[DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

[DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

Links: Reply New Topic
Forums » Comcast » Comcast Cable TV » [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing
page: 1 · 2
TKJunkMail @ 2nd Nov 12:35PM:
[DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

Even though I use the DVR to skip all commercials, evidently half the people using DVRs don't do the same thing. Latest numbers have encouraged the networks to NOT oppose DVR use or find ways to disable fast forward.

»www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/busin···wanted=2
reply

insomniac @ 2nd Nov 12:47PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

I also skip commercials, but I also watch a lot more TV than I did pre-DVR.
reply

Rob @ 2nd Nov 01:12PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

IMO, "skip" and "fast forward through" are two different things.

I can't "skip" commercials - I have to fast forward through them. I still see the commercials, and if I see something I like, I stop fast forwarding or I rewind.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us
reply

TKJunkMail @ 2nd Nov 01:21PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

said by Rob :

IMO, "skip" and "fast forward through" are two different things.

I can't "skip" commercials - I have to fast forward through them. I still see the commercials, and if I see something I like, I stop fast forwarding or I rewind.

The 30 secs at a clip skip option available thru remote cusomiztion on Motorola DVR's allows no watching of the commercials.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply

JohnInSJ @ 2nd Nov 01:28PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

What's a commercial?

Embedded advertising is the future.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us
reply

blu87 @ 2nd Nov 01:53PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

If I had DVR I would skip/fast forward commercials. But then I don't pay attention to commercials anyway. In my opinion, anyone who does is a complete idiot. Since I was about 13 or so (I'm 29 now) I have never been interested in something because of a commercial. I don't buy products because of commercials. I don't care if my favorite celebrity is promoting something, I still won't buy it. I don't understand how commercials can still exist. There must be a lot of idiots in the world who continue to buy things just because they saw it on a commercial.
reply

caddyroger @ 2nd Nov 04:07PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

If it was no commercials their probably would not be any television programs made It take money to run the tv equipment and pay the actors.
--
Caddy
reply

bicker @ 3rd Nov 06:43AM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

I think the networks realize that working to find ways to disable fast forward will just earn them more bad PR than it will gain them anything in terms of superior advertising rates paid. I think everyone sees the writing on the wall. While only half of DVR users skip commercials today, that number is and shall continue to increase. Essentially, advertisers are beginning to realize that, and advertising rates are beginning to fall. That will make less and less money available for television production, regardless of equivocations. This is and shall continue to prompt less and less scripted programming on OTA broadcast television, and will prompt a move to put scripted programming behind the fence of subscription fees, which is a more reliable revenue stream (i.e., to cable networks.)
reply

GTFan @ 3rd Nov 12:27PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

Well, they could also integrate more products into the shows, which they've already done to some extent. I don't have a problem with the lead character drinking a Coke and eating a Big Mac, in other words. Jack Bauer driving Ford vehicles on 24 is a prime example.

Whether that's good enough or not, I dunno. And it doesn't help local advertisers at all.
reply

DaveNJ @ 3rd Nov 12:46PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

I actually have watched a few commercials over and over because of the dvr. the problem with advertising is it one size fits all approach. Right now the most tolerable commercials are the progressive commercials. Althought the last commercial made me skip it, i hate mockery.
reply

bicker @ 3rd Nov 01:25PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

said by GTFan :

Well, they could also integrate more products into the shows, which they've already done to some extent. I don't have a problem with the lead character drinking a Coke and eating a Big Mac, in other words. Jack Bauer driving Ford vehicles on 24 is a prime example.

How would you feel about Richard Cypher and Kahlan Amnell (link) renting horses from Hertz?

The point is that, effectively, product placement, if it becomes a "necessary" part of the revenue model, will end up destroying a whole sub-genre of television. Many people will argue that such things substantially damage ("... the artistic integrity of ...") even those presentations where such placements could be plausible. Furthermore, it essentially eliminates the advantages recently capitalized on with programs such as Flashpoint, The Listener, The Philanthropist, Mental, Durham County, Merlin, etc., i.e., securing revenues from several English-speaking market segments, rather than just one country.

Also, product placement does nothing to help support rebroadcasts, either of older programming that didn't include product placements, nor of even newer programming, where the placement is already made, and therefore on rebroadcast there is no additional revenue to be made. Essentially, it would be necessary to have dynamic product placements: Using your example, Jack Bauer would have to be driving a very generic vehicle, onto which (both logistically and legally) any brand's logo could be electronically imposed. That'll look like crap, for sure.

said by GTFan :

And it doesn't help local advertisers at all.

Yes, another good point.
reply

Curlee @ 3rd Nov 01:51PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

From an advertisers' point of view, I don't see much difference between live viewers who mute commercials and/or channel surf, and DVR viewers who forward past them.

Does anyone happen to know if the ratings differentiate between these?

(Anyone who's looked into the rating systems suspects how truly flawed they are ...)
reply

bicker @ 4th Nov 05:52AM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

said by Curlee :

From an advertisers' point of view, I don't see much difference between live viewers who mute commercials and/or channel surf, and DVR viewers who forward past them.

