|
Vlad!
|
 |
« on: April 16, 2009, 06:23:41 PM » |
|
Honestly, I think TV is just plain not the right venue for serialized shows (i.e. shows that follow a consistent plot from beginning to end). I'm waiting for a studio to decide "enough with this time slot nonsense" and pitch a show directly to Hulu or similar. Let users decide when and how they want to watch your show, and you'll be the most popular thing ever.
(Side note: why hasn't this happened yet? Well, much as I would like to believe otherwise, probably not because I'm just that much smarter than TV producers. Most likely it's because the way they calculate viewership for broadcast TV is fundamentally broken, and it's broken in such a way that makes on-demand streaming look bad by comparison. It's also a chicken-and-egg problem. Joe Schmoe feels no need to watch Hulu because America's Next Top Dental Hygenist or whatever is available and understandable on TV, and he doesn't realize that these shows that involve words he doesn't understand would be much more comprehensible if he started from the beginning).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 16, 2009, 06:37:36 PM by Vlad! »
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2009, 06:34:06 PM » |
|
Wow. Now we've really driven this thing off-topic. (Maybe we should split to a thread about Serialized and/or Internet TV.)
I too have been wondering when we'll see the death of traditional scheduled TV and just move to watching everything over the Internet. I agree that ratings are likely to be higher for heavily serialized shows (or just for a lot of TV in general) when things like Hulu and DVR are taken into account rather than just listed as statistics on the side like they are now. I think there are two major roadblocks.
The first is advertising. I'm actually amazed that networks are so willing to make their shows available online, given that much less advertising is shown (typically one 30-second ad over and over, or maybe a slightly longer ad only shown once at the beginning of the program) and it costs nothing to log on and watch it. I can't figure out how their advertisers aren't up in arms over this. Maybe they are. Or maybe shows are getting canceled left and right because the advertisers are pulling their dollars after realizing no one's sitting and watching the show during the hour it actually airs. (What really blows my mind is seeing ads - and rather funny ones at that - for Hulu on NBC. Who pays for this?)
The second is technology. I know this is surprising, but not everybody has broadband Internet, or Internet at all. We're still probably several years out from being able to do away with traditional, scheduled TV broadcasts. You can buy a TV and that's pretty much a one-time expense since it's free-to-air. (Cable notwithstanding. I figure if you're paying for cable, you're gonna get your money's worth out of it, and remember to tune into your favorite cable shows regularly. Those networks expect smaller audiences anyhow.) Internet costs you by the month. Maybe someday we'll move a system where it does not. But even then, computers cost a hell of a lot more than TVs.
NP: "Furr", Blitzen Trapper
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2009, 06:42:04 PM » |
|
Wow. Now we've really driven this thing off-topic. (Maybe we should split to a thread about Serialized and/or Internet TV.)
Done and done. The first is advertising. I'm actually amazed that networks are so willing to make their shows available online, given that much less advertising is shown (typically one 30-second ad over and over, or maybe a slightly longer ad only shown once at the beginning of the program) and it costs nothing to log on and watch it. I can't figure out how their advertisers aren't up in arms over this. Maybe they are. Or maybe shows are getting canceled left and right because the advertisers are pulling their dollars after realizing no one's sitting and watching the show during the hour it actually airs. (What really blows my mind is seeing ads - and rather funny ones at that - for Hulu on NBC. Who pays for this?) I don't know for sure, but I suspect that Hulu is being funded by venture capital right now. Investors have given the site millions of dollars to build out their infrastructure in exchange for potentially more millions of dollars later down the line. Honestly, I think if advertisers weren't so caught up in the status quo they would have jumped ship a decade ago. The second is technology. I know this is surprising, but not everybody has broadband Internet, or Internet at all. We're still probably several years out from being able to do away with traditional, scheduled TV broadcasts. You can buy a TV and that's pretty much a one-time expense since it's free-to-air. (Cable notwithstanding. I figure if you're paying for cable, you're gonna get your money's worth out of it, and remember to tune into your favorite cable shows regularly. Those networks expect smaller audiences anyhow.) Internet costs you by the month. Maybe someday we'll move a system where it does not. But even then, computers cost a hell of a lot more than TVs. True. There are two fronts on this. The first is increasing competition in the broadband space, destroying the monopolies and advancing the available speeds. The second is the advent of low-cost consumer devices such as the Apple TV and the Roku which can play streaming content. For the technically-savvy, there's also the free and open-source Boxee which can be installed on home-theater PCs and stream Hulu. I think the technology will be there by the time the people are ready for it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
