Topic 'Re: Just a question' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: Just a question

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:47:38 EDT

GlennAllen posted : The last report I saw said:

broadcast TV (networks/stations) -- about 90% of revenue was from advertising**
cable TV -- about 50% of revenue was from advertising
(**where else would they get money)

I can't say how accurate the report is, but I have no reason to dispute it... sounds "logical" to me.

Re: Just a question

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:23:45 EDT

tshirt posted :

said by UncleDirtNap:

There's really some very fundamental economics in play here that the media companies don't want people to realize so they can continue to reap billions is forced subsidies for the crap they produce that nobody watches.

The really fundamental economics are that there is NOTHING on TV that NOBODY watches.
There are people that ENJOY 1 hour long infomercials and look how many shopping networks there are making money hand over fist.

Re: Just a question

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:16:39 EDT

tshirt posted :

said by UncleDirtNap:

The are five major companies that produce the vast majority of the content currently on TV/CATV/SATV and they earn 60% of their revenue from CATV and SATV customer bills. It's simply a fact and ad revenue makes up a very small portion of their overall revenue.

If that were true, WHY subject people to ads at all?
Certainly they could EXTRACT higher CATV fees if it was totally ad free.
CATV pays SOME of the production cost, and Some of the money CATV earns is from advertisers for inserted ads, that is shows are designed with a couple of blank spaces for the local station or cable provider to place ads they sold which was to help defray the local costs of broadcast or running the local cable plant.

the show itself is paid for by the network that orders episodes based on selling the remaining ad spaces.
certainly you can remember when a show or an actor did something controvertial which caused a sponser to with draw, sometimes killing an otherwise popular show in the process.

the content producer gets money from the network, from advertisers (for product placements), and if sucessful, reruns and DVD's, streaming fees, etc.
It takes ALL those things to make it a big financial sucess.
But it starts advertisers will to pay the networks and the network willing to buy shows quite a few of which will not last beyong a pilot plus 8 (about the minmum order for 1/2 hours because startup costs are so high) and it takes a network ad buy to get anything started.

The reason you only see five major companies at the top end is the networks won't throw money at a small company on their own, fearing they won't have the money or other resources to complete a project on time.

Re: Just a question

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:34:20 EDT

coldmoon posted :

quote:
For national interested stories... Totally. But you aren't seeing the same reporters reporting on local interest stories....

No, local stations are consolidating nation-wide and it is a real problem already:

»www.savethenews.org/blog/12/05/2···and-rise
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC

Re: Just a question

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:52:53 EDT

miscDude posted :

said by coldmoon:

For national interested stories... Totally. But you aren't seeing the same reporters reporting on local interest stories. You don't see a ton of cooperation between the ABC and NBC Affiliate in your local market when reporting on a story at your local state capital, or at the local police department.

You do however tend to see sharing between local TV and Radio stations... often which may even be owned by the same parent company. (Your ClearChannel owned TV station news and weather guys on your local ClearChannel owned radio station giving news/weather updates).

said by coldmoon:

With tough times comes opportunity. Opportunity for pain as well, but without it you get no change and no progress. Also note that there is just too much crap out there already in the cable/sat world with most channels running re-runs of the same stuff over and over (sort of like having to watch CNN Headline news more than once). And having FEWER program choices may work to improve the quality of the stuff that survives with the resultant savings and concentration of talent to make that content even better.

You see lead, I see some silver in that lining...

I totally agree that in the cable environment there is a lot of room for improvement and even some room for contraction. the Big media companies (Including the national broadcast network owners) have a lot of flexibility which they can use to adjust to the changing marketplace.... even if it means a painful contraction in their size.

my whole point though is about the local broadcast station which are your local network affiliates. These guys don't have that flexibility. They don't have 30 channels of programming that can be easily shrunk to 5 because of constant repeats.

My point is that this is a dangerous thing for the local broadcasters because the potential advertising revenue loss is going to hit them a whole lot harder than it would the much larger cable channel conglomerates. As a potential worst case scenario, we could even see enough free-to-air broadcasters go under that the days of Free Over-the-air TV would be gone. While the networks themselves will undoubtedly adapt and survive, We need to keep in mind what the end of the local affiliate channel could impact.

