BUSINESS AND MARKETING: Business and Marketing Forum Business and Marketing Articles

Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH

COW Forums : Business & Marketing

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Nick GriffinRant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 18, 2014 at 10:30:38 pm

I've chosen this place to rant because it's as good as any other.

I like Netflix and think it's well worth the monthly fee, as is HBO and its automatic access to HBO Go with the subscription. I'm conflicted about Amazon Prime's programming because the annual fee for the whole package of Prime services seems high unless one is prone to use Amazon a lot.

HOWEVER, first Hulu Plus and now CBS All Access charge to view their content AND have national spots which can't be skipped. I cancelled Hulu after getting to see all of Armando Iannucci's brilliant "The Thick Of It." Now before the "free trial" expires for CBS All Access I'm trying to get out of it.

The long and short of my rant is I have no problem with a business model that charges a subscription fee and no problem with the many other sites which are supported by advertising wherein the high number of eyeballs viewing can be sold to advertisers. But getting paid by both seems to me to be a rip off and, hopefully, not sustainable. Pick one or the other but you can't have both, at least not from me.


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 18, 2014 at 10:37:59 pm

Completely agree with ya, Nick.

In a similar vein, I don't want to go to the movies, pay an exorbitant price for a ticket, mortgage the house for a tub of popcorn and a soda in a 55-gallon drum... and then have to watch frikkin' commercials (and yes, this is hypocritically coming from a full-time commercial producer).

Pick one or the other.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com



Return to posts index

Rich RubaschRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 19, 2014 at 1:34:47 am

Just wait. Once we have all signed up for Adobe's subscription software, you'll be in the middle of tweaking a photo and a Pringles ad will pop up. Bet on it.

Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production, Post, Studio Sound Stage
Founder/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
http://www.tiltmedia.com


Return to posts index


Mark SuszkoRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 19, 2014 at 6:33:55 am

You'll also have to update Flash. AGAIN. and AGAIN/


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo JørgensenRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 19, 2014 at 9:36:35 am

I worked on a client round table video recently on OTT where one vendor had asked their customers whether: "They would pay extra not to have adverts?" - Not surprisingly an overwhelming majority said "yes!".
However, when the feature was introduced, no one used it. They even dropped the cost to $0.01, and still no-one was willing to pay...
(http://advanced-television.com/2014/10/31/ott-2014-making-the-most-of-ott/)

[Nick Griffin] "after getting to see all of Armando Iannucci's brilliant "The Thick Of It.""
That really summarizes the online market; if you have unique content and the consumer really wants it, then you are able to charge a premium to both the subscriber and the brands that want to be associated with it. Not much different to the DVD releases with adverts on the front.

As the battle on content is hotting up and the need to keep the viewer from cancelling your subscription, the online TV vendors will continue to tweak their offerings. With all the available data to the vendors, do not be surprised if in a near future that a Nick Griffin will automatically (unknowingly) be charged more with no advertising, where as a Todd Terry and a Mark Suszko will pay less in return for having to watch endless commercials on soap detergents and insurance companies.

On that note - my wife and I are enjoying the reboot of Ripper Street on Amazon Prime :-)

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Mark SuszkoRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 19, 2014 at 2:49:04 pm

I've been fascinated with 30-second spots since I was a kid, and so I generally don't mind a few in-between segments of my shows. I remember my mom watching boring soap operas on the TV when I was maybe 5, and I couldn't wait to see the commercials with Josephine the Plumber, which was much more interesting than the soap opera.








I may study them to learn something about technique, or ignore them for a bathroom break, or to check my email, or skim past them where possible. I actually enjoy old commercials embedded in classic old programs, for the time capsule look at the past that they offer.

I enjoy a ton of trailers before seeing the movie at the cinema. I'm less enthused about commercials there, though. They had better be super-entertaining then, or I tend to hold a grudge against whatever the product was afterwards.

I am less upset when TV shows are interrupted for commercials because historically they are built around that, it's part of their rhythm, but interrupting a movie for a commercial, well that's just not cricket.


Return to posts index


Shane RossRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 21, 2014 at 1:38:41 am

Hey! That's Robbie Benson! Voice of THE BEAST himself.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Mark SuszkoRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 21, 2014 at 8:01:48 pm

Another one on that page had Louise Lasser on it. Before Mary Hartman.


Return to posts index

Gav BottRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 21, 2014 at 1:18:16 am

Is the standard cable TV model though right?
You pay for access and get advertised to.
It's something that the consumer has lived with for ages - no wonder it's showing up in the replacement really.
Not suggesting you have to like it or anything of course.

