Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bad Zebra
It's hard to make a case for higher value of ANY programming if advertisers know that commercials are not being seen. That's what "zapping" the commercials is doing...makes no difference if it's live sports or sitcoms or news programming for that matter.
Your point is valid about more eyeballs being drawn to sports...but that doesn't help me if I'm trying to sell Chevy trucks and people are whipping past my message. Product placement will increase as you described, but tests show that they're no where near as effective as 30 second commercials.
Bottom line...watch the commercials...they're the reason the network is able to broadcast the game.
(off my soapbox now...back to your regularly scheduled thread)
|
I don't know where we got so off-topic
, but while I agree with your points overall, TV
isn't going away...and if the "zapping" of commercials happens at a higher rate in sitcoms than in sports (which it does), then the value (to advertisers) of sports is going to be greater
relative to the value of sitcoms.
That doesn't mean the overall value of television advertising isn't going to decrease - it probably is - but we shouldn't worry about zapping the commercials. It's a fact of life now and they aren't going to stop showing sports...in fact, I'll argue there will be a higher frequency of live television because it's less likely to be zapped.
This is fun...