Cable's Latest Great Idea: Speed Up Programs So They Can Stuff More Ads Into Every Hour
from the who-cares-about-quality dept
We've discussed numerous times that as the Internet video revolution accelerates, the cable and broadcast industry's response has predominantly been to double down on bad ideas in the false belief that they can nurse a dying cash cow indefinitely. Netflix nibbling away at your subscriber totals? Continue to glibly impose bi-annual rate hikes. Amazon Prime Video eroding your customer base? How about we increase the hourly advertising load! Similarly, cable industry efforts at "innovative" viewing options (like TV Everywhere) are often more about giving the impression of innovation than actually innovating.The latest example of cable industry tone deafness? With cable and broadcast ratings continuing to fall, more and more people have been complaining that the industry increasingly likes to speed up programs notably so more ads can be stuffed into every hour. By speeding up Seinfeld by about 7.5%, for example, the industry can manage to deliver an extra two minutes of ad time during the program:
This has been going on for a while, and as complaints in this Reddit thread attest, another favorite tactic has been to heavily edit some programs for the same purpose. Fans of particularly popular programs tend to be the first to notice that their favorite content is now edited or accelerated, which may drive them to look elsewhere for a better quality version of that product (piracy, Netflix). Behold, even many executives in the cable and broadcast industry appear to be aware that adding more ads and degrading the quality of your product might not be the greatest idea for an industry at the cusp of a major competitive sea change:
"It is important for us to consider the effect this is having on the viewer experience,” said Jackie Kulesza, executive vice president and director of video at Starcom USA. “We want to ensure our message is seen by receptive viewers."..."They are trying to deal with a problem in a way that is making the problem bigger,” said Chris Geraci, president of national broadcast at media buyer Omnicom Media Group of the practice of increasing the commercial loads to make up for declining ratings."Except the cable and broadcast industry has repeatedly shown it's not really worried about the "viewer experience." Why? Because for all of the bitching the public does about their cable company and its historically abysmal customer service, the industry knows the vast, vast majority continue to pay them an arm and a leg for bloated bundles of miserable programming that barely gets watched. Even as cord cutting accelerates, the industry isn't worried; plan B is to abuse its monopoly over the broadband last mile to ramp up deployment of broadband caps, recouping their lost pound of flesh via broadband overage fees.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertisements, cable, commercials, internet, speed, tv shows, video
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And they wonder why people like Netflix and online sources where you don't have to sit thru commercials.
If you ever wonder why The Networks and big cable were against Dish's box that allowed you to skip commercials, this is why never mind how scared they were that it might come to set top boxes for Cable and Telco customers further eroding their revenues
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Creepy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They are just increasing the poison dose being injected in their veins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Go on. Build that last mile out for me you stupid slave bitches!!!
While you whine about dem executive .gov FCC over-reach has flipped their lids, I PLAN TO PROFIT MY ASS OFF until the country grinds to a halt like a loco down a dirt road. ;o)
SERVICE MY TRAFFIC YOU NETWORK NEUTRALITIED TRAFFIC RACISTS ... lol
(they hate my race because I have good naked traffic!)
I want the world to cum see all my new 24/7 3D HD Porn channels.
EXTRA EXTRA! I am goin to BEAT netflicks with my SKINFLIX out of my garage (aka SILICONE VALLEYS)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not exactly new
Back then a big problem was that the speedup garbled any closed captions. But there was no Disabilities Act then in the US. If that still happens, there's now a legal route (ADA suit) to fight it, or at least make it less profitable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How is this not copyright infringement?
Where is the clown car full of lawyers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And yet the pirates are the bad guys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Something I noticed when watching Doctor Who on Netflix UK is that scenes had been cut out throughout the episodes (particularly the episodes 'The Sound of Drums' and 'Last of the Time Lords'). I'm guessing this happened when American TV channels cut scenes out to make room for adverts, then sent those cut-down episodes to Netflix UK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Like a restaurant
Now who does that sound like....*cough*Olive Garden*cough*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's another time irony plays strong here - when this happens, the unedited pirated copy is giving more credit to the people who made the thing than originating network is giving.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Many of the worst examples are longer than normal episodes (like the two you mention, if I recall) so they get cut even more to fit into a normal "hour" time slot. (43-44 minutes or so.) Oftentimes some of my most favorite scenes (in "The Big Bang" for example) get edited out in reruns.
Good thing I still have the blu-rays to count on, I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NFL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It was ridiculous the way that local TV stations would usually trim old shows -- they would simply shave off maybe 20 or 30 seconds at every commercial break. But since many 'classic' action tv shows placed commercial breaks in crucial cliff-hanger moments, cutting off those nail-biter sections completely destroyed all the highlights of the show, making viewers confused about what critical event had just taken place that they were not allowed to see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, or redubbed ads! It's like current bad-language censoring, only with advertisements!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not exactly new
It used to be really prevalent on movies shown after midnight, often with some hysterical results. I'll never forget the synchronized dancing in Grease 2 under time compression. :)
It's not enough that a one hour TV show is 42 minutes, they've got to edit it down or speed it up to only 39.5 minutes this way now. And forget about half hour shows, you're lucky to get 15 minutes of content instead of the usual 18.
