Broadcasters' Woes at DVinfo.net

Dutch Simpson · December 29th, 2009, 03:26 PM

Hey guys, this is a pretty interesting article of what may come in the next few years with broadcast TV:

Broadcasters' woes could spell trouble for free TV - The Denver Post

Curious to know what you all think!

Calvin Bellows · December 30th, 2009, 12:33 AM

It's already happening here in Canada. Global has shut down all their E stations and is barley staying a float

Kaleem Maxwell · December 30th, 2009, 06:19 PM

Oh gawd... there's a huge ad push for a TV Fee aka "Local TV Matters" by the broadcasters and a "Stop the TV Tax" here in Canada.

Pretty much exactly what it's all about. Trying to gain a carriage fee for local stations.

Local TV Matters

Stop The TV Tax

Marty Welk · December 31st, 2009, 02:05 AM

hmm, to be short about it:
People would be seeing the adds, if the stuff they broadcast was worth watching :-)
Adds work, hate to say it, but some stuff I wouldnt even know it existed , if it wasnt for the adds.

Broadcast trying to act Like the web, or feeding off the web, probably isnt so good, the web is mental, and unbalanced and full of lies :-) Broadcast takes a integrity dive when they act like the web (to compete with it), i think that could hurt it in the Long Run. Reality shows (for example) are an integrity dive, humiliation, aggrivation, conflict, after a while it gets a bit old pitting our fellow humans against each other then treating them like TV circus monkeys. It sold but for how long, and who then is watching those adds?
Would you replace your TV with YouTube? or is it a side show distraction, that is not mindlessly continual? Can broadcast survive if it is 500 Channels of "Jackass" , i dont think sooo.

How did they end up with so FEW advertizers? to high package prices? Smaller money is not worth going after? its easy to re-sell more to the deep pockets? get off the high horse, and the repetition, and expand the possibilities, i would bet they are out there.

Mix it up, WHY is it that if i watch a program that appeals to a specific group, the adds are only ever (focused) on that group. Having targeted adds is good, but them repeating endlessly and the target group not having exposure to the other 1000 items they could buy, is a loss. Do adults ever eat sugar loaded breakfast cerial? yes , so why dont i get the adds that kids get for it, do i have to watch Roadrunner to enjoy Sugar flakes?
Do Geeks watching Sci-Fi never drink Sugar Caffinated drinks? Do you have to be a watcher of the outdoor channel to buy spring water? Would a soap Opera watcher never buy a PC? Stuff like that.

When we got 500 channels each having restricted programming, i fail to see the need to have such restricted advertising. Can you sell a Bass Fisherman a toilet bowl cleaner, or only a boat he already ownes.
Which brings up 500 channels, same audience now has many more choices , that same audience cant watch all 500, nor can they afford to buy the products that would support 500. they certannly had to know that there would be some diversification when they added 3+ times as many channels to watch. people were already spending a Full allotment of time watching the box, adding channels would not give them more time to watch or money to buy.

our local bradcast Channel , which i would be watching for news and traffic and stuff like that in the morning, has now taken to putting Infomertials in the guise of news. GOOD-BY. while they struggle to aquire massive funds, they end up pushing people right out the door. Now i wont be watching thier Hype (which used to be news) thier adds, because that is all it is anymore, loosing viewers Faster Still, as they stuggle to pay the power bill.

I percieve that when all the news comes from the same pipe, when all the adds come from the same pipe, that the pipe is probably the sewer :-)

Peter Wiley · December 31st, 2009, 09:59 AM

Take a look at:

Kaleem Maxwell · December 31st, 2009, 04:34 PM

Suddenly I have an urge to buy some book called "The Chaos Scenario." I wonder why?

Kaleem Maxwell · December 31st, 2009, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty Welk

Which brings up 500 channels, same audience now has many more choices , that same audience cant watch all 500, nor can they afford to buy the products that would support 500. they certannly had to know that there would be some diversification when they added 3+ times as many channels to watch. people were already spending a Full allotment of time watching the box, adding channels would not give them more time to watch or money to buy.

I wonder who would buy ad space in all 500 channels. Unless they're super cheap. If that were the case... yikes.

