CABLE SUPPORTS NETWORKS, DISH COMMERCIAL HOPPER = HIGHER CABLE/SATELLITE BILLS

[gregg75]

Looks like some kind of anti-consumer conspiracy. Ooooh no, we can't allow add zapping if
it is going to hurt the bottom line of cable and broadcasters.......we'll just have to jack up
the fees on consumers TO MAKE UP.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/cab...ks-ad-zapping-dvr-could-lead-to-higher-costs/

Consumers will rise up someday and show cable/satellite just WHO the boss is!!!

 

[FreddyE1977]

"I'll get you and your little dog too!"

 

[ansky212]

Consumers will rise up someday and show cable/satellite just WHO the boss is!!!

No, they won't. That's the problem. The cost of cable/satellite has been rising every year for 3 decades and still continues. Sure, people have left, but it will never be enough to put a stop to rising cable bills. People will cut back elsewhere to pay for their cable bills. As high as costs are, it's still a better deal than many other forms of entertainment (i.e. movie theaters).

 

[w9wi]

Looks like some kind of anti-consumer conspiracy. Ooooh no, we can't allow add zapping if
it is going to hurt the bottom line of cable and broadcasters.......we'll just have to jack up
the fees on consumers TO MAKE UP.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/cab...ks-ad-zapping-dvr-could-lead-to-higher-costs/

Consumers will rise up someday and show cable/satellite just WHO the boss is!!!

Haven't read the article (I know, I'm being a bad boy!) but judging from the URL, it's hard to argue with. Whether it happens depends largely on whether Hopper technology actually succeeds in the marketplace. (we've seen any number of commercial-zapping technologies deployed before, none of which has been popular enough to significantly damage the model. Most viewers are "too lazy" to use zappers to their full extent.)

In the ultimate case, where everyone has & uses one of these, we have completely removed advertising revenue from the equation. At which point either expenditures on programming drop to zero (and every channel on TV consists of amateur You Tube videos) or the advertising revenue that paid for programming is replaced with revenue from something else. (subscription fees being pretty much the only alternative)

Of course, the ultimate case is highly unlikely. A small amount of use, the industry can probably absorb. Something in the middle -- at some point the need to provide enough return on investment is going to force a rate increase.

 

[mnradiofan]

Looks like some kind of anti-consumer conspiracy. Ooooh no, we can't allow add zapping if
it is going to hurt the bottom line of cable and broadcasters.......we'll just have to jack up
the fees on consumers TO MAKE UP.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/cab...ks-ad-zapping-dvr-could-lead-to-higher-costs/

Consumers will rise up someday and show cable/satellite just WHO the boss is!!!

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Yes, I hate commercials too, but that is the business model of broadcast and cable TV. If that revenue goes away, then the networks will be forced to either cut spending, or raise revenue somewhere else (cable fees, etc).

And as far as us showing cable who the boss is? It's cable. Either we pay what they charge us, or we cancel. But first, many people would need to cancel. Second, we all need internet, so they'd just start making more money off that.

 

[LKellerIII]

Looks like some kind of anti-consumer conspiracy. Ooooh no, we can't allow add zapping if
it is going to hurt the bottom line of cable and broadcasters.......we'll just have to jack up
the fees on consumers TO MAKE UP.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/cab...ks-ad-zapping-dvr-could-lead-to-higher-costs/

Consumers will rise up someday and show cable/satellite just WHO the boss is!!!

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Yes, I hate commercials too, but that is the business model of broadcast and cable TV. If that revenue goes away, then the networks will be forced to either cut spending, or raise revenue somewhere else (cable fees, etc).

And as far as us showing cable who the boss is? It's cable. Either we pay what they charge us, or we cancel. But first, many people would need to cancel. Second, we all need internet, so they'd just start making more money off that.

Exactly - what you say makes sense. To others of you posting here - I'm not a big fan of cable companies either - but you do realize that the price of everything goes up, don't you? There is about 3% annual inflation built into the economy, and some years, inflation exceeds that. That doesn't sound like much, but when you consider that it equals at least 30% per decade, it adds up over time.

