1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Are You Tired Of The Stations Double Dipping into Your Pocket?

Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by dreadlk, Sep 7, 2009.

Tired of Paying for TV yet still getting commercial Interruptions

  1. Yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No

    39 vote(s)
    100.0%
  1. Sep 7, 2009 #1 of 69
    dreadlk

    dreadlk Hall Of Fame

    1,538
    0
    Sep 18, 2007
    I just read the a post about the future of Networks being messed up by DVR's and all the heavy competition of all the cable networks,,, BoooHooo I am so sorry for them :lol:

    I don't know about the rest of you but I am so tired of all the whining and Double dipping from these stations, I don’t give a crap about what happens to them, and let me explain why.

    When we started out in the 50's and all the way up till the mid 80's there was a kind of Bond between us the Viewers and the Networks.
    They provided us with good shows for FREE and we watched the commercials and hopefully bought the products. Then came Satellite and Cable and suddenly it was you have to pay for the channels and yet still have to watch commercials this IMO is Double dipping the customer, and I really hate it!

    The Ironic part is that the more Satellite and Cable grow there is less need for stations to build hundreds of Towers and Transmitters and all the other things they had to do to maintain a national signal, so the new technology is actually saving them from a huge expense, yet they still charge us more!

    So I have no pity for them. Its a good thing if everyone switches to DVR's and starts skipping all the commercials! They need to just charge us once, either they are free channels to cable companies and Sat providers and therefore cost very little to add to my package or they remove the commercials and keep charging me like they do now.

    So are you tired of paying for TV, while still having to skip through a mass of commercials or worst yet have to watch them?
     
  2. Sep 7, 2009 #2 of 69
    Drew2k

    Drew2k New Member

    14,514
    228
    Aug 16, 2006
    I paid for my TV only once. I do have a monthly subscription to a service that re-transmits OTA channels as well as channels not available OTA, and as I live in an area that can not receive OTA channels well with an antenna, I do not mind paying for the re-transmission service.
     
  3. Sep 7, 2009 #3 of 69
    Movieman

    Movieman Hall Of Fame

    2,044
    0
    May 8, 2009
    I sort of agree but. It really depends on what you pay. For example, in my package I feel that I pay for the premiums so I dont have to see commercials. The locals which I have in package are a convenience having it delivered through my STB rather than OTA which I would receive. So by paying for one STB to do everything I dont mind the fee. And to be honest compared to what I have paid with other carriers for less I dont mind at least for now. If the channels I watch began running commercials then I would most certainly being making more of a stink.
     
  4. Sep 7, 2009 #4 of 69
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,582
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    You forgot the option for, "Don't care," in your poll.
     
  5. Sep 7, 2009 #5 of 69
    dreadlk

    dreadlk Hall Of Fame

    1,538
    0
    Sep 18, 2007
    Keep in mind Drew that stations like TNT, USA, SyFy and hundreds of others. are all charging you on your Sat/cable bill while still hitting you with commercials. My take is that it's either done the way the premium movie channels are done or if your going to add commercials let them pay for the shows not me. At $2.50 per customer per year, do you know how much money USA, Scifi and the rest are making for the 2 or 3 good shows they put on each week? All the other stuff they show is mostly junk thats been recycled 1000 times and in the scope of things is probably almost free.

     
  6. Sep 7, 2009 #6 of 69
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    Yeah but there is no other way to get those channels as they're not broadcast over the air.

    Additionally, the commercials on those channels keep down the cost of what DirecTV charges me to watch, say Syfy or any other cable station.

    Mike
     
  7. Sep 7, 2009 #7 of 69
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    Whether it's single, double, triple or a gazillion times dipping .. Things cost what they cost and the money has to come from somewhere. If these advertisers decide (in today's age) that they'll just head to the Internet and twitter for advertising, why would they even remotely consider paying more for TV commercials.

    Additionally, if we have to pay more per channel just so there are no commercials, do you really think that would work? The value comes from these channels being funded from multiple sources. Clearly it's a poor business model if they can't make money.

    Commercials don't bother me at all anyway as I watch most everything recorded and use 30-second skip to quickly skip commercials.
     
  8. Sep 7, 2009 #8 of 69
    armophob

    armophob Difficulty Concen........

    7,393
    65
    Nov 13, 2006
    Fort Pierce, FL
    No offense, but kind of a skewed poll. Do you like commercial interruptions?
    How about, Do you like stepping in mud puddles in your new shoes or being bitten by mosquitoes on an evening walk?
    No matter what the reason, I don't think anyone likes them. But as Doug says, it is what it is.
     
  9. Sep 7, 2009 #9 of 69
    narrod

    narrod Godfather

    572
    1
    Jul 26, 2007
    In my opinion, a silly pole. Someone has to pay for content and transmission. DirecTv produces NO content. Networks produce content and have declining viewership. DVRs make watching commercials a choice. This is a useless poll.
     
