Slashdot Mirror
How Could TV Survive Without Commercials?
Milo_Mindbender asks: "I'm sure many of the readers of this site know the joy of skipping commercials using a TiVO, Replay or other form of PVR box. I'm sure it has occurred to a lot of us that if someone produced a schedule of commercial stop/start times the PVR could easily make all commercials instantly vanish from a recording. While this would be really cool, if it got really popular it would KILL all the local TV stations and TV networks who depend on ads to survive. Sure, you could say it's their fault for having an outdated business model, but there's a problem: these sources are where A LOT of the content for your PVR comes from. If they die, there's nothing for your PVR to record. My question for this crowd is: 'If the commercials stopped tomorrow, what business models can you come up with that would keep TV content flowing to your PVR?'"
"I've heard a few interesting ideas such as:
- having people pick a few ads from a list and watch them before each show...
- ...giving advertisers a profile of your interest and let them show you a (smaller number) of unskippable ads for things you are really interested in...
- ...ahaving the products show up in the show itself (product placement). For example: Buffy, after killing a vampire, could then slam down a Mountan Dew.
How about this one:
What about not thinking yourself better than others because you don't choose to partake of a particular form of entertainment they might enjoy?
You smug, self-important assclown.
PBS, digital movie channels, HBO, etc...
We pay a premium for these already because they braodcast with few or no channels. This is a non-issue sort of question because the niche for non-commercial TV is already filled and doing fine.
** Sig-a-licious **
There is a noted increase in revenue when an ad campaign is put out. Despite what you _think_ you are paying attention to, ads DO have an affect.
I used to work on the Toyota website, and when they ran an ad campaign, site traffic would increase dramatically. They also reported increased sales.
Plus, think about it logically, if ads didn't generate revenue or alter spending habits, they wouldn't be cost effective and wouldn't exist.
http://www.naildrivin5.com/davec
The adds work. We don't really know how, but the they do, as evidenced by finincial sucess that the companie reap by their effectivness.
One theory is such:
The goal of repetitive TV advertising is not to get your to get off your cush chair, run out, and immeidiatly purchase the product - it's to just get know and consider the advertised product the next time you purchase, and to forget that other viable products exist.
Here's an exapmle of how this works, answer the following question:
What's your favorite refreshing drink?
You probably answered Coke or Pepsi. 95% of the people will answere with one of these two - even though that are litterally tens of other choices: RC, Shasta, Jolt, STORE-BRAND$ etc.. in the cola catagory alone, let alone plain water or real lemonade.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Blockquoth Lord Leverhulme:
Moral: Companies pay millions of dollars because they think they work. That does not in fact mean that they work. Entire industries have spent decades or more laboring under shared misconceptions. In the case of advertising, the measurement tools are so coarse and the data pool so vast, I think very little is demonstrable of cause-and-effect.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
> In many ways, I have found life without TV a big improvement, in that I can now think.
If you can't think watching tv, you probably can't think without one, either. Get a grip.
People who categorize all tv as evil or stupid are guilty of stupidity themselves. There's _plenty_ of well-done, educational, and inspirational programming on tv (if you count cable channels). Shows like West Wing, Buffy (despite the lead character & actress, this show is amazing. Easily among the best writing around.), and others. When you toss in shows on PBS, channels like Discovery, History Channel, hell, even the Cartoon channel, you've got a lot of great stuff available. It's not all 'Full House', and hasn't been for many years. No matter what you're into, there's something, probably several somethings, somewhere on a cable channel for you. Now, that said, is it worth the money? Depends. Basic cable, or expanded basic, is a great deal. Pay channels usually aren't. Sure, they show uncensored movies, but considering how many times they repeat the movies, I dunno. Most movies aren't worth watching more than once, to me. I'm more likely to watch things on Turner Classic Movies than I am to watch the latest thing on HBO or Showtime. I'm not really into HBO's "original programming", so it's not a big draw for me. I'd be willing to pay for channels like BBC America, though, if it were offered here in Kansas City (which it isn't), and the same goes for Sundance Channel and some others.
However, consider something like dishwashing detergent. I don't give a damn about dishwashing detergent. I have ZERO brand loyalty there.
When I buy diskwashing detergent, I am most likely to simply buy the one that seems most familiar and isn't too much more expensive than the ones I've never heard of. In short, the one that has advertised the most.
I have to agree - I used to find it a little annoying that I had to pay the TV tax for a couple of channels no matter whether I watched them or not. But recently I've worked out that the BBC channels are pretty good value for money.
