# DVR Gaining Popularity



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

http://www.studiobriefing.net/2012/03/dvr-gaining-popularity/

According to this article only 8% of households have a DVR? That doesn't seem right to me. Shouldn't it be much higher than this? Cable company DVR's are pretty popular these days.


----------



## Playloud (Jan 6, 2008)

I suppose it depends on the area. Around here, I am sure it is much higher than 8%.


----------



## Grey Griffin (May 24, 2007)

This article says DVR penetration is at 42%:

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Networks-Ratings-DVR-1038856.aspx

This article from 2010 says between 26.5% and 47.1% depending on market:

http://www.business2community.com/trends-news/has-dvr-usage-made-tv-commercials-obsolete-01330

The one from the op is using statistics from Nielsen, they have always downplayed the importance of DVRs. It also reads like they might be saying 8% is the amount of a person's day spent watching programs from DVR. That may be accurate.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Grey Griffin said:


> The one from the op is using statistics from Nielsen, they have always downplayed the importance of DVRs. It also reads like they might be saying 8% is the amount of a person's day spent watching programs from DVR. That may be accurate.


Yes, the article is discussing dvr usage not ownership.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> Yes, the article is discussing dvr usage not ownership.


Ah. You are correct. I read it wrong. That makes more sense.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I wonder what the networks are going to do when they reach 80-90%? If the vast majority of people are skipping ads then advertisers are going to bail out or at the very least stop paying the outrageous prices.

Dan


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> I wonder what the networks are going to do when they reach 80-90%? If the vast majority of people are skipping ads then advertisers are going to bail out or at the very least stop paying the outrageous prices.
> 
> Dan


That is a tantalizing prospect to consider, or is it scary? Would it accelerate the growth of IPTV or a la carte? Personally I would be happy to pay for just the entertainment I want. And that massive hidden cost of TV advertising built into all our products (frequently exaggerated in posts by lrhorer ) would disappear, thus saving us lots of money. Or more likely the vendors would just find other avenues for spending their ad budget. Really have to wonder what the impact on OTA-only TV viewers would be. Perhaps our government would subsidize terrestrial broadcasters and content producers so they aren't deprived. Maybe PBS would really boom! However it's going to have to broaden it's programming to cover NASCAR, wrestling and Dancing with The Stars -- things that really appeal to the average viewer.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dlfl said:


> That is a tantalizing prospect to consider, or is it scary? Would it accelerate the growth of IPTV or a la carte? Personally I would be happy to pay for just the entertainment I want. And that massive hidden cost of TV advertising built into all our products (frequently exaggerated in posts by lrhorer ) would disappear, thus saving us lots of money. Or more likely the vendors would just find other avenues for spending their ad budget. Really have to wonder what the impact on OTA-only TV viewers would be. Perhaps our government would subsidize terrestrial broadcasters and content producers so they aren't deprived. Maybe PBS would really boom! However it's going to have to broaden it's programming to cover NASCAR, wrestling and Dancing with The Stars -- things that really appeal to the average viewer.


I would like to see less programming. There is way too much of it right now. There is a "reality" cable show for just about every possible *and ridiculous" scenario these days.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aadam101 said:


> I would like to see less programming. There is way too much of it right now. There is a "reality" cable show for just about every possible *and ridiculous" scenario these days.


One must fill 500 or more channels with something.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> I would like to see less programming. There is way too much of it right now. There is a "reality" cable show for just about every possible *and ridiculous" scenario these days.


It's not about the volume of programming, it is about the quality, or rather dearth thereof. I would be pleased to see the failure of all the silly, sensationalist crap on the tube today, and indeed, it puzzles me that anyone watches such idiotic nonsense in the first place. OTOH, I can't imagine why the National Enquirer has even a single reader.


----------



## Number528 (Oct 6, 2011)

aadam101 said:


> I would like to see less programming. There is way too much of it right now. There is a "reality" cable show for just about every possible *and ridiculous" scenario these days.


While I will never watch most of these shows, I have to point out that *someone* is. The medium is driven by results, if no one watched (or bought the National Enquirer) the products wouldn't exist.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dlfl said:


> ... And that massive hidden cost of TV advertising built into all our products (frequently exaggerated in posts by lrhorer ) would disappear, thus saving us lots of money. ...


This is an interesting (amusing?) concept and has been talk about somewhat at various times in various posts in the past. There seems to be some basic beliefs such as: 

Advertising increases the cost of products.
If companies stopped advertising the cost of products would be less.
I basically disagree with both of the above statements.

Regardless of what anyone wants to believe the reason companies market products (advertise) is because over all it is profitable to do so and having less profitable companies doesn't make products cost less.

It is somewhat true that we would be saving lots of money if advertising would disappear. The reason however isn't because stuff would cost less it is because there would not be anything much to buy and we would be in some form of a pre-industrialised agricultural society.

The bases of our capitalist society is that entrepreneurs not only have the ability to develop new products but also the ability to market (advertise) and sell those products to profit from their development. If you take away marketing (advertising) to a great extent you take away the ability to profit from development of new or better products, which results in removing the incentive to develop new or better products.

Also without marketing (advertising) you basically eliminate or significantly reduce competition. Because to have competition not only do you have to have competing products and services the consumer has to know about them. Competition is another engine that pushes the development of better products and helps deduce the cost to consumers. Without it we would get more costly and inferior products.

So while I think it sucks to be consistently marketed to, I understand that I also benefit greatly from the process.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Our society has been brainwashed into thinking that more is always better, hence the reason why there's 500 channels with nothing to watch. Part of that has to do with, you guessed it, advertising. I've got nothing against companies wanting to educate consumers about their products. I just don't like the way the vast majority of them go about it. Some commercials are well worth watching whereas others are a complete waste of my time and sensibility. 

If vendors stopped advertising there would actually be less quality TV to watch. Game shows and reality TV are the cheapest shows to produce so unless you want a steady diet of crap like that to consume you've got to suck it up and take the commercials. TV shows are expensive to produce, considering that many actors get upwards of a million bucks per episode of a popular show. Pull the advertising and studios lose their subsidy to help cover the costs.

That being said, I record everything I watch and skip through about 98% of all commercials.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> ...... And that massive hidden cost of TV advertising built into all our products (frequently exaggerated in posts by lrhorer ) would disappear, thus saving us lots of money.........





atmuscarella said:


> This is an interesting (amusing?) concept and has been talk about somewhat at various times in various posts in the past. There seems to be some basic beliefs such as:
> 
> Advertising increases the cost of products.
> If companies stopped advertising the cost of products would be less.
> ...


I basically agree with you. When you quoted me above you left out the next part of what I said, here:


dlfl said:


> .......... Or more likely the vendors would just find other avenues for spending their ad budget. .............


Generally, a product that isn't advertised will lose in market competition to a competing product that is advertised. Thus even though it might be a better buy it will not sell. So the true statement is that advertising does increase the cost of the product, but removing that cost means the product goes off the market -- so the consumer cannot realize the advantage of the reduced cost.

