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 Sure, you could say it's their fault for having an outdated business model, but there's a problem: these sources are where A LOT of the content for your PVR comes from.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.
[PA]
Aren't there bears "outside?"
[/PA]
--- Do you believe in the day?
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 **
You're starting to see these now and they range from something like having the actors do something like their laundry and the show shrinks onscreen to display an advertisement for a particular brand of laundry detergent. This was recently tested and had great results. I'm sure you'll see more of this. We'll also probably see much more branding in the actual shows as well. Something like all the characters wearing one brand of clothing.
I think this may provide some hope, but I think without traditional commercials they'll be in a tough spot to make ends meet.
scott
I pay my TV license fee, I get BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4, CBBC, BBC News 24, BBC Parliament, six national radio stations and a nationwide chain of regional stations. Since none of them carry advertisements, I don't think they'll be much affected by ad-stripping technologies.
It works for me.
The magical "any day now" video on demand is here. On ATT Broadband in Atlanta I now have a certain selection of movies that are on VOD. It is $2.99 for an older movie and $3.99 for a newer one I believe. The coolest thing is that you can fast forward, rewind, pause, and stop and save for viewing later.
I believe TV shows can fall under the same model. Maybe the first show (the pilot) is free and each show afterwards is some cost. The cable companies can of course run package deals and such (50 shows a month for X dollars) and the cost may be pretty low if many people watch.
Interestingly, this model bypasses both TiVo's and commercial television's revenue models.
Brian Ellenberger
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
It's the same with people looking at their watch. Ask someone who checked their watch what time it is, and see how many have to check again.
It's a matter of getting from the medium what you need. In the case of your watch, it's usually "how long until the next thing I have to do?" Most people don't need the information provided by commercials so that information is quietly discarded. PDHoss======================================
Writers get in shape by pumping irony.
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.
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?
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.
Here in Britian, we pay a TV licence - about £120 per year. We do NOT get ANY ads on BBC1, BBC2, BBC24, etc. I think paying about £120 per year is a good deal for not having commercials (Not that I can ever remember their content anyway) I spent 6 months in Canada - they had ad breaks every 5/10 minutes or so!! We do have adverts on the commercial terrestrial channels - ITV, Channel 4 & Channel 5. But these do serve a useful purpose - It gives you a chance to get up & grab a beer & sandwich, or make a cup of tea/coffee without missing the program :o)
-- Fuck Beta
Food for thought - I watched *too* much tv. 6 hours a day.
I threw the bugger our and took up reading crappy scifi and posting on Slashdot. Same 6 hours wasted.
I've substitued one entertainment for another - and truth be told, I'm not more productive for it. However, I highly recomend to others that they make the switch:
After the switch, I've notices several good chainges in myself:
For some reason I don't consume as much goods, I'm less prone to inappropriate emotional outbreaks, and my vocabulary has improved. My spalling has remains attrocious as ever...
One thing that I won't do, is be a snob about it. I've only substitued one vice for another - I diden't acieve enlightenment or anything.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
There's all kinds of hidden data within your television picture... closed caption data, date/time, interactive guide data,v-chip data, and even URLs. This data is transmitted in the VBI, or the Vertical Blanking Interval, which is (loosly) the unused space between scanlines.
Much like spam filters, there are a few approaches that can be taken to apply statistical data and pattern recognition to the VBI data, which could then be used to skip commercials automatically. There are a few hobbyists doing this.
Since time data is also included in the VBI, the TV stations have exact lists of when commercials are to be inserted by their parent networks. This information, if obtained, could be useful when used in conjunction with the time data in the VBI.
Here's a good place to start reading if you want learn about your VBI... http://www.robson.org/gary/writing/nv-line21.html
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
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
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.
At the first of a) pointing out the obvious, and b) getting flamed, there ARE other ways in the world to support television besides commercial services sponsored by advertising.
I don't say you have to like the BBC. I don't say I would like this as a solution in the U. S. I just say, here is an existence proof. Here's one way television can and has "survived" without advertising.
