Kellner Says Commerical-Skip Worth $250/year 82
Steve B writes: "A sequel to Turner CEO: "PVR Users Are Thieves" -- according to this story reported by Broadcasting & Cable, our friend Jamie Kellner says that consumers should be prepared to pay "as much as $250 per year" for the privilege of zapping over commercials. BTW, I'm not being entirely sarcastic when I call Kellner "our friend" -- if we properly exploit this story as an example of why Hollywood wants control over our consumer electronics, Kellner just might dig their graves with his big mouth."
FF (Score:2)
It already exists (Score:5, Funny)
By which I mean, they're not bleeped, cut or badly overdubbed when someone swears. I can see the actresses breasts whenever the director felt it artistically valid to show them.
And, let's face it, shows like Larry Sanders, Dennis Miller Live and Mr Show would never have been made on networks that had to pander to the advertising dollar.
So, Mr Kellner, here's the deal. For my annual $250, I demand to see programming that isn't lowest common denominator bullshit that only exists to fill the time between you showing me the clips trying to convince me to buy more cornflakes.
Sound good?
rOD.
Re:It already exists (Score:1)
Shows like NYPD Blue show that sometimes you have to do these things for a more advanced audience.
Re:It already exists (Score:2)
No kidding. Even FOX could never get away with Sex in the City or G-String Divas!
Yeah... HBO rocks! ;-)
Re:It already exists (Score:1)
Re:It already exists (Score:1)
20 dollars a month and no more commercials, ever? (Score:1)
Re:20 dollars a month and no more commercials, eve (Score:1)
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:3, Insightful)
TV broadcasting is an imposition. They blast my property and my person with their rf without my permission. They should be paying me.
"If you watch TV without watching the ads, you are stealing. I would be more than willing to pay in dollars instead of in boredom."
I watch no TV at all, thereby depriving the broadcasters of exactly what an ad-skipper does. Does that men I "owe" $250/year also?
"So what's wrong with that?"
What's wrong with that is that viewers of broadcast TV have no contract with and no obligation to the broadcasters. They have no more right to complain about ad-skipping than the owner of a billboard does about people who look at only part of the billboard.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:2)
no. you're not getting a 'product' (watching tv programs) so why should you pay for that product? its simple. if you don't watch, you don't pay. if you don't buy soda, you don't pay for soda.
all this should be pretty obvious.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:2)
Broadcast television is no more a product than are the words on a billboard.
"its simple. if you don't watch, you don't pay."
But my not watching at all costs the broadcasters exactly as much as does your watching of everything but the commercials: nothing.
"if you don't buy soda, you don't pay for soda."
Bad analogy. Soda is a physical product: every soda I drink is a soda someone else can't. And the soda manufacturers don't pour soda over my head without my permission and then demand payment should I swallow any.
Why the fuss? (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely, what broadcasters are worried about is the whole concept of a TV recording machine that people watch instead of live TV. The fact it skips adverts in the recording is just icing. I think they're mostly worried about losing the eyeballs of the lucrative AB demographic -- high-earning types who only watch a few select TV programs anyway. But don't they think that attacking their own viewers and branding them "thieves" is a bit misguided? How is that going to get people to watch the TV more?
Re:Why the fuss? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Why the fuss? (Score:2)
Re:Why the fuss? (Score:2)
$20 a month! (Score:3, Insightful)
Consumer's Rights to Pay Their Own Way? (Score:1)
Advertising pays for "content". We all know this. But when you look at it from a slightly different way you can see that the deal between You, the Producer/Broadcaster, and The Advertiser, is something similar to You standing in line to get into a club, and a (ahem) SlimyGuy stepping up to you and saying "It's okay, I'll pay your way in". How many of You would say "sure" without thinking that the SlimyGuy must want something from you...
I think in this "modern era", with the ability to have more and more targetted advertising, we will soon get to the point where we could Pay Our Own Way if we wanted to.