This results from the behavior of most consumers. Ads are the predominant mechanism for getting information about products. They are too lazy, or too busy (your choice), to research information about products so they allow ads to influence them. (The same effect occurs in spades in political campaigns.) There is an existance proof that things don't have to work that way: Consumer Reports magazine. For a few bucks per year you can get unbiased consumer-oriented test results and ratings. Currently CR is used by only a tiny percentage of consumers and thus can offer only very limited scope of coverage. If a large fraction of consumers would support it, it would have the budget to test and report on just about every product and probably also reduce its subscription costs to boot.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I basically agree with you. When you quoted me above you left out the next part of what I said, here:
> 
> Generally, a product that isn't advertised will lose in market competition to a competing product that is advertised. Thus even though it might be a better buy it will not sell. So the true statement is that advertising does increase the cost of the product, but removing that cost means the product goes off the market -- so the consumer cannot realize the advantage of the reduced cost.
> 
> This results from the behavior of most consumers. Ads are the predominant mechanism for getting information about products. They are too lazy, or too busy (your choice), to research information about products so they allow ads to influence them. (The same effect occurs in spades in political campaigns.) There is an existance proof that things don't have to work that way: Consumer Reports magazine. For a few bucks per year you can get unbiased consumer-oriented test results and ratings. Currently CR is used by only a tiny percentage of consumers and thus can offer only very limited scope of coverage. If a large fraction of consumers would support it, it would have the budget to test and report on just about every product and probably also reduce its subscription costs to boot.


I found CR to give high ratings to products that are no longer available, to test products in a way that I would never use them IE like sand in a washer when I don't live at the beach. I like the reviews that people who bought the produce write, I discount the ones that got DOA units but look for points that matter to me.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Number528 said:


> While I will never watch most of these shows, I have to point out that *someone* is. The medium is driven by results, if no one watched (or bought the National Enquirer) the products wouldn't exist.


That's the basic fact and no amount of whining about it is going to change it. I would add that the effectiveness of the ads (including the absolutely worthless ones) is the driving force behind this.


mr.unnatural said:


> Our society has been brainwashed into thinking that more is always better.......


Slight correction: Our society has allowed itself to be brainwashed. If the average person isn't able to resist brainwashing attempts, we are doomed. However hope is on the horizon! When we achieve the goal recently stated by our President that 100% of us get a college education, I am absolutely certain that brainwashing attempts will no longer succeed.  And I'm even more certain that college costs will skyrocket at an even higher rate than they have been. But will what is being learned increase??


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dlfl said:


> ... Our society has allowed itself to be brainwashed. ...


Actually many people want to be brained washed and actually fight to be as brain dead as possible. This allows them to define their and other people's worth/value buy the products they own. Life is easy that way, someone who dares to have the wrong brand of sneakers, shirt, or what ever must clearly be inferior.

I am fairly sure TiVo tapped into that "this is the cool new product that everyone who is anyone has" mentality for as long as they could.

Politics is no different, If anyone wants to see a great example of people willfully allowing themselves to be brained washed just look at the number of people currently receiving benefits from a Gov program who claimed they never used a gov social program:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/02/11/GOP-Cuts-Budget-with-an-Axe-Instead-of-a-Scalpel.aspx#page2​


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> Our society has been brainwashed into thinking that more is always better, hence the reason why there's 500 channels with nothing to watch. Part of that has to do with, you guessed it, advertising. I've got nothing against companies wanting to educate consumers about their products. I just don't like the way the vast majority of them go about it. Some commercials are well worth watching whereas others are a complete waste of my time and sensibility.
> 
> If vendors stopped advertising there would actually be less quality TV to watch. Game shows and reality TV are the cheapest shows to produce so unless you want a steady diet of crap like that to consume you've got to suck it up and take the commercials. TV shows are expensive to produce, considering that many actors get upwards of a million bucks per episode of a popular show. Pull the advertising and studios lose their subsidy to help cover the costs.
> 
> That being said, I record everything I watch and skip through about 98% of all commercials.


There were only two or three actors that made over 1 million per episode last year. The rest of the highly paid actors aren't anywhere close to one million per episode.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Either way actors are over paid. They work what a few days, maybe, on an episode? And in those couple of days most make more then the average person makes in an entire year. Hell the cast of Jersey Shore, at stupid reality show, makes more per episode then most people make in a year.

Dan


----------



## jonbig (Sep 22, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Either way actors are over paid. They work what a few days, maybe, on an episode? And in those couple of days most make more then the average person makes in an entire year. Hell the cast of Jersey Shore, at stupid reality show, makes more per episode then most people make in a year.
> 
> Dan


My, this is naive.

Actors are paid what the market demands. If no one is willing to pay for an actor's product, he doesn't get work and doesn't get paid. if people are willing to pay the price they are charging, then by definition they deserve what they make, since the actor didn't hold a gun to someone's head and take their pay by force.

If you think they aren't paid what they are worth, simply don't consume what they produce. If enough people agree with you, the actor's income will dry up.

Thinking your way is the road to perpetual unhappiness, fueled by envy.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I wonder what the networks are going to do when they reach 80-90%? If the vast majority of people are skipping ads then advertisers are going to bail out or at the very least stop paying the outrageous prices.
> 
> Dan


DVR usage has already impacted the networks. The ratings of an episode of 30 Rock sagged because the episode wasn't recorded by DVRs do to incorrect guide data. Ratings affect what networks can charge advertisers.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

jonbig said:


> My, this is naive.
> 
> Actors are paid what the market demands. If no one is willing to pay for an actor's product, he doesn't get work and doesn't get paid. if people are willing to pay the price they are charging, then by definition they deserve what they make, since the actor didn't hold a gun to someone's head and take their pay by force.
> 
> ...


Less people are watching TV and movies these days, yet movie ticket and cable TV prices keep going up and up. The entertainment industry is trying to fight this by using walled gardens and licensing restrictions, but the entertainment industry is like any other market that's over-inflated. The bubble will burst eventually.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Either way actors are over paid. They work what a few days, maybe, on an episode? And in those couple of days most make more then the average person makes in an entire year. Hell the cast of Jersey Shore, at stupid reality show, makes more per episode then most people make in a year.
> 
> Dan


From what I've read, doing TV shows is grueling work compared to movies. 12 to 18 hour days, six to seven days a week. It's alot of work. I know I would never want to do it.

It would be unusual for the star of a show to only be working a couple of days a week. since the stars are typically in most of the scenes, they need to be around alot.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

aadam101 said:


> http://www.studiobriefing.net/2012/03/dvr-gaining-popularity/
> 
> According to this article only 8% of households have a DVR? That doesn't seem right to me. Shouldn't it be much higher than this? Cable company DVR's are pretty popular these days.


With digital conversions on most CableCos, DVRs are must have since the VCR is pretty much obsolete and other methods of recording require more geekiness...


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> This is an interesting (amusing?) concept and has been talk about somewhat at various times in various posts in the past. There seems to be some basic beliefs such as:
> 1. Advertising increases the cost of products.


It almost inevitably does, although in some cases not at first. In order to maintain viability, a company must sell their product at competitive prices. Until such time as their ad campaign bankrupts the competition or the competition starts advertising, the company has to take it in the shorts. At that point, prices must rise, or else the company will eventually go bankrupt themselves.



atmuscarella said:


> If companies stopped advertising the cost of products would be less.


This of course is not true, at least not in the short term. In a free market, however, supply and demand pressures will force profits to minimal levels over time. Of course, in most sectors, our market is nothing like free. Advertising bears a fair amount of the blame for this.



atmuscarella said:


> Regardless of what anyone wants to believe the reason companies market products (advertise) is because over all it is profitable to do so


Well, duh. More to the point, it increases revenue differentially against any competitor who does not advertise. It is a short term advantage, however, and long term has no effect whatsoever except to increase the costs of production, which costs are inevitably passed on to consumers.



atmuscarella said:


> and having less profitable companies doesn't make products cost less.