As it says here,
The BBC's domestic radio and TV services are financed by the television licence fee.
The current licence fee (from 1 April 2002) is £112.00 for colour and £37.50 for black and white.
Anyone aged 75 or over is now entitled to a free TV Licence for their principal address.
If you are registered blind you only pay 50% of the full licence fee.
For less than 30p a day (colour), the licence fee pays for:
The television channels BBC ONE, BBC TWO, BBC Choice, BBC FOUR, BBC News 24 and BBC Parliament;
Five network radio services, plus the BBC Asian Network, and new digital radio services launching in 2002;
Regional TV programmes and Local Radio services in England;
National Radio & TV in Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland;
BBCi.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I'll gladly give up free television (how many people actually use antennas anyway) in return for access to the television airwaves.
Ok, so here's my idea. Which is a total 180 from everyone else I've read here so far. How about a channel that shows ONLY commercials? Hell, how about a DOZEN channels that show only commercials?
Seriously, I'm sure advertisers would love to pay people to watch their 30 second films. And you could choose which "kind" of commercials you wanted to watch by special interest, language, product type, etc.. I have found that the better commercials tend to be a lot more entertaining than your average Friends episode (I'm thinking best commercials in the World here, not just North America).
There might be some weird splash-over of people watching commercial for products that aren't available in their area (watching a stylish commercial for a Europe-only car or a funny Japanese toy commercial, for example), but the programming becomes REALLY simple when all you are doing is showing one 30 second spot after another... this might mean we now need Ad Jockeys (grimace).
The purpose of these channels (which could actually be fun to watch), would be to pay for the non-commercial channels bundled with them. So, if you watch x commercials, your cable is free (or cheap, rather).
Don't want to watch the commercials? Just pay the difference. Poor white trash? Make a little money while you sit on your ass. Everyone is a winner. Or not, as the case may be.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
I'm, in general, pretty sceptical of the value of ad campaigns it's worth noting that a client of mine launched a new product a while back. Leaving people to find it for themselves, they got around 200-300 customers per day. When they started to advertise it, they went to 600+ customers per day.
> 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.
Hell, how did you first ever find out about the Tivo itself? probably from an ad. And don't give me 'from a friend who heard from a friend' etc., most likely that chain, however long, started with an ad.
Face it, ads are as much a source of information as they are meant to invoke a direct response.
To say that 'ads don't work' is to say that you can make a killing even if nobody knows you're selling anything, but (obviously) nobody ever sold anything if the public never knew it existed..
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 watch a reasonable amount of TV, maybe 3 or 4 shows a week that I routinely watch, and then stuff if I'm just bored.
I do watch a lot of European Soccer, particularly English Premiere League. Soccer's a great way to show how to work around an advertising problem: The game is played for two continuous 45 minute halves. No TV Time-outs like (american) football/basketball, no injury time-outs. It just goes for 45 minutes, then stops for ~15 for half time, then goes again for another 45. So Advertisers have a few problems: no commercial breaks in-game, and the big-ol' 15 minute break in the middle is enough time for me to go grill myself a hamburger, grab a beverage, go to the bathroom, change the oil, etc. (although not at the same time).
So there're a couple of strategies employed. First, the obvious, that "this game is brought to you by so-and-so: slogan". You'll also find that the score display in the upper-right of the screen is "brought to you by so-andso", who just display their logo under the score constantly. Then, of course, the teams have logos on their jerseys, something which I am amazed American companies/sports teams haven't jumped on.
But as I ramble, I come to the ACTUAL idea. I started noticing that company logos are displayed in the center circle and corners of the field, in a manner that makes them appear to have been mowed/rolled into the grass. Of course, it isn't mowed/rolled in, it's digitally added, which makes it appear as though, say, budweiser has mowed the center of the pitch, when in reality it was simply added in later.
Let's take a couple of examples, which would be wildly easy to insert:
1) The friend's appartment has some poster on the wall, which, say changes week to week. Maybe it's a movie poster this week, maybe a pseudo-vintage coke ad.
