We got DVR (digital video recording – a lot like TIVO) last year, and it’s totally changed how I watch TV. I seldom have any idea what days the shows I watch are broadcast, and I never watch TV live or with commercials if I can avoid it. For me, being able to watch when I watch – and fast-forward past commercials – makes TV twice as enjoyable as it was.
But me, and others like me, are going to ruin free TV.
Once almost no one – and especially, no one with enough money to afford DVR or TIVO – watches commercials, the “commercial break” model of free-TV will be ruined. I think that this will lead to one of two possible outcomes:
1) The high-production-value, high-end TV I like – shows such as Battlestar Gallactica, West Wing and Buffy The Vampire Slayer – will cease to exist on free TV (although there will still be some of these shows on HBO and Showtime). Only extremely cheap to produce shows – such as reality TV and talk shows – will be available via free TV stations.
or
2) “Commercial breaks” will be supplemented by, and eventually completely replaced by, animated ads that run during shows at the bottom of the TV screen. There’s already a limited number of these ads run – usually brief promos for other shows on the same network – and they’re dreadful, distracting and dismaying. Some of them even have their own sound track, which makes it impossible to hear what characters on screen are saying.
Perhaps it won’t be one or the other – perhaps it’ll be a combination of the two. But that’s the future. All the fault of me and the “fast foward” button on my DVR remote.
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: The Argument Clinic
Sadly I feel that free TV is on it’s last legs, with the advent of digital technology and the ablity for TV companies to recive payment at the point of use.
The BBC are currently facing up to this issue, especally with more and more opponents to the idea of a Licence Fee, regardless of use.
It’s hard to see free TV surviving. Add to this, as you have stated, the ablity now to skip through adverts. Advertisers will call for a reduction in their costs of advertising space if TV stations cannot give assurance that the adverts will reach the masses.
It will be very interesting to watch.
I also feel that objectivity in TV was lost a long time ago, I very rarely see objectivity in the TV media any longer, from either side of the political spectrum.
Don’t feel bad about it, Amp. It’s inevitable. Something better will come along.
And really, less TV and more films is fine with me. Especially if you can download the films using something like Netflix.
Robert Cringely has been writing a lot about the future of TV recently–you should look up his column on pbs.org. I would link to it but their site appears to be down. I would say there’s really nothing to be worried about as far as variety and programming quality goes in the future.
Perhaps there will be massive product placement. If done right that would not be too annoying. And what’s more, it will not be too hard in the future to do a generalized product placement where they can alter the product if need be (i.e. a character drinks a generic soda can that can be changed to either a Coke, or a Pepsi, or a 7-UP, depending on who’s advertising that day.
There is an alternative — produce commercials that people actually want to watch. Spamming viewers with the same content-free 30 second piece of barf doesn’t work. There’s no information in an ad whose entire goal is making sure the word “Hemi” is mentioned as often as possible. Or in proving that the creator of the commercial was able to find several blond bimbettes or shaved-chest macho dudes to stand around pretending to care about the product.
Back in the 70’s Shell produced ads with “The Shell Answer Man”. I actually learned a few things about driving and driving safety. Maybe it’s time for commercials to be longer and more informative.
Sadly, too few products have any real competitive advantage over any other product of the same kind, or if they do, it’s hidden behind buzzwords that are never explained, or whose advantages over the alternative is never explained, or which just sound stupid to me. How can one “Ice Brew” a beer? The coldest I’ve ever heard of brewing a beer is 55°F, and when I put a fermenter full of beer in the fridge, it stops brewing completely. And if I don’t know why I’m supposed to care about your beer in the first place, why do I care if I have some on hand come game day? (Is it obvious that I encounter too many ads for really bad mass-produced beer?)
My nickname comes from a Superbowl spot done by Electronic Data Systems several years back. It included really nice scenes of cat herders driving a herd of wild cats somewhere or other. It was memorable enough that I downloaded it to my hard drive at home and I show it to friends from time to time for a few laughs. All this time later I still don’t think I’m any more (or less) likely to hire EDS, were I in a position to do so, than I was before. So that ad, while entertaining, was pointless.
Free TV is dying because the ads which support free TV aren’t worth watching.
