Advertising is no longer viable
Charcole911
Posts: 6,353 Forum Member
✭
Most people make a cuppa during the ads or fast forward though them. We can't afford a TV License that will cover all channels. We are going to have to find alternative ways of funding our cash strapped networks and FAST.
Suggestions I have are as follows
I can't see any flaws to this and every TV channel and viewer would be winners all round
Suggestions I have are as follows
- Product placements in TV shows, maximum 4 per episode.
- TV license money is split between all the TV channels but the price remains the same.
- The BBC, in addition to its cut of the TV license, gets a SMALL percentage of council tax. Being as higher income houses pay higher council taxes, it could actually prove a very beneficial boost.
- My last suggestion is that Virgin, Sky and BT contribute 2% of their profits towards the funding of the networks.
I can't see any flaws to this and every TV channel and viewer would be winners all round
0
Comments
For example a character going into a cafe, and ordering a cup of PG rather than just a cup of tea, wouldn't be such a bad thing.
The ad industry is fickle, it's the first to dive bomb during a recession and the last to recover after a recession, ad sales will recover and be as high as they were previous.
If the TV licence were split up between channels, then everyone would set up a channel to get a piece of the action.
You can't link the licence with a proper tax, otherwise the BBC would no longer be independent. If it's no longer independent, the politicians will be able to mess with it. Politicians break stuff.
Presumably Sky, Virgin and BT already pay for channels, otherwise they wouldn't need to charge their customers so much.
Why should Babestation get a cut of the licence fee?.
If we are going to be paying for channels the best way to do it is sky's way, whereby people just pay for the channels they watch.
I doubt the council's would be too happy about losing more money, especially to something outside of their council.
In the case of Virgin and Sky they already subsidise channels with the fees they charge customers. It's just the Freeview channels that are missing out (by their own choice).
Another answer, which would probably annoy viewers, is to send a signal to digital boxes when the adverts come on. Then the box could insert it's own adverts that can't be 'fastforwarded' making all recordings a bit like internet on demand websites, and giving advertisers guarenteed viewers.
I do however have no problem with a Tax on Pay TV, to help fund un profit making Free to air channels.
The problem with Pay TV is viewers DON'T just pay for the channels they watch, they have to pay for lots they don't too.
who cares if no one watches adverts they will still pay they do not care
While it'll make more sense to hear a character in a soap ask for, say, a pint of Carling rather than 'a pint', as it's been pointed out here before by others, it'll just shift the advertising from between the programmes to within them. It won't bring any more extra revenue in the long run.
1) the soaps will not be able to mention braded beers & largers, or even fizzy drinks, as all of them are banned under product placement laws. TBH the banned products list may make product placement worthless to must companys.
2) I dont know if its quite that simple, in an age of PVRs, be they sky+ or a gernic Freeview + boxe=, advertising money was moving away from TV to online. Whilst some of the money for Product Placement may come from the tradiontal spot ad break, some of it may come from companys who stopped advertising on TV becuase it was too easy for people to skip the ads.
Lets not pretend that web advertising isnt easy to "skip" many people use ad blockers, often due to poor design of the website, allowing the adverts to get in the way of content, and become a geninue pain.
I am not saying there will be alot of new revenue for TV, but I think there will be a small amount.
One interesting thing will be how peoples attiude change, when they see the PP logo before the show airs, will that make them more cyncail towards the product placed?
As long as they don't get carried away with it, the result could be people switching off if it becomes too intrusive.
TV license money is split between all the TV channels but the price remains the same.
That money will end up with the shareholders and no one benefits.
The BBC, in addition to its cut of the TV license, gets a SMALL percentage of council tax. Being as higher income houses pay higher council taxes, it could actually prove a very beneficial boost.
This would mean households without a TV subsidising those who have, that cannot be right.
My last suggestion is that Virgin, Sky and BT contribute 2% of their profits towards the funding of the networks.
That will be passed onto the customer who is already paying well over the odds.
We have too many companies chasing too little ad money, the only answer is to let some go to the wall. We certainly should not be subsidising failing broadcasters, if they can't make a profit then maybe it's time they faced up to the fact that times have changed and people have a wider choice of entertainment that they used to. Too many players in a shrinking market, sooner or later something has to give.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwX4ZnxbyQI
This aired part of a morning show (starts at 9am) on 7 in Australia, looks alot more like the US daytime shows, but it seems comparable to the likes of This Morning.
