 coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
 ·Windstream
| reply to ITALIAN926
Re: Ergen is an idiot quote:
...Is your goal to destroy TV? Nobody has ever given a way for this industry to function with NO MONEY coming in.
And how is this different than any other disruptive market force in the past? The industry cries "but..but...we will not make any money...", then ends up making even more money when they got with the program and delivered what people wanted.
Please park the waaaambulance and turn in your keys in to the day clerk...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
2 edits | So let me get this straight. We circumvent TV advertising with these DVR's, rendering ads worthless. At this point, the channels demand increased carriage fee's per subscriber. So at this point, providers charge more money per sub, raising overall cable rates, leading to people " cutting the cord" and Piracy, which leads to even HIGHER carriage fee's for people who Love their legally-provided cable TV. THEN, the incumbents are screwed by losing TV revenue, so they introduce internet data caps , which is another phenomena this website is completely against.
So please , somebody tell us what the answer is. Because in my point of view, Karl Bode doesnt only ride the waaambulance, he's the driver. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | said by ITALIAN926:So let me get this straight. We circumvent TV advertising with these DVR's, rendering ads worthless. At this point, the channels demand increased carriage fee's per subscriber. So at this point, providers charge more money per sub, raising overall cable rates, leading to people " cutting the cord" and Piracy, which leads to even HIGHER carriage fee's for people who Love their legally-provided cable TV. So at this point, the incumbents are screwed by losing TV revenue, so they introduce internet data caps , which is another phenomena this website is completely against.
So please , somebody tell us what the answer is. Because in my point of view, Karl Bode doesnt only ride the waaambulance, he's the driver.
Before cable TV, the television ecosystem ran just fine on 26 minutes of programming and 4 minutes of commercials. Now we get 21 minutes of programming and 9 minutes of commercials (and that's not including the Informercial that is a chunk of the broadcast day).
Reduce the commercials by 50% and charge 2x more for them. You'll reduce the need for the viewer to hit the "ENOUGH!" button.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords |
|
| said by funchords:Before cable TV, the television ecosystem ran just fine on 26 minutes of programming and 4 minutes of commercials. True, but that forced TV shows to have very low budgets, leading to less entertaining television that people only watched because there were only 3 channels at the time. As long as we're being reminiscent, let's at least be realistic.
said by funchords:Now we get 21 minutes of programming and 9 minutes of commercials (and that's not including the Informercial that is a chunk of the broadcast day).
Reduce the commercials by 50% and charge 2x more for them. You'll reduce the need for the viewer to hit the "ENOUGH!" button.
Now there you have a very good point. It's gotten so bad that I actually start looking at the timestamps between when I hit the Fast Forward button and when I can finally hit Play again, and it's hitting 5 minutes regularly on certain channels for certain programs, though I realize that part of this is because they've completely eliminated commercials at the beginning and end of the program and moved them all in between.
Game shows are worse -- I love Wheel Of Fortune, but I can get through an entire 30-minute broadcast in 10 minutes when I cut out all the commercials and unnecessary introductions. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to funchords
said by funchords:Before cable TV, the television ecosystem ran just fine on 26 minutes of programming and 4 minutes of commercials. Now we get 21 minutes of programming and 9 minutes of commercials (and that's not including the Informercial that is a chunk of the broadcast day).
Reduce the commercials by 50% and charge 2x more for them. You'll reduce the need for the viewer to hit the "ENOUGH!" button.
You are comparing apples and buffaloes. Back then all the companies were bidding for time on 3 TV broadcast networks, who due to very limited availability could charge a very big premium for limited commercial air time. Now you have several dozen networks offering air time to about the same or less number of companies. Competition and huge amounts of commercial air time has driven down the amount of money they can charge advertisers. Hence, to cover the costs of a show means more commercials at greatly reduced fees.
So reducing the commercials is not doable and competition won't let them double prices as you suggest. |
|
coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC Reviews:
·Windstream
| reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:So let me get this straight. We circumvent TV advertising with these DVR's, rendering ads worthless. At this point, the channels demand increased carriage fee's per subscriber. So at this point, providers charge more money per sub, raising overall cable rates, leading to people " cutting the cord" and Piracy, which leads to even HIGHER carriage fee's for people who Love their legally-provided cable TV. THEN, the incumbents are screwed by losing TV revenue, so they introduce internet data caps , which is another phenomena this website is completely against.
So please , somebody tell us what the answer is. Because in my point of view, Karl Bode doesnt only ride the waaambulance, he's the driver.
Ah - you make one of the classic blunders in your analysis. The industry would not simply go softly into that good night without trying new models. The only thing really stopping that from happening currently is legislative and regulatory capture by the major players.
Further, when prices go up quickly and excessively, consumers rebel and seek alternatives and there is a limit on how far these prices can be increased no matter what they threaten or believe they can get away with.
Go ahead - put the pedal down and go for it! It will hasten the end of traditional TV and get us well on the road to the wide adoption of the next big ideas in home/family entertainment...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC |
|
| Ive asked for a solution, and you claim that there are " new models"... well, Im still waiting to hear what they are. |
|
coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC Reviews:
·Windstream
| said by ITALIAN926:Ive asked for a solution, and you claim that there are " new models"... well, Im still waiting to hear what they are.
