mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28 | Speaking of ads...
The National Association of [Bro]Adcasters...
Are there any shows left on TV, especially OTA stations, that don't exist solely for the purpose of having a place to put commercials? (I don't think so.) |
|
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | That's what they've always been for, the entertainment value is only to attract you long enough to watch the ads.
It's a business, not a charity. |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
 ·magicjack.com
| No, shows used to have "sponsors" who, to some degree, cared about the quality of a show. Cable shows used to not have commercials at all. There were more and better quality shows back when there were only 3 networks than there are now. Now? "reality" shows (that couldn't be more un-real), 'American Idol' ...it's an endless list.
Business? ...you get what you pay for. But, you hit the nail on the head: flashing lights and lousy music to "attract" viewers with short attention spans and/or too tired from the work-day to care.
By and large, TV sucks. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| reply to mod_wastrel
What about PBS? They do have sponsors, but it's a different model than the broadcast networks.
Of course, I've noticed that WGBH spends long time-blocks essentially advertising why it's great to donate to them, which isn't too different from an infomercial I guess. |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| PBS didn't come to my area till around 1964-65. Within 10 years, of the 4 local broadcast network affiliates (NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS) the PBS affiliate was the "richest" of them all as far as assets were concerned, especially "liquid" assets, as in money in the bank. Needless to say they were very successful with their "please give us money" campaigns, but they did deliver good stuff--Monty Python and the like.
That was then; this is now. TV used to be what the family gathered around in the evening--it was the catalyst. Now, it's something else. Love it or hate it, it is what it is. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to mod_wastrel
said by mod_wastrel  :No, shows used to have "sponsors" who, to some degree, cared about the quality of a show. They only cared about quailty because without it people wouldn't watch. Since 1948 TV has ALWAYS been about making money. Shows were ways to get people to notice whatever product a sponsor was pitching. |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| The key word in my original statement was "solely". When advertisers started to simply buy "30 seconds" in a time slot, the quality of the show in that time slot became irrelevant; only the ratings were/are a factor for consideration. The show could be pure crap, but as long as people were/are watching it's just a billboard for some ad. Rare is the show that's anything else. (Joss Whedon, where are you?! The vast wasteland that is TV needs you!! ;D) |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to mod_wastrel
said by mod_wastrel :The National Association of [Bro]Adcasters... Are there any shows left on TV, especially OTA stations, that don't exist solely for the purpose of having a place to put commercials? (I don't think so.) It is a business... Not a source of free entertainment. Something has to pay the bills. Don't like it? Start making your own sitcoms and put them on YouTube... See how long you're able to sustain yourself.
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL & MURRAY SABRIN (NJ GOP FRONT RUNNER for SENATE) 2008
|
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| reply to mod_wastrel
said by mod_wastrel :The key word in my original statement was "solely". When advertisers started to simply buy "30 seconds" in a time slot, the quality of the show in that time slot became irrelevant; only the ratings were/are a factor for consideration. The show could be pure crap, but as long as people were/are watching it's just a billboard for some ad. Rare is the show that's anything else. (Joss Whedon, where are you?! The vast wasteland that is TV needs you!! ;D) People wouldn't be watching if there wasn't something attractive. I agree most TV sucks... I can't think of any good shows on network television.
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL & MURRAY SABRIN (NJ GOP FRONT RUNNER for SENATE) 2008
|
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28 | reply to Tzale
Who needs sitcoms when we've got BBR?  |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| said by mod_wastrel :Who needs sitcoms when we've got BBR? Exactly. This site is much more interesting than any reality TV show or sitcom that the big three could produce. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to mod_wastrel
shacks of burning shit like American Idol and Survivor are on because they bring lots of eyeballs and as such bring lots of ad dollars. however the sheer volume of advertising is why HBO(and similar channels) gained so many subs over the years because they can not only run commercial free but they can do things that the networks cant thanks to the FCC.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to Tzale
said by Tzale :said by mod_wastrel :The key word in my original statement was "solely". When advertisers started to simply buy "30 seconds" in a time slot, the quality of the show in that time slot became irrelevant; only the ratings were/are a factor for consideration. The show could be pure crap, but as long as people were/are watching it's just a billboard for some ad. Rare is the show that's anything else. (Joss Whedon, where are you?! The vast wasteland that is TV needs you!! ;D) People wouldn't be watching if there wasn't something attractive. I agree most TV sucks... I can't think of any good shows on network television. Remember reality shows only get 50% of the audiance but they are 80% cheaper, a net profit.
All reality shows are un-unionized, and they cost as little as $20K an episode, compared to $1 million an episode for other shows. Not to mention hiring interns and unqualified ppl to script reality shows, and the form letter nature of them. The only thing cheaper to show on TV would be the "Ass the Movie" from Idiocracy. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to Tzale
said by Tzale :said by mod_wastrel :Who needs sitcoms when we've got BBR? Exactly. This site is much more interesting than any reality TV show or sitcom that the big three could produce. And why anyone with a brain is leaving the tv watching population pool, making reality shows have even higher ratings justifying their existence. |
|
