On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:42 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
> 
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:09:34 +0100, scott wrote:
>>
>>>> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers.
>>>> Now that's something I'd back.
>>>
>>> Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people
>>> seem to be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they
>>> *could* watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
>>>
>>> I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most
>>> money, if they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then
>>> I suspect a lot of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer
>>> the adverts.  What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay
>>> extra to have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might
>>> work. Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one
>>> product.
> 
> Unless the costs for starting and running it are too high; you'd need
> two concurrent signals because the scheduled would be completely
> different and you'd need extra shows to fill the gaps - take an hour
> show, remove the ads which makes it 45 minutes and afer 24 hours you'd
> need 8 more programmes to fill the slots. If you commision only
> hour-long programmes they won't be shown on the ad-channel or they will
> be but the two channels will drift out of sync. In a couple of months
> time the ad-free will be watching season 4 while the ad-channel will
> still be on season 2.

No, what is done is that the hour-long programmes get cut down to air on 
the channel with commercials.  I see that already with programs from the 
BBC that air on BBC America.  We typically lose 15-20 minutes of the show 
(which is why I seek out the BBC versions of the show rather than record 
them on BBCA on my DVR).

>> Well, it's important to know that at least in the US, television isn't
>> really about entertainment, it's about being an advertising vehicle. 
>> The entertainment tends to be a loss leader; the channels make their
>> money from advertising, generally speaking.
>>
>> That model is breaking down now with the advent of DVRs.
> 
> The model starting breaking down with VCRs. Although the loudest noise
> was about people taping and rewatching shows, i.e. not buying the
> released videos, some noise was made about people being able to
> fast-forward through the adverts

True, but with DVRs that becomes the whole purpose of FF/skip 
functionality.

>> The industry
>> hasn't really known what to do about it, either - there have been some
>> attempts to do Truman Show-style product placement (ineffective =
>> Eureka; effective-ish = Damages), but there have been efforts as well
>> to prevent people from skipping commercials (which is why I had to
>> program my remote for a 30-second skip forward rather than Comcast
>> providing a remote that could do that already).
> 
> I'm surprised the broadcasters haven't tried to sue the DVR
> manufacturers for loss of earnings by including a skip function.

That may be part of the reason why my Comcast DVR's remote doesn't 
include the functionality by default.

>>  The problem is that until they make it
>> impossible for people to leave the room their TV is in, people will
>> skip commercials, one way or the other.
> 
> They could try broadcasting in our dreams, or fitting us with in-retina
> screens. Damn combine that with the smart editing programme and you can
> have one channel edit out your competitors brand completely (or replace
> it with something horrible) "Welcome to the Coca Cola channel"
> "[screams] what's that? It's hideous!" "That's a bottle of Pepsi sir"
> "Take it away! Take it away... oo is that Summer Glau holding that
> bottle of Coke?"

LOL....arguably, if Summer was holding a bottle of coke, she'd no doubt 
be hitting someone with it.

(Cue reference to xkcd cartoon with the poster "River Tam Beats Up 
Everybody")

Jim

Post a reply to this message