AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › 'Hopper' named 'Best of Show' CES 2013 by CNET - award withdrawn due to litigation
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'Hopper' named 'Best of Show' CES 2013 by CNET - award withdrawn due to litigation - Page 2

post #31 of 91
1/17/13 at 1:10pm
Thread Starter 
iTunes (Apple) and Youtube (Google) would be big-time winners in such a world - where commercial-sponsored TV has ceased to exist. Everybody would have to watch one ad per webisode, before their content streamed - or else pay. Not holding my breath that it will happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRFTony View Post

I enjoy skipping ads as much as the next guy, but the only reason TV programming exists is to sell advertising spots and make money. If shows can't make money selling commercials, then they simply won't produce any shows. They don't create this "entertainment" for the masses simply out of artistic generosity. They do it solely to make money.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 91
1/17/13 at 1:17pm
If advertisers want me to watch commercials, they need more of them like the one for Carl's Jr. Memphis BBQ (with the two girls barbequeing). If I see that as I'm skipping ahead, I'll rewind EVERY TIME (unless my wife is in the room.)
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 91
1/17/13 at 1:18pm
Until the world rids itself of commerce not much will get better. God forbid mankind shares the wealth on earth with all.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 91
1/17/13 at 1:25pm
Anymore???? They've been bogus on reviews for past 4-5 years... I'm glad you finally woke up:D
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 91
1/17/13 at 1:26pm
I agree...
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 91
1/17/13 at 1:36pm
Can CBS prove that skipping commercials reduces advertiser's sales? It is doubtful that skipping commercials actually reduces anyones sales and besides, I wonder if most commercials probably don't get skipped anyway. Furthermore, if you buy one advertised product a month (which would be a lot for anyone and actually I don't think I buy any advertised products!!!) what is the justification by the advertisers for the 300 other commercials being forced on you that you will never buy?

Shouldn't commercials be OFFERED to people just as programs are offered, but never forced on people?
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 91
1/17/13 at 2:27pm
What we need to think about is why in the world are the networks willing to pay someone like Charlie Sheen millions of dollars per show???? that's the issue here. If all the networks got on the same page and vowed to pay these actors a living salary or go get a job at Burger King, we wouldnt have these $100+ monthly cable bills. Greed is a nasty thing!!!
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 91
1/17/13 at 2:40pm
Dish should just take CBS out of their channel list. In reaction to them being sued by the network. It should be their prerogative to do so. "we are not obligated to carry your channel" - lets see if they gain leverage
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 91
1/17/13 at 2:57pm
Me too! I've got 8 Replay TV's recording everything we watch and between Commercial Advance and 30 second skip we never watch a commercial. Before that Commercial Advance was available on RCA VCR's too. In the rare instances we watch TV live (like in a hotel while traveling) I've found that the commercials are either totally irrelevant to our needs or too obnoxious to tolerate. We don't drink beer, don't need medications, don't eat fast food and have had the same car insurance company for 20 years - there's 99% of the ads right there! Even if we watched and believed every one of those commercials it wouldn't generate even a penny in new sales.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 91
1/17/13 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveR1952 View Post

I guess all the major networks are blind to the fact that most folks with a DVR have one so the can "hop" over the commercials in pre-recorded shows.

I for one despise commercials on TV. I well understand the economics of why they are there and also understand why all the networks conspire to have prime time commercials all on at the same points during their broadcasts so one cannot channel hop and watch other content to avoid a commercial. How is that for collusion?

We as consumers have a right to now watch any content broadcast via paid transmission means (cable or satellite) or free via off the air antenna.

Trying to sue an innovative company like Dish for just making what many of us already do easier should not be grounds for a litigation or boycott. If the basis for litigation were the aid in hopping over commercials then I guess any device with a remote or a DVR should be banned.

Vote with your remote...don't watch CBS content.

Content providers get paid two ways - from the pay TV providers and the advertisements. If you take away the ads then they will want more from the pay TV providers and vice versa.