That is, wouldn't it be peachy, if we as Consumers, could have the right to pay the Broadcaster/Producer the same amount they would have gotten from the Advertiser? The rates are publicly published, so there's no real question as to the Value of your eyeballs during a given TV or radio show, or even web-page.
Frankly, I'd like to choose when I want to displace ads, and when I'm happy to let the SlimyGuy pay my way.
Good shows could get even better when "the Circle is Now Complete", and the person consuming can pay the person(s) producing more directly, rather than the producer being influenced by the SlimyGuy giving them money so that people will watch some stuff in between their Soap ads.
And don't even get me started on Magazines, which TOTALLY could be printed without ads for those people who choose to pay. Heck, it'd be almost as easy to have as many or as few ads as you liked.
The question is could such a Right for consumers actually be pushed through? I know if there were we'd all at least not really be able to complain that TV is a vast wasteland.
Put the power back in the REAL purchasers hands, and maybe we can actually wipe off some of that slime.
Re:Consumer's Rights to Pay Their Own Way? (Score:1)
I despise ads and commercial culture, but I must say, magazine subscriptions make money for magazines mainly by the magazine having a guaranteed exposure for ad buyers. The subscription money is small potatoes compared to the ad money which goes up with your subscription base.
Re:Consumer's Rights to Pay Their Own Way? (Score:2)
Most magazines these days are more ad than content, it's just spread out so much that you don't really notice.
I don't mind the ads so much as those stupid fucking blow-in cards. I'd gladly pay a few extra bucks for magazine subscriptions where I could flip through an issue without those damn things flying out at me.
And just to keep things on topic, this Kellner guy is a moron and an asshole... he's like the Dan Quayle of AOL/TW. If I'm gonna pay an extra ~$20/month to not have to watch commercials, I want programs that are 30 or 60 minutes long to fill in that space. Unless they do that, fuck 'em... I'll just keep using the 'jump ahead 30 seconds' button on my TiVo remote.
~Philly
Advertisers already figured this out (Score:2, Interesting)
First, why do you think that half of all the commercials on are better than the stupid shows? Hell, the super bowl commercials are awesome! Also, advertisers are making commercials which can be 'effective' when fast-forwarded through with a VCR.
Re:Advertisers already figured this out (Score:2)
Actually, this year, the game was good and the commercials sucked.
Re: stupid shows (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Advertisers already figured this out (Score:2)
They have been modifing the commercial format so that they still get there message across.
I've noticed that.
Commercials and shows used to be easy to distinguish at high speed:
- camera cuts were slower in the shows as each scene developed at an orderly pace and you got to hear dialog between characters back and forth several times.
- advertisements with hypersmiling models and pure white backdrops holding up products.
If I record certain shows targeted towards older demographic groups, it's dead easy to pick out the commercials while cruising through at 20x on the TiVo remote.But, since I started recording CSI, it's been a lot more difficult to hit the end of commercials properly. The show is very fast paced, cutting from scene to scene very quickly.
What's especially difficult is when some of the commercials are for upcoming episodes of the same show!
Re:Advertisers already figured this out (Score:1)
And what's REALLY difficult is when you're using TiVO.. not paying a whole lot of attention... and they play a TiVO ad which "simulates" the TiVO menus. The first couple times I had that happen to me, I was pretty freaked out, thinking my TiVO had somehow lost its mind...
Re:Advertisers already figured this out (Score:1)
The cost of putting a spot on during the Superbowl means they do new commercials for that event, with few expenses spared. Commercials tend to get more annoying with more repetition, and local places can't afford the production values/creative staff for their ads. So there's really a limit to what can be done.
Tough fucking shit (Score:4, Insightful)
A new technology comes along, which allows us users to save time, not having to spend so much time out of our busy day watching commercials, that's just fucking tough for advertisers.
Furthermore, intelligent advertisers have started to insert "ads" into TV shows. For example, All My Children promotes cosmetics company Revlon within the show, by having one of their actresses take a job at Revlon within the show.
