[Ninja Scooter]

If consumers aren't interested in watching advertisements, and advertisements are the primary source of your company's income, it's time to change your business model.

They are going to, by having ads plastered all over half the screen, and then people will bitch about that and claim how "anti-consumer" it is.

[Sho_Nuff82]

I fast forward through ads all the time on my DVR'd shows. Deal with it?

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

lets just sue instead of learning to adapt to what the market wants

I can't see them adjusting past people skipping all their ads... well apart from advert banners on screen at the same time as the show.

[dead souls]

You know what's really insulting NBC? We're quickly approaching 20 minutes out of a one hour broadcast drama being commercials. Quite frankly, I'm amazed that anyone could possibly watch television without a DVR. Mine saves me a staggering amount of time in any given week.

[ReBurn]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person that considers commercials an incredibly small price to pay for free or subsidized content.

It's possible. I know that I've never even really thought about it. Whether people watch commercials or not is somebody else's problem.

[Marty Chinn]

You know what's really insulting NBC? We're quickly approaching 20 minutes out of a one hour broadcast drama being commercials. Quite frankly, I'm amazed that anyone could possibly watch television without a DVR. Mine saves me a staggering amount of time in any given week.

18 minutes of commercials for an hour long program has been standard for awhile now.

It's possible. I know that I've never even really thought about it. Whether people watch commercials or not is somebody else's problem.

Actually it's the problem of the networks, the problem of the advertisers, the problem of the content distributors, and most importantly the problem of anyone who watches a TV show that brings in revenue from commercials. So it's everyone's problem.

[xbhaskarx]

Ahahahaha calling advertisements 'joint programming.' As if people maybe tune in to see the ads, and not the show. Charming. I hope somebody puts out a third-party DVR that can do this for all channels, not just broadcast channels, and that takes away the bullshit 24-hour requirement.

.

[B-Dex]

How is not viewing something copyright infringement?

[Marty Chinn]

How is not viewing something copyright infringement?

I believe they're saying modifying the program to be different than its intended viewing state is copyright infringement.

[FStop7]

The problem with product placement though is you limit your possible revenue to a very narrow sliver of companies and even then, they might not fit every week. Product placement is very limiting and in some ways can impact the show itself. Who wants that? I'd rather have my show independent of trying to find revenue and leave the marketing and advertisers to be its own beast.

There are also products that just don't place well. Who is going to want payday loans on their show? Or hemorrhoid ointment?

[goldenpp72]

lets just sue instead of learning to adapt to what the market wants

What the market wants may not be possible to sustain if what you mean by want is tv shows with no ads.

[Mac the KNife]

They are going to, by having ads plastered all over half the screen, and then people will bitch about that and claim how "anti-consumer" it is.

And viewers could stop watching altogether. Thankfully, that's always an option. Hell, that Hawaii Five-O Subway shit is one of the worst examples of product placement I've ever seen in a commercial television show.

With DVDs, digital subscription services, on-demand video and a-la cart digital video, all new sources of revenue that didn't exist 10 years ago it's a wonder that television isn't more profitable than ever.

[AShep]

lets just sue instead of learning to adapt to what the market wants

Well the problem is that what the market wants is free entertainment with no subsidies. It's untenable.

[Marty Chinn]

With DVDs, digital subscription services, on-demand video and a-la cart digital video, all new sources of revenue that didn't exist 10 years ago it's a wonder that television isn't more profitable than ever.

Ya, but how would all those services find the audience without the broadcast to begin with? It's the initial broadcast that is a huge difference and without that, all the other stuff that falls underneath it just could not exist. How does that model work? Through commercials. Think of how many direct to video movies get noticed compared to something that showed up in a theater. You need that big splash first otherwise everything else doesn't matter.

