hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| reply to openbox9
Re: Any other solution?
said by openbox9  :And how do you get the content to burn to a "CD"? Whether you watch the content on your computer, or transport it to your TV via whatever mechanism you choose, the method to obtain the content is the same. I simply download it and burn it to CD. Let's not beat around the bush, here. It's that simple.
I like to watch TV from the comfort of my couch and not from the computer chair in my office.
--
My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. He said, If I have a chance to invade if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.I'm going to get everything passed that I want.
G W BUSH |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| The original question still remains. How will content continue to be developed if nobody is willing to pay for it, either directly, or indirectly via advertisements? Where you watch the content is irrelative. I happen to watch mine on my HTPC that's connected to my main TV, but that doesn't change the economics. |
|
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| said by openbox9 :The original question still remains. How will content continue to be developed if nobody is willing to pay for it, either directly, or indirectly via advertisements? Where you watch the content is irrelative. I happen to watch mine on my HTPC that's connected to my main TV, but that doesn't change the economics. Im not here to argue how programmers are going to make money. I simply stated that i prefer to watch my TV from a couch either via STB, burned CD, or any other method. The big issue in this thread is that people dont like to watch ads, and you know what, it's not my problem when when programmers scramble to figure out how to deliver content while making money. I understand they have to show ads, but i dont find one fucking difference in me burning a CD of a show or fast forwarding through my recorded DVR stuff. Either way, Im gonna try be aviod watching Ads.
Tell me, when the advertisements come on your TV, do you get up and leave the room? if so, then i see no difference in what you and I do.
like the RIAA, the producers of TV shows need to find other means of making money, even if it's product placement in shows.
--
My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. He said, If I have a chance to invade if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.I'm going to get everything passed that I want.
G W BUSH |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by hopeflicker :I simply stated that i prefer to watch my TV from a couch I believe that's a given for just about anyone.said by hopeflicker :I understand they have to show ads, but i dont find one fucking difference in me burning a CD of a show or fast forwarding through my recorded DVR stuff. And I never said there was a difference. I was merely trying to follow the OP's post.said by hopeflicker :Tell me, when the advertisements come on your TV, do you get up and leave the room? Nope, I don't watch advertisements  said by hopeflicker :like the RIAA, the producers of TV shows need to find other means of making money, even if it's product placement in shows. I won't dispute that. The obvious method is to charge for the content, but we already know how well that will work. A big swath of consumers have become accustomed to free, and it will be next to impossible to change that short of ramming it down their throats, e.g. forced ads via IPTV streams. |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to openbox9
"How will content continue to be developed if nobody is willing to pay for it"
Product placement. Many companies are happy to pay productions to put their products in the shows and the economics are pretty sound. The content creators get the money they need to create and the advertisers get their products featured.
A company COULD pay up to $250,000 for a single 30 second spot (commercials are on a frame-by-frame basis the most expensive filmmaking process out there) plus the cost of placing the ad and it might run sporadically for a few weeks. OR they could pay between $20,000 and $200,000 (with no placement costs) to have their product placed in a film, TV show, video game and the product is there forever. They might not even have to pay in cash; they simply provide their products free to the production (Apple LOVES doing this which is why so many films feature Apple computers and iPhones).
This works out well for the production company (in providing much needed financial resources) as well as the advertiser. The only potential loser is the delivery agent who is no longer getting paid to air the ads.
Smaller, local companies probably can't afford to pay for product placement and they're the folks that have a greater need for the traditional delivery methods. My guess is cable, broadcast, and satellite will need to seriously scale back the cost of buying airtime and create a better value for placing ad content on them. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Product placement is one means of generating the capital necessary for production. It may work for low budget sitcoms or some of the crappy reality shows, but for more of the high budget productions, I'd be curious if product placement revenue is sufficient. |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to openbox9
Re: Any other solution?
It should still work well, once more companies embrace the advantages of the model. A high-budget show typically means a highly watched show and the cost for product placement rises appropriately. There are also tiers for participation: $250,000 gets you ninety seconds of background time, $500,000 gets you background time and use by a supporting character, $750,000 gets you close-ups of Johnny Depp eating your potato ships throughout the entire episode, etc. Sell ten of the $750,000 packages and you can easily finance several episodes of even the biggest budget show.
E.T. probably did more for Reese's Pieces than all of their broadcast spots combined. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Then at what point does product placement become more annoying and burdensome than 18 minutes of advertisements per 60 minute episode? Personally, I'd rather see advertisements every 15 minutes than products blatantly strewn around the set of a show. At least I can do something about the ads... |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| That's easy to answer. The eighteen commercials you suggest completely break the action and halt the story being watched. I suspect you're more concerned about framing the action more on the product than the story itself, and I agree with you that if such a thing were to happen (say a close-up of a Lays bag filling the screen while we only hear dialogue from offscreen) then that would be annoying and distracting.
