dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1979
share rss forum feed
« wth
page: 1 · 2 · next


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

2 recommendations

Just a question

It obvious people wish commercials would just go away. Ok so then how do shows get made? Are networks in the business to provide free entertainment for the masses just to be nice? I'm asking a serious question so serious replies only. People don't get is if they did away with commercials you TV bill would be 5 times than it is now. Shit is going to get paid for one way or another the sooner people get this concept the better.


JigglyWiggly

join:2009-07-12
Pleasanton, CA
no
we already pay the cable bill

either that or just netflix


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to 88615298
Absolutly not. Television (just as most of the web) is an advertizing driven medium.
not only would TV bills be higher (5x is very low) inovative shows would cease to be tried.
NObody would risk money on anything that wasn't strickly low cost formula crap.


axiomatic

join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX
reply to 88615298
I agree with your argument but there is a gray area in play as well. The networks and advertisers have to somehow prove that commercials actually represent the reason someone goes and buys a product advertised on TV. At best commercials make you aware that a product exists but in no way (with the amount of online information on a product) does is sway anyone's decision to buy that particular widget over a competitors same widget.

I think the commercials need to stay. They are the source of a lot of shows production capital. However I also do not see a problem with commercial skip as even the Comcast DVR has a Fast Forward button that I use when I am not in the mood to "shop" during an episode of NCIS.

And then there is the "I can do something else" argument of going to the bathroom during commercials or surfing the internet on a laptop during commercials... sure the commercial ran, but it had no discernible affect on my buying habits as it was just background white-noise.

I think choice is best. Anything else punishes someone on either side of the argument.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to JigglyWiggly
said by JigglyWiggly:

either that or just netflix

And where will netflix get MOST of what they show?

Angrychair

join:2000-09-20
Jacksonville, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to 88615298
No need for the false dichotomy, bud. Either networks adapt, trim their costs, use a different style of advertising (personally I find the sports broadcast style of briefly mentioning the sponsor much better than having to watch five minutes of commercials for ever four minutes of programming), or contract the market until it's sustainable.

No need for those involved in the entertainment industry to be multimillionaires. They can either accept making less money or move on.


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·Comcast
reply to axiomatic
said by axiomatic:

The networks and advertisers have to somehow prove that commercials actually represent the reason someone goes and buys a product advertised on TV.

More & more I find myself making mental notes about what NOT to purchase based on intrusive, asinine, pointless annoying advertisements.

Broadcasters and service providers have the right to insert annoying advertizing in the content they provide ... it's their network, they can do with it as they may. They can run it into the ground with stupid commercials for all I care.

However, they should be aware of and ready to deal with the backlash of a growing contingent of people like myself who are fed up with the increasing advertizing that we are inundated with, day in and day out, hour by hour, minute by minute.

I, for one, have chosen to closely consider that annoying, intrusive, asinine, pointless commercial ... shown over & over & over & over ... as one of the criteria under which I will make my purchasing decisions.

Basically, if an advertiser annoys me with a commercial for his/her product, they may not achieve the result they intended ... quite the opposite in fact.

I will also make use of any and all available current technology to avoid being annoyed by these stupid commercials. Advertisers may, in fact, want to THANK me for avoiding their drivel, thereby maintaining consideration for their product when making my purchasing decisions.

ThereYouAre

join:2003-11-17
reply to 88615298
There is no requirement that someone watching a TV show over the air has to sit and watch commercials; they can do other things rather than watch. The advertisers are paying for the opportunity for an audience to see their commercials, not a guarantee. So if I'm able to leave the room or just fast-forward over the commercials, the end result is the same... I don't see them. Some people will sit and watch even if the skip technology is at their fingertips.

I suspect the number of people who actually watch the commercials will be about the same.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to JigglyWiggly
Ah, but the cable bill only covers part of the costs. If you want advertisement free programming (i.e., HBO, Showtime, etc.) it comes at a premium. Are the masses prepared to pay extra money for Mythbusters, DWTS, SVU, NCIS, Ice Road Truckers and the litany of other shows that aren't produced by the premium channels? If the answer is 'No' then why should the many (people without DVRs) subsidize the few (people with DVRs)?