It;'s a deal (Score:2)
Re:It;'s a deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you prepared to pay more and more as they move the target? That's what I got cable for. Later it turned into tons of Lifetime and Sports Ilistrated adverts. Now the commercial free stuff is on the premium channels. Notice even now some of them are running adverts? How long will it be before the commercial free stuff is all PPV? Pay per view is not commercial free in a theatre anymore. Advertisers will pay what ever it takes to get their placement where the eyeballs are. Money talks. I have dropped cable entirely about 12 years ago. It got too expensive for the little time I spend on the tube anymore. I get the news on TV, but to get the rest of the story, I go online. I now find the real content online.
In the US, the lack of real content (studios will not release good features due to fear of taping) is what is killing the adoption of HDTV. I don't see any progress in this field until DVD's come out in HDTV format. I don't have to sit and wait 4 minutes at a time waiting for ads to end before I can find more content while online. I can hit the go button and move along to the content.
Re:Living under a rock? (Score:2)
There are no HD DVDs. (Score:1)
Conveniently, because of the way film is encoded onto interlaced DVDs (telecining) and the difference in framerates, it is possible for a progressive-scan DVD player to reconstruct 480-line progressive picture from the 480-line interlaced picture. FOR FILM MOVIES. Doesn't work for things that were originally recorded in NTSC at 60 fields per second interlaced. So if you coung 480p as "HDTV," then yes. But I don't think you get the "H" until you get to 720p or 1080i. Which are not available on DVD.
Re:It;'s a deal (Score:1)
Re:It;'s a deal (Score:1)
I'd pay it! (Score:4, Interesting)
I really want the ability to record programs, and later watch them, and I'd pay a premium for certain PVR features like:
Each of these features is worth money, and if I have to pay a premium to get some or all of these features, I will do so. If the broadcasting networks think that it's worth $250 extra per year to receive their programs without commercials, then why don't they try offering it? Couldn't they offer their content without commercials on a series of premium cable channels? Gosh, no, it turns out that it's not just about skipping commercials -- I think people are more interested in the time-shifting ability than skipping commercials. I certainly am.
While each of these features is promised by one or more companies that claim to manufacture PVRs, I have been unable to see any PVR in use, except for one demo of UltimateTV (which I later learned I cannot use because I apparently can't get a signal at my home).
I've recently been shopping for a PVR and have concluded that none are currently available from companies likely to be in business in 6 months.
I really, really want a Personal Video Recorder, and I'd gladly pay a premium. Indeed, I actually bought an RCA UltimateTV unit and satellite dish, but I can't get a signal and neither DirecTV nor UltimateTV could suggest the name of any installers who would not charge me huge fees just to confirm that I can't get a satellite signal. I sent the system back.
I wanted to try TiVo, which has a "fast-fast-forward" but they signed an exclusive deal with Best Buy, which won't demo the unit (and doesn't have them in stock anyway).
ReplayTV demands a huge premium (charging roughly a $300-$350 premium for its prepaid lifetime subscription for programming -- but the money isn't put in escrow, and I assume that if the company loses or settles the pending lawsuits, it will abandon all customers.)
And that leaves . . . nobody. Oh, yeah, DishTV offers its own PVR, but of course I don't expect to get a DishTV signal if I can't get a DirecTV signal (and I understand the companies are merging).
I really want the ability to record programs, and later watch them, and I'd pay a premium for certain features like dual tuners (so I can record one program while watching another, or record two programs at once), a meaningful "commercial skip," and accurate programming information and proper synchronization so I don't lose the first 2 or last 2 minutes of programs because the system decides that it's 7:59 when Fox thinks it's 8:01.
I'd gladly pay a premium, and $250 per year for the commercial-skip capability would be well worth it.
Are networks screwing with program start times? (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, if I switch channels just as the hour-long 8pm program on one channel ends, I find that I'm 2 minutes into the second channel's 9pm program. This does not appear to be some kind of isolated situation -- it seems to be happening quite often, certainly I notice it several times per week.
According to my best indicators of the "real" time, most networks seem to run late (e.g. their 9pm programs start at 9:02pm and end at 9:59 or 10:00) but others are "out of sync" by one, two, or occasionally three minutes.