IIRC, I paid about $50 per month for Viacom Cable in the mid 80s. That included a set-top box with a remote, and about 40 channels. According to the online Inflation Calculator, that would equal about $107 now. I pay Comcast more than that - about $125, but I also now pay for a DVR, HD service, and a couple hundred more channels than in the mid 80s. And cable is much more reliable than it was back then - it never goes out in the rain, or gets snowy and ghost-y like it used to on a regular basis. I would asume that's the result of fiber-optic cable, and the fact that Comcast under-grounded the cable lines in my neighborhood a few years ago.

And I realize I could pay a bit less if I switched to satellite, or practically NOTHING if I was happy with the few OTA channels I would get with a rooftop antenna (I'm in a poor reception area). But I'm reasonably happy with the service I receive now.

 

[landtuna]

Back to the commercial hopper topic.....

Has anyone at the marketing level considered that blasting a commercial out to millions of people is only effective if (a) they see or hear the commercial and (b) they are interested in the product?

As an individual, whether I skip commercials or not, makes absolutely no difference to the advertiser because I pay no attention to commercials (other than for their artistic value) and they don't influence my buying at all. Because of the amount and intensity of commercials I've been exposed to in my life (basically everywhere I look) I have developed an immunity to them. If one comes along that I really want to see I actually have to view it several times before zeroing in on what it is selling. For example:

Subaru has a commercial playing in my market now where a dad is sending his daughter off in her first car. As the commercial begins the daughter is shown as a very young girl (clearly not old enough to drive) anxious to get the keys and give it a whirl. The commercial ends with the teen daughter driving off with the message that the dad bought a Subaru because it is safe for new drivers.

The production of this ad is among the best I've ever noted. The acting and music is perfect for their message....yet I don't own a Subaru nor did I consider one last time I went car shopping. Other than me admiring Subaru's ad agency for an enjoyable commercial the ad is wasted on me.

Although I enjoy Budweiser's annual Christmas season commercials with the heartwarming Clydesdales I don't buy Bud. Don't like the taste and a heartwarming commercial isn't going to change my mind.

My point is that commercials are wasted on me. It doesn't matter if I zip past them on my DVR or sit and watch them - I'm still not a potential customer. There is no negative impact to the advertiser either way. There is one positive however.....

Without the commercial zapper I would not be watching NASCAR races on TV any longer. Not only do they broadcast too many commercials they also repeat the same old tired ones endlessly which is even more irritating. If I had to sit through a normal commercial broadcast of a race I would choose not to watch at all. So, the ability to zap NASCAR commercials does result in an added viewer which might help them in total cume (even though I am in the "does not matter" demo).

 

[LKellerIII]

'tuna - I know people in the advertising business, and they DO realize there is not a straight line between watching a commercial and buying a product. The hope is that the commercial will make an imperssion on you, and you'll remember it next time you are in the market for that kind of product, and at least consider their brand. You and I may think Bud tastes like dog piss, but if those clydesdale commercials convince just a small percentage of beer drinkers to buy Bud, and they like it and buy it again, Anheuser-Busch wins.

And the fact that you remembered that the girl in the car talking to her father was in a Subaru means the advertiser has done his job, and maybe you'll test drive one next time you need a car. BTW - I have a 15 year old Subaru I bought used and cheap when it was 10, and its still running great at 160,000 miles.

 

[mnradiofan]

Back to the commercial hopper topic.....

Has anyone at the marketing level considered that blasting a commercial out to millions of people is only effective if (a) they see or hear the commercial and (b) they are interested in the product?

