How Could TV Survive Without Commercials? 1122
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 Sure, you could say it's their fault for having an outdated business model, but there's a problem: these sources are where A LOT of the content for your PVR comes from.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.
Um, how would anything change? (Score:2, Interesting)
Mostly, because they don't either. Human brains tend to veg out when the damn things come on.
Ad agencies will find a way... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some Business Models Still Work (Score:4, Interesting)
It works for me.
Subscription-based (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd pay for the shows (Score:3, Interesting)
Syndicated shows would be cheaper. Half hour shows cheaper, 2-hour specials more expensive, etc.
Networks could "give away" episodes of newer shows to get people interested. Perhaps there could be ads for shows before and after paid-for shows (but not in the middle).
It would probably result in less content, but it would be better content.
Here's a Solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Its funny... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great if you're socialist (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Pay your TV Licence! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Subscription-based (Score:2, Interesting)
I moved recently and when I thought of the cost of cable, I just cancelled it. Now TV stations are getting no money from me (but local book store owners can now afford luxury cars).
Integrated advertising (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Um, how would anything change? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Um, how would anything change? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We already do pay for TV without commercials (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking of paying a premium, how about this strategy: Would you pay one cent to skip a commercial?
Have an account linked to the PVR and subtract 1 cent each time an ad is skipped.
Of course, having an account implies a link to a credit card and a unique identifier. This allows for some detailed profiling.
There should be an option to turn profiling on and off, with various benefits to the user if they turn it on (because the profiling is valuable marketing information.)
When profiling is turned off:
Skip an advert: subtract 1 cent from your account
Don't skip an advert: do nothing to your account
When profiling is enabled:
Skip an advert: subtract 1 cent from your account
Don't skip an advert: plus 1 cent to your account.
The people with profiling turned on would have some interesting powers too. For example, if the profiling revealed that 90% of people are willing to pay 1c to skip the Mazda Zoom-Zoom kid ad, that #%)*&#% 'Buck-a-day' or similar computer sale ads, the Dell Kid ads, etc, you would essentially be telling the advertisers to change their tune.
Re:Video On Demand (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it a case of just too much? (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess the European reaction to adverts is more muted becuase we have so much less advertising - most commercial TV stations here show at most two to three blocks of adverts per 90 minute film or one to two blocks per 30 minute show, (in addition to the blocks in-between the shows themselves).
Now, maybe this is subjective, but I've also found that a lot of European adverts seem to be higher quality (specifically in the UK, the Netherlands and Scandinavia), possibly as a result of the competition for the smaller amount of advertising space available.
With that combination - a reasonable amount of higher quality adverts - I would pick advertising-based commercial TV over most of the other formats (even the BBC's licence-based funding model, which reduces the power of the viewer to vote economically when TV quality goes down, as the BBC's has recently).
DS
Product Placement/Place-over (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Some Business Models Still Work (Score:3, Interesting)
What bugs me at the moment is, if the licence-fee payer has already funded the production of TV programmes, why does the BBC try to fleece people some more by selling the shows to pay-TV channels in the same country? Why isn't it freely viewable?
Paying a flat fee is much better than pay-per-view just as flat rate internet access is preferable to any AOL walled garden or dodgy micropayment system. And while advertising has its place, in practice you don't seem to get good TV when adverts are the _only_ source of funding.
Re:Just don't watch it... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Um, how would anything change? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Addiction (Score:2, Interesting)
"By this argument, the same thing applies to movies, so great films, like, say, Casablanca or City of Lost Children, do nothing for you - you're just sitting there, doing nothing. TV and movies can also stimulate the imagination. I get great ideas from movies, and even if I didn't, what's so bad about being entertained? It's not a dirty word, you know."
Funny you should mention City, it's probably my "favorite" movie (I have about 10 of them, one for each genre, really).
I don't agree and it's because of magnitude. Television is specifically programmed to have a "walkthru" effect. One show sort of segues into the next and tries to have a gradual transition between demographics. When a movie is over, it's over. If you're talking about watching a movie then another then another, yes, you're right.
"That depends on the book, and upon the reader. I enjoy lots of tv, but I'm also a writer, photographer, and several other things."
Well, here I think it's getting unnecessarily personal, and I'll even take the blame for it. I'm not criticizing those that watch tv so much as pointing out something that people may not want to admit.
Consider this paper [alchemind.org] by the Journal of Cognitive Liberties.
" I find it interesting that someone on Slashdot, of all places, is bitching about tv. Methinks you need to take a long hard look at yourself."
I don't follow. What does reading Slashdot
"I'd say that more likely, the reactions are those of people who realize you're an extremist, little different from, say, someone on a macrobiotic diet. As the saying goes, "Just because noone understands you, doesn't mean you're an artist.""
This is "apples to orange" and I'll explain why. With a macrobiotic diet, you can reasonably assume the person -- unless there is some compelling reason -- is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." In other words, as you said, they're an extremist. However this doesn't apply to a person who watches no television at all because you'd have to argue that there is something on television that is more worthwhile (or, to keep in the same vein, "mentally nutritious") than doing whatever it is that I want to do. With your example, it's scientifically demonstrable that they're "losing out," with tv it's merely a matter of opinion.
"Yep, I do think that's crazy. Not as crazy as burning books, but it's certainly within the same mindset. At the very least, sell your tv to someone else.
Nonsense! Burning books was done to censor and quash freedom of speech. I'm not doing anything of the sort by burning my own TV. You have the right to speak, I'm not obliged to listen to you!!
Besides... Which position really is more extreme? Extremism is in the eye of the bell curve. From my perspective, it's mighty odd that I don't know a single person who does not watch TV. Not a single one. That's extreme.
To you, I'm a bigot. To me, habitual television viewers are addicted by the very definition. The difference is that your position is an opinion, but my position is scientifically demonstrable. I'm anti-addiction.
Targetted Advertising (Score:2, Interesting)
news ticker (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Um, how would anything change? (Score:1, Interesting)
The effect of advertising is easily measured. Let's say you run the advertising department at Pepsi. Your sales are slumping, so you start an ad campaign in Oregon. Suddenly, your sales in Oregon go up dramatically while your sales everywhere else remain the same. You expand your ad campaign to the entire east coast. Now your sales on the east coast increase dramatically, while sales elsewhere in the country remain the same.
People buy Pepsi instead of Coke. Coke responds with their own advertising campaign. Now Coke's sales jump, and Pepsi's sales drop. Given the complexities of competitors, it may be difficult to find an optimal level of advertising, but it doesn't take much to see that advertising has an effect.
Re:Um, how would anything change? (Score:4, Interesting)
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. ;)
Re:Some Business Models Still Work (Score:2, Interesting)
Nihon e youkoso (welcome to Japan!) (Score:1, Interesting)
Since nobody's mentioned it... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:We already do pay for TV without commercials (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Transparent overlays (Score:3, Interesting)