Please Boycott FX Buffy reruns
TNG1949
I admit, I'm a devoted fan of Buffy The Vampire Slayer. I have watched and
recorded the original runs on WB and UPN, and I still watch the FX reruns of
the show every day I can on FX. But, I have now decided that as soon as
Season 6 concludes it's latest chopped-up, commercial-loaded and
"promo-blurb" infected run on FX, I will discontinue watching my favorite
show in reruns and boycott the FX Network. This may sound drastic, but let
me explain my reasons.
I'm thoroughly disgusted with FX. It began when I started buying the Buffy
DVD's as soon as they were issued. Once again, I could watch the gloriously
uncut episodes as they were meant to be seen. But each DVD set release
schedule rivaled glacial movement. I quickly realized it was only due to
Fox TV and FX Network's greed to sell more commercial space on the
bastardized reruns that caused the DVD's slow release pace.
They way I got it figured, here's how it works:
The longer we watch the FX reruns, the longer it will take for FOX to
release the DVD sets. They have already released Season 6 in most overseas
countries, why are we being discriminated against? Because FX is making
money hand over fist on the commercial space they've ripped out of the
edited BTVS reruns, and they're not about to give up this goldmine. At the
pace they are going at now, we won't see season 7 until December 2005.
Now, I'm not fool enough to think my one-person boycott of Buffy is going to
make a difference. But if many more of us did, it would begin to affect FX'
s profits. And by making the reruns become less profitable commercially,
and by boycotting ALL other FX programming, I'm betting FOX and FX will want
to recoup profits by speeding up the Buffy DVD release schedules.
As a side benefit, think about this: You also won't have to put up with any
more irritating, incessant promos for crap programs like The Shield, Lucky,
44 minutes, and Nip and Tuck that they shove into our Buffy reruns.
By "sticking it to" FX and FOX with a boycott, you may help get the Buffy
DVD's out sooner.
With Gail Kim
>more irritating, incessant promos for crap programs like The Shield, Lucky,
>44 minutes, and Nip and Tuck that they shove into our Buffy reruns.
Well since Nip and Tuck has not even started yet how do you know it is crap?
(and the Shield rules)
Buckaroo Banzai
"TNG1949" <meggl...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:YWoOa.25030$ma....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Boycotting the channel won't work- Only network TV is affected by Nielsen
ratings. If you want to accomplish your goal, you'd have to log all the
companies buying commercial time for FX and then start a campaign to boycott
those companies/products, then contact the companies with your concerns.
Aethelrede
None wrote in message
<0001HW.BB2FAC2B...@news-central.giganews.com>...
>On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:23:29 -0400, With Gail Kim wrote
>(in message <20030707222329...@mb-m10.aol.com>):
Maybe instead of a boycott people should write to their local station
telling them that as long as those noisy obnoxious pop-up things intrude on
the opening scene after every commercial break there will be a boycott of
every product advertised on the show and all the shows mentioned in the
pop-ups.
That way the news might filter through to the sales, marketing and
advertising people that the public doesn't like what they're doing.
An effective way to do it is to type a short letter, paying attention to
grammar and spelling, and mail it to the station. Yes: mail it, paying for
a stamp: this seems to impress people much more than email. You can
include your email address and say that any response may be sent to it.
the q is silent
>
> I quickly realized it was only due to
> Fox TV and FX Network's greed to sell more commercial space on the
> bastardized reruns that caused the DVD's slow release pace.
It's not greed to want to make a profit off the television show you've
spent millions of dollars to produce. Fox pretty consistently lost money
on Buffy during every first-run season, and they did so knowing that
they could make it up first by selling the syndication rights and then
by releasing the show on DVD.
> They way I got it figured, here's how it works:
> The longer we watch the FX reruns, the longer it will take for FOX to
> release the DVD sets.
You got it figured wrong. Buffy Region 1 DVDs have been released at six
month intervals since they began producing them.
> They have already released Season 6 in most overseas
> countries, why are we being discriminated against? Because FX is making
> money hand over fist on the commercial space they've ripped out of the
> edited BTVS reruns, and they're not about to give up this goldmine.
It has nothing to do with FX or commercial space. It was Fox's decision
not to begin producing Buffy DVDs until after the end of season 5, so
that they could sell the show into syndication without its value being
deflated by the availability of DVDs. Since then, the Buffy region 1
DVDs have been released every six months, which isn't a long interval in
any way, shape, or form.
> At the
> pace they are going at now, we won't see season 7 until December 2005.
Actually, we'll see it in January 2005, if they keep up their current
production schedule. What's your hurry? Surely you can find something
else to do with your time rather than bitch and moan that you won't be
able to watch "Chosen" in all its half-assed glory for another 17
months.
--
Jyqm
"I guess we don't believe
That things could go that far
We all believe in people...
That we think believe in God"
David Samuel Barr
>
> Maybe instead of a boycott people should write to their local station
> telling them that as long as those noisy obnoxious pop-up things
> intrude on the opening scene after every commercial break there will
> be a boycott of every product advertised on the show and all the shows
> mentioned in the pop-ups.
> That way the news might filter through to the sales, marketing and
> advertising people that the public doesn't like what they're doing.
> An effective way to do it is to type a short letter, paying attention
> to grammar and spelling, and mail it to the station. Yes: mail it,
> paying for a stamp: this seems to impress people much more than
> email. You can include your email address and say that any response
> may be sent to it.
FX is a cable network. There are no local stations to write to.
David Samuel Barr
>
> Boycotting the channel won't work- Only network TV is affected by
> Nielsen ratings.
Wrong. The ratings drive the cable networks just as much as broadcast,
else we at the CAB and the research companies wouldn't have spent years
developing suitable methodologies to track cable viewing and the cable
networks wouldn't be subscribers to the ratings services.
In any event, any ratings-based boycotts are completely meaningless
unless conducted by people who are actually in the reporting sample.
BTR1701
do...@reply.com wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 7:39:40 -0400, Mathew R. Ignash wrote
> (in message
> <9319399308711210.N...@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com>):
>
> > On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:00:59 -0400, None wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:23:29 -0400, With Gail Kim wrote
> >> (in message <20030707222329...@mb-m10.aol.com>):
> >>
> >> Lucky and The Shield are GREAT shows.
> >
> > Whether they are good or not is beside the point. I don't need to see
> > 17 commercials for them per hour during BTVS, and have loud animated logos
> > for them playing DURING BTVS! If anything that is turning me off to them as
> > shows. They have crossed the line from advertising to annoying!
> >
> >
> Deal with it and grow up
He is dealing with it by not watching the network anymore.
