Team Summit - General Assembly

[DishSubLA]

I think as was already suggested, the Auto-hop is really about a ton of FREE press/advertising for Dish. News of this feature will be all over the net with columnists weighing in making all the same points on this thread. IT"S ELEGANT, really. What does Dish care if they have to kill the feature down the road because they will get the word out about the Hopper system and look as if they are fighting the good fight.

Also, all DVR makers have the ability to kill the current manual skip feature should negotiations a court order them to do so. So, don't take what we have today for granted.

 

[Nova647]

So now the local affiliates will add advertisements at the bottom of the screens DURING the shows. Like fox does with it's own programming once in awhile

Just a prediction. But I could see it happening more and more =\

 

[csmith5111]

Will the AutoHop feature carry over to PTAT recordings moved to the user partition??

yes

 

[csmith5111]

A "TV Exec" is complaining over on Engadget. Here is his rant, "As a broadcast TV exec, it chaps my ass, and if I were sitting across from the table with Dish negotiating retransmission consent the price would go up thanks to this move. I realize people are going to skip ads (Hell I do it myself). But automating the process is going too far. I want viewers to have to take action in every break to avoid my spots, not to have the provider do it for them. If Dish wants to keep doing sh*t like this then they can cover ALL my lost spot revenue. Sounds fair?"

Here is my reply, "What chaps my ass is having to pay for "free" over the air T.V. Every time a contract is about to expire, both companies act like children and slander one another. If the networks are forcing Dish to pay for something that is free, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with the commercials. You guys are double dipping. You're making Dish pay you and you're still reaping the benefits of the advertising."

Holy crap yes. Thank you.

 

[DishSubLA]

So now the local affiliates will add advertisements at the bottom of the screens DURING the shows. Like fox does with it's own programming once in awhile

Just a prediction. But I could see it happening more and more =\

You hit the head on the nail. I can easily manually skip commercials today, but what we all really need is the 'bug" and moving banner killer. Banners are laid over by the channel itself often covering up the text identifying a speaker like on H and H2, etc., not to mentions local broadcaster over laying making it impossible to see part of the drama at the bottom of the screen with those HUGELY distracting moving banners where people wave and jump up and down and really INTERFERE with a show that has really engrossed you only to be jarred out of it and distracted by a moving banner.

 

[DishSubLA]

This doesn't "feel" like something D* would do, but you never know. They may be content to sit back and let Dish take the heat and see how it plays out.

It certainly isn't something TiVo would ever even contemplate.

 

[cave1376]

So now the local affiliates will add advertisements at the bottom of the screens DURING the shows. Like fox does with it's own programming once in awhile

Just a prediction. But I could see it happening more and more =\

Or have a crawl on the bottom

 

[csmith5111]

The problem is if they get sued or forced to remove the feature, there will be a lot of pissed off customers that signed up solely for that feature.

Seriously why would anyone sign up for a service for one little thing like this. There are so many other reasons to sign up for a service. This should not be the deciding factor.

 

[drwatson618]

Seriously why would anyone sign up for a service for one little thing like this. There are so many other reasons to sign up for a service. This should not be the deciding factor.

I agree but if you're comparing services, features can help sway your decisions.

 

[JM42]

If the insert their own commercials then they would be breaking copyright by altering the networks shows with their own programming.

Only if there isn't an agreement.

I could see a limited number of Dish inserted mandatory ads being negotiated into any new agreements in exchange for keeping most of autohop in place. A couple of forced, targeted ads would have extra value. Dish could sell the ads, take a cut, and pass a major portion on to the local station. The user could choose which way to view. Dish gets some revenue, the station gets some revenue, the user still skips the lions share of commercials.

It would come down to the math of how much the live+3/live+7 ratings are worth vs any potential premium for a more targeted, required spot. Dish potentially knows all our viewing habits, our credit scores, our neighborhood, etc. There should be a fair amount of value in how well they could target the ads they download to our drives.

 

[pabeader]

If the insert their own commercials then they would be breaking copyright by altering the networks shows with their own programming.

the copyright if it exists, wold be on the show content. not the commercials during the breaks.

 

[Mochuf]

B.S. This guy is NO exec. More B.S because big networks often PAY stations to be an affiliate and air their network shows, and they do get RICH from every crumb of revenue produce. Finally, those broadcast licenses belong to EVERY American as WE OWN those frequencies and the nets pay NOTHING for the privilege. So, some "TV Exec" whines because he gets a FREE LUNCH paid for by the taxpayers and makes mountains of $$$$ and NEVER pays any "royalties" or shares to each and every one of use who ALLOW him to use our frequencies. His arrogance affirms that broadcasters forget they are "GUESTS" and who no longer practice equal time and don't want who pays for all the political ads they run to be listed on a website. He and his ilk ought to start a channel for MVPD only like USA, Liftetime, etc, then he will really own every link in the chain and do what he wants, but for now, it is hubris for them to charge retrans when WE already own AND SUBSIDIZE (US Government GRANTS and LOW-NO INTEREST LOANS PAID FOR JUST ABOUT EVERY NEW DIGITAL TRANSMITTER THE BROADCASTERS NOW HAVE) to untold amounts of money. Let's not forget that most of the local stations in this country are not "mom & pop" operations, but owned by very large corporations and companies themselves who often own whole groups of stations.

The profit margin for an individual station is slim. That is why most stations are a part of huge groups, to help offset costs. And Fox is charging it's affilates a set fee for every pay-tv subscriber in the stations DMA. And that fee is scheduled to rise every year. So, at least Fox affilates are being squeezed. I don't know about the rest, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. True most stations are not "mom & pop" operations anymore. But advertising dollars are now split among them, cable channels and the internet. Back in the old days, those stations didn't have the competion for those dollars that there is today.

