> Local television stations are hurting financially. Much like > newspapers their ad revenue is down.
I find that difficult to believe, considering how the number and duration of commercials has increased over the years. All prime-time slots are now at least 1/3 commercials (i.e., 20 minutes of commercials in a one-hour slot).
***** Moderator's Note *****
Actually, that makes sense: less revenue per ad, ergo more ads. Although I'm no fan of the broadcasting industry, I can understand that a station has to make its payroll every month.
The FCC used to have a 20 minute limit for ads: stations in resort areas would always apply for a waiver during tourist season, but I don't know if that's still in effect.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:21 PM, John Meissen <j...@meissen.org> wrote: > John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> said: >> Local television stations are hurting financially. Â Much like >> newspapers their ad revenue is down.
> I find that difficult to believe, considering how the number and duration > of commercials has increased over the years. All prime-time slots are now > at least 1/3 commercials (i.e., 20 minutes of commercials in a one-hour > slot).
Ad rates are based on the station's ratings. Higher rated stations get more money for their ads. Back when we had three network affiliates, a PBS station, maybe an independent station and no cable or Internet distractions, TV ratings were high. Today local stations have to compete with hundreds of other channels on the cable or satellite systems. Also people's eyeballs are often looking at a computer screen and not a TV set. There are only so many advertising dollars out there and the market is very diluted. Meanwhile costs continue to climb for TV stations. They're running into the same problems local papers are struggling with. Their old advertising model that has benefitted them from the early days of television isn't working any more.
This out of Canada, but they have a similar setup north of the border that we have here.
Over the years I have come across more and more articles like these. I don't know how serious of a threat it was, but Austin risked losing its CBS affiliate not too long ago when the owner couldn't find a buyer and announced they would have to shut the station off. About then CBS stepped in and bought it. I think someone else now owns it.
John
-- John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA
In article <20091026212137.D73C23415D@john>, Bill Horne wrote: >The FCC used to have a 20 minute limit for ads: stations in resort >areas would always apply for a waiver during tourist season, but I >don't know if that's still in effect.
Actually, it was *voluntary* limit of 18 minutes per hour in the NAB Code.
Any limits the FCC might once have had went away many years ago when the Commission decided that it wouldn't make decisions on the basis of program content. As far as the FCC is concerned, a station that airs all advertising, 24x7, except for television stations' required weekly half-hour of E/I "core" programming, which may not contain more than six minutes of advertising. Beyond that, starting in the Reagan era, the FCC considered the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" to be adequately served by (almost-)all-informercial stations.
-GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft woll...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
On Oct 27, 5:44 pm, "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwe...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Do advertising limits even make sense in the day of 24/7 shopping channels? > .
The saga continues...
Vivendi CEO says IPO an option for NBC Universal Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:08pm EDT
WATFORD, England (Reuters) - NBC Universal could be floated on the stock market if France's Vivendi decides to sell its 20 percent stake in the group majority-owned by General Electric, Vivendi's chief executive said on Tuesday.
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:21:37 -0700, "John Meissen" <j...@meissen.org> wrote:
> All prime-time slots are now at least 1/3 commercials (i.e., 20 > minutes of commercials in a one-hour slot).
All the more reason to time-shift your TV programs. I record on my DVR everything I want to watch. Then later I fast-forward through the commercials. My "skip ahead 30 seconds" button gets a good workout.
***** Moderator's Note *****
My local "CW" station has started running ads as overlays on the screen while programs are running.
Next, it'll be "Blipverts" like they had in 'Max Headroom'.
Geoffrey Welsh wrote: > Do advertising limits even make sense in the day of 24/7 shopping > channels?
That's funny, I was about to ask exactly the opposite question. Now that we have the Web on which to look up whatever we want to buy, and it has plenty of good comparison sites, all ads in other media (except maybe those media that exist only for the purpose of ads, like the Penny Saver) have lost their usefulness to the consuming public. In effect they are nothing but nagging. Why does the TV watching public continue to put up with them, at all, ever? Do we need the commercials to tell us it's time to go to the bathroom?
Fortunately, Tivo and its competitors are rapidly making TV ads so easy to skip that they're becoming as useless to businesses as they are to consumers. Now Hollywood is just left with the problem of making TV shows good enough that people will pay for them.