Nick Cassaro
>
> I admit, I'm a devoted fan of Buffy The Vampire Slayer. I have watched and
> recorded the original runs on WB and UPN, and I still watch the FX reruns of
> the show every day I can on FX. But, I have now decided that as soon as
> Season 6 concludes it's latest chopped-up, commercial-loaded and
> "promo-blurb" infected run on FX, I will discontinue watching my favorite
> show in reruns and boycott the FX Network. This may sound drastic, but let
> me explain my reasons.
>
> I'm thoroughly disgusted with FX. It began when I started buying the Buffy
> DVD's as soon as they were issued. Once again, I could watch the gloriously
> uncut episodes as they were meant to be seen. But each DVD set release
> schedule rivaled glacial movement. I quickly realized it was only due to
> Fox TV and FX Network's greed to sell more commercial space on the
> bastardized reruns that caused the DVD's slow release pace.
Maybe if you could get enough people to stop watching the FX reruns,
FX would drop them from their schedule, but that's near impossible.
The ratings would have to drop significantly for FX to do so. FX
probably paid money for Buffy and they want to get the bang for their
buck. Even if they do drop the reruns, there's issues with the
contract; FOX is still prohibited from selling DVDs until a certain
point.
>
> They way I got it figured, here's how it works:
> The longer we watch the FX reruns, the longer it will take for FOX to
> release the DVD sets. They have already released Season 6 in most overseas
> countries, why are we being discriminated against? Because FX is making
> money hand over fist on the commercial space they've ripped out of the
> edited BTVS reruns, and they're not about to give up this goldmine. At the
> pace they are going at now, we won't see season 7 until December 2005.
Try December 2004. Season 5 comes out in December, Season 6 comes out
in May '04, Season 7 comes out in December '04.
Buckaroo Banzai
"David Samuel Barr" <dsb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F0A6E...@mindspring.com...
> Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
> >
> > Boycotting the channel won't work- Only network TV is affected by
> > Nielsen ratings.
>
> Wrong. The ratings drive the cable networks just as much as broadcast,
> else we at the CAB and the research companies wouldn't have spent years
> developing suitable methodologies to track cable viewing and the cable
> networks wouldn't be subscribers to the ratings services.
You seem to contradict yourself- If cable ratings were based on the
Nielsens, then why would you have to spend years developing suitable
methodologies, because the ratings info would be readily available to you.
Network TV is dependent upon advertising, Cable is a *pay* service that
augments their revenue with advertising. Also, commercial price rates are
calculated from the sweeps periods, and I *know* that cable shows are not
included in these sweeps.
>
> In any event, any ratings-based boycotts are completely meaningless
> unless conducted by people who are actually in the reporting sample.
In other words, I was right.
Dave Wilton
<dsb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>>
>> Boycotting the channel won't work- Only network TV is affected by
>> Nielsen ratings.
>
>Wrong. The ratings drive the cable networks just as much as broadcast,
>else we at the CAB and the research companies wouldn't have spent years
>developing suitable methodologies to track cable viewing and the cable
>networks wouldn't be subscribers to the ratings services.
>
>In any event, any ratings-based boycotts are completely meaningless
>unless conducted by people who are actually in the reporting sample.
Buckaroo is a bit confused. Cable networks are less affected by the
Nielsen "sweeps," which measure local area viewing patterns. They are
very much affected by the national Nielsen ratings (which are done
daily, not just four times a year). They use the national Nielsen
ratings to set their advertising rates.
A letter-writing campaign against the pop-up ads might be worth
trying. Pop-ups are of unproven efficacy and a large number of
complaints might turn the tide. There is no hope, however, in trying
to reduce the number of commercials.
--Dave Wilton
da...@wilton.net
http://www.wordorigins.org
William George Ferguson
<black...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"David Samuel Barr" <dsb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3F0A6E...@mindspring.com...
>> Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>> >
>> > Boycotting the channel won't work- Only network TV is affected by
>> > Nielsen ratings.
>>
>> Wrong. The ratings drive the cable networks just as much as broadcast,
>> else we at the CAB and the research companies wouldn't have spent years
>> developing suitable methodologies to track cable viewing and the cable
>> networks wouldn't be subscribers to the ratings services.
>
>You seem to contradict yourself- If cable ratings were based on the
>Nielsens, then why would you have to spend years developing suitable
>methodologies, because the ratings info would be readily available to you.
Ratings info was readily available. The cable companies (or Carrier
Access Businesses aka CAB) worked with Nielsen and others to make them
more accurate (operating under the assumption, apparently correct, that
it would improve the appearance of the ratings), so as to better sell
their commercial time (actually, more complicated, to better sell the use
of their carrier to people would sell commercial time).
>Network TV is dependent upon advertising, Cable is a *pay* service that
>augments their revenue with advertising.
Cable providers (CAB) are 'pay' services which augment their revenue with
advertising. Basic Cable channels are billboards which produce their
primary revenue through commercials, the same as broadcast networks.
>Also, commercial price rates are calculated from the sweeps periods, and
>I *know* that cable shows are not included in these sweeps.
You are absolutely correct about the last part. The reason is the
quarterly Sweeps periods are used for calculating advertising rates for
'local' stations (the national advertising rates paid by networks and
such are not calculated from them). Since cable channels have no 'local'
stations...
(Actually local viewing, and rates, are calculated for cable programming,
but DSB would have to address how that's done. You can bet your bottom
dollar that Time-Warner in NYC has higher commercial rates than Cox in
Phoenix.)
>> In any event, any ratings-based boycotts are completely meaningless
>> unless conducted by people who are actually in the reporting sample.
>
>In other words, I was right.
Except, of course, for the parts where you were wrong.
What DSB is saying in the last is that a ratings-based boycott of FX is
just as meaningless as a ratings-based boycott of NBC, unless you can
manage to get some Nielsen Families to take part.
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
Hank Tiffany
>
> I'm thoroughly disgusted with FX. It began when I started buying the Buffy
> DVD's as soon as they were issued. Once again, I could watch the gloriously
> uncut episodes as they were meant to be seen. But each DVD set release
> schedule rivaled glacial movement. I quickly realized it was only due to
> Fox TV and FX Network's greed to sell more commercial space on the
> bastardized reruns that caused the DVD's slow release pace.
Oh please don't be silly. the Buffy dvds are coming out at the same
pace, 4 to 6 months between seasons, as just about every series I
know (or care) about except for the Treks(faster) and stuff from
Tribune (slower). You're just being impatient and paranoid here,
and there is no basis for your warped imaginings.
Hank
--
Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small
Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all
Buckaroo Banzai
"William George Ferguson" <william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu>
wrote in message news:epnlgv4i4ht47m0q3...@4ax.com...
