how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
270 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Our cable bills are high enough Our cable bills are high enough that they should not need advertising to sustain their product. I think that TV advertising should go the way of the pay phone.
Some of the NBC networks (particularly the Weather Channel) are known for some of the most annoying adds. Remember the "Head-On Apply directly to the forehead" commercials a few years ago that made you want to throw your TV set off of the second story balcony.
Also the quality of TV programming has declined. The Weather Channel used to be 24 hours of non stop weather information, now they play the same rerun of "Ice Pilots" for the 22nd time this month. I have even stated that in the Nielsen ratings that the Weather Channel should be split into two feeds, one for 24 hr weather information and another for the garbage they play like episodes of "When Weather Changed History" that were filmed back in 2005.
The only good stuff on is the music channels and the local evening news. Some of my favorites are VH1 Classic, CMT Pure, a couple of the Music Choice Channels (particularly Pop Hits, 90's, and 80's along with True Country), and the 22 News (WWLP) at noon/5/5:30/6PM. I also watch Fox News from time to time. | |
|   GlennAllenSunny with highs in the 80s
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA | Re: Our cable bills are high enough said by IowaCowboy:Our cable bills are high enough...
"You lost me there." [probable] quote from NBC Broadcasting chairman Ted Harbert  | |
| | | said by IowaCowboy:Some of the NBC networks (particularly the Weather Channel) are known for some of the most annoying adds. Remember the "Head-On Apply directly to the forehead" commercials a few years ago that made you want to throw your TV set off of the second story balcony.
The fact that you remember that is a testament to the ability of commercials for you to remember something. Those commercials were annoying but I do have to say that the head on product is effective. I've used it more than a few times. | |
| | | | Re: Our cable bills are high enough and the he can thank that product for paying TWC and supporting their channel. | |
| | | | | Re: Our cable bills are high enough as well as for the higher prices that everyone pays for products due to the costs of paying for ads (whether they watch or don't watch), which make the prices for all products go higher and higher and higher... | |
|
 airwavzAlways the green wire
join:2011-09-11
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
1 edit | said by IowaCowboy:Our cable bills are high enough that they should not need advertising to sustain their product. I think that TV advertising should go the way of the pay phone.
OK, first: "Cable Bills" and "Advertising" have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other (well, historically at least). Your cable bill pays for the DELIVERY of those networks, and the CONTENT of the cable-only channels (which traditionally had far fewer commercials, or in the case of premium networks, NO commercials) to your home. The ads paid for the cost of the content from the major over-the-air networks and the costs of the local stations putting this content on the airwaves. The local stations AND the networks originally WANTED the cable companies to carry their programming so more viewers would watch, equaling more ad revenue. Only in recent years have they suddenly decided cable companies should now PAY for the right to carry that content (Just like the record labels wanting radio stations to pay for the right to play (PROMOTE!!!) their music). The cable companies should have explained 'declining viewership' in detail to these networks and local stations, and REFUSED to ever pay a nickel to extend the viewing area of those networks / stations! Your cable bill would be a LOT less if that were the case.
As far as the quality of the content declining, you are absolutely right, which is why I have a nice little antenna feeding my TV sets, as well as Netflix and the purchase of a movie or two on DVD each month, and the cableco gets a few bucks for my internet connection - I voted with my wallet! If enough folks said "I'm not gonna take it anymore" and did the same, the bills would go down. It really IS that simple. As long as you pay it, guess what....
But - that said, the content producers, whether for the networks, for premium channels, for direct-to-disc distribution, etc. have to get paid somehow. Many TV shows now cost over a million bucks PER EPISODE, and either you pay the distributor (HBO, Cinemax, etc.) or you watch some commercials; choose neither (which yes, you can do with technology) and soon there will be NO content to watch!!! The "F*** YOU, I'm gettin' it for free" generation is going to wake up someday and wish they had the 3 major networks of old, as there will be NO free content - over-the-air, bit-torrent, or otherwise - you'll pay for 18 layers of DRM or you'll watch / listen to homemade crap. Watching a few commercials isn't going to kill anybody, and for me, it beats the hell out of paying $20 / mo. for each premium channel ON TOP OF $70-$90 / mo. for the basic cable crap.
Will everyone who expects to be able to watch whatever they want without paying for it AND without viewing commercials please let me know where you work so I can come take YOUR services for free!!
Oh, you won't work for free?!? Those people making your entertainment content won't either! Want to know why it all costs so much? Because those of us who refuse to steal are subsidizing the costs for those who want it all for nothing...
Look - you either pay extra for no commercials, or you watch the commercials. Whatever your choice, vote with your wallet; it really is YOUR choice, but don't complain when either the bill goes up, or you are forced to watch the commercials. Technology has changed the entertainment industry in many ways, and I certainly don't have all the answers to where the industry's business model is headed; but understanding that all of your music / movies / TV / print-media require the full-time efforts of MANY, MANY people - who have families to feed just like you - is certainly part of the solution.
I ABSOLUTELY believe in fair-use rights, but that is NOT the same as taking someones 'Intellectual Property' without compensating them for it.
(You may now return to watching your DVR'd commercial-less content... while it lasts) | |
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by IowaCowboy:Our cable bills are high enough that they should not need advertising to sustain their product. I think that TV advertising should go the way of the pay phone.
You do know that most of the money you pay for cable goes to the cable company not the networks. Unless your NBC which is owned by Comcast. Even then only a small portion goes to NBC. | |
| bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
| said by IowaCowboy:Our cable bills are high enough that they should not need advertising to sustain their product.
Right.... no.
Go take a look at the pricing for the premium channels that don't use advertising. I've got one set of them, and they account for about 20% of my monthly bill, and account for somewhere below 5% of my channels. If everything was commercial free and followed that pricing level, I'd be paying 4 times as much.
No thank you.
While there would probably be room to bring the prices down somewhat from the current premium channel pricing if everything went commercial free (3 times as much? 2 times as much if we're lucky?), you'd still see the price go up for channels that currently have commercials. | |
|
| |
|
