Broadcasters Afraid of Dying Like Newspapers Yet some have decided to act just like them... It has been interesting to watch cable industry executives talk about online video lately, few really understanding that broadband and piracy have changed video forever, and that there's no stuffing the genie back in the bottle. Some execs, like Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, seem to think they can simply take the existing business model (with its bi-annual rate hikes) and move it online. While that idea has its flaws, Rainbow Media CEO Josh Sapan goes one step further, believing that if he digs in his heels, the threat from online video will simply disappear. From Multichannel News: "If everyone engages in putting cable TV shows on the Web shortly after they air on cable television, they're doing nothing other than creating what I would call very bad habits. They're bad for the health of the industry. . ." Sapan said consumers won't see episodes of AMC's Emmy Award-winning drama Mad Men or shows from other Rainbow-owned cable networks online. . .because he said such actions will eventually undercut the healthy advertiser/affiliate-fee dual revenue stream that networks enjoy and use to make the programming that he says has ushered in a new "golden era" of television over the past decade. Of course Sapan sees a future where cable and broadcasters become less relevant like print newspaper, as content becomes free (or cheaper), and competitors spring up from behind every bush. Ironically though, clinging to the old model and grumbling instead of adapting is precisely why many newspapers went under. Perhaps Sapan's successor will understand that and help usher the cable and broadcast industry into the "platinum era" of television?
|
  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Stinky words... But he is right. So much of programming is subsidized by advertising. If that revenue stream is lost, its going to have to be made up somewhere else; and I'd hate to think where (ahem, consumers) | |
|  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 |  Re: Stinky words...
Ironically though, clinging to the old model and grumbling instead of adapting is precisely why many newspapers went under. But those newspaper groups who are trying out NEW models aren't doing any better. Those who are trying to stay alive by adopting new models are dying just as quickly. More and more people get their news from Google News or FoxNews or CNN and not using newspapers at all. Adapting isn't working.
And broadcasters, without a steady stream of ad revenue and income from cable networks will be unable to produce new shows for consumption(online or not). So, I don't think adapting their business plan will save them - we are eventually going to get even worse shows than they put out now due to lack of income.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | |  jtudorXm 60's On 6 FreakPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC | But if all newspapers die.... said by ThrowDemsOut:But those newspaper groups who are trying out NEW models aren't doing any better. Those who are trying to stay alive by adopting new models are dying just as quickly. More and more people get their news from Google News or FoxNews or CNN and not using newspapers at all. Adapting isn't working. Just one problem with that: Where to Google, yahoo, the AP and many other online sources get their news from? Local newspapers that is who.
AP has reporters in some major cities, but not in every town. Yahoo has no reporters, neither does google.
If all the newspapers cease to exist, where will the news for the online sources come from? They will not have any sources, to the amount of news reported will diminish drastically.
I work from a newspaper group, and this has been a hot topic of discussion lately.
--
Best of luck
"Do, or Do not, there is no try!" Yoda
| |
| | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: But if all newspapers die.... said by jtudor:Just one problem with that: Where to Google, yahoo, the AP and many other online sources get their news from? Local newspapers that is who. AP has reporters in some major cities, but not in every town. Yahoo has no reporters, neither does google. If all the newspapers cease to exist, where will the news for the online sources come from? They will not have any sources, to the amount of news reported will diminish drastically. I work from a newspaper group, and this has been a hot topic of discussion lately. Unfortunately, local coverage(except in major cities like you say) is going to suffer drastically. The major newswires(AP, Reuters, etc) are going to be the only sources of news and they won't cover all communities. I guess truly local news will have to depend on those free weekly ad newspapers they throw on your lawn and that have 20 or 30 stories a week.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | |  tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:4
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| said by jtudor:Where to Google, yahoo, the AP and many other online sources get their news from? Local newspapers that is who. That is the crux of the problem. Everyone wants to be s content agitator but nobody one wants to do journalism.
I don't mind paying subscription fee to newspapers I have a relationship with and trust. On the other hand I refuse to use sites that require me to login, or even enter my email in order to read article.
A healthy society needs viable journalism at international, national and local level. I'm confident someone will eventually figure out an Internet central business model that works.
/tom | |
| | | | | | | Re: But if all newspapers die.... said by tschmidt:said by jtudor:Where to Google, yahoo, the AP and many other online sources get their news from? Local newspapers that is who. viable journalism /tom Keyword there. I think everyones become painfully aware of the opinions that our "journalists" seem to imbed in every story. The conversation should be on how do we eradicate sensationalism and opinion from reporting.
Oh...and actually sourcing might help instead of saying "there are critics"... | |
| | | | | | tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: But if all newspapers die....
Blogs vs MSM |
said by S_engineer:I think everyones become painfully aware of the opinions that our "journalists" seem to imbed in every story. Your post brought to mind the tension between Journalism and blogs. I think this cartoon cuts to the heart of the matter.
