New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

When Did TV Shows Shrink? - Page 3

post #61 of 96

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regulus
One of the Casulties of that Deregulation Lawsuit were the late-Night Movies which were replaced by Program-Length Commercials, which we now call "Infomercials" TV Shows went from being 50-52 minutes long in the 1960s to 45-48 Minutes in the 1980s, it's been during this Decade that weve seen Hour-Long Shows lasting LESS than 40 Minutes once the Commercials have been removed. Combined with the infestation called "Reality" Shows, I decided, in the Fall of 2006, that TV wasn't going to get any better, and I began collecting DVDs.
The last 10 years have probably been the best for TV Drama in the history of the medium. The catch is that it's predominantly on cable.
post #62 of 96

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

[quote=Joe Lugoff]Well, I always say everyone draws the line somewhere, eventually.

If TV could determine, as radio seems to have determined, that maximum profits would result from having 29 minutes of commercials an hour -- would they do it? Or would they fear too much of a public outcry? I bet in that case they'd sacrifice some profits in order to uphold what's left of their reputations.

QUOTE]

From what I have read Radio Stations across the Country are losing money BIG TIME!
post #63 of 96

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

I can understand that. I stopped listening to radio because I can't stand all the commercials!!!
post #64 of 96

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
If TV could determine, as radio seems to have determined, that maximum profits would result from having 29 minutes of commercials an hour -- would they do it? Or would they fear too much of a public outcry?
I think the point is that what you're saying here is internally inconsistent, to wit: If public outcry would be overriding, then they would determine that they would not determine that maximum profits would result from that approach. I think the best approach is to assume that "they" are at least as smart about this stuff as we are (and they're probably a lot smarter, because it is their job to be, and no matter how much of a teevee fanboi you are, television cannot mean as much to you as it does to people who feed their children based on it).

Having said that, I'm not sure if it was in this thread or on another forum, but a few times over the last week I've mentioned that if things stay on the same course, we'll be looking at a lot more QVC over-the-air, with scripted programming continuing to decrease via broadcast networks while continuing to increase via cable networks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
I bet in that case they'd sacrifice some profits in order to uphold what's left of their reputations.
I think you're attributing criteria to "reputation" that actually aren't any part of reputation. You're relabeling your own personal criteria for what you like, or would like, and ascribing those criteria as aspects of a broadcaster's "reputation". It simply is not the fact in general.

I remember reading messages online proclaiming that Fox would never be considered a real broadcast network like "the Big 3" until it has a nightly news broadcast, with someone as well respected as (at that time) Tom Brokaw was on NBC. Well Fox never put a network nightly news together, and its "reputation" today puts it in the "better half" of "the Big 4".

Television evolves. NBC's gambit with Leno at 10PM almost surely will change the nature of broadcast television again. Will we viewers like that change? Many of us will not. However, that doesn't make the NBC's move anything but the best decision, because their objectives are not necessarily ours. As I've said before, we live in a pluralistic society so what is actuality is a reflection of the confluence of many, often-conflicting, priorities, and so it almost never should reflect 100% the priorities of any one person or entity.
post #65 of 96

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Where? 8-)
post #66 of 96

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

I think that odd post may be a HACKER trying to release a VIRUS of some nkind, DO NOT OPEN IT!
post #67 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K View Post

Answer: Money.
Brian, I have read through most of the postings in this Thread and you have provided a great deal of information that I've been wondering about myself for the last several months. Thank you so much!

At the end of last year, I decided to go with ATT UVerse for their triple pack, but having an HD TV, they wanted the 10 plus dollars a month for HD programming, and since I am a BIG western fan, I bumped the package up a couple of notches so I could get Encore Western. I dvr'ed as many of the Bat Masterson shows as I could (they stopped showing them beginning with their new line up in January), so I was really disappointed about missing them. It's been about 10 years since I watched Encore, and remember when they were showing Gunsmoke (B&W), and COMBAT! on their Action Channel, if I remember.

Anyway, now I get all these channels and watch very very few of them. Advertising has gotten so bad that, at 57, I don't have the mental capacity to sit through 3 or 4 minutes of commercials at a time, then watch 6 minutes of the show and then have to sit through another 3-4 minutes of commercials, and still remain interested in whatever it is I'm watching. So, I dvr the shows I do watch and skip through the "onslaught."