December 29th, 2009, 03:26 PM	#1
Dutch Simpson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Denver Colorado Posts: 28	Broadcasters' Woes Hey guys, this is a pretty interesting article of what may come in the next few years with broadcast TV: Broadcasters' woes could spell trouble for free TV - The Denver Post Curious to know what you all think! __________________ Dutch Simpson www.dutchsimpson.com

December 30th, 2009, 12:33 AM	#2
Calvin Bellows Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Red Deer, Alberta Posts: 215	It's already happening here in Canada. Global has shut down all their E stations and is barley staying a float __________________ Calvin Bellows www.exposureproductions.ca

December 30th, 2009, 06:19 PM	#3
Kaleem Maxwell Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Posts: 27	Oh gawd... there's a huge ad push for a TV Fee aka "Local TV Matters" by the broadcasters and a "Stop the TV Tax" here in Canada. Pretty much exactly what it's all about. Trying to gain a carriage fee for local stations. Local TV Matters Stop The TV Tax __________________ Kaleem Maxwell - Web Producer & Developer www.kmaxwell.com

December 31st, 2009, 02:05 AM	#4
Marty Welk Major Player Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: East Bay Cali Posts: 563	hmm, to be short about it: People would be seeing the adds, if the stuff they broadcast was worth watching :-) Adds work, hate to say it, but some stuff I wouldnt even know it existed , if it wasnt for the adds. Broadcast trying to act Like the web, or feeding off the web, probably isnt so good, the web is mental, and unbalanced and full of lies :-) Broadcast takes a integrity dive when they act like the web (to compete with it), i think that could hurt it in the Long Run. Reality shows (for example) are an integrity dive, humiliation, aggrivation, conflict, after a while it gets a bit old pitting our fellow humans against each other then treating them like TV circus monkeys. It sold but for how long, and who then is watching those adds? Would you replace your TV with YouTube? or is it a side show distraction, that is not mindlessly continual? Can broadcast survive if it is 500 Channels of "Jackass" , i dont think sooo. How did they end up with so FEW advertizers? to high package prices? Smaller money is not worth going after? its easy to re-sell more to the deep pockets? get off the high horse, and the repetition, and expand the possibilities, i would bet they are out there. Mix it up, WHY is it that if i watch a program that appeals to a specific group, the adds are only ever (focused) on that group. Having targeted adds is good, but them repeating endlessly and the target group not having exposure to the other 1000 items they could buy, is a loss. Do adults ever eat sugar loaded breakfast cerial? yes , so why dont i get the adds that kids get for it, do i have to watch Roadrunner to enjoy Sugar flakes? Do Geeks watching Sci-Fi never drink Sugar Caffinated drinks? Do you have to be a watcher of the outdoor channel to buy spring water? Would a soap Opera watcher never buy a PC? Stuff like that. When we got 500 channels each having restricted programming, i fail to see the need to have such restricted advertising. Can you sell a Bass Fisherman a toilet bowl cleaner, or only a boat he already ownes. Which brings up 500 channels, same audience now has many more choices , that same audience cant watch all 500, nor can they afford to buy the products that would support 500. they certannly had to know that there would be some diversification when they added 3+ times as many channels to watch. people were already spending a Full allotment of time watching the box, adding channels would not give them more time to watch or money to buy. our local bradcast Channel , which i would be watching for news and traffic and stuff like that in the morning, has now taken to putting Infomertials in the guise of news. GOOD-BY. while they struggle to aquire massive funds, they end up pushing people right out the door. Now i wont be watching thier Hype (which used to be news) thier adds, because that is all it is anymore, loosing viewers Faster Still, as they stuggle to pay the power bill. I percieve that when all the news comes from the same pipe, when all the adds come from the same pipe, that the pipe is probably the sewer :-) __________________ ----------------sig----------------- Re-learning everything all over again, one more time. Last edited by Marty Welk; December 31st, 2009 at 03:15 AM.

December 31st, 2009, 09:59 AM	#5
Peter Wiley Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lewisburg PA Posts: 752	The problem of broadcast TV just part of a much larger problem Take a look at: The Chaos Scenario on Vimeo

December 31st, 2009, 04:34 PM	#6
Kaleem Maxwell Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Posts: 27	Suddenly I have an urge to buy some book called "The Chaos Scenario." I wonder why? __________________ Kaleem Maxwell - Web Producer & Developer www.kmaxwell.com