[Duki]

Which would likely include spending way less money on content, and producing far less content. The "business model" gripes in threads like this sort of kill me.. the same for any other industry discussion where people are griping at executives. "I'm not going to stop pirating, CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS MODEL!" Then it's.. "OMG, PRODUCT PLACEMENTS!! WHAT IS THIS!!" It's essentially technology allowing consumers to not participate in business models at all. These new "business models" just aren't bringing in the revenue that the old ones do.. so the problem is still there. Technology is replacing revenue, and less spending will occur. Nothing terrible about that.. I somewhat welcome it.. but it is the damned truth. TV advertising is even what funds a pretty good chunk of the FILM INDUSTRY too.. not just television.

but like, there is no societal obligation to maintain the same level for revenue for tv networks as during their heyday

so its not actually a problem for anyone other than tv networks

like, at all

if it means less spending on shows, movies, what have you, thats what it means. this isnt inherently a bad thing

the answer to what happens when your business model and product are no longer working isnt that your product is so irreplaceable that it must be subsidised and your business model protected

its that you and your business model go away. unless you can think of something better to stay in the game

besides, the spending argument is sort of facetious anyway; there will always be a market for the big tv shows and movies. its the smaller, to middle cost ones that will die out, as well as tv networks... remaining completely risk averse like they are now anyway, so no real change there.

people always counter this by saying but that means network tv shows will die out! as if its an actual counter argument. what if you just accept theyll die out? theres so many other entertainment options now that i think most people would quickly move on. no such thing as a sacred cow anymore.

[Nevasleep]

I'd rather have ad breaks, than have to pay extra.
But i'm a dying breed, i still like having plenty of channels and being able to randomly watch something.

[-COOLIO-]

life's too short for commercials

[AShep]

I fast forward through ads all the time on my DVR'd shows. Deal with it?

Deal with your favorite shows disappearing from television?

You know what's really insulting NBC? We're quickly approaching 20 minutes out of a one hour broadcast drama being commercials. Quite frankly, I'm amazed that anyone could possibly watch television without a DVR. Mine saves me a staggering amount of time in any given week.

Don't be so dramatic.

[Liquidsnake]

Man I always skip them. I DVR everything, even live sporting events, just to skip through the commercials.

[nVidiot_Whore]

but like, there is no societal obligation to maintain the same level for revenue for tv networks as during their heyday so its not actually a problem for anyone other than tv networks like, at all

Right.. because people clearly don't want these TV shows to continue to exist.

Must be why they are watching them?

if it means less spending on shows, movies, what have you, thats what it means. this isnt inherently a bad thing

It's inherently a bad thing for people interested in consuming these shows.

The same people skipping commercials.

the answer to what happens when your business model and product are no longer working isnt that your product is so irreplaceable that it must be subsidised and your business model protected its that you and your business model go away. unless you can think of something better to stay in the game

Right.

And that would be an example of consumers habits removing products they are interested in from the market.

besides, the spending argument is sort of facetious anyway; there will always be a market for the big tv shows and movies. its the smaller, to middle cost ones that will die out, as well as tv networks... remaining completely risk averse like they are now anyway, so no real change there.

I see, so no real change.. other than a bunch of content people are interested in not being available to them.

people always counter this by saying but that means network tv shows will die out! as if its an actual counter argument. what if you just accept theyll die out? theres so many other entertainment options now that i think most people would quickly move on. no such thing as a sacred cow anymore.

Right, the people skipping commercials clearly don't want to continue to watch the TV shows.. they are watching..

You just made ZERO sense in that entire post.

None of this is the end of the world, that big of a deal, or some big moral issue. I'm not telling anyone to stop skipping commericals.. fast-forward them, etc.

I'm just saying, it's short sighted to think that this activity becoming easier and more commonplace isn't going to affect the content these people are so eager to watch that they have to skip through a commercial to get to the next section of a show.

It's pretty basic stuff.. That's fine from a business analysis perspective to say "change your business model".. but the very point people like me are making is that, for people that are interested in this content, "change your business model" is likely to remove much of the content they enjoy.