bethany
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2009, 08:06:06 AM » |
|
My favorite is that quite often Adblock Plus blocks the ads in the online TV programing, so I just have to sit through 30 seconds of silence and a black screen.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2009, 08:24:22 AM » |
|
My favorite is that quite often Adblock Plus blocks the ads in the online TV programing, so I just have to sit through 30 seconds of silence and a black screen. That's funny. I don't really watch Hulu so I hadn't noticed it myself. I almost wonder if it would be better to get the commercial. (Probably the first time it would but the 30th time it wouldn't). Also funny: I didn't intentionally type 'interwebs' in the title of this new thread. Actually, I don't know if that's funny or sad. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2009, 12:09:46 AM » |
|
My favorite is that quite often Adblock Plus blocks the ads in the online TV programing, so I just have to sit through 30 seconds of silence and a black screen. I get that whenever I watch Lost on abc.com, not because I'm smart enough to block the ads, but because the ads load so damn slowly that they haven't even started by the time the break's over. Oh well, not my problem! All things being equal, I'd rather sit through the 30-second ad than have to rejigger stuff on my computer to make the ads not appear. If it's a particularly annoying ad, I'll just turn the sound off. I must say it's funny watching my wife try to get up, run around the house, and do things she'd normally do during a TV-length commercial break within the space of 30 seconds. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bethany
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2009, 02:15:50 PM » |
|
I don't do anything special to make them not appear; Ad-Block Plus is just an add-on extension for Firefox that I have running all the time, as it blocks most banner ads and things like that on sites, leading to far less annoyance and visual clutter when I'm browsing around. Blocking out some of the ads on Hulu and the like is just a positive side effect, as I'd rather endure 30 seconds of silence than 30 seconds of a loud blaring ad for Christian Aguilera at Target, or some such.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2009, 02:22:38 PM » |
|
That's fine. A few seconds of effort to install a plugin seems worth it. Personally, I'm just not that annoyed by ads except for a few specific ones that are especially obnoxious. Most of them, I just tune out. (Or laugh at, if they're funny.) I didn't grow up in a channel-surfing household (we would generally put a program on and watch it straight through, and either sit through the ads or use that for bathroom/snack breaks) and I still don't have TiVo or a DVR, so I'm not in the habit of fast-forwarding through ads. I've just developed a tolerance/patience to the point where they generally don't bug me.
One thing that I do have to say bugs me is that ads seem a lot louder than the programs they air in the middle of. You crank up the TV so you can hear some crucial clue on Lost being whispered from one character to the next over the roar of your A/C, then you get blasted by some irritating song in an Old Navy ad. My wife is way more sensitive to this than I am - she's always demanding that I mute the TV or turn the volume down during ads, which to me is just unnecessary effort (not like it takes that much energy to push a freakin' button - it's just the whole prospect of having to remember to do it every 5 or 10 minutes and then having to pay more careful attention to the ads to make sure you don't forget to turn the sound back up/on when the show comes back. That, I could do without.
NP: "Ms. Innocence", Wilshire
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2009, 02:27:22 PM » |
|
This is taking a huge detour into offtopicland, but I'm not sure I could live without adblock plus. I'm so used to an Internet free of banner ads and annoying flash ads and every web page trying to sell me something is a much more pleasant Internet, at least to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2009, 02:29:26 PM » |
|
This is taking a huge detour into offtopicland, but I'm not sure I could live without adblock plus. I'm so used to an Internet free of banner ads and annoying flash ads and every web page trying to sell me something is a much more pleasant Internet, at least to me.
I guess I've just learned to tune those out, too. Not that I like 'em or want to defend them being there. But as long as it's occupying some space in the existing window and not popping up new windows or new layers above what I'm trying to read, I honestly don't care. The most obnoxious ads tend to be confined to sketchier websites that are more desperate for the bucks anyway. NP: "The Way You Dance", Blindside |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NewDimension
|
|
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2009, 01:06:46 AM » |
|
My wife is way more sensitive to this than I am - she's always demanding that I mute the TV or turn the volume down during ads, which to me is just unnecessary effort (not like it takes that much energy to push a freakin' button - it's just the whole prospect of having to remember to do it every 5 or 10 minutes and then having to pay more careful attention to the ads to make sure you don't forget to turn the sound back up/on when the show comes back. That, I could do without.
