What should television strive for? Art? Entertainment? Spectacle?

[MacLeod]

I would argue that TV's weren't created to get people to watch ads. It's not like the inventor woke up one day and said I need to create a new medium for people to watch ads on.

Networks might have been formed in order to generate a profit from selling ads, but the invention itself not so much so.

Ads have a number of uses :-

To launch a new product.
To keep a product in the minds eye.

In terms of what consumers buy, an ad might make them buy it, but a lot if not the majority buy according to

Brand Loyalty
Price is Brand Y on offer making it cheaper than Brand X
Price (for people on budgets)

I could say I usually buy Diet Coke, but will occasionaly buy Diet Pepsi if that's on offer.

So no amount of advertising by Pepsi is going to make me switch brands.

I've worked in retail for almost two decades and discounting offers (BOGOF's/ 3 for 2's etc..) The same products are sold in the same quantites each week.

Now of course it might be that as an individual I am less easily swayed by ads.

 

[Sindatur]

I would argue that TV's weren't created to get people to watch ads. It's not like the inventor woke up one day and said I need to create a new medium for people to watch ads on.

Networks might have been formed in order to generate a profit from selling ads, but the invention itself not so much so.

Ads have a number of uses :-

To launch a new product.
To keep a product in the minds eye.

In terms of what consumers buy, an ad might make them buy it, but a lot if not the majority buy according to

Brand Loyalty
Price is Brand Y on offer making it cheaper than Brand X
Price (for people on budgets)

I could say I usually buy Diet Coke, but will occasionaly buy Diet Pepsi if that's on offer.

So no amount of advertising by Pepsi is going to make me switch brands.

I've worked in retail for almost two decades and discounting offers (BOGOF's/ 3 for 2's etc..) The same products are sold in the same quantites each week.

Now of course it might be that as an individual I am less easily swayed by ads.

A reduced Price can bring in some, that try it because of the reduced price, and they actually prefer it, so, when the competition goes lower, it's not worth sacrificing the preferred taste.

Also, some ads are very successful at making the product look cool, and the "Cool" people do adopt it to be cool.

But, yea, mostly you're right. But, that chance in a million to hit the right chord or that 1 or 2% gain in Brand royalty you may get from Sales introducing new folks to the different taste, is always worth striving for.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I would argue that TV's weren't created to get people to watch ads.

I dunno what Milo T. Farnsworth had in mind, but the TV industry (the part that produces the content, not the boxes) has always been built around the ad business.

The alternative would have been to create a subscription-based TV business, where people have to pay for ABC, and also for NBC, etc. So basically, cable in the 1950s. But that would have been a tough sell when you have an audience that has gotten along just fine all their lives without TV. When you're trying to get people to change longstanding habits, "free" is an excellent strategy.

If not ads or subscriptions, what financial basis do you think TV should have?

So no amount of advertising by Pepsi is going to make me switch brands.

Coke and Pepsi are mature industries, which means they have a very hard time changing people's brand preferences, so you are not alone. However, the sheer size of the global market for soda pop means that even a fraction of one percent change can be a very significant number. So it's worth fighting even over tiny slices of the pie, and advertising is one weapon (and far from the only one) in that war.

Lowering prices is generally frowned upon as a strategy, because once you lower the price, good luck bringing it back up. Better to keep the price the same and stimulate demand in other ways such as advertising.

I've worked in retail for almost two decades and discounting offers (BOGOF's/ 3 for 2's etc..) The same products are sold in the same quantites each week.

So you mean, lowering prices doesn't even work? Then why do it?

 

[T'Girl]

In terms of what consumers buy, an ad might make them buy it, but a lot if not the majority buy according to

Brand Loyalty
Price is Brand Y on offer making it cheaper than Brand X
Price (for people on budgets)

You also have people who are just entering the consumer market, I've been out of my parents home for a little over five year and am still in some cases figuring out "my favorite brands."

I recently bought my first washer/dryer, TV advertising help determine both the brand (Maytag) and where I made the purchase (Lowes).