So in other words, my original assertion was right:
the q is silent
>
> You seem to contradict yourself- If cable ratings were based on the
> Nielsens, then why would you have to spend years developing suitable
> methodologies, because the ratings info would be readily available to you.
> Network TV is dependent upon advertising, Cable is a *pay* service that
> augments their revenue with advertising. Also, commercial price rates are
> calculated from the sweeps periods, and I *know* that cable shows are not
> included in these sweeps.
Commercial price rates are also determined at some point for the cable
networks, and ratings are a part of those decisions. Cable networks most
definitely track the ratings for their shows, and those enter into their
decisions to continue airing or to cancel certain shows. They're
certainly not "meaningless."
NickKnight
>They way I got it figured, here's how it works:
>The longer we watch the FX reruns, the longer it will take for FOX to
>release the DVD sets.
Except for one flaw. If people stop watching the reruns
the DVDS may never get released in Region 1.
--------------------------------------------
To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from
my e-mail address.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
NickKnight
>FX is a cable network. There are no local stations to write to.
Except your local cable provider......
NickKnight
>Whether they are good or not is beside the point. I don't need to see 17
>commercials for them per hour during BTVS, and have loud animated logos for them
>playing DURING BTVS! If anything that is turning me off to them as shows. They
>have crossed the line from advertising to annoying!
These ads occur because people skip watching the
commericals. The next logical step is for the ads to
be incorporated into the show. I.E. you would see
Buffy pick up a can of coke or some other product.
NickKnight
>He is dealing with it by not watching the network anymore.
But if you don't watch the network they may assume the
demand has dried up and won't release the remaining DVDs.
NickKnight
>Boycotting the channel won't work- Only network TV is affected by Nielsen
>ratings. If you want to accomplish your goal, you'd have to log all the
>companies buying commercial time for FX and then start a campaign to boycott
>those companies/products, then contact the companies with your concerns.
Except that some of the ads are placed at the local level by
the local cable provider.
Rowan Hawthorn
"NickKnight" <NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vk7mgvcj3g6i146pc...@4ax.com...
> On BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >He is dealing with it by not watching the network anymore.
> But if you don't watch the network they may assume the
> demand has dried up and won't release the remaining DVDs.
And that's a real concern, too. Moore Action Collectibles just put their
Buffy/Angel figure series on hold, citing a drop in interest (orders) due to
the show's cancellation. Never mind that several people have noted that
they simply haven't ordered yet because MAC can't get the damn things out
anywhere close to schedule. They don't want to order and then wait
indefinitely for their merchandise.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
the q is silent
If it's really that important to you, yes, you can have the biggest dick
of all of us.
Buckaroo Banzai
"the q is silent" <j-wa...@northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:3F0B1FF6...@northwestern.edu...
Thank you Jyqm!
BTR1701
<NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >He is dealing with it by not watching the network anymore.
> But if you don't watch the network they may assume the
> demand has dried up and won't release the remaining DVDs.
They can assume anything they like. The world is littered with idiotic
business decisions.
I'd like to think that even FOX executives are smart enough to look at
the past sales figures for previous Buffy DVD seasons as a predicter of
market strength as opposed to viewership tallies on a subsidiary cable
network.
BTR1701
<NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathew...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Whether they are good or not is beside the point. I don't need to see 17
> >commercials for them per hour during BTVS, and have loud animated logos
> >for them
> >playing DURING BTVS! If anything that is turning me off to them as
> >shows. They
> >have crossed the line from advertising to annoying!
> These ads occur because people skip watching the
> commericals. The next logical step is for the ads to
> be incorporated into the show. I.E. you would see
> Buffy pick up a can of coke or some other product.
Or just squish the show into a corner of the screen and run ads all
around it, like the CNN crawl.
BTR1701
<NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On "TNG1949" <meggl...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >They way I got it figured, here's how it works:
> >The longer we watch the FX reruns, the longer it will take for FOX to
> >release the DVD sets.
> Except for one flaw. If people stop watching the reruns
> the DVDS may never get released in Region 1.
That's silly. They've already sunk money into producing them all the way
through Season 7. I personally stood and watched Marsters do an
interview for the Season 7 DVD set so they're already producing them.
Aethelrede
NickKnight wrote in message <6d7mgvo3kpt3h0kti...@4ax.com>...
>On "Mathew R. Ignash" <mathew...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Whether they are good or not is beside the point. I don't need to see 17
>>commercials for them per hour during BTVS, and have loud animated logos
for them
>>playing DURING BTVS! If anything that is turning me off to them as shows.
They
>>have crossed the line from advertising to annoying!
>These ads occur because people skip watching the
>commericals. The next logical step is for the ads to
>be incorporated into the show. I.E. you would see
>Buffy pick up a can of coke or some other product.
Or turn to the camera and tell people about how wonderful Kotex was,
period. In other words, things would revert to the early days of commercial
radio, where a show had a sponsor whose product was mentioned in the show
and by the actors, either in character or as themselves, during breaks.
Even that would be better than those damn annoying things FX shows
immediately after the breaks, specially now they have sound which drown out
the show you want to watch.
The reason stations are doing this is channel surfing and otherwise
totally ignoring commercials and the advent of TVs and VCRs that mute the
sound during breaks (Which I'd like one of, given the insane sound levels of
some of the current commercials).
I'm equally annoyed by the two local stations that have bugs on the
screen every time there's the remotest chance of a thunderstorm, snowstorm
or any other weather related condition that people around here are usually
aware of long before it's on the screen. And the addition of almost
constant scrolling of more specific warning makes the show you're watching
almost invisible. Give us a break: If it's so vital for public safety, why
remove it all during commercials?
BTR1701
<_tJOa.45559$3o3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Aethelrede" <aethe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I'm equally annoyed by the two local stations that have bugs on the
> screen every time there's the remotest chance of a thunderstorm,
> snowstorm or any other weather related condition that people around here are
> usually aware of long before it's on the screen. And the addition of almost
> constant scrolling of more specific warning makes the show you're
> watching almost invisible. Give us a break: If it's so vital for public safety,
> why remove it all during commercials?
Exactly! I've always found it amusing that these weather reports are
supposedly so vital to our safety that they act like they should be
given medals for saving lives just for airing them yet the warnings
mysteriously disappear the moment a show goes to commercial.
Apparently my life is more important than Buffy but my survival pales in
comparison to the need for airing that Taco Bell ad unblemished for the
umpteenth time.
David Samuel Barr
>
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:59:06 GMT, "Buckaroo Banzai"
> <black...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"David Samuel Barr" <dsb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3F0A6E...@mindspring.com...
> >> Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Boycotting the channel won't work- Only network TV is affected by
> >> > Nielsen ratings.
