14 STATION GROUP PULLS STATIONS FROM (ADD ZAPPER) DISH

[gregg75]

Odd, not many people have the Hopper yet you pull your stations for EVERYONE. Now that's
making a stand.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dish-network-ad-skipping-DVR-Hoak-Media-334331

 

[dave73]

A 200% increase is a guarantee that Hoak owned stations get dropped from Dish Network. Customers might stand by Dish Network when the stations get pulled. Most DirecTV customers stood by DirecTV's side when Tribune was getting greedy about retransmission fees that forced Tribune stations & WGN America off the service for a while. I say for those who live in the great plains states might be able to get by with an outdoor antenna. For those in Colorado might lose them completely, since the mountains block most TV station signals (especially true for UHF). For digital, it doesn't help either that 3 of their stations are on VHF-Lo (2-6), since rabbit ears can't pick up channels 2-6 (real channel) & most outdoor antennas (especially the cheap ones you see in most stores) aren't optimized to pick up those stations.

We'll see how this one goes. For Hoak owning stations in small markets, not being on Dish could actually hurt them & not Dish, due to many people using a pay service to watch local channels.

 

[w9wi]

Arguably, there is no point to the Hoak stations being on Dish if Dish removes all the commercials.

Arguably, if Hopper technology becomes universal, and their competitors copy it, there will be no Hoak stations to be carried on Dish.

(nor any other advertiser-supported channels)

_________________________________________________

Radio analogy:

You run a successful four-station cluster that includes a top-rated AM talker. Boortz, Rush, Hannity, etc...

New company comes into town. Tapes the various talk shows off your air. Edits out the commercials. Charges $2.50/week for access to a server where your audience can download or stream the commercial-free shows.

Is your station going to lean back & take it?

 

[TomParks]

Good post w9wi. Stations cant afford to be on Dish Network without commercials. Bad news for Dish as these channels can be watched OTA, DirectTV, and cable. All new contracts with stations will have the same results.

 

[Markxxx]

I can see Hoak's point of view. I mean really how hard is it to fast forward through a commercial?

On the flip side, OTA has to be careful now. People are learning they can live without it. I lost my OTA in 2009 and haven't had a TV since. I actually don't miss it at all.

If there is something I want to see, I can always go to the library with my laptop and digital tuner or the health club and watch it.

I cut out all my pointless TV watching and I don't feel like I am missing much, if anything.

So that's a lesson the OTA stations have to be sure others won't learn.

 

[gregg75]

Those with DVRs have always been jumping the commercials. Should they require that all DVRs
be unable to skip commercials?

Would Dish be better off if people did get their locals by antenna? Could make room for a lot more
golf channels.

 

[Markxxx]

Those with DVRs have always been jumping the commercials. Should they require that all DVRs
be unable to skip commercials?

Shhhh...The may hear you ;D

 

[azumanga]

Those with DVRs have always been jumping the commercials. Should they require that all DVRs
be unable to skip commercials?

Shhhh...The may hear you ;D

Sure -- as soon as they make sets that disable the volume, channel controls and off switch during ad times, order that all bathroom doors be closed and locked during commercials, and place special exemptions on commercial volume for political and pharmeceutical ads. In other words -- will not bloody happen.

Seriously, why don't they just implement a special fee for Hopper users that would go to the stations? That way, the stations can recoup the money lost from those that skip over commercials. Most cable systems have a special DVR fee which, I figure, part of the cost goes to stations (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[AKA]

The broadcasting and cable industries should do some serious soul-searching and ask themselves why we ad-skip. I'm sure that in some (but surely not all, or even most) cases, it has more to do with the length of commercial breaks than just their mere existence.

Would we be as gung-ho about skipping commercials if break lengths had stayed at their 1960 or 1980 lengths? I don't know. Maybe. But I'm sure the erosion of our hour and half-hour shows is at least a contributing factor in why we love time-shifting so much today.There will always be ad-skippers (or flippers), but maybe more people would stay tuned in if commercial breaks were a more reasonable length.

I know that commercial television, hence the moniker, is an advertising-supported industry. But for "shiggles," I'd love to see just one network experiment with commercial time for an entire season: limit commercials, for all shows, to four or five minutes per half-hour, and see if more people stay tuned during the breaks.

Of course, this is about as likely to happen as the industry admitting it's a part of the problem.

