Bhairitu, because I haven't had TV hookup for decades, when I go visit my
family, who have the TV on all the time (!), I am often shocked by what they
advertise on TV now. Of course, such a statement makes me feel a little old (-:
On Friday, September 26, 2014 11:02 AM, "Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net
[FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
On 09/25/2014 10:42 PM, ultrarishi wrote:
>
>
>
>
>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote :
>
>
>Dan, Hulu's business model is different form Netflix. Netflix does not show
>ads and people expect this with their Hulu+ subscription. You get no ads on
>Hulu+ with movies and they have the Criterion Collection. The problem with TV
>shows is sometimes the studio will place them for "buy" at sites like Amazon,
>iTunes and VUDU. These are the ad free versions. So there would be a problem
>(i.e. conflict of interest) if the shows were ad free on Hulu+ too.
>
>The main thing Hulu needs to do is keep with short ad
breaks or
ones no longer than 1 minutes. The current model is 6
ad breaks
per 44 minute show (they actually call them 6 act
shows). The
broadcast versions can have up to 4 minutes of
commercials on a
break. I've heard that some networks losing OTA
viewers are
trying to make up for lost revenue by shoving more ads
on
streaming. That won't work as people will drop the
subscriptions.
And millennials who don't like to watch TV shows at
all just like
to watch clips on places like Hulu. The worlds is
changing right
out from under the feet of the network execs.
>
>
>Because of the ads + cost, I don't think I will ever
pick up Hulu again. In fact, I am now having a hard
time with network television shows because the ads are
just so irritating. I much rather use my VPN and
download shows like Manhattan, The Good Wife, The
Blacklist, etc. via torrent than to watch live or dvr
with the ads in place. Too many ads and so annoying.
>
I have a problem with "network television" period since most of the
shows are insipid. Most of any series viewing is not broadcast
shows and I tend to favor foreign shows made in less commercialistic
environments. One of the great things about the Utopia BD was the
featurette on shooting the controversial episode three because it
covered the constraints of shooting with a limited budget. US
networks make shows that are mostly gloss with little content. That
gloss costs money so no wonder they have to sell a lot of ads to
balance the spreadsheet. And then no one watches. We're all
waiting to see what new shows get canceled first.
Maybe less gloss, more story might please viewers but I'm sure the
research the networks do tells them gloss is the key. But then why
did FOX redo BBC's "Broadchurch" especially after most of us have
seen the original on BBC America? More story? Network TV execs
seem like a bunch of baboons flailing away in their cages. And yes,
I have been enjoying "Manhattan" especially because I grew up near
the Hanford Project and know the weirdness surrounding it.
I actually prefer movies over series because they are easier to fit
into my schedule. If a series falls into the soap opera cliche then
I am likely to drop it because I don't like to be "strung along".
And contrary to popular belief I'm actually not a TV junkie either.
And then the ads. I turn the sound off on Hulu+ which makes ads
more insipid. US businesses are desperate (just look at the layoffs
and doors closing) but hard sells aren't going to help and in fact
probably make us NOT want to buy the product. I think the business
caste deserves where they are in the Indian caste system. ;-)
>I also find that more and more of my listening and
viewing is taken up with podcast that scratch a certain
itch. Narrowcasting as opposed to broadcasting is
capturing my interest.
>
>
