dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
12
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to skeechan

Member

to skeechan

Re: Networks did it to themselves

Yeah keep thinking you can stick it to the man. Enjoy constant banners running on the bottom during programing so even when you fast forward its still there. Enjoy HUGE increases in the rates networks charge. Enjoy fewer new shows more re-run. More showing the same content over and over again. more cheap reality Tv crap. More infomercials. It's funny and somewhat sad that all the people that think they can force the content producers to do anything.

RRedline
Rated R
Premium Member
join:2002-05-15
USA

2 recommendations

RRedline

Premium Member

said by 88615298:

Yeah keep thinking you can stick it to the man. Enjoy constant banners running on the bottom during programing so even when you fast forward its still there. Enjoy HUGE increases in the rates networks charge. Enjoy fewer new shows more re-run. More showing the same content over and over again. more cheap reality Tv crap. More infomercials. It's funny and somewhat sad that all the people that think they can force the content producers to do anything.

Nice straw man argument. Why can't his position be "stop showing so many damned commercials!?"

Advertising has gotten way too disruptive over the years. It is the sole reason that I very rarely watch live TV. I refuse to be subjected to so many interruptions. If they do what you say they will, even more people will stop watching TV. There are other forms of entertainment besides live television.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

1 recommendation

skeechan

Premium Member

And of course that isn't what would happen. All stations being compelled by the market to show fewer commercials would mean higher ad rates per commercial. These networks have engaged in a race to the bottom and consumers aren't going to tolerate it. If networks want to be dumb and run a banner across the bottom, they will get zero ratings.

newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium Member
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD

3 recommendations

newview to RRedline

Premium Member

to RRedline
said by RRedline:

Advertising has gotten way too disruptive over the years. It is the sole reason that I very rarely watch live TV. I refuse to be subjected to so many interruptions. If they do what you say they will, even more people will stop watching TV. There are other forms of entertainment besides live television.

I don't see ads getting any less ... they just keep piling them on and on and on ... and then they started showing those annoying "bugs" and station identification logos at the bottom of the screen 2-3 years ago which entirely disrupt ANY show or movie that has subtitles. They really do NOT care that they are ruining the viewing of the content.

What we are seeing is greed ... plain and simple.

Part of the cord cutting phenomenon is as much due to these commercial interruptions as it is to the high costs.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

ISurfTooMuch to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
This is true, but it isn't the end of the story. You're assuming that people can't skip these ads, but they can--by simply not watching at all. As viewership drops off, ad rates decline, meaning the networks lose even more money. At that point, there are only two ways out for them: pile on even more ads to make up for the losses, or reform how they do things. The former is the easy solution, and I suspect it's the one many networks will choose, but it will ultimately lead to a death spiral, as more ads chase away more viewers, which causes a drop in revenue, which causes networks to add even more ads. Rinse and repeat until bankruptcy.

The only real way out is to either call a truce and back off on the ads or dump ads altogether and go to a subscription-only model. If I had to guess, I think that it's almost too late to call a truce. People have discovered ad skipping and like it, so that genie is out of the bottle, and he isn't going back in. Getting rid of ads altogether may be the only workable solution at this point. HBO has done it and added some really good original programming. Other networks could do it too, and, without the pressure to pack in ads, there wouldn't be such a tendency to butcher shows. The big question is how greedy the programmers will be. Will they charge too much and drive viewers away? It's a real possibility, but they'd better find a solution, and they'd better find it soon, because the current trajectory only leads to financial ruin.

TOPDAWG
Premium Member
join:2005-04-27
Calgary, AB

TOPDAWG to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
who cares if it does if someone needs TV to live something is wrong with them. Let them cancel all the crap if they want or they could stop paying actors millions to play pretend to save money.

I won't pay for cable piss on that if they stop making TV shows so be it.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to RRedline

Member

to RRedline
said by RRedline:

said by 88615298:

Yeah keep thinking you can stick it to the man. Enjoy constant banners running on the bottom during programing so even when you fast forward its still there. Enjoy HUGE increases in the rates networks charge. Enjoy fewer new shows more re-run. More showing the same content over and over again. more cheap reality Tv crap. More infomercials. It's funny and somewhat sad that all the people that think they can force the content producers to do anything.