I predict the demise of free (unencrypted) over-the-air TV any day.
In article <hd9pje$cb...@blue.rahul.net>, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>Fortunately, Tivo and its competitors are rapidly making TV ads so >easy to skip that they're becoming as useless to businesses as they >are to consumers.
-GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft woll...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
> Geoffrey Welsh wrote: > > Do advertising limits even make sense in the day of 24/7 shopping > > channels?
> That's funny, I was about to ask exactly the opposite question. Now > that we have the Web on which to look up whatever we want to buy, and > it has plenty of good comparison sites, all ads in other media (except > maybe those media that exist only for the purpose of ads, like the > Penny Saver) have lost their usefulness to the consuming public. In > effect they are nothing but nagging. Why does the TV watching public > continue to put up with them, at all, ever? Do we need the > commercials to tell us it's time to go to the bathroom?
> Fortunately, Tivo and its competitors are rapidly making TV ads so > easy to skip that they're becoming as useless to businesses as they > are to consumers. Now Hollywood is just left with the problem of > making TV shows good enough that people will pay for them.
> I predict the demise of free (unencrypted) over-the-air TV any day.
Well, maybe. But as I've noted before in this space, one should never underestimate the power of the National Association of Broadcasters.
In article <hd9pje$cb...@blue.rahul.net>, j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us says...
> Geoffrey Welsh wrote: > > Do advertising limits even make sense in the day of 24/7 shopping > > channels?
> That's funny, I was about to ask exactly the opposite question. Now > that we have the Web on which to look up whatever we want to buy, and > it has plenty of good comparison sites, all ads in other media (except > maybe those media that exist only for the purpose of ads, like the > Penny Saver) have lost their usefulness to the consuming public. In > effect they are nothing but nagging. Why does the TV watching public > continue to put up with them, at all, ever? Do we need the > commercials to tell us it's time to go to the bathroom?
Actually, most people watch ads because they reinforce the purchasing decisions they have already made.
People rarely buy cars because of an ad, but they tend to notice the ads for the car they bought more. This reinforces the brand, which makes the customer more likely to choose that brand the _next_ time they make a purchase. For the seller/advertiser, a repeat customer is a much better value than a new customer.
woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes: > Except, of course, that the latest research shows quite the > opposite: most people can't be bothered to skip the commercials. > See, for example, > <http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/11/06/03>.
It's not most, it's a bit under 50%. But the amazing thing from that piece is that some networks are saying now that DVRs may be what saves them, because that percentage is watching more network shows than those people who are limited to watching them live (duh, us DVR users have been saying that since tivo came out in 1999). In the story, one exec said that they should give DVRs away to their viewers.
And then you have NBC, who somehow got the idea that designing their 9-oclock hour to be un-dvrable (supposedly nobody records live content, wha?), turning into the biggest disaster on a network that seems to be MADE of disaster these days. They can't do anything right. *
-- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
> On Nov 9, 1:10 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> > wrote:
>> Geoffrey Welsh wrote: >> > Do advertising limits even make sense in the day of 24/7 shopping >> > channels?
>> That's funny, I was about to ask exactly the opposite question. Now >> that we have the Web on which to look up whatever we want to buy, and >> it has plenty of good comparison sites, all ads in other media (except >> maybe those media that exist only for the purpose of ads, like the >> Penny Saver) have lost their usefulness to the consuming public. In >> effect they are nothing but nagging. Why does the TV watching public >> continue to put up with them, at all, ever? Do we need the >> commercials to tell us it's time to go to the bathroom?
>> Fortunately, Tivo and its competitors are rapidly making TV ads so >> easy to skip that they're becoming as useless to businesses as they >> are to consumers. Now Hollywood is just left with the problem of >> making TV shows good enough that people will pay for them.
>> I predict the demise of free (unencrypted) over-the-air TV any day.
> Well, maybe. But as I've noted before in this space, one should never > underestimate the power of the National Association of Broadcasters.
This begs the question: if broadcast TV networks are going to be (soon) acquired by the cable and fiber monopolies, what was the point of all the hassle and expense moving to digital broadcast TV?
Or is there something I'm not seeing and, say, Comcast's acquisitions will still broadcast over-the-air?
|