Mind you, I don't think DVRs are or should be illegal. It's just a thought exercise: If people aren't willing to pay HBO prices for original programming AND refuse to even pretend to watch advertisements (remember the days of running to the fridge during a commercial break?) how does original programming get produced?

If you were given a free hand to run a major cable channel or one of the big networks how would you change the business model to remain viable in an advertisement free environment while still continuing to produce quality programming at the prices currently being charged?

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to JigglyWiggly
I'm not sure the cable bill fully funds the content providers. It used to when there were just a few broadcast networks. Before the Internet killed print media, recall that there used to be a magazine for every every sport, hobby or special interest. Today there's a video channel for a lot of special interests. Most cannot support themselves purely on advertising because they don't have enough viewers so they get a reach-around from the cable company and advertising dollars to make ends meet.

While this may be a PITA, we should pay the cable company for their network and we should SEPARATELY pay the content providers for their content. If you like sports network, buy all you want. If you like science programs, buy all you want. Love to watch game-show reruns? Buy all you want. Just cannot live without Oprah's network? Buy it.

Of course this will work best when the network folks just accept that the consumer wants them to deliver bits and the content providers get a direct relationship with their consumers.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to 88615298
From the other customers that don't use the technology and from the money I already send the providers on a monthly basis. Also from the massive increase in retrans fees they hit the providers with. The commercials are still there, I just chose to not watch them.


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
reply to Angrychair
said by Angrychair:

No need for those involved in the entertainment industry to be multibillionaires. They can either accept making less money or move on.

There.. I fixed it for you.

i2Fuzzy

join:2009-02-25
Fort Worth, TX
reply to ThereYouAre
And this is the argument exactly that needs to be made in the courtroom.

Not "No need for those involved in the entertainment industry to be multimillionaires."

Not "More & more I find myself making mental notes about what NOT to purchase based on intrusive, asinine, pointless annoying advertisements."
--
Ali
Check Point Certified Security Expert


dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

It obvious people wish commercials would just go away. Ok so then how do shows get made? Are networks in the business to provide free entertainment for the masses just to be nice? I'm asking a serious question so serious replies only. People don't get is if they did away with commercials you TV bill would be 5 times than it is now. Shit is going to get paid for one way or another the sooner people get this concept the better.

If there was no FF on provider dvr's, i bet there'd be only a fraction of the people paying for dvr's.

and this is no different than what hopper does but hopper only does it 3 hours out of the 24 hour day and ONLY on fox, abc, cbs, nbc and NOT the same day they air!!1

how many products i've bought based on a ad i saw on TV: 0


UHF
All static, all day, Forever
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-24
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·Callcentric
·Dish Network
reply to axiomatic
said by axiomatic:

The networks and advertisers have to somehow prove that commercials actually represent the reason someone goes and buys a product advertised on TV.

The point isn't necessarily to sway you to buy that item right then and there. It's about awareness. Decades ago I talked to an ad person from the local newspaper, she called it "Top of mind awareness". It didn't matter what the content of the ad was, as long as it caught the readers eye and made them aware of the store in question. And through multiple insertions of the ad, it helped push awareness to the top of the consumers mind when they were in the market for our products and services.

Does Apple really believe that there's anyone that isn't aware of the iPhone? Nope. But by constantly running "iPhones are cool" ads, it brings the iphone to the top of peoples mind when they decide to get a smart phone.

mogamer

join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

It obvious people wish commercials would just go away. Ok so then how do shows get made? Are networks in the business to provide free entertainment for the masses just to be nice? I'm asking a serious question so serious replies only. People don't get is if they did away with commercials you TV bill would be 5 times than it is now. Shit is going to get paid for one way or another the sooner people get this concept the better.

You still using this tired argument? Like I said previously (and of course you never replied to), when you take into account product placement, dvd/bd sales, disc rentals, streaming, on demand and re-trans fees, there is plenty of income being generated. Maybe if production companies worked more economically and also held down the salaries of management and actors, they wouldn't be so desperate to stop new technology.

