This puts an actual smile on my face:
Media companies, including Time Warner Inc., 21st Century Fox Inc. and Viacom Inc., have started cutting back on commercials after years of squeezing in as many ads as possible.
The new strategy is an attempt to appeal to younger viewers, who are more accustomed to watching shows ad-free on online streaming services like Netflix Inc., and to advertisers concerned their messages are being ignored amid all the commercial clutter.
Time Warner's truTV will cut its ad load in half for prime-time original shows starting late next year, Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bewkes said last week on an earnings call. Viacom has recently slashed commercial minutes at its networks, which include Comedy Central and MTV. Earlier this month, Fox said it will offer viewers of its shows on Hulu the option to watch a 30-second interactive ad instead of a typical 2 1/2-minute commercial break. Fox says the shorter ads, which require viewers to engage with them online, are more effective because they guarantee the audience's full attention.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 12 2015, @04:34PM
Well, that's a really condescending way to put it. It's called "choice," but since you decided to put it that way, I think I'm going to pirate some Adult Swim shows...starting with Minoriteam. Thanks for the contempt, asshole!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 12 2015, @04:42PM
Even when Netflix pays them for the content, they are conditioned to think of viewers who watch that content without commercials as thieves.
But On-Demand is killing cable for sure. I have a buddy who's Director of Programming at Starz and he says he runs hard every day to limit the bleeding. I suggested developing franchises with branching plot lines, with subplots that are shunted into based on viewer response, to maximize engagement, interactivity, and repeat viewing, sort of like a video version of Choose Your Own Adventure, but I think it went over his head. TV guys really don't have time with their crazed timelines to do a lot of out-of-the-box thinking.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:34PM
You should have said "tv execs are trained to think of the viewers as theives." :)
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 12 2015, @07:01PM
Well, no, I employed the right verb. "Trained" means someone sat them in a room and pounded it into their heads with repetition and/or shock therapy. "Conditioned" means they picked it up via osmosis, which is by far the more accurate descriptor. That is, even in the highest echelons of business and government (at least, as seen from NYC) nobody has time, attention, or recall to absorb a body of rules or attitudes that "training" implies. They only get their attitudes from off-hand remarks in countless meetings and incidental conversations over the course of years in their office environments, which "conditioning" means.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by moondoctor on Thursday November 12 2015, @07:40PM
I worked at an on-demand iptv service, and you'd be amazed at how much work it is just keeping a library of networks and shows live. Aside from the technical challenge (pretty huge) there's a ridiculous amount of contract stuff meaning things have to be made available or unavailable constantly. Yes: The planning and logistics necessary to get "Choose Your Own Adventure" style content going would blow the 'producers' minds, and the budget would be beyond absurd using standard industry practices.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday November 12 2015, @08:32PM
Not to mention the fact that you've got an exponential decrease in ratings per branch as you go. Even if there are only 2 options per branch within 3 branches you're down to an eight of the viewership. And probably less as people will choose not to watch. But to get that eight of the viewership each, you're now financing something that's going to be at least 4 times as expensive and getting more and more expensive as the plots diverge and you're able to reuse less of the episodes.
It's kind of a cool idea, but you're absolutely right about the logistics of it.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 12 2015, @11:54PM
No, you guys are wrong. Think about it as a project manager. You already have the studio and talent booked. The time required to shoot "B" roll (as it's known) in that setting is far less costly than doing a separate, fresh shoot. Thus the marginal cost of producing that 3 minutes of sub plot is quite low.
Economies of scale is what it's about.
Repeat viewing plus engagement are arguable, given the loss in general audience and engagement.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @04:56PM
Why did you bold the guy's last name?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:09PM
So you'd notice he is a jew?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @09:23PM
Why are jews named after plants?
baum
zweig
Shimmel (ok, technically a fungus is maybe a different phylum from plants)
Spinoza (spinach?)
Maimonides (I give up. apparantly I was overgeneralizing)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @01:36AM
> So you'd notice he is a jew?
Absent any other explanation and given e-follower's well-known racism it sure looks that way.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:07PM
I went to a professional trade show (NAB), where a guy was demoing his weather animations designed to keep the viewers engaged.