I'm glad you showed the percentages in another post. My calculations came up to approx. 46% commercial time for some tv programs. And you're right about the NAB. I collect old TV Guides for my area and in one of the issues from the early '60's, there's an article about commercial time/the NAB/and the Seal Of Good Practice. If I recall, to offer the Seal Of Good Practice at the end of a show wasn't mandatory. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it was up to those in charge whether or not they wanted to follow those guidelines. BUT, those that did, adhered to the 4 1/2 minutes of commercials for a 30 minute program.

I understand what you said about profits and such, but I also think there's a point where the consumer will have to be the deciding factor. From the Corporation's viewpoint, I think it's a cop out if they're telling themselves that "awe, if they don't want to watch all the commercials, have them watch the shows on the internet." At least I hope that's not part of their reasoning when it comes to this. I used to have a tv card in my computer with video output to my tv. Now that I have a large screen tv, if I tried to watch one of their internet program offerings on my tv, it would be so pixelated, I wouldn't be able to tell what I was watching. And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sit and watch many shows or movies on my computer with a "screen" that's approximately the size of what tv's sets were in the 1940's!

I believe that most advertisers and programming have thrown caution to the wind these days. I absolutely refuse to watch TV Land anymore. I refuse to watch reruns of the old TZ on the Sci-Fi channel because of the uncaring butchering of the show.

So...where does that leave me? The consumer? I do have choices, and my choices are to dvr the very few programs I do watch, or buy the dvd's when they come out or maybe watch them over the internet. Is that the underlying purpose behind this glut of commercial time? To force us to buy the dvds? And that, then, brings up another point. I'm beyond any demographic that the tv stations are interested in today. I'm at the age where they could care less about my tv watching and viewing habits.

The world of television has changed dramatically since I was a kid, and I'm not really sure at this point that I'm interested in "going along for the ride..."
post #68 of 96
Quote:
I understand what you said about profits and such, but I also think there's a point where the consumer will have to be the deciding factor.
The customer already is the deciding factor, and what you're seeing is a reflection of that which customers have driven providers to provide, not based on their words -- talk is cheap -- but based on their actions, i.e., their viewing and purchasing behaviors.
Quote:
Is that the underlying purpose behind this glut of commercial time? To force us to buy the dvds?
Definitely not.  Often, the production house and the broadcast network are two different companies, and only the production house benefits from DVD sales.  Rather, the "glut" of commercial time is driven by the reduction in the value of viewership (how much each individual customer is worth) as compared to the increase in (or realization of) the value of entertainment provided. 
post #69 of 96

Here are some excerpts from TV Guide, December 17, 1960:
 

IS THERE ANY LIMIT TO COMMERCIALS?

The ABC's of the code which regulates them--In some cases


A TV station in a small Ohio town recently permitted the commercial on a five minutes news program to run two full minutes. This was 45 seconds too long for a five-minute program, according to the Television Code of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which accused the station of this Code violation. The station management apologized for what it said was an oversight, immediately trimmed the commercial back to the permissible one minute, 15 seconds.

There are definite time standards for TV commercials. They comprise an important part of the Television Code. Stations that subscribe to the Code and are permitted to display the NAB's "Seal Of Good Practice" must adhere to these standards.

Generally the Code has prevented too many and overly long commercials. However, subscription to the Code is voluntary. Besides the three networks, only 380 of the country's 526 commercial stations are subscribers. The Code, moreover, has loopholes through which a station or sponsor can exceed the time standards for commercials.

Members of the TV Code committee, who administer the standards, recognize that these loopholes exist. "Don't forget that TV commercial practices, like Topsy, just grew," said a Code spokesman. "The Code has been revised 5 times since it was first adopted in March 1952 (The last revision: July 1960). We'll undoubtedly find ways to prohibit these practices when we sit down to revise it again."

The Code time standards, printed on two pages of a slim booklet published by the NAB are separated into " 'AA' and "A" time," and "all other time." On the three networks and most stations, "A" time refers to the hours between 6 and 11 o'clock each night. "AA" time applies to exceptionally choice time within that period. Both are considered "prime" time, in which rates charged for advertising are higher.

Basically the Code permits three minutes of commercials for each half hour of prime time and four minutes, 15 seconds for a half hour of all other time. Each station determines which hours fall into its prime time. Some stations have postponed the start of their prime time from 6PM to 7:30. They can then televise a syndicated program from 7 to 7:30 and sell four minutes and 15 seconds worth of commercials, permissible in "all other time," rather that the three minutes allowed if that half hour were considered prime time.

