Slashdot Mirror
Kellner Says Commerical-Skip Worth $250/year
Steve B writes: "A sequel to Turner CEO: "PVR Users Are Thieves" -- according to this story reported by Broadcasting & Cable, our friend Jamie Kellner says that consumers should be prepared to pay "as much as $250 per year" for the privilege of zapping over commercials. BTW, I'm not being entirely sarcastic when I call Kellner "our friend" -- if we properly exploit this story as an example of why Hollywood wants control over our consumer electronics, Kellner just might dig their graves with his big mouth."
I'm not sure why broadcasters are up in arms about PVRs skipping adverts. Anyone who records a program rather than watch it live is going to forward through the adverts anyway, when they get around to watching it. Advertisers already know this, and they're still willing to pay for advertising because most people watch TV programs live rather than record them.
Surely, what broadcasters are worried about is the whole concept of a TV recording machine that people watch instead of live TV. The fact it skips adverts in the recording is just icing. I think they're mostly worried about losing the eyeballs of the lucrative AB demographic -- high-earning types who only watch a few select TV programs anyway. But don't they think that attacking their own viewers and branding them "thieves" is a bit misguided? How is that going to get people to watch the TV more?
Does my bum look big in this?
Hell, that's cheaper than cable is, I'm all for it! Oh wait, you mean they won't be cutting thier profit margin any? I keep forgetting that they are guaranteed a certian level of profit by law...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Like anyone actually buys crap from ads on TV anyways.
A new technology comes along, which allows us users to save time, not having to spend so much time out of our busy day watching commercials, that's just fucking tough for advertisers.
Furthermore, intelligent advertisers have started to insert "ads" into TV shows. For example, All My Children promotes cosmetics company Revlon within the show, by having one of their actresses take a job at Revlon within the show.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
"Face it, TV broadcasting is a service."
TV broadcasting is an imposition. They blast my property and my person with their rf without my permission. They should be paying me.
"If you watch TV without watching the ads, you are stealing. I would be more than willing to pay in dollars instead of in boredom."
I watch no TV at all, thereby depriving the broadcasters of exactly what an ad-skipper does. Does that men I "owe" $250/year also?
"So what's wrong with that?"
What's wrong with that is that viewers of broadcast TV have no contract with and no obligation to the broadcasters. They have no more right to complain about ad-skipping than the owner of a billboard does about people who look at only part of the billboard.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
there's another reason the commercials are better. "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television", by J. Mander, comes to mind... it's because ad _have_ to be more attention-getting than the shows, and the easiest way to do this is to make them better than the show they are on. it's inherent in the technology and hierarchy of tv. advertisers do not like putting effort into a commercial, only to have it upstaged by a show more memorable than the plug they shelled out their {cough} hard-earned {/cough} coins for. they will not throw money at a show just so that people don't remember their client's corporate logo.
united states nuclear device terrorist bioweapon encryption cocaine korea syria iran iraq columbia cuba
Turn off the TV. Don't record anything. Find other things to do with the time. If you think they're upset about skipping commercials, just wait and see how upset they get when nobody is paying attention.