He was talking about the viewers in about the same way you'd talk about someone's out-of-control four year-old.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:35PM
I went to a professional trade show (NAB), where a guy was demoing his weather animations designed to keep the viewers engaged. He was talking about the viewers in about the same way you'd talk about someone's out-of-control four year-old.
When did it get too expensive to hire a weather girl?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:54PM
Apparently, women would be amongst the weather-watching public.
Having both a babe and a hunk sharing the weather stage is a recipe for disaster.
(Score: 2) by That_Dude on Friday November 13 2015, @12:33AM
Hear the screams and cries of those caught in the swirl as the toilet flushes!
I hit the handle years ago.
It's a damn shame what gets advertised on public TV - lawsuit ads for bad pills and medical devices, yet the next set of commercials sell more of the same. It's not enough that pain pills work - ask your doctor or pharmacist if chemical castration is right for you!
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Thursday November 12 2015, @04:40PM
The "younger viewers" have already learned how to avoid commercials entirely. The genie is already out of the bottle.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmoschner on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:09PM
This is not driven by an attempt to appeal to the "youngin's" who "don't much care for dem ads" but rather because there is demand from advertisers for airtime. Ratings are low and ad space is plentiful. By reducing the number of spaces in a show, they are trying to reduce teh inventory they have to move and make the remaining inventory more valuable.
What I guess is really happening is that they are reducing the number of promos as opposed commercials so breaks will be shorter. usually stations fill unsold commercial inventory with promos or PSAs
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @08:59PM
Did you mean "there is decreased demand"?
(Score: 1) by snufu on Thursday November 12 2015, @08:44PM
They were called "broadcasters" for a reason, they controlled the content you received. It was "push" model with a limited number of private commercial broadcasters holding all the power. You either accepted the broadcast as is and sat through ads or you got nothing.
The internet changed everything. It is now a "pull" model where the viewer has all the power. The "younger viewers" have grown up in a world where they have choices and were never "trained" on the push model. "An ad? Screw that, I'm gonna watch that independent series on this other site with no ads."
More power to them. Perhaps this will raise the level of respect for audiences and the quality of content (think BBC) rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator for ratings.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dublet on Thursday November 12 2015, @04:40PM
The majority of my TV watching is based on recorded programmes, so skipping ads is not a problem. Also here there's the good ol' Auntie Beeb, featuring no ads.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nuke on Thursday November 12 2015, @07:27PM
here there's the good ol' Auntie Beeb, featuring no ads
It does have ads - for its own upcoming programmes. There is so much of it that I end up feeling I have seen the upcoming programmes over and over, and bored with them already too. All the UK channels do it, on top of the commercial ads, particulary the less popular channels like "History" and "Drama" which attract fewer commercial ads.
Like you I now watch mainly via recording so I can fast forward the breaks, which seem endless these days - over 5 minutes sometimes.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Friday November 13 2015, @03:00PM
I don't know what people get elsewhere, but in the UK the BBC only broadcasts trailers between programmes, not during. (With the exception of long-duration magazine-type programmes, such as BBC Radio 4's Today programme, or BBC News 24's continuous rolling coverage.)
Yes, it can be a little annoying, but a 30-second trail once per hour hardly compares with the 20 minutes per hour that some commercial channels spend showing advertising.
[sig redacted]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jimtheowl on Thursday November 12 2015, @04:47PM
They have tried to 'train' people to accept the increased amount of advertising over decades, and have made it intolerable. Advertising is the main reason I cut the cord, but there is also the crappy programming and the crappy 'news', which aims to 'train' people to think as they wish.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:11PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jimtheowl on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:49PM
The sad part is the show is not free as the cable subscription costs plenty. It used to be that one of the incentives to get cable over TV on the air was the reduced number of commercials, but that is what seems a lifetime ago.
That said, I'm not even in the USA.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @04:59PM
So an ad that requires me to click on it before I get my video?
Well it works for warez sites...
(Score: 2) by goodie on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:01PM
Well at least on a warez site you get to see a nipple or two (or even more!) to get to video ;-) (Ok but that would be followed by warning from your A/V etc.)
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:06PM
You know, those young demographics only buy cable for mind-less, aimless channel surfing. Take that away and you're left with the same experience you get with steaming and downloading, but with commercials and\or a bill at the end of the month.
compiling...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ledow on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:11PM
No viewer WANTS ads.