The Brit in Brisbane
The Pomme in Production - Brisbane Australia.


Return to posts index


Nick GriffinRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 21, 2014 at 8:29:05 pm

Good point, Gav. But I've always thought of cable as the equivalent of a hyper-efficient antenna that covers every set in my house. Cable gets hundreds of channels on which I'd see the same spots whether I had cable or not. The Hulu / CBS All Access thing to me feels -- to continue the cable analogy -- like I'm paying for commercial-free HBO and now they've unilaterally decided to include spots and STILL expect me to pay their monthly fee.

Time will tell if their business model will work. In a way this seems a less Draconian version of Adobe's new pricing plan. Stop paying Adobe and you no longer have access to your files. Avid took a much smarter approach (IMHO) because if you stop paying you don't lose anything, you freeze where you are and just don't get the new features.


Return to posts index

Tim WilsonRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 21, 2014 at 10:20:51 pm

I agree...but I think it's going to get a lot worse.

On cable/satellite, ads account for 40-50% of revenue. Subscriptions cover the rest.

So no matter how much you pay, without the business model changing, which includes subscription costs skyrocketing, streaming networks like CBS will STILL need to find 40%-ish of their revenue from advertising.

But of course, they're getting a fraction of the money for online advertising that they are for "real" advertising, because there's not yet a "real" audience for advertisers to reach, so subscriptions make up a bigger part of the picture, but there's currently no way that enough people would pay enough money to stream traditional networks ad-free.

Here are some of the ways this works out in practice.

There was actually a lot more talk about this a couple of years ago when there was the whole carriage war with DirecTV, and newer numbers aren't widely available, but in 2012, ESPN took in $6.1 billion in cable subscriber fees, and $3.3 billion from spots.

Note that this combination represented 57% of Disney's operation income, and generated more profit for Disney than every other part of the company combined! And the key was the COMBINATION of subscriptions and spots.

The fact that they were only taking in $3.3 billion in ads vs. $6.1 billion in subscriber fees represents the delta between the relatively smaller value of ESPN's audience to their advertisers, and the larger importance of ESPN's programming to its audience....but, even in a world where ESPN allows subscriptions, ain't no way they walk away from the 30% or more of their revenue that ads represent.

Cable news is close to the other end of the spectrum. I found this handy graphic. Again, from 2012 when all the carriage fights were happening....but there you go. 39% of revenue from ads.



Disney argued that if people had to pay for ESPN without bundling, it would cost $15/month -- and that was 2012. Look at the massive sports programming contracts, to say nothing of Disney's need to bolster profits across every division. Subscriber fees are indeed up, but content cost has skyrocketed.

Beyond ESPN, in addition to needing to cover content creation and acquisition costs, vendors are having to hedge against declining overall revenues from cord-cutting.

Which is currently a myth. It's just not happening in a way that's moving the needle. That's another story, and one I'd written 6000 words on, and figured I was only halfway done, before I gave up.

But the fear is still real, and driving business practice. They need to prepare for online programming to deliver 100% of the revenue they've been getting from traditional ads AND entirely replace the money they were getting from subscription fees.

CBS is figuring that if you're subscribing to their online service, they're not getting paid for you by cable/satellite operators. So they need to cover the money they assume they're losing from you as a non-cable subscriber AND the money they get from advertisers -- again, in that roughly 60-40% mix of subscription vs. ad revenue.

The additional problem is that digital revenues are a fraction of what traditional cable / satellite / OTA rates are. As well they should be, because the streaming audience is a fraction the size too.

NBC president Jeff Zucker observed that they were trading traditional dollars for digital dimes...now down to digital pennies. Literally single digit percentages.

In the case of CBS, the only way they get to $6/month is leaving out stuff like football....but if they were going to recover the same revenue that they would on TV, they'd need to get 40%-ish on ads ABOVE the subscription rates. Which they're surely not. So subscription fees are a bigger percentage, but no way they can go high enough for CBS (or Hulu or whoever) to go ad free.

Sticking with CBS, if you wanted to go ad-free, the price would have to poke right up against HBO money. So CBS has to ask itself, would the SAME NUMBER of people be interested in CBS minus football and other premium content at $9 vs. $6? No, of course not. So, without cable and bundling, they have to use ad revenue to offset what the "true" cost of programming would be, because they can't compete at the "true" cost.