As a DirecTV employee, I am ecstatic that Dish rolled out the Hopper because their next round of negotiations with the content providers is going to be EXTREMELY ugly and they are likely to have significant service outages from one content owner or another.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 91
1/17/13 at 4:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BartMan01 View Post

Where do people get this idea? The idea of cable was NEVER to eliminate commercials but to expand content available beyond the handful of local channels you could receive OTA. Your cable bill is to cover the infrastructure costs, costs for the carrier to actually carry the channel, and provide a profit for the cable company - not to cover the commercial revenues.

Like them or not, commercials are what pay for the content on TV. If people can stop watching them all together (aka the hopper), the advertisers will stop paying enough money to cover the production costs and TV as we know it will cease to exist. Not saying that is a bad thing, but if you like the current TV model everyone can't opt out of it and still get to have it.

Approximately 45% of DirecTV's revenue goes for content. The other 55% covers EVERYTHING else. If the cost of content goes up 8% and content is 45% of the pie then that means rates to the customer have to go up 3.6% just to cover the increase in content costs. Things like raises and gasoline price increases and rent increases and everything else have to be funded somehow.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 91
1/17/13 at 4:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BartMan01 View Post

So there are no 'niche' channels/shows that you watch? All you watch are the mainstream reality/CSI anytown shows? The current bundling system allows many niche channels/shows to exist that would never pull in enough money on their own to be viable in an a-la-carte system. You would be surprised at how many channels/shows you (or your partner/family) take for granted that could never exist on TV in an a-la-carte system. You may also be surprised to find out that you have nothing much left to watch besides the shows you are mocking.

Plus as has been already mentioned, much of the cost of cable/satellite goes towards infrastructure and the rights to even carry the channels, so the total costs are somewhat fixed. There is no realistic way to switch to an a-la-carte system without a major shakeup/downsizing of TV content as you know it, and if you think there is you don't understand the economics behind the current system. Be careful what you wish for here, the end result may not look anything like you expect it to.

As a side note, I personally don't think it would be bad to let the whole TV industry as it currently exists implode. If it wasn't for certain sporting events and my family's desires I could do without TV all together.

A couple notes:

1) Intel is coming out with a set-top box to allow consumers to buy a la carte but the industry is not likely to go along.
2) Less than 20% of pay-TV customers watch ESPN but all of them pay a couple bucks to have it. Even fewer pay-TV customers watch HGTV. The non-ESPN-watchers subsidize the ESPN watchers and the non-HGTV-watchers subsidize the HGTV watchers.

If you really, truly ONLY watch a single channel or two then unbundling will help you but otherwise expect the cost for each channel to soar and for you to lose out. those are the simple economics of pay TV.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 91
1/17/13 at 4:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark the Red View Post

Spoken like a thousand monopolistic guilds, a thousand times, for a thousand years. That if we do not accept THEIR price-fixing protection racket around TV / Cable / Satellite all we would have on TV would be this ?:



I say hard cheese to that. The TV industry is THE sexiest industry on planet earth and ever will be. Second only to music, if second at all. I live in LA and let me tell you this place is teeming with hundreds of thousands of highly motivated people who will do or say anything to get on television, or be involved in the making of television.

If every single employee of CBC, NBC, CNN, Fox, ABC, etc. etc. went to downtown Hollywood, doused themselves with gas and lit the match we would no longer have any Television to watch next year? Kim Kardashian would go back to being a stylist? Sofia Vergara would go back to Latin America making near minimum wage as a model? Heck no. They would use their considerable talents to create a more direct to customer relationship via some kind of streaming option similar to Louis C.K. , or the a la carte system I mentioned. And if that means Ryan Seacrest only makes $30 million a year rather than $50 mill, I won't lose any sleep.

Don't think so? Remember how all these naysayers told us for years the Netflix would not last, could not last, content is king, their CEO is a dolt, and on and on and on. Netflix is still around, still going strong, still using 33% of ALL our total internet bandwidth (!!!!!)