2) The TV in a scene is playing some sort of advertisement. This would be especially amusing.
3) More mention of stores, and in particular, cars. Outside of the Seinfeld Black Saab, and Joe Suburbs shining up his vintage 60's muscle car while chatting with his neighbor, cars don't get a lot of play on your average sitcom or drama (knight rider/Viper excluded). For example, I know that in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Cordelia drives a Chrysler Sebring, but that's only because I'm a geeky car guy. She never mentions it by name, but does indicate an attachment to it and how cool it is. Why not a few exterior shots as character X gets into his new Subaru, or as Jane Doctor on Medical Drama Du Jour pulls up to the hospital. Car Geeks like me can identify the car by the look of a fender, but if the public knew that Jane Doctor drove the new Toyota Camry, maybe that's a good motivating reason for them to own it. Heck, they make the Acura NSX look cool as hell in Pulp Fiction, and they don't ever even tell you what it is.
So, to summarize: product placement, but in different methods than are currently used. Instead of a stupid pepsi billboard, have the characters order a pepsi at the amusement park's drink stand. Instead of a commercial about the new Buick Rendezvous, make it obvious that the wholesome soccer mom love interest drives a Buick Rendezvous. Instead of "movie guy" telling us in 30 seconds about X-Men 2, make it seem that X-Men 2 is so cool that Joe Cool-Character would want to have the movie poster in his apartment. Creative integrity isn't really spoiled, instead of a character at the bar saying "lemme have a beer" he says "gimme an MGD". What's changed? Nothing really. Frame up a shot so that Suzy is walking toward the screen, with the rear of the new BMW Z4 visible on the right side and Suzy on the left. What's changed? One camera angle, which an assistant director would likely have taken care of anyway. Then maybe dump a solid five minutes worth of advertisements in between shows, so that people watching it "live" still catch some other ads. Not exactly a 'problem solved' but it does implement the ad in a different manner entirely.
Sure, these channels provide much better TV (well, for me anyway) rather than the commercial channels, which broadcast the same average bull as the US channels do.
I think there are several questions you might ask yourself when creating a business model. What can TV do for its audience?
Once, four of the 8 commercial channels here in Holland, who own the best watched soap opera, announced that they would go behind the digital decoder. They made a gamble that people's addiction to this soap would force people to accept the new system. But what happened, a smaller national channel announced that they would never go behind the decoder and they owned a soap opera which was less popular, but still. So in the end, nobody went behind the decoder.
So what is TV for people? Education? Entertainment? There's one little problem with TV : forcing the customer to do anything that they're not doing now and which costs them more money will end-result in a competitor giving the same service without the force. People want freedom, not watching Buffy does not mean you're gonna die.
Just simply thinking of a business model is not enough. There's enough TV around anyway - you must have a good reason for me to watch your stuff.
By the way, both education and entertainment have substitutes: go to a theatre or a concert or perhaps read a good book. No TV does not mean no fun.
I guess you really have a problem.
Bizar technology?
The ads for BBC programmes are between shows not ever 10-15 minutes, so you can watch a show without interruptions. Which is very nice when the BBC runs movies on BBC1 or BBC2. I can't watch a movie with ad breaks, it ruins the experience. So I pay for premium movie channels like HBO.
I use to get a kick out of American shows on BBC, they would insert "signs" like "end of part 1", "end of part 2" so that the pause in the footage, designed for commercial break, still worked. I think it also helps timing, but that is secondary to the viewer.
CBC in Canada use to be commercial free, but without a TV license, their budget was too small. So now their budget is still too small and they have commercial. Mainly to afford to buy cheap American sitcoms and movies.
I watch less and less "commercial" television. When I can, I prefer to go to an independent cinema, and watch an independent film. On average, I am fall less disappointed with indie films, see a broader range of cultural material (not just sitcoms from LA and NYC), better stories, and save money. I mean I would far rather see Amelié or 8 1/2 again than Blue Crush.
