken part in circle shares I would have many people that had created an account and circled me only to never come back to Google+. That seems not to be the case. It seems people had come to Google+ to stay.
Now I know that my stream is more active on Google+ with people posting all the time. Some post many times a day, others once or twice a day, while still others may only post once or twice a week. But they do post. My news feed on Facebook is less active. I had always thought this was because Facebook uses EdgeRank, their mechanism for filtering out posts they think you do not want to see. I am now wondering though if it is just a case of folks not posting. Indeed, the amount of interaction I get on Google+ is more than what I get on Facebook at times, but I had thought this was because more people had circled me than I had friends on Facebook. But again, I am wondering, maybe folks simply are not going to Facebook anymore.
For months news stories and op-ed pieces were proclaiming Google+ a ghost town. They were always saying, yes, Google claims Google+ has so many active users and is growing, but how often do those users actually post? No doubt in all probability many reporters would go on Google+ and not bother to circle many people or to interact, and then go away thinking there was no activity. First generation Google+ users like myself knew different that there was plenty of things going on. You just had to circle people and interact. Now though the tune in the press is beginning to change. A story on Frobes' website published in January, 2013 stated Google+ had 343 million active users around half that of Facebook's 693 million ("Watch Out Facebook, With Google+ at #2..."). And Google+ is growing. It has not shown a month where the number of active users has declined.
And that is not all, while Google+ is gaining active users Facebook's usage is declining. According to a story on Yahoo News, 20% of American adults have stopped visiting Facebook all together with another 60% taking breaks from it lasting for weeks (Mark Zuckerberg's attempt to counteract 'Facebook fatigue'). It would seem then that my perceived lack of activity in my Facebook news feed was more than Facebook aggressively filtering posts out. There may really be less people posting on Facebook, and less people interacting with me there. It would seem Facebook is becoming the ghost town that Google+ had been accused of being. In my opinion years of tampering with features like the news feed, using EdgeRank to filter posts, inflicting the dreaded two column jumble called Timeline on users, and its general unresponsiveness to user input has lead Facebook to this. Meanwhile Google has been steadily improving Google+ by adding features like events and communities. When there is something about a feature Google+ users do not like, Google is eager to get input on why the users do not like it, and are quick to fix it. When community posts began appearing on users' profiles many complained they did not like that. Within weeks Google+ offered the option not to show public community posts on one's profile thus pleasing the many users that had complained.
I have to admit I am biased. I enjoy Google+ much more than Facebook. But I do use both extensively making between five to six posts a day each on both. I have many friends on both networks. But were all my close friends to suddenly up and leave Facebook for Google+ you would see me shutting my Facebook account down. Unless the new features like the new single column Timeline, and revamped newsfeed increase my enjoyment of Facebook I am likely to remain feeling that way. However, I do not think I am alone in this. I think there are perhaps many dissatisfied with Facebook, and the figures seem to support that. It does lead one to ask, "who is the ghost town now?"
Note: The title of this piece was swiped from something Google+ user +steph wanamaker said in a conversation on the site.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Google Reader Shutting Down in July
Google Reader, probably the most used RSS reader on the planet is shutting down July 1, 2013. The reason Google given for this shutting it down is that the number of users has declined (you can see the official announcement on the Google Blog at http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-second-spring-of-cleaning.html). Immediately, folks expressed outrage on the social media. On both Twitter and Google Plus Google Reader was trending at number one. For something that its usage had declined there was an awful lot of outrage. The tweets on Twitter were almost universally against Google. One by Jim Aley, a Twitter user, was typical: "Goggle is murdering Google Reader. It is committing appicide. Hate crime. NO GR, NO PEACE." A petition on Change.org as of this writing has over 56,000 signatures. You can sign the petition at: https://www.change.org/petitions/google-keep-google-reader-running
Google Reader was started in 2005, and has remained popular with those wanting to keep up with blogs and news. Many in media rely on Google Reader for getting information for the news stories and blog posts they write, being able to keep track of a large number of blogs and other news outlets at a time. The reader is simple. It displays the headlines of the news articles and blog posts, and if one wants to read an article or blog post they simply click on the headline and the story or post is displayed in the reader. For many it makes their workday easier in that they do not have to search the web for information or scan website after website for news stories or blog posts. For the casual user it was a way to get news or read about things that interest them without having to go to dozens of websites.
Many Android apps use Google Reader as well. FeeDemon, NewsRob, Reeder, Pulp, FeedMe, gReader, and several others rely on Google Reader for their feeds. Those using tablets or smartphones may be hard pressed to find other apps that will allow them to read RSS feeds. Once Google Reader is shut down these apps may well cease to work if they do not switch to another service. As for apps for other sites, in a search for apps for the reader folks are most likely to turn to, Feedly, I could only find one app. This compared to half a dozen Android apps for Google Reader. Folks will lose a great deal of choices into what app to use for RSS feeds.
