# 5 minute commercial break



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Tonight I'm watching Big Bang Theory and I start FFing through a commercial and I notice it seems to be taking longer then usual. So I enable the clock (SPS9S) and look at the exact times. Commercal break starts at 12:50 and ends at 18:08. That's over 5 minutes long! What happened to the days when Chuck use to say "be back in 2 and 2"? 5 minutes is insane! I checked the show and there is only about 20 minutes of the 31 minute recording that's actual show. There are over 11 minutes of commercials.


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

Commercials have been slowly taking over. I've got a few 80's shows on DVD and 1-hr shows typically clock in at 48-49 minutes. Now, a 1-hr show is, at most, 42 minutes.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

42-44 minutes of actual show time has been the standard for quite some time. Half-hour shows are about 22 minutes minus the commercials. Jon Stewart on The Daily Show frequently mentions that he only has to work 22 minutes a day four days a week. Sounds like the particular episode of TBBT came up a couple of minutes short so they threw in a few extra commercials as filler.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

I've noticed one oddity: I've been recording Doctor Who off BBC America and cutting out the commercials, and the first 3 "normal" episodes were 46 minutes long after cutting the commercials. All the episodes since then have been 43 minutes. It is like they planned to suck you into the show by having fewer commercials at first, then pile them on later .


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Been watching the Black List on NBC, and catching up on the few that I missed from last season on Netflix, they are all 43 minutes long. Can watch to 1 hour shows in less than an hour and a half minus the commercials.


----------



## NSPhillips (May 31, 2007)

During the second or third season of Star Trek: Voyager, they added commercial time after the shows were shot but before they aired, so they had to go back and cut time from an existing show.

The worst result of this is that older shows are being cut when shown in syndication to fit the shorter window. If you don't have DVDs of older shows like Seinfeld or the Simpsons, you are missing scenes.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

If you go back to the original Star Trek Shows (late 60s) they were 52 minutes long. I find watching TV without a DVR completely unacceptable if it wasn't for TiVo I am not sure I would watch any of it.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

This week's and last week's BBT were around 19 minutes long and ran for almost 31 minutes thanks to that bumper at the end. Definitely had some extra time to fill. Guess they gotta pay for those new Galecki, Cuoco, and Parsons contracts. 

The first 3 seasons were fairly consistent 21-22 mins. Mostly since season 5 the time has been more flexible from 19-21 mins.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Of course they do this because they can, i.e., the viewers just keep watching. I wonder where the tipping point is, where they lose so many eyeballs that the price they can get from advertisers falls so much that adding commercials yields diminishing returns? (I guess we're going to find out.)


----------



## singemfrc (Jun 24, 2011)

Approx 22 mins for a half hour show and 42 mins for an hour show has been typical for quite some time.

What I have been noticing as a recent trend though has been (as far as I've seen) only happening on the Discovery Channel. In what I can only assume is meant to entice/trick people into stopping their fast forward to accidentally catch a commercial or two, at or around the 50 minute mark of an hour-long show they will come back from commercial to a short 30 second or so segment of the actual show and then more commercials after it. If you're fast forwarding it gets you to stop.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

tomhorsley said:


> I've noticed one oddity: I've been recording Doctor Who off BBC America and cutting out the commercials, and the first 3 "normal" episodes were 46 minutes long after cutting the commercials. All the episodes since then have been 43 minutes. It is like they planned to suck you into the show by having fewer commercials at first, then pile them on later .


BBC shows are broadcast commercial free over in England. Commercials are added in for the BBC America broadcast, and as a result, they do make some edits to the show to fit them in.

Additionally, from what I've seen, the BBC's schedule is less rigid, allowing shows to play around with episode length if they have reason to.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

singemfrc said:


> Approx 22 mins for a half hour show and 42 mins for an hour show has been typical for quite some time.
> 
> What I have been noticing as a recent trend though has been (as far as I've seen) only happening on the Discovery Channel. In what I can only assume is meant to entice/trick people into stopping their fast forward to accidentally catch a commercial or two, at or around the 50 minute mark of an hour-long show they will come back from commercial to a short 30 second or so segment of the actual show and then more commercials after it. If you're fast forwarding it gets you to stop.


I've seen that on the morning news. I'm FFing, it looks like the news is back, and they're just saying what they'll be talking about next, and back to commercials.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

allan said:


> I've seen that on the morning news. I'm FFing, it looks like the news is back, and they're just saying what they'll be talking about next, and back to commercials.


I haven't bothered to time it but I'd be surprised if local news broadcasts have more than 50% content after excluding teasers and commercials. Unfortunately very little of even the 50% is actual news IMHO. More and more folks get their news from other than broadcast TV and I can see why.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

dlfl said:


> I haven't bothered to time it but I'd be surprised if local news broadcasts have more than 50% content after excluding teasers and commercials. Unfortunately very little of even the 50% is actual news IMHO. More and more folks get their news from other than broadcast TV and I can see why.


Hi! We're the best local news people and we're here to give you the news you can count on, this morning we'd just like to say you've tuned into the right place for news, if news is what your are looking for then keep your TV tuned to this channel for the best news. Why together we have over 100 years of news reporting experience with all the great people working here to bring you the news. This morning we have important news for local residents from the Centers for Disease Control. Stay tuned for details after the break...


