DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | reply to mod_wastrel
Re: Speaking of ads...
That's what they've always been for, the entertainment value is only to attract you long enough to watch the ads.
It's a business, not a charity. |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
 ·magicjack.com
| No, shows used to have "sponsors" who, to some degree, cared about the quality of a show. Cable shows used to not have commercials at all. There were more and better quality shows back when there were only 3 networks than there are now. Now? "reality" shows (that couldn't be more un-real), 'American Idol' ...it's an endless list.
Business? ...you get what you pay for. But, you hit the nail on the head: flashing lights and lousy music to "attract" viewers with short attention spans and/or too tired from the work-day to care.
By and large, TV sucks. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by mod_wastrel  :No, shows used to have "sponsors" who, to some degree, cared about the quality of a show. They only cared about quailty because without it people wouldn't watch. Since 1948 TV has ALWAYS been about making money. Shows were ways to get people to notice whatever product a sponsor was pitching. |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| The key word in my original statement was "solely". When advertisers started to simply buy "30 seconds" in a time slot, the quality of the show in that time slot became irrelevant; only the ratings were/are a factor for consideration. The show could be pure crap, but as long as people were/are watching it's just a billboard for some ad. Rare is the show that's anything else. (Joss Whedon, where are you?! The vast wasteland that is TV needs you!! ;D) |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
| said by mod_wastrel :The key word in my original statement was "solely". When advertisers started to simply buy "30 seconds" in a time slot, the quality of the show in that time slot became irrelevant; only the ratings were/are a factor for consideration. The show could be pure crap, but as long as people were/are watching it's just a billboard for some ad. Rare is the show that's anything else. (Joss Whedon, where are you?! The vast wasteland that is TV needs you!! ;D) People wouldn't be watching if there wasn't something attractive. I agree most TV sucks... I can't think of any good shows on network television.
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL & MURRAY SABRIN (NJ GOP FRONT RUNNER for SENATE) 2008
|
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by Tzale :said by mod_wastrel :The key word in my original statement was "solely". When advertisers started to simply buy "30 seconds" in a time slot, the quality of the show in that time slot became irrelevant; only the ratings were/are a factor for consideration. The show could be pure crap, but as long as people were/are watching it's just a billboard for some ad. Rare is the show that's anything else. (Joss Whedon, where are you?! The vast wasteland that is TV needs you!! ;D) People wouldn't be watching if there wasn't something attractive. I agree most TV sucks... I can't think of any good shows on network television. Remember reality shows only get 50% of the audiance but they are 80% cheaper, a net profit.
All reality shows are un-unionized, and they cost as little as $20K an episode, compared to $1 million an episode for other shows. Not to mention hiring interns and unqualified ppl to script reality shows, and the form letter nature of them. The only thing cheaper to show on TV would be the "Ass the Movie" from Idiocracy. |
|