I have not used Google Reader myself in years. I am part of the reason for the declining number of users. I simply found I no longer had time to read news feeds what with my work schedule. I went through a period that all I would do is work and sleep. But I know many friends and families that do use it, and I know of many professionals that use it daily in their work. Shutting down Google Reader could have a serious impact on those that use the world wide web. Many will have to go looking for other services. Some will not find services to their liking and simply stop subscribing to RSS feeds all together. Something like this happened for me when DejaNews was purchased by Google. I had been using DejaNews to read my newsgroups for a few years. Google then bought it and made it a part of Google Groups. I did not like the interface. I found it difficult to read, and therefore just stopped reading newsgroups all together. Something similar could happen with RSS feeds. Folks may not like the alternatives to Google Reader to read online, or find apps they like that use these alternatives. While it is doubtful they may stop using RSS readers all together, they may find that they are reading RSS feeds less and less. Maybe Google will rethink their closure of Google Reader. The outrage after all was widespread. One of the reasons given for shutting down it and other service was so Google could focus. One blog poster argued they could get rid of many other things that do not serve the average person and cost more money to develop like Google Glass or the self driven car. I would tend to agree.
Google Reader was started in 2005, and has remained popular with those wanting to keep up with blogs and news. Many in media rely on Google Reader for getting information for the news stories and blog posts they write, being able to keep track of a large number of blogs and other news outlets at a time. The reader is simple. It displays the headlines of the news articles and blog posts, and if one wants to read an article or blog post they simply click on the headline and the story or post is displayed in the reader. For many it makes their workday easier in that they do not have to search the web for information or scan website after website for news stories or blog posts. For the casual user it was a way to get news or read about things that interest them without having to go to dozens of websites.
Many Android apps use Google Reader as well. FeeDemon, NewsRob, Reeder, Pulp, FeedMe, gReader, and several others rely on Google Reader for their feeds. Those using tablets or smartphones may be hard pressed to find other apps that will allow them to read RSS feeds. Once Google Reader is shut down these apps may well cease to work if they do not switch to another service. As for apps for other sites, in a search for apps for the reader folks are most likely to turn to, Feedly, I could only find one app. This compared to half a dozen Android apps for Google Reader. Folks will lose a great deal of choices into what app to use for RSS feeds.
I have not used Google Reader myself in years. I am part of the reason for the declining number of users. I simply found I no longer had time to read news feeds what with my work schedule. I went through a period that all I would do is work and sleep. But I know many friends and families that do use it, and I know of many professionals that use it daily in their work. Shutting down Google Reader could have a serious impact on those that use the world wide web. Many will have to go looking for other services. Some will not find services to their liking and simply stop subscribing to RSS feeds all together. Something like this happened for me when DejaNews was purchased by Google. I had been using DejaNews to read my newsgroups for a few years. Google then bought it and made it a part of Google Groups. I did not like the interface. I found it difficult to read, and therefore just stopped reading newsgroups all together. Something similar could happen with RSS feeds. Folks may not like the alternatives to Google Reader to read online, or find apps they like that use these alternatives. While it is doubtful they may stop using RSS readers all together, they may find that they are reading RSS feeds less and less. Maybe Google will rethink their closure of Google Reader. The outrage after all was widespread. One of the reasons given for shutting down it and other service was so Google could focus. One blog poster argued they could get rid of many other things that do not serve the average person and cost more money to develop like Google Glass or the self driven car. I would tend to agree.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Saturday Night TV
I decided this week to take a break from Missouri and cover a topic of a more general nature. Growing up, Saturday night television was something to watch. You had shows like All in the Family, M*A*S*H, and Emergency. When I grew into an adult there were shows like Golden Girls and Empty Nest. While the years that followed those shows going off the air did not provide the same quality of TV viewing there were still shows like Doctor Quinn: Medicine Woman and Walker Texas Ranger. Not many years after Golden Girls went off the air something happened. They stopped showing sitcoms on the Big Three networks (for you youngsters that was NBC, CBS, and ABC) on Saturday night and turned to hour long dramas. As a result the viewing was not as good, and many folks like me stopped watching network television on Saturday nights. By 1992, according to an article in the Los Angeles Times broadcast network viewing on Saturday night was at 49% of the total TV viewing audience. That was down from 75% ten years before ( http://articles.latimes.com/1992-12-18/entertainment/ca-2065_1_night-people). At the time this was blamed on people tuning into cable networks, watching video tapes, and watching syndicated programming on local stations. The thing is, why were people watching other things on TV than the three old networks? It is easy to blame this or that, but in my opinion had the networks been giving us quality programming folks never would have turned their television sets to something other than NBC, CBS, or ABC.