Re: Just a question

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:04:16 EDT

coldmoon posted :

quote:
...1. Cut costs. This could be simply a major cut in funding for the locally produced content such as News/traffic/sports.... Or it could be a decision to eliminate the extra overhead required to broadcast their channel free-to-air. [power for transmitters and transmission equiptment are not cheap]...

While this cost may have been large in the past with a unique staff at each channel, a great number of local stations around the country have consolidated this so the stories you see reported (not the anchors) are exactly the same from the same reporters regardless of which affiliate station you are watching.

This is accelerating and is getting a great deal of backlash, but all the same it is happening and I suspect there would potentially be greater consolidation in other areas as well with time and changes in regulations.

With tough times comes opportunity. Opportunity for pain as well, but without it you get no change and no progress. Also note that there is just too much crap out there already in the cable/sat world with most channels running re-runs of the same stuff over and over (sort of like having to watch CNN Headline news more than once). And having FEWER program choices may work to improve the quality of the stuff that survives with the resultant savings and concentration of talent to make that content even better.

You see lead, I see some silver in that lining...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC

Re: Just a question

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:21:02 EDT

miscDude posted : Ugh.... Ok, Here's some facts, and also some opinion on what I see happening here.

1. Currently Dish is only attempting to do this with the Big 4 Networks. I believe in large part, this is due to them having a better chance of defending the product because of the impression most people have of "It's free Over the Air, so why should I pay anything for it.". Also the OTA broadcast retransmissions aren't likely to have near the same level of complicated contracts in place that would prevent the option on the tech levels.

2. The Broadcasters/networks/Cable companies are fighting this in large part because of the possibility it could easily expand outside the big 4 broadcast networks if it is deemed Legal, which would have a VERY REAL impact on the way Content is produced and delivered today.

Now here's what most people don't seem to grasp as far as the ecosystem for broadcast stations, and why this is EXTREMELY dangerous for everyone at this point. At this point, I'm only going to reference the OTA networks which are DIRECTLY impacted by Dish's current Deployment.

Yes.... Currently NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX are available in most areas completely free via OTA transmissions if you have some rabbit ears on your TV. The reason it's available free has traditionally been because the costs to produce the content, and also keep your local broadcast station online, has been covered via Advertising.

For the Networks themselves, They received their income (to pay for the production of the content) via both National Advertising, and fees payed to them by the local market stations in order to join that network.

For the local broadcasters, They received their income exclusively by Advertising. This had to cover all the costs associated with keeping the station physically on the air, To pay for aquired content (Syndicated shows, Network access), and to even have and produce the local content (Local news, Sports, traffic, etc) that people desire.

For years now the money that broadcasters can charge for advertising has been declining. This is due to both the competition for eyeballs from Cable networks, as well as the ability to fast forward thru commercials starting with VCR's, and now DVR/PVR's. This is one reason for the increase in commercial time (More ads to make up for the fact each ad costs less now), and also why local channels have had to start demanding retransmission fees from cable/Sat companies in order to gain an additional income stream.

If you've noticed, most ads now feature the product or company name much more prominently during the ad. One reason why is because you are still much more likely to notice the ad/company name while fast forwarding. They can still get that impression, so broadcasters can still claim it as a viewer when setting their ad rates. If you can instantly skip past the ads however, Then they lose that ability to claim you as an impression which in turn means another further decline in the amount they can charge for that ad.

Currently, the majority of the advertising revenue the local stations have been receiving comes from the ad time they get during the prime time network programming, since that's when most people watch TV. If you remove the ability for the Local broadcast station to claim that as a viewer, then they lose an even larger amount of income. As a direct result, The LOCAL station is going to have to make some big decisions on how to react to the lost income stream... Which is pretty much going to come down to 2 choices:

1. Cut costs. This could be simply a major cut in funding for the locally produced content such as News/traffic/sports.... Or it could be a decision to eliminate the extra overhead required to broadcast their channel free-to-air. [power for transmitters and transmission equiptment are not cheap]

2. Increase the amount of income thru other sources.... such as a drastic increase in retransmission fees charged to MSO's.