It works out that you pay just over 10 quid a month for the BBC, with zero adverts and mostly original programming. Contrast this with Sky which is almost 100% repeats, and 30% adverts (there's roughly 5 minutes of adverts every 10-12 minutes it seems) for the same price.
Plus, unless it's a mere coincidence, most of the satelite channels switch to adverts within seconds of each other, probably to stop channel switching, but I always flip to one of the BBC channels when the ads start for 5 minutes while they're on.
If the beeb can make it pay with no ads, why can't the other satelite channels?
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
The comparison to the BBC and licensing fees doesn't cut it. A couple of hundred bucks a year for under 10 channels would never fly in the US, where broadcasters provide, and consumer expect 10x that number of channels. For the economics to translate, consumers would have to pay thousands a year in licensing fees. Not gonna happen.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
All of the production costs, including the advertisements themselves, distribution costs (cable systems and satellite systems), plus exorbitant celebrity costs are being covered by consumers at large under the current business model.
This model exploits the network effect. A product heavily promoted on television will garner a larger display and back stock at the local retailer, because enough idiots out there think they are one glove or one shoe or one shirt away from being Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan. This reduces the stock of alternative products. If you don't want television, you just want the best shoe, there's a nice $50 shoe only they don't stock size 12. What happens? You walk out of the store with an $80 Nike, and one more slab of god awful television has just earned its commission.
It's not much different than the MS model. Those of us who don't watch television end up paying our tithes nevertheless. You can escape the net occassionally by buying your local eco soap, if you are spry enough to pull products off the floor shelf (which you have to crouch down to even see).
Let's suppose you set up a market to commission shows based on user contributed fees (supposing you can collect the $100,000 per episode it would take to make this work). In this model, the audience effectively owns the show. If the show ends up being really good, people who didn't participate in the commission will want to watch it. You would have to set up a fee system which returns profits to the original backers (the audience members with the foresight to commisssion the show).
Now we have a very interesting situation. Sally wants to see a show and she knows Bob is entitled to view the show because he participated in the initial round of funding. Sally asks Bob to tape the show so that she can avoid paying the fee. At one level this is ripping Bob off of a few microcents. On another level, if Sally bakes him a single chocolate muffin out of gratitude, he comes out ahead having ripped himself off.
What we have here is a P2P version of tragedy of the commons. It would be extremely difficult to make any system work where the backers of a show are not conceptually distinct from the audience of the show.
The reason the current system endures is because it creates a very high barrier to defection. Sure you can skip the commercials with a little bit of vigilance, but chances are you still get dinged at your local retail outlet, best intentions notwithstanding.
It internet groceries (and retail in general) had actually succeeded, it might have been possible to break this model. It would be great to be able to purchase dry goods via a web interface with user controlled filters. Transfatty oils? Click, gone. More sugar than fruit juice? Click, gone. MSG? Click, gone. Lifetime RDA for sodium in one sip? Click, gone. It would be like having your own supermarket with the top shelf on the bottom and the bottom shelf on top. That would have seriously impacted the existing television model. Which is precisely the reason this form of retail never had a snowball's chance in hell. If they nuked their ties to the marketrons, they would have to charge more up front to the end consumer than the same basket would cost in the grocery store. The average consumer is incapable of realizing that the average trip to the grocery store doesn't produce the same basket of goods (unless you spend an extra hour in the store filtering out all the surface crap).
There's a lot in life that gets paid for by nickle and diming people in subtle ways that are very difficult to add up at the end of the day. If you take the same sum of money, explain up front that they can direct this money to a project of their choosing (such as commissioning a television series of their favorite genre), or putting that same lump of money right back in their pocket, guess which choice people will make 90% of the time.
I think a narrow culture of micromedia will emerge for those of us willing to spend an hour with some content that some clever weirdo hacked together for $5000 on top of some open source modelling software, with all of the imperfection and absence of celebrity which that entails. Small groups of people will eccentric tastes are much more likely to succeed than large groups of people.
For example, I could see myself contributing $20/year to the Battlebot Foundation, which as just one of many activities, could put together a half dozen episodes a year of battlebot competitions. On the other hand, I doubt I would have forked over $20 to keep The Simpsons alive, even though I often find it entertaining.
One of the great advantages of the existing model is the absence of marginal cost. All you have to do is calculate your belt size and contribute that many dollars a month to your local cable company, which covers most viewing plans. Then you have a built in excuse for zoning out on the sofa whenever you feel like it: it isn't costing me anything.
Now think about a competing model where the content costs you real money every time you turn the TV on, and the double daggers you will have to endure from your spouse every time you collapse on the couch.
When it comes to apathy, narcissism, and denial (the three foodgroups of television) it really doesn't matter how many great minds you throw at the problem.