No viewer is going to interact with ads deliberately, especially if that interaction is forced upon them.
No viewer wants to stop in the middle of a movie or TV series they love, to have to be distracted and brought out of "suspension of disbelief", to forcibly interact with an ad.
This is true now and has always been true.
The difference is that other people PAID you to put in ads, so you put them in. Now that ads aren't being paid for by the product manufacturers, you're seeing a drop in revenue. And the only way to get that back is to make those ad-buyers more money by forcing a harsher experience on your viewers.
You forget that 90% of your viewing is STILL the viewer choosing what of your content they want to watch. They stopped being your revenue long ago. It's like the free newspapers that are entirely funded by advertising. Nobody wants to read a page of news, a page of sports inside 50 pages of adverts, even if some companies will pay you to run their adverts like that. Most people probably just throw that paper in the bin anyway. That didn't matter while it was the advertisers paying.
Now the advertisers aren't paying, because they are getting no comeback, penalising the eyes that they wanted is your only solution? Really?
How about offering your content in paid, non-ad versions of some kind, on an easily accessible platform? TV channels have been subscription for decades. Online streaming of select episodes to select users who paid for them has been the norm for years. If you can't make money like that, it's because you're offering JUNK. While it's free junk, people will watch it so advertiser will think it's profitable to advertise with you(but is it really?). As soon as it can't be free any more, nobody wants your content, or you can't offer it to them at a reasonable price. Not even law-abiding collectors of popular series.
That's telling. It means the time has come to up your game or get out of the industry. Ad-funded has never really "worked" - it may generate profit at some ends but does it really put back into a brand what it costs to advertise that brand on TV? I'd be hard pressed to justify that. It's like Google Ads. I'm sure Google make a lot of money. My brother has made some money from having a popular website showing the ads. But have the advertisers benefitted? Probably not. One supplier tried to compete by giving my brother money directly to replace all his Google Ads with their ads alone site-wide - We approved of the product and the link to the content but they couldn't pay as much as Google Ads would for showing random junk. Which tells you that people who buy Google Ads are wasting their money - it's going to Google, to webmasters, and to advertise random junk on unrelated websites, not to advertise targeted products at website users who might be interested in purchasing something.
Like tobacco advertising - when it was banned in the UK, all the tobacco companies PROFITED. They no longer had to spend as much as their competitors to get the same airtime. They could keep what they would have spent on advertising, and still have the same exposure as their competitors. And yet actual sales didn't suffer (when you adjust for for other reasons, that is - tobacco was a dying industry because of health concerns, not lack of advertising).
Stop finding ways to force unwanted content on users to maximise advertising revenue, and find another source of income that's more stable, more loyal, and more useful to you. Sell your content. And make your content saleable.
Hell, even Amazon are making their own series and have come up with more interesting series in a year or so than all the junk I've seen on TV in that time.
Reliant on ads? Find another income stream, because advertising is never profitable for very long, especially in relatively new industries.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:34PM
No viewer WANTS ads.
No viewer is going to interact with ads deliberately, especially if that interaction is forced upon them.
No viewer wants to stop in the middle of a movie or TV series they love, to have to be distracted and brought out of "suspension of disbelief", to forcibly interact with an ad.
While that's all generally correct (especially the stopping in the middle of a TV program), and a reason that CBS's new Trek-backed network will fail (they show adverts, what idiots!), there are some adverts that people do want.
John Lewis do christmas adverts every year for example
2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuz2ILq4UeA [youtube.com] - 12 million views so far
2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iccscUFY860 [youtube.com] - 25 million views
2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqWig2WARb0 [youtube.com] - 15 million views
2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N8axp9nHNU [youtube.com] - 6 million views
Not just christmas either, aside from another John Lewis advert [youtube.com] people sit through the tediousness of the superbowl to watch the adverts, people turn up to cinemas before the film to watch the trailers. It's always been like this, In the 80s people wanted to know what Giles and the other one would do next [wikipedia.org]. I have to admit that I did chuckle watching this advert [huffingtonpost.co.uk] before spectre a couple of weeks ago.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:17PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:29PM
You forgot Victorias Secret commercials.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:34PM
Some advertising can actually go with the show it is interrupting. I'm reminded of the target commercials during the last episode of Lost. The other 800 commercials were crap and i regretted watching "normal" tv : ) Should have just waited for the torrent like usual!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3gVvroDSt0 [youtube.com]
If the Trek adverts were for some equipment that would have saved a poor red-shirt then i could stand it. "Is your console always blowing up and killing your co-workers? How about a surge protector for 12.99$"
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:46PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday November 13 2015, @02:06AM
Great points, but the article is that they are reducing advertising, not increasing.