After all, the networks had always retired old shows and brought in new ones on Saturday night having to rebuild viewership each time. From 1973 to 1975 CBS held Saturday night with a series of hit shows. Depending on the year these ranked from being the number one show on television (All in the Family in the 1973-1974 and 1974-1975 seasons) to number twenty nine. Saturday night was a big night for CBS. At the end of the 1974-1975 season, All in the Family went off the air, and CBS lost some ground on Saturday night. It remained a descent night for them until 1978 when they ran only two sitcoms and a movie starting in November of that year. By that time ABC had The Love Boat and Fantasy Island both ranking in the top 25 shows in viewership while NBC had CHiPs at number 25. The Love Boat continued to get good ratings until 1984 when it dipped in viewership. The 1984-1985 there were no shows on Saturday night in the top 30. Yet, the next season NBC took the night with four sitcoms among the top 30 shows in viewership. From then until 1990 NBC had at least three shows in the top 30 shows in viewership each season. Even in 1991, a year before the Los Angeles Times article was written NBC had three shows that were on Saturday night in the top 40 shows in viewership for the season, But in the 1992-1993 there were no shows on Saturday night that were in the top 40 shows for the season, The closest was Empty Nest at number 45. What happened? For one thing The Golden Girls which had been the highest rated show on Saturday night from 1985 until then had went off the air, and NBC had not premiered anything that could replace it, and Empty Nest had outlived its time. After the 1991-1992 season, there would never be more than two shows a season in the top 40 shows. Most years there were only one, and some years not a one. The problem I believe was that the networks were not programming quality shows that viewers wanted to watch. The only exceptions were Doctor Quinn, Medicine Woman, Touched by an Angel, and Walker Texas Ranger (though some folks might debate its quality it was popular). After the 1998-1999 season, no show on Saturday night would rank in the top 20 shows for viewership for the season. After the 2004-2005 season, the three old networks had stopped airing original shows unless they were shows they had given up on and were merely allowing to complete their runs.
It has been argued that the three old networks stopped airing original shows on Saturday night due to a loss in viewers. The viewers according to many were lost to the cable networks and DVDs. The thing is, why were these viewers lost? The viewing audience on Saturday night is admittedly older. It is perhaps the lowest night of viewership for the coveted 18-34 audience. This was confirmed by a study done in 1955 by NBC. However, that study also found that there were many folks at home that would watch TV if the right programming were provided. On April 29, 2012 Saturday night shows totaled approximately 20 million viewers for the broadcast networks. By comparison, on April 22, 2012, a Sunday night. shows total viewership was about 28 million viewers for the networks. Sunday night is considered the night with the largest number of viewers while Saturday night is considered the lowest. The difference is considerable, but considering three of the shows were reruns on that Saturday night while only one for that Sunday may make all the difference. The average number of viewers for that Sunday night per show was about 6.8 million. This number may sound considerable, but consider the premiere episode of Doctor Who September 1, 2012 on the BBC was 6.4 million viewers on a Saturday night and this in a nation with a much smaller population than the United States. The difference is that the British networks have not given up on Saturday night. The British networks still air shows on Saturday night that will attract viewers such as their version of X-Factor. Imagine if American Idol were on Saturday.The American networks ceased airing quality shows in the 1990s on Saturday night. Where we once got shows like All in the Family and The Golden Girls, we began getting shows like The Mommies and Café Americain. When those failed, the broadcast networks went to hour long dramas which historically had performed worse than sitcoms on Saturday night. And the hour longs were not particularly appealing to an older audience. Shows like Freaks and Geeks, Dark Skies, and Pretender definitely did not suit an older audience's tastes. And when the majority of the hour longs failed they ceased original programming on Saturday night altogether blaming not their own bad programming mistakes, but a shrinking viewing audience.
The truth is there are still plenty of viewers to make a show successful on Saturday night. Twenty million viewers is nothing to sneeze at. But the networks would have to do a few things. First off, use the formula of four sitcoms and one hour long. This is what worked for CBS in the 1973-1974 season and it worked again for NBC in the 1985-1986 season. Second, the shows must be tailored for an older audience. All in the Family and The Golden Girls got good ratings because they appealed to older audiences. So did all the other shows that did well on Saturday night. Finally, to get advertisers the networks would have to make a point that they could reach viewers they may not reach another night. Older adults are more likely to buy big ticket items like cars, and the networks could work to gain auto manufacturers to advertise on Saturday night. There is no reason why Saturday night cannot again be a viable night for the broadcast networks. While they may never get the ratings they once did, they can perhaps get good enough ratings to warrant airing original programming. The sad fact is though, they will probably never take the chance.