One of the great advantages of having no ads is that there is no concept of ratings. With no advertisers you can concentrate on the providing quality content, as opposed to stuff that is meant to please the advertiser.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
AAAAAAAA freeking MEN!!!!
:)
I used to watch some TV while living at my parents' place -- Peter Jennings, local news with Paul Linman (of exploding whale fame) and Steve Dunn, and then Jeopardy. Now I'm in my own apartment. I have a small TV and a tuner card, but reception is crap so I don't even watch that anymore. I've found that it's FAR quicker to read the news I'm interested in on the Internet than listen to those guys blather about things I'm not interested in, not to mention the commercials. I do miss Jeopardy a little, but can live without it.
Those things aren't worth $9.99/month for basic cable. I do kind of wish I had regular cable for FOX News and the Travel Channel. But $40/month for that is OUTRAGEOUS. No thanks, at least not until I have a roommate and/or more of an income.
$45/month, OTOH, for cable Internet is a no-brainer.
One of the great advantages of having no ads is that there is no concept of ratings. [...] you can concentrate on the providing quality content,
You can provide content which will please the programmers. You will, however, have little indication of what pleases the public and honestly little reason to care. Stuff like that tends to carry fairly esoteric material, aimed to a narrow subset of the public (not nessecarily your subset!), instead of widely popular content.
If you can prove that you don't watch any television channels, you do not have to pay. If you watch television channels, but never watch the BBC, you still have to pay for it. So it's illegal to watch TV without paying for the BBC, even if you hate the BBC and never watch it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
In the end, all I was saying is, a lot of money is spent on advertising without any way to directly measure its effectiveness.
Well, there are. They just tend to give the same results as the accounting department that says "Hey, sales are up". One is a lot cheaper, so the detailed tracking is usually only done as an academic exercise.
("Eat GeneriFlakes -- they're cooool")
That is an excellent example of a marketting strategy which works extremely well with children. Keep repeating that statement with big pictures of the front of the cereal box - and kids will identify with the product and Mom will buy GeneriFlakes.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
The future is product placement, my friend. Only with product placement can commercial content get to viewers without such interference from pesky technology. Law & Order Classic, 2004:
"Before we investigate and inevitably arrest the prime suspect, why don't we relax and enjoy the soothing, refreshing taste of a Vanilla Coke?"
"Your honor, I request a recess so that we can try the new Subway Select Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki sandwich, only $2.99 for a limited time."
"The jury is hopelessly deadlocked, your honor. Half of the jury believes that the the defendant's beverage tastes great. The other half is convinced that it is less filling."
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
Granted that in 'libertopian capitalism' protectionist measures of this sort never never exist, just like libertopian capitalism itself. But in the real world the US today has heaps more protectionist measures of this sort than the UK has - the $190 billion farm bill, the steel tarifs and the trillions spent on military boondogles like Crusader, Start Wars, etc.
The comercial driven US model of network television is entirely a creation of government. As Ithiel Pool noted in technologies of freedom the US government got control of TV by controlling access to the airwaves. The network TV model suits politicians because it allows them direct access to their constituents in TV adverts. Individual politicians don't have campaign ads in most countries for a simple reason, the TV systems are national, the coverage areas are too large to be used for an individual politician's campaign.
Fortunately the network model is already collapsing under pressure from satelite and cable. Cable TV in theory offers the possibility of targetted local ads but in practice this only works well on the older analog systes with a small number of channels. When we had AT&T cable the 45 theoretical channels became 8 in practice once you eliminated the home shopping channels, religious channels run by child molesters, Fox NAZI news etc. So a politician could still get an audience with a buy on a small number of channels. With 100 odd channels that gets harder.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I don't watch Will and Grace, so I can't comment on that episode, but I'm assuming from the tone of the statement that you consider it to be a crappy episode. I'll give you that. Even very skilled writers have a hard time figuring out how to implement a story line similar to what I imagine the show centered around without a) selling out or b) pissing off sponsors.
