Future of Canadian TV

[TimG]

Am I not a freeloader if I watch free to air TV with commercials and not buy the products being advertised?

You said:

have a box that lets me watch anything, any time with no commercials and I don't have to pay...

Which suggests you are pirating. If you watch content with commercials then you are contributing. I personally can't stand commercials and am willing to pay for content without them.

[Bryan]

You said:

Which suggests you are pirating. If you watch content with commercials then you are contributing. I personally can't stand commercials and am willing to pay for content without them.

He's asking what the difference is to the broadcaster financially if you don't watch the commercials vs watching content with he commercials removed. In both cases, the advertiser does not get the thing he paid for: your viewership.

[TimG]

He's asking what the difference is to the broadcaster financially if you don't watch the commercials vs watching content with he commercials removed. In both cases, the advertiser does not get the thing he paid for: your viewership.

My argument has nothing to do with advertisers 'getting what they pay for'. It is about content providers being able to generate income from their creations. If people don't watch ads then the price that advertisers are willing to pay will drop. Eventually the price for ads will drop to the point that content providers see no point in creating the material in the first place.

Freeloaders can always argue that no one is hurt by their freeloading because, as an individual, their choices are not going to affect the money spent by advertisers. The danger comes when everyone else wonders why they are 'suckers' paying for the stuff and start freeloading as well.

[Bryan]

Do you consider people who watch the official ad-laden content, but do not watch the commercials themselves to be freeloaders?

[TimG]

Do you consider people who watch the official ad-laden content, but do not watch the commercials themselves to be freeloaders?

People doing that are not going to affect the stats used to determine ad rates because advertisers know it is very hard to not watch the ads. That is why PVRs have not dramatically affected ad rates - a lot of people simply can't be bothered to press fast forward. Using tech to eliminate the ads from content is freeloading. Edited October 2, 2016 by TimG

[Bryan]

People doing that are not going to affect the stats used to determine ad rates because advertisers know it is very hard to not watch the ads.

What colour is the sky in your world? Skipping ads is really easy, and most people who DVR something are zealots about making sure to skip all of the ads.

[Bryan]

Using tech to eliminate the ads from content is freeloading.

Then call me a freeloader, because I will not watch ads, ever. The tech I use most often is the DVR remote, but other options are becoming more and more attractive.

[TimG]

What colour is the sky in your world? Skipping ads is really easy, and most people who DVR something are zealots about making sure to skip all of the ads.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/tv-and-culture/effects-of-dvr-on-advertising1.htm

People who do watch recorded programs don't necessarily skip the ads. Studies have shown that DVR users only fast-forward through about half of all ads during playback [source: Carter]. In other words, even though they can bypass commercials, DVR users don't always do it -- they schlep through the ads out of laziness or because it's become an almost ingrained behavior after decades of passive TV watching.

...

So what's the takeaway for company and ad agency executives? A majority of people, at least in the foreseeable future, may never own a DVR. Those that do will continue to watch a healthy portion of their programming "live." Some ads will be fast-forward victims, but if they're designed correctly, with images placed in the center of the screen, they will still influence buying behavior. It should also be noted that DVRs actually increase the amount of television being watched because they allow consumers to record and watch shows that they may have been forced to miss before they owned a DVR. Any way you slice it, the bottom line seems clear: TV advertising won't be on a deathbed anytime soon.

So fast forward ads as much as you like. Human psychology means that advertisers will still pay. Use tech to remove the ads entirely and the equation changes if everyone started to use the same tech. Edited October 2, 2016 by TimG

[Bryan]

2009? Come on son. A lot more than half the ads are being skipped these days.

[TimG]

2009? Come on son. A lot more than half the ads are being skipped these days.

Ads can still have a impact even if they are skipped because people still see the images on the screen.

That is why fast forwarding ads is less of a concern to advertisers.

In any case, PVRs will eventually go the way of the fax machine as more and more content is simply streamed. This will allow content providers to provide free content to those who will watch commercials while people who hate commercials can pay for Netflix/HBO style subscriptions.

[Bryan]

Ads can still have a impact even if they are skipped because people still see the images on the screen.

That is why fast forwarding ads is less of a concern to advertisers.

In any case, PVRs will eventually go the way of the fax machine as more and more content is simply streamed. This will allow content providers to provide free content to those who will watch commercials while people who hate commercials can pay for Netflix/HBO style subscriptions.