After all, the networks had always retired old shows and brought in new ones on Saturday night having to rebuild viewership each time. From 1973 to 1975 CBS held Saturday night with a series of hit shows. Depending on the year these ranked from being the number one show on television (All in the Family in the 1973-1974 and 1974-1975 seasons) to number twenty nine. Saturday night was a big night for CBS. At the end of the 1974-1975 season, All in the Family went off the air, and CBS lost some ground on Saturday night. It remained a descent night for them until 1978 when they ran only two sitcoms and a movie starting in November of that year. By that time ABC had The Love Boat and Fantasy Island both ranking in the top 25 shows in viewership while NBC had CHiPs at number 25. The Love Boat continued to get good ratings until 1984 when it dipped in viewership. The 1984-1985 there were no shows on Saturday night in the top 30. Yet, the next season NBC took the night with four sitcoms among the top 30 shows in viewership. From then until 1990 NBC had at least three shows in the top 30 shows in viewership each season. Even in 1991, a year before the Los Angeles Times article was written NBC had three shows that were on Saturday night in the top 40 shows in viewership for the season, But in the 1992-1993 there were no shows on Saturday night that were in the top 40 shows for the season, The closest was Empty Nest at number 45. What happened? For one thing The Golden Girls which had been the highest rated show on Saturday night from 1985 until then had went off the air, and NBC had not premiered anything that could replace it, and Empty Nest had outlived its time. After the 1991-1992 season, there would never be more than two shows a season in the top 40 shows. Most years there were only one, and some years not a one. The problem I believe was that the networks were not programming quality shows that viewers wanted to watch. The only exceptions were Doctor Quinn, Medicine Woman, Touched by an Angel, and Walker Texas Ranger (though some folks might debate its quality it was popular). After the 1998-1999 season, no show on Saturday night would rank in the top 20 shows for viewership for the season. After the 2004-2005 season, the three old networks had stopped airing original shows unless they were shows they had given up on and were merely allowing to complete their runs.
It has been argued that the three old networks stopped airing original shows on Saturday night due to a loss in viewers. The viewers according to many were lost to the cable networks and DVDs. The thing is, why were these viewers lost? The viewing audience on Saturday night is admittedly older. It is perhaps the lowest night of viewership for the coveted 18-34 audience. This was confirmed by a study done in 1955 by NBC. However, that study also found that there were many folks at home that would watch TV if the right programming were provided. On April 29, 2012 Saturday night shows totaled approximately 20 million viewers for the broadcast networks. By comparison, on April 22, 2012, a Sunday night. shows total viewership was about 28 million viewers for the networks. Sunday night is considered the night with the largest number of viewers while Saturday night is considered the lowest. The difference is considerable, but considering three of the shows were reruns on that Saturday night while only one for that Sunday may make all the difference. The average number of viewers for that Sunday night per show was about 6.8 million. This number may sound considerable, but consider the premiere episode of Doctor Who September 1, 2012 on the BBC was 6.4 million viewers on a Saturday night and this in a nation with a much smaller population than the United States. The difference is that the British networks have not given up on Saturday night. The British networks still air shows on Saturday night that will attract viewers such as their version of X-Factor. Imagine if American Idol were on Saturday.The American networks ceased airing quality shows in the 1990s on Saturday night. Where we once got shows like All in the Family and The Golden Girls, we began getting shows like The Mommies and Café Americain. When those failed, the broadcast networks went to hour long dramas which historically had performed worse than sitcoms on Saturday night. And the hour longs were not particularly appealing to an older audience. Shows like Freaks and Geeks, Dark Skies, and Pretender definitely did not suit an older audience's tastes. And when the majority of the hour longs failed they ceased original programming on Saturday night altogether blaming not their own bad programming mistakes, but a shrinking viewing audience.
