 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Just a question It obvious people wish commercials would just go away. Ok so then how do shows get made? Are networks in the business to provide free entertainment for the masses just to be nice? I'm asking a serious question so serious replies only. People don't get is if they did away with commercials you TV bill would be 5 times than it is now. Shit is going to get paid for one way or another the sooner people get this concept the better. |
|
| no
we already pay the cable bill
either that or just netflix |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| reply to BF69
Absolutly not. Television (just as most of the web) is an advertizing driven medium.
not only would TV bills be higher (5x is very low) inovative shows would cease to be tried.
NObody would risk money on anything that wasn't strickly low cost formula crap. |
|
| reply to BF69
I agree with your argument but there is a gray area in play as well. The networks and advertisers have to somehow prove that commercials actually represent the reason someone goes and buys a product advertised on TV. At best commercials make you aware that a product exists but in no way (with the amount of online information on a product) does is sway anyone's decision to buy that particular widget over a competitors same widget.
I think the commercials need to stay. They are the source of a lot of shows production capital. However I also do not see a problem with commercial skip as even the Comcast DVR has a Fast Forward button that I use when I am not in the mood to "shop" during an episode of NCIS.
And then there is the "I can do something else" argument of going to the bathroom during commercials or surfing the internet on a laptop during commercials... sure the commercial ran, but it had no discernible affect on my buying habits as it was just background white-noise.
I think choice is best. Anything else punishes someone on either side of the argument. |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to JigglyWiggly
And where will netflix get MOST of what they show? |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to BF69
No need for the false dichotomy, bud. Either networks adapt, trim their costs, use a different style of advertising (personally I find the sports broadcast style of briefly mentioning the sponsor much better than having to watch five minutes of commercials for ever four minutes of programming), or contract the market until it's sustainable.
No need for those involved in the entertainment industry to be multimillionaires. They can either accept making less money or move on. |
|
|
|
 newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | reply to axiomatic
said by axiomatic:The networks and advertisers have to somehow prove that commercials actually represent the reason someone goes and buys a product advertised on TV.
More & more I find myself making mental notes about what NOT to purchase based on intrusive, asinine, pointless annoying advertisements.
Broadcasters and service providers have the right to insert annoying advertizing in the content they provide ... it's their network, they can do with it as they may. They can run it into the ground with stupid commercials for all I care.
However, they should be aware of and ready to deal with the backlash of a growing contingent of people like myself who are fed up with the increasing advertizing that we are inundated with, day in and day out, hour by hour, minute by minute.
I, for one, have chosen to closely consider that annoying, intrusive, asinine, pointless commercial ... shown over & over & over & over ... as one of the criteria under which I will make my purchasing decisions.
Basically, if an advertiser annoys me with a commercial for his/her product, they may not achieve the result they intended ... quite the opposite in fact.
I will also make use of any and all available current technology to avoid being annoyed by these stupid commercials. Advertisers may, in fact, want to THANK me for avoiding their drivel, thereby maintaining consideration for their product when making my purchasing decisions. |
|
| reply to BF69
There is no requirement that someone watching a TV show over the air has to sit and watch commercials; they can do other things rather than watch. The advertisers are paying for the opportunity for an audience to see their commercials, not a guarantee. So if I'm able to leave the room or just fast-forward over the commercials, the end result is the same... I don't see them. Some people will sit and watch even if the skip technology is at their fingertips.
I suspect the number of people who actually watch the commercials will be about the same. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| reply to JigglyWiggly
Ah, but the cable bill only covers part of the costs. If you want advertisement free programming (i.e., HBO, Showtime, etc.) it comes at a premium. Are the masses prepared to pay extra money for Mythbusters, DWTS, SVU, NCIS, Ice Road Truckers and the litany of other shows that aren't produced by the premium channels? If the answer is 'No' then why should the many (people without DVRs) subsidize the few (people with DVRs)?
Mind you, I don't think DVRs are or should be illegal. It's just a thought exercise: If people aren't willing to pay HBO prices for original programming AND refuse to even pretend to watch advertisements (remember the days of running to the fridge during a commercial break?) how does original programming get produced?
If you were given a free hand to run a major cable channel or one of the big networks how would you change the business model to remain viable in an advertisement free environment while still continuing to produce quality programming at the prices currently being charged? |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to JigglyWiggly
I'm not sure the cable bill fully funds the content providers. It used to when there were just a few broadcast networks. Before the Internet killed print media, recall that there used to be a magazine for every every sport, hobby or special interest. Today there's a video channel for a lot of special interests. Most cannot support themselves purely on advertising because they don't have enough viewers so they get a reach-around from the cable company and advertising dollars to make ends meet.
While this may be a PITA, we should pay the cable company for their network and we should SEPARATELY pay the content providers for their content. If you like sports network, buy all you want. If you like science programs, buy all you want. Love to watch game-show reruns? Buy all you want. Just cannot live without Oprah's network? Buy it.