I cant decide if getting this Courtney Act (first ive heard of her) is a touch of geninus, or a really bad idea, all I know is I really want some of this make up, so I can look just like her
some clips from other "advertorial"s on the same show, by the lovely Courtney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=komhjlEOrJ8
Dare I say this, but she is too good for such tacky work, she should have a proper presenting gig.
The important thing to remeber is that his is part of the TV show, not part of an ad break, or teleshopping time.
Indeed, which is why Pay TV as a concept of "Choice" is flawed.
Indeed it is and the only reason i subscribe at all to pay tv is so i can watch live cricket from around the world which was not in terrestrial days possible for me to do,if was not for that i would drop pay tv just like that.
I am only basically choosing to subscribe for the sports (cricket) coverage.
The reason it doesn't work out that way is NOT down to advertising revenue not being sufficient. It's down to the people in charge having no real interest in TV and what it can be. They are a different breed from those who started it all up.
ITV demonstrated this when they kept getting permission to have more and new types of advertising. Programme sponsorship was supposed to be the "solution" as well. And next up is Product Placement. All they have done is made TV less fun to watch.
Nothing will change with variations in advertising/funding since the problem is with those running things in commercial TV and the BBC no longer having any commitment to produce the very best for a general audience.
Yes i agree with that view i remember watching amazing docummentaries on the bbc/itv involving john pilger,david attenborough,world in action,horizon panorama(in its good days) i think the current crop of execs are indeed to blame bland realty cr-p after reality cr-p seems to be the order of the day now,without any thought to tv programming that gets you thinking.
Perhaps though we get the tv we deserve for the playstation generation of viewers unable to concentrate on anything other then gameplay for very long sadly.:(:(
Nothing more annoying than the blurred out product placements we often see on US imports for example.
Programme Sponsorship tends to "blandify" programmes since the programme makers can't risk offending the sponsor. Product Placement will just make this even worse.
More frequent commercials diminish the impact of TV programmes, making them harder to get into and more gimmicky in order to get people to stay with the programme. Just think of all those "recaps" that programmes have nowadays.
What TV should be doing is moving away from advertising as a funding method. In the US it was the development of PayTV that massively improved things. You can't call Sky true PayTV since they carry so many adverts.
The BBC isn't really PayTV since there is no choice involved.
Reason for the fast-forwarding - easy. The ad's are on for too long, and when I have watched in a previous life they have been repetitive, irritating, boring, and they were waaay too fond of computer wizardry. So they get a miss.
So what's the solution?
Three 20-second ads every 10 minutes or so? Short enough to stop you wandering off, and if you can't get your message across in 20 seconds then all fool you.
Oh, programme trailers seem to extend the ad breaks - which aren't being watched as the likes of me zap.
I still manage to see adverts all the time. So I don't think ads are dead yet. I'm in the lucrative 22 - 34 age group too.
It's certainly on the decrease, though, and they're constantly moaning about that, but then if it means the overpaid 'stars' get paid less, then that's fine by me. They've had it good for some time.
That can be shown from all channels - see how badly programmes are treated as soon as the credits begin, and also just how bloody-minded and ignorant the management bods are who appear on Points of View.
Look at who's now in charge of ITV - Adam Crozier, the man who may as well have dropped a nuclear bomb on the Royal Mail for all the good that useless sack of spuds did for them.
For someone who seems to have a strong interest in TV, you seem to do nothing but put down the people working in the industry. Do you approve of anyone involved in making UK TV, and if not, why are you interested in it?
In that example, yes it would. Who does that?
I quite agree. Now that companies such as ITV are so large it's clear that they're now run in the American way of doing things purely for the advertising revenue as a large business and that the owners have no real interest in the programming, it's just an inconvenience that gets in the way of showing the commercials.
A far cry from the early days of the regional ITV franchises which seemed to be run by people with an enthusiastic interest in the programmes themselves.
Just look back at Survival, World In Action, Upstairs Downstairs (the original version), even "low-brow" shows, which for the time were innovative, such as Opportunity Knocks and Take Your Pick.
Ah.......nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Seriously though, we may have, arguably perhaps, better broadcast and production technology, but, I wonder, how much thought actually goes into producing the programmes on commercial channels beyond wondering how much advertising revenue they can generate?