It is utter nonsense to suggest dropping upwards of 30% of expenditures will make a company less profitable. There is not a single company on Earth that would not gladly eliminate their ad budget if they could be assured their sales would not drop. If all advertising were eliminated, this is precisely what would happen, except for those items which rely mostly on impulse buying. If one company in a market sector drops their advertising, however, while all the other companies maintain their advertising, then that company will enjoy a huge temporary increase in profitability, but over time their revenue stream will erode to levels far lower than previous levels. If there is anything most companies hate, it is a drop in revenue - although in many cases they may be better off.



atmuscarella said:


> It is somewhat true that we would be saving lots of money if advertising would disappear. The reason however isn't because stuff would cost less it is because there would not be anything much to buy and we would be in some form of a pre-industrialised agricultural society.


You need to learn some history. Commerce in pre-industrialized, primarily agricutural societies was massive. The industrial revolution made the production of new products easy and supplied an infrastructure that allowed for the rapid delivery of products to market. This effect was felt for nearly 100 years despite the absence of modern advertising. Advertising, in its current form, wasn't developed until the 1920s.



atmuscarella said:


> The bases of our capitalist society is that entrepreneurs not only have the ability to develop new products


Too bad entrepreneurs are strongly discouraged from developing new products. Personal patents are virtually never upheld in the face of corporate litigation.



atmuscarella said:


> but also the ability to market (advertise)


Marketing is not the same as advertising, but even if it were, individual entrepreneurs are not generally able to afford advertising. Forcing an individual to engage in advertising merely further discourages the individual inventor from developing devices. In the best of situations, corporate entities have a tremendous advantage. Add in advertising to the mix, and the individual doesn't stand a chance.



atmuscarella said:


> and sell those products to profit from their development. If you take away marketing (advertising) to a great extent you take away the ability to profit from development of new or better products, which results in removing the incentive to develop new or better products.


Again, history proves you quite wrong. New and innovative products have been produced at an astounding rate since at least 1500 B.C.E. That items were not appearing at the explosive rate we see today does not mean they did not appear at a nonetheless prodigious rate. What concerns me much more than the rate of production, however, is the quality of that production. Most of what I see being produced today is junk, only purchased by those with more money than sense. Don't expect me to be impressed by large volumes of junk. I would much rather have a choice of much fewer, highly useful items.



atmuscarella said:


> Also without marketing (advertising) you basically eliminate or significantly reduce competition.


Where do you get this nonsense? Advertising serves one and only one purpose: to limit or if possible eliminate competition.



atmuscarella said:


> Because to have competition not only do you have to have competing products and services the consumer has to know about them.


For most products, that requires only a very low level of information distribution, and it need not necessarily be via advertising, "advertising" being defined as the media blitz we see today.



atmuscarella said:


> Competition is another engine that pushes the development of better products and helps deduce the cost to consumers. Without it we would get more costly and inferior products.


First of all, the link is not direct, and often competition fosters the development of inferior, but less expensive products. More to the point, however, advertising strongly discourages competition. It inexorably favors the giant corporation over the small business. If what you say were even remotely true, there would be 400 automobile manufacturers in the U.S. (which there should be). Please name the other 396.



atmuscarella said:


> So while I think it sucks to be consistently marketed to, I understand that I also benefit greatly from the process.


Someone drank the cool-aide.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> From what I've read, doing TV shows is grueling work compared to movies. 12 to 18 hour days, six to seven days a week. It's alot of work. I know I would never want to do it.


You think it is more grueling than working in a sweat shop? Working as a migrant farm worker? "A lot of work" might reasonably be a justification for a 50% increase or at a stretch 100% in salary. 30,000% and more is just unconscionable.



aaronwt said:


> It would be unusual for the star of a show to only be working a couple of days a week. since the stars are typically in most of the scenes, they need to be around alot.


You are ignoring the fact the cast is on hiatus most of the year. At most, a season will sport 24 episodes, and most do not require a full week of filming to produce an episode.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jonbig said:


> Actors are paid what the market demands.


No, they aren't. In the case of a movie actor, the actor is paid more or less not by how much each person is willing to pay, but how *MANY* people are willing to pay it. There is no feedback as would be present in any market situation, since the consumer does not control the price of the product.

In the case of the TV actor working for a broadcast network, the consumer does not pay the actors wages directly, at all. The companies that advertise pay for the production of the show, but since they pass on the cost of advertising to the consumer, they don't really care what it costs. The consumer is forced to pay the bill even if they don't watch the show. That is unethical in any light.



jonbig said:


> If no one is willing to pay for an actor's product, he doesn't get work and doesn't get paid.


Are you saying there are a lot of actors competing for a limited number of roles? If so, then the laws of supply and demand, operable in any free market, would force a lower wage, not a higher one.



jonbig said:


> if people are willing to pay the price they are charging, then by definition they deserve what they make, since the actor didn't hold a gun to someone's head and take their pay by force.


That's just pure horse$#!%. It's a ridiculous notion which derives directly from the "Devine right of nobility" nonsense of the middle ages. It proposes that one should receive enumeration based upon who they are, not what and how much they produce.



jonbig said:


> If you think they aren't paid what they are worth, simply don't consume what they produce.


I don't. So clearly you are going to reimburse me all the ad money I pay for the products I buy with no desire to watch the shows they produce? A yearly check will be fine.



jonbig said:


> If enough people agree with you, the actor's income will dry up.


To be replaced by someone I have no more desire to watch than the previous actor.



jonbig said:


> Thinking your way is the road to perpetual unhappiness, fueled by envy.


I am not envious of any actor. I merely recognize that if the situation were even remotely fair, actors would all be paid guild scale. There is no excuse for not doing so, no matter who they are.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Our society has been brainwashed into thinking that more is always better, hence the reason why there's 500 channels with nothing to watch.


There is a major flaw in that logic. The reason I want more channels is for greater variety. In particular, I don't watch any broadcast network programming, except PBS, and I avoid Cable networks. If it weren't for the 500 channels, I wouldn't have much to watch.



mr.unnatural said:


> Some commercials are well worth watching whereas others are a complete waste of my time and sensibility.


That is deliberate. A major genre of advertising seeks to have the consumer *NOT* watch the ad, but merely to have it in the background, so they see the logo and hear the name. It breeds familiarity with the product.



mr.unnatural said:


> If vendors stopped advertising there would actually be less quality TV to watch. Game shows and reality TV are the cheapest shows to produce so unless you want a steady diet of crap like that to consume you've got to suck it up and take the commercials.


Then why is it that PBS has a very consistently high quality of programming?



mr.unnatural said:


> TV shows are expensive to produce, considering that many actors get upwards of a million bucks per episode of a popular show. Pull the advertising and studios lose their subsidy to help cover the costs.


Cut the revenue stream, and the prices paid to actors will plummet. Make all programming premium / pay programming, and I seriously doubt very many will pay for a channel of "reality" programming. In the main people only watch such drivel because they think of it as "free".



mr.unnatural said:


> That being said, I record everything I watch and skip through about 98% of all commercials.


I record everything I watch and 98% of it doesn't have commercials in the first place.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Someone drank the cool-aide.


Maybe but It is basically impossible to sell anything new or to sell a competitive to an existing product without spending resources on marketing/advertising. I don't care if it is a mega corporation like Apple trying to sell products that no one has ever seen before or someone trying to start selling lemonade in their front yard. No advertising means no or very low sales - no or very low sales means the producer stops producing that is the reality of how our economic system works. And just for the record printing "Lemonade For Sale" on a poster and putting it up in ones yard is advertising and does cost money.