 

[Grandpa J]

Let’s face it there is no such thing as a “Free Lunch”. The economic model for “Free” TV was –
A) Producers make the show and sell it to and get paid by the networks / stations / basic cable.
B) In turn the network / stations / basic cable sell it to and get paid by sponsors.
C) We get to watch them for free but get commercials along with the program.

The major alternate model for TV is pay channels like HBO, Showtime, etc. where you pay to see the program without commercials but also get lots of repeats.

So as advancements in technologies that allowed viewers to get programing from cable or satellite or skip commercials etc. the program and distribution revenue stream has changed to add fees and charges to the mix. But in the end the viewer still pays either by watching commercials or paying fees.

As a retired producer and studio executive who was well paid for making programs but now is just a viewer I will say we are all going to pay one way or the other or there will be little new programing. I do skip commercials but as it becomes easier to do it, we will all end up with more and more commercials incorporated in to the programs and / or more fees and charges. Repeating there is no such thing as a “Free Lunch”.

 

[osu1991]

Let’s face it there is no such thing as a “Free Lunch”. The economic model for “Free” TV was –
A) Producers make the show and sell it to and get paid by the networks / stations / basic cable.
B) In turn the network / stations / basic cable sell it to and get paid by sponsors.
C) We get to watch them for free but get commercials along with the program.

The major alternate model for TV is pay channels like HBO, Showtime, etc. where you pay to see the program without commercials but also get lots of repeats.

So as advancements in technologies that allowed viewers to get programing from cable or satellite or skip commercials etc. the program and distribution revenue stream has changed to add fees and charges to the mix. But in the end the viewer still pays either by watching commercials or paying fees.

As a retired producer and studio executive who was well paid for making programs but now is just a viewer I will say we are all going to pay one way or the other or there will be little new programing. I do skip commercials but as it becomes easier to do it, we will all end up with more and more commercials incorporated in to the programs and / or more fees and charges. Repeating there is no such thing as a “Free Lunch”.

But its not either/or, its become both for OTA. Paying fees and still having to put up with commercials, onscreen bugs, etc. If the stations are going to put 20 - 22 mins of commercials into an hour of programming, then they shouldn't be getting retransmission fees too. Now, I the viewer, am having to pay for the programming and the commercials.

 

[jbrooks987]

Now, I the viewer, am having to pay for the programming and the commercials.

You always have. TV stations have always had to pay for the programming and production of programs and commercials. Those costs will get passed to the advertisers and the advertiser will pass those costs to you by building it into the price they charge for the goods and services they offer.

 

[Grandpa J]

But its not either/or, its become both for OTA. Paying fees and still having to put up with commercials, onscreen bugs, etc. If the stations are going to put 20 - 22 mins of commercials into an hour of programming, then they shouldn't be getting retransmission fees too. Now, I the viewer, am having to pay for the programming and the commercials.

Only partly true, the advertising rates get cut and / or increases are held down as “eye balls” watching commercials decreases as a result of new technologies. But production costs go up, so revenue to make and pay for production and distribution costs does not always keep up with costs. Hence these new and increased fees. Above the line talent and below the line labor and material costs are a fact of life as are distribution costs in the entertainment business.

Yes, a hit show will throw off profits but think of how many shows are cancelled after 1 year or less. These almost never get their costs back. Also consider the many failed pilots and cost of many scripts that are never made at all. These are factored into to the revenue cost stream that you and I are covering by the commercials and fees revenue stream. Again we are all paying one way or another; it’s just some forms of payment are more visible (direct) than others.

 

[osu1991]

My statement was in regards to your statement that it was "viewers still pay by EITHER watching commercials or PAYING fees". This doesn't hold true for over the air broadcast stations. It is BOTH. We are paying fees and having to deal with commercials. They are double dipping.

The national networks and the local stations have both become greedy. There are so many shows cancelled after one season because all the media groups have watered down their product. They got greedy trying to sell commercial time on 10 niche channels, when they don't have enough decent programming for 2 channels.

 

[Tampa8]

My statement was in regards to your statement that it was "viewers still pay by EITHER watching commercials or PAYING fees". This doesn't hold true for over the air broadcast stations. It is BOTH. We are paying fees and having to deal with commercials. They are double dipping.

I hadn't thought of it that way. True dat, as they say.

 

[Grandpa J]

But its not either/or, its become both for OTA. Paying fees and still having to put up with commercials, onscreen bugs, etc. If the stations are going to put 20 - 22 mins of commercials into an hour of programming, then they shouldn't be getting retransmission fees too. Now, I the viewer, am having to pay for the programming and the commercials.

I think you don’t understand my points. But that is fine, you are certainly entitled to your own take on things. I was an industry insider and look at the economics a little differently than you.

Be well and enjoy after all that’s what we / I make programs for, that and to make money too.

 

[dare2be]

My statement was in regards to your statement that it was "viewers still pay by EITHER watching commercials or PAYING fees". This doesn't hold true for over the air broadcast stations. It is BOTH. We are paying fees and having to deal with commercials. They are double dipping.

The national networks and the local stations have both become greedy. There are so many shows cancelled after one season because all the media groups have watered down their product. They got greedy trying to sell commercial time on 10 niche channels, when they don't have enough decent programming for 2 channels.

WHOA WHOA WHOA...the double-dipping started and is still eclipsed by the "cable" networks, as they have never been "free" to the consumer, but their commercial time has been on par with broadcast networks for a while now. Broadcast networks are just now trying to catch up to the double dipping game the cable networks have done for decades.