> >>
> >> Wrong. The ratings drive the cable networks just as much as
> >> broadcast, else we at the CAB and the research companies wouldn't
> >> have spent years developing suitable methodologies to track cable
> >> viewing and the cable networks wouldn't be subscribers to the
> >> ratings services.
> >
> >You seem to contradict yourself- If cable ratings were based on the
> >Nielsens, then why would you have to spend years developing suitable
> >methodologies, because the ratings info would be readily available to
> >you.
>
> Ratings info was readily available. The cable companies (or Carrier
> Access Businesses aka CAB)
Um, nope, that's not what CAB stands for. The CAB to which I referred
is the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau (yes, the first two words were
amalgated into one in order to fit the acronym, but that's a whole other
story), http://www.cabletvadbureau.com, of which I was the Manager of
Information Services during its initial years. The CAB was founded as
the cable equivalent of the RAB (Radio Advertising Bureau, whose VP left
there to head the CAB and will be inducted into the Broadcasting Hall
of Fame this year) and the TvB (Television Bureau of Advertising, which
originally took on a very adversarial stance to the CAB and its efforts
but has since become more collegial).
> worked with Nielsen and others to make them more accurate (operating
> under the assumption, apparently correct, that it would improve the
> appearance of the ratings), so as to better sell their commercial time
> (actually, more complicated, to better sell the use of their carrier
> to people would sell commercial time).
Measured audience ratings are not only followed by the cable networks
but were in fact our primary concern and roadblock in establishing cable
as an advertising medium, which is why establishing workable
methodologies was an early priority. Whenever an agency was approached
about advertising on cable, no matter how good the sell was from a
programming and demographic appeal standpoint, the first thing they
wanted to see was ratings figures. The reason we had to improve the
methodologies was that at the time they were completely designed for the
broadcast model of a VHF/UHF set getting a few channels over the air and
cable viewing, such as it was, was rarely being tracked accurately.
Written diaries could be adapted to include cable channels, but the
Nielsen box which monitored the actual tuner activity wasn't built to
handle cable converters. Beyond the mechanics of it, there were some
other statistical and behavioural concerns that had to be addressed in
an environment that now had a much greater number of viewing options.
You can read more about this in my book, "Advertising on Cable: A
Practical Guide for Advertisers" (Prentice-Hall, 1985).
> >Network TV is dependent upon advertising, Cable is a *pay* service
> >that augments their revenue with advertising.
>
> Cable providers (CAB)
See above.
> are 'pay' services which augment their revenue with advertising.
> Basic Cable channels are billboards which produce their primary
> revenue through commercials, the same as broadcast networks.
Let's not confuse the readers here. By "providers", WGF means the
actual systems that take the signals from satellites and send them by
wire to homes. "Pay services" as a term generally refers to networks
like HBO and Showtime which a subscriber can purchase individually for a
separate fee, and are supposedly free of outside advertising but
are loaded to the gills with network self-promotion (including over
squeezed credits). "Basic cable" is the networks like CNN, MTV, ESPN
et al which are primarily advertiser-supported although most still get
fees from the cable systems (the opposite of the broadcast affiliate
model) as well.
> >Also, commercial price rates are calculated from the sweeps periods,
> >and I *know* that cable shows are not included in these sweeps.
>
> You are absolutely correct about the last part. The reason is the
> quarterly Sweeps periods are used for calculating advertising rates
> for 'local' stations (the national advertising rates paid by networks
> and such are not calculated from them). Since cable channels have no
> 'local' stations...
The sweeps are designed to set local rates, but the daily national
ratings do indeed include cable network shows and, just as in broadcast,
are a key element in setting the network ad prices.
> (Actually local viewing, and rates, are calculated for cable
> programming, but DSB would have to address how that's done. You can
> bet your bottom dollar that Time-Warner in NYC has higher commercial
> rates than Cox in Phoenix.)
The short version is that it's what the market will bear, because the
businesses that buy most local cable advertising are generally less
demanding about specific ratings numbers and tend to look for general
demographic appeal, i.e. a local auto parts store knows enough to buy
ads in the NASCAR coverage without hard numbers. More generalised
businesses, like banks or supermarkets, may want numbers to try to
figure out whether they get a better bang for the buck on A&E or USA,
but again, they tend to know their own markets. Also, unlike in
radio or TV where you have a bunch of separate stations competing with
each other, there is usually just one cable system, which is offering
a smorgasbord of options from which advertisers can choose.
> >> In any event, any ratings-based boycotts are completely meaningless
> >> unless conducted by people who are actually in the reporting
> >> sample.
> >
> >In other words, I was right.
>
> Except, of course, for the parts where you were wrong.
>
> What DSB is saying in the last is that a ratings-based boycott of FX
> is just as meaningless as a ratings-based boycott of NBC, unless you
> can manage to get some Nielsen Families to take part.
Exactly. Turn the channel, but if you're not a Nielsen family no one
will know or care.
David Samuel Barr
The theory is that when the station sells the commercial time, it
belongs wholly to the advertiser, and the station can't put any other
material on during it without the advertiser's permission. Think of it
as a timeshare where, when you rent out your house for a week to someone
else, you can't go back in while they're there. That's also why live
weather updates are inserted not during the commercial breaks but over
the programming, which then is "rejoined already in progress".
That said, The Weather Channel leaves its warning crawl up during
commercials (as it did last night for today's heat warnings), even if
it blocks part of the ads. Obviously they decided to make that option a
condition of their advertising sales and the advertisers accept it.
David Samuel Barr
>
> On David Samuel Barr <dsb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >FX is a cable network. There are no local stations to write to.
>
> Except your local cable provider......
No, and I originally had written a lengthy paragraph explaining why
that was pointless, but deleted it before sending because I thought
it was obvious. The operating relationship between cable systems and
cable networks is different from that of broadcast stations and
broadcast networks. In brief, the cable system is little more than
a signal relayer, unconcerned with the specific content of the networks
it is relaying on a 24-hour basis. For the broadcast affiliate, the
network provides a few hours of programming around which the station
does its own programming, and the impact of viewer dissatisfaction with
a network will have a greater overall impact on the affiliate
(especially since most viewers don't understand the difference), which
is why the affiliate is more likely to take up any concerns they have
about such possible impact with the network. (Note that I say "more",
noting that it's a relative term; as a rule, no broadcaster or cable
system pays much attention to viewer complaints, which tend to be few
and isolated. It takes a very concerted effort by a very large group
to get any notice.)
