Post: #1

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/busine...wanted=all

Can only be a good thing, right?

Sure, there is an enormous contingent of blue pill/politically correct types online, but at least red pill views are represented in healthy doses as well. TV just seems like an extension of the federal goverment these days in terms of its pushing whitewashed PC shit.

Post: #2

(10-29-2012 05:12 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/busine...wanted=all

Can only be a good thing, right?

Sure, there is an enormous contingent of blue pill/politically correct types online, but at least red pill views are represented in healthy doses as well. TV just seems like an extension of the federal goverment these days in terms of its pushing whitewashed PC shit.

The last part is true but is also the dominant theme of forcing shit quality to people. TV got greedy and gave as 1000 channels with nothing on it but the same re-runs. They also did not capitalize on the net quick enough and let the tech-world dictate the trends they had to follow versus creating their own (same thing happening in music). They shot them selves in the foot, you see how TV slept on Twitter which makes so much sense as Twitter is dependent on ractions from live-events. But TV was so late to the party, all they do is slap #'tags on shows and think it makes them relevant. A re-run of Modern Family does not equal the same effect as it would for the Season Premier or a live new episode but this is the type of laziness that is rampant in TV. Also there is no competition. The biggest quality of TV is coming from smaller cable/ for pay networks whom have to offer quality programming to keep subscribers. Network TV and all its tentacles is just a octopus now and simply just chuggs along just doing the basics.

But on the flip side.

Lets not get to quick to think its a revelation that people are getting smarter and such. People, especially younger people have no attention spans anymore to sit through a hour-long, let alone half-hour shows these days. Many shows have to be compressed, many music stations don't even play the full songs and will just play the first 2min of a video making sure to get the hook of the song as young people can't sit through the whole thing. Larry King Live or Oprah would no succeed in today's TV world if they both debuted today. Larry King used to be like 2 hours+ long at night, while Oprah was a long format show with few months of new episodes. Both would struggle to keep viewers in today's landscape.

So in short you have a Lazy MSM media base which even has to inflate its numbers and is getting less then smaller cable channels or internet media providers. And A public the demands diversity with little substance and wants it quick and efficiently presented to them.

Post: #3

(10-29-2012 05:27 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(10-29-2012 05:12 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/busine...wanted=all

Can only be a good thing, right?

Sure, there is an enormous contingent of blue pill/politically correct types online, but at least red pill views are represented in healthy doses as well. TV just seems like an extension of the federal goverment these days in terms of its pushing whitewashed PC shit.

The last part is true but is also the dominant theme of forcing shit quality to people. TV got greedy and gave as 1000 channels with nothing on it but the same re-runs. They also did not capitalize on the net quick enough and let the tech-world dictate the trends they had to follow versus creating their own (same thing happening in music). They shot them selves in the foot, you see how TV slept on Twitter which makes so much sense as Twitter is dependent on ractions from live-events. But TV was so late to the party, all they do is slap #'tags on shows and think it makes them relevant. A re-run of Modern Family does not equal the same effect as it would for the Season Premier or a live new episode but this is the type of laziness that is rampant in TV. Also there is no competition. The biggest quality of TV is coming from smaller cable/ for pay networks whom have to offer quality programming to keep subscribers. Network TV and all its tentacles is just a octopus now and simply just chuggs along just doing the basics.

But on the flip side.

Lets not get to quick to think its a revelation that people are getting smarter and such. People, especially younger people have no attention spans anymore to sit through a hour-long, let alone half-hour shows these days. Many shows have to be compressed, many music stations don't even play the full songs and will just play the first 2min of a video making sure to get the hook of the song as young people can't sit through the whole thing. Larry King Live or Oprah would no succeed in today's TV world if they both debuted today. Larry King used to be like 2 hours+ long at night, while Oprah was a long format show with few months of new episodes. Both would struggle to keep viewers in today's landscape.

So in short you have a Lazy MSM media base which even has to inflate its numbers and is getting less then smaller cable channels or internet media providers. And A public the demands diversity with little substance and wants it quick and efficiently presented to them.

Good analysis.

Post: #4

well there are some great tv shows out there maybe more than ever as cable chanels can show drugs, sex, use profanity more than before. for MEN the options are limited, especally on non cable chanels. but then those consumers are not paying for product just watching advertising.

i think when the average male cable tv subscriber looks at what he pays for and what he watches it is unfair. by that i mean tv is largely set up for women and gays. hetero men can easily download or use netflix to watch the male oriented shows they want. many guys just play video games and use netflix or hula for movies. so it is hard for straight guys to justify the expense of cable tv when content oriented to them is either lacking and or available through other means like hula or netflix.

Post: #5

15 years ago, when I was a young kid, my family only had antenna--so we got like 12 channels or so max. Maybe I'm distorting my memory, but I generally remember I could reliably flip through the channels quickly and find something I wanted to watch. With cable TV now, there's like 200 channels to chose from, but 90% of the time I can't find anything worth watching anymore. Everything is so micro-targeted now on TV... but in a bad way.