But take, for example, the Kenny Roger's Roasters, Drake's Coffee cake, or Black Saab episodes of Seinfeld (episodes for which the studio and writers received no compensation at all). Kramer was conflicted because the neon sign of the Kenny Roger's place was keeping him up, but the chicken tasted so good. People can laugh at Kramer's misfortunes and still get the idea that Kenny Roger's makes a tasty chicken (for the record, it is pretty good). Had KRR paid the writers/studio for that episode, it would've been a perfect example of what I'm describing. For the record, Seinfeld fans consider the Drake's Cake and Kenny Roger's episodes to be some of the funniest around, not to mention that the season arcs about Jerry getting his own show on NBC (a show about nothing) would've worked wonderfully as an NBC self-ad.
The Simpsons (social satire) used to be rife with Fox insults ("wow, Fox turned into a hardcore porn station so fast", "I'm sure there's something better on from those fine folks at ABC", "Friday's just another day between NBC's thursday night must-see TV and Saturday's CBS crap-o-rama"), which I'm sure would do as good a job as "you're watching Fox".
Insidious? It's not a global conspiracy; it's just the way TV's business model works, and it's likely the way it always will work. For all the talk of $2 per show with free previews, it plays out a hell-of-a-lot like the micropayments idea that web comics wish they could implement. It sounds great, but really, the public would simply be too lazy to engage in it. Oh, and I'm sure Visa will love to handle $1 and $2 charges all day long (and the credit disputes customers will bring when 'this show sucked').
Fact of the matter is that advertising is what pays for TV. Until they can prove that a micropayment system works reliably, they're probably gonna stick to the same plan that's been working for the past 50 years. Sure, they may modify it a bit if PVRs start allowing large amounts of people to skip commercials, but they'll make their money somehow. I currently own two DVD television show compilations: Buffy Seasons one and two. It's a grand total of about $70 worth of television shows. Now assuming my apartment complex didn't include extended cable by default, the cable I get right now (extended basic) would cost me about $40 a month. That price is partly subsidized by advertising dollars, as the $10/month for a single channel of ad-less HBO would indicate. Assuming an ad-less TV setup (and interpolating that $10/month tag for ease of math/estimation), I'd need to spend a good, solid $80/month to see the television shows I enjoy: I'd need UPN for Buffy, Fox for Simpsons, NBC for Friends, The History Channel for the cool stuff that comes on it, HGTV for the girlfriend, TNN for their Next Generation re-runs (for the girlfriend; am I the only geek who DOESN'T like Star Trek?), Cartoon Network for the occasional anime that I enjoy watching, and the Food Network (Iron Chef). I'd rather deal with Iron Chef using Ginsus, Bart getting the latest Eidos videogame instead of Blood Warrior 3 (although the fake videogames are always funny), or a plug for Home Depot during an HGTV remodeling show than shell out a smooth $80 for the eight channels we watch at my place. If it comes to that, then I'll decide at that point if $80 is worth it, but until then, I'll deal with the subtle insidiousness.
Just as an aside, I do try to help out those things that I enjoy. I bought the Buffy DVDs despite the fact that I have every season already archived on CD-Rs. And no, it isn't the "incredible picture quality" that motivated me (the tape to DVD transfer on those DVDs is wretched, particularly the first season). I just like Buffy, and I hope to encourage further seasons. I've bought T-Shirts from Thinkgeek and comic compilation books from Bob the Angry flower. There's a fine line between "being a good little consumer" and keeping the companies (or programs) I like in business/on the air.
I can't decide whether I'd rather watch TV shows with commercials or read the articles with "Comments" on Slashdot.
Mindless drivel vs. um, mindless drivel.
I think I'll stick with TV and commercials. At least with TV, I'm not tempted to waste even more time responding to the mindless drivel.
-Rick
I spent a nice weekend out of town a month ago, and didn't see a computer or television the whole time. Was I a better person because I spent my time browsing record stores and sitting in bars with people? Not really. TV is entertaining, and I'll be damned if you're going to get me to give mine up with football season starting.
