Do Commercials Kill TV?
Watching TV shows on DVD is a remarkable experience. You can breeze through four hour-long episodes and not feel like a whole lot of time has passed. It’s amazing how quickly the time goes.
The reason for that is each episode is down to about 42 minutes, max, after you remove the credits and the commercials. (I watched one recently that ended at the 39 minute mark.)
Remember — and I’m assuming you’re older than 25 or so here — the days before time shifting, when you had to get up and walk to the TV to change the channel or the volume? People used to stick by one network for the entire night. Human laziness is a remarkable thing. Commercial breaks were used for snacks or bathroom breaks, I suppose, but they were part of the deal. You got used to it. It almost didn’t bother you.
But, those shows were 50 minutes or more. The commercial breaks didn’t run every 5 - 8 minutes. With TV shows down to 42 minutes (or less) of entertainment per hour, you can’t blame humanity for using DVRs and skipping shows for their eventual DVD releases.
The networks respond, of course, by adding MORE COMMERCIALS (or as many as the FCC will allow) to increase ad revenue they say is lost by people changing channels and not watching TV. They just don’t get it, and so they dig their holes deeper. One of the reasons pay cable shows like SOPRANOS appeals to people is more than just the cursing and graphic sex; I believe part of it is the lack of commercials making it so much easier to lose yourself in the world you’re watching.
Speaking of which, has the writer’s strike made anyone else feel guilty about watching TV shows on DVD?
December 28th, 2007 at 9:21 am
There are a couple of shows that I think play better with commercial breaks—namely LOST and ALIAS, so I guess it’s the J.J. Abrams influence. I find the commercials help the pace of the show and give much more weight to the internal cliffhangers.
As a matter of accounting, I think that is one of my biggest problems with HEROES.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
“…has the writer’s strike made anyone else feel guilty about watching TV shows on DVD??
Not in the least. I’m not really a union guy. My feeling, for most union cases, is if you don’t like the conditions of your job you should look for work elsewhere. I give a little more credibility to workers earning 1.5x the poverty line for their area.
I have a hard time sympathizing with air traffic controllers, auto workers, Broadway stagehands, professional athletes, or television/movie writers, especially the writers. I understand the desire to make more money. What I don’t understand is the failure to realize that you have it very very very good as things stand now.
Screw them all and bring in the next generation of writers. There might be a brief period of subpar shows/movies, but it won’t take long before we don’t even notice a difference. Remember when all the “star” artists left the big 2 comic companies to start Image? If you’re older, you’ll remember an earlier, albeit smaller exodus for First and Pacific. In both cases, new artists came along and new fan favorites were born. If all of your favorite musicians were killed by a musical plague, two years from now you’d have a bevy of new favorite musicians. That’s how it goes.
The writers, however, would soon regret their decisions as they sit in a cubicle at a tech company or drug manufacturer writing copy for the brochure to be handed out at the upcoming convention … and at a significant discount from their previous pay.
Yeah, screw them all.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:45 am
See, the thing is, a lot of the writers *don’t* have it very very very good as things stand now. A lot of writers depend on residuals between gigs, and they’re not getting residuals (or not enough residuals) for the “new media”, a/k/a DVD, digital downloads and free website streaming. I can easily see their point when it comes to the streaming of episodes — you have to watch ads to watch the TV show on NBC.com (for example), and yet, the writers see none of that ad revenue. It goes to the companies instead. The writers should be paid for their work being on display on the Internet.
I think your analogy of the Image artists is a bit off. It’s not like the writers left to go somewhere else — unlike Todd, Erik, Jim, Rob, et al, there *IS* really nowhere else for them to go write movies and television shows.
I fully support the writers in this strike. I hope the AMPTA caves. And I’ll suffer through crappy television until it does.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:10 am
“the thing is, a lot of the writers *don’t* have it very very very good as things stand now.”
