A meaningless difference IMO, as the effect seems to be completeely the same. But, well, a worthwhile quibble nonetheless.
Still, I couldn’t (from a cursory glance) determine how renewals were handled.
And the reason that this is an issue over VCRs is that the process is automated now. With this technology there isn’t a chance in hell that some mope is going to watch an ad.
I will never feel sorry for advertisers. Considering the sheer invasiveness and pervasiveness of ads, tie-ins to just about every single entertainment product out there, the selling of lifestyles with the actual product only an accessory, and the assumption that I don’t have the right to avoid ads as I see fit, they can go to hell.
If my attitude means that the economy suffers a bit, or that network tv costs more, so what? It’s not like tv’s a necessity. In spite of ads touting a better, more fullfilling, more patriotic, and more community driven life for consumers of whatever’s being advertised, advertisers give a fuck about me for one reason only - the money in my wallet. So fuck 'em. I hope they fail repeatedly.
No more commercials or Buffy? What’s the down side? 
It was an issue 20 years ago, it even went to the Supreme Court IIRC. It’s not a major issue because very, very few people actually tape shows to watch later, and thus can’t FF through commercials. I don’t own a Tivo, but I assume it makes “time-shifting” a hell of a lot easier.
What everyone needs to remember is that for advertiser-supported networks, the viewers are the product. They literally sell us, broken down into demographics, to advertisers. And all TV advertisers realize that a small percentage of their target audience will even see their ads, much less respond to them in some way. They just want the opportunity, which is extremely expensive but by far the most effective per-dollar method right now.
No cites for this that I could find easily, but TV advertising “penetration” (viewers matching products with ad campaigns) has actually skyrocketed in the past 10 years or so, mostly due to TV ads becoming almost entirely soft-sell “mini movies”.
So the idea that we, the product, should feel somehow obliged to our sellers is ridiculous, and GuanoLad is simply full of shit.
You don’t have to feel sorry for advertisers to see that them pulling out of television will change things dramatically, Purd.
About jack shit is a necessity. The point is that there really are millions of television viewers who watch these shows. The reason the shows are there is because of advertising revenue. The reason the advertising revenue is there is because there are millions of viewers. A strange loop, but it’s there nonetheless.
If you don’t like television then fuck off, because none of this applies to you anyway. I do, and I don’t want whiny fucks bitching about advertisements when they could simply go take a fucking piss or grab a glass of water and forget about it. I’m relatively happy with television programming, and I really enjoy many of the programs I watch.
Hell, I usually keep a book by me when I watch tv and that’s what I do when the commercials are on. Big fucking deal. Apart from that, some commercials are actually funny and worth seeing. No one is making you watch advertisements (how the heck could they?). They are just asking that you don’t frigging automate their removal and render the whole thing pointless.
The exec quoted above is an ass, but at least he has no delusions about how the industry is actually structured. People like television. If you want to reclaim the airwaves then go fucking buy a station and give us ad-free shows. When you are number one because all the actors and actresses in the world also want to work for free but are simply superfluously demanding paychecks then I, for one, will legally change my name to Karl Fucking Marx and make bestiality movies for a career.
You read it here, folks.
I’d just like to say that I agree with erislover, and I wasn’t the one that brought up contracts, I was just trying to explain how it worked. It was everyone else who was trying to suggest there is some kind of contractual agreement being broken.
I am NOT in advertising, I hate the invasiveness of it as much as you guys do, in fact I hardly watch TV at all. I just recognise that the Tivo thingummy is a threat to the way commercial television operates.
Well, erislover, I never said I didn’t like television, so fuck off yourself. If you see me as a whiny fuck because I see advertisers as operating under an ugly agenda, then that’s certainly your perogative. You don’t think commercials are a big deal? Good for you. I do see them as a big deal. No, no one can make me watch them, but it’s certainly not for lack of trying.
So, new technology is going to force a market through changes?
Hmm. Yup, that’s pretty unheard of. I don’t know if people will be bright enough to cope.
Yeap, and as usual, big media doesn’t want to have to face the changes, so is turning to the goverment to try to force a no-change. Never mind that every time they have been forced to adapt (kicking and screaming, but adapting nontheless) they’ve seen their product actually perform better.
