Max Headroom did predict network logo bugs (unless someone can find an instance before that show where a network kept its logo onscreen at all times).
Maybe this will mean beer drinking will be coming back to network tv shows! I can see the Depends product placement now . . .
But WGBH is the Boston PBS affiliate. Most 1 hour PBS shows aren’t a full hour in length, but 50 minutes seems too short. Are you sure?
There’s at least 2-3 minutes at the beginning telling you who has sponsored the program and probably that many at the end.
The BBC also use up a few minutes between programmes to trail forthcoming attractions. But it’s true that when they show US programmes other than those co-produced with PBS, the running time is reduced. When BBC2 used to show The Simpsons, for example, the actual programme was 22 minutes of a 25-minute slot, and hour-long US shows are often scheduled in 50-minute slots.
Unfortunately, 1-hr shows now run about 44-45 minutes.
Not only are BBC1 and BBC2 advert-free, but they can afford try out ground-breaking shows that are not the usual mass-appeal rubbish.
Hence great comedy (Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, the Office) and wonderful nature programs.
Don’t people in the UK pay a fee for each TV? Isn’t that what allows the channels to be advert free?
You can pay $1.99 for a few shows on iTunes (in to so great resolutiion) - they are commercial free.
There are other downloadable shows, some have commercials others do not.
Brian
They are already experimenting with cable/satelitte providers selling TV shows for one to two dollars through digital boxes just like pay per view.
I don’t know the current vernacular for all that annoying crap going on in the corners and along the bottom of my TV screen, but that stuff is pushing me more and more, to watch TV less and less, and just wait for shows to come out on DVD on Netfix.
You know, I have satellite TV with a DVR and I FF through commercials. But I use the button on the remote that jumps forward about 30 seconds at a time, so I can see which commercials I’m missing. Believe it or not, I frequently go back and rewatch commmercials that interest me. Seriously, some commercials are like pleasant, entertaining little 30 second independent films. I actually like them sometimes.
But I really, really hate all these logos & animations going on during the show.
I don’t know if TV will become commercial free, but I’m on the verge of becoming commercial free. Do they think in this day and age of video games, DVDs and the internet, I couldn’t very easily break my broadcast TV habit? I haven’t watched live broadcast TV in two weeks. There’s a good chance I’m not going to watch regular TV until the Sci-fi channel starts back up with Battlestar Galactica & the Stargates. I have so many options for entertaining myself, trying to watch a TV show through all those dancing logos just doesn’t seem worth it anymore.
It’s a fee that covers the entire household. Whether you have 1 TV or 100, the fee is the same. Buckingham Palace, with maybe 100 live-in staff with TV sets in their rooms only requires 1 TV licence. (I think)
But, yes, that’s why the BBC is advert free.
Seriously. When they started animating them, I grumbled. Now they’ve got fecking sound. Over the program! What the hell?
It’s like some kind of sick joke. Nice dramatic scene. Hushed room: Somebody’s dad is dying. Suddenly there’s the sound of a jet plane zooming from speaker to speaker as a banner announcing the time for a new episode of a crap reality show scrolls across – and then back. Zooooom! Zoooooooom! So sorry for your loss.
Why not just send someone 'round from the station to bang on my fingers with a hammer?
You don’t have to pay the licence fee if you don’t have a TV . This means you can listen to 9 national and 25 local BBC radio stations which are also advert free.
The two parts of this answer are contradictory. It is simply wrong to say that there are no commercials on the BBC. There are just as many as there are on the so-called commercial channels here in the UK (an average of 7 minutes per hour). The difference is that (a) all the commercials are for BBC products and services, and (b) we, the viewers, are forced by law to give the BBc the money which is uses, in part, to make these endless self-congratulatory adverts for how brilliant its own output is.
Whether there is or is not anything ‘wrong’ with this is a separate discussion. But are there adverts on the BBC? Yes. Loads of them. All the time. All for BBC products. And all paid for by us, the viewers, via a compulsory tax that we have to pay even if we only want to watch non-BBC broadcasts.
I think it’s fair to draw a distinction between BBC promotions, which only alert the viewers about upcoming shows, and commercial advertisements, which allow any member of the public to purchase time to deliver just about any message he wants to viewers. Commercials on the BBC, I assume, are not encouraging anyone to spend money or support a cause or candidate.
