Cable/sattelite TV

[Naru]

This is probably a dumb question,
but as I was sitting in front of my
television playing Transformers on my Nintendo DS,
I looked up at a commercial and thought.
"We pay for the cable/Sattelite TV, why are there
commercials on cable channels?"
I understand the principle of advertisements for regular tv, but
we pay for cable/sattelite, what gives?

[Joystick Jerk]

Not that difficult a concept. The cable companies need a revenue stream to operate. They don't get any revenue from commercials, that goes to the networks.

[Naru]

Ok...wait.
Why are channels on cable then?
I'm a bit lost on this.
Why not just be regular television
stations?

[jbox]

Because you'll put up with it. Sad, but true.

[Joystick Jerk]

How would they be regular televisions stations? Broadcast an over-the-air signal that covers the entire continent?

[ChadTower]

That's it right there.  They'd have to build dozens of broadcast centers all over the continent and most cable stations don't make nearly enough money to build and run even one.  Without third party delivery 95% of cable stations don't exist.

[Angry_Radish]

My biggest problem is paying for xbox live, and seeing ads in games

[sirwoogie]

Most people may not remember, but when Cable/Private air first started out the main advertisement is that there would be no commercials. "You pay us for the TV so we won't make you watch the commercials." Remember "IT" and "ON"? They had similar concepts. Perhaps that was a bad marketing decision in the first place, but it was the driving concept. Most people at the time thought "why should I pay for TV, when I can get it from free over the air." Steadily over time this thought has dissipated. While I agree that commercial revenue goes to the network, there are agreements and ownership of the cable/satellite operators that could probably cover some of the cost, but not all. Do you really think that savings would be "passed along to consumers?" No way.

What bothers me is how we've become more complacent about advertisements on items we already pay for. As Angry pointed out, he has to see ads on a Xbox Live that he pays for. You go to a movie and sit through usually 5 minutes of advertisements, and then 15-20 of promo (commercial for the movie industry). Tivo is floating the idea of ads during the fast forward feature. The main selling point of the tivo is to avoid the ads... they are a SUBSCRIPTION service. DVD's we payed for shove previews that you have that you must FF through (not skip). I'm sure I could think of many many more.

People used to ---smurfette--- a few years ago, but no longer. We're all getting used to it. That means more profit all around... while the consumer is increasingly annoyed.

[shardian]

I just can't bring myself to shell out the RIDICULOUS amount of dough cable TV costs$60-$90 per month - I don't think so. My rabbit ears work just fine. I'm also a big fan of TV on DVD. No commercials, pause when you want, watch when you want. Can't beat that.

[Naru]

sirwoogie
I bow to you! 
They even have LCD screens
at my local grocery playing advertisements
while you wait in the checkout.

[shardian]

It will be interesting to see how broadcast TV changes in the next year or two. It has become apparent that the current Nielsen system is no longer effective for the internet/ipod/tivo era. Alot of networks are talking about integrating advertisements into the show and/or sponsoring segments or entire episodes ALA soccer broadcasts.

[Joystick Jerk]

Nielsen is still relevant, as Tivo now sends usage reports to Nielsen.

[Zero_Hour]

New ways to integrate traditional ads will definitely come down the pike, not to mention the fact that many programs already charge $$$ for "product placement" - advertising stuck right into your Movie, or TV program as props or even plot devices. An Upcoming example: Why do you think Jazz in the Transformers movie is a Pontiac Solstice, and not a Porsche 935 as he originally appeared? Because GM paid Mr. Bay to make it so.

You may stop watching traditional 30 second spots, but the marketing department will find a way to get their product in front of you somehow.

[Naru]

You mean it wasn't artistic expression
like Optimus Primes lips?
Uhg, don't get me started on that
impending Transformers disaster.
Must they kill all my childhood memories?

[Zero_Hour]

Must they kill all my childhood memories?

I don't know if they must, but they are certainly trying very hard to do so.

[Howard_Casto]

New ways to integrate traditional ads will definitely come down the pike, not to mention the fact that many programs already charge $$$ for "product placement" - advertising stuck right into your Movie, or TV program as props or even plot devices. An Upcoming example: Why do you think Jazz in the Transformers movie is a Pontiac Solstice, and not a Porsche 935 as he originally appeared? Because GM paid Mr. Bay to make it so.

You may stop watching traditional 30 second spots, but the marketing department will find a way to get their product in front of you somehow.

It might also have to do with several other factors.  They obviously will try to make a deal if they get permission to use a vehicle, but they still have to get permission.  VW denied them the use of a Beatle for bumblebee as they have a policy against "the volkswagon being used as a war machine".  Funny they didn't have that policy during ww2.  I suppose rather than try to get the brand some good press they'd rather be forver known as the official auto of the nazi party!  But I digress.  The other reason is Micheal Bay's skewed view of trying to make the film "believable".  He's made various excuses about changing the vehicles so that the transformers blend in, which I would buy if he didn't slap the autobot/decpticon logos on the cars and pimp poor old optimus.  He also changed various vehicles for scale reasons... it's the reason optimus is a different model semi.  If Jazz was a porsche he might stand at around 7 feet.... not exactly imposing.  Personally, I think this "attention to detail" is what is ruining the film.  I would have rather seen it set in 1984, and instead of getting the official liscense for the cars, do like the tv show did and just not put any logos on the cars.  It's not a beatle, it just looks a lot like one!


