Accelerating the flow: A transition effect in programming theory?

Audience Flow Past and Present: Television Inheritance Effects Reconsidered

“…That seems to have changed. Constancy in program type is now the superior predictor of both the duplicated audience and primary duplication, a result that is consistent with Eastman et al (1997).…”

“…The most striking difference between it and Table 1 is that the rating of the lead-in program is now uncorrelated with duplication. This fails to support H 1 , but is consistent with the result reported by Eastman et al (1997). Rating 2, however, is positively correlated with primary duplication, meaning that more highly rated lead-out programs do a better job of holding the audience from the first program than lower rated programs.…”

“…If they were of different types, the pair was coded zero. There are good grounds, both theoretically and empirically, to expect people to have consistent program type preferences (e.g., Adams, 1997;Eastman et al, 1997;Tiedge & Ksobiech, 1986;Webster & Phalen, 1997). Therefore, program pairs of the same type should enjoy higher levels of inheritance.…”

“…added marginally to the explained variance. Noting the apparent reduction in R 2 from Webster's 1980s research, Eastman et al (1997) concluded that the potency of inheritance effects seemed to be in decline. However, that conclusion seems unwarranted because Eastman et al were essentially comparing "apples and oranges."…”

“…Nielsen Media Research refers to this number as the "primary duplication," and that label will be used throughout the remainder of the article. Eastman, Newton, Riggs, and Neal-Lunsford (1997) used primary duplication to assess the impact of several factors on audience inheritance. They found no correlation between that dependent measure and lead-in ratings or shares.…”