Well we differ in our definition of “advert” then. The beeb isn’t trying to sell anything or obtain (direct) financial gain from its adverts. While I agree that there are too many trailers, as well as too many “isn’t the BBC great?” clips (of which there should be none), they do have an obligation to let viewers know about forthcoming programmes.
I don’t think there’s anything special about the BBC’s setup that allows it to be less ratings-driven. HBO presumably don’t have to worry about ratings quite as much as, say, NBC, and they too have a track record of innovative programming.
Another point to make about the BBC promotions is that they only occur between programmes. Thus you can see a 2 hour film or any other long show without it being interrupted every 15 minutes by adverts.
I agree. While occasionally a BBC program trailer is shown too often, it’s NOT an advert.
And as Rayne Man states, the BBC don’t interrupt programs. How pleasant to watch films all the way through!
I’m not sure what this means. Surely the point is that all commercial channels relying on advert income have to stick to known ‘ratings-pleasers’, whereas the BBC and HBO don’t, and can therefore produce a stream of original programs.
An incorrect assumption.
Buy this BBC series tie-in book! Buy this BBC DVD set! Buy this BBC weekly TV Guide! Buy tickets for this Prom (classical music concert televised by the BBC)! Buy a Freeview (digital telly) set-top box! Go and pay to see this exhibition of costumes used in a BBC TV series! Send for this Information Pack (which when you get it will contain some commercial offers)! And so on and so forth…
Plus of course the BBC makes money from the merchandising associated with some of its shows, such as Doctor Who. By hyping the TV show, they are indirectly hyping the merchandise that some people will go out and buy, and the BBC gets a slice of every purchase.
There are less obvious licensing deals as well. For example, there is a very successful BBC show called ‘Have I Got News For You’. This is produced for the BBC by a company called Hat Trick Productions. Go to the Hat Trick website and there are HIGNFY DVDs, T-shirts, mugs etc on sale. When people buy these from the Hat Trick site, the BBC gets a slice of the action.
As a minor digression, it’s interesting to think about the notion of a commercially available DVD of a BBC TV show. We, the British public, are forced by law (backed by the seldom applied but nonetheless real threat of imprisonment) to give the BBC some money every year. We have to do this if we want to own ANY piece of equipment capable of tuning into a TV signal, even if we never want any BBC broadcast or product.
With this money, taken off the public, the BBC can go away and make a TV show. If it’s a success, they churn out a DVD which goes on sale in shops at the same price as the DVDs from independent producers who have to compete and survive in the market place. Think about that. “Here’s this show, the production of which you have ALREADY PAID FOR via a compulsory tax. Now that we’ve copied it to a piece of plastic costing mere pennies to manufacture, we’re going to sell it back to you and make you pay for it a second time at the full commercial rate.” At the very least, it seems to me that such DVDs should be available at a much lower cost, reflecting the fact that we, the public, have already paid to make the show.
Let me offer another way to view this distinction.
If Coca-Cola want to advertise their wares to me, they have to pay to make the commercial and to broadcast it. This expenditure comes out of their pocket, not mine, and it’s their risk. I’m free to ignore their message and say, “No thanks, I don’t want your fizzy drink, I’m not interested”, in which case they have taken not a penny from me, and they will only make their money back from people who choose to buy their products.
If the BBC want to advertise their wares to me, they simply use the money which is compulsorily taken from every household owning any equipment capable of receivng a TV signal. This expenditure comes out of the public’s pocket. There is a risk to the public (that they might give this money to the BBC and might hate everything they spend it on), but there is no risk to the BBC (they get the licence fee no matter what programmes they make). I’m not free to ignore their message and say, “No thanks, I don’t want your programmes” because I have to pay for them anyway. They take their money from everyone, including people who have zero interest in anything the BBC chooses to produce.
Simply not true. See above.
You say it isn’t. I think it is. The difference is that it’s an advert we have already paid the producers to produce, via a compulsory tax. In the case of an advert shown on commercial TV, we may or may not choose to subsidise the production costs of the ad by purchsing things from the advertiser. So the distinction is ‘pay up front / no choice / whether you like the product or not’ versus ‘possibly pay later, if you like the product’.
And in any case, as explained above, I’m not just talking about trailers or announcements about what’s on next.
The same is true if you watch some movies on some Sky channels and other cable, satellite or digital channels here in the UK. And there are other broadcasting industry models whcih allow for commercials only between shows. My friend in Glendale watches ‘Sex and the City’ each week with no commercial breaks during the show. So to say that this is some sort of exclusive attribute of the BBC is nonsense.