People skip ads on streaming services too (the ones that even have ads). With Shaw's on demand "Free Range" service, you can jump right past them without even seeing them -- just click on the slider and drag right past all of them at once.

[TimG]

People skip ads on streaming services too (the ones that even have ads).

Depends on the service. Most can be defeated with an ad blocker plug-in but companies come up with tech to defeat ad blockers. It really depends on how important the ads are to the company in question. That does not change the fact that content is not free to make and producers need to be compensated.

[Ash74]

Depends on the service. Most can be defeated with an ad blocker plug-in but companies come up with tech to defeat ad blockers. It really depends on how important the ads are to the company in question. That does not change the fact that content is not free to make and producers need to be compensated.

Which is why I suggested product placement and smarter people than me should be able to come up with other clever way's to advertise.

If studios do not adapt to this new form of watching shows than yes they will perish.

I have no guilt about using KODI or other downloads and have helped others set their systems up.

The cable company's and studio's have been ripping people off for generation's. I am just taking some back

Edited October 2, 2016 by Michael Hardner
corrected spelling

[Bryan]

That does not change the fact that content is not free to make and producers need to be compensated.

Of course they do. They just need to figure out ways that work for their intended audience. Like I already said earlier in this thread, many services have figured out ways to turn millions of pirates into paying customers by making the service more attractive than pirating. The content producers and/or distributors have to keep thinking of other ways to reach the others.

I gladly pay for some streaming services, but I will not watch ads. Ever.

[bush_cheney2004]

More drama on the Canadian media distribution landscape....Bell wants to hammer startup VMedia for doing what is done in the United States. Stealing content and selling it always makes sense in Canuck logic:

"VMedia is distributing CTV and CTV Two signals outside of its licensed broadcast business and without Bell Media's consent.," Emily Young Lee said. "It's a clear copyright violation, and we asked them to stop. They refused, so we're asking for a court injunction to end the copyright infringement."

..."In the U.S people who have content are happy to provide that content to Sling. Which is essentially the same thing that we're talking about here "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bell-vmedia-skinny-basic-tv-1.3788789

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like Netflix has won the cross border piracy battle.   Thieves will have to find better tricks.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/netflix-border-hopping-television-1.3805525

 

[TimG]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Looks like Netflix has won the cross border piracy battle.   Thieves will have to find better tricks.

Oh well. I guess people have to go back to using pirate sites because the content they want to watch is not available.

Edited October 16, 2016 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

6 hours ago, TimG said:

Oh well. I guess people have to go back to using pirate sites because the content they want to watch is not available.

 

Well, that is and always has been the Canadian way (cheater boxes, sat receivers, etc.).  Nothing new there.

A CBC reader sarcastically commented that the right to watch American TV is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Ash74]

7 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Well, that is and always has been the Canadian way (cheater boxes, sat receivers, etc.).  Nothing new there.

A CBC reader sarcastically commented that the right to watch American TV is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Well I am actually watching mostly British shows so I guess I am ripping of the BBC.

 

[Bryan]

On October 16, 2016 at 5:00 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Looks like Netflix has won the cross border piracy battle.   Thieves will have to find better tricks.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/netflix-border-hopping-television-1.3805525

 

They haven't "won" anything. Plenty of VPNs still work just fine.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Bryan said:

They haven't "won" anything. Plenty of VPNs still work just fine.

 

Then why are the Netflix Canada pirates whining so much ?  

[Bryan]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Then why are the Netflix Canada pirates whining so much ?  

Don't confuse what you read on CBC with events that may be actually occurring. Nobody that I know is the least bit concerned about this. It's easy to work around.

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by Bryan

[bush_cheney2004]

Now the Canadian culture police want an internet tax to help fund more CanCon porn for television programming and other media.  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/internet-canadian-content-government-1.3810251

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Rogers abandons in-house IPTV solution for Canada...will buy services from Comcast in USA:

 

Quote

Rogers Communications won't release its next-generation video platform this year as planned, triggering a writedown worth about half a billion dollars.

Instead, the company has decided to partner with a U.S. provider to offer its customers IPTV in early 2018.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/rogers-iptv-comcast-1.3900151

 

 

[Ash74]

On December 16, 2016 at 4:37 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Rogers abandons in-house IPTV solution for Canada...will buy services from Comcast in USA:

 

 

 

It would figure Rogers would go with the most hated company in the USA.