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

yes, 5 minutes at once is crazy. even worse, 15-20 seconds of show in the middle of a 5 minute commercial break, just to get you to stop ffwding to "look". 

prices go up, content quality goes down, commercial breaks get longer. tivo is the answer to the latter, let them show an hour of commercials if they want - if it becomes too much of a hassle to skip, i'll start watching something else, there's plenty of content.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

tomhorsley said:


> I've noticed one oddity: I've been recording Doctor Who off BBC America and cutting out the commercials, and the first 3 "normal" episodes were 46 minutes long after cutting the commercials. All the episodes since then have been 43 minutes. It is like they planned to suck you into the show by having fewer commercials at first, then pile them on later .


Doctor Who is an unusual case because it is made to be originally broadcast on the BBC in Britain, which I don't think shows commercials. I think the true length of a Doctor Who episode is supposed to be approximately 45 minutes long. BBC America may be editing out a couple of minutes of the show when broadcast to an American audience so they can wedge in a few more commercials.

EDIT: I just saw LoadStar's comments on this above, which are pretty much the same as mine.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

I've never timed them before, but commercial breaks on MTV always feel unusually long to me. I also did notice that the Big Bang Theory had a ridiculously long commercial break in the middle of the show the other night. I guess it's just all part of the growing trend towards more commercials. I'm so glad I have a TiVo.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Tonight I'm watching Big Bang Theory and I start FFing through a commercial and I notice it seems to be taking longer then usual. So I enable the clock (SPS9S) and look at the exact times. Commercal break starts at 12:50 and ends at 18:08. That's over 5 minutes long! What happened to the days when Chuck use to say "be back in 2 and 2"? 5 minutes is insane! I checked the show and there is only about 20 minutes of the 31 minute recording that's actual show. There are over 11 minutes of commercials.


Stop watching the Big Bang Theory. It's basically the prime example of formulaic drivel populated by long periods of laugh track and unfunny referential humor.

Problem solved!

Seriously though, it seems like, the "middle" commercial break in most shows has gotten longer. The rest stay the same.


----------



## AdamNJ (Aug 22, 2013)

I see usual commercial breaks as 8 button presses (4 mins). Varies by show, network...etc


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

This is the first time I've noticed a commercial this long before. 3-4 seems normal, 5:18 is insane. I did notice a small slip in the middle with the cast, that got me to stop, but it was an advertisement for a second episode of the show coming up next. (repeat) 

I notice that a LOT on news shows. They'll have a long commercial break broken up by a few seconds of content in the middle. 

I know it seems silly to complain about commercials when I have a TiVo but more commercials means less content, which decreases the quality of the shows.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Tonight I'm watching Big Bang Theory and I start FFing through a commercial and I notice it seems to be taking longer then usual. So I enable the clock (SPS9S) and look at the exact times. Commercal break starts at 12:50 and ends at 18:08. That's over 5 minutes long! What happened to the days when Chuck use to say "be back in 2 and 2"? 5 minutes is insane! I checked the show and there is only about 20 minutes of the 31 minute recording that's actual show. There are over 11 minutes of commercials.


Well back in the day the network tv audiences were much larger because they were the only game in town. NOt sure if that has something to do with it. It makes sense though if you are reaching less eyeballs you need to put in more commercials to generate the same amount of revenue.

At the same time some shows have more commercials than others. I don't know if they feel they can get away with it or what. Maybe it's the same reason a popular album or movie or video game etc doesn't have to drop its pricing as quickly as something that isn't popular.

Did you know Letterman had more commercials than Leno (and I assume Fallon as well?) Although in this case Leno had a bigger audience.

Also I've noticed shows where sometimes the breaks do stretch to 5 minutes while other breaks are shorter.

Sports is particularly egregious when it comes to commercials. Between the commercials and down time between plays, there is about 45 minutes of actual football to watch.

I felt it when I went to a ball game (baseball in this case) this summer and just couldn't sit there for 3+ hrs. We all had to get up and walk around. And actually that more fun. Some of us hadn't seen the new stadium and it had great views and we could walk around grab a beer much eaiser plus get some exercise.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I never watch movies on any channel with commercials. If it's not on a premium channel I don't record it.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Well, 5 minutes is 10 commercials. I know I'm already clicking 30 second skip 6 times per break (3 minutes) and usually have a couple more to go, so I guess it isn't completely unusual.

As for old syndicated shows, they either re-edit the shows, or they use frame droppers - where every second, they drop a complete frame (two fields). So in 30 seconds, they would've dropped a complete second of video, or two seconds a minute. You can tell this happens when you look at the closed-captioning. As each frame carries two characters, you can see the captioning missing a couple of letters at a time.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Sometimes the tactic of the first segment of a show is really long, like 15 minutes before the first commercial, but then subsequent segments can be as short as 5 minutes with the result being LOTS of commercial breaks to make up for the long first segment. In all, it is getting worse regarding commercials, and they want to disable the FF. It's nuts.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> This is the first time I've noticed a commercial this long before. 3-4 seems normal, 5:18 is insane. I did notice a small slip in the middle with the cast, that got me to stop, but it was an advertisement for a second episode of the show coming up next. (repeat)
> 
> I notice that a LOT on news shows. They'll have a long commercial break broken up by a few seconds of content in the middle.
> 
> I know it seems silly to complain about commercials when I have a TiVo but more commercials means less content, which decreases the quality of the shows.


What makes this weird is how many shows now run like 1:05. I guess so they can fit in 5 more minutes of commercials without cutting show times.


