I read this today at The Internet Movie Database. They were talking about devices that will tape a TV show but edit out the commercials for you. What a knob. I don't recall signing a contract. When I watch a show broadcast to my television, I don't agree to crap. In my case I pay for the delivery system (cable). So long as I don't try to profit off that system what I do with it is my business. By his logic when I flip the channel I'm stealing from his network. Maybe I'm stealing from him right now since I'm ignoring his broadcasts entirely as I sit at the computer… :bugeye: Peace.
Goofyfish, As I write this I have a wall of TV monitors in front of me, all tuned to the same afternoon Soap. Now, the average audio volume of the Soaps is quite low. They are mostly scenes of two persons having a quiet conversation. But when we switch to a commercial, there is invariably music with an announcer hawking his product. Despite the fact that I remember the same situation occuring when I was a kid while my mother watched black and white TV in the afternoons as she did the ironing, I regularly receive angry telephone calls complaining of the "loud" commercials during the Soaps. I try to patiently explain the situation, but in cases where that doesn't help, I have to gently remind the viewer that this is commercial television. I'm currently minding over a million dollars of equipment, there are millions more invested down at the studio, as well as over a hundred employees which need to be fed. Consider the hundreds of millions spent by the networks each year to produce 20 hours of television programming every day of the week. Look how much you spend to sit in a movie theatre for only two hours of "program." The only reason a paycheck arrives in my mail each week is because of advertising. Without it, this station would be closed within the week. I don't think a glossy magazine would remain in business very long if the distributor of the magazine ripped out all the advertising before you purchased it. And remember, you are paying to receive the magazine. You pay even more to watch commercials at the movie theatre. You pay nothing for commercial television. If you lived in the UK, you would have to pay a television "tax" or user fee. Ask Stryder or Cris about it. American commercial television is probably one of the few truely "free lunches" around. You have the right to leave the room or flip the channel when the ad comes on. As technology changes, commercial television will have to change as well. I am certain that if the bulk of the viewers employ commercial strippers in their televisions, the end of the days of "free" programming will be at hand. Having said all this, it's my opinion that the commericals are if anything, more interesting than the dismal programming on commercial television. They have to pay me quite handsomely to watch it, and I still complain! Michael
And...? Either way, we are under no obligation to actually watch or pay attention to the commercials. Saying that not watching commercials is theft is something like saying that window-shopping or simple browsing through a store is really theft. Aren't you stealing the attention of a store's associate away for however long as they help you and answer questions? They pay for that person, so it stands to reason that if the only way they can pay for that person to be there is for you to buy something, aren't you obligated to purchase something from a store every time you walk in?
Hello Riomacleod, You brought up a nice analogy. If everyone were to go down to their local retail store to examine the merchandise, yet when it came time to buy they all chose to purchase the same item through a mail-order catalog, the retail store wouldn't stay in business very long. People are free to buy things where they choose. They have the same freedom to watch commercials or to flip the channel. What I am saying is that if everyone milks the cow, yet no one feeds the cow, the cow will die. American television is one of the few remaining things that Americans still make in this country. Unlike the folks who make the plastic tinkets that Americans buy at Walmart, Americans generally refuse to work for a ball of rice every Friday. We want health care, vacations, and a livable wage. In the commercial broadcast industry, it is the advertiser who pays for the end product. If the advertiser should come to suspect that he is not getting his money's worth, the money pipeline will be turned off overnight. If this should happen another source of revenue will have to be found, or else when you turn on the television all you will see is noise. In such a case, if people want to see moving images again, they will see a hefty increase in their cable or satellite TV bill. Michael
we don't have to pay a cent for our TV, we can get "free to air" which is our main TV stations (from comertial to goverment) now if you want to ignore those adds fine, if you want to make a device to tape around them go ahead, but rember that if you do and everyone else dose and there is no longer a point to adds on TV then its YOU who will have to pay for the TV directly
Orthogonal, it's not MY fault that the broadcast TV industry is based on a business model which is becoming technologically obsolete. Let 'em go broke, and join the buggy whip manufacturers; I'd be GLAD to pay a bit more for my satalite TV subscription if it was entirely commercial free. As many of it's channels are already. Any product is going to be better for the customer, if it's DIRECTLY paid for by the customer. Paying indirectly, as with broadcast TV, is both inefficient, and results in a product which isn't designed to satisfy the end user.