Nice straw man argument. Why can't his position be "stop showing so many damned commercials!?"

Advertising has gotten way too disruptive over the years. It is the sole reason that I very rarely watch live TV. I refuse to be subjected to so many interruptions. If they do what you say they will, even more people will stop watching TV. There are other forms of entertainment besides live television.

Actually you are making my point. You don't like all the ads you simply don't watch. Nothing wrong with that. These people want their cake and eat it too. If they don't like they ads then they don't watch. Not watch and skip.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

3 recommendations

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

Torrents are much easier; commercials already edited out, station logo watermark usually blurred out, crawls get cropped. Any show with any kind of ratings usually hits the web a few hours after airing. With RSS feeds, new shows are automatically downloaded and waiting. Best DVR there is.

ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

ieolus to ISurfTooMuch

Member

to ISurfTooMuch
A subscription model... subscription model... you mean like cable tv?

Shit, still get ads there. WTF?

buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Dover, NH
(Software) Sophos UTM Home Edition
Ruckus R310

1 recommendation

buzz_4_20 to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
I've given up on Live TV for all these reasons. Wait for the disc from netflix, or streaming.

While most networks have ads. Showtime and HBO seem to being doing just fine without commercials.
And they release shows to disc as well.
They'd do well to offer a streaming only subscription.
Yes ads cushion the high production costs of some shows, it's just getting too blatant and in your face for my tastes, it's not worth it to me to watch the ads.

Seeing what passes for TV nowadays is also shameful.

So many channels with so little good content.
I only watch 5 or 6 current shows and I can wait for them to be available in an ad free format.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to skeechan

Premium Member

to skeechan
CNBC is bad with the crawlers and is annoying. i just zoom the TV to push these out of view.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch to ieolus

Member

to ieolus
I mean like HBO or Netflix. I lump the basic cable networks in with broadcast for this discussion. In fact, most of them are worse than broadcast in how many ads they cram in and how obnoxious they are.

ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

1 recommendation

ieolus

Member

I know what you meant, but all cable tv was originally sold as that... subscription model no advertisement.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to CXM_Splicer

Member

to CXM_Splicer
Irony abounds when a staunch union man such as yourself sings the praises of bittorrent, which last I checked doesn't pay any royalties to the unionized production crews and writers who help create the content you're downloading...
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

I am full of irony and actually not as staunch as many others in here Coming from an anti-union perspective, I suppose anyone that says anything good about unions is as good as singing accolades.

It is pretty easy to separate the two points; over commercialization (greed) is killing the quality of television, people are seeking alternatives. It has nothing to do with unions.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

ISurfTooMuch to ieolus

Member

to ieolus
Very true. I remember that as a kid. Commercials were supposed to be either nonexistent on most channels or kept to a minimum.

Yeah, that worked out well.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to CXM_Splicer

Member

to CXM_Splicer
Some would dispute the notion that there was ever such a thing as 'quality television'....

Others might say that modern television allows you to tell a story (Breaking Bad) that would never have been told during the supposed glory days of TV.

Either way, I concur that the decline (real or imagined) in TV has nothing to do with unions. I just find it ironic that you'd tacitly endorse something that takes money out of the pocket of your union colleagues (Screen Actors Guild, Writers Guild, Teamsters, IATSE, etc.)
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

said by Crookshanks:

Some would dispute the notion that there was ever such a thing as 'quality television'....

Agree with you there, even before the decline it was called an 'idiot box'. I think that started back in the '50s.
TurtleFan
join:2003-05-03
Wyckoff, NJ

1 recommendation

TurtleFan to RRedline

Member

to RRedline
this is another reason why I stopped watching TV almost altogether. From Insipid product placement (having a ford as your 'base of operations' in ghost hunters? Really?) to one dumb reality show after another (come on TLC, Alaskan women looking for love? ).......TV will kill itself in 20 years at this rate.

honey Boo Boo is the last straw for me. when you get poop discussions on tv...(I don't watch the show, but radio playback clips are more than enough)...