  10. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,669
    2
    May 14, 2003
    Nobody forces me to pay for it and besides with my DVR I can not remember the last time I had to sit thru commercials.
     
  11. bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    I don't think most folks do, or really need to really "care" about what happens to them. What's important isn't "caring" about them, but really "understanding" what is happening. To drive an extreme analogy: "Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory." If you're happy with the 50/50 proposition, then I suppose that's okay. However, if you want to "find naught in fear", it is really important to understand everything from not only your own perspective, but also from the perspective of anyone you find sitting opposite you in any type of transaction -- surely everyone who provides you service.

    Or at least you thought there was. The reality was that your expectations simply didn't diverge from the parameters that they set forth for you. What happened over the four decades is that consumers started demanding things without any firm basis for their expectations in promises made. Wanting became the only foundation consumers felt they needed. It's not necessarily bad, in itself, but it does tend to lead consumers into a death spiral of disappointment and dissatisfaction. I suppose some folks like that kind of feeling; I personally don't.

    It should be noted that this detachment of expectations from reality was not limited to the consumer. Every aspect of society engages in the same type of disconnect. And since business is essentially the coming together of a variety of societal players (consumers, investors, employees, communities), with each now practicing this type of dalliance in unfounded expectations, there are forces making the death spiral even worse for everyone.

    However, the fundamentals haven't really changed. What is happening probably hasn't been changed very much as a result of this phenomenon. All that has really changed is how pissed off everyone in the system is about not being able to twist the whole system to serve their personal aims and fulfill their own unfounded expectations.

    Who cares who's willing to engage in being unreasonable? What is really important is whether anyone is actually willing to put their money where their mouth is. So if you sincerely feel that it isn't worth it, then do without it. So please, if you're going to post, post either [1] No, I'm not tired of paying for television because I find it of enough value; or [2] Yes, I'm tired of paying for television and I have canceled my cable service and no longer turn on my television.
     
  12. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    I must agree with the others here. Sure it's easy to complain about a channel you pay to receive also having commercials, but the money to produce and distribute these programs has to come from somewhere.
     
  13. Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    I'd rather it all didn't come from me...I'm just sayin' :D

    Mike
     
  14. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Exactly whom would you like it to come from? Regardless of the route, eventually all the cost of programming is borne by the people, whether it is in time, subscription fees or cost of the advertised product. Of course you are free not to spend on any of these, it's you're choice.
     
  15. Galaxie6411

    Galaxie6411 Icon

    623
    4
    Aug 26, 2007
    I was much more angry over commercials on stations I pay for before I had a DVR. Now that I record 90% of what I watch and skip all commercials it isn't as big of an issue. What makes me mad now are the commercials they put n the shows, either covering an important part of the screen or horrible product placement. Not that product placement is new, I was watching an episode of the X files from '94 and they conveniently mentioned Americas Most Wanted, but it seems to stick out like a sore thumb every time I see/hear it.
     
  16. bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Well, to be fair, I think it isn't unreasonable to essentially want "other people" to pay for "my" entertainment. It may not be reasonable to expect it, but it is reasonable to want it.

    The distinction is important, and more importantly, operational. Essentially, the vast majority of TiVo owners report that they themselves have essentially "opted out" of paying for programming, even in part, via viewing advertising, the major source of revenues for most broadcast networks. I suspect that as long as there are ways for people to avoid paying, that people will seek to utilize those ways. And such avoidance will absolutely have significant impact on how programming is presented to us. The "horrors" that the OP are just a drop in the bucket compared to what could be the case in the future.
     
  17. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    246
    Nov 15, 2005
    Do you pay for newspapers? Either online or in real paper form? They get monies from both advertising and from subscriptions.

    How about any paid websites? Many of them still have minimal advertising while you've paid your subscription.

    Oh, and you still can get TV for free. You don't have to have cable for the expanded options. :)

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  18. bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Except it's not really free. You pay for OTA television in the form of the imposition of commercial breaks -- essentially paying with your time (wasted time, for some; time spent considering advertising offers, for others; but still time, either way).
     
  19. Drew2k

    Drew2k New Member

    14,514
    228
    Aug 16, 2006
    There is no such thing as "FREE" when you consider that you have to PAY for the TV in the first place.
     
  20. bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Well, that's just a slippery slope that leads back to having to pay the obstetrician who delivered you, and perhaps even even further back. I think, though, that when we're talking about television entertainment, there are logical boundaries where it does not make sense to jump in terms of attributing cost to value: The folks delivering you content (which were the targets of the OP's criticism) didn't get any of the money you spent on the television.
     

Share This Page