TV Commercials - looking ahead

[imoldernu]

This started out as a rant about commercials, but I found a blog that said it better than I could. For a comprehensive view of what you already know, here it is:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-media-zone/201302/commercial-creep-i-hate-commercials-and-you-should-too

BUT... It goes much farther than that. Yes... cord cutting has been discussed ad infinitum here, with every kind of alternative suggested. Here are some personal thoughts about the future of TV and what might be coming in the future.

First - TV was not very important to us in earlier days, when we spent 80% of our time out and about. TV was an afterthought. Nightly news, and one or two series or sitcoms, and an occasinal movie. As we slow down, more time on the tube, more interest in the outside world and more frustration, as when we try to watch news, there are often four minutes of commercials for four minutes of news. This despite the fact that we pay thousands for the privilege of watching one minute out of every three being pressured to buy more. (We remember back in 1980 when we spent $14/mo. for 12 cable channels... and maybe 7 or 8 minutes of commercials in an hour.)

Enough the rant... The real question is where do we go from here? The industry says that it takes money to provide "content". So... Do we need more "content". It's as if the millions of hours of existing high quality movies, series, documentaries and specials of every kind are not enough.

One major 'uncovered' area... current sports. A phenomenom that continues. To watch every event in the preferred sport. An addiction that will not soon go away.

The Future
While it looks to me as if we are coming to a breakpoint, your mileage my vary. Even as we continue to pay the huge access fees to the providers, the winds of change are whipping about. From mobile (phone) streaming to computers, to the streaming "boxes"... Roku, Chromecast, and dozens of other alternative sources... 'content' is available... some free, others such as Netflix at a moderate cost... and most importantly with limited or 'charge by choice' costs. (good explanation here on cord cutting) http://www.tomsguide.com/us/cord-cutting-guide,news-17928.html

The battle is joined. Possibly a battle to the death by the current providers... Comcast et al, DirecTV/Dish... The hole card being 'bundling'... disproportinate charges to force the TV option... as phone and internet hardly exist alone, especially in some areas, such as rural or, when there is only one provider. We see the battle every day, as at least once a week, we get a solicitation from one or another of the providers. (Infuriating, as we see others being offered a year or two of service at less than a third of what we loyal customers pay.)

The battle joined: Where do we go from here?...
- A rag-tag mish mash of cobbled together pieces with everyone taking the challenge to save a few hundred dollars a year?
- A move to streaming, with costs based on competitive supply/demand?
- A turn away from "the tube"... based on an expense that the bottom third of the economy can't or won't pay for?
- A push back from a country that suddenly realizes that they are paying to pay more?
- A switch. From providers paying for content. Think the slowing of the entertainment industry. A mirror on TV of the decline in attendance at movie theaters.
- Will the TV industry remain 'as is' ... supported by the middle class? Are the demographics such that the industry can survive without those who can no longer afford the luxury of entertainment?
- How do the politics of the internet... "freedom"... play into this?
- Has the electronic age changed the dynamics of our lives to an entirely new and different way that we spend our waking hours?
.....................................................................................
How many hours a day do young people watch TV? If we remember that one out of every three minutes is spent in commercials, what kind of a world will it be... in the future?

Just a flash of overthinking philosophy. I don't have to be concerned about this, but many of you... do. Whaddya think it will be like when you are 75?

(if you haven't done it yet, go back and read the linked blog... it's worth the read)

 

[Jack_Pine]

I will just say that we are in a "pocket" that can not get dsl/cable or uverse (all that is offered here)

Our TV is Directv and internet is from a version usb modem. Comcast wants 12k to do the infrastructure work to get cable to us (they have to cross a creek)

Anyway I just wanted to say that streaming though a mobile device is ridiculous (for a home access option) even though everyone brings it up. Try streaming a few HD movies and see how long that 10 gig plan lasts.

 

[Chuckanut]

The whole idea of cable was to bring the broadcast channels to people who were to far away to get descent reception, and/or in a 'pocket' of no reception like Jack above.

It has morphed into THE way to view TV. And thanks to decisions made early in the life of the cable business, it was granted monopolies and rights that eliminate or make competition very hard.

The cable business has changed a lot from the days when it simply brought broadcast TV stations to those who could not receive them. And the technology for distributing content has also changed. Did the original cable law writers anticipate the internet via cable? I doubt it.