/tom | |
|
| | | | | going to see web 2.0. Every blogger knows:
If you see something - say samthing
Blogs not bad at all as sourch of news | |
|
| | | | How many is "many?" How many newspapers have "gone under?" Six? out of 1400 daily newspapers? Hardly could be called "many" | |
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: How many is "many?" Local news papers never had a problem until large mega corps took over. I'm from a town where Gannet News took over. All of the local stories now take over 2 weeks to get published in the print edition...other wise the paper is all AP stories an the website is now nothing but ads and people's blogs.
That's not news. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: How many is "many?" And that's what's destroying major newspapers. There are other causes, but when a company like Liberty Media buys the LA Times, a paper that was at the time netting 200million a year in PROFIT btw, and guts the news staff from 200+ to less than 40, fires all the best writers and fills the paper with all the same AP stories you can read on the internet you can guarantee the failure of the paper.
I still read our local paper occasionally, in particular because they still do actual local reporting, but not near at the level they should. Like most they have turned into an AP regurgitator. Any paper that simply reruns the AP or Reuters or any other aggregator is going to go under. All that content is available online for free. Competing in the world of the internet requires that you differentiate yourself from everyone else. You don't do that by running stories off the ticker.
I would wager that all but one newspaper in every city will die. Where once you could have up to 4 major papers in a single large city you will have one paper. It will devolve until only the papers that want to generate content instead of reposting it will succeed. It's not the death of news, it's just changing. Local news can succeed. Once everyone has a Kindle like device digital subscriptions will become common but only those papers that generate content will survive till that point. | |
|
| | tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Stinky words... said by ThrowDemsOut:But those newspaper groups who are trying out NEW models aren't doing any better. Those who are trying to stay alive by adopting new models are dying just as quickly. I think there are many intertwined causes.
1) Media consolidation has caused newspapers to take on extraordinary amounts of debt and public ownership demands higher returns then papers have historically provided.
2) For reasons I don't understand Internet ad rates command much lower fees then print. I would think properly done Internet ad would be the opposite. Perhaps this is just a teething problem with new media.
3) Internet has spawned content-is-free mentality. As a delivery mechanism Internet has drastically reduced cost of delivery. It does not reduce journalism and content creation cost. I think much of the fault lies with RIAA and MPAA. Rather than embracing the Internet by using it to lower selling price resulting in win-win situation, lower prices for consumers more customers for providers, they have attempted to thwart electronic distribution thus breeding cynicism and contempt by public at large.
/tom
| |
| | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Part of the problem is that most of the newspapers waited too long. For years (decades?) they scoffed at news via the internet as not a real threat and pretty much ignored the market. Now they are paying for it. News going to electronic media was never a matter of if, but of when, and how. Basically the newspapers missed the boat. Hopefully a few of the small online only outfits will see growth and their models can be followed.
The last few years has shown incredible profits for TV(what was a Superbowl add this year?), yet we have seen a reduction in the quality of the shows produced. I do not think you can necessarily equate income with quality. A lot of the UK's TV is VASTLY superior to that produced in the US and is produced at a fraction of the cost(there is a reason why so many Uk shows are shown/copied). If the US TV does not embrace online media, it will surely follow newspapers down the tubes. | |
| | | |
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | whoosh! | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Google doesnt even provide news, it just uses a bot that brings in links, so people who want the whole thing still have to visit the offical website.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | 
If advertiser dollars disappeared, that means advertisers wouldnt be paying as much.
Which means ad budgets would get smaller.
Which means products would have less of their price to offset advertising.
Which means products would get cheaper and consumers would spend less for more.
So consumers win, advertisers & networks lose.
I see no problem with that. I see why networks have a problem with it, and why Time-Warner (a network) which owns RoadRunner does though. But all they're going to do is make their internet AND networks fail.
Oh, and Time-Warner; if you're reading this. I will never use your services, ever. And I'm boycotting all of your media (movies, tv box sets, music, etc..). | |
|
1 edit | Sounds like another industry stance Is it me or are these industries just not thinking outside the box these days. All they can think about is how to increase their profit margins to make their investors happy and buy more stock.
They need to start thinking of how to make money in the new age instead of trying to keep the old way of doing things around. The old ways are just going to put them right in the same position MAFIAA's are in by not embracing technology to make things better, faster, cheaper.
They need to keep in mind that the only people really giving them the profits is the consumers. If the internet is how they want it or al carte is how they want it they are going to find a way to get it legal or illegal. These companies need to start thinking about new business models or end up dieing off a slow painful death. | |
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Sounds like another industry stance said by raptor1418:Is it me or are these industries just not thinking outside the box these days. All they can think about is how to increase their profit margins to make their investors happy and buy more stock. They need to start thinking of how to make money in the new age instead of trying to keep the old way of doing things around. How do they do that? People want their content for FREE and don't even want to view ads. So where does the money come from? Sure some people still buy DVDs but as time goes on people will pretty much expect to get it online.