Other stations, to beat the Code standards legally, have sold what normally is considered a half hour program in prime time, as two, 15 minute programs. In that way they can dump five minutes of commercials into the period instead of the usual three minutes. That's because the Code permits two-and-a-half minutes of commercials for each 15 minute program.

There are other ways a station can get more than three minutes of commercials inside that half hour of prime time without breaking the rules. Holding a stop watch on NBC's New York station on a recent Tuesday evening revealed how. At 8:30 Alfred Hitchcock Presents came on the network. Before the story began, a picture of the sponsor's product flashed on the screen for 10 seconds, indentified by an off-screen announcer. This identification is known as a billboard. The Code permits billboards at the opening and closing of each program, so long as they do not run more than 10 seconds each in a half-hour show.

Within the Hitchcock show there were three one-minute commercials, followed by the closing 10-second billboard. Then at 8:59 there followed a 20-second public service announcement, a 10-second network identification, a 20-second commercial and a 10-second sponsored station break. Total: another 60 seconds. That adds up to 4 minutes and 20 seconds more than the basic three minutes specified in the time-standards chart. Yet all this extra time is allowable.

The Code permits networks and stations two separate announcements at station-break time, plus the conventional sponsored 10-second stations identification. The total of these spots is not to exceed 70 seconds. NBC, with only 60 seconds, was consequently well within the prescribed limits.

Jack Paar's is probably the show viewers most often accuse of carrying too many commercials. As a "participating" program televised in "all other time," the Paar show is permitted six minutes of commercials for each half hour. The network sells 3 minutes of this time to national advertisers in each of the two half-hour periods between 11:30PM and 12:30AM. Local stations are then permitted to sell the remaining 3 minutes in each half hour to local advertisers.

So, as not to interrupt the program with too many commercials bunched together, the stations reserve three, one-minute time periods within the five-minutes between 11:55 and midnight, and between 12:25 and 12:30 for spot commercials. Clocking the show in New York on a recent evening revealed one-minute network commercials at 11:35, 11:40, and 11:51. Local commercials were spotted at 11:55, 11:57, and 11:59.

"Sure, we could space those three local spots out during the half hour, but then the contents of the Paar show would be cut to ribbons," explained an NBC spokesman.

On those network commercials, Paar or announcer Hugh Downs usually lead into each one with about 10 seconds of commentary. The Code committee has never warned NBC against this practice, apparently agrees with the network that the lead-in is necessary to cue the master-control crew to start the filmed commercial.

The Code is lenient with other practices that sometimes irritate viewers. A placard bearing the sponsor's name, such as the one hung on the panel's desk on To Tell The Truth, appears on camera through much of the show. On a dramatic show or a Western, such as Bat Masterson, the sponsor's product is on the screen while the closing credits are shown. The Code permits these so long as they do not intrude on "program interest" or so long as they appear "fleetingly" on camera.

On giveaway shows, such as The Price Is Right, the Code permits "reasonable and limited identification" of the prize and its manufacturer, disagreeing with viewers who believe this should be included as commercial time.

Feeling that sponsors of women's service shows or programs featuring shopping and market information, provide "a special service," the Code permits stations to waive time standards "to a reasonable extent" on these. The stations themselves decide what "a reasonable extent" means.

The NAB checks commercials on stations in 75 markets through Broadcast Advertisers Reports, an independent firm that monitors all programs in these large markets for advertisers. In the cities not covered by BAR, the NAB tries to do its own spot checks. Between 1956 and 1959, the NAB says every Code subscriber in the country was checked at least once.

Few Code stations have been accused of "overcommercializing" during the last few years, but that doesn't mean they don't try. A vice president of Young & Rubicam, one of the larger ad agencies, charged recently that there "has been a profusion of advertising resented by the viewers and disruptive of good programming." The vice president, William E. Matthews, accused stations and networks of evading "all too frequently" rulings of the Federal Communications Commission and industry codes pertaining to the number of commercials permitted.

Before 1957, a number of stations had been charged with violating Code time standards. The Code committee warned the guilty stations either to clean up their schedules or resign their Code memberships. Some 10 stations chose to resign.

The NAB originally established the TV Code as a self-policing step, a way to stave off the threat of outside censorship and control. Since membership is voluntary, enforced resignation seems to represent the only teeth written into the Code (and they don't have much bite). While this doesn't seem much of a threat to hold over the heads of stations, it has one important implication: When station licenses come up for renewal every three years, the FCC takes into account each station's Code record.



Edited by Kronosis - 7/3/2009 at 05:35 am GMT
post #70 of 96
David,

Interesting article.  Thanks for posting.  It sure takes me back to that time in prime-time TV history.  We're close to the same age so I also grew up on the late 50's-60's shows.