Sure at this point our society provides a certain amount of demand that would still be there if producers stopped marketing/advertising. If marketing/advertising stopped for many products we would continue to buy what we already do/know, maybe the price would drop or maybe the companies would just make more profit. The problem is without marketing/advertising the development of new or improved products would be greatly reduced or even stopped and there would be basically no way for competitors to get into existing markets.



lrhorer said:


> First of all, the link is not direct, and often competition fosters the development of inferior, but less expensive products. More to the point, however, advertising strongly discourages competition. It inexorably favors the giant corporation over the small business. If what you say were even remotely true, there would be 400 automobile manufacturers in the U.S. (which there should be). Please name the other 396..


Well the last time I looked there where allot more than 4 automobile manufactures in the U.S., I don't know how many there are but came up with at least 12.

However I think you are living in a fantasy land if you believe we would have better or cheaper cars if there where 400 automobile manufactures in the U.S.. A significant portion of the cost of cars is development, more manufactures means less sales for each manufacture which means each car has to cost more to cover development or they have to do less development. Either way you do not get better or cheaper cars.

We got better and cheaper cars when new manufactures could come into the market by telling us through marketing/advertising that they had either a better or cheaper car to sell us. Do you really think anyone would have even know about Toyota or Honda not to mention ever buy one of their cars if it wasn't for those companies marketing/advertising their products?

If you want to go back 100+ years and talk about cars we can because without extensive marketing/advertising for that time there would be zero car companies. There was no direct demand for cars, the people who invented them created the demand over time through marketing/advertising. That is how it normally works for new products marketing/advertising creates the demand. One could certainly argue there would still be demand for cars now without marketing/advertising but I am not sure it would result in more choices, better products, or lower costs. The one thing I am certain of is we will never know because the only way the whole auto industry stops marketing/advertising is if the Government mandated it.

Just one more general comment, we have reach a point in sciences where most advancements are not going to be made by one person in their garage. The same is true for new advanced products. No individual or small organisation could develop something like an ipad. Research and development costs are high and can only be paid for by large well funded organisations. That can be Governments, Non-Profits, or Corporations. I happen to believe there is a need and a place for all of them and marketing/advertising is and will continue to be needed for any/all of them to operate and provide us with whatever "stuff" the future will bring. Marketing/advertising drives our whole society if we like it or not.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> You think it is more grueling than working in a sweat shop? Working as a migrant farm worker? "A lot of work" might reasonably be a justification for a 50% increase or at a stretch 100% in salary. 30,000% and more is just unconscionable.
> 
> You are ignoring the fact the cast is on hiatus most of the year. At most, a season will sport 24 episodes, and most do not require a full week of filming to produce an episode.


Multiple episodes are typically filmed concurrently which also allows them take advantage of filming locations. They don't typically film one episode, move to the next, etc.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

No matter what some people think of advertising - it works. It works for Kool-Aid and it works for Apple. A larger corporation investing hundreds of millions in a new product cannot wait for word of mouth advertising to grow the product sales into the needed volume for the slim profit margins of today.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

lrhorer said:


> Then why is it that PBS has a very consistently high quality of programming?


That's just pure horse$#!%. PBS has horrible programming. Furthermore, PBS is funded by our Tax dollars. Those of us with a tax liability must pay our taxes or face prosecution and jail time. Forcing citizens to pay for your TV programming is unconscionable and amounts to forced servitude.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

shwru980r said:


> That's just pure horse$#!%. PBS has horrible programming. Furthermore, PBS is funded by our Tax dollars. Those of us with a tax liability must pay our taxes or face prosecution and jail time. Forcing citizens to pay for your TV programming is unconscionable and amounts to forced servitude.


:up:

Though I have to add that program quality is in the eye of the beholder. Though, I also want to ask, what does PBS do that 200 other cable channels cannot?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

daveak said:


> .. I also want to ask, what does PBS do that 200 other cable channels cannot?


Successfully get funding from advertisers, the Government, and directly from viewers. 

That said the last data I saw showed public broadcasting getting 55-60% of their funding from private sources with the remainder directly or indirectly from Federal, State, and local government, which I believe totals around 1 billion dollars from all government direct and indirect sources (NPR & PBS). Which is what about $3/person/year or maybe $10/year/taxpayer? If this is a good tax payer investment or not is also in the eyes of the beholder but it really isn't much money. Personally I watch PBS or listen to NPR very little but for some mostly unexplainable reason do like that it is there.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

shwru980r said:


> That's just pure horse$#!%. PBS has horrible programming. Furthermore, PBS is funded by our Tax dollars. Those of us with a tax liability must pay our taxes or face prosecution and jail time. Forcing citizens to pay for your TV programming is unconscionable and amounts to forced servitude.


Sorry if something educational or sophistated offends you. I don't watch PBS, but I do concur that it offers quality programming. It's just not the type of programming I tend to watch on a regular basis. It's target audience tends to be in a higher income bracket with more sophisticated tastes. If Snookie or Dog the Bounty Hunter is your cup of tea then PBS won't float your boat.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> ...... Of course, in most sectors, our market is nothing like free. Advertising bears a fair amount of the blame for this.


Advertising is powerful because people respond to it. It's nonsensical to "blame" advertising. What is your practical solution?


lrhorer said:


> ......Well, duh. More to the point, it increases revenue differentially against any competitor who does not advertise. It is a short term advantage, however, and long term has no effect whatsoever except to increase the costs of production, which costs are inevitably passed on to consumers.


Very wrong! The long term effect is the company goes out of business if it doesn't advertise, in which case the lower product cost no longer exists.


lrhorer said:


> ......It is utter nonsense to suggest dropping upwards of 30% of expenditures will make a company less profitable. There is not a single company on Earth that would not gladly eliminate their ad budget if they could be assured their sales would not drop. If all advertising were eliminated, this is precisely what would happen, except for those items which rely mostly on impulse buying. If one company in a market sector drops their advertising, however, while all the other companies maintain their advertising, then that company will enjoy a huge temporary increase in profitability, but over time their revenue stream will erode to levels far lower than previous levels. If there is anything most companies hate, it is a drop in revenue - although in many cases they may be better off.


You're mixing short term and long term effects here. In the long term dropping advertising will cause the compnay to go out of business, which is kind of the ultimate realization of being "less profitable".


lrhorer said:


> ......Too bad entrepreneurs are strongly discouraged from developing new products. Personal patents are virtually never upheld in the face of corporate litigation.
> .......
> 
> Marketing is not the same as advertising, but even if it were, individual entrepreneurs are not generally able to afford advertising. Forcing an individual to engage in advertising merely further discourages the individual inventor from developing devices. In the best of situations, corporate entities have a tremendous advantage. Add in advertising to the mix, and the individual doesn't stand a chance.


I agree. But what is a proposed solution -- that is one that doesn't require all people to become perfect?


lrhorer said:


> ......Where do you get this nonsense? Advertising serves one and only one purpose: to limit or if possible eliminate competition.


No! Advertising serves a purpose (not the only one) of winning competitions!


lrhorer said:


> ......First of all, the link is not direct, and often competition fosters the development of inferior, but less expensive products. More to the point, however, advertising strongly discourages competition. ......


.
Again, what is your proposed alternative -- one that doesn't require all people to become intellligent informed consumers?


lrhorer said:


> ......Someone drank the cool-aide.


What flavor are you drinking?


