I'm torn. I'm so sick of commercials breaking in every few minutes, but the growing product placement is getting really cheesy. Housewives has done it for years with cars - always zooming in on the logos when someone backs out of their driveway, etc., but now shows are working the stuff into the plotlines. I remember a Bones episode last year where they were trying to sneak a corpse out of a funeral and they were talking about how "Angela's Matrix" was so roomy that there'd be plenty of room for the stiff. The only show that I see this working in is Mad Men.
Oh, and I agree ... I pay a fortune for cable, so I'm bummed to have to watch so many commercials (even on cable). Can't we just adopt the BBC model of charging a fee in exchange for commercials? I know I could live with less Viagra vignettes in my life.
People don't want to watch ads? Too bad, how do think your entertainment sausage gets paid for? You will watch ads, or you will have no entertainment to watch.
@lionel-mandrake: Last I checked, I pay about $100 a month to my cable company. It seems to me that the few remaining channels that aren't on a cable tier need to get on one. And the ones relying on ads for revenue instead of subscriptions need to stop, or at least accept that a lot of us don't watch ads when we're already paying such ridiculous prices for our TV service.
And btw, don't try to tell me that that $100 per month goes to the cable company and not the channels. Because first of all, it isn't true. The channels do get some of that money, even the non-premiums - otherwise many of them couldn't exist. And secondly, as a consumer, it doesn't matter - if I'm paying $100 every month for something, I don't give a rat's ass where the money actually goes, that's for all those jerks in the industry to figure out. All I know is I'm paying a lot of money for TV and I shouldn't be forced to sit through ads.
@badasscat: Cable sub fees aren't even close to paying for the content that plays on the little magic TV box. Unless, of course, you want ALL programming to be reality shows and old movies. In which case, enjoy!
The fact is this. Content is expensive, hugely expensive. The average primetime scripted drama costs upwards of 2 million dollars an hour to produce, and that's just the raw production cost, the cost of yelling "action!" on a fully staffed set.
From development, to production, to broadcast, to packaging, marketing and promotions you can add another 3 or 4 million per episode to that cost. So now you're talking between 5 and 6 million per episode. Multiply that over the course of a 22 episode season and you're talking about 110 million dollars of basic costs per season to bring a first-tier scripted drama to air.
A large enough revenue stream to pay for all that is tenuous already, and that's WITH sub fees, ads, product placement, cross promo tie-ins and what-have-you. Now, put us in the middle of a cratered ad market, and you have a cash-starved industry that will look at any option, no matter how tacky, to get revenues up.
This is also, of course, why so many cable (and broadcast) shows are reality shows, or clip reel/b-roll countdown shows. Production is cheap or consists of pre-owned library footage.
Thus, so-called "value added" content, like in-show ads, on a cheap to produce, guaranteed eyeball grabber like the new Leno show are a no-brainer if you're a network executive.
09/08/09
Oh, and I agree ... I pay a fortune for cable, so I'm bummed to have to watch so many commercials (even on cable). Can't we just adopt the BBC model of charging a fee in exchange for commercials? I know I could live with less Viagra vignettes in my life.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
And btw, don't try to tell me that that $100 per month goes to the cable company and not the channels. Because first of all, it isn't true. The channels do get some of that money, even the non-premiums - otherwise many of them couldn't exist. And secondly, as a consumer, it doesn't matter - if I'm paying $100 every month for something, I don't give a rat's ass where the money actually goes, that's for all those jerks in the industry to figure out. All I know is I'm paying a lot of money for TV and I shouldn't be forced to sit through ads.
09/08/09
The fact is this. Content is expensive, hugely expensive. The average primetime scripted drama costs upwards of 2 million dollars an hour to produce, and that's just the raw production cost, the cost of yelling "action!" on a fully staffed set.
From development, to production, to broadcast, to packaging, marketing and promotions you can add another 3 or 4 million per episode to that cost. So now you're talking between 5 and 6 million per episode. Multiply that over the course of a 22 episode season and you're talking about 110 million dollars of basic costs per season to bring a first-tier scripted drama to air.
A large enough revenue stream to pay for all that is tenuous already, and that's WITH sub fees, ads, product placement, cross promo tie-ins and what-have-you. Now, put us in the middle of a cratered ad market, and you have a cash-starved industry that will look at any option, no matter how tacky, to get revenues up.
This is also, of course, why so many cable (and broadcast) shows are reality shows, or clip reel/b-roll countdown shows. Production is cheap or consists of pre-owned library footage.
Thus, so-called "value added" content, like in-show ads, on a cheap to produce, guaranteed eyeball grabber like the new Leno show are a no-brainer if you're a network executive.