Recall how current TV shows are currently fed to us. And I do mean fed. Some writer with unfair backdoor access to network executives pitches a pilot. The pilot is made and shown to a gaggle of random Tom, Dick and Harry's and then whether it makes it to prime time depends on their reaction to that. Imagine if the Video game industry worked that way? Imagine if the movie industry worked that way? Imagine if the music industry worked that way? We'd all be currently listening to Debbie Gibson / Christian rock 8 tracks, playing Call of Duty: Brown People Massacre 56 and watching Jack and Jill 27 till the end of our days.

Simply put, Dish made a cost-benefit decision to implement a feature on their product that they calculated was more important to their customers than to their unwavering fealty to CBS. Who knows if they did it for cheap advertising or not? It's obviously something they have committed to.

You are right that I do watch niche programming. But not a single one of these shows I have been exposed to by simply flicking the channels. Its usually something I get from the internet or a friend recommended to me. And if I have to lose Robot Chicken (my one niche guilty pleasure) to save my butt $80 a month off my cable bill, I say "sayonora!".

CBS owns content and Dish does not. CBS can do just fine without Dish but Dish cannot do just fine without CBS. Think of the millions of people who watch CBS programs every single day and then take Dish's share of that and then tell those millions of people, "Sorry, we're not sending content to Dish anymore. Switch to DirecTV or your local cable company." How many people are going to say, "I would rather keep my hopper and lose CSI and NCIS - which I have watched for years - instead of shipping this box back to Dish and going to DirecTV."

As a DirecTV employee, I love the hopper because it is not so revolutionary to make a dent in our enrollment numbers and the next time Dish needs to negotiate for content they are going to get raped by the content owners.

Owning content and delivering content are a symbiotic relationship. One partner cannot spit in the face of the other without expecting blowback. Sorry Charlie (in a very literal sense!)
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 91
1/17/13 at 4:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by twhiting9275 View Post

poor, poor networks, they can't get with the times.
ADS are done. Deal with it. Find OTHER ways to make revenue from your shows

Take a look at all of the ads on this webpage and tell us that ads are done.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 91
1/17/13 at 4:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustaSheep View Post

Having had dish, cable, and now u-verse in the past year (long story), I'm glad I'm not the only who recognizes Dish has the best hardware/software by far. I haven't had direct, but I've seen it plenty to know it's not even close.

1) DirecTV's Genie is much better than anything by Dish or the cable companies for people who record or watch a number of shows at the same time. Not of great value for a single guy with a single TV but for a family it is great.
2) Verizon FIOS and DirecTV are the only two companies in the pay TV industry with very good Net Promoter Scores (customer service measure). Dish sucks.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 91
1/17/13 at 4:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jevans64 View Post

I HOPE the Consumer Electronics Association chooses someone else to run their Best of CES awards. C|NET didn't have the balls to stand up to corporate so they don't deserve the responsibility of choosing winners.

While I understand the need for commercials in OTA broadcasts, WHY do we have commercials in our $100-a-month satellite and cable programming? The idea was to PAY a monthly fee to NOT have commercials in our channels. It is the cable networks that have broken their promise to their subscribers to offer up commercial-free programming for a monthly fee.


Agree 100% with you, if we are paying for the shows why watch commercials, did not paid for it nor do I want it. Perhaps the bill should be adjusted if you do not want to watch commercials.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 91
1/17/13 at 4:46pm
Thread Starter 
Question - how much would extra would you be willing to pay - monthly - to eliminate all advertising breaks on the major networks?
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 91
1/17/13 at 4:57pm
The bill should be adjusted downward, LOL, I would pay at least $15 a month to get rid of them.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 91
1/17/13 at 5:20pm
Good going Cnet.....name something the best at CES then take the award away because its in B.S litigation. Nice job....bravo!!!!!!
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 91
1/17/13 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

iTunes (Apple) and Youtube (Google) would be big-time winners in such a world - where commercial-sponsored TV has ceased to exist. Everybody would have to watch one ad per webisode, before their content streamed - or else pay. Not holding my breath that it will happen.