FCH, what a good idea. Sort of like Superbowl ads, only all the time. Cool!
The ads may not be worth watching, but they are effective. Advertisers have found that the effectiveness of an ad really isn’t tied to how annoying or not it is, or even how memorable it is. It’s more about just exposing you to the brand name over and over so that it comes to mind more easily when you’re thinking about what restaurant to go to, or so the product stands out more on a shelf next to a bunch of other brands.
But you’re right about the ads not being worth watching.
Do you subscribe to cable? If so, the TV you’re watching isn’t really “free.”
What will probably happen is that cable/satellite companies will pair up with TV studios to offer some kind of pay-per-view model. I don’t think I would mind if rather than paying a flat $50 a month for cable, instead I paid $1-2 per episode of Lost, or Malcolm, or whatever else I watch, if it would mean that those shows are still available.
Not me! The best TV, because it isn’t so limited in time, can develop characters and relationships in ways that movies simply can’t match. Don’t get me wrong, I like movies; but it would not have been possible to do “The Sopranos” or “Buffy” or “Roseanne” as movies.
Something like the pay-per-view model Nona suggests might be best. (And Nona, you’re right, I’m paying for cable.)
Tivo won’t destroy commercial TV. The last study I saw said that half the people with Tivo watch the commercials anyway. I bet the half who skip the commercials are the half who are least effected by them when they wee them, anyway. Meanwhile, in a worst case scenario, it’ll be a reversion to the old radio shows, where some character would come into the protagonists house and talk about baking soda for a few minutes.
What will destroy TV as we know it (and maybe in a good way, or maybe not) is if the new FCC guy who wants to move to “a la carte” cable, so you don’t have to pay for ESPN or the Catholic Network or Home and Garden or E! if you don’t want to — just the channels you really want.
Right now, 25 cents of your cable bill goes to CNN, even if you only ever watch MSNBC. With a la carte, you wouldn’t have to pay for both.
Consumer groups love it, but niche markets hate it. The Christian networks say part of their mission is to reach non-Christians, ESPN is afraid that only 20% of the cable audience watches them, etc. Lower consumer prices for cable mean less money going to potential content providers.
*shrug* I won’t miss it. I havn’t had a TV in over a year.
Plus, what will replace it is downloadable programs with a set fee for each download. Apple Music Store is doing this already.
ugh, I wish you’d never said this. I also find the overlaid promos annoying, but it seems a natural conflation of web sensibilities with TV. for that matter, there are so many channels/programs with “feeds” along the bottom that probably a lot of people can separate their attention to the necessary degree…
did I say Yuck already?
I *love* my TiFaux! Though I find myself wanting to rewind or pause other things, like the radio or even conversations, before realizing I can’t.
And, Amp, despair not — most TV shows come out on DVD anyhow. Except some of the really good older ones, like WKRP, Carol Burnett and China Beach.
Lee,
Noooooo! Not like the Superbowl ads!
As much as I enjoy the artistic effort that goes into creating Superbowl ads, I find them just as content-free as normal ads.
What is it about Company X’s car that makes it better than Company Y’s? And if I own a model year 2000 Company X car, what should I be thinking about to make it last a couple more years? I’d like to know these things. I’d like to know how I can use products I’ve bought, or might buy, in ways my old habits haven’t included. I might take my car to the dealership for model-specific maintenance. I might develop increased brand loyalty if they’d just tell me more about the product.
Remember the old Campbell’s Soup ads where the ads talked about using this kind of soup or that kind to make some other dish? Back in the day, when I was a lot younger and had less free time for elaborate cooking, I’d use Campbell’s Soup in all sorts of ways. Give me a 2 minute spot showing how to use different soups to make quick meals. I’d watch that. I’d even buy the product (actually, I wouldn’t — Campbell’s soups aren’t kosher, but I digress — I’d buy them if they were).
There was a brief discussion in another thread about how much sugar (“corn sweetener”) is added to foods these days. Letting me know what a product contains and why this is “good” can’t really be done in a 30 second spot. I had to learn for myself that hand-gathered, organic, vegetarian feed only, free-range eggs really were a heck of a lot better for cooking than factory-farmed eggs. Thirty second spots about humane treatment of chickens don’t tell me that organic eggs have a better flavor (buy them if you haven’t yet — I’m not lying about the flavor thing). Crack a few eggs in a spot. Show me.