And don't forget the 3-6 minutes of "free" commercials when they split-screen the credits at the end of a movie. One side credits in unreadable typeface, the other side commercials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lots more ads
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'd like things to be like they were in the 90's and not have to do this, but I'm not fooling myself. Last days I had cable (well, I do now for my internet, which at least isn't shitty like south of the border, I might get the hybrid cable/fibre cos it allows symmetric connections of 50/50 (I got 50/10 right now with my normal cable connection), I only watched 2 channels, the one where I could watch hockey (go Habs) or teletoon to watch the equivalent of adult swim and that was when I was still in college stoner, so around 2005. I just watch the games online now since the channel's website offer pay per view streaming for like 2 bucks a game, and much lower if you buy a package.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
With Top Gear, which is normally a full 60 minutes on the BBC, the first runs on BBCA are in 90-minute time slots, but the reruns then get crunched to an hour.
They've gotten better at it in recent years, usually keeping the first run episodes at whatever length they need to be to add in advertising without missing anything, and then chop it for repeats. When I first started watching things were usually cut even on first runs, which was beyond annoying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lots more ads
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, there is advertising on BBC America, the US-normal ~15 minutes per hour. It's just that on first run episodes they will normally lengthen the overall time slot to accommodate the additional ad time. So, a 45-minute BBC episode airs in 60 minutes with commercials on BBCA, a 60-minute episode airs in 90 minutes, etc. Sometimes they'll shuffle things around and there will be a block of odd times, e.g., two 1-hour-15-minute blocks back to back. Later on, with repeat airings, the shows get cut down to fit in a normal hour, so you lose whatever they decide isn't important.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The addition of those banners and logos at the bottom of the screen already demonstrated that they couldn't care less about "viewer experience".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think its safe to assume this is another thing done to get a few extra seconds for ads
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cutting the product.
Good to see cable companies innovating in new business strategies, especially ones previously relegated to the black market.
The trick? Staying subtle.
https://imgur.com/a/Nr0QH
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But for no ads ever it works out at about £12/month, far cheaper than any other service - basic SKY is about £50/month and you still get ads. Plus if you only watch "catch-up" ie not live you even have to pay anyway.
Some want the fee abolished but all that will happen is the quality will drop, it will be more expensive and we will get ads. People should be careful what they wish for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure I'd be okay with a similar type of license fee or not. If the cable service was correspondingly cheaper then it may be worthwhile, but I don't know... That's $230 or so a year, and I can probably pick up the DVD/blu-rays for the shows I care enough about and still come out below that. (Even with the higher cost of some of the BBC releases!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Old hat in radio
The "secret", he informed me, was that the station would speed up the commercials themselves so they could run more of them.
It's a shame that television doesn't take that approach.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Time Compression
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not exactly new
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You would think that broadcasters and producers would have gone to the actors guild to try to get these requirements lifted by now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
My solution is to just buy an Amazon Fire TV Stick with my Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, Amazon Prime, etc... and just use it wherever I am.
Just like purchased DVDs should NOT have commercials (trailers are ok). $1 Rented DVDs should. Same with Cable. Provide a heavily discounted rate that includes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Growing up, I used to watch Star Trek on various syndicated channels. When the SciFi Channel got the rights to it, they made a big deal out of airing the episodes uncut. They devoted 90 minutes to each episode and there were scenes I'd never seen before.
When watching DVD copies of The Twilight Zone, which is another show I used to watch back in the 70s and 80s, I saw scenes that had never been shown in any of the repeats I watched.
I used to like the show Still Standing until it was canceled. I've been looking for good copies of the episodes, but the only ones I could find were recorded off Lifetime. In one of the first episodes I watched I noticed a whole gag that had been edited out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not a problem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Picture in Picture
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can they speed up the ads too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Careful guys...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ads, ads everywhere
I tuned to the channel...and commercials were airing. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the commercial, the movie starts up, it's the big scene where the alien ships first appear...you see the shadow of one crawl slowly across the National Mall, and approach the Washington Monument...then "Bzzzt"! A special effect is added, similar to what you see in a movie when someone "hacks" a TV signal...the picture then cuts to a 3 second COMMERCIAL for their new TV show "The Dig"...complete with audio (a whispered voiceover)...then "Bzzt!" Back to the movie!
Bad enough that we have to sit through an HOUR AND A HALF of commercials for a 90 minute movie...but now they are interrupting the movie itself to add additional ads???
Seriously...screw this shit! I would rather do just about ANYTHING else than watch cable TV these days!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ads, ads everywhere
I tuned to the channel...and commercials were airing. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the commercial, the movie starts up, it's the big scene where the alien ships first appear...you see the shadow of one crawl slowly across the National Mall, and approach the Washington Monument...then "Bzzzt"! A special effect is added, similar to what you see in a movie when someone "hacks" a TV signal...the picture then cuts to a 3 second COMMERCIAL for their new TV show "The Dig"...complete with audio (a whispered voiceover)...then "Bzzt!" Back to the movie!