While some might just consider this another example of broadcast-TV incompetence (or perhaps someone can find a way to blame it on cable TV), I wonder if one or more of the networks or local affiliates might be doing this intentionally -- either to gain some kind of perceived competitive edge, or to screw up people who are recording programs using VCRs or PVRs and relying on program start and end times?
Can anyone explain this odd trend? Has anyone else noticed it? Or has it always been happening and I've just been oblivious until recently?
If it matters, I'm in the San Francisco bay area, with AT&T Broadband cable.
Re:Are networks screwing with program start times? (Score:4, Informative)
Are they doing this to screw over VCR users? No, that's just a fringe benefit for them.
Re:Are networks screwing with program start times? (Score:2)
Since getting cable, I've had great success pushing my VCR's clock one or two minutes ahead. Cable programs start ON TIME!, but often finish anywhere from 15 to 5 minutes before the hour. It's just the odd BBC thing, and of course commerical Free-To-Air, that runs over. Not that I watch much commerical FTA anymore (Just Buffy, Angel, Charmed and Stargate).
Re:Are networks screwing with program start times? (Score:2)
TNT (or TNN? I always get the two confused) has been doing this for many years; most of their shows are offset by 5 minutes or so. The reasoning, as I was led to understand it, was that if you're watching their show, and their show ends at 9:05, you are more likely to watch whatever is on next, which is just starting, rather than to watch something on another channel which is already in progress, where you missed the beginning.
No, that's TBS (Score:1)
TNT (or TNN? I always get the two confused) has been doing this for many years; most of their shows are offset by 5 minutes or so.
Neither. TBS starts programs at :05 and :35. TNN is the one with the black status bar at the bottom, which lets the channel run ads without interrupting the program.
Re:Are networks screwing with program start times? (Score:2)
Sometimes they'd start shows a couple minutes early instead. Back in the early 70s, the Spokane channel we got via cable did that with their syndicated Star Trek runs -- apparently to make sure you switched channels before the other guy's top-of-the-hour commercials came on, to avoid missing the intro segment entirely.
When premium cable channels first came along, some of them pulled this "offset times" trick too (with both early and late starts).
No idea what they're doing now, but point being, no, this isn't a new tactic by a long stretch.
Lazzyness (Score:1)
See what happens when lazy golf playing no nothings end up controlling an industry because when they kiss ass they aren't afraid to tickle some nuts along the way. Music industry is the same way. They got comfortable bullshitting everyone else for so long that this revolution in technology just bit them square in the ass. It is not the job of legislators to manage the recording industry or the movie industry or even commercial television and I for one am tired of these lazy asses complaining every time there is a possible threat to their income streams especially when it is something dealing with fair use and our rights being taken away as Americans because some a-hole with money to burn can afford to shmooze up with a couple of lawmakers were he makes the old hard luck case about the state of affairs so that laws can be passed that protect the interests of a few people while removing the rights of millions of others. The real pisser is that we as Americans just sit here and take it because we don't care, are too lazy, or simply don't know any better. We try and do something about the DMCA and thousands of voices are crushed by a few who cite phony statistics and make up industry losses to justify unfair laws that allow monopolies to run rampant. In the left corner we have Microsoft in the right corner we have the American people. Look who got so many circles run around them that we still don't what the hell happened. I hope that the industry as we know it dies a horrible death. Not that I wish public television to be gone but I do think there are people out there who would do it better and for less money if given the chance. I think the programming would be less about training people to consume and more about entertaining them and possibly educating them. This is what we need not just some d-head getting laws passed that empower the few at the expense of the majority.
I for one will not pay 250 more a year for the "privilege" of fast-forwarding commercials. No more than I will put my thumbprint on a check for some bank that obviously has issues to begin with if they are treating the people their customers owe money to as criminals. This is almost like the phone companies wanting to charge extra monies to people who by post-it notes because it enables them to keep a number handy so they don't call information for phone numbers any more.