So while I'd love to own a DVR that can skip commercials.. I understand why TV executives fighting against the practice isn't such a terrible thing.. I certainly can't blame them. How childish... "Oh well, CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS THEN NEENER NEENER"

[Mac the KNife]

Ya, but how would all those services find the audience without the broadcast to begin with? It's the initial broadcast that is a huge difference and without that, all the other stuff that falls underneath it just could not exist. How does that model work? Through commercials. Think of how many direct to video movies get noticed compared to something that showed up in a theater. You need that big splash first otherwise everything else doesn't matter.

A good point, but I've never had an HBO subscription in my life but I've seen a great deal of their programming through DVD purchases. I knew about these series from word of mouth. While that word of mouth originated with HBO subscribers, HBO doesn't run advertising on it's networks. And I'd argue HBO's product is of a much higher quality than network or basic cable television.

[ElFly]

Honestly don't understand why these guys don't just settle for product placement in TV by now. Even pirates would see their new products, and hell, might just decide to buy the new Jeep Grand Cherokee. Anyone in advertising actually know the margins here? Granted, advertising is a GIGANTIC industry, but it has to evolve when people are finding so many ways around watching their spots and commercials. They can't stop progress because its more convenient for them to make money.

Product placement bothers me a little to be honest.

But what is really driving me crazy is anti-product-placement, though.

Like when a reality show* just blurs whatever product they are showing that is not paying them to show them. It's incredibly annoying as they are doing this for magazines, logos and even paintings on the walls

It has made me reconsider the idea of a real life adblocker.




*gf watches them I am innocent

[Marty Chinn]

A good point, but I've never had an HBO subscription in my life but I've seen a great deal of their programming through DVD purchases. I knew about these series from word of mouth. While that word of mouth originated with HBO subscribers, HBO doesn't run advertising on it's networks. And HBO's product is of a much higher quality than network or basic cable television.

That's because, like you said, HBO is a subscription service. That's how it can afford to get away with such programming without commercials. Now let's flip the switch and tell everyone they need to pay for NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox when they're used to it being free. That suddenly is going to go over well?

[The Faceless Master]

don't the satellite companies pay these broadcasters for the ability to retransmit their feeds?

[Marty Chinn]

don't the satellite companies pay these broadcasters for the ability to retransmit their feeds?

Yes.

[Mr. B Natural]

What the corporations want is complete monetization. They're not going to stop fighting for that, so why should we stop fighting for charity (your word, not mine)?

Services completely monetized? That's crazy.

[dojokun]

What "the market wants" is not sustainable. What "the market wants" is ultimately charity.

This is what they said about Napster and downloading music 12 years ago. Eventually they adapted and we have iTunes and other music download systems.

[The Technomancer]

This is what they said about Napster and downloading music 12 years ago. Eventually they adapted and we have iTunes and other music download systems.

Sure, which is complete monetization. What I and others are arguing is that you can't have both free content and no ads. Not unless there's some third source of revenue.

[nVidiot_Whore]

This is what they said about Napster and downloading music 12 years ago. Eventually they adapted and we have iTunes and other music download systems.

It doesn't take much money to create music.

It's a really bad idea to use the music industry to examine the film/TV industry.

They lost huge chunks of revenue, but it's not stopping artists from creating music.. so music fans don't have to worry too much about the "music industry" losing revenue.

TV/Film are not in anyway similar.. the "artists" (writers, directors) rely on giant budgets to create their envisioned art.

[Plinko]

Looking at NBC's ratings and upcoming fall schedule I think this executive should probably focus his attention on how to pull his network out of the toilet instead of worry if customers are watching commercials.

How about trying to worry about if customers are watching your own shows?

[dojokun]

It doesn't take much money to create music. It's a really bad idea to use the music industry to examine the film/TV industry. They lost huge chunks of revenue, but it's not stopping artists from creating music.. so music fans don't have to worry too much about the "music industry" losing revenue. TV/Film are not in anyway similar.. the "artists" (writers, directors) rely on giant budgets to create their envisioned art.

