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.

> 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

> 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.

>  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?"

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message