The thing is, people keep calling bundling a dodge, and in some ways it may be...but in practice, in most ways, for most people, it's just not. A la carte is only going to happen when it's worth it to CABLE providers, and there's no way that's going to happen until programming providers are sure they can make more from YOU than make from cable operators....and with the value of advertising so much lower on streaming, I guarantee that you will see MORE ads on streaming programming as time goes by, and it will be increasingly unskippable.

The fact is that subscribing to content with commercials in it has been the case for well over 100 years with newspapers and magazines. It's been the case for CATV since day one, too, and not just for retransmitted OTA channels. Most channels will never create HB0-style centers of gravity, even if they have larger viewerships, advertising is critical to their ability to even get in the game.

I think that there ARE people as devoted to NCIS, Blue Bloods, Big Bang Theory or what have you as there are devoted to Games of Thrones or House of Cards. But the business model for paying for the former group relies on a combination of subscriptions and ads. The leverage it will take to turn the crank to make you pay that much more for programming without ads doesn't currently exist.

Hulu is kind of interesting, because it functions as a kind of bundling deal. You get a lower price by having networks band together. The problem is that those networks also splitting the revenue pie, so, over time, this is a REVERSE benefit to them.

I see two inevitable results for Hulu: it falls apart as individual providers want more of their own dough, or it charges a lot more and functionally becomes a cable provider, gathering more and more bundled channels to support a value proposition that actually makes everyone money....which right now, Hulu is not.

To drive Netflix-like attachment, Hulu needs to create original, streaming-only programming that's compelling enough to extract incremental dollars -- but Hulu's content providers are years away from doing that, if ever, because they'd rather recover those dollars across tens of millions of viewers on cable, without sharing the dough with anyone....and it's a boatload more dough than they're going to get from streaming for decades to come.

The longer version of this story that I'd started on included lots of charts, and quotes from providers, details of the paltry showing of supporting for legislature supporting unbundling, and a look at the ACTUAL, currently virtually microscopic economic impact of cord-cutting. It also includes the revenue that local sports is driving, which is far beyond what national sports is driving, because there are so many high-value markets.

None of that even BEGAN to account for the rock bottom necessity of advertising to support a streaming distribution model, every bit as much as the cable model.

Not that there's no reason to rant. There is. I love commercials so much that I'm more likely to use the backwards-skip button to watch good commercials two or three times than I am to rewatch the last few seconds of programming content, even with sports. However, I nearly jump out of my skin if I can't skip the stuff I don't want to watch.

So I'm with you, believe me. But I also don't see any likelihood that it will go away, and if anything that it won't increase.


Return to posts index

Nick GriffinRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 22, 2014 at 5:02:46 pm

Wow, Tim! What a detailed and cogent analysis of the whole situation. You should be the COW's Editor In Chief! Oh... wait a minute. You ARE the COW's Editor In Chief, not to mention an incredibly prolific contributor.

The fact of the matter is the world has changed and continues to do so at an ever-increasing pace. Various business models for the delivery of content will be explored. Some will succeed and some will fail. I don't have to like it, but it's the truth.

For what it's worth I'm in the very distinct minority who would happily pay more for content without the commercial, or promotional for that matter, spots. I spend something like $216 a year for HBO, probably half that for Showtime and $83.88 a year for NetFlix. I'm not paying CBS for what I can already DVR.


Return to posts index


Tim WilsonRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 22, 2014 at 11:44:05 pm

[Nick Griffin] "I spend something like $216 a year for HBO, probably half that for Showtime and $83.88 a year for NetFlix...."

I keep trying to come up with ways to spend less ("hmmm...maybe now I can drop HBO") and keep finding ways to spend more ("hey, wait, Redbox means I don't have to wait for it to come on cable....hmmmm, maybe now I can drop HBO").

Thanks for the kind words on my psychotic post! I really do find this stuff endlessly interesting. With so many things having changed, it's easy to forget all the ones that haven't. We're going to be in advertising's thrall until programmers can find more someplace else.

I'm curious if there's an age-gap in this. You and I are toward the upper end of the COW's age spectrum, we pay a lot for content, and we'd like to skip commercials. Younger folks are less inclined to pay beyond Netflix, many have never had cable at all -- so I wonder if they see ads as a problem, or if they just roll with it.

Too bad no young folks post in this forum. LOL Although if you're out there, I'd love to hear your thoughts....


