1 edit | Sounds like another industry stance Is it me or are these industries just not thinking outside the box these days. All they can think about is how to increase their profit margins to make their investors happy and buy more stock.
They need to start thinking of how to make money in the new age instead of trying to keep the old way of doing things around. The old ways are just going to put them right in the same position MAFIAA's are in by not embracing technology to make things better, faster, cheaper.
They need to keep in mind that the only people really giving them the profits is the consumers. If the internet is how they want it or al carte is how they want it they are going to find a way to get it legal or illegal. These companies need to start thinking about new business models or end up dieing off a slow painful death. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by raptor1418:Is it me or are these industries just not thinking outside the box these days. All they can think about is how to increase their profit margins to make their investors happy and buy more stock. They need to start thinking of how to make money in the new age instead of trying to keep the old way of doing things around. How do they do that? People want their content for FREE and don't even want to view ads. So where does the money come from? Sure some people still buy DVDs but as time goes on people will pretty much expect to get it online.
This isn't like music where the band can go on tour and make money that way. Are they supposed to give it all for free with no ads and hope enough people buy a "Mad Men" t-shit or coffee mug?
No such thing as a free lunch people. Sure the content providers and makers need to learn to expect less income from all sources and make content cheaper for people. $2 for an hour episode let alone a 30 minute episode is to much. Especially when it's full of DRM. At least when I pay 99 cents for a MP3 I can put that song on any devices as I wish. By the way just because I can own the episode for $2 doesn't mean it's worth it. Maybe I'd rather rent it.
Anyways I think southparkstudios.com does it about as good as one can expect. I have access to every episode ever made adn the commercials are much less than what you get on TV. I'm actually MORE likely to pay attention to the ONE product in the ONE commercial during the commercial break than to remember it amongst the 7-8 commercials I see per break during a normal TV broadcast. |
|
|
|
 knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | said by BF69:said by raptor1418:Is it me or are these industries just not thinking outside the box these days. All they can think about is how to increase their profit margins to make their investors happy and buy more stock. They need to start thinking of how to make money in the new age instead of trying to keep the old way of doing things around. How do they do that? People want their content for FREE and don't even want to view ads. So where does the money come from? Sure some people still buy DVDs but as time goes on people will pretty much expect to get it online. Let me state the obvious, people have always wanted free content without ads. This isn't something that just happened recently. It's just gone from using cassettes to record radio stations music, then remove the commercials, give a copy to your friend (same with VHS) to the digital age where one person can do the exact same thing, only instead of copying it to his/her friends, it can be copied on a scale millions of times broader.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by knightmb:said by BF69:said by raptor1418:Is it me or are these industries just not thinking outside the box these days. All they can think about is how to increase their profit margins to make their investors happy and buy more stock. They need to start thinking of how to make money in the new age instead of trying to keep the old way of doing things around. How do they do that? People want their content for FREE and don't even want to view ads. So where does the money come from? Sure some people still buy DVDs but as time goes on people will pretty much expect to get it online. Let me state the obvious, people have always wanted free content without ads. This isn't something that just happened recently. let me state the obvious. the only reason why TV existed in the first place was to get people to pay attention to advertising. Not to provide people with FREE entertainment. The entertainment was used as a vehicle to get people to keeping watching TV and thus the advertisements. Not the other way around.
It's just gone from using cassettes to record radio stations music, then remove the commercials, give a copy to your friend (same with VHS) to the digital age where one person can do the exact same thing, only instead of copying it to his/her friends, it can be copied on a scale millions of times broader. and that has always been illegal whether you knew it or not. what you suggest since we can't stop people from doing soemthing illegal make it legal basically. That's like making bank robbery legal will stop bank robberies.
what I suggest is that if you really like new content to be made then you better support somehow. No one is going to invest millions of $ into a show and have no chance to even recoup his costs let alone make a profit. I wouldn't do it neither would you. Why expect a studio to? |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to raptor1418
TV ads work because they cannot be blocked and you know someone will see them. they also are not intrusive and some are quite enjoyable and make you laugh so you stay and watch.
internet ads have a different image, they are never funny and are always intrusive.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Kearnstd:TV ads work because they cannot be blocked and you know someone will see them. they also are not intrusive and some are quite enjoyable and make you laugh so you stay and watch. internet ads have a different image, they are never funny and are always intrusive. intrusive? I guess you don't watch to much online video. As in my example southparkstudios.com has a 20-30 second ad before the show and maybe 2-3 other commerical breaks that have ONE commerical of 20-30 seconds and that's WORSE than TV? watching South Park online saves me from about 5 minutes worth of commercials per 30 minute show. Watching all 184 episodes online would save me 15 hours of time vs watching them on TV. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Kearnstd
Agreed! When I watch a show online, it plays less commercials.. but its the same commercial every time. Or the same commercial done two different ways for one product. The interactive parts are nice, but I only care to see it once.