I haven't watched prime-time network shows since around the early-mid 90's.  By the time of the 90's, there were only a few shows that I was following on TV.
post #71 of 96
In that December 17, 1960 article I posted, it says "there are definite time standards for tv commercials." Does anyone know IF that still holds true today, and where you can find such info on the internet? I've checked the NAB website, but couldn't find anything.
Brian^K?
post #72 of 96
I know of no such regulatory requirements that are in place today.  The content-related regulations, instead, focus on what important programming broadcasters provide ("Is there enough public service programming?" "Is there enough E|I programming?"), not the unimportant portions of what they broadcast (Not: "Is there too much time spent on commercials?"), AFAIK. 
post #73 of 96
Not only do we get less show, but have you ever watched a ball game. Everything is brought to you by some advertiser. The amount of adds while the game is being played is getting absurd. For example, every time you watch a Dodger game there is a constant State Farm advertisement at the top of the screen. Also on networks like ESPN there is a constant scroll of scores at all times. Other networks like CNN + Fox have 2 or 3 scrolls running. What really gets me though is a logo + the next show advertised running the entire show. Thankfully we have DVD's with none of that crap going on. Now I either tape or DVR everything and hardly watch anything live. I wouldn't expect anything to change anytime soon
post #74 of 96
A friend of mine took his kids to a Tampa Bay Bucs Football Game last year. As the game progressed the kids noticed "The Players made a few plays, then stood around for five minutes, then made a couple of more plays, then stood around again." (This was, of course because of the Commercial Breaks). It wasn't long before they got bored, and they all left for home after the Halftime Show.
post #75 of 96
In my household, these TV commercials have become almost completely ineffective. At least one of us sits with the remote close by and if a commercial comes on - MUTE. Or my son swaps between two channels and watches two shows at once. These numbers showing how much air time is devoted to commercials, does it include these (increasing in size and numbers) overlay commercials? I have yet to figure out why when watching a show, I needed to be reminded throughout the show what is coming on next. It is definately making the show I am watching less enjoyable. I do not have a DVR and it is getting to the point where I don't watch any TV.

Add in the commercials on radio, internet and signs everywhere it seems like they are trying to add advertising into every moment of our life. Good grief, I went to fill up with gas and there are now ads on the pump handle. I often wonder what percent of the population even notices the increase in advertising. Looking at the teenagers in my house, some look totally immune to the ads. When a commercial comes on they start talking or doing other things. Then they get quiet during the show. Others seem to really enjoy the commercials as another form of entertainment. They laugh at them and comment about their favorites. With all the advertising out there, I don't know the last time I saw one and reacted to it by buying the product or service. Or maybe it effects me subconsciously and I don't even know it.
post #76 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobbins View Post


Add in the commercials on radio, internet and signs everywhere it seems like they are trying to add advertising into every moment of our life. Good grief, I went to fill up with gas and there are now ads on the pump handle.
 

Some Stations now have little Screens on the Pumps that come on with a Commercial followed by CNN News as soon as you activate the Pump. To counter this I make sure I have my IPod on whenever I have to get fuel. If there is one thing I cannot stand its having this kind of Media RAMMED DOWN MY THROAT Morning, Noon and Night!
post #77 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobbins View Post

In my household, these TV commercials have become almost completely ineffective. At least one of us sits with the remote close by and if a commercial comes on - MUTE.
 

Dave, same here.  I'm a long-time "Muter" with the Remotes.  There have been many famous ads (during sports) that I've never heard over the years.  The only exception that I sometimes make is during the Super Bowls occasionally.  As long as I have the mute control on the remotes, ads don't bother me but that said, I haven't watched network TV shows since about '96 or so.  I watch all of my TV shows on DVD.  It sure makes a difference watching a show on DVD from the late 50's-60's with that 1-hr show run-time around 51-52 minutes vs...what...42-43 min's now?
Quote=Steve:
Not only do we get less show, but have you ever watched a ball game....
 