BTR1701
> BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > In article
> > <_tJOa.45559$3o3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Aethelrede" <aethe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm equally annoyed by the two local stations that have bugs on the
> > > screen every time there's the remotest chance of a thunderstorm,
> > > snowstorm or any other weather related condition that people around
> > > here are usually aware of long before it's on the screen. And the
> > > addition of almost constant scrolling of more specific warning makes
> > > the show you're watching almost invisible. Give us a break: If
> > > it's so vital for public safety, why remove it all during
> > > commercials?
> >
> > Exactly! I've always found it amusing that these weather reports are
> > supposedly so vital to our safety that they act like they should be
> > given medals for saving lives just for airing them yet the warnings
> > mysteriously disappear the moment a show goes to commercial.
> >
> > Apparently my life is more important than Buffy but my survival pales
> > in comparison to the need for airing that Taco Bell ad unblemished for
> > the umpteenth time.
>
> The theory is that when the station sells the commercial time, it
> belongs wholly to the advertiser, and the station can't put any other
> material on during it without the advertiser's permission.
Yes, but if the public safety is *really* at stake, all that goes out
the window.
Television stations are licensed by the FCC to act in the public
interest in their use of the public airwaves so if the weather threat is
really as bad as they constantly hype it to be, then their commercial
contracts are superseded by the imminent danger to the populace.
It's called "force majeur" and is a standard clause in any business
contract.
Notice how the networks superseded all commercial content for nearly the
entire day on 9/11. I'm sure there were hundreds of businesses with
contracts to have ads aired that day but the networks invoked the force
majeur clauses in the contracts and dumped the ads.
Mark Jones
> Exactly! I've always found it amusing that these weather reports are
> supposedly so vital to our safety that they act like they should be
> given medals for saving lives just for airing them yet the warnings
> mysteriously disappear the moment a show goes to commercial.
>
> Apparently my life is more important than Buffy but my survival pales in
> comparison to the need for airing that Taco Bell ad unblemished for the
> umpteenth time.
You're not paying for the privilege of watching the show, but the
advertiser is paying (handsomely) for the privilege of getting his
commercial aired. He'd be extremely unhappy if they obscured his ads,
and he--unlike you--has leverage in the form of being able to
immediately and directly cut into their profits by taking his ad budget
elsewhere. So of course they don't fuck around with commercials.
I'm about to stop watching FX and TNN (Highlander & Seven Days) because
of those damned loud, animated ads during the shows.
NickKnight
Note that your local cable system plugs in the commercials
and ulitmately your cable system answers to the cable
governing body in your local community. Ultimately at the
local level the cable license can be revoked and awarded
to anohter cable provider.
Also there are communities where you
have more than one cable system.
NickKnight
>And that's a real concern, too. Moore Action Collectibles just put their
>Buffy/Angel figure series on hold, citing a drop in interest (orders) due to
>the show's cancellation. Never mind that several people have noted that
>they simply haven't ordered yet because MAC can't get the damn things out
>anywhere close to schedule. They don't want to order and then wait
>indefinitely for their merchandise.
So MAC attended the Microsoft school of setting delivery
dates.
NickKnight
>I'd like to think that even FOX executives are smart enough to look at
>the past sales figures for previous Buffy DVD seasons as a predicter of
>market strength as opposed to viewership tallies on a subsidiary cable
>network.
If fox executives were smart they would've let
JW do what he wanted to do on Firefly.
I wouldn't use smart and Fox network executives in the same
sentence.
NickKnight
>Or just squish the show into a corner of the screen and run ads all
>around it, like the CNN crawl.
Shhhh. Don't give them any ideas. There already are
networks that do that. I forget what show it was
but I came accross one show recently where the
screen was divided into quarters. One quarter
had the show, one quarter had ads running. Didn't
stick around to watch that train wreck.
NickKnight
>Exactly! I've always found it amusing that these weather reports are
>supposedly so vital to our safety that they act like they should be
>given medals for saving lives just for airing them yet the warnings
>mysteriously disappear the moment a show goes to commercial.
Around here they still run during commercials. They just
shrink the size of the screen to show the crawl/bug/etc.
while the commercial is running.
NickKnight
>Yes, but if the public safety is *really* at stake, all that goes out
>the window.
>
>Television stations are licensed by the FCC to act in the public
>interest in their use of the public airwaves so if the weather threat is
>really as bad as they constantly hype it to be, then their commercial
>contracts are superseded by the imminent danger to the populace.
Around here they run weather advisorys and often preempt
regular programming as well as commercials.
NickKnight
>You're not paying for the privilege of watching the show, but the
>advertiser is paying (handsomely) for the privilege of getting his
>commercial aired. He'd be extremely unhappy if they obscured his ads,
>and he--unlike you--has leverage in the form of being able to
>immediately and directly cut into their profits by taking his ad budget
>elsewhere. So of course they don't fuck around with commercials.
Around here they have weather advisories sponsored by
xxxxx company.
>I'm about to stop watching FX and TNN (Highlander & Seven Days) because
>of those damned loud, animated ads during the shows.
I don't watch TNN anyways. TNN is calling themselves the
network for men. We already have a network for men,
it's called USA.
Instead of calling TNN the Spike network they should have
called it T&A TV.
Mathew R. Ignash
> On BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >He is dealing with it by not watching the network anymore.
> But if you don't watch the network they may assume the
> demand has dried up and won't release the remaining DVDs.
Not if the look at the DVD sales figures they won't. BTVS seasons on DVD always
do very well.
--
Mathew
Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/
Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/
Aethelrede
NickKnight wrote in message ...
>On BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, but if the public safety is *really* at stake, all that goes out
>>the window.
>>
>>Television stations are licensed by the FCC to act in the public
>>interest in their use of the public airwaves so if the weather threat is
>>really as bad as they constantly hype it to be, then their commercial
>>contracts are superseded by the imminent danger to the populace.
>Around here they run weather advisorys and often preempt
>regular programming as well as commercials.
Even when there's already a severe thunderstorm in progress and there
have been 'funnel cloud sightings", the warnings from the local weatherman
always break into programming, never commercials. Even after the last
tornado hit, the special breaking news report had the usual commercial
breaks.
BTR1701
<sin...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > Exactly! I've always found it amusing that these weather reports are
> > supposedly so vital to our safety that they act like they should be
> > given medals for saving lives just for airing them yet the warnings
> > mysteriously disappear the moment a show goes to commercial.
> >
> > Apparently my life is more important than Buffy but my survival pales
> > in comparison to the need for airing that Taco Bell ad unblemished for the
> > umpteenth time.
>
> You're not paying for the privilege of watching the show, but the
> advertiser is paying (handsomely) for the privilege of getting his
> commercial aired.
Yes, but according to the FCC *all* television stations use the public
airwaves for the benefit of the public, first and foremost.