This isn't like music where the band can go on tour and make money that way. Are they supposed to give it all for free with no ads and hope enough people buy a "Mad Men" t-shit or coffee mug?
No such thing as a free lunch people. Sure the content providers and makers need to learn to expect less income from all sources and make content cheaper for people. $2 for an hour episode let alone a 30 minute episode is to much. Especially when it's full of DRM. At least when I pay 99 cents for a MP3 I can put that song on any devices as I wish. By the way just because I can own the episode for $2 doesn't mean it's worth it. Maybe I'd rather rent it.
Anyways I think southparkstudios.com does it about as good as one can expect. I have access to every episode ever made adn the commercials are much less than what you get on TV. I'm actually MORE likely to pay attention to the ONE product in the ONE commercial during the commercial break than to remember it amongst the 7-8 commercials I see per break during a normal TV broadcast. | |
| | |  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Re: Sounds like another industry stance said by BF69:said by raptor1418:Is it me or are these industries just not thinking outside the box these days. All they can think about is how to increase their profit margins to make their investors happy and buy more stock. They need to start thinking of how to make money in the new age instead of trying to keep the old way of doing things around. How do they do that? People want their content for FREE and don't even want to view ads. So where does the money come from? Sure some people still buy DVDs but as time goes on people will pretty much expect to get it online. Let me state the obvious, people have always wanted free content without ads. This isn't something that just happened recently. It's just gone from using cassettes to record radio stations music, then remove the commercials, give a copy to your friend (same with VHS) to the digital age where one person can do the exact same thing, only instead of copying it to his/her friends, it can be copied on a scale millions of times broader.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
| | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Sounds like another industry stance said by knightmb:said by BF69:said by raptor1418:Is it me or are these industries just not thinking outside the box these days. All they can think about is how to increase their profit margins to make their investors happy and buy more stock. They need to start thinking of how to make money in the new age instead of trying to keep the old way of doing things around. How do they do that? People want their content for FREE and don't even want to view ads. So where does the money come from? Sure some people still buy DVDs but as time goes on people will pretty much expect to get it online. Let me state the obvious, people have always wanted free content without ads. This isn't something that just happened recently. let me state the obvious. the only reason why TV existed in the first place was to get people to pay attention to advertising. Not to provide people with FREE entertainment. The entertainment was used as a vehicle to get people to keeping watching TV and thus the advertisements. Not the other way around.
It's just gone from using cassettes to record radio stations music, then remove the commercials, give a copy to your friend (same with VHS) to the digital age where one person can do the exact same thing, only instead of copying it to his/her friends, it can be copied on a scale millions of times broader. and that has always been illegal whether you knew it or not. what you suggest since we can't stop people from doing soemthing illegal make it legal basically. That's like making bank robbery legal will stop bank robberies.
what I suggest is that if you really like new content to be made then you better support somehow. No one is going to invest millions of $ into a show and have no chance to even recoup his costs let alone make a profit. I wouldn't do it neither would you. Why expect a studio to? | |
| | | | | b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: Sounds like another industry stance said by BF69:let me state the obvious. the only reason why TV existed in the first place was to get people to pay attention to advertising. Not to provide people with FREE entertainment. The entertainment was used as a vehicle to get people to keeping watching TV and thus the advertisements. Not the other way around.
Really?
The first regularly scheduled television service in the United States began on July 2, 1928.
The world's first television advertisement was broadcast July 1, 1941. | |
| | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Sounds like another industry stance said by b10010011:said by BF69:let me state the obvious. the only reason why TV existed in the first place was to get people to pay attention to advertising. Not to provide people with FREE entertainment. The entertainment was used as a vehicle to get people to keeping watching TV and thus the advertisements. Not the other way around. Really? The first regularly scheduled television service in the United States began on July 2, 1928. The world's first television advertisement was broadcast July 1, 1941. WRONG. you're about 20 years off for the US. No one in the US had TVs before WWII | |
| | | | | | | b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: Sounds like another industry stance said by BF69:WRONG. you're about 20 years off for the US. No one in the US had TVs before WWII The first regularly scheduled television service in the United States began on July 2, 1928. The Federal Radio Commission authorized C.F. Jenkins to broadcast from experimental station W3XK in Wheaton, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C. But for at least the first eighteen months, only silhouette images from motion picture film were broadcast.
Hugo Gernsback's New York City radio station began a regular, if limited, schedule of live television broadcasts on August 14, 1928, using 48-line images. Simultaneously, Gernsback published Television, the world's first magazine about the medium.
General Electric's experimental station in Schenectady, New York, on the air sporadically since January 13, 1928, was able to broadcast reflected-light, 48-line images via shortwave as far as Los Angeles, and by September was making four television broadcasts weekly. It is considered to be the direct predecessor of current television station WRGB.