Watching commercials on digital broadcast television is much better. Ads look really nice in 720p. They can still be brainless, but at least there is a variety of them. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to BF69
said by BF69:Anyways I think southparkstudios.com does it about as good as one can expect. I have access to every episode ever made adn the commercials are much less than what you get on TV. I'm actually MORE likely to pay attention to the ONE product in the ONE commercial during the commercial break than to remember it amongst the 7-8 commercials I see per break during a normal TV broadcast. True, it's a model site on how this can work. For some reason, it works better than CBS's site (they're both Viacom properties).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... |
|
 DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC
 ·Suddenlink
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:TV ads work because they cannot be blocked and you know someone will see them. they also are not intrusive and some are quite enjoyable and make you laugh so you stay and watch. internet ads have a different image, they are never funny and are always intrusive. TiVo ended that model, but I've found I do watch ads that are funny or interest me. I have no use for most of the ads on any channel, and nearly none found on the Internet.
They need a better way to target me, but that comes up against my privacy.
If TiVo can "predict" suggested shows, a "Super-TiVo" should be able to predict ads that interest me by learning which ones I don't skip.
But, then there's that pesky privacy, again. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:TV ads work because they cannot be blocked and you know someone will see them. they also are not intrusive and some are quite enjoyable and make you laugh so you stay and watch. "Teevee, apply directly to your forehead!"
Some ads are welcome, but there are too many and they are too repetitive. Show me something fresh and creative, and yes, I'll watch. But the "Free Credit Report dot Com" crew's commercials lost their shine six months ago.
said by Kearnstd:internet ads have a different image, they are never funny and are always intrusive. ...and many of these sites repeat the same lame ad at every break.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... |
|
| reply to axus
said by axus:Watching commercials on digital broadcast television is much better. Ads look really nice in 720p. They can still be brainless, but at least there is a variety of them. But fewer and fewer are watching TV commercials. The DVR, unless the law allows networks to prevent fast forwarding thru commercials, has ended watching commercials on TV for a growing number of viewers. And the more people who do that, the less money companies will want to send to the networks for advertising.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to DataDoc
said by DataDoc:They need a better way to target me, but that comes up against my privacy. If TiVo can "predict" suggested shows, a "Super-TiVo" should be able to predict ads that interest me by learning which ones I don't skip. But, then there's that pesky privacy, again. I believe that this is concern is fixable (at least to my own comfort level). For example, let's say your TiVo starts with all ad categories open. After you skip 100 commercials, it starts to deactivate ad categories corresponding to the ones you skip. The ones that remain better represent you, but don't necessarily mean anything -- it just means you've skipped those ads to a much lesser degree.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Media Center and VideoReDo = no more commercials and a seamless show!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | said by dadkins:Media Center and VideoReDo = no more commercials and a seamless show! no more commercials = no show. |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:let me state the obvious. the only reason why TV existed in the first place was to get people to pay attention to advertising. Not to provide people with FREE entertainment. The entertainment was used as a vehicle to get people to keeping watching TV and thus the advertisements. Not the other way around. 
Really?
The first regularly scheduled television service in the United States began on July 2, 1928.
The world's first television advertisement was broadcast July 1, 1941. |
|
DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | reply to funchords
I agree, and if the choices were wrong, I'd just skip them.
I was just wanting to fend off the privacy crazies. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to b10010011
said by b10010011:said by BF69:let me state the obvious. the only reason why TV existed in the first place was to get people to pay attention to advertising. Not to provide people with FREE entertainment. The entertainment was used as a vehicle to get people to keeping watching TV and thus the advertisements. Not the other way around. Really? The first regularly scheduled television service in the United States began on July 2, 1928. The world's first television advertisement was broadcast July 1, 1941. WRONG. you're about 20 years off for the US. No one in the US had TVs before WWII |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to axus
said by axus:Agreed! When I watch a show online, it plays less commercials.. but its the same commercial every time. Or the same commercial done two different ways for one product. The interactive parts are nice, but I only care to see it once. Watching commercials on digital broadcast television is much better. Ads look really nice in 720p. They can still be brainless, but at least there is a variety of them. You know I see that stupid snuggie commerical about 10 times an hour. hell late at night I se the same damn Girls Gone Wild commericals every single commerical break that as been playing for years now. Finally 18? probably closer to 30 now. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc:said by dadkins:Media Center and VideoReDo = no more commercials and a seamless show! no more commercials = no show. hey someone gets it finally. Shows have to be paid for. You can really tell the people here that have worked for someone their whole life and will probably always will and people that have actually had worked for themsleves and knows what it's like to run a business. |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:WRONG. you're about 20 years off for the US. No one in the US had TVs before WWII The first regularly scheduled television service in the United States began on July 2, 1928. The Federal Radio Commission authorized C.F. Jenkins to broadcast from experimental station W3XK in Wheaton, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C. But for at least the first eighteen months, only silhouette images from motion picture film were broadcast.
