Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Could TV Survive Without Commercials?

Posted by Cliff on from the sounding-the-death-knell-of-broadcast-TV dept.

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 Sure, you could say it's their fault for having an outdated business model, but there's a problem: these sources are where A LOT of the content for your PVR comes from.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.
The most obvious alternative is to send your favorite shows to you via broadband and have you pay by the show. But would you pay to watch Buffy, The News, Star Trek? Would you prefer pay by the show, subscribe to a show/network or be forced to watch commercials? I'm interested in hearing what system would bug you the least, or if you have your own ideas how it could work."

4 of 954 comments (clear)

  1. Its funny... by Psiren · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've often seen comments from Americans about how stupid it is us Brits have to pay for a TV licence to watch television. Well, that licence funds the BBC, and there are no ads on the BBC channels (apart from advertising the BBC itself). Something to ponder perhaps?

  2. Re:Great if you're socialist by raygundan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most americans already pay far more than that for TV. This amounts to a little less than a $13/month increase to their cable bills, and despite the perpetual price hikes from the cable companies, people seem to be just paying the extra. I'm sure you'd find some takers.

    I would certainly pay $150 a year to can the commercials. I fail to see how this is socialism-- as I understand it, the British TV license is optional. Don't want to pay? Don't watch the BBC channels.

  3. Re:Um, how would anything change? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Um, you're jumping to conclusions.

    Ad campaigns tend to coincide with a new product. Those genuinely interested in it, tend to find it on their own, regardless. That marketing firms never point out that ad campaigns are carefully launched when interest would go higher anyway, is the most devious scam of all.

  4. Re:Video On Demand by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What they need is a gigantic digital library of every TV show and movie ever made, with new shows and movies added when they become available, with a charge of 50 cents per hour of programming downloaded from the library. With so much programming available for a reasonable price, no one would ever bother to record or 'pirate' anything, and you could watch what you want when you want. It would need a powerful search/navigation system.