I suspect we’ll never see useful advertising because of what you wrote — the purpose of advertising is repeating the brand name until we’re sick and tired of hearing it. Telling us why to buy a product would require that marketing folks actually believed in the products they are selling.
(caution: only half-seriousness ahead)
Plus, what will replace it is downloadable programs with a set fee for each download.
Blech. In my day, we had 2 to 7 channels, most of them at least 20 hours a day, for free. Well, for the cost of the television and the electricity. And we were damned thankful for it. Later on in my day, we had cable tv. 40 to 60 channels, most of them 24 hours a day, for $20/month. And we were thankful, even at that cost.
Call me old fashioned (wheeeeeee!), but I’d rather not switch to a pay-per-view/download system. There’s a reason that ISPs stopped charging by the minute. Well, several reasons. You want to pay a buck per 1/2 hour program? An awful lot of folks in the US have their TV on for about 8 hours/day. That’s $16/day times 30 days comes to just under $500/mo (or just under 1/2 my mortgage payment). Roughly 10 times the cost of non-digital/non-premium cable today. Seems like a poor trade-off to me. We will not be thankful for that.
And, honestly, I haven’t rented a video in years. The library has pretty much everything that I want to see. What it doesn’t have I can usually borrow from friends. So if it comes to pay-per view only, I’ll disconnect & use the library. (Of course it will be hugely successful when it is the only option for the equivalent of broadcast tv, but that doesn’t make it the best option for most of us).
FCH, I was referring to the Superbowl ads (for clarification, I should say, the ads aired during the Superbowl broadcast) in terms of watchability, rather than in terms of effectiveness or learning more about the product.
I have heard that ads in Japan are very artistic and that you generally have absolutely no clue what is being advertised, but somebody who has actually watched Japanese TV should be able to address this point better than I can!
While I join you in wishing for more content in the short (30-second) ads, I don’t believe high-fiber ads would be very effective because most people totally turn their brains off when they watch TV. Also, I have yet to see an infomercial that was not a) a yawnfest or b) so totally ridiculous that I don’t remember the content because I was giggling.
Nona- I’m actually always very bitter, when paying my cable bill, that I have to watch ads on a service I pay for by the month. I don’t know why it’s become such a pet peeve for me, but there you go.
As for free TV, it’s been dying for quite a while, frankly. This stuff is just one more nail in the ol’ coffin.
I think that old-school advertisers are probably, as we speak, losing hair over the fact that the whole landscape for advertising is changing under their feet; on the other hand, they will find ways to adapt to an increasingly niche-market based consumer culture — some already have, as far as I can tell. How TV will play into that is more difficult to guess than how the internet plays in, for example… but they’ll always work it out, hopefully in less annoying ways than those stupid little pop-up ads on the bottom of the TV screen (hate them hate them hate them!)
I saw a very clever commercial on the last episode of “Las Vegas”. The show segued very nicely into the commercial. The three goofballs who were for the U. S. team in the commercial (the commercial was about the upcoming Olympics in Torino, Italy) were also on the show. The commercial looked like it was part of the show. The commercial was also very well done. If more commercials were done well and segued seamlessly from the TV show into the commercial, I would watch more of them.
I agree with the idea of product placement. I think the best one was the Reece’s Pieces in “ET”. I know that M&M turned down the film. I bet they weren’t happy about that decision, since “ET” is famous for using Reece’s Pieces.
By the way, Barry, we just got a DVR not long ago. I don’t think we could live without it. We watch all the new supernatural shows that are on, and the DVR is less of a headache than taping everything with video tape. My favorite shows are “Surface”, “Medium”, and “Lost”. I’m also hooked on “Mad Money”. I tape on DVR and watch it the next morning. That guy Jim Cramer is nuts. If you’ve ever seen “Mad Money”, you’d know I’m right. ;)
I think the future is going to be Internet TV. The bandwidth is there – now it’s just a question of getting the content in place.