Be prepared to pay a lot for your shows. If a 90-minute movie costs $7 - $12 to watch at a theater how much do you think it will cost to watch a 45-minute TV show streamed on your PC? Even allowing for the economies of technology you should expect to pay a couple bucks per episode. For someone who ONLY want s to watch a few shows that might be more economical but for most consumers that is not the case.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 91
1/17/13 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeViLzzz View Post

Until the world rids itself of commerce not much will get better. God forbid mankind shares the wealth on earth with all.

Are you on the right forum? How would you have all of this cool AV gear without commerce?
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 91
1/17/13 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmenningen View Post

Can CBS prove that skipping commercials reduces advertiser's sales? It is doubtful that skipping commercials actually reduces anyones sales and besides, I wonder if most commercials probably don't get skipped anyway. Furthermore, if you buy one advertised product a month (which would be a lot for anyone and actually I don't think I buy any advertised products!!!) what is the justification by the advertisers for the 300 other commercials being forced on you that you will never buy?

Shouldn't commercials be OFFERED to people just as programs are offered, but never forced on people?

Two in a row! We've been invaded by the socialist commune groupies!
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 91
1/17/13 at 6:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmanTheGr8 View Post

What we need to think about is why in the world are the networks willing to pay someone like Charlie Sheen millions of dollars per show???? that's the issue here. If all the networks got on the same page and vowed to pay these actors a living salary or go get a job at Burger King, we wouldnt have these $100+ monthly cable bills. Greed is a nasty thing!!!

Actors get paid big bucks because millions of people watch their shows. Look at Big Bang Theory or Friends. They started with cheap no-name actors and then when the show got popular the money flowed tot he actors. It works the same way with professional athletes. If you're good at what you do you get paid for it.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 91
1/17/13 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by judgedave View Post

Dish should just take CBS out of their channel list. In reaction to them being sued by the network. It should be their prerogative to do so. "we are not obligated to carry your channel" - lets see if they gain leverage

Dish will lose millions of subscribers if they dropped CBS.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 91
1/17/13 at 7:58pm
Most major network shows are terribly written and acted Who wants to watch these wretched shows anyway. In some cases the commercials are more entertaining than the supposed shows they sponsor.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 91
1/17/13 at 9:55pm
What about DirecTV's Nomad? I've been using it for almost 2 years now to save DVR'd content to my iPad. Guess that doesn't count for innovation.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 91
1/17/13 at 10:56pm
Well, I hate being in the minority, but across the board I'm in disagreement.

Let's start with the notion that Dish is an innovative company. I've been a subscriber for 14 years, there's nothing innovative in their products, the UI has always been horrible and the hardware unstable. They haven't been the first in any of their product features, many of which have had the same bugs for a decade. Is paying a bunch of people to watch tv and press the big red button a few times innovation? Hardly. It's a workaround for lack of ability to innovate. I like Dish, don't get me wrong, but let's keep the facts straight.

By hey, this isn't about Dish. I agree, CBS' actions are in very poor taste, but I don't blame CNET. They're a tech blog. They know the situation, yet they made a decision, obviously unbiased, and cast their vote. I admire the staff at CNET for doing so. CBS, not so much. They opposed the actions of a very large online presence, jeopardizing both their integrity and their income. Check out annual income from advertising (ahem) generated by CNET, it's freaking huge.

Commercials. Everybody hates them. Except during the Super Bowl. Dare I ask, couldn't we still live with our old Model A remotes and that 20mph skip forward function? Dish is just plain dumb to have made a move that pisses off every network. Moreover, I believe that Dish is just a bit vindictive, a little payback for all of the local channels battles. The feature provides only incremental benefit, it wasn't worth it.