Steve, I know what you mean, being a baseball fan, but for some reason it doesn't bother me as much.  As long as I have that Mute, I'm ok.  Being a Dodgers fan doesn't hurt either although I'm a native Texan and a Rangers fan first.  I've been to several Dodgers games in LA and enjoyed them.  When I'm at a Rangers game with the radio, I switch off the radio during the ads,,,,,like that character "Ranch Wilder" in the '94 movie "Angels in the Outfield"...switching off his commentator's mike all the time...."Easy Reg, less is more"    

Have a happy & safe 4th here in the states!
post #78 of 96
I watched some homemade dvdrs of Petticoat Junction.  These must have been made from tapes of the show, as they included original 60s commercials.  The commercial breaks were two or three 30 second commercials, then back to the show.  And there was always at least one sponsor spot with the cast of the show.  Can you see that happening today?  A CSI sponsor spot.  UMMM.
post #79 of 96
The Office did ads with lesser members the cast. American Idol does it with their Ford Commercial. Isn't a NASCAR race filled with ads featuring the drivers as spokesmen?
post #80 of 96
The ads for NBC shows when you fill up at Shell are definitely annoying. I know NBC's tanking, but this is ridiculous.
post #81 of 96
I don't know if I should even mention this, but it will probably be a matter of time before they put ads in the black bars on each side of a 4:3 show.
post #82 of 96
I think commercial avoidance and piracy is going to drive even more extreme advertising invasiveness and invasive product placement.  I have speculated (in other contexts) that one viable model for the future will be routine advertising overlays on all scripted broadcast dramas and comedies, that move around the screen (first bottom, then right side, then left side, etc., switching every couple of minutes).  The movement will be needed to defeat the predictable counter-measures.  [In this other context, I further speculated that this will foster a deluxe offering, whereby the same programs will be broadcast (actually a couple of months earlier) on the broadcast network's sister cable network, with only traditional commercial breaks, and broadcast (a couple of mother prior) on the sister premium channel, entirely free from commercials and advertising overlays.]

 

I have no way of knowing if they will come about or not, but in a way I see it as an optimistic view of the future, because it actually allows for people who really care about the programming to pay more to get a better viewing experience, where alternatives will leave us with programming increasingly subjected to commercial distractions, with no opportunity for viewers to pay their way out of this, if they wish to, except to wait a year for the discs.

post #83 of 96
"I don't know if I should even mention this, but it will probably be a matter of time before they put ads in the black bars on each side of a 4:3 show."

Tonight's program has been brought to you by Christie's Candlesticks and the Chamberlain Stilt Factory.
post #84 of 96
I have an old Jackie Gleason show, with Jackie playing Joe the Bartender, and he's talking to his boss (can't think of his name) about Pay TV. I think I have some old TV Guides from the late 50's where they talk about Pay TV.
Pay TV, in the context of "back then," was a means to alleviate some commercial placement within shows.

Think it's bad now? Remember when Sponsors had script approval?

One of the brightest men in the history of television was Sylvester L. "Pat" Weaver Jr., with NBC. He had an idea to break up sole sponsorship of television shows and offer a show with "multiple advertisers." He also felt that doing this would allow the smaller companies to compete with "the BIG BOYS." Ergo, also eliminating all the power the Sponsors had over early television programming.
post #85 of 96
Quote:
The commercial breaks were two or three 30 second commercials, then back to the show.  And there was always at least one sponsor spot with the cast of the show.

The [b]Adventures of Superman[/b] first season set included some commercials from the show's original run..  One featured Clark and Jimmy Olson at Clark's place having breakfast together (one of sponsor Kellog's cereals, of course.)  The commentary track noted that Lois did not appear in the ad because it would be considered improper for the unmarried Miss Lane to be at Clark's place for breakfast, because it might imply the two had slept together.  Apparently nobody raised an eyebrow at young Olson being there.    Shows sponsored by cigarette makers routinely had their cast members doing spots for the sponsor's product. 

Regards,

Joe
post #86 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Meil View Post

Not only do we get less show, but have you ever watched a ball game. Everything is brought to you by some advertiser. The amount of adds while the game is being played is getting absurd. For example, every time you watch a Dodger game there is a constant State Farm advertisement at the top of the screen. Also on networks like ESPN there is a constant scroll of scores at all times. Other networks like CNN + Fox have 2 or 3 scrolls running. What really gets me though is a logo + the next show advertised running the entire show. Thankfully we have DVD's with none of that crap going on. Now I either tape or DVR everything and hardly watch anything live. I wouldn't expect anything to change anytime soon
 
Try watching the joke that is major league soccer in the USA.  The sponsor names on the front of the jerseys are bigger and more prominent than the team names.  You can't even get away from the advertising by attending in person.
post #87 of 96
"We'll be right back...after this brief commercial announcement..."
post #88 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K View Post

I think commercial avoidance and piracy is going to drive even more extreme advertising invasiveness and invasive product placement.  I have speculated (in other contexts) that one viable model for the future will be routine advertising overlays on all scripted broadcast dramas and comedies, that move around the screen (first bottom, then right side, then left side, etc., switching every couple of minutes).  The movement will be needed to defeat the predictable counter-measures.  [In this other context, I further speculated that this will foster a deluxe offering, whereby the same programs will be broadcast (actually a couple of months earlier) on the broadcast network's sister cable network, with only traditional commercial breaks, and broadcast (a couple of mother prior) on the sister premium channel, entirely free from commercials and advertising overlays.]