I found out recently that a lot of tv shows are available for download from iTunes at $2 a pop which made me really happy because I dont get the Sci Fi channel and the new Battlestar Gallactica is one of the shows available for download. I kind of hope there is a future for pay-per-view TV shows since I think far too many TV shows end up being made for a demographic that advertisers want as opposed to being made for the audience who actually watches.
The problem with the a la carte model is that it might be more expensive to keep track of who subscribes to which channels than to just give everyone the same content. Presumably, the cost of sending extra channels is fairly low (at least the cost of sending extra channels to a particular house); most of the cable costs are fixed costs. Keeping track of who gets what would likely be far more expensive than just giving people a particular package. (Premium channels tend to be a lot more expensive than regular channels, which in part reflects this cost and in part reflects the cost of making the premium channel programming).
I like movies; but it would not have been possible to do “The Sopranos” or “Buffy” or “Roseanne” as movies.
Or rather, Buffy” was done as a movie, and as a TV show, and I think that it is pretty obvious which one was superior. (And I say this as a non-Buffy fan; when it comes to vampires, it’s Forever Knight all the way for me!)
Something that I rarely ever say: I agree with Robert. I really think the internet model will be the future for television. I was just listening to something about this on NPR this morning, where they were saying the FCC’s idea of allowing people to not pay for channels they don’t want is a generation behind. What consumers are interested in is access to good shows, not to channels.
What the internet adds is a more populist approach. Like how the advent of blogs allow you to read the opinions of non-established folks, and let the non-punditry class post their own opinions on issues as well as pictures of their cats, internet tv allows for shows that would never have had a chance on networks to find an audience. I mean, just look at the popularity of homestarrunner.com
Hey, wait a minute. I just had a thought. (The pain!)
Poor people and the elderly are the ones who get the largest value out of free TV. Bill Gates can just commission whatever shows he wants to see. (Pity he wasn’t a “Firefly” fan – he could have picked up the phone and said “Joss, keep makin’ em. Just send me the bills.”)
By using DVR technology, aren’t we all directly undermining the welfare and happiness of the poor and elderly? Which is fine for ME, I’m a Republican, that’s my JOB – but Amp?
Amp, you’re a selfish Rethuglican monster. Your desire to skip watching the occasional deodorant ad is taking access to culture and entertainment away from the impoverished masses. You might as well just start a 401(k) filled with tobacco and gun stocks and acquire a Baptist child bride right now, you beast.
My concern with a la carte cable is that package discounts be perserved. Such as, you can get your normal package, or you can pay per channel but you will be pay more. I’d also say that popular channels need to be more expensive in such a system. I’m cautious about rushing into such a system, though, because the reality is that the cable company has to pay for those channels whether you take them or not. It seems unfair to impose such a system on them if they weren’t allowed to also turn around to the content providers and demand a nice pricing scheme for their channels.
I also really feel that there really should be no shame in watching and enjoying television. Episodic series are an important creative medium and one I wouldn’t want to see go by the wayside. Furthermore, the informative program and documentary programming that is offered on television isn’t something other mediums can really replicate. There is something to seeing things and television has been a tremendous success on many levels, artistically and culturally. Sure, a lot of it is garbage. So are a lot of films. So are nearly every major recording artist these days. Frankly, I think TV has a far better batting average than rival mediums.
I’d point out, though, that the demise of free TV is still well off. People said the same things of VCR’s, and while I’ll concede that DVR’s have proven VASTLY more user-friendly than VCR’s, they are still out of reach of the vast majority of homes who regard it as a luxury not worth paying for or one they are incapable of paying for. In the end, the commercial model may well sustain this. Though, I’m not at all troubled by product placement, and indeed prefer it to bland fake products you used to always see. There was this bizarre unreality to characters always drinking soda cans with the names taped over. If they show them drinking a Pepsi or a Coke, it feels more real. If the production company can earn a few bucks, they by gosh why not?
hmm, so much to think about.
I really think there is going to be a huge diversity of ‘TV’ mediums, but basically it looks like the future lie in two areas (at least from my tv viewing experience of late:
1. a la cart pay cable. I skip through most all the channels, but there are channels i want to keep, and only those, cnn, scifi, HGTV, sundance, hbo a few others. That is coming I think and i really really want it.. screw all the sports channels.. i never watch them. I think a lot of cable viewers would like that, between marketing and regulations, i think its going that way.