----------



## singemfrc (Jun 24, 2011)

Dan203 said:


> I never watch movies on any channel with commercials. If it's not on a premium channel I don't record it.


This coming from a VRD developer? 
Speaking of which I've recently started the habit of downloading everything I record to my PC with kmttg, taking out the commercials with VRD, and then putting it back on the Tivo with pyTivo. Even though I'm spending more time doing it, watching the shows without even having to hit FF is just heavenly.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> I never watch movies on any channel with commercials. If it's not on a premium channel I don't record it.


i observe this rule, my biggest objections not being the commercials, but the editing for time and content. ifc is an exception, they will advertise when they _don't_ edit a movie - gotta love 'em.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

NorthAlabama said:


> i observe this rule, my biggest objections not being the commercials, but the editing for time and content. ifc is an exception, they will advertise when they _don't_ edit a movie - gotta love 'em.


That's my biggest problem with movies on channels with commercials. The editing for length and/or language. I want to see the whole movie without weird cuts and bad dubbing.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Often, when I'm watching an olde show on TVland or ME TV, I notice something missing.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

NSPhillips said:


> During the second or third season of Star Trek: Voyager, they added commercial time after the shows were shot but before they aired, so they had to go back and cut time from an existing show.
> 
> The worst result of this is that older shows are being cut when shown in syndication to fit the shorter window. If you don't have DVDs of older shows like Seinfeld or the Simpsons, you are missing scenes.


Seriously! I've been watching the Simpsons on FXX and so many times I'm saying the joke they cut out in my head and it takes me a second

So annoying


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

tomhorsley said:


> Hi! We're the best local news people and we're here to give you the news you can count on, this morning we'd just like to say you've tuned into the right place for news, if news is what your are looking for then keep your TV tuned to this channel for the best news. Why together we have over 100 years of news reporting experience with all the great people working here to bring you the news. This morning we have important news for local residents from the Centers for Disease Control. Stay tuned for details after the break...


He He! Thought you had copied a transcript of a local news program for a while there. Then there's the music theme -- an audio warning of what's to come.


----------



## Banker257 (Aug 4, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> Tonight I'm watching Big Bang Theory and I start FFing through a commercial and I notice it seems to be taking longer then usual. So I enable the clock (SPS9S) and look at the exact times. Commercal break starts at 12:50 and ends at 18:08. That's over 5 minutes long! What happened to the days when Chuck use to say "be back in 2 and 2"? 5 minutes is insane! I checked the show and there is only about 20 minutes of the 31 minute recording that's actual show. There are over 11 minutes of commercials.


I agree that 5 minutes is ridiculous but how much of these excessive commercials is due to FF and skipping?

They did get you to notice, didn't they?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> That's my biggest problem with movies on channels with commercials. The editing for length and/or language. I want to see the whole movie without weird cuts and bad dubbing.


Even before I realized syndicated reruns were hacked up for more time, I did this.. which is why I rented videotapes then DVDs..


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

Series3Sub said:


> Sometimes the tactic of the first segment of a show is really long, like 15 minutes before the first commercial, but then subsequent segments can be as short as 5 minutes with the result being LOTS of commercial breaks to make up for the long first segment. In all, it is getting worse regarding commercials, and they want to disable the FF. It's nuts.


I noticed something like that while editing out the commercials of AMC's recent airing of Uncle Buck (not something I usually do either, I usually record off of TCM or premium channels too). The first couple of movie blocks were reasonably long, with the commercials spaced apart nicely, then the movie blocks got shorter and shorter while the commercial blocks got shorter and shorter too. Near the end it was down to I'd say about 1 minute of commercials for every 2-3 minutes of movie. While I had it open in VRD, the cut blocks looked like a piece of logarithmic graphing paper, with the large divisions on the left and the tiny ones on the right. Ridiculous.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Well, BBT is one of TV's highest rated scripted shows, so it's believable that CBS would want to maximize income from that show (with massive ad rates for 30 second spots) by having more ads.

As for the movies - it also makes sense. At the beginning, the movie is rather slow so there's huge long segments to get people to watch the movie, and long ad breaks. Then hearer to the end as we hit the climax and denouement (the fall), the movie segments get shorter because you're more likely to hang around to see it climax and ad breaks get shorter to keep the tension alive (if they made long ones, people would just get fed up and probably record it). They probably have the math figured out too on how long the ad breaks need to be, and I wouldn't be surprised if the ad density (ad minutes vs. programming minutes) went higher (more ad minutes) nearer to the end of the movie because of the frequent small breaks. And given the piss-poor nature of cablebox DVRs )fast forwarding is iffy), short breaks near the end probably have a higher likelihood of being watched because it'll take longer to fast-forward/rewind.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I don't usually notice the length of the commericals. I just skip or scan over them. Even back in the eighties when I started using VCRs, I would fast forward over the commercials. Just since going to digital recordings in 2001 made skipping commercials much easier and faster. I don't care how long they are as long as I can quickly bypass them.