It's time for the laws that govern cable tv to change to reflect the new reality of life and technology. The old rules and laws no longer work and must go The current near monopoly hold cable has on TV, internet, etc. is no longer working well. It is not free enterprise competition, but crony capitalism at its best, IMHO.

FYI, my cable bill is zero. I get free OTA TV, have a nice digital recording device, Netflix streaming, and Netflix disks. I used to get HULU, but canceled it when the added to many obnoxious commercials.

I also have lots to keep me busy and away from the TV.

 

[bUU]

It's as if the millions of hours of existing high quality movies, series, documentaries and specials of every kind are not enough.

People's sensibilities change. While there will always be a small contingent of people who would be satisfied with the content of a block of time in the past, generally current content reflects the prevailing sensibilities, and therefore fulfill the actual need for content from the perspective of most people. I can rattle off many television series that were the absolute best of the best in my mind, as I watched them for the first time, and now forty years later I cannot imagine how I held such a high opinion of the quality of those programs.

Even as we continue to pay the huge access fees to the providers, the winds of change are whipping about.

Or perhaps what's actually happening is that new distribution channels are trying to get you to accept the compromises associated with their more efficient delivery mechanisms. Once the playing field has been cleared, they will then be unimpeded in their efforts to return pricing to a level where they reflect what the market is willing to pay. And in the process, what may happen is a division of the price into two separate parts, further obscuring the effect from view and scrutiny. Finger-pointing is sometimes an effective way of diffusing negative consumer reactions.

Possibly a battle to the death by the current providers... Comcast et al, DirecTV/Dish...

It's pretend. Comcast, the distributor, will "die", and that will in turn give Comcast, the producer of content, the ability to capture that no-longer-tapped portion of customer perceived value. Same with Dish Network satellite service and Sling TV. It's just a shell game. Consumers can skim off some benefit during times of confusion and tumult, if they're not confused themselves and aren't perturbed by the tumult, but in the end the system returns to the steady state, the cost matching the perceived, albeit often denied, value, as it does today.

A move to streaming, with costs based on competitive supply/demand?

Not to mention the commensurate loss of control over the fast forward button.

 

[Midpack]

I've weighed in on this enough, but a new personal observation.

We bought a new TV last Nov, happens to be a smart TV. I find myself watching more free streaming than I ever expected, vs the garbage we pay Dish TV for. There's certainly good content on Dish, but we'd be happy to lose most of it (bundling). And I know many here are much further down the streaming or cord cutting path than we are, but even old dogs learn new tricks...

 

[Texas Proud]

The whole idea of cable was to bring the broadcast channels to people who were to far away to get descent reception, and/or in a 'pocket' of no reception like Jack above.

It has morphed into THE way to view TV. And thanks to decisions made early in the life of the cable business, it was granted monopolies and rights that eliminate or make competition very hard.

The cable business has changed a lot from the days when it simply brought broadcast TV stations to those who could not receive them. And the technology for distributing content has also changed. Did the original cable law writers anticipate the internet via cable? I doubt it.

It's time for the laws that govern cable tv to change to reflect the new reality of life and technology. The old rules and laws no longer work and must go The current near monopoly hold cable has on TV, internet, etc. is no longer working well. It is not free enterprise competition, but crony capitalism at its best, IMHO.

FYI, my cable bill is zero. I get free OTA TV, have a nice digital recording device, Netflix streaming, and Netflix disks. I used to get HULU, but canceled it when the added to many obnoxious commercials.

I also have lots to keep me busy and away from the TV.

I will disagree with your stmt about why cable came about... the cable was to get other content to a vast audience.... not to get regular TV out to people who could not get it... heck, I live in Houston and could tune into stations from Dallas, San Antonio and Austin....

 

[audreyh1]

After reading the post about cable content being sped up to stuff in yet more commercials, I am so glad to be away from it. But what really had us turn to alternatives was how bad the "regular channels" cable content itself has become.

 

[bUU]

Sorry, but Chuckanut is correct: Cable started as a means by which a town that was situated in a place whereby access to local broadcast channels was not practicable could still receive the programming offered by those local broadcast channels. The non-broadcast "cable" channels carried by cable systems came later.

 

[Texas Proud]

Sorry, but Chuckanut is correct: Cable started as a means by which a town that was situated in a place whereby access to local broadcast channels was not practicable could still receive the programming offered by those local broadcast channels. The non-broadcast "cable" channels carried by cable systems came later.