But they are not decreasing it to zero.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday November 13 2015, @02:59AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday November 13 2015, @03:36AM
they are reducing advertising
They could do this by showing each ad maybe once per day. If you watch commercial TV, you face seeing the same ads over and over and over to the point that even a commercial that was done well enough to hold some interest becomes a despised annoyance. Then they start showing cut versions of the original ad, making it even worse. And they wonder why people are seeking out commercial free alternatives instead of sticking with the more convenient historical versions?
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday November 13 2015, @01:34PM
If you watch commercial TV, you face seeing the same ads over and over and over
I remember that, from long, long ago. It hasn't been a reality for me in a very long time. :)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Friday November 13 2015, @08:44PM
Not quite. There are, for example, people who watch the Superbowl simply for the ads - because they are entertaining. Of course, those are some big-budget productions, which helps.
Additionally, people need things in this society; we don't quite have Star Trek replicators figured out yet. How do you know about the best new widget to replace your old one that just died? Maybe you're not shopping around right now, but if you've been presented a business case for a product that at least superficially appears to be of decent quality and return-on-investment, you've got a place to start when the time comes. But this assumes that the ad isn't so condescending as to treat you like a puppy or small child with no self-control when presented with the shiny thing in question. You can go to Consumer Reports and maybe get some good information, but that's work, and we're very busy people. If someone gave you a break from your regular routine, and happened to drop you some useful information at the same time, you might actually appreciate the value of it.
Ultimately though, it is the brazen disrespect (even veiled contempt) that advertisers show to their audience which has led me not to partake in the radio/TV channels broadcast through my airspace in many years.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:11PM
It is true that newspapers ran advertising almost from the earliest days of typesetting and moveable print. But, the advertising was static, non-obtrusive, and generally interesting enough to the intended audience. A newspaper serving an audience in a rural area, consisting of mostly farmers, loggers, maybe some miners, ran advertisements for equipment used by these people, along side clothing and family needs. Stuff that actually interested people.
Then, along came World Wars One and Two. The US and almost every other nation with a dog in the fight created propaganda forces. Some of those propagandists were very highly successful. They swayed the opinions of vast populations around the world.
WW2 finally comes to an end, and what do the propagandists do? Go back to the farm? Go back to the tin, iron, or bronze mills? Go back down into some deep, dark mine to wrest a living from the rock? No way, Jose! They are propagandists! They've discovered that there's an easier way to make a living! Just find someone to pay them for lying to the public! Swaying public opinion is just so EASY, we can sell refigerators to the Eskimo and Aleut.
Jump higher with Keds.
You meet the nicest people on a Honda.
Double your pleasure, double your fun.
All bullshit, but what does the public know? All we need to do is milk that gullible public for cash. All lies, but such PROFITABLE LIES!
(Score: 2) by geb on Friday November 13 2015, @12:24PM
Advertising had already jumped off the deep end even during WW1. Have you ever seen the lists of products made to be sent as gifts to soldiers in the trenches? There were posters piling on the guilt and obligation has hard as they could, trying to convince wives back home that their brave husbands deserved beard wax, cakes, portable gramophones, barbed wire cutting tools, half a dozen different types of boots or jackets, and so on. The message was generally "The army doesn't provide the gear they need, step in to support your family and your country!" or something similar. The same message used whether it's a marginally useful tool, or complete crap.
