[RVRambler]

Well not completely but I've always thought the whole purpose of Ads on a channel were to pay for it, so with non OTA viewing (sat, cable) we pay & then have to watch these crap Ads, ie - pay again (with our time/attention). Yuck!

Seems like 'redundant fornication' to me!

AMC has Ads, lots of Ads, as many as a 'free' network channel, but just like 'free' network, we get to pay! And to break our backs, the channels get 'angered' just because we can FF our DVR's (skip, Hopper jump) thru these crap Ads, well A__Holes, stop charging & maybe I will watch a few Ads!

H&LL, you should pay to be 'carried' since you get the Ad revenue, Chumps!!

But until 'no Ads', bite my hairy 'anal enclosure' all of you greedy Billionaires! Hear this AMC! Same to you Charlie! Same to you Disney/ABC/ESPN et al. !!

Billionaires, just a bunch of cry baby children, Charlie you have enough money!

 

[mike1977]

What aggravates me is that they pop graphical ads for programming when there may be subtitles to read or other text part of the film. But I can't read it because the stupid ad is blocking it!

 

[SayWhat?]

Remember, you're not really paying for those channels as such. You're paying for the delivery of channels you wouldn't otherwise see at all.

The only channels you're really paying for are any that you might subscribe to specifically like HBO or Showtime. Now, when those start running ads, you'll have a legitimate beef.

Regarding the on-screen graphics......

** I'll be watching the news and they'll run a story where all you see is sky. The main content of whatever outdoor incident the story is about is only towards the bottom of the screen which is usually covered with graphics. In this digital age, why not resize the news content video so it's fully visible above the graphics?

** What is the point of adding multiple layers of graphics on top of each other so that you really can't seen any of them clearly even if you wanted to?

 

[tommiet]

YEAH... I hate add popping up when I watching Jerry Springer!

 

[Marlin Guy]

This should be in a general discussion sub-forum. All providers show ads. :lol:

 

[jdskycaster]

At least you won't have to watch all of those ads on AMC anymore!

 

[Stewart Vernon]

Moved to General Satellite forum since it was not Dish-specific.

 

[Stewart Vernon]

Remember, you're not really paying for those channels as such. You're paying for the delivery of channels you wouldn't otherwise see at all.

Agreed. This discussion pops up from time to time... and people just don't seem to understand that they are paying to get the channels, not paying the total cost of running that channel and producing content for it.

IF it weren't for ad revenue on those channels, we would be paying the $15-$20 HBO-pricing for every channel we wanted to watch.

Whether we watch or like ads or not... it is undeniable that ad revenue pays for a lot of the programming we watch on TV. Without ad revenue, a lot of our favorite shows would not exist.

 

[mirak]

Television networks are going to get whatever money is necessary to turn a profit, whether that is through ads, payment from cable/satellite providers, or a combination of both.

If AMC were to drop its ads, it would have to make up the difference by charging cable/satellite providers more, but that's not going to happen. I believe Dish just dumped AMC because they couldn't agree on a new contract. So maybe AMC should have run more ads instead of asking for more money from Dish?

So why complain about it, especially now that DVRs allow us to easily skip the ads?

Speaking of which, if I were a content provider, it would really irk me that the cable/satellite companies I am contracting with are making money renting DVRs that specifically allow their customers to skip my ads. I might even file a lawsuit over it....

 

[mike1977]

Remember, you're not really paying for those channels as such. You're paying for the delivery of channels you wouldn't otherwise see at all.

The only channels you're really paying for are any that you might subscribe to specifically like HBO or Showtime. Now, when those start running ads, you'll have a legitimate beef.

?

I don't have Starz anymore after witnessing banner snipes during movies, a solid distracting channel bug that interfered with subtitles, and putting the end credits in a little box so they can run promos and I can't hear the credit music. I've witnessed the same on Showtime.

HBO and Cinemax are the only true premium channels left.

 

[P Smith]

not paying the total cost of running that channel and producing content for it.

Television networks are going to get whatever money is necessary to turn a profit, whether that is through ads, payment from cable/satellite providers, or a combination of both.

Without real numbers, I mean $$$ cash flow tables I can't accept the blind defense of the sat companies.

Why RIAA, MPAA and other defenders of the content doesn't rise against altering its content by the excessive overlays with graphics, logos, alteration ?

 

[Nick]

I have many, many tv and movie channels with no ads whatsoever. It's called Netflix (streaming).

 

[Stewart Vernon]

Without real numbers, I mean $$$ cash flow tables I can't accept the blind defense of the sat companies.

I understand where you are coming from... but if you apply the concept of "not having enough info" then how can you side with the opposition either? I mean... if lack of info keeps you from deciding, then it should keep you from deciding either way, right?

