dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
201

SpottedCat
join:2004-06-27
Miami, FL

SpottedCat

Member

I don't get it.

Okay, I don't get it. Someone educate me.

I always thought TV stations and networks wanted to get as many viewers as possible, because the more eyeballs see your ads, the more advertisers are willing to pay for time on your channel/network?

Why wouldn't CBS want EVERYONE to receive their channel as easily as possible?

Am I missing something here? Ratings are so damn important for TV networks and shows, yet here they seem to be blocking people from watching CBS on purpose.

What the everloving f**k??

anon_anon
@comcast.net

anon_anon

Anon

The problem is that few people are watching the ads anymore. Cable/Sat companies are putting out equipment that allows people to record everything by default and skip the ads instantly at a touch of a button. A viewer that strips out all the ads and only watches the program, doesn't really help the broadcasters much. Its the eyeballs actually watching the ads, or paying the subscriber fees that pay the bills. The broadcasters are relying more on per subscriber fees to counteract the increasing losses on advertising.
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Bismarck, ND
Asus RT-AC68
Ubiquiti NSM5

travelguy to SpottedCat

Member

to SpottedCat
said by SpottedCat:

Okay, I don't get it. Someone educate me.

I always thought TV stations and networks wanted to get as many viewers as possible, because the more eyeballs see your ads, the more advertisers are willing to pay for time on your channel/network?

Why wouldn't CBS want EVERYONE to receive their channel as easily as possible?

Am I missing something here? Ratings are so damn important for TV networks and shows, yet here they seem to be blocking people from watching CBS on purpose.

The 80s are calling - they'd like you to come back home.

Local television has evolved since the days of ad revenue only. Nowadays the networks don't want just eyeballs, they also want retransmission consent revenue and the ability to tie OTA programming to cable channel carriage agreements. Basically the networks think the demand for their programming entitles them to more than just ad revenue.

RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

RARPSL to anon_anon

Member

to anon_anon
said by anon_anon :

The problem is that few people are watching the ads anymore. Cable/Sat companies are putting out equipment that allows people to record everything by default and skip the ads instantly at a touch of a button. A viewer that strips out all the ads and only watches the program, doesn't really help the broadcasters much. Its the eyeballs actually watching the ads, or paying the subscriber fees that pay the bills. The broadcasters are relying more on per subscriber fees to counteract the increasing losses on advertising.

You have a incorrect view on what is being sold by the network to the advertisers. They are being sold the ability to present their ads to the viewers NOT the ability to insure that the ad is actually viewed. If I am watching a show live (as opposed to watching a show I recorded and am now viewing) I am not chained to my seat and I can leave the room to get food or do a nature call during the commercial. The advertiser has gotten what was paid for - The chance to present the ad to me. They have NOT paid to insure that I actually watch it. There is no way to tell how many people are actually viewing the ads (either in real time or via time shifted recordings) - Only how many people are tuned to the show the ad is being shown during. So long as the ad is broadcast and recorded, they have gotten what they paid for.

Note that the Hopper DOES record the ad and will show it (unless the viewer manually fast forwards past it) if the recording is less than 24 hours old. It is only after 24 hours that it can automatically skip the recording (which is still there and can still be viewed if you do not have autoskip activated).
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to anon_anon

Premium Member

to anon_anon
said by anon_anon :

The problem is that few people are watching the ads anymore. Cable/Sat companies are putting out equipment that allows people to record everything by default and skip the ads instantly at a touch of a button. A viewer that strips out all the ads and only watches the program, doesn't really help the broadcasters much. Its the eyeballs actually watching the ads, or paying the subscriber fees that pay the bills. The broadcasters are relying more on per subscriber fees to counteract the increasing losses on advertising.

losses in advertising are kind of a myth and a truth at once. More people are recording today because the DVR made it easier. push a button on the guide and its done, VCRs were complex for people who had technology issues.... I knew many many "12:00 Flashers"

The primary thing the advertisers are buying is not just the ad slot itself but the timeslot that ad slot happens in. An episode of CSI will garner more ad dollars than Survivor simply based on its timeslot being between 9 and 11.(and the fact its insanely popular still.)

SpottedCat
join:2004-06-27
Miami, FL

SpottedCat to travelguy

Member

to travelguy
said by travelguy:

The 80s are calling - they'd like you to come back home.

Local television has evolved since the days of ad revenue only. Nowadays the networks don't want just eyeballs, they also want retransmission consent revenue and the ability to tie OTA programming to cable channel carriage agreements. Basically the networks think the demand for their programming entitles them to more than just ad revenue.

I'd like to come home too! I miss the 80s. I want to sit on the beach with my boom box, with Michael Jackson's latest single playing full blast. *sigh*

Anyway, this is interesting. But I think this situation is just making CBS look bad; they're not exactly being smart about it.

Pacomartin
join:2013-03-18
Bethlehem, PA

Pacomartin to SpottedCat

Member

to SpottedCat
said by SpottedCat:

Why wouldn't CBS want EVERYONE to receive their channel as easily as possible?

When the law was changed permitting negotiations for retransmission consent starting in the 1993 season, the average rating for a top 20 TV show was 16.9; last season it was 4.4 .

In 1993 cable companies (including Time Warner Cable) would never pay re-transmission fees. As far as they were concerned they should not have to pay for something you could get with an antenna. One tiny cable company in Iowa agreed to pay $250 a month for retransmission fees to one NBC station, and it was noteworthy.

What the networks did is use the minor leverage they had with the consent requirements to push cable deals. ABC granted consent if the cable companies would all agree to carry their new channel ESPN2 for a fee. CBS did not own a cable company in 1993 so they got nothing.

Starting in 2006 the over the air networks got serious about bumping up retransmission fees to sizeable revenue. In 2006 retranmission fees for all tv stations was about $227 million. By last year that had increased by 675% (matter of record). I assume that is the source of the reported 600% increase by CBS.

CBS is probably getting $1 per household from Time Warner Cable, and is trying to get $2. So bottom line is that an extra $4 million a month from TWC is worth a lot more compared to advertising revenue from the tiny fraction of the 4 million households that are watching CBS at any one time. More importantly it is a precedent in negotiation with the thousands of cable companies in USA. If TWC can paint CBS as evil in public perception, than if the same thing happens with small cable companies they will be able to blame CBS.

Many government people are pushing to hurry up the transition of public television to the internet, as they feel the frequencies allocated to broadcast TV would be more valuable to their economies if they could be sold to cellular companies.