Either way, It'll have some major ripple effects most people may not realize on the local level. It could simply be another major contributor to your cable bill going up (Imagine the impact if your local networks jump from $.10 per sub they may be charging the cable company now, to over $1 per sub. Multiply that for each local network you get.).... Or it could be your local network affiliate either deciding to completely eliminate their Free OTA broadcast (so much for having access when cutting the cord), Shutting down entirely (Can no longer afford to maintain business) Or eliminating their local news production costs (Lots of labor savings there if you remove all the local production facilities and talent).

IF they eliminate the news, You have to wonder where are you going to get you local news/weather/traffic information? Newspapers around the country are already folding because of declining revenues, so if you then eliminate the TV stations, there isn't really anybody left. [lots of radio stations partner with a TV station's news dept]. I doubt Fox News/CNN/MSNBC are going to cover the story of the string of local burglaries.

If they eliminate the entire station, or just the local OTA signal, It then becomes a question on how are you going to get access to that content? Any hope of cutting the cord and still having access to it is gone. And For MSO's, It brings up a very real question on if they would still be required to go thru the local channel, or if they may be able to sign a deal directly with the network itself for access to the network programming (which again, eliminates your ability to get local news/weather). It'd definitely be easier for an MSO to worry about 1 contract with the network instead of hundreds of contracts currently for each individual broadcast station. They would also likely get a better rate because of the volume of viewers nationwide instead of in each system/area.

So seriously, Think about this situation objectively. Remember, this currently has nothing to do with the hundreds of cable channels and bundling practices of the big media companies. It's DIRECTLY impacting the local stations and the traditional big broadcast networks. If it was just the cable channels, the big media companies have the scale to survive....even if it means a drastic reduction in content and channels as well as a change in the way they do business. For most of the local broadcasters who are the network affiliates however, They don't have anywhere near that scale.

(On the plus side.... If broadcast stations start going under or stopping their OTA broadcasts, Then that would free up a ton of bandwidth the FCC could then sell to Verizon/AT&T/T-Mobile/Sprint/etc so that you can get charged $10/gig for your smartphone data. ;) )

Re: Just a question

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:31:09 EDT

GlennAllen posted : Thanks to this "bargain", everything we buy costs 10 times more than it should. (OK, I exaggerate... but only a little.)

Re: Just a question

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:16:22 EDT

fifty nine posted :

said by UncleDirtNap:

Not even close to being accurate or true. The cost of any one channel would be a function of how many people are willing to pay to watch it. It's no different than any other product or service. If a channel has many people willing to pay for it the cost of production is split by many more customers.

There's really some very fundamental economics in play here that the media companies don't want people to realize so they can continue to reap billions is forced subsidies for the crap they produce that nobody watches.

That's wrong. There are several FIXED costs and this business is stupendously expensive. You people don't realize what a bargain you're getting...

Re: Just a question - Inflated

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:00:57 EDT

UncleDirtNap posted : Understand the racket first:

»www.howcableshouldbe.com/Racket.cfm

Re: Just a question

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:48:56 EDT

UncleDirtNap posted : Ads are NOT a necessary evil, they not necessary at all.

The media companies tell you this because they are the beneficiaries of a government maintained system that directs billions in revenues to them that they could not ever earn if they had to compete like other products and services are required to do and they are deathly afraid that people are getting wise to their scam.

No other business functions in an environment or engages the same practices as the media companies do and those that have tried have ended up punished by government regulators.

Re: Just a question

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:39:35 EDT

UncleDirtNap posted : Not a single word of what you wrote is true. The facts are not in dispute but the media companies that are profiting from the current system want people to believe they are so they can continue the scam that is lining their pockets.

The are five major companies that produce the vast majority of the content currently on TV/CATV/SATV and they earn 60% of their revenue from CATV and SATV customer bills. It's simply a fact and ad revenue makes up a very small portion of their overall revenue.

These are all publicly traded companies, their financials are a matter of public record and they've been poured over by every concerned group from government regulators to consumer protection groups.