Why RIAA, MPAA and other defenders of the content doesn't rise against altering its content by the excessive overlays with graphics, logos, alteration ?

How do we know they haven't? Or that it isn't already addressed in their selling the content to the network for original broadcast? I expect they enforce some conditions on how their programming can be altered BUT also have to be open to other things in order to get broadcast... then they can show their unaltered program on DVD, Blu-ray, or other methods if they sign those contracts.

I have many, many tv and movie channels with no ads whatsoever. It's called Netflix (streaming).

Yes... but you only have those options because the content has already been paid for elsewhere. With Netflix you are talking about content that other places have already paid for... so Netflix gets a better deal down the road.

Think of it like your $1 movie theater. The $1 theater gets the same movie that the $10 theater does... but months later. The $1 theater wouldn't keep getting movies, however, if the $10 theater wasn't getting new ones.

Stop the flow of movies to the $10 theater... then the $1 theater goes out of business.

Stop the flow of content to satellite, cable, etc. and Netflix either would go belly-up OR would have to start paying a lot more OR consumers would have to start paying Netflix more OR some combination thereof.

 

[SayWhat?]

then they can show their unaltered program on DVD, Blu-ray,

That doesn't even always work. I know of several TV shows that are altered on the DVD from the way they aired originally. Usually it's something related to the music or opening theme song.

 

[Nick]

I have many, many tv and movie channels with no ads whatsoever. It's called Netflix (streaming).

...Yes... but you only have those options because the content has already been paid for elsewhere. With Netflix you are talking about content that other places have already paid for... so Netflix gets a better deal down the road.

Think of it like your $1 movie theater. The $1 theater gets the same movie that the $10 theater does... but months later. The $1 theater wouldn't keep getting movies, however, if the $10 theater wasn't getting new ones.

Stop the flow of movies to the $10 theater... then the $1 theater goes out of business.

Stop the flow of content to satellite, cable, etc. and Netflix either would go belly-up OR would have to start paying a lot more OR consumers would have to start paying Netflix more OR some combination thereof.

Or, or, or...

Thanks for explaining what most of us already know, Stewart, but for unlimited flicks and tv shows for only $8 a month, I'll ride the Roku/Netflix pony into the ground. I couldn't care less about who paid for what previously or what happens down the road...something else will come along. It alway does.

 

[Stewart Vernon]

Or, or, or...

Thanks for explaining what most of us already know, Stewart, but for unlimited flicks and tv shows for only $8 a month, I'll ride the Roku/Netflix pony into the ground. I couldn't care less about who paid for what previously or what happens down the road...something else will come along. It alway does.

Just as long as you are aware that the only reason you have cheap Netflix options is because of the other payments that go to other companies...

IF everyone takes you up on your "go to Netflix and Roku" suggestion, though, you might be surprised at the results. So maybe Netflix/Roku customers shouldn't want other people to jump ship?

 

[Nick]

Just as long as you are aware that the only reason you have cheap Netflix options is because of the other payments that go to other companies...

I'm aware, although there is no requirement that I be aware of which I am aware!

IF everyone takes you up on your "go to Netflix and Roku" suggestion, though, you might be surprised at the results. So maybe Netflix/Roku customers shouldn't want other people to jump ship?

I made no such suggestion, but I shall try my best to keep Netflix a secret. :sure:

 

[kenglish]

I have many, many tv and movie channels with no ads whatsoever. It's called Netflix (streaming).

As a fellow Georgian/Southerner, I'm sure you remember "Free Cigarette Samples" (long ago). Get you hooked, then charge whatever they can.

TV is like that. One day, they'll start charging the BIG BUCKS.

 

[James Long]

As a fellow Georgian/Southerner, I'm sure you remember "Free Cigarette Samples" (long ago). Get you hooked, then charge whatever they can.

TV is like that. One day, they'll start charging the BIG BUCKS.

Isn't that what local, commercial filled, television stations are doing?
How many minutes per hour are actual program content and not ads?

After decades of "free TV" those stations raise the cost of viewing by not only increasing the number of commercials one must put up with each hour, but to charge our cable and satellite providers for helping distribute their signals.

But the American people are hooked ... so they will charge what they can.

 

[jimisham]

Isn't that what local, commercial filled, television stations are doing?
How many minutes per hour are actual program content and not ads?

After decades of "free TV" those stations raise the cost of viewing by not only increasing the number of commercials one must put up with each hour, but to charge our cable and satellite providers for helping distribute their signals.

But the American people are hooked ... so they will charge what they can.

Take a look at this.

http://waynesthisandthat.com/commerciallength.htm

I can believe it. I worked in a couple of TV stations in the early 60's and station breaks during prime time were 40 seconds.
That was when networks were paying local stations to carry their programming. Now it's the other way around.