I enjoy lower budget films more on average. Forces creativity so it's not relying on explosions to keep me interested.

[Copernicus]

This is what they said about Napster and downloading music 12 years ago. Eventually they adapted and we have iTunes and other music download systems.

iTunes replaced the cd section of Best Buy, not the radio for people who wanted free subsidized music.

That radio share is translating to to Pandora/Spotify/streams that are free, so no, the market comments still stands.

[Vilix]

Fuck'm. I'd rather wait and pay ala cart for programs on XBLM or Netflix. I cut the chord a long time ago and I rarely watch free tv just to skip the commercials.

[nVidiot_Whore]

I enjoy lower budget films more on average. Forces creativity so it's not relying on explosions to keep me interested.

Sure, a "low budget" film still costs hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to produce though.

Compared to some of the best music in the world.. which always has been created mostly with blood, sweat, and tears.. the only "cost" being instruments.

Other than that, recording and production of music has gotten so cheap that people can do it at home on PCs.. or pay a pro < $10,000 to get an extremely high quality mix at a good studio.

It's not very comparable. And people do LOVE big budget films and TV shows.. but even "low budget" film is priced high enough to require some fairly "big money" get involved.

[dojokun]

iTunes replaced the cd section of Best Buy, not the radio for people who wanted free subsidized music. That radio share is translating to to Pandora/Spotify/streams that are free, so no, the market comments still stands.

Your example nullifies the comment since it proves that adaptation and remaining free are possible.

[dojokun]

Sure, a "low budget" film still costs hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to produce though. Compared to some of the best music in the world.. which always has been created mostly with blood, sweat, and tears.. the only "cost" being instruments. Other than that, recording and production of music has gotten so cheap that people can do it at home on PCs.. or pay a pro < $10,000 to get an extremely high quality mix at a good studio. It's not very comparable. And people do LOVE big budget films and TV shows.. but even "low budget" film is priced high enough to require some fairly "big money" get involved.

And there will be enough money. It's not like 0 people will watch commercials and 0 advertisers will buy ad slots.

Besides, some low budget films are made for a lot less money than that. Go to film festivals and you'll see examples of directors making entertaining and non-intellect-insulting films for a couple hundred bucks.

[The Technomancer]

Your example nullifies the comment since it proves that adaptation and remaining free are possible.

Except that Pandora has unskippable ads (unless you pay)

[Copernicus]

Your example nullifies the comment since it proves that adaptation and remaining free are possible.

Yeah...that's what the comment says.

What "the market wants" is not sustainable. What "the market wants" is ultimately charity.

Your comment about iTunes dominating directly because of Napster is wrong.

[dojokun]

Yeah...that's what the comment says. Your comment about iTunes dominating directly because of Napster is wrong.

My POINT is that markets can adapt. Try to see the big picture and look for meaningful discussion rather trying to score petty "I win" points.

[nVidiot_Whore]

And there will be enough money. It's not like 0 people will watch commercials and 0 advertisers will buy ad slots.

Enough money for what?

Besides, some low budget films are made for a lot less money than that. Go to film festivals and you'll see examples of directors making entertaining and non-intellect-insulting films for a couple hundred bucks.

Good for those low budget films.. that also never competed in the market we are discussing.

My POINT is that markets can adapt. Try to see the big picture and look for meaningful discussion rather trying to score petty "I win" points.

But you keep ignoring who actually creates music people are interested in vs. who is creating the TV/Film they are interested in.

You can't just completely ignore facts and have a meaningful discussion.

"Markets can adapt" is not a very meaningful discussion when you completely ignore the vast differences in the markets.

Talk about intellect insulting.

[The Technomancer]

My POINT is that markets can adapt. Try to see the big picture and look for meaningful discussion rather trying to score petty "I win" points.

Meaningful discussion: there isn't free music currently. There's pay for music (iTunes) and there's ad supported music (Pandora). Theres nothing (legal) that isn't either, at least not to my knowledge. I'm downloading Spotify right now to find out.

