Fox: Save Good Stuff for Paying Customers

[Tom Wells]

I never heard about a 1969 attempt to move WLS to the Hancock, but I do remember watching the switchover
from Marina City to the Sears..just before the 10 PM news, there was a reference to "now seeing only ONE Fahey Flynn",
then a second of blank air, then the new signal from the Sears. I'm thinking it was 72 or 73.

Where I lived in NW Indiana, it was only marginally improved....it wasn't bad there before the move.
I'm sure it was an improvement for the more local, ghost-plauged viewers

This weekend my family is in a hotel, and I'm aghast at the picture quality on the cable TV.
People willingly pay money for this?
If I'd bought a new flat screen HD TV, and my cable service looked like this, I couldn't get rid of cable service fast enough.

I can't imagine what sort of disability in my vision would be enough for me to put up with such miserable video.
Seriously, I've seen 1940s 8mm movies with more resolution.

 

[Casey]

This weekend my family is in a hotel, and I'm aghast at the picture quality on the cable TV.
People willingly pay money for this?
If I'd bought a new flat screen HD TV, and my cable service looked like this, I couldn't get rid of cable service fast enough.

I can't imagine what sort of disability in my vision would be enough for me to put up with such miserable video.
Seriously, I've seen 1940s 8mm movies with more resolution.

Any idea who the cable provider was?

 

[Tom Wells]

Just called the front desk. It's Lodgenet.

Grainy is one way to describe it. And blurred edges of areas where there is any motion.
Very distracting to see the sides of a person's head partially dissolve as they turn their head to one side.

 

[FredLeonard]

The original idea of cable was to provide good reception where you couldn't get good reception OTA.

NPR did a story pointing out that cable used to get network affiliates for free. Now they have to pay. The court decision allowing Aereo to operate may open the door for cable-satellite to relay network affiliates for free once again. Then there's no point in taking the good stuff off OTA.

 

[Morgan Wick]

The original idea of cable was to provide good reception where you couldn't get good reception OTA.

NPR did a story pointing out that cable used to get network affiliates for free. Now they have to pay. The court decision allowing Aereo to operate may open the door for cable-satellite to relay network affiliates for free once again. Then there's no point in taking the good stuff off OTA.

Which is the point of Fox threatening to do so, trying to hold on to that precious money train for as long as they can. The question is, will cable companies go along in an attempt to hold off Aereo and cord-cutting, or will they hope for the situation you describe to play out?

 

[FredLeonard]

The original idea of cable was to provide good reception where you couldn't get good reception OTA.

NPR did a story pointing out that cable used to get network affiliates for free. Now they have to pay. The court decision allowing Aereo to operate may open the door for cable-satellite to relay network affiliates for free once again. Then there's no point in taking the good stuff off OTA.

Which is the point of Fox threatening to do so, trying to hold on to that precious money train for as long as they can. The question is, will cable companies go along in an attempt to hold off Aereo and cord-cutting, or will they hope for the situation you describe to play out?

While cable started off so people could get decent reception in the sticks or in cities with lots of metal frame buildings, it's now about all those additional channels. Cord cutting is another example of media hype. Take some isolated instances and anecdotes and call it a trend. No wonder nobody believes the media and why everybody believes it's biased in favor of THEM (never in favor of us). People aren't cord cutting if they still have (other than dial-up) Internet. And those cord cutters are not anybody any advertiser wants to reach.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

The original idea of cable was to provide good reception where you couldn't get good reception OTA.

NPR did a story pointing out that cable used to get network affiliates for free. Now they have to pay. The court decision allowing Aereo to operate may open the door for cable-satellite to relay network affiliates for free once again. Then there's no point in taking the good stuff off OTA.

Would the NFL contracts allow NBC, CBS, and Fox to put their games on cable only, or would they just offer them to a local station like the do with ESPN and NFL Network games (assuming they sell out with the current blackout policies)?

 

[Casey]

Just called the front desk. It's Lodgenet.

Grainy is one way to describe it. And blurred edges of areas where there is any motion.
Very distracting to see the sides of a person's head partially dissolve as they turn their head to one side.

Last time I stayed in a hotel it was serviced by Mediacom. The picture quality was only 480i on a 32' TV, but heads didn't dissolve.

 

[mescutia]

People aren't cord cutting if they still have (other than dial-up) Internet.

People who have cable Internet but not cable TV don't count as cord-cutters?

 

[KeithE4]

Would the NFL contracts allow NBC, CBS, and Fox to put their games on cable only, or would they just offer them to a local station like the do with ESPN and NFL Network games (assuming they sell out with the current blackout policies)?

No.

 

[Morgan Wick]

The original idea of cable was to provide good reception where you couldn't get good reception OTA.

NPR did a story pointing out that cable used to get network affiliates for free. Now they have to pay. The court decision allowing Aereo to operate may open the door for cable-satellite to relay network affiliates for free once again. Then there's no point in taking the good stuff off OTA.

