It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Wow. This kid has some serious issues.
I can say with certainty that we have between one and two thousand regular and semi-regular listeners currently. I can say with certainty that we have between one and three thousand casual listeners.
Davek has made up his own criteria for what constitutes a "listener" in order to justify to himself his internal sense of superiority over other content producers. He doesn't appear capable of addressing the real concerns all of you have brought up with his model. He's lying to us in order to bolster the lies he tells to himself.
You have ZERO listeners. You can dismiss my work as useless and irrelevant, I can do the same to you.
Recorded media has been around for a long long time, but somehow, live broadcast has managed to survive.
All of which could efficiently manage several different worlds with immense precision and become very popular and powerful in a short time, and then drop them at a moment's notice because it no longer amused them.
''9 simultaneous listeners is still greater than ZERO''This implies that because Scrym can't completely accurately count their listeners, you believe that they are worth less than your 9 listeners, because you are sure they exist. Don't the forum members here prove that at least more than 9 people listen to geeknights (and definitely more than zero), just check out the ''How did you find us thread''.
Have fun with your board and I'll still be around when you get a real job.
On the other hand, if you're trying to turn your broadcast into a nation-changing -- if not world-changing -- phenomenon, then I will also be here to help you syndicate your spudcast into a global media sledgehammer. Its evolution, baby.
I thought that was pretty clear:simultaneous. _You_ tell _me_ what is the maximum number of people listening to Geek Nights is at any given time. I, for example, am listening to the latest show right now. Am I the only one? One of 10? One of 100? How many?
I believe television and radio ratings agree with this method.
I thought that was pretty clear:simultaneous. _You_ tell _me_ what is the maximum number of people listening to Geek Nights is at any given time. I, for example, am listening to the latest show right now. Am I the only one? One of 10? One of 100? How many?That is what I consider listeners. I believe television and radio ratings agree with this method.
Your strategy thus far has been to ad hominem a single post and ignore the arguments that you can't defend against. Why stop now? You might as well continue to humiliate yourself.
If you knew anything about media, you'd know that humiliating yourself is exactly what gets people's attention. Think of a single modern entertainer who is always poised, never ironic, and never gives the illusion of weakness in order to get attention. There aren't any. Learn a lesson, bro.
I guess the fundamental difference between us is I'm building a media empire, and you're just trying to run a show.
Its somewhat entertaining if one isn't already predisposed to hating elitist geekery.
And where are these killer arguments, exactly? That people are too lazy or too busy to make time for things they like? That's right. No one watches the superbowl. They all just tape it and watch it at their leisure. That's not even an argument, that why I don't respond to it.
I'll continue to listen in hopes that you realize that it doesn't really matter if you have a total of one thousand listeners across the nation in one week.
I'd rather have 10 listeners in my hometown at one time.
John StewartGeorge CarlinLewis BlackOH, shit. Sorry. That was three.
But, it does matter. Once again, I bring back my analogy of a book, or a newspaper, or a magazine. Do those have "doesn't really matter" readers just because people aren't all really all reading at the same time?
I have finished drinking my beers. Let's see Davek do that with HIS empire. Oh, the gauntlet has been thrown, mister.
Time... does... matter!
But, it does matter. Once again, I bring back my analogy of a book, or a newspaper, or a magazine. Do those have "doesn't really matter" readers just because people aren't all really all reading at the same time?I saw a book at the supermarket today, labeled: "New York Times #1 best seller inNINETEEN MINUTES". Now why, pray tell, did they include that temporal metric in there? Could it be because THOUSANDS of books haveeventuallymade it to #1 on that list? However, making it there in nineteen minutes is quite an achievement. Time... does... matter!
The only instances where time does matter are live events, like sports, where there is only one time you can watch it.
And Multi-player games ^_^ because if for example you just got Mario kart DS, You're going to have a harder time finding a game today then you did when it first came out (plus they will probably be crazy obsessed people who will kick your butt.