Getting back on topic, I can't help but laugh a little that you are complaing about product placement in the film when the entire point of the transformers series was to sell the toys. The toys were designed long before the show, it was merely a vehicle to sell them.  I mean they introduced some random group of toys.. err I mean characters every other week.  So with that being said, are things really getting worse or is everyone just looking at the past with rose colored glasses?

[Zero_Hour]

Have you seen the Solstice? It's even more puny than a Porsche. 

And you're right, Transformers is not the best example, seeing as how it was specifically created from the get-go to sell toys. Much the same way that G.I. Joe did when they Shrunk down the original "Barbie for Boys" and turned him into a full blown line of action figures / cartoon. Thank Star Wars for that one. My only real fear about the Transformers movie, is that it will be a wild success, and some idiot decides to counter with a Go-Bots film. 

And I'm not complaining, I'm just making an observation. Product placement has been happening in film almost since it's inception. It's just that now that the advertising methods most of us are familiar with are having trouble holding their ground, marketers and producers are far more aggressive in that arena than they previously were.

Another example - I don't recall the Fantastic Four driving around in a Dodge-badged Fantasticar, when I was reading the comics as a kid. But there it is in the new flick. It was reportedly drawn up by one of the Chrysler groups lead designers. Johnny Storm even asks Reed if it's "Got a Hemi in it?" to which Mr. Fantastic replies "Of course."  Chuckle or groan, it's your call.

As for TV, originally they followed the model of radio at the time, where Sponsors often had their name right in the show - Texaco Star Theater with Milton Berel comes immediately to mind. It's even invading local news broadcasts, with more than a few major market stations having agreements with "Brand Brokers" for handling product placements in their lifestyle segments. Not to mention every ratings sweeps period is chock full of "news" that ties in with the affiliates' parent network programming.

Whether it's better or worse, is obviously a matter of opinion. Some people will say it's just another facet of capitalism, and I'm hard pressed to disagree with that assessment. While product placement isn't new, I'd say that is is definitely more prevalent now than ever before.

[Naru]

Now that I think about it, half of x-box live
is like buying a ticket to get into the mall to shop.
We all like playing games online against/with each
other, but all the demo's and stuff really are just
another form of advertisement that we're paying for.
Ha, ha...man I'm a sucker.

[ChadTower]

It will be interesting to see how broadcast TV changes in the next year or two. It has become apparent that the current Nielsen system is no longer effective for the internet/ipod/tivo era. Alot of networks are talking about integrating advertisements into the show and/or sponsoring segments or entire episodes ALA soccer broadcasts.

That may not even be legal in the US... that's how TV started and eventually there were laws passed for product sponsorship outwardly of some types of programming.  I know it was illegal for childrens' shows for decades and still may be... but really, at first, the whole show was a commercial, like the Texaco Star Show.

[Jouster]

One thing that I just don't understand about advertising...is it really necessary for Coke and Pepsi to spend that much money to tell me that they have sodas out there?  Is there anyone in the free world that doesn't know about Coke and Pepsi?  I mean...there is no amount of advertising that Pepsi can do that will ever make me choose them over Coke...total waste of money in my mind.   

Advertising should be limited to new products only...other than that...I don't bother watching them anyway.  Unless they start doing the Futurama form of advertising...by beaming it directly into my dreams.  (Mmmm...Bachelor chow.)

Jouster

[AtomSmasher]

As for TV, originally they followed the model of radio at the time, where Sponsors often had their name right in the show - Texaco Star Theater with Milton Berel comes immediately to mind.

According to the secret message I decoded with my Little Orphan Annie secret decoder badge, you should "be sure to drink your ovaltine".

Just thought I'd point out that early reviews are saying its going to be a great movie, but I'm sure it will be a blockbuster and spawn a sequal or two even if it isn't.

[Zero_Hour]

I'm fully prepared for the sequels.... Just spare me the live-action Go Bots.

You read Penny-Arcade Atom Smasher? 

[TOK]

You mean it wasn't artistic expression
like Optimus Primes lips?
Uhg, don't get me started on that
impending Transformers disaster.
Must they kill all my childhood memories?

I always thought 80's cartoons were just thinly disguised toy commercials anyway.

Edit: Zero Hour already made my point, and more eloquently... That'll teach me to reply before reading the whole thread (or not).

[AtomSmasher]

You read Penny-Arcade Atom Smasher? 

Hehe ya, thats why that quote was fresh on my mind 

[shmokes]

. . . Funny they didn't have that policy during ww2.

To be fair, I suspect that their current policy is a result of WW2.

[boykster]

. . . Funny they didn't have that policy during ww2.

To be fair, I suspect that their current policy is a result of WW2.

Agreed, and frankly I doubt that they would have had much choice during WW2 anyway...they would have been (if they already weren't) taken over by central government for the war effort.

[TOK]

. . . Funny they didn't have that policy during ww2.

To be fair, I suspect that their current policy is a result of WW2.

Agreed, and frankly I doubt that they would have had much choice during WW2 anyway...they would have been (if they already weren't) taken over by central government for the war effort.

No need for a takeover. Volkswagen was intertwined with the German government all along. Adolf Hitler commissioned Ferdinand Porsche with the creation of the Beetle to have a simple standardized car that was affordable by many Germans.