Which is the point of Fox threatening to do so, trying to hold on to that precious money train for as long as they can. The question is, will cable companies go along in an attempt to hold off Aereo and cord-cutting, or will they hope for the situation you describe to play out?

While cable started off so people could get decent reception in the sticks or in cities with lots of metal frame buildings, it's now about all those additional channels. Cord cutting is another example of media hype. Take some isolated instances and anecdotes and call it a trend. No wonder nobody believes the media and why everybody believes it's biased in favor of THEM (never in favor of us). People aren't cord cutting if they still have (other than dial-up) Internet. And those cord cutters are not anybody any advertiser wants to reach.

Rationalize it all you want, when Nielsen is starting to measure Internet viewing and when they report that "zero TV" households have more than doubled in the last five years, it's clearly more than "isolated instances and anecdotes", as though whether or not it was an actual trend had anything to do with the threat of it influencing broadcasters' and cable companies' behavior. The point of cord-cutting isn't cutting all cords, it's getting rid of "all those additional channels" you say are the point of cable TV, even if you may still be paying the same cable company (less) for Internet; it's l about the shake-up of business models and how we consume content. And your last sentence doesn't make any sense; advertisers want to reach as many people as possible.

 

[Tom Wells]

The original idea of cable was to provide good reception where you couldn't get good reception OTA.

NPR did a story pointing out that cable used to get network affiliates for free. Now they have to pay. The court decision allowing Aereo to operate may open the door for cable-satellite to relay network affiliates for free once again. Then there's no point in taking the good stuff off OTA.

Which is the point of Fox threatening to do so, trying to hold on to that precious money train for as long as they can. The question is, will cable companies go along in an attempt to hold off Aereo and cord-cutting, or will they hope for the situation you describe to play out?

While cable started off so people could get decent reception in the sticks or in cities with lots of metal frame buildings, it's now about all those additional channels. Cord cutting is another example of media hype. Take some isolated instances and anecdotes and call it a trend. No wonder nobody believes the media and why everybody believes it's biased in favor of THEM (never in favor of us). People aren't cord cutting if they still have (other than dial-up) Internet. And those cord cutters are not anybody any advertiser wants to reach.

Rationalize it all you want, when Nielsen is starting to measure Internet viewing and when they report that "zero TV" households have more than doubled in the last five years, it's clearly more than "isolated instances and anecdotes", as though whether or not it was an actual trend had anything to do with the threat of it influencing broadcasters' and cable companies' behavior. The point of cord-cutting isn't cutting all cords, it's getting rid of "all those additional channels" you say are the point of cable TV, even if you may still be paying the same cable company (less) for Internet; it's l about the shake-up of business models and how we consume content. And your last sentence doesn't make any sense; advertisers want to reach as many people as possible.

Ooooo! See that last sentence!

If advertisers wanted to reach as many people as possible,
we'd have many many "crazy" way-out choices on OTA where the infrastructure
is "Provided"...to reach as many people as possible.

But no, that would be wasteful. Something more marginal had to be developed, right?

What they want to do is "the least possible to achieve a proven economic response" at a calculated cost.

This is why a least common denominator is a poor way to aim one's ambitions, life, or fortunes.

You never, ever get to consider the possible value of any given numerator.

It's a race to the bottom, and is ultimately defeatist.

 

[michael hagerty]

...advertisers want to reach as many people as possible.

True in 1953, but certainly not in 2013 (or 1983, for that matter).

Advertisers want as many people as possible in key demographics (18-49, 25-54). They don't consider viewers older or younger than that a bonus, but rather, waste. And even if you're strong in the demo, over-performing among older viewers can drive your average viewer age up and scare off ad buyers.

It's why the 6+ numbers Arbitron makes public for radio ratings are essentially worthless. No one buys overall audience. It's demo points.

 

[Markxxx]

They don't consider viewers older or younger than that a bonus, but rather, waste. And even if you're strong in the demo, over-performing among older viewers can drive your average viewer age up and scare off ad buyers.

Excellent point. And this also must be viewed as tied into Nielsen Markets. If you're in a border county and watching WNBC instead of WCAU, but you''re in the Philly DMA, then not only does your viewing not count, but since you're not watching WNBC you're taking it away from NBC as a network.

Whether or not you buy the product isn't important, because the rate for the ads is what matters.

 

[ding12]

They don't consider viewers older or younger than that a bonus, but rather, waste. And even if you're strong in the demo, over-performing among older viewers can drive your average viewer age up and scare off ad buyers.

Excellent point. And this also must be viewed as tied into Nielsen Markets. If you're in a border county and watching WNBC instead of WCAU, but you''re in the Philly DMA, then not only does your viewing not count, but since you're not watching WNBC you're taking it away from NBC as a network.