The media companies are lying through their teeth to protect the current systems that allows them to reap billions they could not otherwise extract from consumers.

Re: Just a question

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:29:34 EDT

UncleDirtNap posted : There is no gray area here what so ever, this is econ 101. In order to produce a TV broadcast there are fixed costs (production studios, sets, equipment, licensing fees etc) and variable costs (labor costs, taxes, utilities etc) it will cost X to produce a series of shows on a channel, the more people willing to pay for the channel the LOWER the channel will cost, the fewer the higher.

Based on the current viewership ratings of existing channels it would probably cost the 18 people who still watch MSNBC and CNN about $750,000 a month if they want to continue to do so, about 1.4 billion per customer for OWN and Current to stay on the air and $3.50 for ESPN, FX and A&E

Re: Just a question

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:19:37 EDT

UncleDirtNap posted : Not even close to being accurate or true. The cost of any one channel would be a function of how many people are willing to pay to watch it. It's no different than any other product or service. If a channel has many people willing to pay for it the cost of production is split by many more customers.

There's really some very fundamental economics in play here that the media companies don't want people to realize so they can continue to reap billions is forced subsidies for the crap they produce that nobody watches.

Re: Just a question

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:15:07 EDT

UncleDirtNap posted : Sorry but it's not even an open question. CATV/SATV not only fully funds content providers for the shows and channels people actually watch it provides billions in subsidizes for the companies to create content virtually nobody watches.

»www.howcableshouldbe.com

Re: Just a question

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:12:49 EDT

UncleDirtNap posted : No actually cable bills cover 100% of the cost of those shows people actually watch. Through forced bundling on consumers the media companies the produce the content on TV/CATV/SATV actually generate enough revenue to produce by subsidy hundreds of others nobody actually cares about.

The average SATV/CATV customers only watches about 12 of the hundreds of channels they're forced to pay for under the current scam being operated by media companies.

»www.howcableshouldbe.com

Re: Just a question

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:08:39 EDT

UncleDirtNap posted : The five major media companies that produce 90% of the content on TV get 60% of their revenue from CATV and SATV subscriptions. Since numerous studies and surveys show that the average customer only watches about 12 of the hundreds of channels that are force bundled on them it would seem that not only to consumers want commercials to go away they'd like the vast majority of the shows they interrupt to go away as well.

Shows SHOULD get made the same way music, movies, plays and just about every other product gets made... you come up with a concept, you produce it and then offer it for sale to the public. If they like and want it they give you money for it. If you don't you try another won. If they don't like those consider another career.

Not really very complicated.

»www.howcableshouldbe.com

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 21:27:00 EDT

KrK posted : The average US 1 hour TV show is about 1/3rd commercials. It's getting to be around 40 minutes programming and 20 minutes commercials.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 21:23:15 EDT

KrK posted : Better chain people to the couch...

If they get up, they are dirty filthy thieves!

The executives that think this way are obviously huge fans of corporatism and fascism, and obviously hate freedom and choice.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 21:18:10 EDT

KrK posted : Sorry, continuing to be obtuse, I see. The shows are recorded on a service that pays retransmission fees and licensing fees... and provided to paying consumers. The shows are watched long after they were aired. There is no logical reason to claim that people should be banned from skipping commercials and should be required to watch them.

The money's been made. "Shit" has already been paid for.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 20:20:53 EDT

joako posted : So they should sell the content for the correct price. Currently it is sold at one price. Maybe as you suggest there could be one price for DVR and another for non-DVR programming. Arguably that already happens with the typical DVR fees running $20/month per DVR including bogus fees such as "digital access fee" or "mirroring fee."
--
PRescott7-2097

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 19:37:42 EDT

balur posted :

said by coldmoon:

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...

This. If I could pay for HBO HD without having to pay for Basic, digital, premium, hd, and hd plus as well... I'd pay for HBO (and Stars HD, Space HD, Teletoon, and the main american networks...) and that's it.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 19:17:20 EDT

GlennAllen posted : I tend to think the opposite will happen; but anything's possible--vast wasteland and all. With any luck, cosmic forces will put an end to our misery before we have a chance to destroy ourselves. ;)

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 19:15:57 EDT

Calculata posted : Who said anything about removing the commercials completely. All people want to do is skip them, which is what all of us do anyway other than when it is the super bowl.