General Broadcasting System's WGBS radio and W2XCR television aired their regular broadcasting debut in New York City on April 26, 1931, with a special demonstration set up in Aeolian Hall at Fifth Avenue and Fifty-fourth Street. Thousands waited to catch a glimpse of the Broadway stars who appeared on the six-inch (15 cm) square image, in an evening event to publicize a weekday programming schedule offering films and live entertainers during the four-hour daily broadcasts. Appearing were boxer Primo Carnera, actors Gertrude Lawrence, Louis Calhern and Lionel Atwill, WHN announcer Nils Granlund, the Forman Sisters, and a host of others.[17]
CBS's New York City station W2XAB began broadcasting their first regular seven days a week television schedule on July 21, 1931, with a 60-line electromechanical system. The first broadcast included Mayor Jimmy Walker, the Boswell Sisters, Kate Smith, and George Gershwin. The service ended in February 1933. [18] Don Lee Broadcasting's station W6XAO in Los Angeles went on the air in December 1931. Using the UHF spectrum, it broadcast a regular schedule of filmed images every day except Sundays and holidays for several years.[19]
By 1935, low-definition electromechanical television broadcasting had ceased in the United States except for a handful of stations run by public universities that continued to 1939. The Federal Communications Commission saw television in the continual flux of development with no consistent technical standards, hence all such stations in the U.S. were granted only experimental and not commercial licenses, hampering television's economic development. Just as importantly, Philo Farnsworth's August 1934 demonstration of an all-electronic system at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia pointed out the direction of television's future.
On June 15, 1936, Don Lee Broadcasting began a one month-long demonstration of high definition (240+ line) television in Los Angeles on W6XAO (later KTSL) with a 300-line image from motion picture film. By October, W6XAO was making daily television broadcasts of films. RCA and its subsidiary NBC demonstrated in New York City a 343-line electronic television broadcast, with live and film segments, to its licensees on July 7, 1936, and made its first public demonstration to the press on November 6. Irregularly scheduled broadcasts continued through 1937 and 1938.[20] Regularly scheduled electronic broadcasts began in April 1938 in New York (to the second week of June, and resuming in August) and Los Angeles.[21][22][23][24] NBC officially began regularly scheduled television broadcasts in New York on April 30, 1939 with a broadcast of the opening of the 1939 New York World's Fair. By June 1939, regularly scheduled 441-line electronic television broadcasts were available in New York City and Los Angeles, and by November on General Electric's station in Schenectady. From May through December 1939, the New York City NBC station (W2XBS) of General Electric broadcast twenty to fifty-eight hours of programming per month, Wednesday through Sunday of each week. The programming was 33% news, 29% drama, and 17% educational programming, with an estimated 2,000 receiving sets by the end of the year, and an estimated audience of five to eight thousand. A remote truck could cover outdoor events from up to 10 miles (16 km) away from the transmitter, which was located atop the Empire State Building. Coaxial cable was used to cover events at Madison Square Garden. The coverage area for reliable reception was a radius of 40 to 50 miles (80 km) from the Empire State Building, an area populated by more than 10,000,000 people (Lohr, 1940).
The FCC adopted NTSC television engineering standards on May 2, 1941, calling for 525 lines of vertical resolution, 30 frames per second with interlaced scanning, 60 fields per second, and sound carried by frequency modulation. Sets sold since 1939 which were built for slightly lower resolution could still be adjusted to receive the new standard. (Dunlap, p31). The FCC saw television ready for commercial licensing, and the first such licenses were issued to NBC and CBS owned stations in New York on July 1, 1941, followed by Philco's station WPTZ in Philadelphia. After the U.S. entry into World War II, the FCC reduced the required minimum air time for commercial television stations from 15 hours per week to 4 hours. Most TV stations suspended broadcasting. On the few that remained, programs included entertainment such as boxing and plays, events at Madison Square Garden, and illustrated war news as well as training for air raid wardens and first aid providers. In 1942, there were 5,000 sets in operation, but production of new TVs, radios, and other broadcasting equipment for civilian purposes was suspended from April 1942 to August 1945 (Dunlap).
In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allowed stations to broadcast advertisements beginning 1941, but required public service programming commitments as a requirement for a license. | |
|
| |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by BF69:Anyways I think southparkstudios.com does it about as good as one can expect. I have access to every episode ever made adn the commercials are much less than what you get on TV. I'm actually MORE likely to pay attention to the ONE product in the ONE commercial during the commercial break than to remember it amongst the 7-8 commercials I see per break during a normal TV broadcast. True, it's a model site on how this can work. For some reason, it works better than CBS's site (they're both Viacom properties).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
| | |
1 edit | I said nothing about a business model that gives content for FREE. And I do understand that people seem to think they should get it for FREE but by no means do I think they should.