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

Worf said:


> Well, BBT is one of TV's highest rated scripted shows, so it's believable that CBS would want to maximize income from that show (with massive ad rates for 30 second spots) by having more ads.
> 
> As for the movies - it also makes sense. At the beginning, the movie is rather slow so there's huge long segments to get people to watch the movie, and long ad breaks. Then hearer to the end as we hit the climax and denouement (the fall), the movie segments get shorter because you're more likely to hang around to see it climax and ad breaks get shorter to keep the tension alive (if they made long ones, people would just get fed up and probably record it). They probably have the math figured out too on how long the ad breaks need to be, and I wouldn't be surprised if the ad density (ad minutes vs. programming minutes) went higher (more ad minutes) nearer to the end of the movie because of the frequent small breaks. And given the piss-poor nature of cablebox DVRs )fast forwarding is iffy), short breaks near the end probably have a higher likelihood of being watched because it'll take longer to fast-forward/rewind.


I wish I had hit Print Screen and done a screen capture of it. There were about 20 commercial breaks in all. IMDB says that movie is 100 min long, and after I edited out the commercials it was 95 min. Part of the difference was due to the network breaking away from the ending credits early (another shortcoming with modern television economics).

I would say that the distribution between the movie versus the commercials looked to be proportionate throughout the duration of the movie, although the block sizes of both dropped significantly over time. That leaves the network toying around with the viewer attention span towards the end of the movie. Just strange. Most shows with commercials that I record are 1/2 hour long and have two or three similarly-sized, similarly-spaced commercial blocks.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Hmmmmm... It did seem short, I didn't even notice the massive commercial break. I guess I'm so good at button mashing my way through commercials that I barely notice how many there are... Yay 30 second skip!


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

And then you get to watch something like PBS. Oh my, 55 minutes of uninterrupted programming. (Someone tuned me into How We Got To Now).

5 minute commercial break? Yeah, per hour, at the end.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Worf said:


> And then you get to watch something like PBS. Oh my, 55 minutes of uninterrupted programming. (Someone tuned me into How We Got To Now).
> 
> 5 minute commercial break? Yeah, per hour, at the end.


Yeah, I like watching HBO and PBS, since it's about 50-55 minutes straight.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

You wonder how we lived through PBS and HBO before the advent of the TiVo - I mean, you couldn't pause the show in order to have a pee break...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Worf said:


> You wonder how we lived through PBS and HBO before the advent of the TiVo - I mean, you couldn't pause the show in order to have a pee break...


VCR and a stack of tapes.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Bigg said:


> VCR and a stack of tapes.


*multiple* VCRs, so I could either record 2 things, or watch one thing and record another (i.e. skip commercials on something I had already recorded).


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

But that only works after you finished recording your shows first. No trickplays while still recording.

And of course, that you won the fight for the VCR.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mattack said:


> *multiple* VCRs, so I could either record 2 things, or watch one thing and record another (i.e. skip commercials on something I had already recorded).


Yeah, I never got to that point, but I could imagine a setup with a whole bunch of VCRs for recording, and then taking the tapes out and carrying them around to a VCR at each TV for playback...


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Tonight the BBT break was about 4:40.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Doctor Who is an unusual case because it is made to be originally broadcast on the BBC in Britain, which I don't think shows commercials. I think the true length of a Doctor Who episode is supposed to be approximately 45 minutes long. BBC America may be editing out a couple of minutes of the show when broadcast to an American audience so they can wedge in a few more commercials.
> 
> EDIT: I just saw LoadStar's comments on this above, which are pretty much the same as mine.


 Dr. Who episodes vary in length as downloads also, in the course of a season they will fluctuate as to length. The first three were longer this season.


----------



## MichaelAinNB (Dec 28, 2013)

A commercial string lasting only 5 minutes? Consider yourself lucky. Try watching an episode of The Andy Griffith Show on TVLand. This "30 minute" show lasts anywhere from 30 minutes to as long as 44 minutes (I think a typical episode, minus all commercials is about 18-20 minutes in length so everything else is ad space). For example, I recently recorded an episode titled "The Guitar Player Returns" and the length was 31 minutes. Later that day, I recorded another episode titled "Barney Gets His Man" and the length was 39 minutes. And, as I said, I have seen episode lengths as long as 44 minutes. Taking into account the actual show is only 18-20 minutes long, that means the ads we're watching are sometimes double the length of the episode. The longest commercial string I've timed was 12 minutes.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

18-20 minutes long for a show that old means that a HUUUUGE amount was cut out of the original show. (Unless they used some huge amount of speed-up, which is unlikely.)

That's why I virtually never watch shows on TV past their original airings. I never know if I'm seeing the whole thing or not. Once in a rare while I will catch one episode of some show I saw basically every other one of, knowing I'm not really seeing the whole thing. But mostly non-original shows could completely go away and I wouldn't care.

I did watch "TURN" from A&E's re-airings, though I think it's more likely that a cable channel's own re-airings in the same year won't be cut.


----------



## MichaelAinNB (Dec 28, 2013)

mattack said:


> 18-20 minutes long for a show that old means that a HUUUUGE amount was cut out of the original show. (Unless they used some huge amount of speed-up, which is unlikely.)
> 
> That's why I virtually never watch shows on TV past their original airings. I never know if I'm seeing the whole thing or not. Once in a rare while I will catch one episode of some show I saw basically every other one of, knowing I'm not really seeing the whole thing. But mostly non-original shows could completely go away and I wouldn't care.
> 
> I did watch "TURN" from A&E's re-airings, though I think it's more likely that a cable channel's own re-airings in the same year won't be cut.