The truth is there are still plenty of viewers to make a show successful on Saturday night. Twenty million viewers is nothing to sneeze at. But the networks would have to do a few things. First off, use the formula of four sitcoms and one hour long. This is what worked for CBS in the 1973-1974 season and it worked again for NBC in the 1985-1986 season. Second, the shows must be tailored for an older audience. All in the Family and The Golden Girls got good ratings because they appealed to older audiences. So did all the other shows that did well on Saturday night. Finally, to get advertisers the networks would have to make a point that they could reach viewers they may not reach another night. Older adults are more likely to buy big ticket items like cars, and the networks could work to gain auto manufacturers to advertise on Saturday night. There is no reason why Saturday night cannot again be a viable night for the broadcast networks. While they may never get the ratings they once did, they can perhaps get good enough ratings to warrant airing original programming. The sad fact is though, they will probably never take the chance.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Marlin Perkins
Marlin Perkins is perhaps one of the most famous zoologists in the world. What is amazing is he did not have a college degree. He was born March 25, 1905 in Carthage, Missouri to Joseph Dudley Perkins and Mynta Mae (née Miller) Perkins. He was the youngest of three sons. From an early age Perkins showed a fascination with wildlife. He attending public school in Carthage until eight grade when he entered Wentworth Military Academy in Lexington, Missouri. There he got in trouble for keeping snakes in his room. Perkins after graduating Wentworth attended the University of Missouri. He dropped out to take a job at Saint Louis Zoological Park (the Saint Louis Zoo). There he helped maintain the zoo grounds, and gradually worked his way up to curator of reptiles in 1928. He then took a job at the Buffalo Zoological Park in Buffalo, New York where he became director in 1938. From there he went to the Lincoln Zoological Park in Chicago, Illinois where he served as director from 1944 to 1962. He then returned to the Saint Louis Zoo where he served as director until 1970 when he became director emeritus. Most folks know him from Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom which aired from 1963 to 1988 in its original run. Perkins was involved with it from its start until 1985 when he retired for health reasons. Wild Kingdom was not his first TV show however. From 1950 to 1957 he hosted Zoo Parade which ran on WNBQ (now WMAQ) in Chicago. The show featured animals from the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago. Perkins would show the animals and tell a little about them. After returning to the Saint Louis Zoo, Perkins worked with producer Don Meier on a new show. That show was Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom which premiered January 6, 1963. Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom was one of the first series to show animals in their natural habitat. The show would build a story around the activities of the show's crew's attempts to document animals in the wild. It would then show the animals as they went about their activities leaving out any violence. The show won four Emmys during its run. Perkins due to his fame was able to work on efforts to save endangered species. In 1971 he established the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center which has helped restore wolves to the wild. In 1985, he developed cancer forcing his retirement. He died June 14, 1986 at the age of 81.His body was cremated. A statue of him stands in his home town.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
History of Randolph County Missouri Until the Civil War
This is a piece I wrote for a webpage about thirteen years ago:
The topography of Randolph County began to take its present shape soon after the withdrawal of the glaciers of the last ice age. On the northern edge of the rolling hills north of the Missouri River, what would become Randolph County was covered by hardwood forests and plains grasslands. Large granite boulders left by the glaciers spoted the hillsides here and there. Sometime around 10,000 to 7,000 years ago, the first humans arrived. They hunted the wooly mammoth, mastodon, and other now extinct creatures. The area was rich in elk, wild turkeys, bear, buffalo, and deer. Around 800 CE and again around 1400 CE some of these early inhabitants carved the thunderbird on the entrance of a cave in what is now Camp Thunderbird near Cairo. Later the Missouri Indians used Randolph Co. as their hunting grounds. When white settlers first arrived in Randolph Co., they found the Iowa, Sac, and Fox tribes. Each of these tribes had settled here themselves only shortly before the arrival of the first Randolph Co. pioneers. The first known settler in what is now Randolph County was William Holman along with his father, James Dysart, and brother Joseph Holman. They settled in 1818 near what is now Mount Airy. He was soon followed by Allen Mayo, who settled not far away. James Dysart opened the first school in the settlement that would one day be known as Huntsville in 1822.
Huntsville, the oldest settlement in the county was settled around 1821, and Milton about the same time. At that time, Randolph County was a part of Howard County which extended north to the Iowa border. What is now Randolph County was then made a part of Chariton County to the west. Randolph County was organized out of Chariton County, January 22, 1829, and named in honor of John Randolph, of Roanoke, Virginia. At the time it extended to the Iowa Border. The county seat was located at Huntsville on December 4, 1830. And on the 5th of January 1831, four land owners, William Goggin, Gideon Wright, Daniel Hunt (grandfather of Arizona's first governor George Hunt), and Henry Winburn donated land where the courthouse sits today. As Hunt was the first to settle on the hills of Huntsville, the town was named for him. Previous to that, it had also be known as Gogginsville, as Goggin was the first store owner. General Robert Wilson was the first lawyer in the county and the first circuit clerk (later he would become a United States Senator). Randolph County's first sheriff was Hancock Jackson (later governor of Missouri and cousin of Confederate governor Clairborne Jackson). Its first doctor was William Fort, who also served on the first county court. The other Commissioners on the county court were James Head, and Joseph M. Baker. The first courthouse was completed in the Fall of 1831. It was a two story brick building with one room on the firrst floor used as a courtroom and three above for jury rooms.
