| Interesting... these TV execs seem to think that people are actually watching commercials even when they're not skipping them. Or that watching them leads to actual revenue [for someone]. Fascinating. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by GlennAllen:these TV execs seem to think that people are actually watching commercials even when they're not skipping them. Or that watching them leads to actual revenue [for someone]. Fascinating.
Well if people aren't watching commercials then advertisers will ask for lower rates or stop advertising all together and then the networks won't have the money to put on new shows. Or they'll have even more commercials or they'll put on ads while the show is going on. Then you can't skip them. Or networks will ask for higher transmit fees from cable and satellite and those companies will pass those increase rates on to YOU. So don't complain when you're paying $300 a month for TV.
People that think they should get 100% free TV with no advertising live in fantasyland. |
|
|
|
| No, those who think any significant number of "viewers" are actually watching commercials are the ones in "fantasyland". (I could care less if all TV programming disappeared tomorrow.) |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:Well if people aren't watching commercials then advertisers will ask for lower rates or stop advertising all together and then the networks won't have the money to put on new shows. Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. Advertisers do not pay for recorded ads. The reason is they have no idea how often an ad is watched on recorded media and they pay by impression - the number of viewers that watch an ad. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to BF69
Are you advocating the position that people on their own time watching shows they recorded should be forced to watch something they have no interest in?
Not having to watch commercials is a major reason to record and watch later.
That, and you watch an hour long show in 40 minutes....
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to BF69
Very few households are NOT paying for television these days and the providers pass on some of that money to the content creators which is above and beyond advertising money. So NBC and the like get more viewers and direct payment for those more viewers where if the viewer is over-the-air they only get advertising revenue from that individual.
In the UK...
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television···_Kingdom
quote:
In the United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies, any household watching or recording live broadcast television transmissions (terrestrial, satellite, cable, or internet) is required to purchase an annual television licence. As of 2010, this costs £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for black and white.[1] Income from the licence is primarily used to fund the television, radio and online services of the BBC. Total levies from the licence fee were £3.662 billion in 2010–11[2] of which £579.4 million or 15.8% was provided by the Government through concessions for those over the age of 75.
So UK people get many bbc channels, no commercials, no commercial bias, not much political bias, all for £145.50 or so a year.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
| reply to BF69
I pay for TV so why should I have to watch advertisements as well? I can get the main networks free over the air, then I understand there are commercials no doubt because then it's technically free. If something is free, advertise away, if I have to pay a monthly fee then it seems like double-dipping.
Should be as simple as, well, HBO/Cinemax/etc. They are premiums and you pay a premium, but no real commercials other than "intermission" between shows/movies.
Should be quite simple. The cable network seeks out buyers (Comcast, CenturyLink, Time Warner, Charter, DISH, DirecTV, etc), they negotiate a rate. The buyers pay the networks to provide their channel to the customer. The customer pays the buyer (provider). It's already done this way, but the advertisements are just space-fillers and corporate greed. Can't remember the last time I watched a commercial, oh that's right, the Super Bowl, because they're actually funny! It is rare for a commercial to entice me to buy something. If they don't adjust their business models, then poof, someone else will step in and do better (they already are).
They just need to do a la carte and end the misery. |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:People that think they should get 100% free TV with no advertising live in fantasyland.
If you have advertising the content should be free, no advertising and you should pay. |
|
 japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | reply to firephoto
said by firephoto:So UK people get many bbc channels, no commercials, no commercial bias, not much political bias, all for £145.50 or so a year. And the iPlayer 2-week on-demand streaming of everything. The BBC content quality has slowly declined while US has risen but still the UK (there's great productions that aren't BBC) has best overall content in the world. In any language. Though Germany's supposed to be very good too, just not as much selection.
The license fee is a deal for most but not at all if you watch very little TV - like say Top Gear only and occasional news. |
|
| said by jap:The BBC content quality has slowly declined while US has risen .........
WTF??!???!?
Now that's funny, dude. |
|
firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to jap
said by jap:The license fee is a deal for most but not at all if you watch very little TV - like say Top Gear only and occasional news.
The UK gov't or BBC could probably bring in a fair amount of revenue if they offered worldwide licences for access to content online. I know some of their content makes it to BBC America channel but a good amount is only available to a lot of people via file sharing.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | said by firephoto:The UK gov't or BBC could probably bring in a fair amount of revenue if they offered worldwide licences for access to content online. I know some of their content makes it to BBC America channel but a good amount is only available to a lot of people via file sharing. Excellent point on the intl webstream though I suspect there are territorial agreements between countries that would need to be overcome. Probably different terms in each country with every show needing to be price negotiated. Might be why we haven't seen it.
A co-worker claims BBC America sux in content selection and is re-edited & dumbed down for the US audience. And, yeah, it's very poorly distributed. Mostly satellite last I knew. |
|
japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:said by jap:The BBC content quality has slowly declined while US has risen ......... WTF??!???!? Now that's funny, dude. Yeah, I get ya on the waves of crap but no way we could have produced The Wire or Rubicon previous to the mid 1990s. I think the studios recognize there's a market for more challenging content and they've stepped up. I'm old enough to remember when All In The Family was the brainy stuff.
News, using the term very loosely, has gone completely to shit. Our coverage was once something to be proud of now it's a damaging laughing stock. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to KrK
said by KrK:Are you advocating the position that people on their own time watching shows they recorded should be forced to watch something they have no interest in?
Not having to watch commercials is a major reason to record and watch later.
That, and you watch an hour long show in 40 minutes....
Since when do you have a "right" to TV in the first place? I guess I should have to pay for a meal at a restuarant because I don't want to. how dare that ask for money. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to travelguy
said by travelguy:said by BF69:Well if people aren't watching commercials then advertisers will ask for lower rates or stop advertising all together and then the networks won't have the money to put on new shows. Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. Advertisers do not pay for recorded ads. The reason is they have no idea how often an ad is watched on recorded media and they pay by impression - the number of viewers that watch an ad. Sorry but ad rates for TV are based on audience. If advertisers know that the audience is skipping the commercials that's proof FEWER eyeballs are potentially watching the ads. If FEWER people are watching they can demand lower rates.
Put it this way if YOU were trying to advertise on TV would you pay $1 mil if you KNEW that 95% of the people were skipping the commercials? Of course not. Why do you assume that advertisers are so stupid that they would? |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to NeoandGeo
said by NeoandGeo:said by BF69:People that think they should get 100% free TV with no advertising live in fantasyland.
If you have advertising the content should be free, no advertising and you should pay. And network programming IS free. All you need is an antenna. If one is stupid enough to pay cable or satellite get something they can get for free that's on them. Also there is Hulu which is free. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to BF69
said by BF69:Since when do you have a "right" to TV in the first place? I guess I should have to pay for a meal at a restuarant because I don't want to. how dare that ask for money.
Ah, trying to change the topic. I accept your surrender then.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
| reply to BF69
I'm just saying how it should be. Don't get worked up. |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:Sorry but ad rates for TV are based on audience. If advertisers know that the audience is skipping the commercials that's proof FEWER eyeballs are potentially watching the ads. If FEWER people are watching they can demand lower rates. That's true as a generality, but not how the industry works. TV ad prices are based on Live CPM - cost per thousand viewers at the time the ad is aired. Some rating agencies generate ratings for Live +1, Live +2, Live +3, etc., reflecting the viewings by day after the initial airing, but that isn't what the price is based on. |
|
| reply to firephoto
They also pay a TV licenses in the UK. |
|