The raw episodes are 25 minutes in length on Netflix. However, those are full, uncut episodes. I've noticed that episodes aired on TVLand have scenes that have been edited out. Obviously to make room for more ads.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

MichaelAinNB said:


> A commercial string lasting only 5 minutes? Consider yourself lucky. Try watching an episode of The Andy Griffith Show on TVLand. This "30 minute" show lasts anywhere from 30 minutes to as long as 44 minutes (I think a typical episode, minus all commercials is about 18-20 minutes in length so everything else is ad space). For example, I recently recorded an episode titled "The Guitar Player Returns" and the length was 31 minutes. Later that day, I recorded another episode titled "Barney Gets His Man" and the length was 39 minutes. And, as I said, I have seen episode lengths as long as 44 minutes. Taking into account the actual show is only 18-20 minutes long, that means the ads we're watching are sometimes double the length of the episode. The longest commercial string I've timed was 12 minutes.


That's awful. They must be assuming a lot of people are watching them while they are doing something else, otherwise they would go nuts and not be able to watch or just DVR it and skip them anyways.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Many articles over the years have said that a lot of people EVEN with DVRs do watch ads.. Yes, people aren't driven as nuts by them as most of us are..


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mattack said:


> Many articles over the years have said that a lot of people EVEN with DVRs do watch ads.. Yes, people aren't driven as nuts by them as most of us are..


True. I don't get how almost half of cable subs don't have a DVR, and then many of the DVR users still watch live TV (other than sports, which need to be live).

What is the point of cable without a DVR?


----------



## MichaelAinNB (Dec 28, 2013)

mattack said:


> Many articles over the years have said that a lot of people EVEN with DVRs do watch ads.. Yes, people aren't driven as nuts by them as most of us are..


Admittedly, I do watch an occasional TV ad but typically because of the quality or comedic entertainment it provides. My recent favorite is the GEICO ad mocks horror flicks by showing a group of scared kids hiding from a killer choosing to hide amongst a group of chainsaws rather than the "running car".


----------



## MichaelAinNB (Dec 28, 2013)

Bigg said:


> That's awful. They must be assuming a lot of people are watching them while they are doing something else, otherwise they would go nuts and not be able to watch or just DVR it and skip them anyways.


I've just started trying to run a comparison between TVLand and MeTV to see if the number of ads during _The Andy Griffith_ show are equal. In order to compare apples to apples, I am waiting for both networks to run the same episode but, thus far, that hasn't happened.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

MichaelAinNB said:


> Admittedly, I do watch an occasional TV ad but typically because of the quality or comedic entertainment it provides. My recent favorite is the GEICO ad mocks horror flicks by showing a group of scared kids hiding from a killer choosing to hide amongst a group of chainsaws rather than the "running car".


Love that one. The girl's tone for "Why can't we just get in the running car?" and the look on the "killer's" face are priceless. 

Scott


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Bigg said:


> True. I don't get how almost half of cable subs don't have a DVR, and then many of the DVR users still watch live TV (other than sports, which need to be live).
> 
> What is the point of cable without a DVR?


Most people live TV "live". As in, for decades they've watched TV when it aired as it aired. So not having a DVR means squat. Their cablebox may come with a DVR, but it's just used as a cable box.

It was only 30 years ago that home recording became common with VCRs becoming super cheap, and it probably took to the 90s before most homes had a VCR. Still, recording shows and all that were not the most easy thing to do. Cue the joke of the blinking 12:00 on the VCR to show you how important that was. In fact, a good chunk of VCRs were never used much for their recording functionality - they were used just to play prerecorded movies and the like. (Blockbuster, anyone?). Heck, DVD players took off and were in 98% of American homes in 5 years, versus the 10-15 it took for the VCR. And people never considered it a limitation that they only played.

TiVo came out a few years after the DVD (1998 or so), but until the mid 2000's, it was a niche product. So surprisingly, a lot of people who grew up never really recorded stuff - it was generally inconvenient, hooking up a VCR was an exercise in frustration, and always having to set it up and all that, it was annoying. (There were plenty of tools like GemStar+ but they didn't really take off).

So a lot of people simply grew up with having to watch TV live, because recording was complex and annoying, and they may do it once in a while to catch a must-see episode, but that's it.

Couple that with the awful cablebox DVR that really can't do a recording successfully, and well, people don't bother.

For commercials? Easy - fast forwarding is a pain. Especially if you have a 1+ second lag as do most cablebox DVRs. Getting back to the spot is practically impossible, and it's often easier to just let it run than waste 2 minutes trying to fast forward and rewind.

I'm pretty sure there's also a strong correllation - those who are adapt with technology are probably the ones who use DVRs, while those who find technology just another impediment in the functioning of their lives, probably don't. I mean, they used to hook their TV to the cable and watch it. Now they need these cable boxes and more remotes and all that.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

VCRs weren't that hard to use. I grew up with VCRs, and that's the way everything was. Pretty much everything I watched was taped on a VCR. And then TiVo came along, and it just made sense, because it did what the VCR did, but 100x better and more conveniently.

With today's 400 channel cable lineup, the amount of ads, and the variety of other information mediums constantly bombarding us with information, the DVR is a necessity.

You learn how to use a particular DVR. They all act a little differently, but after a while you get really good at that one, and have the button mashing down to a science.