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

mr.unnatural said:


> Sorry if something educational or sophistated offends you. I don't watch PBS, but I do concur that it offers quality programming. It's just not the type of programming I tend to watch on a regular basis. * It's target audience tends to be in a higher income bracket with more sophisticated tastes.* If Snookie or Dog the Bounty Hunter is your cup of tea then PBS won't float your boat.


You would think 'these people' would not need tax subsidies to get the programming they want. I'm just sayin'


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

daveak said:


> :up:
> 
> Though I have to add that program quality is in the eye of the beholder. Though, I also want to ask, what does PBS do that 200 other cable channels cannot?


The real question is what does PBS do that 200 other cable channels *will* not.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

unitron said:


> The real question is what does PBS do that 200 other cable channels *will* not.


Show less popular programming that only a fraction of Americans watch? - But everybody (well at least the about 47% who actually pay a federal income tax) has to pay for?

Will this programming always need to be subsidized by the government? Shouldn't those who watch it be willing to fully support it?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

daveak said:


> Show less popular programming that only a fraction of Americans watch? - But everybody (well at least the about 47% who actually pay a federal income tax) has to pay for?
> 
> Will this programming always need to be subsidized by the government? Shouldn't those who watch it be willing to fully support it?


Your assuming that only high income people watch PBS, that may be an incorrect assumption, PBS could go on the path of say HBO and charge a (smaller) monthly fee to watch, but I have seen some great programs on PBS by chance tuning in or reading a review of a PBS show, but I would not pay monthly as i don't watch PBS enough. (I think* Downton Abbey *is great !!)


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

If it weren't for PBS, I would have never stumbled upon shows like Monty Python's Flying Circus, Benny Hill, The Red Green Show, Faulty Towers, NOVA, Nature, Scientific American...
I'm sure there's more, but that's just off the top of my head.

Oh, and as a kid, there was always Sesame Street, Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, Zoom, The Electric Company...
Again I don't remember them all. 

So overall, I wouldn't say that PBS has been a waste of my (tax) money.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

steve614 said:


> If it weren't for PBS, I would have never stumbled upon shows like Monty Python's Flying Circus, Benny Hill, The Red Green Show, Faulty Towers, NOVA, Nature, Scientific American...
> I'm sure there's more, but that's just off the top of my head.
> 
> Oh, and as a kid, there was always Sesame Street, Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, Zoom, The Electric Company...
> ...


The North Carolina PBS affiliate is where I first saw Dr. Who.

It's where I currently get MI-5, which A&E carried for about 2 seasons and then abandoned.

It's where, several years ago, shows like Barney kept my niece and nephew in place for more than 3 seconds at a time without showing them commercials for sugary foods and toys every 5 minutes.

It's where I saw Jeremy Brett's excellent interpretation of Sherlock Holmes.

It's where I saw Red Dwarf.

It's where I see Nova and Frontline.

It's where I see stuff the commercial ventures rarely, if ever, carry, especially on TWC's limited lineup.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

In the UK all of the broadcast BBC channels are funded by tax dollars, and commercial free. They produce some pretty good shows with that model. And not just educational stuff like PBS, but actual sitcoms and dramas like what's on the networks here. Although their actors are paid very well which is why a lot of them end up moving to LA after they get some recognition.

Dan


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

daveak said:


> Show less popular programming that only a fraction of Americans watch? - But everybody (well at least the about 47% who actually pay a federal income tax) has to pay for?
> 
> Will this programming always need to be subsidized by the government? Shouldn't those who watch it be willing to fully support it?


I think you miss why PBS/NPR where started in the first place. To give you a better idea of what the vision was before it was called PBS it was the National Educational Television. From the beginning PBS/NPR were designed to provide programing that wasn't commercially viable as a public service. Also PBS stations are local and broadcast OTA so it is one of only a few networks broadly available without cable/satellite or access to the Internet.

There is nothing the Government spends money on that a large number of people think it shouldn't. But my opinion is that PBS/NPR provide enough public value to spend the 1 billion or so (which includes direct and indirect Federal, State, & Local Government funds) that we do, it is really pretty cheap to actually have some alternative to commercial TV.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

I know why PBS exists and I watch it and TiVo records a number of PBS shows in my home. I am just wondering allowed why it has to be supported by tax dollars - as though that is the only way for it to maintain what many consider to be 'quality' programming. Other networks also provide quality and award winning programming, why cannot PBS do the same without government subsidy? There was not the plethora of networks and channels when PBS was created - that dynamic has change dramatically. Why not change the way PBS is funded?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

daveak said:


> ... Why not change the way PBS is funded?


Because then it wouldn't be PBS anymore, even if they kept the name.

If they cut off federal funding entirely, PBS wouldn't be able to make it all up on donations and endowments and corporate sponsorships and still remain semi-indepepndent, and would have to run ads just like everybody else, which would quickly turn them into everybody else as they had to come up with enough eyeballs to get advertisers to spend enough to keep them going.

Imagine your local PBS affiliate having to interrupt the pledge breaks in their semi-annual begathons to run commercials. If they're running commercials for the local car dealers are you still going to send them any money? Neither is anybody else.

Or the federal government could give them a huge amount of money they could invest so as to operate off of the interest, which would make them completely independent of the government and the voters. Not to mention the viewers.

The Republican screaming 24/7 would drown everything else out for years.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

unitron said:


> Because then it wouldn't be PBS anymore, even if they kept the name.
> 
> If they cut off federal funding entirely, PBS wouldn't be able to make it all up on donations and endowments and corporate sponsorships and still remain semi-indepepndent, and would have to run ads just like everybody else, which would quickly turn them into everybody else as they had to come up with enough eyeballs to get advertisers to spend enough to keep them going.
> 
> ...


I think having PBS become completely independent from oversight (especially if endowed with the people's money) is not a good idea. And any organization is beholden to the people who help fund it.

To think corporate sponsorship "commercials" on PBS are anything but advertising is maybe a little naive. Advertising is already there (and people and the government still give them money), and talk has been occurring of even placing sponsorship spots in the middle of programming, kind of like regular TV. Yes the advertising is a soft pitch and located only at the beginning and end of programs, but they are still selling the corporate brand. And developing programming to promote sponsorship, whether gov or private, has to happen. You have to sell the programming to those willing to pay for it, even if it is the gov. Enough programming that policy makers do not agree with and/ or corporate sponsors will not support and PBS is in trouble.

PBS is not truly independent and never will be.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

daveak said:


> I think having PBS become completely independent from oversight (especially if endowed with the people's money) is not a good idea. And any organization is beholden to the people who help fund it.
> 
> To think corporate sponsorship "commercials" on PBS are anything but advertising is maybe a little naive. Advertising is already there (and people and the government still give them money), and talk has been occurring of even placing sponsorship spots in the middle of programming, kind of like regular TV. Yes the advertising is a soft pitch and located only at the beginning and end of programs, but they are still selling the corporate brand. And developing programming to promote sponsorship, whether gov or private, has to happen. You have to sell the programming to those willing to pay for it, even if it is the gov. Enough programming that policy makers do not agree with and/ or corporate sponsors will not support and PBS is in trouble.
> 
> PBS is not truly independent and never will be.


I'm not advocating for complete independence for them.

I think they're better off with their current diffused dependence, where no one entity supplies so much of their funding that they can push them around.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

unitron said:


> I'm not advocating for complete independence for them.
> 
> I think they're better off with their current diffused dependence, where no one entity supplies so much of their funding that they can push them around.


I agree with this. This is probably the best we can do, but I think the ideal would be a network free of government dollars. Probably not a realistic endeavor. To my libertarian bent mindset, government subsidies should be avoided whenever possible - let the market dictate the product (content).