Of course this will work best when the network folks just accept that the consumer wants them to deliver bits and the content providers get a direct relationship with their consumers. |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| reply to BF69
From the other customers that don't use the technology and from the money I already send the providers on a monthly basis. Also from the massive increase in retrans fees they hit the providers with. The commercials are still there, I just chose to not watch them. |
|
 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | reply to Angrychair
said by Angrychair:No need for those involved in the entertainment industry to be multibillionaires. They can either accept making less money or move on. There.. I fixed it for you. |
|
| reply to ThereYouAre
And this is the argument exactly that needs to be made in the courtroom.
Not "No need for those involved in the entertainment industry to be multimillionaires."
Not "More & more I find myself making mental notes about what NOT to purchase based on intrusive, asinine, pointless annoying advertisements."
--
Ali
Check Point Certified Security Expert |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to BF69
said by BF69:It obvious people wish commercials would just go away. Ok so then how do shows get made? Are networks in the business to provide free entertainment for the masses just to be nice? I'm asking a serious question so serious replies only. People don't get is if they did away with commercials you TV bill would be 5 times than it is now. Shit is going to get paid for one way or another the sooner people get this concept the better.
If there was no FF on provider dvr's, i bet there'd be only a fraction of the people paying for dvr's.
and this is no different than what hopper does but hopper only does it 3 hours out of the 24 hour day and ONLY on fox, abc, cbs, nbc and NOT the same day they air!!1
how many products i've bought based on a ad i saw on TV: 0 |
|
 UHFAll static, all day, ForeverPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-24
·Callcentric
 ·DIRECTV
 ·surpasshosting
| reply to axiomatic
said by axiomatic:The networks and advertisers have to somehow prove that commercials actually represent the reason someone goes and buys a product advertised on TV.
The point isn't necessarily to sway you to buy that item right then and there. It's about awareness. Decades ago I talked to an ad person from the local newspaper, she called it "Top of mind awareness". It didn't matter what the content of the ad was, as long as it caught the readers eye and made them aware of the store in question. And through multiple insertions of the ad, it helped push awareness to the top of the consumers mind when they were in the market for our products and services.
Does Apple really believe that there's anyone that isn't aware of the iPhone? Nope. But by constantly running "iPhones are cool" ads, it brings the iphone to the top of peoples mind when they decide to get a smart phone. |
|
mogamer
join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI | reply to BF69
said by BF69:It obvious people wish commercials would just go away. Ok so then how do shows get made? Are networks in the business to provide free entertainment for the masses just to be nice? I'm asking a serious question so serious replies only. People don't get is if they did away with commercials you TV bill would be 5 times than it is now. Shit is going to get paid for one way or another the sooner people get this concept the better.
You still using this tired argument? Like I said previously (and of course you never replied to), when you take into account product placement, dvd/bd sales, disc rentals, streaming, on demand and re-trans fees, there is plenty of income being generated. Maybe if production companies worked more economically and also held down the salaries of management and actors, they wouldn't be so desperate to stop new technology. |
|
| reply to Simba7
Thank you. |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:It obvious people wish commercials would just go away. Ok so then how do shows get made? Are networks in the business to provide free entertainment for the masses just to be nice? I'm asking a serious question so serious replies only. People don't get is if they did away with commercials you TV bill would be 5 times than it is now. Shit is going to get paid for one way or another the sooner people get this concept the better.
I can live with commercials. I understand they are a necessary evil.
What I can't live with is the frequency of the commercial breaks. In some 1 hour shows I have seen up to 8 breaks. At times there is only 4 minutes of the show in between breaks. This is terrible for the continuity of a program.
CNN and MSNBC also have another trick they play, which irks the living shit out of me. They will go to break, then come back for 10 or 15 seconds, then go back to another commercial break. The other night CNN did this FOUR times in a row and I finally just changed the channel.
I dislike when the same commercial is shown twice, or even 3 times during the same break, and I really, really hate it when the commercials are twice as loud as the program you were watching, necessitating a hasty reach for the remote to press the mute button.
Maybe we all have to live with commercials, but there ought to be some limits and they don't have to be as aggravating as they currently are.
--
“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Sinclair Lewis |
|
| reply to JigglyWiggly
said by JigglyWiggly:no
we already pay the cable bill
either that or just netflix
You aren't paying the true cost of running a TV channel or producing programming, otherwise you'd be paying $10-$15 per channel. |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| reply to Crookshanks
Truthfully the shows you mentioned should not even be on the air. I would be willing to lose 99% of the crap that is on cable for having the remaining 1% be commercial free.
--
Bellingham Scanner Kicks Ass! »bhamscanner.kicks-ass.org/ |
|