Does that automation change anything? I mean people who don’t like commercials enough to remove them are probably not going to be the ones who are going to buy the products that are advertised.
I don’t disagree with the advertising supported programming model, but I find the idea that programs are being stolen when commercials are skipped to be completely abhorrent. Look, I’m not “stealing” anything - the networks are choosing to put it in my house by broadcasting over a public medium (the airwaves), regulated for the public by the FCC (as explained upthread).
There is a contract between the network and the advertiser. I don’t know the details, but it’s going to be something along the lines of “The advertiser pays this amount of money to the network to play these ads during shows that are watched by this many people in this demographic.” If show A on ABC gets more people watching than show C on CBS, then they can charge more for advertising. Both parties hope that viewers will watch their commercials; both parties know that they cannot force people to do so; both parties know that some viewers won’t; both parties understand that some viewers will, and therefore they hope it is worth the effort.
There is NO contract between me and the network - written or not, implicit or explicit. If there was, it would go something like this:
“Viewer gives permission to Network to broadcast on the shared airwaves as allocated by FCC rules. Viewer makes no commitment to watch said broadcasts. When watching, viewer has no obligation to watch some parts over others, including (but not limited to) commercials, news programs, soap operas where characters are unnaturally aged, Buffy, Star Trek: Paint Drying, or, in fact, any other show. Network has the right to attempt to measure viewership, even if the best they can do is Nielsen ratings, and use these numbers for advertisers. Viewer is not responsible for keeping these numbers at any given level. Broadcast by Network into public airspace that can be received by simple receivers at Viewer’s house will signify Network’s acceptance of this contract.”
Actually, come to think of it, if the networks did want some contract with me, I would require quite a lot in it. Like not cancelling in mid-season programs that I’ve begun to like, regardless of how many other viewers watch it. Like eliminating STUPID writing in many shows. Like not having every show look like it’s set in California. Like… well, the mind boggles. Given that they don’t ask my opinion (which is fine), they don’t have any right to act as if there is any agreement between us when they send a free copy of their product into my dwelling by broadcasting it over electromagnetic waves.
Furthermore, the advertising model is not going to go belly up just because some people skip commercials. Some people already skip commercials. Now, some of those will use Tivo to do so - big deal. It doesn’t matter if people skip commercials by saying “La La La”, fast forwarding with a VCR, going to the bathroom, or using TIVO - that’s a personal decision the viewer makes for his own efficiency. If 25% of all viewers start skipping commercials, then show A is still getting more viewers than show C, and still commands a higher relative price in advertising dollars. The number of potential viewers is the same - you don’t know which ones are skipping. The advertisers are going to spend $x on TV ads either way - ads in ANY medium can be skipped, TV is no exception, and will still be the prime place for advertising.
I don’t begrudge the networks their business model - sell ads, broadcast programs with the ads. They have no agreement with me over my behavior once the airwaves come into my house, though.
I think the problem isn’t an individual’s behaviour. The problem is the introduction of TIVO technology will lead to widespread usage, and no ads ever being seen by consumers again.
Obviously, this is exactly the point - advertising companies and commercial networks don’t want such a drastic change, because they’re happy with the status quo. That’s not something to sarcastically remark upon, it’s standard business practice to want to keep things going in the way that has proven successful.
Resisting change is nothing new, and in most cases is perfectly understandable. I don’t blame them for seeing the TIVO as a threat to the way they run their business, and for them to express their fears.
There is a big difference between “expressing their fears” and claiming that use of the technology is stealing. they can hold our TV products hostage by pointing out hte fact that loss of revenue = loss of programming, and hope for the best. They can start using product placement, or scrolling marquis, or ads of uneven duration to foil automatic removal. They can pay off the TiVo company, or buy it and sabotage the technology. They can start a “do jumping jacks while oyu watch the commercials and work off that ass” ad campagin. They can make up the idea of some sort of unstated moral obligation, and hope that if they talk fast enough, we’ll buy it. But they can’t convince me I’m a thief becasue I fast forward through comercials.
What?!? Your television products? Oh dear.
Texan: “If 25% of all viewers start skipping commercials, then show A is still getting more viewers than show C, and still commands a higher relative price in advertising dollars.” Still commands a higher price in advertising dollars? What about when it becomes pretty clear that no one is watching these ads? I mean, come on. They aren’t in a position to think this is happening now, but it is pretty clear that the technology to do so will be available to most homes at a reasonable price in a few years. That currently overly-generous 25% is going to look like peanuts.