I find it incredible when people complain that they can't just hook their TV up to the wall anymore. Why on earth would anyone want 300 lines of analog, often with signal degradation on top of that, and no DVR functionality over whole-home HD-DVR service? It's just night and day. TV is so much more useful in today's whole-home HD-DVR world.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Why on earth would anyone want 300 lines of analog, often with signal degradation on top of that, and no DVR functionality over whole-home HD-DVR service?


the expense, extra equipment, and the time, energy, & knowledge needed to set up and configure the equipment. that, and learning to use it intimidates many.

most of my neighbors couldn't give a flip about hd, digital surround, or a dvr (until they see someone else's and the bug bites them) - they want it simple, plug it in and watch.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NorthAlabama said:


> the expense, extra equipment, and the time, energy, & knowledge needed to set up and configure the equipment. that, and learning to use it intimidates many.
> 
> most of my neighbors couldn't give a flip about hd, digital surround, or a dvr (until they see someone else's and the bug bites them) - they want it simple, plug it in and watch.


Yeah most people have other hobbies/interests than that stuff.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Bigg:
> 
> Why on earth would anyone want 300 lines of analog, often with signal degradation on top of that, and no DVR functionality over whole-home HD-DVR service?





NorthAlabama said:


> the expense, extra equipment, and the time, energy, & knowledge needed to set up and configure the equipment. that, and learning to use it intimidates many. most of my neighbors couldn't give a flip about hd, digital surround, or a dvr (until they see someone else's and the bug bites them) - they want it simple, plug it in and watch.


They _COULD_ make it where you just connect it straight to your HDTV with a digital QAM signal and some form of premiums protection (Cablecard, IP security, etc) and a USB port for connecting an external Hard Drive for DVR features, they just have never chosen to do so. I could see a "smart tv" doing something like this.


----------



## singemfrc (Jun 24, 2011)

HerronScott said:


> Love that one. The girl's tone for "Why can't we just get in the running car?" and the look on the "killer's" face are priceless.
> 
> Scott


If more commercials were as creative and entertaining as that one, I wouldn't be going through so much trouble to remove them from the shows I record!


----------



## MichaelAinNB (Dec 28, 2013)

singemfrc said:


> If more commercials were as creative and entertaining as that one, I wouldn't be going through so much trouble to remove them from the shows I record!


Unfortunately, for every quality TV ad like the GEICO scared kids one, there are 1000 terrible ads, like the one for DirecTV featuring the two Rob Lowe's. :down:


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

MichaelAinNB said:


> Unfortunately, for every quality TV ad like the GEICO scared kids one, there are 1000 terrible ads, like the one for DirecTV featuring the two Rob Lowe's. :down:


And unfortunately commercials are replayed 1000x over. Even if you liked one the first time, you soon will grow tired of it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> the expense, extra equipment, and the time, energy, & knowledge needed to set up and configure the equipment. that, and learning to use it intimidates many.
> 
> most of my neighbors couldn't give a flip about hd, digital surround, or a dvr (until they see someone else's and the bug bites them) - they want it simple, plug it in and watch.


Wow. It's unbelievable that some people are so ignorant about the technology available.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Bigg said:


> Wow. It's unbelievable that some people are so ignorant about the technology available.


not really, it just isn't a priority...tv is not that important to some people.


----------



## MichaelAinNB (Dec 28, 2013)

NorthAlabama said:


> not really, it just isn't a priority...tv is not that important to some people.


I think today's TV is getting a bad rap. Some people are still of the (outdated) opinion that watching TV is nothing but a waste of time. Sure, if you're glued to The View or Jerry, that's a waste of time (IMO) but what about the History Channel, The Smithsonian Channel and of course A&E (Duck Dynasty rules!).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Why on earth would anyone want 300 lines of analog, often with signal degradation on top of that, and no DVR functionality over whole-home HD-DVR service?


Well, I had DVR functionality, and "just plug the coax into the unit" was SO much easier. As I've said a zillion times, long long ago, I even had HBO (legally) without any box. It was trapped outside the house.

But even just for "extended basic", being able to just plug in the cable was very convenient. I even used my S3 & TivoHD for quite a while without cable cards (because of the lifetime "transfer" (with fee) promos)... it was only after basically everything went digital that I got cable cards.

Yes, when it works, "even" SD looks way better than analog. But when they go bad (which they do), I can get a _watchable_ degraded signal with analog, which I can't with digital. (Yes, I do realize after it's on my TV, it was digitized.)


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

MichaelAinNB said:


> I think today's TV is getting a bad rap.


that's a good point, and very debatable, but a different argument...i was speaking to the effort and knowledge needed to go from sd to hd.

as an example, i can't imagine the hundreds of customer service phone calls daily that are resolved by the rep recommending the caller press the "input" key on the remote control...


----------



## MichaelAinNB (Dec 28, 2013)

NorthAlabama said:


> that's a good point, and very debatable, but a different argument...i was speaking to the effort and knowledge needed to go from sd to hd.
> 
> as an example, i can't imagine the hundreds of customer service phone calls daily that are resolved by the rep recommending the caller press the "input" key on the remote control...


Sorry for the misunderstanding Alabama. My post wasn't directed at you. I am in total agreement with your point about the importance, or rather lack of, to some TV viewers of the higher technical aspects of TV viewing. I guess we have them to thank for having to repeat the troubleshooting steps we've already taken ("OK, I want you to unplug the device and wait about 30 seconds...") when calling tech support.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

USA Network does say weird editing of NCIS so they can add more commercials. I always find it strange how they can just remove part of the show and get away with it.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

rainwater said:


> USA Network does say weird editing of NCIS so they can add more commercials. I always find it strange how they can just remove part of the show and get away with it.


i'm sure it's with contractual permission. i tend not to watch repeats on those stations (if i catch their editing), similar to my refusal to watch or record movies edited for time & content when shown on most commercial tv.