Bottom line is there is limited options.

Option 1. Create better ads that make we want to watch them. I know interactive ads have failed, but try again.

Option 2. Advertisers need to stop repeating the same ads again and again. Change it up.

Option 3. Content providers seperate their programming from Dish and get selective about who they provide there programming too.

Option 4. Dish Networks gets into the business of providing good content by a merger or independently to compete and eliminate the existing hold content providers have over these shows.

Option 5. Torrents take over the world and every program is free. LOL

Option 6. Youtube and sites like it make a giant leap of faith and start slinging there user generated content around, eventually eroding the strangle hold existing content providers have over us.

Did I miss anything ???????????!!!

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 19:13:33 EDT

tshirt posted : More like 6 more reality shows with Donald Trump footing the bill, attempting to prove he's smarter then a fifthgrader.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 19:12:16 EDT

GlennAllen posted : Also, there used to be a time when actors were paid what they were worth--meaning they had enough to eat and a bed to sleep in. If my "choices" get reduced by having an economy based on what we produce instead of what we promote, then so be it. I can live with that.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 19:08:47 EDT

GlennAllen posted : What happens? ...less chaff, more wheat.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 19:07:07 EDT

tshirt posted : Through the second paragraph I thought" here someone who actually gets it'
even the third paragraph has a point.

BUT, once the giant teat is yanked from the mouths of advertisers, and they can't pay content producers, what drives that industry? Who funds the content producer on a RELIABLE enough basis to make more than one episode/risk millions on a season? or 10's-100's millions on a movie?
Yes it's expensive, inefficient, and at times wasteful and stupid.
but the huge amount of money is why we have the choices we do.

On the otherside Joe's Mfg. builds a widget which everyone MUST have Fred builds a better widget but most won't even try it, so Fred cuts the price to only 10% profit.
Do you think Joe will drop to match the price model? or will he take advatage of the popularity and go for the highest price most will pay?

And most important did joe price his widget lower to start BECAUSE he didn't pay for advertising.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 18:45:21 EDT

Boricua65 posted :

said by BF69:

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.

A long, long time ago...in a galaxy so far away...cable once were without commercials. Yes, it was mostly commercial free. This was back in the 80s when cable was for the elite. When it became more for the masses is when it became commercialized, hence the annual rate hikes without any benefits.
--
Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian. Robert Orben

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 15:58:22 EDT

GlennAllen posted : 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...

Re: Just a question - Inflated

Thu, 31 May 2012 15:51:32 EDT

elefante72 posted : 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.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 15:41:44 EDT

GlennAllen posted : More evidence that network execs are delusional.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 15:39:35 EDT

b10010011 posted :

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/

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 15:20:45 EDT

cableties posted : 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... :D
--
Splat

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 15:18:25 EDT

GlennAllen posted : I call typo (aka brain fart)--think he meant it the other way around (from reading the rest of the post)?

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 15:08:47 EDT

bn1221 posted : 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.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 14:34:10 EDT

Dezbend posted : 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

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 14:26:16 EDT

anon posted : 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?

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 14:25:00 EDT

coldmoon posted :

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

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 14:21:26 EDT

b10010011 posted : 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/

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 14:14:50 EDT

fifty nine posted :

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.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 14:10:08 EDT

jazzlady posted :

said by BF69:

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

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 13:41:44 EDT

Angrychair posted : Thank you.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 13:38:26 EDT

mogamer posted :

said by BF69:

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.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 13:30:15 EDT

UHF posted :

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.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 13:13:58 EDT

dvd536 posted :

said by BF69:

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

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 13:13:15 EDT

i2Fuzzy posted : 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

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 13:04:04 EDT

Simba7 posted :

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.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 12:56:17 EDT

ptrowski posted : 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.

Re: Just a question

Thu, 31 May 2012 12:38:28 EDT

rradina posted : 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.