OK, I stand corrected...

 

[Walt34]

I will disagree with your stmt about why cable came about... the cable was to get other content to a vast audience.... not to get regular TV out to people who could not get it... heck, I live in Houston and could tune into stations from Dallas, San Antonio and Austin....

Yes, but... Texas is mostly flat, correct? That doesn't work in WV. A tall mountain (out West they'd call it a hill) will cut off any TV reception at all. When we moved to WV there were three OTA channels available and two of those were religious channels. Only one was clear and that of course was one of the religion channels. Never had cable before but we signed up pretty quick.

 

[John Galt III]

When the GF is watching commercial-filled "Bachelor" (worst garbage ever) on paid-for cable in the living room, I go upstairs and watch PBS with NO commercials on the OTA TV, for free. Hmmm...

 

[Texas Proud]

Yes, but... Texas is mostly flat, correct? That doesn't work in WV. A tall mountain (out West they'd call it a hill) will cut off any TV reception at all. When we moved to WV there were three OTA channels available and two of those were religious channels. Only one was clear and that of course was one of the religion channels. Never had cable before but we signed up pretty quick.

I guess you could say it is mostly flat.... but the middle is hilly and there is a mountain range out west... almost twice as high as in WV...

List of mountain peaks of Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I looked this up and find it interesting that some peaks over 8,000 feet do not even have a name... just "peak 8342"

 

[imoldernu]

A viewpoint on the future from a VP at AOL.Editorial: Cutting the cable cord is a young trend going in the right direction
I covers the viable parts of Cable TV as well as those that may in time be replaced by viewing habits.

One of several points being made in the piece:

The hostility to selling service by channel is based in institutional co-dependencies. A sporting event is fed through the cable box by two main intermediaries, the channel and the cable provider, both positioned between the content owner (e.g. the New York Yankees) and the viewer. Escalating costs from each link in the chain land on the viewer's cable bill, the average size of which is projected to reach $200 in eight years. Cable companies might seem to be the villains in tiered packaging, but part of the cause lies with their providers -- and conflicts between the two can lead to consumer-screwing public licensing battles.

and this:

There is another troubling wrinkle to all this, which is that many millions of cable TV subscribers get their internet from the same company as their TV. So while you might ditch the TV service to save money, nothing would stop the cable provider from recapturing some of that lost income by charging more on the internet side.

 

[Texas Proud]

A viewpoint on the future from a VP at AOL.Editorial: Cutting the cable cord is a young trend going in the right direction
I covers the viable parts of Cable TV as well as those that may in time be replaced by viewing habits.

One of several points being made in the piece:

and this:

Inside your quote:

The hostility to selling service by channel is based in institutional co-dependencies. A sporting event is fed through the cable box by two main intermediaries, the channel and the cable provider, both positioned between the content owner (e.g. the New York Yankees) and the viewer. Escalating costs from each link in the chain land on the viewer's cable bill, the average size of which is projected to reach $200 in eight years. Cable companies might seem to be the villains in tiered packaging, but part of the cause lies with their providers -- and conflicts between the two can lead to consumer-screwing public licensing battles.

But who made the decision to bundle these channels The cable provider... if the cable provider offered al la carte pricing there would not be this issue since I would only buy the channels that I want... the provider could charge what they think the going rate is and the cable puts on their 50% to 100% markup... all is good...

 

[bUU]

But who made the decision to bundle these channels The cable provider...

No. Not that bundling. That bundling was the networks' doing 100%.

This is a really critical bit of confusion among consumers who clamor for "a la carte" thinking that what's going to make things better is they, as consumers, getting to pick and choose which channels are enabled in their home. That's not the case. Retail a la carte is likely to make things worse (either paying more to get a lot less and/or loss of channels availability altogether) for everyone except for those who care the least about television entertainment. Rather, what's critical is wholesale a la carte - addressing the bundling that the article is referring to.

 

[Texas Proud]

No. Not that bundling. That bundling was the networks' doing 100%.

This is a really critical bit of confusion among consumers who clamor for "a la carte" thinking that what's going to make things better is they, as consumers, getting to pick and choose which channels are enabled in their home. That's not the case. Retail a la carte is likely to make things worse (either paying more to get a lot less and/or loss of channels availability altogether) for everyone except for those who care the least about television entertainment. Rather, what's critical is wholesale a la carte - addressing the bundling that the article is referring to.