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

MichaelAinNB said:


> A commercial string lasting only 5 minutes? Consider yourself lucky. Try watching an episode of The Andy Griffith Show on TVLand. This "30 minute" show lasts anywhere from 30 minutes to as long as 44 minutes (I think a typical episode, minus all commercials is about 18-20 minutes in length so everything else is ad space). For example, I recently recorded an episode titled "The Guitar Player Returns" and the length was 31 minutes. Later that day, I recorded another episode titled "Barney Gets His Man" and the length was 39 minutes. And, as I said, I have seen episode lengths as long as 44 minutes. Taking into account the actual show is only 18-20 minutes long, that means the ads we're watching are sometimes double the length of the episode. The longest commercial string I've timed was 12 minutes.


TVLand is what you get when you have baby-boomer executives that shoe-horn a bunch of mediocre new crap in with the old gems. Not that there is anything wrong with the new crap, after all HSN and QVC have their fans. There just needs to be somewhere for the old gems to go.

I have seen the Andy Griffith episodes, either before they did this, or perhaps a different channel. One of the episodes that sticks out in my mind is the "Kerosene Pickles" episode. I recall Andy and Barney having more of a memorable exchange over how Aunt Bee's pickles "taste like kerosene". Now all that is left is Barney or Andy saying that once or twice, and then the food-tasting judges at the end. I have seen this episode recently, several times on TVLand whenever they decide to play a block of shows. I sit through the whole episode waiting for that exchange and it seems like I miss it every single time. That gag loses its impact, as I'm sure many other things do, thanks to the newer editing.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mattack said:


> Well, I had DVR functionality, and "just plug the coax into the unit" was SO much easier. As I've said a zillion times, long long ago, I even had HBO (legally) without any box. It was trapped outside the house.
> 
> But even just for "extended basic", being able to just plug in the cable was very convenient. I even used my S3 & TivoHD for quite a while without cable cards (because of the lifetime "transfer" (with fee) promos)... it was only after basically everything went digital that I got cable cards.
> 
> Yes, when it works, "even" SD looks way better than analog. But when they go bad (which they do), I can get a _watchable_ degraded signal with analog, which I can't with digital. (Yes, I do realize after it's on my TV, it was digitized.)


It gorgeous 300 line analog. 

Plus, two tuners was it back then. Now we have up to 6 with CableCard.


----------



## dochawk (Aug 1, 2002)

The ease of the early VCRs is quite easy to overstate.

My parents had one where there were a row of buttons on the front for channels. Each had a tiny tuner below it, and you had to tune in the channel for that button.

There were others with similarly complicated time programming (I vaguely remember something about mechanically setting time). Or you could only set it to record, and had to leave it on that channel. Or a single programmable time. Or forget to turn it off, and it stays on its channel rather than recording. Or . . .

That virtually none of them sprung for a capacitor or battery clip to keep the clock going on power loss tells something about the level of thought that went into their design . . .

hawk


----------



## MichaelAinNB (Dec 28, 2013)

dochawk said:


> The ease of the early VCRs is quite easy to overstate.
> 
> My parents had one where there were a row of buttons on the front for channels. Each had a tiny tuner below it, and you had to tune in the channel for that button.
> 
> ...


Wasn't the old joke (maybe not _that_ old) that a VCR was so difficult to operate, even the clock was always wrong? I remember getting so frustrated with rarely if ever programming it correctly to record a program in my absence, I just set the TV to the channel the program was on and recorded six hours of everything just so I could capture the 30 minute program I wanted.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The VCRs in the '90's were not hard at all to operate. They had like 8 or 10 time slots that you could program for recordings, and they had 125 channel tuners. Not sure what the earlier ones were like.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The VCRs in the '90's were not hard at all to operate. They had like 8 or 10 time slots that you could program for recordings, and they had 125 channel tuners. Not sure what the earlier ones were like.


No they were not hard other than the stack of tapes in front of the TV with sticky notes as to what show was on each.  That's why we thought our first S1 in 2000 was the greatest thing ever.

Does anyone remember using VCR Plus+ codes to set up recordings?

Scott


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

rainwater said:


> USA Network does say weird editing of NCIS so they can add more commercials. I always find it strange how they can just remove part of the show and get away with it.


I always thought it was the syndicator who did the editing. The channels just show what is sent to them.

Anybody know for sure?


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

Bigg said:


> The VCRs in the '90's were not hard at all to operate. They had like 8 or 10 time slots that you could program for recordings, and they had 125 channel tuners. Not sure what the earlier ones were like.


Depended entirely on the VCR in question. They all had utterly different controls and nothing you knew about one ever applied to the other. My Mom had one that would almost always start recording when you put in a tape, and there didn't seem to be any way to stop it once it started recording. Pulling out the power cord was about the only way to keep it from recording over the tape you wanted to play, not record.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

Speaking of commercial breaks, has anyone noticed that you can use statistical sampling to prove that there is absolutely nothing on TV except commercials? I know I'll be doing something that takes a completely random amount of time like working on some gadget in the garage, and I'll come in the house and turn on the TV, and there will, without ever any exceptions, be a commercial on. How do they manage to do that? You'd think a series of plays in a football game would take a random amount of time, yet when one game gets done with a series and goes to a commercial and you switch to another game, it is showing a commercial as well .