Advertising can also remind you of something you like, but haven't had for a while.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

You're a good example of why the ad industry wants TV to attract younger viewers, before their brand preferences are set. Ad dollars are more effective when spent on younger age groups.

 

[MacLeod]

I would argue that TV's weren't created to get people to watch ads.

I dunno what Milo T. Farnsworth had in mind, but the TV industry (the part that produces the content, not the boxes) has always been built around the ad business.

The alternative would have been to create a subscription-based TV business, where people have to pay for ABC, and also for NBC, etc. So basically, cable in the 1950s. But that would have been a tough sell when you have an audience that has gotten along just fine all their lives without TV. When you're trying to get people to change longstanding habits, "free" is an excellent strategy.

If not ads or subscriptions, what financial basis do you think TV should have?

So no amount of advertising by Pepsi is going to make me switch brands.

Coke and Pepsi are mature industries, which means they have a very hard time changing people's brand preferences, so you are not alone. However, the sheer size of the global market for soda pop means that even a fraction of one percent change can be a very significant number. So it's worth fighting even over tiny slices of the pie, and advertising is one weapon (and far from the only one) in that war.

Lowering prices is generally frowned upon as a strategy, because once you lower the price, good luck bringing it back up. Better to keep the price the same and stimulate demand in other ways such as advertising.

I've worked in retail for almost two decades and discounting offers (BOGOF's/ 3 for 2's etc..) The same products are sold in the same quantites each week.

So you mean, lowering prices doesn't even work? Then why do it?

Well lower prices are usually down to raw material costs coming down or a price promotion (i.e. an offer)

And what about TV stations such as the BBC whicvh don't run ads but are paid for by a license fee. Ah but TV content is different from TV's. The point is that when John Logie Baird invented the TV he wasn't thinking this will make lots of money from ads.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

In my experience, businesses don't lower their prices because their costs are lower. Why sell something for $1 when you can sell it for $2? Prices are set according to what the market will bear, not according to how much anything costs to make.

As for the topic at hand - there's no way Americans would sit still for being taxed by the government so someone can make TV shows for them. What if they don't like the TV shows? (And going by the threads around here, there is a lot of disgruntlement over TV shows.) Then they should be able to withhold their taxes in protest. And don't even get me started when someone goes and cancels Firefly.

So it's ads or subscriptions. There may be a third alternative - as TV streaming becomes more viable, I could envision something developing along the lines of free social media games, where the free shows are supported by virtual goods sales to a minority of the viewers. You'd need a huge global audience to make this work, and the streaming business is a long ways from that. But if it ever developed, one advantage would be that piracy would be a moot point - piracy would become market development.

 

[Sykonee]

As for the topic at hand - there's no way Americans would sit still for being taxed by the government so someone can make TV shows for them. What if they don't like the TV shows? (And going by the threads around here, there is a lot of disgruntlement over TV shows.) Then they should be able to withhold their taxes in protest. And don't even get me started when someone goes and cancels Firefly.

Hey now, there's always PBS.

 

[MacLeod]

With regards to TV priacy I think the TV stations have started to eliminate one of the main reasons as to why people resort to pirate copies. The gap between it airing in different markets.

Go back to the 1980's/1990's you could be talking years before a show would jump the Atlantic. Come the 2000's it was getting down to months, these days it can be measured in days.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Hey now, there's always PBS.

Hee hee! But they do produce things of value - documentaries and kids' shows. Nova, Nature, Independent Lens, POV, Frontline and Sesame Street (though I haven't watched that in years ) - which all have the value of not needing a big budget. PBS definitely is punching above their weight.

But I'm mainly interested nowadays in how TV, or whatever TV evolves into, that can give us more Star Trek, or more space opera of any kind. And that's going to be ad/subscription or some new internet business model based on virtual goods, or something I can't even think of right now.

With regards to TV priacy I think the TV stations have started to eliminate one of the main reasons as to why people resort to pirate copies. The gap between it airing in different markets.

People can also pirate TV shows for free rather than by subscription or ad viewing, so the mercenary motive for piracy isn't going to vanish. I'm not even so sure synching up release times will have that much of an impact.