Advertising is huge. Incredibly so. Actors, agents, promotion, photographers, filmmakers, their makeup, their cameras and lighting equipment. Writers, ad agencies. The education systems that gave them their skills... Think about how many people this employs. You get the picture. Panasonic, Samsung, Denon, LG, Yournamebrand all buy it to sell the products we enjoy, to bring us new and improved products year after year. Think about that the next time you hit the skip button :-)

My time in front of a display consists of about 20% DVDs, 60% network, 15% Dish/OTA and 5% snoring. I don't get enough commercial content to worry about, and most of that is skippable. I got bigger things to fret about.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 91
1/17/13 at 11:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louquid View Post

As much as I hate sitting through advertisements I understand it's a necessary evil. It pays for the shows I watch, while I pay the cable company to deliver me content I can't receive OTA.

As BartMan said, cable was never intended to eliminate advertisements. It simply brought you channels you otherwise wouldn't be able to receive depending on your location. I believe people confuse "cable" with "pay cable", as the only true "pay cable" networks require extra fees on top of a standard cable bill. This would be networks like HBO, Starz, Showtime, and various movie channels. These are actual "pay cable" networks and they don't have advertisements.

The cost to have cable/internet delivered to your home isn't going towards cable networks, it's going to the infrastructure costs of the cable company. Despite what many people seem to think, it costs a lot of money to maintain cable and internet service at your home. Your monthly bill is only paying for a very small portion of that.

Then maybe you or BartMan can explain why cable TV survived for over a decade, completely ad free? After cable TV started airing some ads, pay channels such as HBO and Showtime themselves used "ad free" as one of their biggest marketing incentives to buy.

Where do we get that from? Those of us who understand business and were around, get it from the industry themselves.

Modern technology improves efficiency, allowing these companies to reduce costs and maintain with a smaller budget. Name a company who doesn't set tough efficiency goals every year (other than the government). This industry is no different. Becoming more efficient allowed them to stick more into their content, thus they added channels every year - until they were satisfied that consumers were happy. Today they get supplies at bulk discounts which didn't exist when they started. Absolutely nothing costs them more today than it did for the 1st decade.

Don't think for a second that they wouldn't raise prices well above what it already is... if they thought they could get away with it. They've successfully price locked the industry well above what is required to maintain and grow their infrastructure today. Knowing that the big money is, and always will be in advertising, run a steady low profile campaign highlighting costs and fool (at least some) of the people into thinking that the costs justify advertising, and stick that into your pockets. This steady campaign has an outstanding ROI.

It's not about costs. It's about power. It's about the MIAA and the RIAA. Advertising allows them to instigate court battles against whoever they want, and pirating (which ironically is mostly done by those who can't afford their services in the first place). Even if you believe in the constant lawsuits, it's hard to believe in the "I'm right because I've got deep pockets and can outlast you in court" mentality that these industries employ.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 91
1/18/13 at 12:56am
In the UK we pay roughly £150 a year for a TV licence and that gives us commercial free TV from the BBC. BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4, CBEBBIES, CBBC, BBC HD, BBC NEWS along with commercial free radio. So the cost of offering commercial free TV clearly isn't 100's a month as people have stated on here.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 91
1/18/13 at 1:06am
I think CNET had a single logical solution. As soon as they realized that CBS was putting out generic disclaimers, they go public with the fact that they've chosen a product which CBS has banned from competition. They offer the story to CBS (to be fair), and take it elsewhere if CBS declines. CNET should have listed any other banned products, or pointed out that it was only the winner that CBS had chosen to ban. They put an asterisk beside the "qualified" winner. If CNET does this, they maintain journalistic integrity and don't need to quit their jobs. This was the only win/win for CNET, as their reputation alone would land them all great careers elsewhere if CBS was silly enough to fire them. I'm very disappointed that CNET didn't choose this option, as a journalism team.

As is, I think CNET has shown that they will always be less than completely unbiased with product reviews, and how and why they're chosen in the future. I'm sad too, as CNET was one of the last dependable sources for unbiased product reviews.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › 'Hopper' named 'Best of Show' CES 2013 by CNET - award withdrawn due to litigation