Indeed, but the former was already factored-into the advertising rates over 50 years of the business. The latter is a new mitigating factor, and one that is not just increasing, but sky-rocketing. It's like your stocks dropping 20% in just a few years, with all signs pointing toward that turning into a 50% drop in just a few more years.

said by Curlee :

(Anyone who's looked into the rating systems suspects how truly flawed they are ...)

It's sort of like democracy: flawed but the best way there is... Keep in mind that the flaws are as likely to overstate the value of advertising as understate it. In other words, the reality is that advertisers could already be paying far more than they should be for our entertainment.
reply

Curlee @ 5th Nov 12:36PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

We haven't had remote controls for 50 years, but certainly for long enough.

Instead of "the least bad", I suspect it's "the devil you know".

How do you think the public would react to the cable companies keeping viewing statistics? (Not that I see much incentive for them to do so).
reply

darcilicious @ 5th Nov 12:44PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

said by Curlee :

How do you think the public would react to the cable companies keeping viewing statistics? (Not that I see much incentive for them to do so).

Verizon FiOS does this now and customers have access to the aggregate information via "What's Hot" in the STB menu. Oh, and apparently so can the general public ;-)

»www36.verizon.com/fiostv/web/Unp···Hot.aspx
reply

Curlee @ 5th Nov 01:14PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

Interesting. Thanks.

Have you heard any reasons or rumors as to why Verizon chose to do this (beside the obvious customer promotional aspects)?
reply

darcilicious @ 5th Nov 01:20PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

No reason that I've read but I don't keep up with the Verizon blogs lately. I will say that they're pushing the general "sociable tv" aspect more and more with STB "widgets" that interface twitter and facebook...
reply

markofmayhem @ 5th Nov 02:20PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

said by bicker :

Essentially, advertisers are beginning to realize that, and advertising rates are beginning to fall. That will make less and less money available for television production, regardless of equivocations. This is and shall continue to prompt less and less scripted programming on OTA broadcast television, and will prompt a move to put scripted programming behind the fence of subscription fees, which is a more reliable revenue stream (i.e., to cable networks.)

Oh... stop. In 1984 this started. ABC wouldn't exist in a year due to the Supreme Court ruling on Sony's Betamax. CBS was going to show nothing except news, sports, and movies from it's own studio. NBC was going to shut-down in 6 months....

It's 2009 and the networks are doing fine. The VTR didn't kill them, the VCR didn't due it, the VDR left them alive, the PVR existed in years where profit rose, the DVR will do nothing as well. Scripted TV won't stop, it will just continue to degrade like it has been doing since the 40's. It's not because of advertising revenue (though I'm sure that is part of it), it has a lot to do with over-saturated-market competition and the need to fill more hours every year with "new" content instead of "quality". All hail the greatest invention ever for network TV: the reality show. Not because it's cheap, but because it offers many, many, many more hours of "new" content without relying on an individual to write the script faster than they can produce and air it. These people do exist, but they are becoming fewer in numbers: hence the cancellation of day-time soap operas.
reply

Chuckles @ 5th Nov 04:10PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

On the news they had some statistics that about 60% of the people who record with a DVR don't even bother to fast forward the commercials.
reply

joker5656 @ 5th Nov 07:31PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

said by JohnInSJ :

What's a commercial?

Embedded advertising is the future.

when that happens or i should say gets more annoying i will cancel my cable. Some shows already do the in show advertising. they usuallyy take up 1/3 of the bottom of the screen.
reply

TKJunkMail @ 5th Nov 07:43PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

said by joker5656 :

said by JohnInSJ :

What's a commercial?

Embedded advertising is the future.

when that happens or i should say gets more annoying i will cancel my cable. Some shows already do the in show advertising. they usuallyy take up 1/3 of the bottom of the screen.

Embedded advertising is OK by me, if it doesn't become overly intrusive.

If all cars are Fords or Toyotas in a show I won't care. Or if the drink on the cops desk is a McDonalds cup or a Starbucks large coffee, then OK too. But if the dialog of a character includes "I love my Chevy" 10 x in a half hour, then that is going too far.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply

joker5656 @ 5th Nov 09:23PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

No what i was refering to was when you watch a show and they show another semi comercial at the bottom for another show. thats BS
reply

TKJunkMail @ 5th Nov 09:36PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

said by joker5656 :

No what i was refering to was when you watch a show and they show another semi comercial at the bottom for another show. thats BS

I agree. I hate those dancing animations some networks allow to be in the bottom left corner of a running show.
reply

Curlee @ 5th Nov 10:06PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

said by darcilicious :

... more with STB "widgets" that interface twitter and facebook...

Oh, hold me back! (laugh ... I use neither).
reply

Curlee @ 5th Nov 10:37PM:
Re: [DVR] DVR not hurting networks for commercial viewing

Perhaps, but I suspect rates for well scripted shows will fall less than for "reality".

said by bicker :

This is and shall continue to prompt less and less scripted programming on OTA broadcast television, and will prompt a move to put scripted programming behind the fence of subscription fees, which is a more reliable revenue stream (i.e., to cable networks.)

For years I've ignored the national networks, but lately I've been surprised by shows like ABC's Defying Gravity, and Fox's Fringe.

If a subscription becomes necessary for scripted shows, then I'll try drop the basic cable drivel and use that money for those premium channels instead.

Anything to avoid "reality" shows.
reply