I keep hearing that the companies with the new business models are failing. So they fail and if there is a real need a person or group with enough understanding will come up with a successful business model. Hell with all the smart people on this forum I wouldn't be surprised if someone here comes up with a new business model that succeeds where all these other industries seem to fail. This is all just a repetitive cycle that is going to keep going on forever or as long as monetary value for things exists.
From where I sit it always appears to me that the companies that fail are usually not very innovative or they are not willing to compromise anything to accommodate a new business model. The music industry took awhile to start making a few compromises to actually make money but are still expecting everyone to pay for the few they won't make to keep their profits up because of a failing model (piracy tax). | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | TV ads work because they cannot be blocked and you know someone will see them. they also are not intrusive and some are quite enjoyable and make you laugh so you stay and watch.
internet ads have a different image, they are never funny and are always intrusive.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Sounds like another industry stance said by Kearnstd:TV ads work because they cannot be blocked and you know someone will see them. they also are not intrusive and some are quite enjoyable and make you laugh so you stay and watch. internet ads have a different image, they are never funny and are always intrusive. intrusive? I guess you don't watch to much online video. As in my example southparkstudios.com has a 20-30 second ad before the show and maybe 2-3 other commerical breaks that have ONE commerical of 20-30 seconds and that's WORSE than TV? watching South Park online saves me from about 5 minutes worth of commercials per 30 minute show. Watching all 184 episodes online would save me 15 hours of time vs watching them on TV. | |
| | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Agreed! When I watch a show online, it plays less commercials.. but its the same commercial every time. Or the same commercial done two different ways for one product. The interactive parts are nice, but I only care to see it once.
Watching commercials on digital broadcast television is much better. Ads look really nice in 720p. They can still be brainless, but at least there is a variety of them. | |
| | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Sounds like another industry stance said by axus:Watching commercials on digital broadcast television is much better. Ads look really nice in 720p. They can still be brainless, but at least there is a variety of them. But fewer and fewer are watching TV commercials. The DVR, unless the law allows networks to prevent fast forwarding thru commercials, has ended watching commercials on TV for a growing number of viewers. And the more people who do that, the less money companies will want to send to the networks for advertising.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | |
See 20 replies to this post | |
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by axus:Agreed! When I watch a show online, it plays less commercials.. but its the same commercial every time. Or the same commercial done two different ways for one product. The interactive parts are nice, but I only care to see it once. Watching commercials on digital broadcast television is much better. Ads look really nice in 720p. They can still be brainless, but at least there is a variety of them. You know I see that stupid snuggie commerical about 10 times an hour. hell late at night I se the same damn Girls Gone Wild commericals every single commerical break that as been playing for years now. Finally 18? probably closer to 30 now. | |
| | | | |  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | Re: Sounds like another industry stance said by BF69:You know I see that stupid snuggie commerical about 10 times an hour. hell late at night I se the same damn Girls Gone Wild commericals every single commerical break that as been playing for years now. Finally 18? probably closer to 30 now. If I am watching the TV live, I use that new thing they call the Menu button.
The ad gets minimized and I pay attention to the Menu and see what might be coming on later.
Or, I just surf channels for a few and I don't have to put up with it.
Or, I get up and walk away for a few to use the can or get a drink.
But I'm not going to sit there and watch some dumb ass commercial for a house coat that is being worn backwards.
That would be dumb!
You go right ahead! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: Sounds like another industry stance said by dadkins:If I am watching the TV live, If I am watching the TV live, I use that new thing they call the Menu button. The ad gets minimized and I pay attention to the Menu and see what might be coming on later. Or, I just surf channels for a few and I don't have to put up with it. Or, I get up and walk away for a few to use the can or get a drink. As we say around our house: Live TV is for saps.  | |
| | | | | | | dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Re: Sounds like another industry stance said by b10010011:said by dadkins:If I am watching the TV live, If I am watching the TV live, I use that new thing they call the Menu button. The ad gets minimized and I pay attention to the Menu and see what might be coming on later. Or, I just surf channels for a few and I don't have to put up with it. Or, I get up and walk away for a few to use the can or get a drink. As we say around our house: Live TV is for saps. ROFL!!! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| |  DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC
·Suddenlink
| said by Kearnstd:TV ads work because they cannot be blocked and you know someone will see them. they also are not intrusive and some are quite enjoyable and make you laugh so you stay and watch. internet ads have a different image, they are never funny and are always intrusive. TiVo ended that model, but I've found I do watch ads that are funny or interest me. I have no use for most of the ads on any channel, and nearly none found on the Internet.
They need a better way to target me, but that comes up against my privacy.
If TiVo can "predict" suggested shows, a "Super-TiVo" should be able to predict ads that interest me by learning which ones I don't skip.