----------



## johnh123 (Dec 7, 2000)

unitron said:


> Because then it wouldn't be PBS anymore, even if they kept the name.
> 
> If they cut off federal funding entirely, PBS wouldn't be able to make it all up on donations and endowments and corporate sponsorships and still remain semi-indepepndent, and would have to run ads just like everybody else, which would quickly turn them into everybody else as they had to come up with enough eyeballs to get advertisers to spend enough to keep them going.
> 
> Or the federal government could give them a huge amount of money they could invest so as to operate off of the interest, which would make them completely independent of the government and the voters. Not to mention the viewers.


Why should we have to fund programming with tax dollars that people don't want to see? Particularly when the people who do watch it are more affluent on the whole than the general public?

And remember, if pbs went away, it doesn't mean that the programming it has that people do want to watch would go away. Sesame street and downton abbey would still be produced and still be watched, just on other channels without gov't dollars.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

johnh123 said:


> Why should we have to fund programming with tax dollars that people don't want to see? Particularly when the people who do watch it are more affluent on the whole than the general public?
> 
> And remember, if pbs went away, it doesn't mean that the programming it has that people do want to watch would go away. Sesame street and downton abbey would still be produced and still be watched, just on other channels without gov't dollars.


So PBS never has anything on that you want to see?

Ever?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

unitron said:


> If they cut off federal funding entirely, PBS wouldn't be able to make it all up on donations and endowments and corporate sponsorships and still remain semi-indepepndent,


I've always called BS on this. PBS should be making a killing in merchandise sales. They have Barney, Sesame Street, etc. Other than Disney they probably make more money than any other network in merchandise license revenue. If they used to money to pay for TV programming they could be self sufficient.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

johnh123 said:


> Why should we have to fund programming with tax dollars that people don't want to see? Particularly when the people who do watch it are more affluent on the whole than the general public?


I agree with this. 50 years ago, when there was only a handful of channels, PBS made sense. Now we all have 500+ channels. PBS isn't needed. Someone will fill the gap they left behind.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

aadam101 said:


> I've always called BS on this. PBS should be making a killing in merchandise sales. They have Barney, Sesame Street, etc.


PBS != Children's Television Workshop.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I'm not getting into the benefits of PBS or not, but here in NJ, the state pulled the funding of the state run PBS station NJN to save money. It's now NJTV which is run by a non-profit group.

Lots of people complained at the time, but it seems to be doing well.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> I agree with this. 50 years ago, when there was only a handful of channels, PBS made sense. Now we all have 500+ channels. PBS isn't needed. Someone will fill the gap they left behind.


Seriously? Half of analog cable is paid programming and CSI re-runs.

Look at what A&E and Bravo used to be, and look at what they are now.

If there were sufficient commercial demand for what PBS runs, some commercial cable channel would be outbidding them for it.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> I've always called BS on this. PBS should be making a killing in merchandise sales. They have Barney, Sesame Street, etc. Other than Disney they probably make more money than any other network in merchandise license revenue. If they used to money to pay for TV programming they could be self sufficient.


No, they do not have Barney, Sesame Street, etc.

The production companies from whom they purchase broadcast rights for those shows have them, and the merchandising rights.

It would be like Disney not having their own channel and some other cable channel paying to be able to show Disney programming. Disney would still make the money on merchandise with Disney characters on or in it, not that cable channel.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

FYI - a completely independently funded PBS is also known as ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, ...

A subscriber (cable) funded PBS would be any cable channel. 

Heck, Discovery channel quality has gone down - it used to be pretty good, now it's programming consists of barely educational stuff with soundbites for people who have attention spans measured in milliseconds. Heck, the most educational program on Discovery might very well be Mythbusters.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Worf said:


> FYI - a completely independently funded PBS is also known as ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, ...
> 
> A subscriber (cable) funded PBS would be any cable channel.
> 
> Heck, Discovery channel quality has gone down - it used to be pretty good, now it's programming consists of barely educational stuff with soundbites for people who have attention spans measured in milliseconds. Heck, the most educational program on Discovery might very well be Mythbusters.


Just to be nitpicky, a completely independently funded PBS would be one with an endowment so large that the interest would provide their entire operating budget.

Broadcast is dependent on selling ads.

Cable channels (other than premiums like HBO) are like newspapers and magazines, dependent on a combination of ad sales and subscriber fees.

I agree with you that a drastic change in the way PBS is funded would mean it would no longer be PBS.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

unitron said:


> Just to be nitpicky, a completely independently funded PBS would be one with an endowment so large that the interest would provide their entire operating budget.
> 
> Broadcast is dependent on selling ads.
> 
> ...


That is the bottom line if PBS/NPR became commercial enterprises they would not and could not have the programming they have now. If you don't see the value in having non-commercially viable programing available then I guess you will not see the value of PBS/NPR if you do then you likely will. Either way if you think not funding PBS/NPR is going to change your taxes at all you are dreaming. With total Government expenditures (Federal, State, Local direct and indirect) only being in the 1 billion dollars per year range we talking about something less than $10/yr per tax payer. When politicians are taking about defunding PBS/NBR it isn't about the money it is about trying to stop the programing as for one reason or another they don't like it.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> ... it is about trying to stop the programing as for one reason or another they don't like it.


DING DING DING

We have a winnah!


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Keep in mind that PBS has been around a lot longer than the vast majority of current cable stations. The whole TV industry has undergone a revolution since PBS first came about. The type of programming that you used to be able to find only on PBS is now available on a multitude of cable channels, with a few exceptions. 

The educational and entertainment programming PBS is known for are still somewhat unique to PBS, but similar programming is cropping up on other channels all the time. Even with the huge number of channels currently available to the average household, PBS still has enough unique programming to keep it alive, at least for the present. I don't know of any other channels on cable that broadcast concerts by symphony orchestras or famous opera singers. They show a lot of highbrow entertainment that is only going to attract a select audience.

PBS is one of the few channels, aside from BBC America, that shows quality British programming. For decades it was the the only source of great British Sci-Fi and comedy programs available to US viewers. Some of my all-time favorite shows were shown on PBS, such as Doctor Who, Red Dwarf, Fawlty Towers, and many others. Most of these took priority for recording on my old Hitachi 2-head VCR back in the early 80's.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> PBS is one of the few channels, aside from BBC America, that shows quality British programming. For decades it was the the only source of great British Sci-Fi and comedy programs available to US viewers. Some of my all-time favorite shows were shown on PBS, such as Doctor Who, Red Dwarf, Fawlty Towers, and many others. Most of these took priority for recording on my old Hitachi 2-head VCR back in the early 80's.


I think cable is at a place where they would absolutely pick up most of the British shows available on PBS. IFC, Showtime and a few others already air some British shows.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Government support of PBS is a typical example of the "special interest" syndrome that is one of the reasons our Federal budget is growing out of control. PBS is only valuable to a small percentage of the people but these people care enough about it to vote against any politician who tries to cut PBS funding. They base their vote on that one narrow issue, igonring all the really important issues upon which that politician's positions may be much better for the country than his/her opponent's. The vast majority of voters who don't value PBS will not give the politician any credit for cutting its funding because it's such a small thing in the overall budget. Thus the political equation is simple: Don't try to reduce funding for PBS. It may cost you an election if you do. And those who benefit from the savings will not reward you at the polls.

