Skipping Commercials is Stealing ha ha ha (1 Viewer)

[Allan Jayne]

Who was that dude who was quoted as saying that watching TV shows via VCR or TIVO or whatever and skipping the commercials was stealing?
His statement is false, not true.
Why should people be forced to sit through the hundredth rerun of a stale commercial spot? Especially a commercial that doesn't explain how the product is better than others like it or why I should vote for someone etc.
Video hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/video.htm
When you leave voice mail, are you often guilty of "sending an empty envelope?"

 

[Jason Seaver]

Why should people be forced to sit through the hundredth rerun of a stale commercial spot? Especially a commercial that doesn't explain how the product is better than others like it or why I should vote for someone etc.

Well, in theory, because they're what allow you to get the programming at the price you pay for it (which, over the air, is basically nothing, and not much more for cable/satellite). If the networks aren't going to pay for their programming via selling ads, how else do we expect the things to get funded?

At least, that's the theory.

 

[Chris]

There is a giant problem with that theory, though.. that is that more and more programs are doing continous ads (see: TNN's damn bar, CNN's bars, and other crap) and product placement is more rampant then ever. I'd make a deal with TNN right now: give up the black bars and I'll let you come up with something that forces me to see commercials without skipping.

 

[MarcVH]

There are plenty of people who don't understand the difference between "making an existing business model less viable" and "stealing."

I suppose one could also claim that people who go to fast food joints, buy the $0.99 burger and then don't buy the profitable fries and soft drink are also "stealing." It's true that, if all customers did that, the restaurant would go out of business (or change its pricing model.)

 

[John_Lee]

So if I fail to leaf through the Sears ad next time I buy a newspaper, is that stealing too?

 

[Todd H]

I go to the bathroom while commercials are on. I guess I'm a thief too. :rolleyes

 

[Jason Seaver]

There are plenty of people who don't understand the difference between "making an existing business model less viable" and "stealing."

Or the guy could have been speaking metaphorically/exaggerating for effect. The issue it raises is an interesting one, though - once advertising-supported television becomes unviable (and VCRs and PVRs are making that happen), how will the programming get produced? Will networks become subscription services, or try to rely on DVD sales and other spin-offs (leading to increased consolidation of the entertainment business), or try to find other, more obtrusive ways of getting advertising dollars - banner ads (which we see on ESPN during score updates), sponsorships (like Ford did for 24's premiere or was done in TV's early days), product placement/cross-promotion (Nokia & Alias) - or cable bills going through the roof?

I mean, if we don't watch the ads (and, I must admit, I love my Replay box), how are we paying for goods received? If I were a network executive, I'd probably look at things like late-model ReplayTVs' "commercial skip" feature as someone taking money out of my pocket, too.

 

[DavidDeane]

Not to sound callous, but who cares? That's the networks problem, not ours; we don't "owe" them anything. If my TiVo causes all of the networks to go bankrupt, and no more "free TV" to be offered, then that's fine with me. If there is no "free TV" (NB: I already pay for cable TV!), then I'll pay for what I want to watch (as I already do when I buy DVDs), or I will go back to reading books, or surfing the Internet. It is not my problem, and it isn't your problem, either, unless you are involved in TV business. Somehow I think the TV networks will find a way to adapt, and still make obscene amounts of money.

 

[Francois Caron]

Will networks become subscription services, or try to rely on DVD sales and other spin-offs

Why not? HBO certainly proved the model works for them. Most of their in-house productions are way better than what the networks usually offer us. In the end, you get what you pay for.
Today, commercials must fight for their audience just as much as the TV shows they sponsor. To say that skipping over a commercial is stealing is totally ludicrous.
Is this the shape of things to come?

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

If the networks aren't going to pay for their programming via selling ads, how else do we expect the things to get funded?

Not to mention, how are the stars of the hit shows going to get paid $500,000 an episode, or whatever the going rate is? The money isn't going to a fund to keep programming on the air. It's lining the pockets of the rich. If skipping commercials is theivery, then I'm unabashed in theft.

Bruce

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Or the guy could have been speaking metaphorically/exaggerating for effect.

Yup, in fact it has the pompous overexageration of Jack Valenti written all over it. I'd be surprised if someone else came up with that statement, in fact.

 

[MatthewA]

I like the idea of sponsorships of whole programs. If only sponsors could be convinced to do it on a regular basis.

But I think the reason people are skipping commercials is because the breaks are way, way too long.

 

[Ike]

It's like if a label is attached to something, it changes what it is. I don't have a problem with skipping commercials, no matter if someone affixes the title "stealing" or "killing;" it doesn't change my action. We shouldn't be such sheep. Life is too short to sit around watching ads for toothpaste.