Which article do you speak of

And how will retail a la carte make things worse IOW, if you do not like sports you do not have to pay for ESPN (which I think is $6 or more).... and you could cut out those food channels and others that cost .25 each...

I have more than 100 channels I can view... maybe close to 200 if you count all those pay channels I never look at... but when I look at my favorite channels it is less than 30.... and I could get that down if I had to pay for some...

Right now we have a la carte on the special channels such as HBO or Showtime...

Also, if some channels cannot make it then I guess they should not be in business.... I was very surprised when I read an article about some shows on CNN... they had total viewership of 67K.... I know that CNN is not going to go away, but you would think that any show on that channel would get more viewers... (but then again, maybe some of those channels I do not watch get even less....)....

 

[bUU]

Which article do you speak of

The Brad Hill editorial.

And how will retail a la carte make things worse

The end result of a pure retail a la carte arrangement is likely to be the same cost for fewer choices. All it will do is rearrange how consumers' discretionary income for video entertainment is distributed - it won't actually result in more entertainment or substantially lower overall cost for the same quality. If you watch six or seven cable channels total, and they're among to most mainstream channels, you'll probably be okay. But if you have more varied or diverse interests, you'll be shafted by retail a la carte.

IOW, if you do not like sports you do not have to pay for ESPN (which I think is $6 or more).... and you could cut out those food channels and others that cost .25 each...

That's incorrect. The pricing you're referring to is bundled pricing. It has no relation to how much each channel would cost when not bundled together on a tier of service. ESPN is likely to cost closer to $15 when unbundled. That's good for people who don't care about sports, bad for people who do. Again, it would just rearrange how consumers' discretionary income for video entertainment is distributed, not substantially lower it for everyone.

I have more than 100 channels I can view... maybe close to 200 if you count all those pay channels I never look at...

Don't forget that some of those channels are paying for the privilege and therefore eliminating them actually will directly increase your cost since your package will no longer be subsidized by the fees they pay.

but when I look at my favorite channels it is less than 30.... and I could get that down if I had to pay for some...

No. Not with "less than 30". Get it down to 6 or less and you're in good shape. Maybe you'll be okay with 7 perhaps even 8, but after that, you're going to lose.

And remember, you perhaps could ride the crest of the wave if all your interests are pedestrian and mainstream, but in the process retail a la carte would directly degrade the options to those folks who rely right now on the Korean-language package, for example. The FCC has to respect the fact that English is not an official national language that all citizens are expected to speak fluently and understand perfectly.

Right now we have a la carte on the special channels such as HBO or Showtime...

At $15-$20 per channel. I watch USA and TNT far more than HBO. Break USA or TNT off from the bundle and, at least based on the value I place on the programming they offer, they should each cost $15-%20.

Also, if some channels cannot make it then I guess they should not be in business....

Again, the FCC has to answer to a higher authority than popularity.

 

[imoldernu]

Was bouncing around the news, and found an intrerview with Roger Ailes.

The quote below, (I think it ws on Hollywood Reporter) was interesting to me becuse it is the first time I've seen a dollar amount to be paid by a commercial sponsor, quantified in dollar terms, by the channel.
I would suppose, by that, token that websites and Free channels on streaming media, would also be receiving payment from the same sponsors.

Have to think this through...

Along the way, Ailes has built a brand valued by Wall Street analysts at $15 billion for Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox empire; Fox News Channel contributed 18 percent of 21st Century profits in 2014. The company has notched 70 consecutive quarters of profit growth. And SNL Kagan projects that Ailes' network will generate $2.18 billion this year from advertising dollars and affiliate revenue. Fox News isn't merely the most watched cable news channel (since 2002, when it surpassed CNN); in February, it was the most watched primetime network on all of cable and finished the first quarter in fourth place overall in primetime behind only ESPN, TBS (which had March Madness) and USA. It commands some of the richest fees in cable at more than $1 per subscriber per month (CNN, by comparison, gets 61 cents and MSNBC gets about 30 cents). And in the next few years, those fees will jump to $1.50 as new carriage deals kick in — including one with Dish Network finalized in January after a contentious monthlong blackout.

 

[bUU]

All I see there is discussion of subscriber fees.