People wonder why stations have started putting those network-exclusive (that is, look what’s on next, or at 8) on their programs. That’s when they’re sure people are watching. And that is what advertisers are paying the networks for, people, so I woudn’t be surprised at all that those are going to be for sale pretty soon (if I haven’t seen one already, and I swear I have but maybe I’m mistaken). Exposure. If they don’t get it, they don’t pay. And there goes your TV.
Well, hey, they’re everyone’s airwaves, right? And we can choose to let them go to shit because advertisers that pay for the airtime are annoying us.
Drastic, of course there will be a paradigm shift. What worries me is that it is going to shift directly into my pocketbook instead of indirectly through product sales across the country. Might I ask what you think should be done to supplant advertising revenue when, as progress marches on, none of us watch these commercials?
Anybody here see that Simpsons episode where Marge is hired to write “non-violent” episodes of Itchy & Scratchy and they suck so bad, and all the kids go out and play instead of watching TV? Broadcast TV dying a bad thing? Christ! Have you folks been watching some of the drek they’ve been putting on the airwaves lately? If the networks somehow do manage to get devices like TIVO banned, you realize that there’ll develop a black market for them and we’ll be seeing PSA’s that equate owning one of those things to funding terrorism. Want to know the future of TV advertising? Watch The Truman Show. We’re already headed in that direction (i.e. product placement mixed into the TV program) and its only a matter of time before it happens.
Precisely. Just as there’s an even bigger difference between expressing fears, and seeking to legislate away (which is exacty the endgame result of such gambits to claim it’s “illegal” and “breach of contract”) out of panic that a lucrative business model is suddenly threatened by a changing market.
Market demand isn’t going away for television, it’s simply going to undergo a change in how the market demands it. After a few years-to-decade-or-two of shooting themselves in the feet, someone will figure out a business model that meets a changing market’s demands more intelligently, while remaining lucrative. That’s what a market-based economy is about. (Well, it would be nice if players could avoid shooting themselves in the feet with fully-automatic recoilless attack lawyer cannons, but it’d also be nice if I could win a lottery, without paying the Poor Grasp of Statistics Tax.)
What is this, junior high?
“You can’t hang around with us unless you get a lobotomy, dude! Only cool brainwashed slaves are allowed at this party!”
Yes, Bob, it is Junior High. The reason why I wish television practices to stay similar to the way that they exist now is because I have effectively had a lobotomy.
Television advertisers have no right to their profits. Period. It is precisely that element of risk that justifies and defines the concept of “profit” in the first place. There is also no such thing as an “implicit contract” for television, and there never was. We are the products, not the consumers, and our attention (which we have complete sovereignty over) is what is contracted for sale to advertisers. As others have said, it’s always been about the gamble, and by and large the gamble seems to work.
The difference nowadays, of course, is that they can tell when people aren’t watching the commercials. What suck internet advertising? It was advertisers tracking “clickthroughs”; demanding real results for their ultimately ephemeral enterprise, combined with the naive belief that people would abandon real content for advertising. With the Tivo, it’s much the same way: instead of hoping that you watch advertising, they know that you aren’t, and are freaking out. It’s the knowledge that is key.
Still, like I said, they have absolutely no right to their profits. If TIVO ruins advertising and they all go out of business tomorrow, and network television goes down with it, then I might shed a tear for the loss of a few good shows but continue on my merry way, secure in the knowledge that either we’ll end up with new advertisers which pay cheaper rates and new networks which are willing to accept them, or a wholesale switch to subscription models. Considering the relative quality of the output on, say, HBO vs. what you see on the networks, I’m not about to worry about it much. I’m certainly not going to listen to pathetic bleatings about my sovereignty over my own attention being some sort of “theft”.
erislover, as far as the selling of ads running in the programs are concerned, it has already started. If you watch VH-1 in the early morning, they sometimes replace their logo with the logo of an advertiser. The first time I saw this I thought I was just tired and looking at it wrong, but I wasn’t.
Ugh. I think I had seen it on TNT or TBS or some damn cable network. If I am pretty sure I’ve seen it, and you know you’ve seen it, then we’re all in trouble.