 

[rgseark2009]

Hoak and Nexstar have a stranglehold on local TV in the Monroe LA/El Dorado AR TV market. KNOE with its crappy channel 8 VHF DTV channel (and sister station KAQY on channel 11) will likely lose viewers in the Northern counties of that DMA since OTA reception is iffy (Ashley County AR, and Union County AR), while KTVE/KARD remain on Dish. That DMA's transmitters are spread out by over 50 miles: KTVE (NBC), and KETZ transmit from southern Union County while KNOE, KAQY, KLTM, and KARD transmit from Columbia LA. I get OTA from KTVE and KETZ, but KNOE is rare DX being on VHF 8.

 

[landtuna]

I know that commercial television, hence the moniker, is an advertising-supported industry. But for "shiggles," I'd love to see just one network experiment with commercial time for an entire season: limit commercials, for all shows, to four or five minutes per half-hour, and see if more people stay tuned during the breaks.

Of course, this is about as likely to happen as the industry admitting it's a part of the problem.

The broadcasting industry, TV and radio, is just possibly the largest follow-the-leader industry in all of creation. As soon as one type of program shows some life copycats appear as if by magic. I seriously doubt any of the big networks has an ounce of backbone to try something that bold.

 

[w9wi]

Sure -- as soon as they make sets that disable the volume, channel controls and off switch during ad times, order that all bathroom doors be closed and locked during commercials, and place special exemptions on commercial volume for political and pharmeceutical ads. In other words -- will not bloody happen.

I would suggest one significant difference with the Hopper is that it's someone else doing the zapping for the viewer. The programs are broadcast for your viewing enjoyment, and in the end broadcasters have little control over what you do with those programs in the privacy of your own home.

It's when a third party starts trying to make a buck by reselling broadcasters' programming that the broadcasters have the justification to do something about it.

Figures I'm seeing suggest commercial-zapping by DVR users isn't nearly as common as one might think. Besides, when you're fast-forwarding through the ads, you still have to watch to know when to *stop* fast-forwarding. Or risk missing part of the program.

Seriously, why don't they just implement a special fee for Hopper users that would go to the stations? That way, the stations can recoup the money lost from those that skip over commercials. Most cable systems have a special DVR fee which, I figure, part of the cost goes to stations (correct me if I'm wrong).

No, DVR fees don't go to the stations.

That would be one way of handling the situation. However, I think what the stations would have to charge would be large enough to endanger the viability of Hopper.

(And again, remember that Hopper doesn't only damage broadcast stations. Most of the channels on your dish are advertiser-supported; channels like Fox News and ESPN are going to have to ask for fees to replace Hopper-lost advertising as well.)

_________________________________________________

I agree with whoever suggested what Hoak is asking will become a standard part of everybody's retransmission agreements in the future. And again, it's going to become a standard part of contracts for non-broadcast channels as well.

 

[mjlarochelle]

The broadcasting and cable industries should do some serious soul-searching and ask themselves why we ad-skip. I'm sure that in some (but surely not all, or even most) cases, it has more to do with the length of commercial breaks than just their mere existence.

Would we be as gung-ho about skipping commercials if break lengths had stayed at their 1960 or 1980 lengths? I don't know. Maybe. But I'm sure the erosion of our hour and half-hour shows is at least a contributing factor in why we love time-shifting so much today.There will always be ad-skippers (or flippers), but maybe more people would stay tuned in if commercial breaks were a more reasonable length.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, are annoying and repetitive commercials for things the audience doesn't need or want. My favorite example has always been feminine hygiene products. Assuming an even 50/50 split between men and women watching a given program, half the audience is never, ever going to buy the product. And, say what you will about some of the women in those commercials, but a lot of them are very annoying (Look at me! I'm playing tennis with no leaks!) Another good example is diaper commercials for people who don't have young kids. Of course, this is an inherent limitation of traditional mass-advertising, and that's why advertisers today are smart to use tools such as Google to deliver targeted ads to the right demos at the right time.

People are going to skip commercials for things they don't need or want, especially if the commercial is repetitive. The networks lose no money when people skip those commercials, because those people aren't going to buy the product or service whether they see the ad or not. Now that is something I think the networks forget.

And yes...the length of commercial breaks is a big problem. With the number of channels people now have, it's as easy as changing the channel for a couple minutes. Longer commercial breaks would've made more sense in 1955.