It is really a sad state of affairs. Most people tune out commercials mentally as they watch a program. The brain works on a signal threshold structure. But the advertising group create the false impression that advertisements do work. It only works for new items within the acceptance criterias. If you hate Burger King, no matter how many commericials will not change your mind. So the business models should be changed. May I suggest an annoying compromise. Change the commericials to a rolling banner under the screen. If I see pizzahut and feeling like eating a pizza, may be I can order one. But it is less invading but will work just as good. The TVs can be GPS enabled with a computer chip that even can give me the nearest Pizzahut telephone number. Let the companies subsidize such TVs. Just a thought out of the box.....
Works for me. A little masking tape, and I'll be happy... No, seriously, that would probably work. But I'm curious; How much DOES TV cost per pair of eyeballs, anyway? I can't see how it would be so much I couldn't afford to pay it directly, in as much as it's currently paid indirectly by advertisers who have their own costs, and must pay them and the TV broadcasters out of the additional revenue those ads bring in.
Hello Brett, Fault? No one is assigning blame here. The industry is evolving. Commercial television's advertising income has been in a steady decline for some years now. A sea-change is not far off. Television equipment manufacturers have successfully lobbied congress (what's new?) to force broadcasters into High Definition Television (HDTV). Thus we'll all have to purchase new equipment, starting from the camera and ending at the antenna. The massive investment required will put a fair number of stations out of business. I'm not bitter in the least. It's called progress. We had to do the same back when color television came about. It's great that you wouldn't mind paying more out of your own pocket for television. Do bear in mind however, that unless you live in NYC or LA, your local news will go away when everyone goes to satellite. There is not nearly enough bandwith available today for every local station to uplink to a bird. Still, I reckon that new technology will be developed to solve these problems. The idea of high-flying, unmanned, solar-powered aircraft carrying television repeaters is an exciting concept. It will be interesting to see what shakes out. Thanks for your reply Brett, Michael
No, actually my local news WON'T go away if everybody goes to satalite. I don't get my local news off the TV, and haven't for years. Newspapers and the internet. I live out in the country, and even when I did bother with broadcast TV, (Before these blasted microwave relay towers I'm in between destroyed my broadcast reception, forcing me to go to satalite if I wanted any TV at all.) the "local" news wasn't particularly local. Coming as it did from 50 miles away. As for local channels and satalite, the satalite carries a LOT of channels, (Dishnet's offering 500, and I don't think that saturates their system.) and improved satalites could direct local channels to the right areas by using localized footprints. Though I am personally of the opinion that it's silly to use broadcast to send signals to fixed recievers; That's what wires and cables are for! Consider that when most people have internet connections capable of supporting full TV quality video, the internet could provide all the content of broadcast TV or cable, except on demand instead of on a push basis. Then with the broadcast TV companies defunct, that bandwidth could be reassigned. Exploited to establish a cellular network such as is used for phones today, you'd have the capacity to provide that high speed access to people on a mobile basis.
The entertainment industry is $130 billion (2001). The satellite subscribers pay about $1 billion (20 millionX$50) per month ie only $12 billion per year. Assuming total US household as $100 million, if every household spends $1300 per year, we should cover the charges.