As an individual, whether I skip commercials or not, makes absolutely no difference to the advertiser because I pay no attention to commercials (other than for their artistic value) and they don't influence my buying at all. Because of the amount and intensity of commercials I've been exposed to in my life (basically everywhere I look) I have developed an immunity to them. If one comes along that I really want to see I actually have to view it several times before zeroing in on what it is selling. For example:

Subaru has a commercial playing in my market now where a dad is sending his daughter off in her first car. As the commercial begins the daughter is shown as a very young girl (clearly not old enough to drive) anxious to get the keys and give it a whirl. The commercial ends with the teen daughter driving off with the message that the dad bought a Subaru because it is safe for new drivers.

The production of this ad is among the best I've ever noted. The acting and music is perfect for their message....yet I don't own a Subaru nor did I consider one last time I went car shopping. Other than me admiring Subaru's ad agency for an enjoyable commercial the ad is wasted on me.

Although I enjoy Budweiser's annual Christmas season commercials with the heartwarming Clydesdales I don't buy Bud. Don't like the taste and a heartwarming commercial isn't going to change my mind.

My point is that commercials are wasted on me. It doesn't matter if I zip past them on my DVR or sit and watch them - I'm still not a potential customer. There is no negative impact to the advertiser either way. There is one positive however.....

Without the commercial zapper I would not be watching NASCAR races on TV any longer. Not only do they broadcast too many commercials they also repeat the same old tired ones endlessly which is even more irritating. If I had to sit through a normal commercial broadcast of a race I would choose not to watch at all. So, the ability to zap NASCAR commercials does result in an added viewer which might help them in total cume (even though I am in the "does not matter" demo).

They do understand that completely, that's why more and more advertisers are opting for other forms of media that may be more effective, and spending less and less on general ads like on TV or Radio. I'm in the same boat as you are, and commercials are lost on me. But, it doesn't change the fact that, as this happens more and more, revenue goes down. So, you have a few choices as a broadcast or cable network. Either cut spending on things like programming, or increase revenue by charging people directly for the content. This is the main reason why programming has steadily declined on broadcast TV, and steadily improved on Cable. What the cable networks don't get in advertising, they can make up for by charging more per subscriber to the channel itself. And the ad hopper is only going to speed this up. Producing a TV show isn't free, so when you and I consume it for free, it means that someone else has to pay more for it. And then everyone complains because the quality of TV goes down. Those who think that it has may be right, because 60 years ago ads were probably more expensive than they are today. But, you only had 3 networks, no internet, no cell phones, less distractions. So, less supply, and more demand.

 

[dhett]

As an individual, whether I skip commercials or not, makes absolutely no difference to the advertiser because I pay no attention to commercials (other than for their artistic value) and they don't influence my buying at all. Because of the amount and intensity of commercials I've been exposed to in my life (basically everywhere I look) I have developed an immunity to them. If one comes along that I really want to see I actually have to view it several times before zeroing in on what it is selling. For example:

Subaru has a commercial playing in my market now where a dad is sending his daughter off in her first car. As the commercial begins the daughter is shown as a very young girl (clearly not old enough to drive) anxious to get the keys and give it a whirl. The commercial ends with the teen daughter driving off with the message that the dad bought a Subaru because it is safe for new drivers.

The production of this ad is among the best I've ever noted. The acting and music is perfect for their message....yet I don't own a Subaru nor did I consider one last time I went car shopping. Other than me admiring Subaru's ad agency for an enjoyable commercial the ad is wasted on me.

Although I enjoy Budweiser's annual Christmas season commercials with the heartwarming Clydesdales I don't buy Bud. Don't like the taste and a heartwarming commercial isn't going to change my mind.

My point is that commercials are wasted on me. It doesn't matter if I zip past them on my DVR or sit and watch them - I'm still not a potential customer. There is no negative impact to the advertiser either way.

Which is exactly why you don't exist to advertisers, and therefore, to the shows they sponsor. People over the age of 45 (like me) are either so set in their ways or have sufficiently developed reason so that no amount of advertising will convince them to do anything they don't want to do. The younger demographic, especially the twenty-somethings, are in the advertisers' sweet spot: impressionable enough be impulsive, and having sufficient income to act on those impulses.

 

[landtuna]

Which is exactly why you don't exist to advertisers, and therefore, to the shows they sponsor.

