Has TV made peace with Tivo (and other DVRs)?

[FredLeonard]

Broadcasters pushing to set ad rates based on viewing within seven days (not just three).
New research shows more commercials getting watched on DVRs than previously though (as much as 50 per cent viewership). Broadcasters wanted to argue that live commercials got watched, oblivious to the fact that people go to the kitchen and/or the bathroom during commercial breaks.
Now broadcasters have started voice over announcements during early episodes of new shows urging people to set their DVRs to record all episodes of the show.
Some shows set to be cancelled have been saved by time-shit viewing.

Has the industry decided to accept the DVR (finally)?

Will the industry do what European broadcasters have done and encode program information in their signals, so recording will start and end when exactly when the show does (for example CBS after football gamed when shows almost always run off schedule)?

 

[tested]

In a word: no. Broadcasters would love to claim the +7 numbers, but that's not their call. Advertisers make that call and they will only buy the C3 (a rating of commercials watched in a show up to 3 days after airing) numbers. Broadcasters are telling people to set their DVRs out of the realization that is the only way some of these shows will get any decent viewership. Broadcasters would rather not have to do this, but they don't have a choice. If they could go back to the way things used to be with fewer options for viewers and much higher "live" viewership levels they would because it would mean millions more in ad revenue.

 

[LKellerIII]

Broadcasters have to get used to it. DVRs are here to stay. Don't forget that many of us were recording TV shows and playing them back to skip commercials 30 years ago with VHS and Betamax VCRs. Granted, DVRs make it a whole lot easier. I often use the start late feature, and start a show 20 minutes in....then by the end, I've usually caught up.

Also, remember that a broadcaster (Fox, was it?) lost their lawsuit against Dish Network's new "Hopper" DVR, which makes it even easier to skip commercials. I saw an ad for Hopper last night, and noticed that they didn't directly mention that it skips commercials. I guess that would be a bit bold on broadcast TV in a commercial.

 

[EricStein]

Some networks still want viewers to watch the shows "live," (i.e. ABC's promotion of "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." tells viewers to "watch it live), while others are adapting (FOX has had promos saying "set your DVR now").

 

[LKellerIII]

Some networks still want viewers to watch the shows "live," (i.e. ABC's promotion of "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." tells viewers to "watch it live), while others are adapting (FOX has had promos saying "set your DVR now").

That's goofy. I wonder if people actually follow instructions and "watch it live?" Unless your watching a live game, local news, or SNL on the East Coast, everything is pre-recorded. So the only added dimension to watching it live is that you have to endure the commercials. Who does that?

 

[FredLeonard]

Heck I don't even watch football live. I start watching about an hour and a half after it starts. Skip after each down and fast forward through the commercial breaks and half-time. Much better that way.

People with DVRs probably skip promos, too, so they won't hear the announcer tell them to watch something live. Broadcasters like to think people are dumb and gullible and do what they are told.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

You're stealing programming according to the execs

 

[landtuna]

Sorry, not buying it. There is no legal or moral requirement to sit through commercials so whether you skip them or get up to get a beer from the kitchen, no matter. If they want to get paid directly for their programming they have the option to put it on pay per view. If they stay with the advertising scheme then they can't complain if people don't want to watch the ads.

And, suppose the ad is for something I can't possibly use? Am I guilty of stealing programming because I choose to ignore it?

 

[tested]

You can think what you want of the advertising-supported system we have, but the fact is that the programs you watch on broadcast TV would not be there if the ads weren't there. Get rid of the ads and all you'll have left is pay TV like HBO.

 

[landtuna]

You can think what you want of the advertising-supported system we have, but the fact is that the programs you watch on broadcast TV would not be there if the ads weren't there. Get rid of the ads and all you'll have left is pay TV like HBO.

With virtually all quality programming already on either subscription cable or PPV we are virtually there already.

 

[EricStein]

You can think what you want of the advertising-supported system we have, but the fact is that the programs you watch on broadcast TV would not be there if the ads weren't there. Get rid of the ads and all you'll have left is pay TV like HBO.

Stations are already putting "bottom-third" advertisements during the programs themselves, which is NOT product placement. Until they invent ad-blocker technology for TV's, this will be the direction stations and networks will go with advertising. That, or will get shows renamed "Pepsi and Verizon present The Big Bang Theory."

 

[LKellerIII]

You can think what you want of the advertising-supported system we have, but the fact is that the programs you watch on broadcast TV would not be there if the ads weren't there. Get rid of the ads and all you'll have left is pay TV like HBO.