2. on-demand download. We already have this, two ways directly and one way indirectly. Indirectly, TIVO is really on-demand ‘download’. I never watch a show any more when its on. I save it and ‘download’ it when I demand.. just so happens i’m downloading it from my own disc :). The two direct ways? we have on-demand on our comcast…. a pile of movies we can watch when we want, and PBS kids shows.. which is great. i can let our daughter watch the shows we like during her ‘tv’ time instead of those that are ‘on’. Also, I have in the last little while, been downloading and watching the past episodes of BG from iTunes and watching them on my computer (i have a great monitor)… i love the show now and didn’t mind paying 20 dollars for a season of shows!
i do think those above are going to kill off free TV, the jury is out on whether i consider that a good thing or a bad thing.
Hooray, I made a liberal feel bad about class issues. Of course, that’s like getting a teenager to be depressed. Congratulations, I went to the ocean and got wet. :P
Maybe now there’s finally a justification for government television.
Yep, Amp, it’s all your fault. :-)
I’m one of those people that watches several shows with near religious fervor as is my husband. I have the feeling if I had to take the time to enter credit information, download shows, and then find the time to watch them — I’d simply stop watching. We currently video tape the shows that either run in competition or that we miss and watch them on our off days.
I personally don’t pay any attention to the commercial content in my taped shows, and rather than fast forward I take that time to get up and feed the dog, put clothes in the dryer, etc.
My fear with the pay per view model is that even at two dollars a program, the cost to me personally is greater than my car note per month. Not because I watch lots of television myself, but because there are five people in our household that all have particular viewing tastes and interests. I can’t imagine having to pay for and download all my my children’s shows for a single week. EEP
I so know what you mean here… I only wish that there were more episodes of kids shows available “on demand.” HBO shows tend to have 12 episodes at a time available in “on demand,” but a toddler’s show like “Lazytown” – Sydney’s current fave show – has only two episodes available.
Two episodes, I may add, that I have seen over, and over, and over, and over. The next time I run into someone from Iceland, I may have to punch ’em.
[shrug.] I like Doritos, but if they talked to me constantly while I was eating them about how great they were, I’d probably give them up in favor of some other delicious-but-cholesterol laden snack. I want a peaceful and contemplative silence while I’m trashing my cardiovascular system, Thank You.
Which is just my way of saying that I don’t really think there will ever be a time that anyone with enough money to buy a TV will have to go without TV programming. Most people are remarkably dogged about keeping up with a favorite show no matter how damn annoying and intrusive the ads get. If you’re lucky enough to live in a town like PDX, where you can rent volumes of TV programs on tape or DVD, you don’t even have to pay anything at all to watch what you enjoy. Of course, you’ll have to stay off the internet so the end-of-season denoument isn’t spoiled for you before you can get the complete season, but– what the hell. Courage in the clutch, and all that.
I just got back from visiting my husband’s hometown (Pittsburgh). While I was there, I went on a big cable binge. I enjoy Animal Planet and a lot of the cooking shows, but not enough to pay for cable here at home and to endure the truly mind-boggling number of ads they lob at you every thirty minutes. I don’t think this means that I’m “elitist.” I think it means that I prefer my trash with little or no advertising. I can kick back on the sofa with the collected works of Urge Overkill or Presidents of the United States on CD and destroy my mind in a much more relaxing fashion than I can in front of the tube. Music is a better entertainment value than TV, and I can be mobile while enjoying it.
P.S.– Put me in the camp that finds product placement on shows to be creepy and off-putting.
we love our tivo so much that we had to get a 2nd one, with a dvd recorder. the old one is regulated to the front room for the kids. they love having their shows whenever they want. 2yr old loves teletubbies, caillou, and dora. 4yrold loves dora, diego, little einsteins, and wiggles. sometimes i can even get them to watch sesame street, but they like to fast foward to elmo’s world.
the one with the dvd recorder has been a great help. my wife & i have a bunch of shows we watch religiously, but we don’t have a lot of time… maybe only 2 hours a night, so we get way behind. (i’m like 2 seasons behind on ER.) but then, every now and again, we’ll ge a day with nothing much to do. then outcome the DVDs and we can catch up on an entire show’s season in a day or two. that’s how i’m planning to watch 24 this season. i think it’ll be better than trying to keep track of its storyline throughout the season (although this season they’re promising no hiatuses.)