This wasn't propogandists looking for work. It was manufacturers of pointless shit trying to find ways to sell their pointless shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:19PM
They are cutting minutes... OK fine. But does that mean they are still going to overlay ads on top of the show like some channels do more and more? It's completely obnoxious - 33% of the screen has an animated elephant or something bouncing around while you are trying to see the show or read the subtitles underneath. I have to remember which channels do that so I can not even bother starting to watch them - too annoying.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SrLnclt on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:38PM
Ever notice what networks showing reruns do between episodes? As soon as the credits begin they will do a split screen, squash down the credits so you can't even read them, and begin showing the next episode on 2/3 of the screen. This must look like crap for anyone still using a SD TV. Or sometimes with movies they will do this and speed up the credits - five minutes or more of movie credits scrolling by in about 30 seconds. Again unreadable without a DVR. I don't mind credits, and can't believe the actors guild wasn't up in arms over this nonsense. Why even show the credits if you can't read them. The length of the movie/episode hasn't changed, they simply do this so they can "invent" another minute or two each hour they can sell ads for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:43PM
Or really old shows where they speed it up to get more commercial time crammed in there.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday November 12 2015, @10:11PM
Or do a split screen and show credits while the next program starts, fucking with people doing timeshifting.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Friday November 13 2015, @12:30AM
And then there is also the bad habit of actually cutting away to commercial breaks half a second early, and coming back half a second late, thus allowing them to squeeze on extra ad in every couple of hours.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Friday November 13 2015, @05:01AM
Same reason for showing disclaimers and other fine print on certain ads: It's there, even if it's barely legible without freeze-framing it on a 65" TV. The legal bases are covered.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:56PM
I don't want to be advertised to any more. I don't have anything contemptuous to say about advertisers (well, maybe not much), I don't think they are the spawn of Satan, I don't think advertising should be illegal or laws should be passed about the situation or advertisers should be disemboweled or anything or have their children drawn and quartered or whatever. I just want to avoid advertising as much as possible.
I want to pay a flat fee and get access to all content, no ads. I don't want to pay the fee and find that something's not available, especially if it's something I want to see from more than ten or even seven years ago. I want to get Arrow, I want to get shows from the 60s, movies from the 30's, I want it all, and I want it without ads.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @08:54PM
Hi, Invisible Hand here. I've provided you with just what you want: the DVD box set. No ads, just TV.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @01:47AM
> I want to pay a flat fee and get access to all content, no ads.
WIll not happen. It used to be that if you weren't paying you were the product. Nowadays even if you do pay you are still the product, they just aren't so blatant about reminding you. They will record all your viewing habits - shows, pauses, rewinds, time of watch, duration of watch, location of watch, etc. Then they will sell that info on to be used to market at you from other directions - like the way facebook has teamed up with tivo, etc to show people ads on the web for stuff in the shows they watch. And don't forget in-show advertising - they will digitally insert from a list of products tailered to your profile. That box on the shelf in the background - if your family has a history alcoholism it will be case of vodka, if you have a newborn it will be box of diapers. And this is not new pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theory shit, they've been doing it for years. [adweek.com]
You want freedom from advertising? Get a VPN and torrent your tv shows. You'll get whatever product-placement ads the originally pirate got, but at least it won't be watching you back. Also, don't put your TV on the net at all - vizio does this thing where they do a low-rez sample of the picture once a second and send that to back to the mothership in order to identify what shows you are watching regardless of playback source.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday November 12 2015, @05:58PM
We seem to be headed for a singularity. Everybody says that the web and media will cease to exist if thieving scumbags skip or block ads. Now apparently advertisers are less willing to pay for ads. So - will creators stop creating? My guess is, no. In fact, I think we'll see an improvement in quality of the art.
I'd love to see how art would improve if we repealed copyright. Just imagine if anybody could make a Star Wars movie and I didn't have to depend on the Lucas/Disney monopoly for it.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday November 12 2015, @07:23PM
With repealing copyright entirely, all we would see is more endless remakes of things once Paramount, Warner Bros., etc can make Star Wars movies. I think that would be a step backwards for creativity.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Touché) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday November 12 2015, @09:31PM
With repealing copyright entirely, all we would see is more endless remakes of things once Paramount, Warner Bros., etc can make Star Wars movies. I think that would be a step backwards for creativity.
Is this not the current situation?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Friday November 13 2015, @08:36AM
Now apparently advertisers are less willing to pay for ads. So - will creators stop creating? My guess is, no. In fact, I think we'll see an improvement in quality of the art.