But, then there's that pesky privacy, again. | |
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Sounds like another industry stance said by DataDoc:They need a better way to target me, but that comes up against my privacy. If TiVo can "predict" suggested shows, a "Super-TiVo" should be able to predict ads that interest me by learning which ones I don't skip. But, then there's that pesky privacy, again. I believe that this is concern is fixable (at least to my own comfort level). For example, let's say your TiVo starts with all ad categories open. After you skip 100 commercials, it starts to deactivate ad categories corresponding to the ones you skip. The ones that remain better represent you, but don't necessarily mean anything -- it just means you've skipped those ads to a much lesser degree.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
| | | | | DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | Re: Sounds like another industry stance I agree, and if the choices were wrong, I'd just skip them.
I was just wanting to fend off the privacy crazies. | |
| | | | | | | The problem is that many TiVo users are of the opinion that if they're paying for TiVo service that they shouldn't be bombarded with ads. | |
|
| | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by Kearnstd:TV ads work because they cannot be blocked and you know someone will see them. they also are not intrusive and some are quite enjoyable and make you laugh so you stay and watch. "Teevee, apply directly to your forehead!"
Some ads are welcome, but there are too many and they are too repetitive. Show me something fresh and creative, and yes, I'll watch. But the "Free Credit Report dot Com" crew's commercials lost their shine six months ago.
said by Kearnstd:internet ads have a different image, they are never funny and are always intrusive. ...and many of these sites repeat the same lame ad at every break.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
| | | | | said by Kearnstd:TV ads work because they cannot be blocked I guess you don't own a DVR. | |
|
 Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Hmm.. I wonder.. ..is this the same reason they want to kill off White Spaces? | |
| | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Hmm.. I wonder.. Most likely. | |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA | Emmy Award-winning drama Mad Men ? Never heard of it. | |
| | | Netflix/Hulu-esque streaming is the future Selecting what you want to watch when you want is the future. Broadcasters will survive for a while, but they are not the future.
BTW, Chicago Sun-Times just filed Chapt 11 and LA Times did last Dec. It's just a matter of time for broadcasters to head towards bankruptcy, but it might be 10 years or so, when 10Mbps+ is widely/cheaply available to all - and probably wireless by then. | |
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Netflix/Hulu-esque streaming is the future said by xenophon:when 10Mbps+ is widely/cheaply available to all - So that will be NEVER then. | |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | ONE of every THREE minutes is commercial Currently, commercials have encroached on programming such that an average of ONE in every THREE minutes is commercial. It used to be ONE in SIX.
Hollywood, who is so worried about the integrity of their art, is happy to hack away at scripts and reruns to fit into less and less time. Some old shows and most current shows have lost that distinctly unique 'theme song' in favor of a commercial.
More than anything, this drives me away from broadcast TV. Online TV hasn't caught the madness to the same degree (but it probably will).
To survive, Hollywood needs to be careful not to kill the goose laying their golden eggs.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
| | tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: ONE of every THREE minutes is commercial said by funchords:commercials have encroached on programming such that an average of ONE in every THREE minutes is commercial. Good Point. I was hospitalized a year and a half ago. At that time was considering either upgrading our rooftop antenna or getting Cable or Sat. As noted ratio of program to commercial is horrendous. Even with time on my hands wound up doing much more reading then TV watching.
Decided to stay with OTA. Works well for us as does Netflix and to lesser extent Hula.
Legacy players need to come to terms with fact broadcasting and Cable TV were business models developed based on technology limitations. The Internet is in process of eliminating those limitation forcing business models to change.
/tom | |
| |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | said by funchords:To survive, Hollywood needs to be careful not to kill the goose laying their golden eggs. When you have TV stations, such as the USA Network back in 2000, holding meetings with advertisers asking them which types of shows to create and broadcast, television clearly is not the right medium to present your art. If your masterpiece is subjectively determined not to be able to sell and promote soda or fabric softener, look elsewhere.
Robert McChesney is the guru on media politics and has written some great books on the subject of mass media. | |
| | | | said by funchords:Currently, commercials have encroached on programming such that an average of ONE in every THREE minutes is commercial. It used to be ONE in SIX. That could mean we're getting closer to uncut episodes - a 30 minute show in a 1 hour timeslot... | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Remember theaters, no business model is forever. said by Mr Matt: How many stables and buggy dealers do you find these days. Plenty, you can even buy one online. »hansenwheel.com/ | |
|
 screavic4Premium
join:2006-08-11
Paron, AR
kudos:1 | Digital TV we don't watch our local news stations as much anymore cause it is so hard just to get reception even though we are 15 miles outside the city (and away from the towers). I have to do the ol' antenna trick everytime while my wife watches the screen to see the picture clarity. I would rather just goto accuweather.com to have to deal with that mess.
If I had broadband I would watch the news stories online, I have enough problems staying connect to the good RevA of the alltel card much less just trying to watch a video would be a nightmare. I have to hit play pause it go get something to eat get a glass of tea and come back and half of it's downloaded.