 

[MickeS]

Exactly. Commercials used to take up much less airtime, and a toprated sitcom didn't used to cost $6M for 22 minutes in salary costs alone. The problem is greed, and people are responding by skipping the commercials. It's a sound reaction, and anyone who sits and watches the commercials because they feel bad that Courteney Cox won't be able to buy a third million dollar mansion in Beverly Hills is out of his/her mind...

Give me 6 minutes of advertising an hour and I'll sit through it.

 

[Kevin P]

But I think the reason people are skipping commercials is because the breaks are way, way too long.

Too long and TOO F*** FREQUENT! I rarely watch TV nowadays, but on New Years Eve we tuned in to Dick Clark on ABC at about 11:30 or so. During the last 15 minutes of 2002, there were THREE f'in commercial breaks! I think there was more commercial time than show time during the last 15 minutes of 2002. It's ridiculous.

I guess I'm stealing too because I don't watch commercials either, 99.999% of the time since my TV isn't even on, or I'm watching DVDs. Give me a break (dang, of course saying that brings to mind a Kit Kat commercial!) Sheesh...

One last gripe - the same commercials are repeated over and over! Watch 30 minutes of television and chances are you're going to see at least one, if not more than one, of the commercials more than once.

KJP

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I hereby give everybody permission to either leave the room or fast-forward commercial - namely because it doesn't matter - unless you are a Nielson family.

Glenn

 

[Tim Markley]

Ridiculous! I remember when cable TV was first introduced. You had to pay for it because there were no commercials. Well, we're still paying for it and now it's got as many commercials as 'free' TV. Each year the amount of broadcast time for commercials goes up and the amount of broadcast time for actual show content goes down. It's getting so I can barely stand to watch TV and is one of the reasons that I've recently bought a TIVO.

 

[Jason Seaver]

The money isn't going to a fund to keep programming on the air. It's lining the pockets of the rich.

Wow, I haven't heard this since the last time someone didn't like what an athlete was making.
Look, if you break down what it costs to produce anything, you can find places where you think the going rate is nuts. So what? Who cares what other people do with money we're only paying very indirectly?
I'm as guilty of "stealing" via the VCR and Replay as anyone. But, geez, is it so ridiculous to try and have some understanding of the system that produces the situation - or to wonder how long we can basically get something for nothing?

 

[MickeS]

What do you mean by "very" indirectly? We're paying very much directly for the cost of television: every product advertised costs money, every cable TV package costs money. I'm not paying directly, but I do pay, for example, Jeep directly, and they pay the TV station directly, and the TV station pays WB and they pay Courteney Cox. I wouldn't say that's "very" indirectly.

The notion that we get "free" TV is one big lie to keep making rich TV stars richer. How much does it cost to produce network TV every year? Considering that "Friends" alone will cost $200 million or so, I'd say it's quite a lot of money. And we pay every single cent of it. And we keep paying more and more, while getting less and less actual programming. And it's not like we can't stop paying: the system is constructed so cleverly that almost everything we buy pays for television. And now we have to pay hundreds, almost $1000 if you have any premium programming, every year to AVOID commercials. How's that for a clever business model: PAY to NOT receive something you've already payed for!

 

[Jason Seaver]

And now we have to pay hundreds, almost $1000 if you have any premium programming, every year to AVOID commercials.

Umm... I'm paying hundreds per year to get television, though I could just buy a $15 antenna and get eight channels' worth for free (though admittedly Boston has more stations than most areas). My bills don't have an "avoiding ads" line anywhere, although I suppose the $500 I spent on a Replay and $100 on a VCR (and more on blank tapes) as well as the electricity they use might count.
The advertising is part of what subsidizes my being able to spend $500/year and get a pretty darn good dollar-per-hour rate out of it - without advertising, if we paid for television at even half the rate we pay for movie tickets (though the average quality isn't that far off), we'd be spending a heck of a lot more for the same amount.
The increase in the amount of advertising has to do with its decreasing effectiveness - each ad is worth less, because of VCRs/PVRs and more programming options, so it takes more to pay for the same show, with programming itself getting more expensive because our standards are higher (compare the production values of ER to a hospital show ca. 1980, or Law & Order to a cop show of that time).
Now, as this cycle feeds upon itself (more commercials drive more people to use VCR/PVR to skip them making the less valuable meaning more are needed), we're either going to see TV get less expensive (which optimistically means people working for less and pessimistically means quality going down) or move to a new economic model. And I'm not sure that I like either alternative, even though I'm a hypocrite for saying that, as I've certainly done my part to avoid advertising.