Not my job unless you are the one willing to pay for the research and this is an interview process. How much do you have ready to throw at the issue?
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC |
|
 bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly SkiesPremium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND | reply to ITALIAN926
Sorry, I call bull$hit on your premise/argument. TV used to run just fine OTA with just commercials. Then enters the cable co. and their monthly fees. In the beginning that was acceptible because they needed to recoup the cost of the cable plant/infrastructure and to make a small profit. however things have continued in perpetuity where not only does the cable co collect profits for them but also for the networks. So, I am paying for the privilege to have programming I want AND forced to sit through commercials I don't want... again, let me stress this to you... I AM PAYING TO WATCH COMMERCIALS. This all boils down to greedy b@$tards at the networks who want double digit returns (or more)
So, if you want me to watch commercials, reduce the cable bill by a substantial amount or allow me to skip the commercials. Because I am VERY close to dropping cable TV AGAIN. |
|
| reply to Anon92834239
What are you talking about. The last time I had only 3 channels at a time to watch was when I had 1 channel off of an antenna in 1979. After I got cable, there were MANY more than just three channels, and they were commercial free because we got cable... |
|
| reply to Linklist
You are absolutely right! I agree with you 100% there are way too many channels and they need to be greatly reduced. Excellent point! |
|
| reply to coldmoon
said by coldmoon: quote:
...Is your goal to destroy TV? Nobody has ever given a way for this industry to function with NO MONEY coming in.
And how is this different than any other disruptive market force in the past? The industry cries "but..but...we will not make any money...", then ends up making even more money when they got with the program and delivered what people wanted. Please park the waaaambulance and turn in your keys in to the day clerk... Sure, the broadcasters will find a way to make money, but you may not like it.
Ads in the shows themselves with more blatant product placement (they're doing this with talk radio right now) and the general cheapening of TV will be accelerated if conventional ad spots die off. Or they might simply do like HBO and charge $15 extra for a set of networks.
TV is not a charity. You are not the customer. You are the PRODUCT. The purpose of commercial TV is to sell advertising, and TV stations are selling your eyeballs to advertisers. |
|
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:Before cable TV, the television ecosystem ran just fine on 26 minutes of programming and 4 minutes of commercials. Now we get 21 minutes of programming and 9 minutes of commercials (and that's not including the Informercial that is a chunk of the broadcast day).
Reduce the commercials by 50% and charge 2x more for them. You'll reduce the need for the viewer to hit the "ENOUGH!" button.
Before cable TV, TV was not nearly as elaborate and expensive as it is today.
Today's TV costs money. Gotta pay for it somehow. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine: You are not the customer. You are the PRODUCT. The purpose of commercial TV is to sell advertising, and TV stations are selling your eyeballs to advertisers.
then why do i need to pay to have my time and attention sold to someone else?
if viewers are the product, they should be the one's getting paid. |
|
coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC Reviews:
·Windstream
| reply to fifty nine
quote:
...TV is not a charity. You are not the customer. You are the PRODUCT. The purpose of commercial TV is to sell advertising, and TV stations are selling your eyeballs to advertisers....
Ymmm - meat product. I have been called a lot of things in my life, but this has to be the least accurate. It is also a serious root cause of the industry's lack of understanding regarding the backlash that is starting and gaining momentum.
As I said previously - put the pedal to metal and let's see who ends up being right in the end... 
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:2
 ·Bright House
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:The purpose of commercial TV is to sell advertising Hey, that's the same purpose The Press has.
--
The Dark Tower's Skynet evolves from 4chan. |
|
lancguy
join:2012-03-25
Lancaster, PA | reply to fifty nine
And what about shows like Holmes On Homes and more recently Holmes Inspection? This show depends on advertising to help renovate and repair homes. A recent episode I saw would have cost the Homeowner over $300,000 to fix all the foundation and structure issues. They still had to pay 10-15% but 30,000-45,000 is much better then $300,000. This show would exist without advertising. |
|
coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC Reviews:
·Windstream
| said by lancguy:And what about shows like Holmes On Homes and more recently Holmes Inspection? This show depends on advertising to help renovate and repair homes. A recent episode I saw would have cost the Homeowner over $300,000 to fix all the foundation and structure issues. They still had to pay 10-15% but 30,000-45,000 is much better then $300,000. This show would exist without advertising.
The usual run of network ads are not the only way Mike could finance his show and cause. The suppliers and contractors have a real incentive to provide their latest materials, products, and services. IFO would not mind seeing episodes where more time was spent with the contractors and Mike/Mike's construction lead going deeper into the details of what was wrong, why it was done wrong, and how they are going to fix the problems. Also, I wouldn't mind having the same people discuss their qualifications, experience, and how the viewer could hire them for their projects.
Just finding a good contractor is hard enough with the way the industry is set up and works at the local level. How much would it be worth to the contractors Mike brings in to have the show be real advertising for their businesses through example rather than the usual marketing and irrelevant commercial interruptions?
JMHO
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC |
|