But I haven't always been outside shouting "get off my lawn!" to passersby. I was once young but my buying habits have not changed. When my favorite kids show in the 50's was sponsored by Ipana toothpaste I didn't rush out to try it. When I began drinking beer I didn't watch all the commercials then decide to sample one. I cannot truly remember a single commercial that has influenced me to buy a product although there are a good many that make me decide not to support their advertiser (hello ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers).

People over the age of 45 (like me) are either so set in their ways or have sufficiently developed reason so that no amount of advertising will convince them to do anything they don't want to do.

It's not so much "not wanting to try something new" as it is most commercials, IMHO, are not accurate or are complete fabrications. I can find either acts of commission or omission in virtually every commercial on-air today. They will tell you that their product gets out stains but it won't get mine out. Or that their vehicle gets 40 MPG but we all know how accurate that is. And don't even get me started on new car sales claims and pricing of any kind. Because I learned over time that commercials are mostly lies or are so incomplete that they don't really say anything I just ignore them. I think we really do get smarter as we age and learning how to spot the BS is one of those areas.

The younger demographic, especially the twenty-somethings, are in the advertisers' sweet spot: impressionable enough be impulsive, and having sufficient income to act on those impulses.

I'm not going to argue this point because there is obviously some truth in it but in observing my own 20 and 30-somethings I can tell you they are far more influenced by their friends and co-workers than anything they see or hear on radio or TV.

 

[dhett]

People over the age of 45 (like me) are either so set in their ways or have sufficiently developed reason so that no amount of advertising will convince them to do anything they don't want to do.

It's not so much "not wanting to try something new" as it is most commercials, IMHO, are not accurate or are complete fabrications. I can find either acts of commission or omission in virtually every commercial on-air today. They will tell you that their product gets out stains but it won't get mine out. Or that their vehicle gets 40 MPG but we all know how accurate that is. And don't even get me started on new car sales claims and pricing of any kind. Because I learned over time that commercials are mostly lies or are so incomplete that they don't really say anything I just ignore them. I think we really do get smarter as we age and learning how to spot the BS is one of those areas.

Ah, the cross one must bear when reason leads one to skepticism!

 

[Tim from Springfield IL]

Disney is now raising the specter of the cancellation of popular ABC shows, including "Dancing with the Stars," if the commercial-zapper becomes reality:

http://money.msn.com/investing/article.aspx?post=74b1fc85-9288-4cf9-b3d4-e7719ba4494b

And another thing: I wonder what PBS stations think about the zapping technology--because the zapper poses a viewership threat to their pledge breaks.

 

[w9wi]

Disney is now raising the specter of the cancellation of popular ABC shows, including "Dancing with the Stars," if the commercial-zapper becomes reality:

http://money.msn.com/investing/article.aspx?post=74b1fc85-9288-4cf9-b3d4-e7719ba4494b

Could well be. These programs are expensive to produce, the networks simply cannot afford to produce them if the transmission distributors are removing the commercials. But see below.

(and before one blames the big bad OTA broadcasters here, remember that the majority of cable-only channels are also advertiser-financed. Like ESPN and Fox News.)

And another thing: I wonder what PBS stations think about the zapping technology--because the zapper poses a viewership threat to their pledge breaks.

Here's the "see below"...

I wonder how this technology works? How does it know when a commercial starts? When a break is over? How well does it do? (how often does it make a mistake?) How hard will it be for programmers to defeat the technology?

If Hopper regularly upcuts the programming, causing viewers to miss important parts of the action, this thing is going to dry up in a hurry.

As for PBS, depending on how this thing detects a break it may not detect PBS pledge breaks.

(I wonder what Hopper does when the channel is running an infomercial? )

 

[landtuna]

Disney is now raising the specter of the cancellation of popular ABC shows, including "Dancing with the Stars," if the commercial-zapper becomes reality:

http://money.msn.com/investing/article.aspx?post=74b1fc85-9288-4cf9-b3d4-e7719ba4494b

Could well be. These programs are expensive to produce, the networks simply cannot afford to produce them if the transmission distributors are removing the commercials. But see below.