Too many ass references. (Score:1)
-
-
-
Better commercials, and more product placement. (Score:1)
Consumers need to see products being used. This would help them see how the product can benefit them. That's why Hollywood is so good at influencing fashion. A good idea would be for a family in a tv show to use an enviromentally friendly washer and drier. This would help people to see how well the item works and/or how easy it is to use. If a couple of characters used transit more often, then perhaps the viewer will see that there is more to transit than just less green house gases.
Re:Better commercials, and more product placement. (Score:2)
Ehm, isn't that what the "programs" are, really, think about it...
Re:Better commercials, and more product placement. (Score:1)
When I see one new one in a series, I am more willing to watch it.
I realize that my suggestion sounds weird, but I don't see any loss in making a commercial continue. Now that I think about it, there are a few humourous ones that do that.
They deserve it, for all the male bashing. (Score:1)
Don't get me wrong, I don't want us to get so politically correct that we can't laugh at ourselves. After all, if someone is the butt of the joke in a funny commercial, it's going to be a male of female.
The butt of the joke should be determined by what is funny and by common sense, not by some agenda.
Re:They deserve it, for all the male bashing. (Score:1)
Jesus, I *so* hope you are joking.
Paying more for tv may be a good thing. (Score:1)
Documentaries can help the family learn together, sort of like reading book, but not as good in general. On the other hand a picture is worth a thousand words, and a moving picture is worth a thousand pictures.
Once the family can see that they can save money by having more people watch per hour, they may be willing to compromise more by watching programming that will be suitable for all ages.
I haven't watched Bugs Bunny lately, but I heard that there was humour on several levels, thus entertaining the child [because it's a cartoon] and the adult [because it's witty].
Re:Paying more for tv may be a good thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't either, mostly because none of the networks carry it. It's now primium content requiring a subscription (cable/dish/cartoon network) to receive. I haven't seen it on ABC, NBC, CBS on Saturday mornings in years. It seems to have been replaced by infomercials.
Paying for tv could allow better shows to survive. (Score:1)
Networks and stations should focus more on doing what they are best at, which is bringing shows to viewers.
Re:Paying for tv could allow better shows to survi (Score:1)
Re:Paying for tv could allow better shows to survi (Score:1)
I would prefer that most of the tv shows were based on pay-per-view. It makes it harder for the shows to offend their viewers.
Not a problem (long and I'm upset!) (Score:2, Interesting)
The better solution that should occur rather than multi-billion dollar industries crying poor is for advertisers to come up with better ads. There have been a few that have caught my eye that I stopped and watched. I don't think the broadcast industry has the stomach to actually develop quality products though. Just look at the rash this season of the replacment shows and then the replacements of the replacements. Monty Python would be proud. It takes time for a cast to jell and the chemistry to build. Just look at how disjoint the first season of so many shows that are now well watched were (Buffy is a great example, as were the first dozen 'Trek episodes (pick any of the trek family, it seems universal, er paramount:)). But until you get a network executive that understands the TV watching audience and that it takes time to build an audience, that you can't show 2 new episodes followed by 2 reruns and a month hiatus and build a following, they just don't get it. I could do better, heck almost anyone could do better than most of them this season. It comes down to salesmanship.
Lastly, if we skip the commercials, just charge more for product placement. Put those blue "dial down the center" buttons on the phones (or the 1-800-collect stickers, like "Tracker" has on set), leave a Coke truck in the background of the shot, have someone actually unwrap a package of Hanes underware. Just don't make it part of the story make it natural and incidental and through repitition people will associate the products with the stars and you gain that influence vector, and you gain name / brand recognition.
Also, the reason I skip commercials is I want more TV in less time. I can watch 1.5 hours of broadcast time TV in 1 hour realtime by skipping. So if they went subtle with product placement I'd see 1.5 times as much advertising per hour than the broadcast viewer, so I should get paid to watch at that point. (and in fact the raw demographics that are gathered represent a valuable comodity that you'd otherwise pay big bucks to gather through multiple focus groups, etc. So don't come crying that you are losing revenue when you are gaining information on the cheap, particularly when you use the courts to get it for free.)