Angrychair

join:2000-09-20
Jacksonville, FL
reply to Simba7
Thank you.


jazzlady

join:2005-08-04
Tannersville, PA
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

It obvious people wish commercials would just go away. Ok so then how do shows get made? Are networks in the business to provide free entertainment for the masses just to be nice? I'm asking a serious question so serious replies only. People don't get is if they did away with commercials you TV bill would be 5 times than it is now. Shit is going to get paid for one way or another the sooner people get this concept the better.

I can live with commercials. I understand they are a necessary evil.

What I can't live with is the frequency of the commercial breaks. In some 1 hour shows I have seen up to 8 breaks. At times there is only 4 minutes of the show in between breaks. This is terrible for the continuity of a program.

CNN and MSNBC also have another trick they play, which irks the living shit out of me. They will go to break, then come back for 10 or 15 seconds, then go back to another commercial break. The other night CNN did this FOUR times in a row and I finally just changed the channel.

I dislike when the same commercial is shown twice, or even 3 times during the same break, and I really, really hate it when the commercials are twice as loud as the program you were watching, necessitating a hasty reach for the remote to press the mute button.

Maybe we all have to live with commercials, but there ought to be some limits and they don't have to be as aggravating as they currently are.
--
“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Sinclair Lewis


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to JigglyWiggly
said by JigglyWiggly:

no
we already pay the cable bill

either that or just netflix

You aren't paying the true cost of running a TV channel or producing programming, otherwise you'd be paying $10-$15 per channel.

b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?

join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..

1 recommendation

reply to Crookshanks
Truthfully the shows you mentioned should not even be on the air. I would be willing to lose 99% of the crap that is on cable for having the remaining 1% be commercial free.
--
Bellingham Scanner Kicks Ass! »bhamscanner.kicks-ass.org/


coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to Crookshanks
quote:
...Ah, but the cable bill only covers part of the costs. If you want advertisement free programming (i.e., HBO, Showtime, etc.) it comes at a premium. Are the masses prepared to pay extra money for Mythbusters, DWTS, SVU, NCIS, Ice Road Truckers and the litany of other shows that aren't produced by the premium channels? If the answer is 'No' then why should the many (people without DVRs) subsidize the few (people with DVRs)?...
If I get to select what channels I get ala cart and not have other channels thrown in to add to the cost, then I would be willing to pay extra for those channels I select in my personal line-up. I would even pay a little more over that for the ability to change that line-up on the fly whenever I want to as I go without penalties.

Give me what I want, when I want it and I will do the math and decide. I don't need the cable/sat companies doing the math for me. Put the channel list out there with the price for each channel and we can talk - otherwise, the push-back will get stronger with no one winning in the end...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC


iamwhatiam

@verizon.net
reply to 88615298
Since the cost of advertising is included in the price of EVERTHING we all buy, why should we feel a need to actually watch ANY of that advertising unless we so choose?


Dezbend
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-20
reply to 88615298
OP’s premise. The cost of producing television is partially offset by revenue from commercials, and they are a necessary element of the business model.

Given: time given to commercials in the US has doubled since 1960.
Given: time given to commercials in UK (I could use almost any European country as a substitute for this point) is on average 7 minutes per hour (more than double the US average)

Conclusion: It costs more to make programming now than in the past, and it costs more to make programming in America than in Europe.

Corollary: Australia has more commercial time than America per hour, so it costs even more to produce television down under.

Alternate conclusion: the cost of creating programming has remained neutral over time and location, but American companies have used commercials to increase profit margins.

Note: European countries do have government and private channels competing, and the government channels are subsidized, so they don’t need as much commercial revenue.

I think, that if there were 7-9 minutes of commercials per hour, the demand for commercial skipping technology would be lower, and Dish would not have invested money in developing the hopper.

I think there are valid reasons to believe either conclusion I presented, and most likely the answer is a mix of them, but maybe it is time for the industry to reduce costs and shrink profit margins instead of fighting technology.
--
DSLr Mafia Member

bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY
Reviews:
·TowerStream
time given to commercials in UK (I could use almost any European country as a substitute for this point) is on average 7 minutes per hour (more than double the US average)
++++++++++++++++++

I call bullsh!t. In the USA a 60 minute NCIS episode is 42 minutes long. That is 18 minutes of commercials - more than TWICE the European average.


GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
I call typo (aka brain fart)--think he meant it the other way around (from reading the rest of the post)?


cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
reply to 88615298
Executive Producers, Angel Investors, VS Investors, Speculators, Funding Groups.

I suppose films may accept advertising (placement, promotions,...) but under bias favoring the film studio, not always the advertiser*. And advertising isn't always global.
Now, since we see a blurred-line with media companies that are also owned/partnered with conglomerates that benefit from advertising/insertion/product placement one can say that a film is sponsored/funded by x advertiser.
Independents can get a film made cheap, but its the next big thing that gets more money and tie-in with advertisers.

I am guessing that home viewing is the last revenue of a film's life. Theatrical release, then secondary, then media (DVD/BluRay), then edited for TV. Not even factoring in export markets, sequels, licensing...
Commercials are more for funding the channel operator than the show (unless broadcast, again, channel operator/broadcaster).

*I've seen some products blacked out in films/shows because the product manufacturer would not pay to have placement. Where now many would grab at chance to have their laptop/camera/phone gain advertising, it comes at a cost, and not cheap.
(for every exposure of said product(s), $ amount to be debited)

A humorous example of not being able to get product placement is 1984 Repo Man (M Nesmith). Products in store that stock boys moved were labeled plain: beer, soda, chips...I read that the only sponsor was the Air Freshener and they plugged it with "You'll find one of these in every car your repo"...holding up the pine tree air freshener...
--
Splat

b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?

join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..

1 edit
reply to ThereYouAre
said by ThereYouAre:

There is no requirement that someone watching a TV show over the air has to sit and watch commercials;

Some television executives would argue differently.

Back in 2006 Jamie Kellner is the chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting, which encompasses everything from CNN to TNT and is a part of AOL Time Warner. On Monday, an interview with Kellner appeared in CableWorld.

In response to a question on why personal video recorders (PVR's) were bad for the industry, Kellner responded: "Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming."
--
Bellingham Scanner Kicks Ass! »bhamscanner.kicks-ass.org/


GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
More evidence that network execs are delusional.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to 88615298

Re: Just a question - Inflated

The other day I looked @ CBS 2011 10-k and it clearly showed that 60% of their revenue came from advertising. With that said the current broadcast market is not efficient and even if they didn't unbundle or have commercials the MOST your bill would go up 2x -- assuming no model change (which isn't gonna happen).

On top of that a VAST majority of said revenues come from the top 5 primetime shows and SPORTS which can stream commercials. So say 25% of that remains for the rest of the budget.

This is for networks w/ live sports, obviously. For the cable ones that don't have it the question remains is well are you a viable entity?

So 4 networks/cablecos own almost all the channels so they are aggregators right off the bat.

So to make the market efficient, unbundle and that would automatically sort out the BROADCAST viability immediately. If it lacks muster on broadcast, then it can go to a second tier (web, netflix, etc), or to a third tier (youtube, etc) with a impression model.

Perfect example is Arrested Dev. Failed on broadcast, Netflix is picking it up WITH NO COMMERCIALS.

The point is that commercials are not a given, and the traditional broadcast medium while spectrum-efficient it is a poor method for delivering content as needed.

They are asking us to do what they were doing 60 years ago in front of a radio broadcast-- Gather up the family like drones, sit in front of the tube, and passively watch content and commercials.

And for that matter -- look @ radio. Not charged a dime, and I can switch the channel and no goons come to get me.

Inefficient radio stations come and go. There is always someone lined up to take that radio license and fill the gap. Welcome to competition.


GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
reply to b10010011

Re: Just a question

Manufacturer has a product. Manufacturer pays advertiser to promote product. Advertiser pays broadcaster to air commercials. Advertiser charges manufacturer for cost of commercials. Manufacturer includes cost of advertising in price of product. Consumers ultimately pay all costs related to advertising and, of course, manufacture and distribution of product.

Well, since we--the consumers--are ultimately paying for it... how exactly can we be "stealing" it?

No, what broadcasters are really afraid of is manufacuturers finding out that the money they're spending for promotion/advertising has next to no effect most of the time. Talk about the money train coming to a screeching halt...