I just hope Verizon's data is way better than this in my area. | |
| |
See 13 replies to this post | |
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ | "Golden era of television"? He's clearly delusional. The "golden era" came and went.
--
with every mistake we must surely be learning | |
| | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: "Golden era of television"? Not only is he delusional, he doesn't even know what his own network is doing.
"Sapan said consumers won't see episodes of AMC's Emmy Award-winning drama Mad Men or shows from other Rainbow-owned cable networks online."
I have a DVD of Mad Men Season 1 sitting here next to the TV. From Netflix. Don't need to watch AMC's commercials at all. | |
|
n2ubp
join:2007-07-13
Middletown, NY | Want to revitalize print, radio, and TV.. fix the content. The large corporations think they can shovel the cheapest crud at us and we will gobble it up and ask for more. My local newspaper, which should carry local news, does poorly covering most local stories, fills in white spaces with 2 and 3 day old AP stories, fires skilled reporters, replacing them with unpaid interns, the newspaper "boy" uses the area around my mailbox as an ash tray, and they wonder why home delivery subs are dropping. Most radio programming lacks any originality, being sourced from national satellite feeds, all stations in the network carrying the same one sided tripe.
Cable TV channels carry decade or older OTA network reruns rather than unique programming related to the supposed theme of the program. DirecTV thinks everyone wants premium sports, and those that don't are happy to stare at home shopping channels, preachers, and infomercials.
OTA digital TV sub channels contain preachers looking for money in 3 different languages, infomercials, and plain crap. We have lots of choices, but too many of those choices are sub par. I know understand why TIVO like recorders are so popular, snatching the one or two good shows found in a weeks time. Too much crap. | |
| | | | Re: Want to revitalize print, radio, and TV.. fix the content. said by n2ubp:The large corporations think they can shovel the cheapest crud at us and we will gobble it up and ask for more. My local newspaper, which should carry local news, does poorly covering most local stories, fills in white spaces with 2 and 3 day old AP stories, fires skilled reporters, replacing them with unpaid interns, the newspaper "boy" uses the area around my mailbox as an ash tray, and they wonder why home delivery subs are dropping. Most radio programming lacks any originality, being sourced from national satellite feeds, all stations in the network carrying the same one sided tripe. Cable TV channels carry decade or older OTA network reruns rather than unique programming related to the supposed theme of the program. DirecTV thinks everyone wants premium sports, and those that don't are happy to stare at home shopping channels, preachers, and infomercials. OTA digital TV sub channels contain preachers looking for money in 3 different languages, infomercials, and plain crap. We have lots of choices, but too many of those choices are sub par. I know understand why TIVO like recorders are so popular, snatching the one or two good shows found in a weeks time. Too much crap. And as long as people keep watching the crap, they'll keep making and showing it. Lowest common denominator and all that. | |
|
Xure
join:2003-11-14
Beverly Hills, CA | Let 'er rip It is called progress. The inventor of the light bulb or the car did not really care about the candlemakers or coachbuilders.
No commercials? How about subscription services? There are other revenue stream than commercials. And maybe these media executives can take a pay cut? Why should we prop all these bloated media empires built on inefficient distribution models? How many media moguls with big downtown offices, personal assistants, vacation homes in Aspen? How many actors and divas that we spoil rotten with our money can we sustain? The better get used to being closer to the masses and closer to their actual trade than stacking money. How many Loren Conrads do we have to prop up? What the hell do they actually do that deserves all that money?
Get lean, get smart and figure it out. Netflix has it right. A monthly fee for all you can watch... And the media empire just might need to tighten its belt too. Maybe they just need to set their profit sights a bit lower. What makes them think they deserve all that revenue that they were able to siphon off to their own pockets? | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Let 'er rip said by Xure:How many actors and divas that we spoil rotten with our money can we sustain? That was solved years ago with reality shows that pay 3 or 4 digit salaries to their "actors and divas" on the idea that the reality show is just an internship for your resume and you really shouldn't be paid at all, but we are being nice and giving you a 3 or 4 digit salary. | |
|
MTUPremium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA Reviews:
·AT&T Yahoo
| Really Neat Here's a 'great idea'. Expand on what they did in Pasadena. Outsourced local 'news' reporting to writers in INDIA. That will give us all the time we need to shop at Walmart and use the XBox.
»foothillcities.blogspot.com/2007···ews.html | |
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| evolution of a model? Let's see... the real deal is that some industries were too fat and lazy to begin with.. that goes the same for the entertainment industry as well as news industry. Just because the internet allows someone to download a mp3 in less time it takes to "take a leak".. doesn't mean that some "dopes" out there won't pay Apple $ INC $ money for itunes tracks.... The same will find it's balance in the news industry.. but if you mean to say that the old models of consolidated news agengies pushing an agenda upon it's readers and have them pay for it like pigs at the trough.. well-- that's dying out, my friend.. consumers want real value for their money.. and as with many things in the evolving economy.. you have to show your worth before the greenbacks go flying..