Hugo Gernsback's New York City radio station began a regular, if limited, schedule of live television broadcasts on August 14, 1928, using 48-line images. Simultaneously, Gernsback published Television, the world's first magazine about the medium.
General Electric's experimental station in Schenectady, New York, on the air sporadically since January 13, 1928, was able to broadcast reflected-light, 48-line images via shortwave as far as Los Angeles, and by September was making four television broadcasts weekly. It is considered to be the direct predecessor of current television station WRGB.
General Broadcasting System's WGBS radio and W2XCR television aired their regular broadcasting debut in New York City on April 26, 1931, with a special demonstration set up in Aeolian Hall at Fifth Avenue and Fifty-fourth Street. Thousands waited to catch a glimpse of the Broadway stars who appeared on the six-inch (15 cm) square image, in an evening event to publicize a weekday programming schedule offering films and live entertainers during the four-hour daily broadcasts. Appearing were boxer Primo Carnera, actors Gertrude Lawrence, Louis Calhern and Lionel Atwill, WHN announcer Nils Granlund, the Forman Sisters, and a host of others.[17]
CBS's New York City station W2XAB began broadcasting their first regular seven days a week television schedule on July 21, 1931, with a 60-line electromechanical system. The first broadcast included Mayor Jimmy Walker, the Boswell Sisters, Kate Smith, and George Gershwin. The service ended in February 1933. [18] Don Lee Broadcasting's station W6XAO in Los Angeles went on the air in December 1931. Using the UHF spectrum, it broadcast a regular schedule of filmed images every day except Sundays and holidays for several years.[19]
By 1935, low-definition electromechanical television broadcasting had ceased in the United States except for a handful of stations run by public universities that continued to 1939. The Federal Communications Commission saw television in the continual flux of development with no consistent technical standards, hence all such stations in the U.S. were granted only experimental and not commercial licenses, hampering television's economic development. Just as importantly, Philo Farnsworth's August 1934 demonstration of an all-electronic system at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia pointed out the direction of television's future.
On June 15, 1936, Don Lee Broadcasting began a one month-long demonstration of high definition (240+ line) television in Los Angeles on W6XAO (later KTSL) with a 300-line image from motion picture film. By October, W6XAO was making daily television broadcasts of films. RCA and its subsidiary NBC demonstrated in New York City a 343-line electronic television broadcast, with live and film segments, to its licensees on July 7, 1936, and made its first public demonstration to the press on November 6. Irregularly scheduled broadcasts continued through 1937 and 1938.[20] Regularly scheduled electronic broadcasts began in April 1938 in New York (to the second week of June, and resuming in August) and Los Angeles.[21][22][23][24] NBC officially began regularly scheduled television broadcasts in New York on April 30, 1939 with a broadcast of the opening of the 1939 New York World's Fair. By June 1939, regularly scheduled 441-line electronic television broadcasts were available in New York City and Los Angeles, and by November on General Electric's station in Schenectady. From May through December 1939, the New York City NBC station (W2XBS) of General Electric broadcast twenty to fifty-eight hours of programming per month, Wednesday through Sunday of each week. The programming was 33% news, 29% drama, and 17% educational programming, with an estimated 2,000 receiving sets by the end of the year, and an estimated audience of five to eight thousand. A remote truck could cover outdoor events from up to 10 miles (16 km) away from the transmitter, which was located atop the Empire State Building. Coaxial cable was used to cover events at Madison Square Garden. The coverage area for reliable reception was a radius of 40 to 50 miles (80 km) from the Empire State Building, an area populated by more than 10,000,000 people (Lohr, 1940).
The FCC adopted NTSC television engineering standards on May 2, 1941, calling for 525 lines of vertical resolution, 30 frames per second with interlaced scanning, 60 fields per second, and sound carried by frequency modulation. Sets sold since 1939 which were built for slightly lower resolution could still be adjusted to receive the new standard. (Dunlap, p31). The FCC saw television ready for commercial licensing, and the first such licenses were issued to NBC and CBS owned stations in New York on July 1, 1941, followed by Philco's station WPTZ in Philadelphia. After the U.S. entry into World War II, the FCC reduced the required minimum air time for commercial television stations from 15 hours per week to 4 hours. Most TV stations suspended broadcasting. On the few that remained, programs included entertainment such as boxing and plays, events at Madison Square Garden, and illustrated war news as well as training for air raid wardens and first aid providers. In 1942, there were 5,000 sets in operation, but production of new TVs, radios, and other broadcasting equipment for civilian purposes was suspended from April 1942 to August 1945 (Dunlap).
In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allowed stations to broadcast advertisements beginning 1941, but required public service programming commitments as a requirement for a license. |
|