 

[landtuna]

Figures I'm seeing suggest commercial-zapping by DVR users isn't nearly as common as one might think.

My wife will not watch any television without DVRing it first - for the express purpose of zapping the commercials.

Commercials don't bother me that much but I admit to either DVRing the few shows I do watch or downloading them where the commercials have already been zapped.

The advertisers who cram 25 commercials in between what we used to call a "station break" are killing the golden goose and driving viewers away from their broadcasts. The more they cram the more they drive viewers away.

As far as online ads....I have a very effective blocker and see virtually no online ads, even those embedded in video's.

 

[Markxxx]

I wonder if this has anything to do with generations. Seriously, when I was a kid, you had to get up and change the channel.

Or like my mother said, "Why should we get a remote control TV, I have you."

I mean if you're used to things one way, and never realize how it was, you don't appreciate it. So why it seems like no big deal to skip through a commercial manually to me, it might be to some younger person who never had to face such things, when you're used to torrenting shows commercial free.

 

[ansky212]

Has anyone actually bought something because of what they saw and remembered being advertised in a TV commercial? I honestly can't say that I have. I'm wondering how advertisers can gaugue a commercial's effectiveness.

With that said, I think it's just a matter of time before we start seeing commercials embedded within programming. You might be watching Law & Order and see a "bug" for Coke pop up in the corner, or maybe see something scrolling along the bottom of the screen. This will ultimately be the only way advertisers can reach viewers.

 

[AKA]

I record Jimmy Kimmel Live quite often, usually just for the monologue and comedy bits. I keep watching if he has a guest in whom I'm interested. When he does, I've noticed that the second or third commercial break is around ten minutes long. Letterman also has a ridiculously long break around the 3/4 mark of his show.

Why the networks think this is acceptable is beyond me. Then again, other than skipping or surfing, we viewers aren't collectively vocal against the practice.

 

[landtuna]

Then again, other than skipping or surfing, we viewers aren't collectively vocal against the practice.

There isn't much we can do in the "vocal" category but the success of DVR's (and VCR's before that) gives ample evidence that the repetitiveness and length of commercial breaks are irritating.

And while I am specifically targeting commercials let me also add that promo's fall into that same category. It seems if a program isn't sold out for commercials the stations fill the remainder with promo's, and they do it with the same promo endlessly. Very irritating.

 

[Darth_vader]

"Those with DVRs have always been jumping the commercials. Should they require that all DVRs be unable to skip commercials?"

And those of us with VCRs have been doing it for even longer yet; many fancier VCRs can do it automatically and I don't recall the ma$$ media making as big a fuss about that as they have concerning DVRs. Exactly identical in concept, but I guess to the industry, the fact that one's "digital" (what does that word even mean any more?) and the other isn't must make all the difference.

"As far as Internet ads go, I have a very effective blocker and see virtually no ads, even those embedded in videos."

I don't remember specifically which Doubleclick servers the video ads on Youtube originate from, but 127.0.0.1ing them works wonders.......

"With that said, I think it's just a matter of time before we start seeing commercials embedded within programming. You might be watching [programme X] and see a logo for [product Y] pop up in the corner, or maybe see something scrolling along the bottom of the screen."

Not exactly the same as you mentioned, but producers have been doing product placement for years, if not decades. Like I said, not exactly the same thing, but it's pretty much along those same lines.

As for actual, obvious logos appearing in the corner of the screen, KRCW and (sometimes) KPDX have been doing that for at least the past couple years to advertise various promotions and contests that are sponsored by (usually corporate multinational) businesses in the area. But they tend to be more obnoxious about it, utilising the big banners that fill up almost the entire bottom half of the screen for thirty seconds following the so-called "commercial breaks".

 

[Markxxx]

Has anyone actually bought something because of what they saw and remembered being advertised in a TV commercial? I honestly can't say that I have. I'm wondering how advertisers can gaugue a commercial's effectiveness.

There were actually a few ads that did exceptional

Polaroid's commercials with James Garner and Mariette Hartley made millions for the company. Candice Bergen's Sprint ads were credited for saving the company as they brought in millions. And Ben "the Dell Dude" Curtis, rocketed sales of Dell. In fact after they phased him out, the sales from other Dell commercials tanked.

So it's not common but there have been a few commercial campaigns that have changed the future of companies. But they're obviously more the exception than the rule