 

I have no way of knowing if they will come about or not, but in a way I see it as an optimistic view of the future, because it actually allows for people who really care about the programming to pay more to get a better viewing experience, where alternatives will leave us with programming increasingly subjected to commercial distractions, with no opportunity for viewers to pay their way out of this, if they wish to, except to wait a year for the discs.


Brian, I've felt more "product placement" would be utilized within tv episodes themselves.

Dave
"It is now possible to pop a large bag of popcorn in your microwave and still not miss any of our program! How amazing is that??? But wait! There's more..."
post #89 of 96
Quote:
The president of Firestone for over thirty years paid for "The Voice of Firestone" to be on radio and television

I remember when it was common for a sponsor to truly sponsor a show, e.g. 20 Mule Team Borax sponsoring Death Valley Days, and Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.

It was a bit before my time to remember, but IIUC Victory at Sea was originally broadcast sans advertisements.  Wasn't this true of the first broadcast of Roots too?

Product placement has been around for ever: remember Louis recommending "Veuve Clicqot - a good French wine" in Casablanca?  And of course innumerable Westerns touted the virtues of Winchesters, Colts, and Smith & Wessons.  Woody Allen's Sleeper got a good laugh out of a VW bug.  Kubrick's 2001 had numerous placements including AT&T and PanAm. 

IIRC the first season's intro to Get Smart had Max drive up to HQ in a Sunbeam Alpine.  When VW became a sponsor later on, he's shown driving up to HQ in a Karman Ghia!  
Edited by Dennis Nicholls - 7/4/2009 at 08:52 pm GMT
post #90 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Nicholls View Post


I remember when it was common for a sponsor to truly sponsor a show, e.g. 20 Mule Team Borax sponsoring Death Valley Days, and Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.

It was a bit before my time to remember, but IIUC Victory at Sea was originally broadcast sans advertisements.  Wasn't this true of the first broadcast of Roots too?

If I recall, there were commercials in the network debut of ROOTS.

Regarding "truly sponsoring a show," yes there were shows, especially in the early days of tv, that had only one "sole" sponsor. And, accompanying the sole sponsorship of tv shows came final script approval by the sponsor themselves. Do a YouTube search on Mike Wallace interview with Rod Serling. He discusses this.

Rod Serling flip-flopped back and forth when it came to sponsors. In one sentence, he'd say something good about them, then turn around and blast them.

Serling's NOON ON DOOMSDAY, a story originally written about the Emmitt Till case and broadcast on the U S STEEL HOUR and I quote: "New York entertainment reporters, alerted by press releases from the networks and sponsors, regularly carried small small stories about television scripts in rehearsal, and when otherwise innocent stories about "the story of the Till case" drifted to the South, the local citizenry, particularly the White Citizens Councils, became outraged. U. S. Steel, faced with a Southern boycott (Serling asked whether buildings would now be built with aluminum), forced Serling to make the "pawnbroker" an unidentifiable foreigner and the murderer a decent kid momentarily gone wrong. They even removed a Coca-Cola sign from the set of a diner, deeming it to have a "too-Southern" connotation. The word "lynch" had to be omitted, also because of its implications, the letter "g" was added to all participles and gerunds and the setting was moved to a small, identifiably New England town--precisely to show this was not the South. Precictably, the end result was horrendously absurd..." *

*from Rod Serling, The Dreams and Nightmares of Life in the Twilight Zone, by Joel Engel

And it wasn't just Serling that was upset by how much power the sponsor had over a script's final approval. This was one of the reasons that Pat "Mr. Entertainment" Weaver with NBC wanted to do away with sole sponsorship and sell advertising spots to more than one sponsor. He tried to break the hold that sponsors had at the time.

Dave
"It is now possible to pop a large bag of popcorn in your microwave and still not miss any of our program! How amazing is that??? But wait! There's more..."


Edited by Kronosis - 7/4/2009 at 09:19 pm GMT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: TV on DVD and Blu-ray