Add up thousands of these special interest effects and you have one of the major explanations for our huge and growing debt. And why we are creeping toward socialism. It will be self-limiting, i.e., when we run out of other people's money to give away, but by then it's going to be a dismal situation. If we are truly the great people the politicians are always crowing about (to pander to our egos), perhaps we will demonstrate the moral fiber to stop this before it eats up our quality of life.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Add up thousands of these special interest effects and you have one of the major explanations for our huge and growing debt. And why we are creeping toward socialism. It will be self-limiting, i.e., when we run out of other people's money to give away, but by then it's going to be a dismal situation. If we are truly the great people the politicians are always crowing about (to pander to our egos), perhaps we will demonstrate the moral fiber to stop this before it eats up our quality of life.


Sorry you have bought into the smoke an mirrors of our current crop of politicians. Both sides want us focusing on non-relevant spending such as this. If we eliminated 100% of it we still have 98% of the Federal budget. Sooner or latter we are going to have to face up to the fact that we are either going to have to pay for government spending or stop it and talking about 2% or even 10% of the over all spending is doing nothing but wasting time. Defense, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid are over 60% of Federal spending with another 14% going to all other safety net programs, which puts your at about 75% of the spending and are the areas that have to be looked at. Anything else is just pandering to whoever the politician's base is to avoid the hard issues.

Unfortunately the general public doesn't want to hear they can not have their cake for free and can not eat it with out getting fat, so we do nothing.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> Sorry you have bought into the smoke an mirrors of our current crop of politicians. Both sides want us focusing on non-relevant spending such as this. If we eliminated 100% of it we still have 98% of the Federal budget. Sooner or latter we are going to have to face up to the fact that we are either going to have to pay for government spending or stop it and talking about 2% or even 10% of the over all spending is doing nothing but wasting time. Defense, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid are over 60% of Federal spending with another 14% going to all other safety net programs, which puts your at about 75% of the spending and are the areas that have to be looked at. Anything else is just pandering to whoever the politician's base is to avoid the hard issues.
> 
> Unfortunately the general public doesn't want to hear they can not have their cake for free and can not eat it with out getting fat, so we do nothing.


That last sentence is certainly correct, but I haven't "bought into" anything anyone says, let alone politicians. You are neglecting the fact that the "special interest" effect permeates all areas of government spending, including the 75% that you mention. Just mention cutting any piece of these major programs and the people who benefit directly from that piece will mobilize and do everything they can to defeat you in the next election -- or even mount a recall campaign. The general public won't even notice you tried to reduce our bloated budget for their benefit and thus won't support you in that election. And there certainly are many pieces of these programs that could be cut.


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

I like PBS but don't think the feds should fund it anymore. USA is out of money and there have to be huge cuts everywhere. I am willing to pay for PBS, or at least donate more often than I do right now to make up for the money not coming from the US government. The best spy series ever was on PBS. 
Reilly: Ace of Spies
I love my TiVos and can't stand to watch commercials anymore. I tried to watch some TV online that wouldn't let me fast forward through commercials and just couldn't watch them. 
I have a ReplayTv that has automatic commercial advance with lifetime service, but don't use it because TiVo is so much better.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Maybe but It is basically impossible to sell anything new or to sell a competitive to an existing product without spending resources on marketing/advertising.


Only if one defines "advertising" so broadly as to make the term irrelevant to this discussion, and doing so constitutes hand-waving. Yes, in the broadest terms, taking a pen and writing, "Whole chicken, 3.2lb." on a box containing a frozen roasting hen constitutes a communication to the potential customer concerning the specifics of the available product, which is fundamentally what advertising is, but that's not the subject at hand, and you know it. In the context of this thread, we are talking about producing a two-part industry that produces a pair of products, neither of which is is purchased by any consumer, but the cost of both of which is paid for by consumers.

In the context of this discussion, paying for a privately funded store site, such as Kmart.com, does not constitute advertising. Marketing, yes, but advertising, no. Similarly buying an infomercial does not constitute advertising. We can call it "media advertising", if you prefer, in order to differentiate it from direct advertising such as buying space on a billboard or in a trade magazine. Consumer manufacturers (and of course Madison Avenue) are in love with it, but that doesn't make it necessary and it doesn't make it good for society in general.



atmuscarella said:


> I don't care if it is a mega corporation like Apple trying to sell products that no one has ever seen before or someone trying to start selling lemonade in their front yard. No advertising means no or very low sales


Again, you need to learn some history (and quit drinking the cool-aid). For that matter, just lift your head away from the TV some time. There are many huge corporations (mine is one of them) who pull in individually $billions a year in revenue without buying a single ad. Of course, they are mostly commercial, industrial, or military vendors, and so don't sell to consumers, but it is exemplary nonetheless.

By your suggestion, almost nothing whatsoever was sold prior to 1920. That's crap. The fact is, commerce can and always has existed very well for more than 15,000 years, and on essentially as large a scale per capita as we have today. The Grand Bazaar of Istanbul has been selling to as many as half a million customers a day since 1461. It's true that runaway consumerism at the level we experience today is recent, and without question has something in part to do with advertising, but discouraging such an aberration is hardly a bad thing.



atmuscarella said:


> - no or very low sales means the producer stops producing that is the reality of how our economic system works.


No, it is the reality of what has been produced by - in large measure - media advertising. If media advertising did not exist, then it would not be true, and that would be a good thing, too.



atmuscarella said:


> And just for the record printing "Lemonade For Sale" on a poster and putting it up in ones yard is advertising and does cost money.


It is marketing, and a very efficient - if not quite the most effective - form of marketing or if you must direct advertising. It is not media advertising. See above. The fact it costs money is irrelevant, although the fact it costs a small amount of money is somewhat relevant. Similarly, producing attractive and eye-catching packaging costs money, but even does so on an ongoing basis. It does not, however, produce two products, neither of which is paid for directly by the consumer of each product. Also, it is properly not advertising at all, since by any reasonable definition, advertising, even direct advertising, is secured from a 3rd party, not produced by the 1st party.



atmuscarella said:


> Sure at this point our society provides a certain amount of demand that would still be there if producers stopped marketing/advertising.


It would be there even if the products did not exist. Again, in an effort to win this debate, you continue to try to force an equivalency between marketing and advertising, and it is simply inappropriate. They are not the same, and media advertising is not the same as direct advertising. At this point in such a debate, I might normally force the distinctions between marketing and advertising and between media and direct advertising and then demand that you produce evidence that a drop in media advertising would reduce spending volumes. I won't in this case, because a reduction in media advertising would indeed result in a reduction in impulse buying. The thing is, though, such a reduction is a desirable end in and of itself, the sellers' desires notwithstanding. What I will demand is that you show, using actual facts and figures, that the drop in revenue for mainstream businesses would be significantly greater than the drop in advertising costs, and that direct advertising would be completely unable to maintain profitable revenue volumes.



atmuscarella said:


> The problem is without marketing/advertising the development of new or improved products would be greatly reduced or even stopped and there would be basically no way for competitors to get into existing markets.


So in other words, the U.S. patent office did nothing whatsoever between its inception in 1790 and the advent of voice radio broadcasting in the 1920s? Again, this is total nonsense. The drive to create and invent is a fundamental part of the core of the human psyche. That drive is not directly connected with a desire to obtain monetary compensation, although certainly it can be accompanied by such a motivation. I myself have produced several un-patented inventions, including three underwater camera designs, a non-coaxial dewar for a superconducting solenoid, an alarm clock, and an HVAC system, among others. 'Don't like me using myself as an example? Try looking at the list of terrific 3rd party freeware for the TiVo.



atmuscarella said:


> Well the last time I looked there where allot more than 4 automobile manufactures in the U.S., I don't know how many there are but came up with at least 12.