It's like the worst of both worlds. Back in the antenna days, they had to make things mainstream appealing because there weren't many options. They had to only let quality stuff out of the limited TV channels. A little sports, a little bit of sitcoms like Fresh Prince, a little bit of news, but only the most interesting stuff. Now, it's how do we maintain 24 hour, pure sports coverage on the dozen sports channels? How do we fill 24 hours of garbage on the Oprah Network? They're forced to put up crap to fill the void.

Internet entertainment is going the opposite direction. How can we be succinct and timely, and actively match you to your interests.

Post: #6

This wouldn't help ratings either.
A 'naturalist' set out to be swallowed by an anaconda ostensibly to raise awareness of protecting the environment. The TV special, tantalizingly called 'Eaten Alive' was broadcast recently and the long-awaited cliffhanger moment (snake swallows man on camera) proved to be a flop.
I watched the trailer on YouTube weeks ago and I was intrigued.
the post-broadcast reactions are hilarious: http://www.kelownanow.com/news/arts_ente...pped_Stunt

http://www.reddit.com/r/television/comme...?limit=500

Post: #7

Every once in a while there is a tv show worth watching. Otherwise tv is absolute garbage and it's no surprise that it's ratings are declining. Sadly though I don't think the rating declines are because people think it's a waste of time but because Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube are adequate substitutes for imbibing garbage media.

Post: #8

(10-29-2012 05:27 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(10-29-2012 05:12 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/busine...wanted=all

Can only be a good thing, right?

Sure, there is an enormous contingent of blue pill/politically correct types online, but at least red pill views are represented in healthy doses as well. TV just seems like an extension of the federal goverment these days in terms of its pushing whitewashed PC shit.

The last part is true but is also the dominant theme of forcing shit quality to people. TV got greedy and gave as 1000 channels with nothing on it but the same re-runs. They also did not capitalize on the net quick enough and let the tech-world dictate the trends they had to follow versus creating their own (same thing happening in music). They shot them selves in the foot, you see how TV slept on Twitter which makes so much sense as Twitter is dependent on ractions from live-events. But TV was so late to the party, all they do is slap #'tags on shows and think it makes them relevant. A re-run of Modern Family does not equal the same effect as it would for the Season Premier or a live new episode but this is the type of laziness that is rampant in TV. Also there is no competition. The biggest quality of TV is coming from smaller cable/ for pay networks whom have to offer quality programming to keep subscribers. Network TV and all its tentacles is just a octopus now and simply just chuggs along just doing the basics.

But on the flip side.

Lets not get to quick to think its a revelation that people are getting smarter and such. People, especially younger people have no attention spans anymore to sit through a hour-long, let alone half-hour shows these days. Many shows have to be compressed, many music stations don't even play the full songs and will just play the first 2min of a video making sure to get the hook of the song as young people can't sit through the whole thing. Larry King Live or Oprah would no succeed in today's TV world if they both debuted today. Larry King used to be like 2 hours+ long at night, while Oprah was a long format show with few months of new episodes. Both would struggle to keep viewers in today's landscape.

So in short you have a Lazy MSM media base which even has to inflate its numbers and is getting less then smaller cable channels or internet media providers. And A public the demands diversity with little substance and wants it quick and efficiently presented to them.

I disagree on this point. How often have you heard of people "binge watching" shows like Breaking Bad, or Netflix? Having the ability to watch twelve hours of anything shows, at the very least, that people still have attention spans. However, I think it is only for things they are interested in. There is so much out there on the internet that caters to exactly what I want to see. I have a website that's about me and my friends, I download the shows I want to watch, I read articles written by people that agree with me, I listen to the songs I want to hear... you get the idea. The problem isn't that people don't have attention spans anymore, we just got spoiled. The average person is so used to having things tailor made for them throughout their day, being able to pay attention to something that has nothing to do with them or their interest is a challenge. It's a skill that I had (and continue) to learn.

Post: #9

(12-09-2014 03:36 AM)brick tamland Wrote:  This wouldn't help ratings either.
A 'naturalist' set out to be swallowed by an anaconda ostensibly to raise awareness of protecting the environment. The TV special, tantalizingly called 'Eaten Alive' was broadcast recently and the long-awaited cliffhanger moment (snake swallows man on camera) proved to be a flop.
I watched the trailer on YouTube weeks ago and I was intrigued.
the post-broadcast reactions are hilarious: http://www.kelownanow.com/news/arts_ente...pped_Stunt

http://www.reddit.com/r/television/comme...?limit=500

Fuck dude! Use a spoiler alert next time. I was hyped to see that.

Post: #10

(12-09-2014 06:21 AM)Snowplow Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 03:36 AM)brick tamland Wrote:  This wouldn't help ratings either.
A 'naturalist' set out to be swallowed by an anaconda ostensibly to raise awareness of protecting the environment. The TV special, tantalizingly called 'Eaten Alive' was broadcast recently and the long-awaited cliffhanger moment (snake swallows man on camera) proved to be a flop.
I watched the trailer on YouTube weeks ago and I was intrigued.
the post-broadcast reactions are hilarious: http://www.kelownanow.com/news/arts_ente...pped_Stunt

http://www.reddit.com/r/television/comme...?limit=500

Fuck dude! Use a spoiler alert next time. I was hyped to see that.