The first lot sale took place in April of that year. Huntsville and the county soon prospered with the manufacture of salt, coal mines, hemp rope factories, and tobacco factories. At one time, Huntsville was the second largest leaf tobacco market in the state. By 1857, it was the home to Mount Pleasant College which produced Doctor Victor Clarence Vaughan, one of the finest medical minds of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The college closed in July,1882 after its main building was destroyed by fire. In 1829, Randolph County saw military action with some Iowa Indians. "Cabins of White Folks" was a very small settlement near what is now Kirksville settled by James Myers, Isaac Gross, Stephen Gross, Nathan Richardson, Reuben Myrtle and Jacob Cupp, all formerly of Howard Co. They had been there about a year when a large body of Iowa Indians lead by Chief Big Neck showed up. One of the Indians' dogs killed a pig, and they threatened the women. Alarmed, they sent messengers south to Randolph County. The messenger reached the home of William Blackwell the night of July 24, 1829. A Captain. William Trammell with a group of men went north to help them, engaged the Indians, and were forced to retreat. Routed, they returned to the cabins, got the women, and headed for Huntsville. John Myers, James Winn, Powell Owensby, and Capt. Trammell were killed in the fight. Later, a force of militia under Gen. John B.Clark lead and two other companies under against Captain Abraham Gooddring and Captain Scounce went after Big Neck. Big Neck and his braves, Big Snake, Young Knight, and One-that-Don't-Care were apprehended March 11, 1830, and put on trial by a grand jury of Randolph County. The jury found on March 31, 1830 that: "After examining all the witnesses, and maturely considering the charges for which these Iowa Indians are now in confement, we find them not guilty, and they are at once discharged." Other than this incident, Huntsville did not see much activity during or prior to the Black Hawk War of 1831 - 1832. Two forts built north of what is now Kirksville, Mo., Ft. Matson and Ft. Clark never saw action. In 1833, in her father's home in Silver Creek, Marsha Head, daughter of Dr. Walker Head was married to Sterling Price. Price, of course would go on to be a commander in the Mexican War, governor of Missouri, and General of the Confederate armies in Missouri during the Civil War.
In 1838, the Potawatomi Indians passed near Huntsville on the Trail of Death. They were being relocated from homes in Michigan and Indiana to Oklahoma. During the Mexican War, Captain Hancock Jackson formed a company of about 100 men and went to what is now Santa Fe, New Mexico. The first country fair was held in the Fall of 1854 at Huntsville. In the winter of 1858, the first courthouse was condemned and tore down. A new one, designed by Henry Austin was built in the Spring of 1860. It was a two story brick building with two towers with a balcony and clock. Lincoln County's current courthouse in Troy is very similar. Other early settlements besides Huntsville included Dark's Prarie in 1829 near what is now Darksville and Eldad Church, and Mount Airy in 1837.
Huntsville and Randolph County were not unaffected by the war. It was the site of one "raid" by its son, "Bloody Bill" Anderson, the execution of Confederates, Charles King, Charles Tillotson, and D. S. Washburn, and the first daylight robbery of a train. On the 28th of August, 1861, Confederate Col. Poindexter held up a train at Old Allen (what is now northern Moberly). There he siezed $100,000 in coin being smuggled out of the state from the Missouri State Bank in Fayette. The money was apparently being stolen by Unionist employees of the bank. The money was then reportedly returned to the bank in Fayette by Poindexter.
While no major battles were faught in the county, there were several skirmishes fought in the county. The most significant was Roan's Tan Yard faught near Silver Creek. The battle took place the 8th of January, 1862 withMaj. W.M.G. Torrence in command of the Union forces and Col. J.A. Poindexter, the Confederate. There were only 91 casualties total (11 Union, 80 Confederate), but the battle ended Confederate usage of Randolph County as a base for recruiting and raiding, A small skirmish was also fought near Renick the 1st of November, 1861 with 14 Union soldiers killed. Another small skirmish took place near Roanoke on the 6th September, 1862, and at Huntsville the 9th of November, 1862. Other skirmishes in the area were: Allen on the 23th of July, 1864, Huntsville on the 14th of July and the 7th of August, and Roanoke on the 10th of September.
Most of these skirmishes were between the guerrilla service of the Confederacy and Union regulars in the area. "Bloody Bill" Anderson returned home on the 14th of July, 1864. His "raid" did not amount to much. Having camped near Ft. Henry Church the day before, Anderson road into town and his men robbed the bank of $45,000. A salesman was killed by Anderson's men for trying to run. The money was returned at Anderson's command, and Huntsville escaped harm for the most part. He then burned the depot at Renick and attacked a Union detachment near Allen. Six Union troops and two horses were killed. On July 23 a squad from the 17th Illinois Cavalry was attacked. After this, he moved north into Shelby County where he burned the bridge over the Salt River, and turned south again. He and his guerillas then moved south again, not to return to Randolph County. It was not long after this he and his men committed the Centralia Massacre in what is thought revenge for the illegal executions of CSA regulars at Huntsville, and Palmyra, Missouri. The same day of the massacre, Anderson engaged the 38th Missouri Infantry, USA under the command of Major A.V.E. Johnson between Centralia and Sturgeon, killing 124 of the 147 troops with barely a loss to his own units.