Whether or not you buy the product isn't important, because the rate for the ads is what matters.

I think the Philly stations care more about the ratings in the Philly MSA. In Mercer and up in the Lehigh Valley, WNBC is carried and in Reading, WGAL is carried and in SE NJ, WMGM is carried. However, WCAU did request Comcast Trenton move WNBC to some higher up channel number than it running on Ch.4 many years ago. I don't think NBC bothered with the request with Fios though.

 

[Morgan Wick]

...advertisers want to reach as many people as possible.

True in 1953, but certainly not in 2013 (or 1983, for that matter).

Advertisers want as many people as possible in key demographics (18-49, 25-54). They don't consider viewers older or younger than that a bonus, but rather, waste. And even if you're strong in the demo, over-performing among older viewers can drive your average viewer age up and scare off ad buyers.

It's why the 6+ numbers Arbitron makes public for radio ratings are essentially worthless. No one buys overall audience. It's demo points.

I had a bad choice of words. But the focus on the demos obscures the fact that, from an advertiser's perspective, it's not that no one wants anyone outside the demo, so much that there aren't enough of them to nudge the ad rates. The folks who advertise on 60 Minutes care about old people, and the folks who advertise on kids' shows care about kids. Everyone is a potential consumer to someone; no one is "not anybody any advertiser wants to reach". Someone outside the demos you're targeting may be "waste", but it's hardly actively bad like that phrase implies. Besides, I'd still bet that Internet viewers are disproportionately young.

Excellent point. And this also must be viewed as tied into Nielsen Markets. If you're in a border county and watching WNBC instead of WCAU, but you''re in the Philly DMA, then not only does your viewing not count, but since you're not watching WNBC you're taking it away from NBC as a network.

Whether or not you buy the product isn't important, because the rate for the ads is what matters.

Nielsen does measure viewership in counties bordering a DMA, if only to determine DMA boundaries. And frankly, border viewership is a serious black hole Nielsen should be concerned about anyway; see concerns about Detroit viewers watching the Stanley Cup Final on CBC instead of NBC.

 

[Markxxx]

Nielsen may record measurements but it does not count toward ad revenue or ratings.

My friend worked in marketing for a major ad company and the thinking of "ad men" is not always in line with reality.

I do a lot of work with SEO and successful ad campaigns are still measured in tenths of one percent.

Take the big two Amazon and eBay. They have a click through rate of 29% and 19% respectively. That means of all the ads they run only 29% of those seeing an Amazon ad will click on it. And that is only clicking on it and landing on, what's called the "landing page." This has no account for actually buying the product.

Since you pay Google (and others) by who is on your landing page (well basically it's a bit more complex), this is what they focus on when they should be focused on selling, not landing.

There are markets but TV ad time is so expensive that it's not cost effective. Take Me-TV and sister Me-Too.

When it first aired for the first month almost all of it was public service ads. Then slowly you saw ads for things like a pet cemetary, local grocers and Wanda the Lawyer who went bankrupt and now wants to help you.

This shows that small time operators WILL advertise to other demographics, if the rates are low enough to bring a return on the advertising. As Me-TV and Me-Too grew, these types of ads stopped. Obviously it got too expensive as mainstream advertisers took over.

Older people for example, have great buying needs but a lot of their purchases are utilitarian. They're going to buy it anyway.

This coupled with the ability to run infomercial type shows changed the market. I recall an OTR interview with Orsen Wells and he gave full credit for his commercial success to CBS's Paley. The network had unsponsored time and couldn't sell it. They told Wells he could do whatever he wanted with it, provided it was "high brow" and appealed to those with sophisticated tastes.

Wells said, he wouldn't have been able to do that with a sponsored show. Eventually people found Wells and credited his as a genius. This likely wouldn't have happened if CBS could've sold commercials. Of course Well's high brow type of stuff could've also flopped, but it shows there is room for both sides of the argument.

Today the focus is profit. And it's not just TV and media. I worked in hotels most of my life, I recall going to a big board meeting at Starwood Hotels Midwest division and we exceeded our yearly budget by 1%. The first words out of the chairman's mouth were, "That's all well and good, but why wasn't it 3%." Then we spent the rest of the meeting discussing way to beat that goal. Which of course didn't happen because 2% was a fluke in of itself.

 

[Morgan Wick]

I recall an OTR interview with Orsen Wells and he gave full credit for his commercial success to CBS's Paley. The network had unsponsored time and couldn't sell it. They told Wells he could do whatever he wanted with it, provided it was "high brow" and appealed to those with sophisticated tastes.

Wells said, he wouldn't have been able to do that with a sponsored show. Eventually people found Wells and credited his as a genius. This likely wouldn't have happened if CBS could've sold commercials. Of course Well's high brow type of stuff could've also flopped, but it shows there is room for both sides of the argument.

Well, today there's PBS and NPR...