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

HerronScott said:


> No they were not hard other than the stack of tapes in front of the TV with sticky notes as to what show was on each.  That's why we thought our first S1 in 2000 was the greatest thing ever.
> 
> Does anyone remember using VCR Plus+ codes to set up recordings?
> 
> Scott


Yeah, for a while the TV guide listings had numeric codes you could enter into your VCR to set a recording. I don't remember exactly why now, but at one point I reverse engineered the system and wrote a little program to create my own recording codes.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

dochawk said:


> The ease of the early VCRs is quite easy to overstate.
> 
> My parents had one where there were a row of buttons on the front for channels. Each had a tiny tuner below it, and you had to tune in the channel for that button.
> 
> ...


My first VCR was like that!

It had a 16 channel tuner - you had to push a button, the lift a lid on the top to adjust the tuning on it. It came with a plastic sheet of shine-through numbers so after tuning it you could set it to the right channel number.

Around the display was a set of buttons to set the timer. Then after it was done, you put the tape in the deck (it was a front loader), then put the flipper switch from Off or On to Timer. There was another flipper switch beside it to set SP or EP (it could play LP tapes, but refused to record).

It was one of the first VCRs made by JVC, at that.

It had a remote control as well.

In the 90s, we upgraded to something more modern. It had a full on screen display and it even had an auto-set clock (using a signal generated by PBS).

Alas, one of the tapes I had mis-loaded into it, and since then its deck never loaded tapes correctly and always needed assistance. It misloaded so badly I had to pop the cover off and manually unload the tape because it jammed.

And I remember those GEM+ codes in TV Guide. I remember when you could buy a keypad, point it at your VCR and key in the code. At the right time, it hit power, then record on your VCR. My later VCR was too new for that (got it in the mid-90s, GEM+ was early 90s and the devices died a few years later).

Of course, nothing beats the simplicity that a TiVo brings to the party.


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

Worf said:


> My first VCR was like that!
> 
> It had a 16 channel tuner - you had to push a button, the lift a lid on the top to adjust the tuning on it. It came with a plastic sheet of shine-through numbers so after tuning it you could set it to the right channel number.
> 
> ...


Early 1980s TVs had tuners like that too. There was a separate mechanical tuner for each channel slot, each with a little white thumbwheel and a three or four position dipswitch (to switch between VHF/UHF and different channel ranges). Then on the front of the unit the earlier models had mechanical pushbutton "radio buttons" that physically clicked out when you pushed another one in. A couple years later they replaced those with a couple up/down buttons, and also remote up/down tuning, but still had the little white tuning buttons behind a door.

Our first VCR, in the early 1980s during the VHS boom, was a top-loading Fisher. It had a mechanical pushbutton tuner and also a timer. So the channels couldn't be changed automatically. In fact the timer had only one programmable time slot. The power button was also a mechanical two-position pushbutton, with the timer button being an identical two-position pushbutton right next to it. So you would set the timer first (oddly enough it was digital, basically part of the clock mechanism), and then power the unit down and power up the timer.

Times were good, jobs were more plentiful, and money had more purchasing power. But video rentals were about $6.00/movie or more for about a couple weeks if I remember correctly. We had to drive across town and into the city to get to the only video store (this was about 1981 or 82). The video stores had to buy their movies for about $50-$160/movie. The movies were usually not their entire business, as they also rented cameras and video equipment. I remember renting titles like The Marx Brothers "Duck Soup" and Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn's "Seems Like Old Times". The movies available were all listed on two sides of a folded sheet of paper, just like a carry-out Chinese menu today. I remember seeing a big custom machine in the back that they used to make store duplicates, which was capable of bypassing the analog copy protection. This was way before stores like Blockbuster had multiple vendor copies on the shelves.

The TV we had before that was from the late 1960s/early 70s I think. It had a remote control with about four or so large mechanical pushbuttons buttons that used tiny ultrasonic "bells". When you pushed them, it would make an audible snapping noise. If you put it up to your ears and clicked it, it would cause one of your ears to ring. The channel selector was single large motorized rotary knob and had little tiny buttons (VHF and UHF) behind a little door too.

Fun times.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HerronScott said:


> No they were not hard other than the stack of tapes in front of the TV with sticky notes as to what show was on each.  That's why we thought our first S1 in 2000 was the greatest thing ever.
> 
> Does anyone remember using VCR Plus+ codes to set up recordings?
> 
> Scott


True that.

We never used VCR+. Always manual on the Sony VCR connected to the Sony Trinitron TV.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

HerronScott said:


> Does anyone remember using VCR Plus+ codes to set up recordings?


i tried a couple of times, ended up missing recordings, so went back to manual scheduling. i'm still pretty handy with setting up a manual recording in tivo, too.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

waynomo said:


> I always thought it was the syndicator who did the editing. The channels just show what is sent to them.
> 
> Anybody know for sure?


I've never worked in TV, but I'm under the impression that stations can get either the "syndicated" version or the "full" version.... and can still edit them more after that if they want (but that's more work).

At least in the old days, the various copies apparently moved around, which is part of how versions of WKRP with the original music apparently aired in syndication for a long time (but I would guess still hugely cut for commercials).


----------