and i’m compiling my own Netflix-like library of movies that Must Be Watched. especially the great 70s era films that my wife, being 13 years younger than me, missed out on. she’s never seen The French Connection or Duel or Silent Running or Taxi Driver and so on.and for me, i can never watch Goodfellas or Godfather or The Professional or Enemy of the State (more scary than anything out there labled ‘horror’) too many times.
as to the commercials, i see more and more product placement coming. some of it is getting very intrusive. the characters going on and on about a product that there’ll inevitably be a commercial for as soon as that segment is over. i’ve also read that advertisers are designing commercials where the message is able to still be ascertained at fast-forward speeds. but with the 30-second jump-ahead cheat programmed into my tivo remotes, i don’t even have to fast-forward watch commercials. there is one downside to that though. i miss some good shows i’d be interested in. especially on the sci-fi channel. by jumping ahead, i don’t see the promos for movies or upcoming repeats of old series. but then if i tivo’d and dvd’d any more, i’ll never catch up on ER!
Google makes more money on ads than any of the networks do. How? They show us ads we find interesting, and have more affilate partners than amway. Google just bought a big tv ad company, says slashdot today.
I don’t watch TV – the cable plugs right into the computer.
I read a webcomic, “least i could do”. (horribly sexist, in a sort of tongue in cheek way.) They are going to be making it into an animated cartoon. I looked into software from hash.com to animate my webcomic, and while $200 is way over my budget, that works for alot of people, and we are/will be seeing explosions of online video content. Well, I already watch free video online, but it’s mostly pr0n. So free tv isn’t going away. Meanwhile, free tv’s are a lot more common -millions of people are putting their old tv’s in the dumpster – several pounds of lead in each one – because they are getting the new digital TV’s, but lots of countries will still have analog TV for a long time, so we should be recycling the old ones.
From what I’ve been reading so far, I find it strange to see people getting so exited over tivo’s, dvr’s, and whatever technocrap that comes out.
Now, this is only my option, I’m not judging anyone for how they wish to live their life, nor, will I ever tell anyone how to live. For as long as I can remember television has been my sitter both in childhood and into early adulthood until one day it occured to me that “entertainment” such as it is has been designed to drain me of all my creative energy and my wallet, because at the end of the day who is the richer one, the people that run this media industry, and what do I have to show for it, NOTHING!!!
Time and money that was lost can never be replaced and as a personal chose I stopped watching television all together, I even went so far as to not listen to the radio and I’m all the happier for it. I’m sure at this point your saying ” ok, what’s your point here?” I’m not sure if I have one, but does it bother some of you knowing that your giving your precious time and money to those who could care less about you, that after a while that hunk of metal and plastic you have will be obsolete within a year, if not sooner, by the time you get it out of the box? Here’s the deal, when I hear or read about people spending two-three-four hundreds or more on things that really DO nothing for you, just makes me sad that I must voice my concerns. People, please! save your money, do something with the one life you have. I realize that I’ll get lots of comments on this topic so it sould be interesting what will come of it, thank you for taking your time reading this and I’ll hope to hear from you soon. Tim
I don’t know if it was designed to drain you of your creative energy, but I’ll agree that this is its effect. I have seen it in working with kids a lot (I’m a Scouter). Scouting is predicated on the “Patrol Method”, wherein the kids are formed up into groups of 5 to 8. They make their own meals and eat together, they sleep in their tents together, they work in competitions and advancement together, and they plan their activities together.
The kids are not used to running things on their own. While they do participate in entertainments these days, they have no hand in planning them or running them, and it shows. They have a very hard time in working together under their own leadership. Back in my day (I know, I know, but it’s germane) we would play baseball by getting some of our friends together, going over to a vacant area, choosing up sides and playing. There were no adults anywhere around to tell us how to play, what to play, when to play, what the rules were, who was going to be on which team, how to settle arguments, etc. So when it came time to do those things ourselves in Scouting, we were used to it. Not so now.
Kids today consume a great deal more entertainment than I ever did. But I created a lot more than they ever did.