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

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:06:56 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Stephen wrote:
>> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed
>> (in the UK) to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more
>> obtrusive to my mind.
> 
> That and "product placement."

Especially the really obvious product placements like were in the last 
season of Eureka.  That was just awful.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22 Jan 2009 11:27:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Interesting....I had read a paper online about technology to 
>realistically embed images in pre-recorded video (or in still photos) - 
>the demo was quite impressive, replacing a picture with a video, for 
>example.  It tracked camera movement as well, which was really impressive.
>

Any examples?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:06:56 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in the UK)
>> to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more obtrusive to my mind.
>
>That and "product placement."

That doesn't bother me too much but then I don't watch a lot of TV or film.
One exception recently has been Boston Legal. I've been getting the DVDs out
from Lovefilm. I wonder what the reactions of Americans are to it. It seems
slightly critical at times.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:09:14 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> 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:
>>
> 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).

You're right - silly me yet another reason to tempt people into paying  
more.

>> 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.

Well if the editing programme's clever enough that would be the Pepsi  
buyer she'd be hitting ;-)

-- 
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

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:54:41 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:09:14 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
> 
>> 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:
>>>
>> 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).
> 
> You're right - silly me yet another reason to tempt people into paying
> more.

Yep.  It would be more convenient for me if I didn't have to search for 
the "full" version of the programme and acquire it, and that convenience 
is worth something to me.

But I also think about the $75/month we pay for cable and the number of 
subscribers that Comcast has - the revenue stream is pretty impressive.  
It would be interesting to see how the subscription fees are used.

Similarly, when you pay for a technician to come out to do something that 
could be done remotely (or left to the consumer - for example, if we get 
a Tivo, we need two cable cards for it.  The cards are essentially PCMCIA 
cards that plug into the Tivo.  They send a technician out to do install 
these.  Why?  I can put two PCMCIA cards into the slots on the 
machine.... - hell, I think my mother could even handle that).

>>> 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.
> 
> Well if the editing programme's clever enough that would be the Pepsi
> buyer she'd be hitting ;-)

True. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:51:23 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 22 Jan 2009 11:27:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Interesting....I had read a paper online about technology to
>>realistically embed images in pre-recorded video (or in still photos) -
>>the demo was quite impressive, replacing a picture with a video, for
>>example.  It tracked camera movement as well, which was really
>>impressive.
>>
>>
> Any examples?

Let me see if I can track it down again....

Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> Any examples?
>
>Let me see if I can track it down again....
>
>Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
>article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
>
>

Thanks

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:23:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> Any examples?
>>
>>Let me see if I can track it down again....
>>
>>Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
>>article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks

Handy that it was still in my RSS reader. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23 Jan 2009 19:25:02 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:23:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Any examples?
>>>
>>>Let me see if I can track it down again....
>>>
>>>Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
>>>article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks
>
>Handy that it was still in my RSS reader. :-)
>

Rune did that years ago :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message