Return to posts index

Bill DavisRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 23, 2014 at 7:50:28 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Too bad no young folks post in this forum. LOL Although if you're out there, I'd love to hear your thoughts....
"


All this content represents a WAAY too long a scroll on their phone screens, I suspect.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Tim WilsonRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 24, 2014 at 1:11:00 am
Last Edited By Tim Wilson on Nov 24, 2014 at 1:23:40 am

Luc Besson said that when he makes movies (specifically speaking of The Fifth Element), he WANTS people to be pissed off when they see his movies at 16:9, to say nothing of 4:3. He wants people to be SO outraged at how much of the picture they're missing that they insist on the full aspect ratio he shot at....and to ensure they're outraged, he packs the frame as full as he can, intentionally placing key elements outside the mask.

Me, my posts aren't as good as The Fifth Element. LOL But I can live with somebody deciding to skip my whole post more easily than I can live with leaving part of it out. LOL

Otherwise, scroll on, punks. It's the only exercise some of you are getting. You're welcome.


Return to posts index


Kylee PeñaRe: ant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 24, 2014 at 3:07:17 am
Last Edited By Kylee Peña on Nov 24, 2014 at 3:17:37 am

Or maybe they're put off by the number of posts that say things like this about them.

To answer the question as a designated young(er) person, I haven't had cable in a couple of years. I have Hulu Plus, Netflix, Amazon Prime. I borrow HBO Go with HBO's apparent blessing but I'll subscribe when it's available.

I don't really care about the ads. Obviously on the surface, watching an ad while using a service I pay for seems stupid. But it's just more about access to me. Netflix is cool and has no commercials but everything on it is a hundred years old. Hulu Plus has fresher content without the cable bill.

If I didn't have access to these services, I would probably still not have cable anymore. I think I'm in the minority there, but I'm cheap and work a lot and I pretend to value things like "outside" and "books" while I read trash on the internet.

Sent from my iPhone

blog: kyleesportfolio.com/blog
twitter: @kyl33t
demo: kyleewall.com


Return to posts index

Jason JenkinsRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 24, 2014 at 4:11:40 pm

I'll throw my thoughts in here, even though at 42 I'm not young anymore. We have no cable, no antenna, no subscriptions. We average less than 1 movie rental a month from iTunes. Watched on either my 17" Macbook Pro, or more recently, a 40" HDTV hooked up to my Mac Pro in my home studio. We also get out 2 or 3 times a year to see movies in the theater.

With five kids ranging from 11 to 1 yrs, we have built-in entertainment 24/7!

Jason Jenkins
Flowmotion Media
Video production... with style!

Check out my Mormon.org profile.


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 24, 2014 at 4:34:44 pm

[Jason Jenkins] "With five kids ranging from 11 to 1 yrs..."

Hmmmm... Jason, maybe you should have been watching more TV....

I too do not have cable.

When I moved into my present house four years ago, it was not wired for cable... and every place that I wanted a TV jack was on an interior wall. I knew that I had to do all the cabling myself for it to look/work right, and by the time I got around to that a couple of months later I was too used to not having an expensive cable bill.

That's when it occurred to me that I should be able to get a great over-the-air signal... I can stand in my back yard and on a clear day I can see three of the four broadcast towers in this market. So I thought, "Lets go back to 1959 and get an antenna!" Except... I can't have one. My house is in a downtown historic district where antennas (and dishes) are verboten. On a lark I tried a little fifty-buck interior HD antenna from Radio Shack (about the size of a paperback book), and voilà!... it works like a charm and is actually a much better picture than cable (and since all the TVs are cabled together it works on every set). Plus, since the transition to digital broadcasting, each of the four network stations in our market has at least two or three sub-channels with pretty interesting programming.

I have to say, though, in my house we live and die by Netflix. In my living room it comes in via hardwired ethernet to the Blu-ray player... on the other TVs I have little wireless receivers made by Phillips. The better half is addicted to "Orange is the New Black" on Netflix, but I personally find it to be worth more than the subscription price for Dragnet alone.

In the car, though, I've gone completely the other way... I exclusively listen to satellite radio now. With the exception of some NPR shows like "Car Talk" or "Wait wait don't tell me," I couldn't tell you the last time I listened to broadcast radio.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com



Return to posts index

Mark SuszkoRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 24, 2014 at 6:35:56 pm

ATT U-Verse here, cable/internet/phones not the most expensive package, which irks me, because I'd trade ten sports channels I never use, for the NASA channel, which I can only get on the next tier up, an I don't want to pay that tier price.
But the Cisco DVR that came with the U-verse completely revolutionized our TV lives. Got into a huge fight with a workmate recently, because he insisted to his dying breath that you could only get a DVR by subscribing to a service of some kind. We all told him, not so any more: you can buy a stand-alone DVR and record shows off the air without needing a cable or sat service. He wouldn't believe it until he started looking up DVR's on his smart phone.