This is why many people with once COZY, WELL PAID, AND.. AHEM... "SAFE" JOBS find themselves suddenly FIRED!!! And CNN & others are all too well ready to pounce on it, as long as it makes consumers keep buying cable-tv service for the "most trusted" crap news your cable-tv rate increases will buy. Consumers want the industry to evolve... and nothing says that better than to stop buying the product that stinks so bad.. it's worse than a septic system backup... follow the money.. if it stops, you can be sure there's a reason! They percieve it to be of little- to no value & relevance to their lives if all it serves are the interests of large corporations & advertisers.
Just as the cable industry is beginning to stick their head in the sand with docsis 3 rollouts and doublespeak.. eventually they will have to step to the plate and swing against the coming telco grab for what once were THEIR telecom subscribers. | |
| | | | Re: evolution of a model? But this could be a dangerous precedent. Many of our policies that are legislated today get the scrutiny of these "trusted" entities. Yes I know, they've done a hores*** job in many many cases. However, once they disappear, whos going to be the advocate for the taxpayer/consumer...the bloggers?
These companies are victims of their own success. They became to big by expanding, and they didn't realize the adverse effect that a new medium could have on their model. Everyone seems to be chasing this.
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone | |
| | Xure
join:2003-11-14
Beverly Hills, CA | Yes I say. Doing more for less has been their mantra. Time for corporate America to take their own advice. Medice, cura te ipsum.
Talking 'bout a sense of entitlement, huh? Not only they feel they are entitled to your money, they whine when you won't bend over backwards to hand it over to them. | |
|
| | Technical model The business model is subject to the technical model.
The broadcast medium is limited, whether over-the-air (analog, digital or whatever comes next), cable, or ISP (fiber, copper, RF, ...).
Broadcasts go to everyone in the service area at once. For over-the-air and cable, the number of channels is limited by the bandwidth allocation and medium capacity. You can have a million sets tuned to the up to 350 subchannels (about 70 channels * about 5 subchannels each) and you'd still be using only the 350 subchannels of capacity. For digital cable there could be more channels. I think the digital cable box goes to channel 999.
Internet broadcasting (ISP-TV) enables each viewer to see a unique data stream, so the potential demand is much higher. (Check the population clocks at »www.census.gov/ .) On-demand cable programming would be similar if the selection is large enough.
So, if High-Def TV requires 2 Mb/s and there are 'only' a million people in a city, the potential load would require data rates of 2 Tb/s (»World Record: 25.6 Terabits Per Second) and the network switching devices would have to be able to handle it (»Cox: Fully Upgraded To 1Ghz By 2011).
Commercials are acceptable in moderation. After all, it is how the broadcasters get their revenues. One minute of ads per fifteen minutes of ISP-TV program is probably acceptable. One ad per few-minute clip gets tiresome after a few clips. Broadcasters will probably find some balance that will moderate the ISP-TV demand to somewhere between the ad-free DVD and commercial broadcast. (My TV-show DVDs only take about 45 minutes per hour show!) | |
| | | TV sucks anyway I watched 2 shows that I thought were pretty good. After they ended "TV whats that?"
They think the can throw crap like american idol, canadian idol on tv and think I will watch it? Nope, I think watching paint dry has more entertainment value. But producers whant to make these shows. Cheaper then regular shows to make.
No wonder they have been failing lately. I turn on the tv to catch CBC, CNN, BBC.
I dont even watch discovery anymore for all the reruns.
Maybe if these producers get a clue and make something worth while to watch I would actualy watch it. | |
| | | | Re: TV sucks anyway Yes the content does stink. I must admit, on the occasions I do watch it, I very much enjoy HD. Its hard for me to watch anything that isn't in HD. But its also very hard to watch what these producers call "quality content". Reality TV is insulting to any I.Q. score there is!
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone | |
|
davepk
join:2003-10-02
Santa Cruz, CA | Product vs Customer Viewers are not the customer to network broadcasters.
We viewers are the product. More specifically our eyes are the product.
The true customers of the networks are those that buy commercial time slots.
The problem networks face is in maintaining their product (my eyes). For with out a product to sell they are finished. | |
|  BorednessThe LurkerPremium
join:2005-07-07
In Limbo
·Comcast
1 edit | Ads don't really work on the poor class I'm in the poor class and I completely ignore advertisements and commercials because money doesn't grow on trees to buy their expensive products and services. Not enough jobs and money to go around in an ever growing population.
--
Thank you for choosing the Ferengi way of life humans! »memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Rules_o···uisition | |
|
| |
|
|
·
Remember theaters, no business model is forever.