The advertiser's right to see his ad aired is secondary to the safety of
the viewing public, no matter how much money they paid for the ad.
Therefore, since ads don't get interrupted by weather alerts, only one
of two conclusions can be logically drawn:
(1) The weather situation isn't nearly as dire as the news guys are
making it out to be; the public is in no danger at all and all their
"FirstAlert Action Warning NexRad Doppler Weather Radar" hype is just a
load of self-promotional bullshit.
(2) The threat to public safety is real and the local stations are
abrogating their duty to the public and violating the terms of their FCC
license by choosing to air commercials in lieu of continuing weather
coverage.
I'm personally betting on (1) which means they are ruining the show I'm
watching with all this weather nonsense when there really is no
emergency to justify it.
Rowan Hawthorn
"BTR1701" <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-78E422...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
<snip>
> Yes, but according to the FCC *all* television stations use the public
> airwaves for the benefit of the public, first and foremost.
>
> The advertiser's right to see his ad aired is secondary to the safety of
> the viewing public, no matter how much money they paid for the ad.
>
> Therefore, since ads don't get interrupted by weather alerts, only one
> of two conclusions can be logically drawn:
>
> (1) The weather situation isn't nearly as dire as the news guys are
> making it out to be; the public is in no danger at all and all their
> "FirstAlert Action Warning NexRad Doppler Weather Radar" hype is just a
> load of self-promotional bullshit.
>
> (2) The threat to public safety is real and the local stations are
> abrogating their duty to the public and violating the terms of their FCC
> license by choosing to air commercials in lieu of continuing weather
> coverage.
>
> I'm personally betting on (1) which means they are ruining the show I'm
> watching with all this weather nonsense when there really is no
> emergency to justify it.
Emergency? Around here they break into the shows to give "severe
thunderstorm" warnings. Hell, it ain't like we haven't had about six of
those a week for the past XX years - if they were *that* big a deal, we'd
have been gone long ago.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
BTR1701
<rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My point exactly.
Aethelrede
Rowan Hawthorn wrote in message
<6z2Pa.177966$Jx5....@news.easynews.com>...
Does anyone live in an area where TV stations don't advertise their
"News" programmes aggressively in their own commercial time but also on
radio, giving teasers on Friday about the story they'll be airing on Monday?
How is that "news"?
For some reason, local stations compete to have the highest rated
News/Weather show, maybe because it's the only programme they produce.
But the constant weather hype is infuriating. At this time of year
there can be up to 3 severe thunderstorm a day: the locals in the afternoon,
some affecting very small areas, then in the evening the bigger ones that
started a few hundred miles west, then any time from 4 to 9AM the ones that
started way off at the foot of the Rockies and travelled east since
afternoon.
Nobody needs the banners and bugs and emergency weather updates: it's
been happening for thousands of years.
It's the same in winter. It snows. Often. Until they can predict
accurately how much, when, and for how long why don't they shut up?
The really bad snow is never forecast: that heavy, wet 3 inches in
October that brings down trees and power lines and utility poles and throws
the whole area into utter confusion is what people would like warning of so
they can get out beforehand, buy food that doesn't need cooking and a few
extra beers and stay in bed instead of fighting for 2 hours to get to work,
only to find the power out and the place closed down.
David Samuel Barr
>
> Note that your local cable system plugs in the commercials
They only insert local commercials in the few slots allotted
them by the networks (usually 1-2 minutes per hour); the rest
of the commercials originate with the networks.
> and ulitmately your cable system answers to the cable
> governing body in your local community. Ultimately at the
> local level the cable license can be revoked and awarded
> to anohter cable provider.
Which is irrelevant, since a cable franchise won't be
revoked because a few people don't like the way the national
cable networks edit programs or use popups/bugs. The
municipal oversight there is solely for matters relating to
the actual signal delivery, not the program content. Trying
to change providers also would require that there be another
provider willing to acquire the operating assets of the
existing provider, which isn't always a given, even when the
first provider is essentially being forced to sell them.
> Also there are communities where you
> have more than one cable system.
Such situations, known as "overbuilds" are extremely
rare, because of the large capital investments required.
You can have situations where different parts of an
area have different providers, without any actual
overlap.
The Babaloughesian
I don't have much faith in a world where the prospect of intelligent network
executives is the only safety net we have.
The Babaloughesian
"the q is silent" <j-wa...@northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:3F0B1FF6...@northwestern.edu...
> Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
> >
> > "William George Ferguson" <william.geo...@domail.maricopa.edu>
> > wrote in message news:epnlgv4i4ht47m0q3...@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:59:06 GMT, "Buckaroo Banzai"
> > > <black...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"David Samuel Barr" <dsb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:3F0A6E...@mindspring.com...
> > > >> Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Boycotting the channel won't work- Only network TV is affected by
> > > >> > Nielsen ratings.
> > > >>
> > > >> Wrong. The ratings drive the cable networks just as much as
broadcast,
> > > >> else we at the CAB and the research companies wouldn't have spent
years
> > > >> developing suitable methodologies to track cable viewing and the
cable
> > > >> networks wouldn't be subscribers to the ratings services.
> > > >
> > > >You seem to contradict yourself- If cable ratings were based on the
> > > >Nielsens, then why would you have to spend years developing suitable
> > > >methodologies, because the ratings info would be readily available to
> > you.
> > >
> > > Ratings info was readily available. The cable companies (or Carrier
> > > more accurate (operating under the assumption, apparently correct,
that
> > > it would improve the appearance of the ratings), so as to better sell
> > > their commercial time (actually, more complicated, to better sell the
use
> > > of their carrier to people would sell commercial time).
> > >
that
> > > >augments their revenue with advertising.
> > >
with
> > > advertising. Basic Cable channels are billboards which produce their
> > > primary revenue through commercials, the same as broadcast networks.
> > >
and
> > > >I *know* that cable shows are not included in these sweeps.
> > >
> > > You are absolutely correct about the last part. The reason is the
> > > quarterly Sweeps periods are used for calculating advertising rates
for
> > > 'local' stations (the national advertising rates paid by networks and
> > > such are not calculated from them). Since cable channels have no
'local'
> > > stations...
> > >
programming,
> > > but DSB would have to address how that's done. You can bet your
bottom
> > > dollar that Time-Warner in NYC has higher commercial rates than Cox in
> > > Phoenix.)
> > >
> > > >> unless conducted by people who are actually in the reporting
sample.
> > > >
> > > >In other words, I was right.
> > >
> > > Except, of course, for the parts where you were wrong.
> > >
> > > What DSB is saying in the last is that a ratings-based boycott of FX
is
> > > just as meaningless as a ratings-based boycott of NBC, unless you can
> > > manage to get some Nielsen Families to take part.