Yes, they do. They get paid to do what they love. What’s not very good about that situation? If they’re not making enough to support themselves, maybe they should consider a career change.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Getting paid to do what they love doesn’t mean that the working conditions are great. Residuals are *part* of their salary, which allows them to support themselves. They’re not bonus money or lucky strikes extra. And now big companies are using their work online and aren’t paying them residuals for it.
I don’t know what you do for a living, Overworm, but I hope that you love what you do. But if you love what you do but are not treated fairly by your employer, you mean to tell me you’re just going to change your career? If you have an option to fight for what you think is right, you’re not going to use it? You’re not going to exhaust all possibilities before making a huge change in your life, do anything you can to continue doing what you love?
THAT’S what the writers are doing here — they are fighting for what they believe they should be compensated for, and the strike is the only way they can fight back.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Saying writers have bad working conditions because of residuals related to DVD and internet product is being a bit disingenuous; it’s using a fairly insignificant work condition to describe the overall condition.
Fifteen years ago, there were no residuals from DVD/Internet because there was no televised product on DVD or the internet. Did the absence of that make the writers’ working conditions bad? Of course not. Therefore, the absence of same does not make their current working conditions bad.
Yes, it may be fair to argue the writers deserve a bigger piece of the pie when it comes to residuals, but I don’t buy the argument that their work lives are severely harmed by the way things stood before the strike. And I certainly don’t think it’s strike worthy. And because of that, I certainly won’t lose any sleep over the effects of their self-imposed strike on their lives.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Then let’s get rid of the idea that working conditions are bad.
The companies are using their work but with different delivery methods, and not paying the writers for said usage.
This is somehow okay?
And actually, yes, their lives *are* different now that we have these new methods of delivering their product. Television shows would most likely be repeated twice during the course of a season. Now that we have DVDs and Internet downloading, repeats are not as prevalent as they used to be, meaning less residuals for the writers, meaning less total pay — that’s a different working condition, no? So, to make up for it, they’re striking to get residuals on what’s replaced repeats.
I’m not in a union, and I don’t foresee myself ever being in a job where I’m in a union, given my current career path. If I don’t feel like I’m getting paid enough for my work, I can go to my boss and discuss a raise. He has the right to not give me one. Now my choices are limited to — stay with the same company for the same money, or find a new company. The writers have the ability to negotiate for pay, but they also have the ability to strike to change what they perceive as unfair business practices.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:32 pm
“…but they also have the ability to strike to change what they perceive as unfair business practices.”
And it’s right there where we disagree. I agree with your statement they have the ability to strike. I disagree with their perception that this issue was strikeworthy. Apparently, you think it was. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
January 1st, 2008 at 12:14 am
For what it’s worth, I’m not a union guy. But that’s the system Hollywood operates under right now. While it’s a pleasant possibility that this strike — and potentially Directors and Actors guild strikes — might eventually cause a massive internal change in the system, it’s what everyone has to play with. To that end, I’m all for writer’s getting a fair deal. And I don’t think they are right now. And I think they should play hard ball to get a little something back. Given how disgustingly the studios have behaved in the areas the writers are striking for, I have a very hard time mustering any sympathy for the studios.
Color me pragmatic.
January 1st, 2008 at 3:50 am
I agree the studios are hardly choir boys in all this. It’s a bit akin to baseball strike. I don’t pull for the players … or the owners. They’re both wrong to me. But in the end, I have to say because 1) The owners put up the money for the business, 2) No one is holding a gun to the players (writers or athletes) to work in their field, 3), when I feel both sides are acting poorly, I side with the ones taking the risk in the entire venture, which is the owners.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:17 am
On the bright side, there are factions forming to create their own production companies, in essence. The writers are discovering that in this new technological world we live in, it’s not all that expensive to mount productions themselves, or create something new without the studios. I don’t think this will mean the end of the union system in the next six months, but it’ll be fun to watch what the new guilds can do.
January 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I think that’s a great idea.