That's very true. I understand that the system is advertister supported, and the system has worked well for the most part. But that doesn't mean that I feel guilted into watching shows "live" with commercials. If the commercial networks are counting on that, the system is doomed. And I'm a person who won't pirate music. I do feel guilty about that - especially taking royalties out of the pockets of the musicians...record labels I don't care about so much. But I don't see these two as analogous. Skipping commercials is no more "stealing" than is getting up to get a snack or go to the bathroom during the commercial breaks. I suppose I should keep a pee-bottle next to the remote control, so I don't have to "steal" from the networks.

 

[newsmark]

You're right: skipping commercials isn't stealing. You could just as easily walk out of the room or change the channel for 3 minutes. That wouldn't be stealing, either. But skipping commercials is one factor forcing the whole system to change.

-Advertisers will eventually stop paying for ads that very few people see.
-Broadcast Networks will eventually stop producing programs that don't draw advertisers (no matter the rating)

Broadcasters have two revenue streams: commercials and retransmission fees from cable/satellite companies. If court challenges eventually stop the retrans fees, and advertisers stop sponsoring programs, then the whole broadcast industry has to change.

This is not to predict doom--a lot has to fall in place for that to happen, but it's a real possibility.

 

[tested]

With virtually all quality programming already on either subscription cable or PPV we are virtually there already.

Hardly. While broadcasters have made inroads in retransmission fees from cable systems, that accounts for a tiny fraction of what they get from ads.

 

[landtuna]

Hardly. While broadcasters have made inroads in retransmission fees from cable systems, that accounts for a tiny fraction of what they get from ads.

My post addressed programming, not revenue from advertising.

 

[FredLeonard]

What some you are describing goes back to way before TV and even old time radio - back to patent medicine shows and even before that. You have to provide some entertainment to get people to watch the sales pitch. Even so, the marks are under no obligation to stay for the piitch (let alone to buy the snake oil), so make the pitch a good one. Smart advertisers have begun creating ads that will get people's attention on fast forward and make them want to hit "play." We are more likely to watch an ad when we fast forward than back when commercials meant a trip to the john or the kitchen. Meanwhile dumb advertisers complain and act like people are obligated to sit still for bad spots.

Notice movie trailers usually come first in a commercial break and they make a point of letterboxing trailers (even on wide-screen monitors) to alert you to the fact that this is a movie trailer.

 

[LKellerIII]

Hardly. While broadcasters have made inroads in retransmission fees from cable systems, that accounts for a tiny fraction of what they get from ads.

I agree. Most of the excellent TV dramas I mentioned earlier are on the commercial cable networks now (AMC, FX, etc.), where the premium channels (HBO, Showtime) once dominated.

I'm not sure the predictions of doom are warranted yet. Supposedly, Google and other internet search engines, and websites make most of their revenue on advertising. Speaking for myself, I always click on the "Skip this Ad" button. Perhaps, as somebody suggested above, we will be seeing more internet-like on-screen advertisements during programs (like the teasers you see now), and many fewer conventional commercials, as the years pass.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Stations are already putting "bottom-third" advertisements during the programs themselves, which is NOT product placement. Until they invent ad-blocker technology for TV's, this will be the direction stations and networks will go with advertising. That, or will get shows renamed "Pepsi and Verizon present The Big Bang Theory."

If you'll recall, that's how TV was in the early days.

I enjoy commercials, although I'm often out of the room for whatever reason. They're rarely for products I can use, but I like a lot of them anyway.

Upcoming changes and misbehaving VCRs have guaranteed that soon I'll be taping all my shows, although I do watch some live. TiVo lets me see something I missed if I do that. I can't avoid the commercials unless I have a reason to be out of the room, which is often true.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Speaking for myself, I always click on the "Skip this Ad" button.

Me too. Only when I am watching a TV episode online do I have the patience (but then they force me to watch. i'm used to that for TV episodes). A music video doesn't count. Especially if it is loud whle the music I like is soft, and it's usually not an actual video, but an opportunity to hear a song I saw in a playlist. But if the ad looks interesting I might click on it.

 

[tested]

I freely admit to skipping ads when watching things on the DVR. I will watch some ads if they look interesting. Some shows on cable have figured out a way to get people to stop and watch some commercials. "Deadliest Catch" usually runs a very brief clip of footage (usually something funny that just didn't fit in the show itself) during a spot break to get you to stop and wind back to see what it is.

The point I'm trying to make is that broadcasters - and I mean broadcasters.. the big 4 networks.. - rely on advertising revenue for their survival. TNT, FX, and other basic cable channels get a substantial amount of money from subscriber fees, but also need ad revenue for their survival. Some of the small cable channels can actually survive on nothing but subscriber fees, even though they run ads too. You're just not going to get the best programs on a basic cable or broadcast channel without ads. HBO and Netflix don't have ads, but they make you pay a much higher price for their services per month than you do for any of the basic cable or broadcast channels.