Either people pay for content, or people listen to ads. There's no third option that anyone in the market has apparently seen.

[dojokun]

Except that Pandora has unskippable ads (unless you pay)

I think there are lots of people who would rather pay for individual channels without ads (like Apple TV) than be forced to buy 200 channels with ads so they can view a small handful of channels.

As for broadcast, there's only a few networks and so in the grand scheme of things broadcast can just die out eventually.

[Copernicus]

My POINT is that markets can adapt. Try to see the big picture and look for meaningful discussion rather trying to score petty "I win" points.

That's not adapting, they're just moving on to the next technological medium instead of creating new business models.

It's still the same setup. People want free stuff, and companies you give free stuff that other's pay for indirectly.

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

Onscreen graphics are worse than commercials. They're often big, unslightly graphics or moving images that only serve as a distraction from the action program I'm trying to watch.

Sports are the only network programming that I watch live. Everything else is on a delay to avoid commercials, that I have no interest seeing.

[KHarvey16]

As for broadcast, there's only a few networks and so in the grand scheme of things broadcast can just die out eventually.

Lol

[dojokun]

Meaningful discussion: there isn't free music currently. There's pay for music (iTunes) and there's ad supported music (Pandora). Theres nothing (legal) that isn't either, at least not to my knowledge. I'm downloading Spotify right now to find out. Either people pay for content, or people listen to ads. There's no third option that anyone in the market has apparently seen.

I'm not the one asking for free content. I think you lumped me up with everyone else who doesn't agree with you on everything.

I am saying that EVERY market always "asks" for free content and smart content providers find a way to adapt so people are willing to pay. AppleTV style consumation is a smart way to go about it.

Bottom line of my point is that every industry faces consumers that want free things. Unimaginative people say "Can't, therefore we must enforce the status quo." Smart people say "They wouldn't be saying this if they got their money's worth. Let's change the business model."

[bangai-o]

some replies are stating how the adverts are important for networks to provide free programming but yet this thread is about Dish Network who charges around 70 dollars a month for programming.

[The Technomancer]

I'm not the one asking for free content. I think you lumped me up with everyone else who doesn't agree with you on everything. I am saying that EVERY market always "asks" for free content and smart content providers find a way to adapt so people are willing to pay. AppleTV style consumation is a smart way to go about it. Bottom line of my point is that every industry faces consumers that want free things. Unimaginative people say "Can't, therefore we must enforce the status quo." Smart people say "They wouldn't be saying this if they got their money's worth. Let's change the business model."

Uh...your original example was the market adapting around Napster, forgive me for thinking that your point was about free content. And my argument, the one that you were responding to with B. Natural's post, was about people who say "change the business model to adapt to piracy" without actually specifying how to do this, so again, forgive me for thinking you were agreeing with the people who I was making that argument against.

[dojokun]

That's not adapting, they're just moving on to the next technological medium instead of creating new business models. It's still the same setup. People want free stuff, and companies you give free stuff that other's pay for indirectly.

No, it's definitely adapting.

People are more willing to put up with the ads on Pandora because Pandora provides things radio doesn't--exposure of lesser known bands that the listener might not have heard of otherwise, and an algorithm that guesses the listener's interests. With radio it's the same Top 40 over and over.

Pandora offered a new product and people put up with the ads.

[dojokun]

Uh...your original example was the market adapting around Napster, forgive me for thinking that your point was about free content. And my argument, the one that you were responding to with B. Natural's post, was about people who say "change the business model to adapt to piracy" without actually specifying how to do this, so again, forgive me for thinking you were agreeing with the people who I was making that argument against.

Bygones. My point is just that the people paying always want "free" and that's not unique to TV (or music or anything). Smart companies realize that people only complain that they want free stuff when they don't feel they are getting their money's worth. Smart companies adapt the business model so the consumers are satisfied with paying.

Cable companies are forcing people to buy 200 channels instead of just the ones they want, so obviously subscribers aren't happy. They're gonna have to evolve.