There are only four American owned automobile companies in America. To be sure, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, etc, all do business here, but the point is not significant, and 8 is not "a lot".



atmuscarella said:


> However I think you are living in a fantasy land if you believe we would have better or cheaper cars if there where 400 automobile manufactures in the U.S.


I certainly never said that, and what constitutes "better" is a matter for an entirely different debate. In point of fact, I suspect they might be perhaps a little bit cheaper, although probably not. What I know for a fact, however, is there would not be some 40,000 or so unemployed auto workers. I also know for a fact no CEO of any one of 400 auto manufacturers would dare (or could get away with) siphoning off $8.5 million a year in salary. I also know the bankruptcy of 1 out of 400 auto manufacturers would never have sparked off a congressional debate - let alone a winning one - about a $52 billion bail-out. The company simply would have been cut up and sold off.

Or are you someone who thinks helping prevent unemployment for millions of Americans and a return to superior customer support are only good things as long as they don't cost you any money?


atmuscarella said:


> A significant portion of the cost of cars is development


No, it isn't. The major auto manufactures spend between 3% and 5% on R&D. A large portion of that has nothing to do with automobile development, and another very large portion has to do not with actual technological development but with styling and superficial year-model development. The actual amount of fundamental development in automotive technology has been relatively modest since the end of World War II. To be sure, especially in details, there have been quite a number of improvements since 1950, but virtually no fundamental technological advances at all, with the exception of computer-related advances. Even most of them have not been fundamental, but only incremental.



atmuscarella said:


> more manufactures means less sales for each manufacture which means each car has to cost more to cover development or they have to do less development. Either way you do not get better or cheaper cars.


Haven't you run out of cool-aid, yet? Just because companies today are stupid (mostly because they are giant) doesn't mean they have to be. The simple and obvious solution is for the car manufacturers not to do the R&D. Rather, a number - perhaps even all of them - can hire a single R&D company to do the R&D for the entire group. This would be *CHEAPER* than today, since all the duplicate R&D would be eliminated. R&D budgets could be dropped from 5% to perhaps much less than 2% with greater, more substantive returns.



atmuscarella said:


> If you want to go back 100+ years and talk about cars we can because without extensive marketing/advertising for that time there would be zero car companies.


What? I have no idea what you are saying. Media advertising did not exist 100 years ago, but there were dozens of American automobile companies selling millions of cars.



atmuscarella said:


> The one thing I am certain of is we will never know because the only way the whole auto industry stops marketing/advertising is if the Government mandated it.


It seems the only remotely probable way. There are surely others, but they require seemingly unlikely environmental changes. That said, the advent of SDV and other wide-scale proliferation of programming variety and VOD along with the relatively easy avoidance of both commercials and commercial based programming, a few key unexpected shifts over the next generation or so could result in an organic death for media advertising.



atmuscarella said:


> Just one more general comment, we have reach a point in sciences where most advancements are not going to be made by one person in their garage.


We are talking about technology, not science. Science has never been done in a garage, but almost all scientific research is still performed by individuals or very small teams of three or four people. No single theoretical advancement has ever involved more than 4 people.



atmuscarella said:


> The same is true for new advanced products. No individual or small organisation could develop something like an ipad.


That's just crap. First of all, the iPad is a trivial invention. It was nothing - *NOTHING* - like designing even a relatively small boat or aircraft. Compare it with something like the SR-71 Blackbird, and it just looks silly, although that was accomplished with only a handful of engineers. (The Skunk Works engineers says they basically had to come up with an invention a day to create the Blackbird. Think of it as the equivalent of about 540 iPads.)

Although something like an aircraft with upwards of 1,000,000 individual parts simply cannot be designed by anything except a team, speaking generally the items designed by a single individual are virtually always superior to those developed by teams and in particular by large organizations.



atmuscarella said:


> Marketing/advertising drives our whole society if we like it or not.


Try to equate marketing and advertising one more time, and I will hit you with a hammer. The fact some way exists and is in place does not mean it is the only way or that their is not a better way, or even that it has always been that way. If you weren't so besotted from all that cool-aid, perhaps you could see that.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

replaytv said:


> I like PBS but don't think the feds should fund it anymore.


I buy that, but then PBS does not get its principle funding from government support, and the spending for PBS is tiny compared to the rest of the federal budget.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

daveak said:


> No matter what some people think of advertising - it works.


So does murdering your neighbor because he annoys you. There are vastly better solutions. (Note: "better" for the corporation is rarely if ever "better" for the society.)



daveak said:


> A larger corporation investing hundreds of millions in a new product


Who says any corporation large enough to invest hundreds of millions in anything should be allowed to exist in the first place? The fact they are is one of the biggest problems with our country, not only its economy but its government, as well. No entity of any sort should ever be allowed that much power, no matter what.



daveak said:


> cannot wait for word of mouth advertising to grow the product sales into the needed volume for the slim profit margins of today.


Without advertising, the margins would not be as slim. What's more, virtually no product requires that much development unless artificial time restraints or production quotas are put in place. Again, if giant corporations did not exist, then no new (consumer) product would cost more than a few hundred thousand dollars to begin production.

You describe a perfectly unacceptable, if accurate, situation, and then justify horrible results of that situation because those results are necessary to maintain the unacceptable situation.

'Ever hear the term, "Stop the Madness!"?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> So does murdering your neighbor because he annoys you. There are vastly better solutions. (Note: "better" for the corporation is rarely if ever "better" for the society.)


So apparently your solution is to outlaw advertising because you make a moral equivalency between it and murder?  And good luck getting such a law passed. Not only would it be unpopular but it would also be unconstitutional (clashing with that amendment about free speech, you know).


lrhorer said:


> ..........'Ever hear the term, "Stop the Madness!"?


Ever hear the term, "get real"? How do you propose to stop the "madness"? The madness works because most consumers are dumb or lazy, at least by your standards. If you could wave a magic wand and make them all smart (or more accurately, all have your value system), the madness would go away instantly -- but I don't think you have that magic wand. Here's a hint: Extremely long posts are not that magic wand.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> So does murdering your neighbor because he annoys you.


And yet he's still here.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> And yet he's still here.


Are you referring to that neighbor whose dog is making "shovel-ready" projects on your lawn?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Are you referring to that neighbor whose dog is making "shovel-ready" projects on your lawn?


I was referring to the author of the previous quote.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Try to equate marketing and advertising one more time, and I will hit you with a hammer. The fact some way exists and is in place does not mean it is the only way or that their is not a better way, or even that it has always been that way. If you weren't so besotted from all that cool-aid, perhaps you could see that.


The basic model of providing people with one product at a reduced cost or free to advertise/market (sell) another has been around for a long time and was being used before TV was even invented and it will continue to be used until it isn't profitable to do so.

You can blubber all you want on the nuanced differences between marketing/advertising -its still all the same thing; using resources to sell your product. You can also blubber on all you want on how much better society would be if only companies marketed/advertised the way you think they should.

The reality is neither of us can prove anything and no one is going to try it your way.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> ......... You can also blubber on all you want on how much better society would be if only companies marketed/advertised the way you think they should.
> 
> The reality is neither of us can prove anything and no one is going to try it your way.


Already said with slightly differing wording in posts 14, 16, 31 and 36 here. I guess multiple repeats aren't going to convince anyone, any more than lrhorer's numerous and verbose repetitions do.


----------