But if the content creators use a little creative judgment, I don't see how it would be any more annoying or burdensome than just living in the civilized world. When you walk into a 7-11 and see all the products around you, does their presence strike you as distracting? If you have a friend who's eating from a bag of Lay's potato chips, would you insist they turn the package away from you so you don't see the label? We're constantly surrounded by products and it strikes me as unrealistic for any show to NOT have these products lying around.
When Castaway came out, a friend of mine was foaming at the mouth at the presence of Fed Ex in the film. So I asked him if it would have been somehow better if the film had contained the same level of saturation with a completely fictional company (like UBS or Federal Couriers). To me that would have been MORE distracting as it would clearly put the action Somewhere Else and not in my world. I'm willing to bet that if you glance around the room you're sitting in, you'll see quite a few commercial products. Why should it be any more distracting or disturbing if a fictional depiction of you glancing around the same room in a film or TV show ALSO contains these products? |
|
techygeek
join:2008-04-30
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
3 edits | reply to hopeflicker
said by hopeflicker :said by openbox9 :And how do you get the content to burn to a "CD"? Whether you watch the content on your computer, or transport it to your TV via whatever mechanism you choose, the method to obtain the content is the same. I simply download it and burn it to CD. Let's not beat around the bush, here. It's that simple. I like to watch TV from the comfort of my couch and not from the computer chair in my office. But you have to give up your computer so it can play on the TV. BTW, I have a PC hooked up to my TV via S-Video, have had it for years.. great for games like Tomb Raider where the big screen does it justice even if reg TV is only about 640x480 but it does waste a PC.
Also a standalone player doesn't use the power a PC uses, who wants to burn up 400w to play a dvd on their TV. |
|
techygeek
join:2008-04-30
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
1 edit | reply to Desdinova
said by Desdinova :"How will content continue to be developed if nobody is willing to pay for it" Product placement. Many companies are happy to pay productions to put their products in the shows and the economics are pretty sound. The content creators get the money they need to create and the advertisers get their products featured. I'm no expert, I would have to have watched every show to be one but I think they already use this in bulk.. when a show is filmed in front of a Starbucks, do you think there's no kickbacks or someone's eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream. I think that if I had a 10 million dollar cost to satisfy on the creation of a film, I would look thru the footage and get every dollar I can or consider editing in other places, companies, etc. who would be willing to pay but I think this is the cost of production of the show itself.
I mean, this may or may not be so with something like, the news but probably all the time with creation of shows, movies, etc. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Desdinova
said by Desdinova :But if the content creators use a little creative judgment, I don't see how it would be any more annoying or burdensome than just living in the civilized world. I like to watch TV for entertainment and a short break from reality. Your suggestions start removing that separation.said by Desdinova :I'm willing to bet that if you glance around the room you're sitting in, you'll see quite a few commercial products. Why should it be any more distracting or disturbing if a fictional depiction of you glancing around the same room in a film or TV show ALSO contains these products? I conducted a quick test from my couch in my living room where I'm currently sitting. I currently see two "commercial labels"; my Sony TV and my 2-year old son's inflatable Publix soccer ball. If product placement isn't any more intrusive than that, then I won't have a problem. |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | Fair enough!  |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to techygeek
They almost certainly paid to have their item / brand used in the content. Once more companies realize the long term benefits in such placement, they'll start participating in greater frequency and that should bring more money in for the production company.
Ironically, the amount allocated by the company for marketing should roughly stay the same as they roll money normally spent on less efficient advertising models into the more efficient product placement model. |
|
rjdriver
@cox.net
| reply to openbox9
Don't worry, you'll have ads on the TV shows that play over the Internet. That's inevitable. Whether you'll be able to DVR them and play later without commercials will be a matter of the technology available to beat or defeat that. I suspect that will be a moving target.
But the bigger issue here is whether the TV networks and their comglomerate owners will be happy with JUST the ad revenue. For the past 25 years or so(except for the 20 million or so gettting their TV over the air) they have been getting paid at both ends: advertisers (directly) and viewers (through the cable, FIOS, and satellite rebroadcasters). They won't be happy with only half that pie.
Eventually you will see similar deals cut for TV on the Net. Whether it will take the form of subscriptons to Hulu, TV.com, etc, or download caps with fees per MB or GB for over the cap usage, or some other novel billing plan, they will find a way to get us to pay to watch commercially supported TV.
|
|
TheHelpful1
Premium
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Nope, I don't watch advertisements Me neither - My HTPC has beyond TV and it auto-bookmarks before and after recordings and can even burn them to DVD that way
Off-topic, but I just wanted to add that.
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" |
|
Master19536
@pldt.net | reply to hopeflicker
You can try using HDMI cables, ethernet cables (if your tv and pc support these connections) or RCA cables (if your pc have a tv tuner adapter.
It's always better to watch the TV "from the comfort of your couch"! |
|