> > >
> >
> >
> > "If you want to accomplish your goal, you'd have to log all the
companies
> > buying commercial time for FX and then start a campaign to boycott
> > those companies/products, then contact the companies with your
concerns."
>
> If it's really that important to you, yes, you can have the biggest dick
> of all of us.
LOL! There must be a dozen threads at any given time that better warrant
this than they do any other response.
NickKnight
>They only insert local commercials in the few slots allotted
>them by the networks (usually 1-2 minutes per hour); the rest
>of the commercials originate with the networks.
Not around here. Many times the national commercials are
replaced with local commercials. Often if you look
closely at the end you can see the local commercial
end before the national commercial does.
>Such situations, known as "overbuilds" are extremely
>rare, because of the large capital investments required.
>You can have situations where different parts of an
>area have different providers, without any actual
>overlap.
The community I live in has 2 cable providers, Cablevision
did such an abysmal job the citizens begged the
local electric company to jump into the cable field.
Mathew R. Ignash
You don't need to put faith in the INTELLIGENCE of network executives, merely
put faith in the GREED of network executives. They want your money, they want
FXs money, they want the syndication money. As long as they want the money,
we'll see Buffy reruns and DVDs, sadly to maximize that money they will stretch
those releases out to near breaking points on us.
David Samuel Barr
>
> On David Samuel Barr <dsb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >They only insert local commercials in the few slots allotted
> >them by the networks (usually 1-2 minutes per hour); the rest
> >of the commercials originate with the networks.
>
> Not around here. Many times the national commercials are
> replaced with local commercials. Often if you look
> closely at the end you can see the local commercial
> end before the national commercial does.
No, the national commercials are never replaced with the local
commercials. As previously explained, networks allocate slots
in their schedule for the systems to run their own local ads.
Of course, not all systems will have necessarily sold ads for
a slot, and so the network is not simply going to feed dead
air during it, lest viewers see a blank screen and turn to
watch something else. Instead, the network will run either
their own programming promos or perhaps a "per-inquiry" ad (the
ones for everything from greatest-hits CDs to pasta pots to
exercise equipment for which you call up an 800 number to place
an order); that way viewers see *something* if their own system
isn't running an ad or promo of its own. (Per-inquiry ads
mean that the network gets paid based on how many reponses the
advertiser receives, so the advertiser isn't being cheated by
having local ads run on top of an per-inquiry ads, since it's
not paying on a time basis. Again, see my book for further
details.) There are often minor discrepancies in the equipment's
internal clocks at various networks and systems, so it's very
common for a local ad to end and the system to switch back to
the network feed a moment before the network's filler ends.
That's what you're seeing, not a local pre-emption of a national
ad. In NYC, the Time Warner cable system's local ad insertion
equipment is on the blink such that on Comedy Central when the
local ads run, you see the video for those ads but hear the audio
for the network promos being run as filler under them; it makes
for some interesting disparities, and I'm amazed that apparently
no local advertiser has complained to them about it (it's been
going on for months).
> >Such situations, known as "overbuilds" are extremely
> >rare, because of the large capital investments required.
> >You can have situations where different parts of an
> >area have different providers, without any actual
> >overlap.
>
> The community I live in has 2 cable providers, Cablevision
> did such an abysmal job the citizens begged the
> local electric company to jump into the cable field.
I didn't say it never happened, only that it's very rare.
And don't get me started on Cablevision.
Arnold Kim
"NickKnight" <NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2arogvctsa76gph1s...@4ax.com...
> On BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >I'd like to think that even FOX executives are smart enough to look at
> >the past sales figures for previous Buffy DVD seasons as a predicter of
> >market strength as opposed to viewership tallies on a subsidiary cable
> >network.
> If fox executives were smart they would've let
> JW do what he wanted to do on Firefly.
>
> I wouldn't use smart and Fox network executives in the same
> sentence.
It was also a Fox executive who thought it would be a good idea to make
Buffy the Vampire Slayer into a TV series _and_ give Joss Whedon full
creative control.
Arnold Kim
NickKnight
>It was also a Fox executive who thought it would be a good idea to make
>Buffy the Vampire Slayer into a TV series _and_ give Joss Whedon full
>creative control.
Ok. So Fox did one thing right.
Gary Hicken
make the DVD connnection. Hope boycotting FX will mean the remaining
seasons will be provided more quickly.
> From: "TNG1949" <meggl...@stny.rr.com>
> Organization: Road Runner
> Newsgroups: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:15:36 GMT
> Subject: Please Boycott FX Buffy reruns
>
> I would like urge BTVS fans to boycott FX Reruns.
>
> I admit, I'm a devoted fan of Buffy The Vampire Slayer. I have watched and
> recorded the original runs on WB and UPN, and I still watch the FX reruns of
> the show every day I can on FX. But, I have now decided that as soon as
> Season 6 concludes it's latest chopped-up, commercial-loaded and
> "promo-blurb" infected run on FX, I will discontinue watching my favorite
> show in reruns and boycott the FX Network. This may sound drastic, but let
> me explain my reasons.
>
> I'm thoroughly disgusted with FX. It began when I started buying the Buffy
> DVD's as soon as they were issued. Once again, I could watch the gloriously
> uncut episodes as they were meant to be seen. But each DVD set release
> schedule rivaled glacial movement. I quickly realized it was only due to
> Fox TV and FX Network's greed to sell more commercial space on the
> bastardized reruns that caused the DVD's slow release pace.
>
> They way I got it figured, here's how it works:
> The longer we watch the FX reruns, the longer it will take for FOX to
> release the DVD sets. They have already released Season 6 in most overseas
> countries, why are we being discriminated against? Because FX is making
> money hand over fist on the commercial space they've ripped out of the
> edited BTVS reruns, and they're not about to give up this goldmine. At the
> pace they are going at now, we won't see season 7 until December 2005.
>
> Now, I'm not fool enough to think my one-person boycott of Buffy is going to
> make a difference. But if many more of us did, it would begin to affect FX'
> s profits. And by making the reruns become less profitable commercially,
> and by boycotting ALL other FX programming, I'm betting FOX and FX will want
> to recoup profits by speeding up the Buffy DVD release schedules.
>
> As a side benefit, think about this: You also won't have to put up with any
> more irritating, incessant promos for crap programs like The Shield, Lucky,
> 44 minutes, and Nip and Tuck that they shove into our Buffy reruns.
>
> By "sticking it to" FX and FOX with a boycott, you may help get the Buffy
> DVD's out sooner.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
NickKnight
>I agree. I quit watching FX for the same reasons some time ago; but didn't
>make the DVD connnection. Hope boycotting FX will mean the remaining
>seasons will be provided more quickly.
