On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:54:03 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:11:43 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> But that's because I think the whole "entertainment as a delivery
>> mechanism for advertisements" has gotten WAY out of hand, at least here
>> in the US.  Take commercial TV stations, for example.  Their primary
>> function is to serve advertising; entertainment is secondary.  The
>> trend over the past 20+ years has been to increase the advertising time
>> in an hour of commercial TV programming; it has doubled in that time
>> period.
> 
> The latest trick on commercial channels here is to run two programmes
> back to back with only a short trailer-type ad separating them and then
> chuck in the ad break early. Better yet the first programme overruns
> slightly so the next one starts 1 minute late whereas the BBC seem to be
> finishing programmes slightly earlier so the next one starts 1 minute
> before it's scheduled.

Yeah, I've seen that as well - end up having to adjust the recording 
times to start 1 min early and end 1 min late.  Which means if I've got 
three programmes set to record in a 2 hour period (one ending and two 
starting, for example - we've a dual tuner DVR), something's going to get 
clipped.

>> The really disturbing thing I'm starting to see now (starting with
>> Eureka on SciFi) is *in show* advertising.  Not product placement - but
>> actual advertising of a real-life product *in the show* as if the show
>> was intended to be an infomercial.  I *hope* they knock that off, but
>> even the fact that the actor who plays Carter is a friend of a friend
>> of my wife's won't stop us tuning out if they don't knock that crap off
>> right now.  If I want to watch The Truman Show, I have the disc on the
>> bookcase.
> 
> What's annoying me here is the BBC news programmes slipping in
> references to other programmes on later - "We'll return to coverage of
> World War Three in a moment. Now is acne a problem for you? A BBC
> programme being shown later today states that..."

Yeah, we get some of that as well.

> Then there's the squeeze, which Charlie Brooker delightfully lampooned
> in his series*. There's now a style guide for programmes about what they
> can't do during the end credits because the broadcaster wants to squeeze
> the show into the top left-hand corner and list upcoming programmes on
> the right while having an VO explaining how wonderful they are and why
> you should watch them. Damned annoying when you're trying to discover
> who played what and the credits are a quarter the proper size.

Yeah, I've seen that as well in some of the shows on BBC America (and 
stuff I've watched from other sources).

>> All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent
>> making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes
>> with the product, or making a good product better.
> 
> Pfft everyone knows it's marketing that sells products, not having the
> best or even just a good product.

Oh, right, I forgot - because they wouldn't do that if it wasn't 
effective.  Stupid me - it's too bad I'm not willing to be a sheep....
 
>> (sorry, didn't mean to rant - this is one of my major pet peeves just
>> at the moment).
> 
> So you should be, can't stand ranters me ;-)

Eh, too bad. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message