What? He saved you the trouble of being disappointed after investing hours into it.

Post: #11

(12-09-2014 06:21 AM)Snowplow Wrote:  Fuck dude! Use a spoiler alert next time. I was hyped to see that.

He just save you two hours of your life. 2 hour show about man being eaten by snake ends with him not being eaten by snake.

Not sure about the rest of the country, but I stopped watching TV because it got super boring at the same time internet content became entertaining. Much like the dying grocery store that raises their prices to compete with the new popular store.

(10-29-2012 05:12 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  TV just seems like an extension of the federal goverment these days in terms of its pushing whitewashed PC shit.

It has nothing to do with the government, its corporate PC propaganda with a female protagonist and a happy gay couple behind every corner.

Post: #12

If a la carte pricing became the norm there would be massive unemployment in Hollywood.

The thousands of channels we have are propped up by their cable network "packages". Most people would only watch 2-3 channels at most.

Post: #13

Completely agree with most of the analysis above, well said. I have weaned myself off of the majority of television. I follow about 3 shows (all that can be enjoyed throughout Netflix with no garbage commercials) and I will watch reruns of Seinfeld and Married With Children. That's it. I prefer the television off at all other times so I can focus on reading.

I've noticed a huge increase in the amount of free time I have and it's been able to help me become a more prolific reader. I have devoured 13 books in the last 3 months, mostly history pieces. I feel like I've learned more in the last 3 months than I have throughout a whole year in college.

I refuse to sit through the mind rot that is modern television. Garbage, retarded commercials, stupid sitcoms that force blue pill "values" down your throat, and trashy reality television will have no part in the Pitts household.

I hope to one day be able to completely get rid of my cable.

Post: #14

I do not even have TV subscription, only internet.

Post: #15

That's not the point. I wanted to see that dude go head to head with an animal like that. To see how he mentally prepared for it. I know tv sucks but just like how most people got some suspense out of seeing it, thats what I want. So excuse me for being slightly disappointed.

Post: #16

"The more channels you have, the less there is to watch"

Post: #17

(10-29-2012 07:00 AM)bacon Wrote:  well there are some great tv shows out there maybe more than ever as cable chanels can show drugs, sex, use profanity more than before. for MEN the options are limited, especally on non cable chanels. but then those consumers are not paying for product just watching advertising.

i think when the average male cable tv subscriber looks at what he pays for and what he watches it is unfair. by that i mean tv is largely set up for women and gays. hetero men can easily download or use netflix to watch the male oriented shows they want. many guys just play video games and use netflix or hula for movies. so it is hard for straight guys to justify the expense of cable tv when content oriented to them is either lacking and or available through other means like hula or netflix.

Found this thread on the bottom of a current thread and clicked on it to read through. Yes it is a couple of years old but wanted to correct this statement.

Straight/Hetero guys are the ONLY reason why the cable package as it is structured today exists.

Why? Because they watch live sports, and live sports is the keystone to the whole cable industry.

Without live sports, cable would've already gone a la carte by market forces.

However alternative distribution so far has not solved the live sports issue, therefore cable companies (both distributors - vz, Comcast, twc, charter, dish, dtv, etc AND content owners/providers: Disney, TW, Newscorp, sports leagues, etc) can still get traction for bundles because it is the only platform that offers live sports.

Post: #18

(12-09-2014 07:21 AM)frenchie Wrote:  If a la carte pricing became the norm there would be massive unemployment in Hollywood.

The thousands of channels we have are propped up by their cable network "packages". Most people would only watch 2-3 channels at most.

yes, but it works both ways. ESPN is the most valuable regular cable channel (gets about 6 USD/month*sub).

However out of about 100 million cable households, only a third really watch it enough that they would subscribe to it if it was priced like HBO.

In order for ESPN to maintain its revenue, in an HBO model, it would have to charge over 30 dollars a month just for espn.

At that price point, that 33 million market size drops and forces you to keep increasing the price and your revenue spirals.

So while ESPN subsidizes lifetime, ESPN is very happy to do so as it gains the widest possible distribution in this model.

Post: #19

My only interests are;

1: South Park
2: American Dad
3: Random films

All of these are shown late. The majority of shows are aimed at families, women and morons.

Post: #20

You know why there are no commericals for Ferraris on TV?

Because people with Ferraris don't watch TV.

Post: #21

Who watches network TV anymore?

The idea of having to watch a certain program at a certain hour is so old-school that it almost borders on insane. Kind of like when families used to sit around the radio in the early 1900s in order to listen to the broadcast of a radio show. Makes no sense.

The internet has totally and irrevocably destroyed the network TV model. It is only now that these fools in TV land have figured it out.