(and before one blames the big bad OTA broadcasters here, remember that the majority of cable-only channels are also advertiser-financed. Like ESPN and Fox News.)

Remember that the hopper will bypass commercials only after the shows in question have aired the first time.

And another thing: I wonder what PBS stations think about the zapping technology--because the zapper poses a viewership threat to their pledge breaks.

It hasn't been stated whether or not non-comm programs will be affected. (see below)

I wonder how this technology works? How does it know when a commercial starts? When a break is over? How well does it do? (how often does it make a mistake?) How hard will it be for programmers to defeat the technology?

My understanding is that the feeds for programs with missing commercials is separate from DISH's normal feed. The commercials have been removed upstream therefore the Hopper doesn't have to know when a commercial or other break starts or stops and there would be no way for the programmer to defeat it.

(I wonder what Hopper does when the channel is running an infomercial? )

Infomercials won't be streamed.

 

[arnoldevns]

Let's boil this down to the root of the problem.

Advertising is the primary revenue source for broadcast and cable networks. Without ad revenue, they couldn't afford any programming.

Nielsen provides data showing how many people watch each commercial during each show. This number is used to set ad rates. If that number can go to zero on a major supplier like Dish, it cuts the revenue for the networks. This will force broadcasters and cable networks to demand higher subscriber fees to compensate for the loss.

If everyone had this hopper thing and used it even half the time, it could turn television into nothing but premium cable channels and would end broadcast television as we know it.

I don't think this is a good idea. I like the advertising model we have had for tv for 60+ years.

 

[landtuna]

Nielsen provides data showing how many people watch each commercial during each show.

How, exactly, is this accomplished? And what about shows that are DVR'd or VCR'd?

 

[Darth_vader]

Re: CABLE SUPPORTS NETWORKS, DISH COMMERCIAL HOPPER=HIGHER CABLE/PAY SATELLITE B

"Second, many people need Internet access, so they'd just start making more money off that."

Weak defence there. That's why we have *DSL. In fact, ¢om¢rap's constant mudslinging at the CenturyBorg makes me only want to hate ¢¢ all the more and desire less to have anything to do with them. As if election season wasn't already bad enough.....

 

[scottg]

Sorry I didn't see this one earlier... there seems to be a lot of misconceptions on how AutoHop works on the DISH Hopper.

The DISH Hopper Auto Hop ONLY works on programs recorded using the Primetime Anytime feature.

The Primetime Anytime Feature only records ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC during prime time hours.

AutoHop on any show recorded with PrimeTime Anytime only works starting on the day after the show records. If you were to watch a show back from your DVR the same night it airs you would have to fast forward (or 30 second skip) the commercials by hand.

When AutoHop is available you must enable it for each show you watch, when you select a show to watch you see a screen asking if you would like to enable the AutoHop feature. If you say yes then AutoHop automatically jumps over the commercials. It should be noted that it does not remove the commercials just skips over them. If you rewind you will see the commercials are still there. I mention this because some of the networks seem to wrongly thing that AutoHop is editing their shows and is removing the commercials thus violating their copyright... this is NOT the case at all.

AutoHop does not work on sporting events that are recorded (since different areas might see diferent games) and it does not skip commericlas on any other channel.

Currently the AutoHop feature only works on the DISH Hopper DVR, and there are not a lot of those out there yet, so the amount of people skipping commercials currently is really small. Also there are no plans of making the AutoHop feature work on other channels.

I hope I have given you a better idea of how AutoHop works.

 

[Titanius]

I agree that customers are going to have to stand up one day to outrageous prices as well as being forced to watch commercials. Until that day comes it looks like dish is standing up for its customers in court right now. The Auto Hop feature gives me an extra hour every day from not watching commercials. I have worked for Dish for a while now and the hopper is the best DVR system I have ever used. The Consumer Electronics Association agrees.