Unfortunately, the changes in novel publishing has already shown us that the quality dramatically decreases. Creators don't stop creating, but two things change:
1) They stop dedicating long periods of full-time work to producing one high-end creation, instead either creating in very brief periods when all of their other responsibilities (paying career, family, sleep, nutrition, household, etc.) are taken care of, and/or try to churn out creations as rapidly as possible; the end-result, either way, is markedly decreased speed and quality.
2) Unless required by a paying patron/publisher, they stop spending time on the hard, incredibly frustrating task of working with other pros to polish their creation until it's the best they can make it. It's the creative equivalent of a programmer methodically finding & squashing bugs by manually reading code: it will result in a much higher-quality end product, but it's such a pain in the ass that people often abandon or completely restart projects to avoid spending time on it.
As a parallel, look at the state of many non-professional (paid) software projects: they happily blast through the exciting/fun part of initial creation, but then when it comes to the long, boring hours of tracking down & squashing bugs, they rapidly lose interest and either drift away from the project or decide to start over from scratch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @12:33PM
Unfortunately, the changes in novel publishing has already shown us that the quality dramatically decreases.
Quality is subjective, so this is meaningless.
As a parallel, look at the state of many non-professional (paid) software projects
But look at non-free proprietary user-subjugating software and what you'll see is a lack of respect for users' freedoms, many abusive 'features', a lack of security, and the same problem that you just mentioned.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday November 13 2015, @01:43PM
As a parallel, look at the state of many non-professional (paid) software projects: they happily blast through the exciting/fun part of initial creation, but then when it comes to the long, boring hours of tracking down & squashing bugs, they rapidly lose interest and either drift away from the project or decide to start over from scratch.
That's not what I actually see when I look at free software. The website we're posting on is built using several such free software packages, many of which have spent countless man hours fixing bugs and bringing up quality.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:41PM
WAY too little, METRIC_SHIT_TON * WAY too late.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @06:59PM
Last night the wife and I watched some OTA TV for the first time in a year.
We came across the Carol Burnett Show. A show that in its heyday was 54 mins long. They sliced this show down to 15 mins to fit into a half hour slot. The other 15 mins were commercials. I saw the same commercials 4 times over. They have gone from 'we want 7% of your time' to 'we want 50% of it'. If I were that advertiser I would be pissed. They basically wasted the time of the audience and charged me to do it. That was with a syndicated show that has probably paid for itself thousands of times over. Yet they still try to squeeze more revenue out of it.
No wonder people are like 'not worth it'.
After that show was columbo. I got up and fired up code and watched the dvd rip and watched the whole show commercial free. Got the whole series on sale for 30 bucks a couple of years ago.
My wife made the comment of 'that kodi thing has me spoiled I dont want to watch commercials anymore'.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 12 2015, @07:13PM
It's actually true that advertising is brainwashing. There have been more studies recently that employ brain scans that establish that. That's why it works. Yes, there are truisms like "sex sells" that tap into the lizard brain, but more fundamental than that is the fact that images you've seen over and over again become indistinguishable from your actual memories, which you are predisposed to treat as true.
That's why it makes me happy to learn that the false memories advertising creates are losing their efficacy. It means that human beings are, ultimately, more than dumb, programmable animals. It says to me that the desire for human freedom is a bedrock desire that eventually trumps all efforts to reduce people to slavery. Amid dark days like these, it gives me hope.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday November 12 2015, @07:47PM
the fact that images you've seen over and over again become indistinguishable from your actual memories
So is that the theory behind them showing exactly the same advert over and over for months or even years?
Example (in the UK) ad for a high street optician chain : a senile old farmer shearing his sheep also shears his dog without realising it because he needs glasses. Faintly amusing the first time you see it, but I must have first seen that ad 2 years ago, and they are still broadcasting it now; someimes during every break, that's every 15 minutes. It is now just irritating. Why don't they vary it - does it really cost much to film a minute long anecdote like that?
In any case, I don't understand why a worn out weak joke would make someone go to that retailer rather than any other. I go to an optician on the basis of it being competent based on past performance, and convenient to reach.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 12 2015, @08:21PM
Booking time with directors, camera crews, actors, etc is very expensive. Ridiculously expensive. It's diametrically opposed to what your real world knowledge of starving actors/artists says it should be. That's why they play the same commercials over an over again, because it lowers the marginal cost of producing the commercial. But if you've been paying close attention to commercials in the last 3 years, you'll have noticed that they're cut differently, such that they end at different times or have other slight variations; that's because recent research has shown that people ignore sameness, and pay attention to differences. But to the conscious mind, the commercial is identical and incredibly tedious.