Bad enough that we have to sit through an HOUR AND A HALF of commercials for a 90 minute movie...but now they are interrupting the movie itself to add additional ads???
Seriously...screw this shit! I would rather do just about ANYTHING else than watch cable TV these days!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Also
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Daily Mail (the main stirrer of anti-BBC sentiment) and most of their readers seem to have a pathological hatred of Top Gear. But seem to forget that it's sold all around the world, and with Doctor Who the two programs make an abosolute fortune the BBC.
I think the Daily Mails main problem is that they own ITV, the BBC's main competitor. They don't like the fact the BBC get £4 billion a year in fees. Which is a fair point I suppose.
But worth remembering you don't have to pay. I don't even own a TV, I watch everything on-line so I don't need a license as long as I don't watch it live. And the iPlayer service is exellent - online within minutes of an episode ending. I still pay it because I think the BBC is worth it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lots more ads
Or people sleeping, or eating..or not having a TV at all.
This has been attempted in the past, and those attempts have been laughed out of court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lots more ads
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They've taken networks to court over unauthorized 'scrubbing' of movies to make it more family-friendly when the content creators didn't want that.
Why can't they use similar contracts? The networks are essentially editing the content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's been a long, slow, steady decline...
Not entirely sure how that works with "first run syndication" like TNG but it's likely that expectations have deteriorated between then and now regardless.
The last time I watched network reruns on conventional TV (about 8 years ago), I noticed that 60s content had been cut down further from when I had seen it previously. It was so bad then that I no longer wanted to bother.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Hulu effect
Hulu takes this one step further and takes content that has been created for such commercial breaks and puts commercials in random places.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's been a long, slow, steady decline...
You'll never know how Batman and Robin were able to escape from any of those impossible-to-escape-from death-traps they always somehow managed to escape from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Picture in Picture
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't need to even specify the rest of that sentence, it's pretty much true of anything they regularly write about.
Unless you want to add the words "stirred up by often misleading and/or outright false articles written in the Mail", in which case the clarification is useful to understand why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With TNG it's probably happening way more often even than the new Doctor Who, if only because TNG was probably closer to 45-46 minutes per episode compared to the more modern 43-44.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I got to try out iPlayer on my last visit to England (catching up on some recent Doctor Who I'd missed, in fact) and it was pretty good. (Or maybe it was something else... it was through the TV, not online, so honestly I'm not sure now exactly what it was.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's because Hulu is run by aliens...
Which I think is the best explanation of beleaguered media services making their content worse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, you don't. According to the legislation, you have to "install or use equipment for the purposes of viewing television programmes." So a manager who allows employees to watch live football on a TV originally installed for displaying presentations has to pay a licence fee, but I don't even though my TV can receive TV broadcasts because I set it up to receive radio broadcasts only and use it for that, watching DVDs, and playing console games. Simples!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, no you don't. Watching catch-up TV is entirely free (apart from data charges) just as long as you're not watching that episode of Doctor Who at the same time as it's being repeated on BBC 3. Seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Can they speed up the ads too?
I was told by someone at TNT that they aren't legally allowed to alter ads in any way.
It was back when channels were just starting to add logos to the corner of the screen. TNT started doing it while the show Babylon 5 was on and I complained to the network. They wrote back and claimed that people loved the logos because they helped viewers find their favorite channels. I told him that if they wanted to make channels easier to find, they should put the logo on during commercials. That's when he told me that they aren't allowed to put anything over the commercials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ads, ads everywhere
It's called a "buk" or "boook." It consists of paper leaves with static text or graphics. The buk is a descendant of an earlier "scroll" technology, which worked in much the same fashion, though without the buk's random-access capability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For some it also works as a sedative.
A book or bōc is a journal or sketchbook to assist children in learning to read and write.
One of the problems of the codex technology is that it is really rather biodegradable, to the point our libraries once had to be staffed with transcribers to continuously restore old works onto new media. This process was improved by the use of movable type and the printing press.
These days, the codex is still used as a device for distribution, but originals are kept in digital form to be accessed by computer-controlled printing presses that can rapidly produce a run of cheap-but-efficient plastic-coated soft-bound codices for rapid dissemination. But this technology is currently being challenged due to the e-book which allows one to carry the contents of many many codices without the pesky burden.
New technologies always present new problems, but usually ones smaller than the problems they solve, otherwise, yes. People will fall back to older technologies. Ergo, drug dealers and old-fashioned not-so-smartphones that don't track them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Time Will Tell
Perhaps, just like these dinosaur industries, they died off because they continually chose actions that made their situation worse until finally a last stupid decision ended their misery once and for all.
We can only hope that final decision comes soon. :)
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Often people who make a significant contribution don't make the cut because of limited credit space and politics. If you want a sense on how limited space is, check out the wall of text for VFX artists part of the credit roll in a blockbuster feature near you - it's not because they didn't do much.
The cast and crew pages on services like IMDb do allow for people who aren't credited to claim participation, however it can hardly be considered a full and complete picture.
I prefer my credit where it matters, in the credits for the piece. IMDb et al. provide a useful reference but are most definitely not canon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NFL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]