I usually mute the commercials when I watch television, or I'll change the channel to some other station until the ads are over. But it really depends on the length of the commercial. Some stations play longer ads than others.. So if it's a station that has shorter commercials, I might watch (or listen to) the commercials. I don't like watching/listening to ads/commericials (on the TV or internet), I see it as a waste of my time, because I'm not going to go out and buy a product (or whatever) because I see an ad for it-- and the show could move on a lot faster instead of constant interruptions every 5 - 15 minutes, when I could use those moments for something better. But I can (and occasionaly do) "tune out" the commercials; I'll just let my mind wander some place else. When I watch episodes/shows/movies on the internet, for some reason, there usually isn't many (if any) ads that interrupt my viewing. I like it that way. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2009, 01:51:36 AM » |
|
The thing to remember about ads is that someone has to pay for that airtime. Taking out the 18 minutes or so of ads that airs during an hour-long TV episode (I'm estimating based on what seems to be an average length of 42 minutes when watching an episode on DVD) might seem convenient for us, but then who pays the network the money that in turn pays the people who make the show? Not to mention they've got to make more of it to fill the gaps. Occasionally this can be done (I've heard of very special episodes of network shows that have run uninterrupted - maybe they just put some cut scenes back in or something, or it was just an episode where the director had a difficult time parting with enough material to pare it down to 42 minutes), but it doesn't seem realistic on a regular basis. I don't even know if the Internet model of watching it for free while only one or two ads play repetitively during the entire duration of it can last forever. I shudder to think what would happen if a concentrated effort to eliminate commercial breaks resulted in a lot more product placement happening during the show. (Which is kind of already here. What kind of Ford does that popular Heroes character drive again?)
What I haven't figured out is how we went from roughly 48 minutes to an hour-long TV episode in the 80's to roughly 42 now. All I can surmise is that the production quality and the special effects, etc. have gone up a great deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NewDimension
|
|
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2009, 02:51:34 AM » |
|
Oh, I totally understand the reasoning for why commercials exist. Obviously the sponsors of the show want air-time to promote their product while they help pay for the production and air-time of that show. It all requires money. It's completely logical to have commercials from a business perspective. I just wish the scripts for most commercials nowadays were written a lot better. I remember back in the day when some commericials were actually interesting. I'd be more tolerant about actually watching the commercials if they were different or intriguing in some way, but in recent times, not many ads I've seen would fall into that criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2009, 08:50:39 AM » |
|
I've thought about this myself, both from a TV perspective and an Internet perspective (the aforementioned Adblock Plus). As I'm sure you know, Ted Turner is on record saying that if you use a DVR to record a show and strip the commercials, you're stealing. And if you use an ad blocker, you're essentially letting other people pay for your Google searches and your free e-mail and what have you.
My only real defense is that TV ads generally don't influence what I buy anyway. If websites didn't feel the need to put incredibly garish and distracting (and sometimes inappropriate) ads on their pages, I wouldn't feel the need to remove them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2009, 01:59:06 PM » |
|
I've thought about this myself, both from a TV perspective and an Internet perspective (the aforementioned Adblock Plus). As I'm sure you know, Ted Turner is on record saying that if you use a DVR to record a show and strip the commercials, you're stealing. Bah. Pass a law and then I'll care. My only real defense is that TV ads generally don't influence what I buy anyway. If websites didn't feel the need to put incredibly garish and distracting (and sometimes inappropriate) ads on their pages, I wouldn't feel the need to remove them. Yeah, the inappropriateness is the one sticking point for me. It's one of those things that I've learned to live with, but I do think it's unfortunate when I'm looking up lyrics for some CCM band and the sidebar is trying to tell me, "Join our dating service so you can boink scantily clad hot girls like this one!" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2009, 02:35:37 PM » |
|
Bah. Pass a law and then I'll care.
Well, his stance is obviously one extreme end of the continuum, but it is certainly true that by removing advertising I am implicitly placing the burden of supporting my entertainment on the shoulders of others. I don't worship Immanuel Kant, but I do find his categorical imperative to be useful in situations like this--if everyone else did the same thing I'm doing, we wouldn't have free television (or Google web searches, or whatever ad-supported service we choose to discuss). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2009, 02:37:11 PM » |
|
Well, his stance is obviously one extreme end of the continuum, but it is certainly true that by removing advertising I am implicitly placing the burden of supporting my entertainment on the shoulders of others. I don't worship Immanuel Kant, but I do find his categorical imperative to be useful in situations like this--if everyone else did the same thing I'm doing, we wouldn't have free television (or Google web searches, or whatever ad-supported service we choose to discuss).
Then thank goodness most folks are too lazy and/or technologically un-savvy to care. NP: "God Is Not a Secret", Newsboys |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