Re: (long and I'm upset!) -it's often contractural (Score:2)
You may also have noticed that until recently, when the 10am (PST) football game goes past the next game's 1pm (PST) start, they'd cut away from the unfinished game and go to the next one. That was because the NFL's broadcast contract stated unequivocally that you MUST broadcast the beginning of ANY game you carried, and if that meant leaving a game in progress, tough.
Similarly, sports contracts often don't allow broadcasters to truncate a game in favour of regular programming.
Also, typically sports are a bigger ad revenue market and often their viewers are the largest demographic in that timeslot. And when sports events *are* truncated, the backlash can be horrific. It took one network decades to live down the infamous incident where they cut away from a critical NFL playoff game, in order to broadcast the scheduled content (which IIRC was an ancient and oft-rerun movie, "Heidi").
Golf vs. Tornado? (Score:1)
... a tornado warning.
Shows where the general public's priorities are. "Screw the tornado, I wanted to see Tiger Woods!"
this should be on the front page (Score:1)
I'll take it! (Score:2)
Give me a wealth of TV viewing choices with no commercials, no product placement, and honest and open non-marketing agendas, and I'm all over it.
The nuclear option (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The nuclear option (Score:2)
With the exception of the Simpsons (as you can see from my posts in this article [slashdot.org] and things immediately surrounding it, I don't watch TV. Ever. Even on September 11th. And if the Simpsons was avaliable as high-quality downloadable video on the Internet (legally, I mean), then I'd pay to watch that, and that alone, and not even own a TV tuner. All I want a TV for is video games and the Simpsons; I can get both of those without a tuner.
Re:The nuclear option (Score:2)
Actually, I'm having lots of fun finding ways to skip the commercials anyway. After building my own PVR, I am no longer tied to a TV schedule. I can zip past commercials with no problem. If they want me to watch commercials at this point, they'd better start offering better deals on TV.
I read the Sunday ads alot. I feel like spending money, and I go through the ads to find something interesting. Why not expand the ads section and leave TV alone?
Old fashioned (Score:1)
On a related note to tivo, legally or not, you can't tivo a pay-per-view event (such as wrestlemania). It completely blocks the recording function. You have to trick it by setting tivo to record a long show on another channel, and then change the cable box by itself. Could be worse, but what a pain!
Re:Old fashioned (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that when I went over to a friend's place to watch UFC, he had his TiVo recording it. When your cable box only feeds your TiVo in a normal hookup, do you think the cable company (or whoever) would be so stupid as to force people to rewire their AV systems when a PPV show is on?
(Then again, with the subject of this story, maybe the media pukes are that stupid. :-P )
Re:Old fashioned (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
TV on demand (Score:1)
Just like we're waiting for the music industry to change its business model.
In other words, don't hold your breath.
The Content *IS* The Commercial Anymore... (Score:1)
And Mr. TBS dude, every time th Braves play on your station (what, about 13,232 times a year?) every time you see the batter, there is a banner ad behind him. Meanwhile, the announcers hype up the 32nd run movie that is on after the game and then tell me what the Delta Airlines Scorebaord has on it, with the other teams playing in their corporate named stadiums, and so forth and so on.
We won't even talk about NASCAR.
And is MTV and other music anything BUT a commercial for record companies and their artists? Think they do videos to make art? Nope. They do them to sell plastic waffles. Don;t kid yourself. And that's "content."
So don't tell me I should pay you to make something more convenient for me. You are already bombarding me WHILE I am watching your programs, so don't try and bullshit old men like Ernest Hollings into legislatively giving y'all a revenue stream.
I've been stealing magazines for years then. (Score:1)
No, the advertisers aren't paying for you to watch their commercials. They're paying for the *opportunity* for you to watch their commercials. Viewers have always had the opportunity to chat with their friends, go take a leak, or skip the commercials all together. The opportunity they paid for still exists.