Anyway, where I *don't* like advertising is when it's just there to jump in your face and say "Hey I just wanted to remind you to buy buy buy buy buy yet a-fuckin-nother Whopper!"
A better example for the first kind of advertising is when you have a product that people won't know how to use without being shown. Like let's say that Transformers Toys were brand new and being released for the first time. if you saw the box in a toy store would it have occurred to you how insanely kick-ass they were for little kids as toys if you hadn't seen *why* they were worth noticing?
or what about some company's super-cool new windows that make your heat efficiency in your house better? ... anyway... I hate seeing McDonald's and Coke commercials but if it's a new product from someone then I generally don't mind them if it's sufficiently informative. i guess it sounds hypocritical written here, but ... whatever. ;)
That is where you are wrong. The BBC was from the very start conceived as a television and radio broadcasting company. Considerable sums were spent on research into television and a substantial amount of the technology used in modern TV was developed by the BBC.
The BBC was formed as a corporation in 1922 and received its royal charter in 1927. The first television signals were broadcast in 1936. The Hansard records of the House of Commons debates demonstrate that the potential of television was fully understood.
It does not take a great leap of imagination to realize the potential of combining the movies and radio. The newspaper barons understood correctly that TV would threaten both their power and their revenues.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
(at least, I didn't see it modded up anywhere)
;-)
Why not buy TV content the same way we buy music and movies? At the video store. I don't see a reason why there need be advertising involved. The real question is: how do we support the creation of the content consumers want to see? The answer is pay for it. I refuse to support television in its current form, so I don't watch anything (except for Enterprise, which I usually download cuz I miss the timeslot).
But I will happily pay for stuff that makes me laugh or smile, tweaks my anticipation for the next installment, etc. What I expect for the service is to either receive a DVD in the mail with the show every couple of weeks, or be able to tune in to a server on the internet and download it either directly to my PVR (which I don't own--yet) or via my cable box. If there's advertising, I want it to offset the cost of the show, and be tuned to my interests, and NOT be in the middle of the show. It ruins the flow of a story and destroys all the suspense and tension that might be built by a good story.
The way I figure it, as a subscription-based model, you'll see fewer shows being produced, but those that are produced will be of higher quality and greater depth. People would be highly attached to the stories, reminiscent of the radio serials of the 1930's-50's. Life would change. Channel surfing would cease to exist; regular TV would be useful only has a news-delivery mechanism (this is a Good Thing, as local stations can barely do that well); people might be enticed to do outdoorsy things that are free, rather than stay inside and be advertised to constantly. Best of all, shows could very well be targeted towards more mature audiences with fewer complaints from the puritanical extremist groups. A little nudity hasn't hurt European audiences any.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
I'd gladly cover the lower fifth of my TV screen to get rid of commercials (that is, if i watched television at all anymore). If only it were that easy!
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.
I think that subscription TV channels are probably a much better alternative than commercial channels. Ask yourself, what are the best TV shows on the tube? For me the best TV series and news are on HBO and my local public television stations. I know that HBO is highly profitable. So why have the networks clung to their old model? I guess it is because it's all they've got. If they were smart they would get the FCC to allow them to broadcast digitally encrypted shows that use decoders at the television. Then they could switch to the subscription model. I suppose that cable networks are somewhere in between broadcast network television and premium channels but they are obviously just as bad as the networks when it comes to intrusive advertising, low quality material, and bugs (the logos and watermarks on the screen that don't go away and usually animate once in a while).
1. Dump all commercials.
2. TV stations start charging cable providers for content.
3. Cable providers charge us for the service.
I think a model like this would only work for satellite providers, not land based cable. The costs to lay/maintain coax is probably significantly more then it would be to plunk a bird in the sky.
Number one problem with this? Money. People will only pay so much for cable. Therefore the cable companies will only pay so much for content, and the stations will only pay so much for shows. Therefor the whole industry needs to live with a smaller profit margin. And this leaves us pretty much back where we are since we live on a very capitolistic continent.
- Jimbob