Brett, Wow, you think you live out in the country? There is no cable TV in my neck-of-the-woods. I don't even have commercial power. I've made my own electricity with a hydroelectric turbine for the past 16 years. And my nearest "local" televison news is 60 miles away in Burlington. There are no "cables and wires" coming into my house from the outside world. As I've already mentioned several times in this forum, I sold my televison at home many years ago. I used to get all my news at home from the World Service of the BBC, via shortwave radio. Unfortunately, the BBC recently ended shortwave broadcasts to North America. As I said, the broadcasting world is changing quickly. I haven't picked up a newspaper in at least a decade, so the only "local" news I have is from neighbors, or that which I hear down at the post office when I pick up my mail. The reason I mentioned local television news is that by far, we have the most viewers during the morning, noon, and evening broadcast of our local news. I regularly receive complaints by viewers who can't understand why their satellite reception of this network has New York's rather than Vermont's local news. You know Brett, most people haven't a clue how technology works in the first place. It's a sort of black magic to them. As for the new technology you mentioned. Bring it on! I would love to have an Internet connection at my house rather than having to go to the library, or waiting until I come on duty at work. I'll be the first to sign up. Regards, Michael
First off, I signed no contract, direct or indirect. The idea that commercial networks would like you to believe is that you can't live without it. Not true. There is very little on commercial networks that is actually worth watching. Mindless enterainment for the mindless masses does not appeal to me. Heck, I don't even have an antenna or cable hooked to recieve outside info on my tv. Commercials are one reason for it. I really dislike my viewing interrupted by some yoyo who thinks to sell me something I don't want. It is a fallacy that the advertising companies hocked off on the commercial networks long ago. They are still buying. When a commercial comes on the radio, mentally I tune it out. Don't even hear it. If I need a whatsit I will go get one. Not because it was advertised or seen on tv but because I feel I need or want it. Ads had nothing to do with it.
Hello Wet1, I agree entirely with your assessment of the quality of commercial televison. A funny thing though; I expected it might be better in Europe. An extended stay with my wife's family in Italy told me otherwise. Ditto for Germany. I've heard that French televison is a bit more cultural, though I've not spent enough time there to form an opinion. Advertising in this market at least, has fallen dramatically in the past few years. Some of it is due to the sluggish economy, but truthfully, it was going south well before the "recession" hit. We air far more public service announcements (PSAs) these days than ever before. It would be embarrassing to have to put up color-bars in place of all the un-sold commercial time slots Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However, my profit sharing check at the end of the year might be the best indicator of this trend. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Regards, Michael
Orthogonal, you are more rural than I am. But you CAN get internet at home, fairly easily, if you want it. It's available by satalite. Here's an example of one system. Two way, high speed internet service, together with satalite TV, no need for a phone line. I'm considering it myself, since I can't get above 28.8 kbaud using the phone lines around here. Sorry, bad link. Try this: http://www.directduo.com/
Thanks Brett, I've not heard before of two-way satellite connection that doesn't use a hard-wire for the return leg. I'll check it out. Michael
Well, THEY don't have the 2 way system. (I thought they did at first.) But a search will bring you to it. Ah, HERE it is: www.starband.com
In goofyfish's original post, the CEO of Turner Broadcasting, made a statement that is unsupported and unenforceable. I mean come on here, the tv police are going to look and see if you stepped away for a bath, to cook a meal, or mow the lawn? Talk about thinking highly of their product… It is unfortunate that your revenue is tied to changing trends in the communications industry, orthogonal. I sympathize with your personal plight, as it is always the little man that gets hit in the pocket book. He doesn't get to make the decisions that will affect how well a company responds to the changing market base and suffers for the mistakes of the company planners. One day will come the realization that you, the workers will have to sacrifice in some form. Layoffs pay reduction, or more likely a pay/benefit freeze. (Temporary, of course, till things get better) Maybe you are lucky and your company sees that handwriting on the wall and is honest with their employees. Changes business practices to reflect the real world and what is happening to their revenue. While I wish you the best, I still will not care for commercials. They have become a symptom of what is wrong with business as usual. You see this in the statement of the CEO. The why should we change, it is the customer who is wrong. ( What is wrong with that thought?) Business as usual is static while the world around it is not. Those that fail to anticipate or see the changes are left going the way of the dinosaur. Large companies develop inertia and begin to slow down in their responces to changes around them. It is a wonder that large companies even survive as long as it takes to respond to changes sometimes. But the market place is the great equalizer and will reward those who meet the needs of their customers and take away from those who do not. Best of luck in the upcoming years, orthogonal. It may be a bumpy ride.