It should be pointed out, the Confederate "guerrillas" were often local partisans. Reports of Anderson's activities in Randolph County show his attacks to be on railroad facilities and Union troops, rarely the farms of those living here. The Union forces were often from Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, and Illinois. They would burn farms, seize horses, and conscript Southern Sympathizers. Renick and Allen were targets for the Confederate partisans as they laid on the North Missouri Railroad, and the CSA troops had orders to disrupt use of the railroads. Roanoke was in a key position near the Plank Road from Glasgow to Huntsville, and was a convient road for both armies to travel. Huntsville, of course, was the county seat, and home to several Confederate units making it a Union objective (much like the former county seat of Macon County, Bloomington, which was burned to the ground by Union forces for its southern sympathies).
The topography of Randolph County began to take its present shape soon after the withdrawal of the glaciers of the last ice age. On the northern edge of the rolling hills north of the Missouri River, what would become Randolph County was covered by hardwood forests and plains grasslands. Large granite boulders left by the glaciers spoted the hillsides here and there. Sometime around 10,000 to 7,000 years ago, the first humans arrived. They hunted the wooly mammoth, mastodon, and other now extinct creatures. The area was rich in elk, wild turkeys, bear, buffalo, and deer. Around 800 CE and again around 1400 CE some of these early inhabitants carved the thunderbird on the entrance of a cave in what is now Camp Thunderbird near Cairo. Later the Missouri Indians used Randolph Co. as their hunting grounds. When white settlers first arrived in Randolph Co., they found the Iowa, Sac, and Fox tribes. Each of these tribes had settled here themselves only shortly before the arrival of the first Randolph Co. pioneers. The first known settler in what is now Randolph County was William Holman along with his father, James Dysart, and brother Joseph Holman. They settled in 1818 near what is now Mount Airy. He was soon followed by Allen Mayo, who settled not far away. James Dysart opened the first school in the settlement that would one day be known as Huntsville in 1822.
Huntsville, the oldest settlement in the county was settled around 1821, and Milton about the same time. At that time, Randolph County was a part of Howard County which extended north to the Iowa border. What is now Randolph County was then made a part of Chariton County to the west. Randolph County was organized out of Chariton County, January 22, 1829, and named in honor of John Randolph, of Roanoke, Virginia. At the time it extended to the Iowa Border. The county seat was located at Huntsville on December 4, 1830. And on the 5th of January 1831, four land owners, William Goggin, Gideon Wright, Daniel Hunt (grandfather of Arizona's first governor George Hunt), and Henry Winburn donated land where the courthouse sits today. As Hunt was the first to settle on the hills of Huntsville, the town was named for him. Previous to that, it had also be known as Gogginsville, as Goggin was the first store owner. General Robert Wilson was the first lawyer in the county and the first circuit clerk (later he would become a United States Senator). Randolph County's first sheriff was Hancock Jackson (later governor of Missouri and cousin of Confederate governor Clairborne Jackson). Its first doctor was William Fort, who also served on the first county court. The other Commissioners on the county court were James Head, and Joseph M. Baker. The first courthouse was completed in the Fall of 1831. It was a two story brick building with one room on the firrst floor used as a courtroom and three above for jury rooms.
The first lot sale took place in April of that year. Huntsville and the county soon prospered with the manufacture of salt, coal mines, hemp rope factories, and tobacco factories. At one time, Huntsville was the second largest leaf tobacco market in the state. By 1857, it was the home to Mount Pleasant College which produced Doctor Victor Clarence Vaughan, one of the finest medical minds of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The college closed in July,1882 after its main building was destroyed by fire. In 1829, Randolph County saw military action with some Iowa Indians. "Cabins of White Folks" was a very small settlement near what is now Kirksville settled by James Myers, Isaac Gross, Stephen Gross, Nathan Richardson, Reuben Myrtle and Jacob Cupp, all formerly of Howard Co. They had been there about a year when a large body of Iowa Indians lead by Chief Big Neck showed up. One of the Indians' dogs killed a pig, and they threatened the women. Alarmed, they sent messengers south to Randolph County. The messenger reached the home of William Blackwell the night of July 24, 1829. A Captain. William Trammell with a group of men went north to help them, engaged the Indians, and were forced to retreat. Routed, they returned to the cabins, got the women, and headed for Huntsville. John Myers, James Winn, Powell Owensby, and Capt. Trammell were killed in the fight. Later, a force of militia under Gen. John B.Clark lead and two other companies under against Captain Abraham Gooddring and Captain Scounce went after Big Neck. Big Neck and his braves, Big Snake, Young Knight, and One-that-Don't-Care were apprehended March 11, 1830, and put on trial by a grand jury of Randolph County. The jury found on March 31, 1830 that: "After examining all the witnesses, and maturely considering the charges for which these Iowa Indians are now in confement, we find them not guilty, and they are at once discharged." Other than this incident, Huntsville did not see much activity during or prior to the Black Hawk War of 1831 - 1832. Two forts built north of what is now Kirksville, Mo., Ft. Matson and Ft. Clark never saw action. In 1833, in her father's home in Silver Creek, Marsha Head, daughter of Dr. Walker Head was married to Sterling Price. Price, of course would go on to be a commander in the Mexican War, governor of Missouri, and General of the Confederate armies in Missouri during the Civil War.