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 24, 2014 at 7:20:31 pm

[Mark Suszko] " Cisco DVR that came with the U-verse completely revolutionized our TV lives..."

See, what I would like to have is a DVR that is completely stand alone and owned by me... and is not subscribed to any service... that will work with a cable or off-air signal.

Does such a thing even exist??

I briefly researched it a while back, and in my (admittedly lightweight and non-exhaustive) search only found solutions that were PC-based... I didn't see any kind of set-top box that would do that.

Is there such a thing??

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com



Return to posts index

Tim WilsonRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 24, 2014 at 7:51:25 pm

[Todd Terry] "Is there such a thing??
"


As a matter of fact, here's an article from just last month. Take a quick look and report back to the class. :)

I like that a number of these now integrate streaming options with OTA. Very cool.

FWIW, the computer ones work really well, especially if you have Google Chromecast. You need good bandwidth, but playing any browser tab, including a full-screen movie in a browser tab, on your TV is beyond painless now. Heck, it's faster to set up than a new cable box.


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 24, 2014 at 8:09:58 pm

[Tim Wilson] "FWIW, the computer ones work really well, especially if you have Google Chromecast."

Yeah I'm sure they do.... but it's dedicating, tying up, or at least using a computer (or another computer) to do it.

I just want one stand-alone box, that's already and always there, that does that.

Maybe (hopefully) that exists. I'll review the article as soon as I get a chance and turn in my report.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com



Return to posts index

Nick GriffinRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 24, 2014 at 8:49:26 pm

I use Google Chromecast on an iPad for Netflix and HBO Go. And it works FANTASTICALLY!! I also have no problem "tying up" the iPad because I've always thought that the "two screen experience" is a remarkably stupid thing. I like to watch films and TV shows not bounce my eyes between a computer, phone, iPad, whatever and the nice BIG TV across the room.

(Not liking the "two screen experience" must be because I'm an old fuddy-duddy, right Tim. (And you kids get off my lawn!)


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 24, 2014 at 9:01:35 pm

[Nick Griffin] "And you kids get off my lawn!)"

Those youngsters today, with their rock-n-roll and their hula hoops... sheesh.

I'm quickly becoming an oldster... but I still use multiple screens often at home.

Largely what I want is for convenience and simplicity. It's a bit like when I bash the DLSR-fanboys. I tell them a DSLR is a great tool... but often you're using a screwdriver when you need a wrench.

This is a bit akin to that, for me. I have an ice maker. It makes cubes. If I want crushed ice instead, I want an ice maker that makes crushed ice. I don't want someone to tell me "Well, it will make crushed ice, you just also have to connect the ice machine up to your coffee maker."

I have to jump through so many hoops all day long, I don't want to do any hoop-jumping at home. I just want to switch on the convenient, discrete, attractive box and for it to work.

NOW who's the fuddy duddy??

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com



Return to posts index

Mads Nybo JørgensenRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 24, 2014 at 8:19:37 pm

Not using it for cable, but I'm sure that I could: Humax is great for catching and recording Digital TV programs.
(In the UK, not tested it in the States)

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Richard HerdRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 25, 2014 at 10:18:12 pm

also checkout slingbox.com


Return to posts index

Jason JenkinsRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 25, 2014 at 8:14:09 pm

[Todd Terry] "Hmmmm... Jason, maybe you should have been watching more TV...."

Some things are just way better in real life :)

Jason Jenkins
Flowmotion Media
Video production... with style!

Check out my Mormon.org profile.


Return to posts index

Richard HerdRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 25, 2014 at 10:15:57 pm

[Todd Terry] "it works like a charm and is actually a much better picture than cable"

This is an interesting thing. Are these signal specs FCC or SMPTE?


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: ant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 25, 2014 at 10:20:41 pm

I know no real specs, but I think at least in my market most cable providers dumb down all signals to 720... or at least that's what it looks like.

Off-air I get beautiful 1080.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com



Return to posts index

Richard HerdRe: Rant: Charge me or charge the advertisers -- NOT BOTH
by on Nov 25, 2014 at 10:07:56 pm

[Tim Wilson] "On cable/satellite, ads account for 40-50% of revenue."

I would love to see your research on this fact. And I'm not challenging it, rather, would bolster my position. Thanks!


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]