But in the end, the hook, the humor of the commercial when first seen, is meant to create associations in your mind and the repetition thereof is meant establish those associations as false memories. So, when you think, "I need new glasses or contact lenses," you think, "LensCrafters." You might even come to think, which is their design, that everyone who needs new glasses goes to LensCrafters and that you can trust them to do likewise for you because "you've heard of them."
They didn't know all of this stuff on a neurological level of course when they started out with modern advertising, they just noticed it worked and ran with that. Now that they have the tools to see your brain in action, they know that certain messages and repetitions invoke the same neuro-chemical changes as actual experiences, such that you are incapable of distinguishing them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday November 13 2015, @06:25PM
...because "you've heard of them."
And if you don't think that effects you, then you are highly likely to be falling for it hard.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 12 2015, @08:37PM
That is at least part of the truth. Tell a lie often enough, and loud enough, and people start to beleive it. I could look up the exact quote, but you get the idea. Let's say that you ate at Mable's Diner some years ago, and the food sucked. Mable runs adverts claiming that she makes the best food in town. You know it sucked years ago, but you hear it 16 times every day: "Mable's cooking is better than Grandma's!" So, one day you're in Mable's neighborhood, you're hungry, and you've only heard Mable's commercial about 300 times in recent memory. You stop in. The food still sucks, but the constant reminders have tricked you into ignoring what you actually knew. Mable's cooking might be better than prison food, but not by much.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday November 13 2015, @02:58AM
Tell a lie often enough, and loud enough, and people start to beleive it. I could look up the exact quote, but you get the idea....
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” [thinkexist.com]
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @08:16PM
It's actually true that advertising is brainwashing.
In what sense, and how effective is it?
There have been more studies recently that employ brain scans that establish that.
Brain scan studies are always interesting, because you can just make arbitrary assumptions about why this part of the brain lights up, among other things. We don't have a full understanding of the human brain, but don't let that stop some researchers from making unjustifiable claims.
That's why it works.
On who?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 12 2015, @08:40PM
Yes, it's true. http://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/commercial-advertising-as-propaganda [www.bl.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @12:36PM
All that shows me is that there were attempts to do so, not how effective it was. Studies on this sort of thing are usually bogus and unscientific because there are simply too many variables to consider and the issue is quite subjective, so being rigorous and getting objective results is difficult.
The FBI used to hire 'psychic' detectives and waste millions of taxpayer dollars on that (some police departments still do). Does that mean psychic detectives are a real thing? No. Pseudoscience/new age nonsense doesn't become reality merely because people believe it or make use of it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 13 2015, @01:49PM
Well - think back, or just do a search. How many pairs of stupid canvas/cotton/plastic sneakers or tennis shoes have sold at prices exceeding $100. How many people have been killed for their tennis shoes? How many women have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on stupid handbags. And, why on earth do they DO such things? There's not a pair of shoes, or a handbag in the world that's worth that much. Yet - brainwashed fools spend that much and more on a few scraps of cheap fabric.
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Friday November 13 2015, @12:37AM
>> It's actually true that advertising is brainwashing.
> In what sense, and how effective is it?
Just look at the mindless zombies who queue up for the latest iShiney.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by acp_sn on Thursday November 12 2015, @08:36PM
And I assume a private tracker would be even better if I could get in one (grumble grumble)
Any show I want, within a couple of hours of "airtime" (or sooner), in multiple resolutions (480/dvd quality, 720, or 1080), with the choice of 5.1 or 2.0 sound
When I download it once its my option to keep it, transfer it to another device, transcode to another format, share it with a friend, or delete it, without an arbitrary time limit.
Download time isn't instant, it takes maybe 20 minutes for a high res popular show, and maybe 48 hours for something that only a couple of people are seeding but I'm willing to put up with it since I can plan ahead.
Netflix and other streaming sites need to look to Steam as the model for how to deliver digital content.
Local storage, offline mode, frequent sales on recent content, and dirt cheap prices for older content. Let me save the files, transcode them for viewing on another device if I want.
The idea of "renting" digital content is absurd and I refuse to participate in it.