In 1838, the Potawatomi Indians passed near Huntsville on the Trail of Death. They were being relocated from homes in Michigan and Indiana to Oklahoma. During the Mexican War, Captain Hancock Jackson formed a company of about 100 men and went to what is now Santa Fe, New Mexico. The first country fair was held in the Fall of 1854 at Huntsville. In the winter of 1858, the first courthouse was condemned and tore down. A new one, designed by Henry Austin was built in the Spring of 1860. It was a two story brick building with two towers with a balcony and clock. Lincoln County's current courthouse in Troy is very similar. Other early settlements besides Huntsville included Dark's Prarie in 1829 near what is now Darksville and Eldad Church, and Mount Airy in 1837.
Huntsville and Randolph County were not unaffected by the war. It was the site of one "raid" by its son, "Bloody Bill" Anderson, the execution of Confederates, Charles King, Charles Tillotson, and D. S. Washburn, and the first daylight robbery of a train. On the 28th of August, 1861, Confederate Col. Poindexter held up a train at Old Allen (what is now northern Moberly). There he siezed $100,000 in coin being smuggled out of the state from the Missouri State Bank in Fayette. The money was apparently being stolen by Unionist employees of the bank. The money was then reportedly returned to the bank in Fayette by Poindexter.
While no major battles were faught in the county, there were several skirmishes fought in the county. The most significant was Roan's Tan Yard faught near Silver Creek. The battle took place the 8th of January, 1862 withMaj. W.M.G. Torrence in command of the Union forces and Col. J.A. Poindexter, the Confederate. There were only 91 casualties total (11 Union, 80 Confederate), but the battle ended Confederate usage of Randolph County as a base for recruiting and raiding, A small skirmish was also fought near Renick the 1st of November, 1861 with 14 Union soldiers killed. Another small skirmish took place near Roanoke on the 6th September, 1862, and at Huntsville the 9th of November, 1862. Other skirmishes in the area were: Allen on the 23th of July, 1864, Huntsville on the 14th of July and the 7th of August, and Roanoke on the 10th of September.
Most of these skirmishes were between the guerrilla service of the Confederacy and Union regulars in the area. "Bloody Bill" Anderson returned home on the 14th of July, 1864. His "raid" did not amount to much. Having camped near Ft. Henry Church the day before, Anderson road into town and his men robbed the bank of $45,000. A salesman was killed by Anderson's men for trying to run. The money was returned at Anderson's command, and Huntsville escaped harm for the most part. He then burned the depot at Renick and attacked a Union detachment near Allen. Six Union troops and two horses were killed. On July 23 a squad from the 17th Illinois Cavalry was attacked. After this, he moved north into Shelby County where he burned the bridge over the Salt River, and turned south again. He and his guerillas then moved south again, not to return to Randolph County. It was not long after this he and his men committed the Centralia Massacre in what is thought revenge for the illegal executions of CSA regulars at Huntsville, and Palmyra, Missouri. The same day of the massacre, Anderson engaged the 38th Missouri Infantry, USA under the command of Major A.V.E. Johnson between Centralia and Sturgeon, killing 124 of the 147 troops with barely a loss to his own units.
It should be pointed out, the Confederate "guerrillas" were often local partisans. Reports of Anderson's activities in Randolph County show his attacks to be on railroad facilities and Union troops, rarely the farms of those living here. The Union forces were often from Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, and Illinois. They would burn farms, seize horses, and conscript Southern Sympathizers. Renick and Allen were targets for the Confederate partisans as they laid on the North Missouri Railroad, and the CSA troops had orders to disrupt use of the railroads. Roanoke was in a key position near the Plank Road from Glasgow to Huntsville, and was a convient road for both armies to travel. Huntsville, of course, was the county seat, and home to several Confederate units making it a Union objective (much like the former county seat of Macon County, Bloomington, which was burned to the ground by Union forces for its southern sympathies).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)