IMHO if you boycott FX for BTVS they will make the
connection that interest in BTVS has dropped off
and they will shelve plans for the BTVS DVD.
Remember BTVS on UPN is gone, the only
barometer of interest in BTVS is going to be
Angel, Reruns on FX, Syndication.
I would also point out a sharp decline
in viewers for BTVS on FX may spell
doom for the BTVS dvds.
Has FX indicated how long they will run BTVS?
Where the UPN show is gone will this spell
doom for the FX, syndication, the DVDs?
I have to wonder if you boycott FX are you
stabbing yourself in the back?
Now that BTVS is gone from UPN is a foregone
conclusion that all traces of BTVS will vanish
from any media source in the next few months.
Is BTVS on UPN the engine that is driving this
train? .
NickKnight
>I agree. I quit watching FX for the same reasons some time ago; but didn't
>make the DVD connnection. Hope boycotting FX will mean the remaining
>seasons will be provided more quickly.
I have to wonder if the abscence of BTVS from UPN means that
if a BTVS dvd isn't released in the next four months that it
will never see the light of day?
scs0
> schedule rivaled glacial movement. I quickly realized it was only due to
> Fox TV and FX Network's greed to sell more commercial space on the
> bastardized reruns that caused the DVD's slow release pace.
That's a pretty childish reaction to Fox's handling of Buffy the
Vampire Slayer. How much did Fox charge you to watch the roughly 150
hour long effects-intensive episodes 24 weeks a year? A number close
to zero perhaps? Fox, or any network for that matter, is perfectly
within its moral right to profit from the product that they produce
and the public enjoys, especially when it's a quality product like
BtVS. And look at the prices of the boxsets, aside from the short
first season which was even cheaper, every season has cost me about
$45 the day of release. That's $45 dollars for about 18 hours of
entertainment and some bonus features. Compare that to the price of a
typical 2 hour feature film DVD!
And the glacial pace of release? Yes, to a fan like me who'd buy all
3 remaining boxsets if released tomorrow the rate does seem slow but
realistically the sets are coming along nicely. 1 boxset every 6
months or so is perfect timing because they need to maximise sales of
existing boxsets before releasing the next. The series has just
finished its run and 4 of the 7 seasons are already available. Stop
whining already!
I don't know why it's so popular to take the knee-jerk reaction when
someone dares to make a well deserved profit on some good or service
people love. I think those who make this petty accusation, especially
on something you don't need, are the types who just don't have it in
them to innovate or create anything someone else would want and are
therefore jealous of the success of others.
BTW, the "greedy" corporate whores at Fox had some sort of a deal with
Suncoast Video because I was able to get a free copy of the Buffy
movie with the season 4 boxset. They probably wanted to increase the
likelyhood someone would buy the boxset or clear out surplus movie
DVDs, but it was certainly a nice bonus.
> They way I got it figured, here's how it works:
> The longer we watch the FX reruns, the longer it will take for FOX to
> release the DVD sets.
You're trying to imply that there's a connection between the
profitability of an episode and whether or not it's released on DVD.
Your argument doesn't work for several reasons:
- Seasons 1 through 4 are already on DVD yet FX still finds those
seasons profitable to air.
- Owning the boxset doesn't mean you'll avoid watching the series on
TV. I still turn Buffy on at 6 because it's the best thing on TV at
that time.
- Only a minority of the viewers of televised Buffy episodes are
devoted enough to buy the DVDs anyway. I like Star Trek: TNG but I
have no interest in buying the DVD sets.
>>They have already released Season 6 in most overseas countries,
>>why are we being discriminated against?
Discrimination? Because some markets have a whopping 2 additional
seasons on DVD than the US market? You've got to be kidding me!
For those of us who have basic cable anyway, I love the fact that I
can get 2 hours of free Buffy in the afternoons.
> Because FX is making
> money hand over fist on the commercial space they've ripped out of the
> edited BTVS reruns
Um... It's a common practice for showing airing in syndication to have
more commercial time than they had during their original run.
> Now, I'm not fool enough to think my one-person boycott of Buffy is going to
> make a difference. But if many more of us did, it would begin to affect FX'
> s profits.
You don't strike me as being very sophisticated when it comes to basic
economic theory, but hopefully you'll be openminded enough to think
about this idea:
The more profitable BtVS is, the more likely Fox will continue the
franchise
You see, the executives at Fox will look at the profitability of the
existing Buffy franchise when considering making a feature film or a
spinoff in the future.
> And by making the reruns become less profitable commercially,
> and by boycotting ALL other FX programming, I'm betting FOX and FX will want
> to recoup profits by speeding up the Buffy DVD release schedules.
Hum...
Or maybe they'd say "Gee, no one cares about Buffy anymore. We better
not take the financial risk of funding the creation of a boxset for
season 5 until we see whether or not this drop in popularity
continues."
> As a side benefit, think about this: You also won't have to put up with any
> more irritating, incessant promos for crap programs like The Shield, Lucky,
> 44 minutes, and Nip and Tuck that they shove into our Buffy reruns.
I do agree with you on that, I do find those popup ads for "The
Shield" and "Lucky" very annoying. But, again, I'm getting to see
entertainment that cost millions of dollars per episode to create for
free. Who am I to complain?
> By "sticking it to" FX and FOX with a boycott, you may help get the Buffy
> DVD's out sooner.
Or end the franchise altogether.
the q is silent
>
> Remember BTVS on UPN is gone, the only
> barometer of interest in BTVS is going to be
> Angel, Reruns on FX, Syndication.
And DVD sales, which have been great.
--
Jyqm
"I guess we don't believe
That things could go that far
We all believe in people...
That we think believe in God"
NickKnight
>NickKnight wrote:
>>
>> Remember BTVS on UPN is gone, the only
>> barometer of interest in BTVS is going to be
>> Angel, Reruns on FX, Syndication.
>
>And DVD sales, which have been great.
But with the UPN show driving that train will the train
grind to a halt? Now that the UPN show is gone
will DVD sales grind to a halt?
the q is silent
>
> I have to wonder if the abscence of BTVS from UPN means that
> if a BTVS dvd isn't released in the next four months that it
> will never see the light of day?
A BTVS DVD won't be released in the next four months. The fifth season
will be released in December, which has been the schedule for some time.
the sixth season will be released about six months after that, and the
seventh season six months after that, as has been the norm for the
release schedule since the beginning.
Why do you seem to think that just because a show is no longer in
production, all interest in it disappears? Have you never wandered
around your local retailers' DVD racks to see the box sets of dozens of
shows which have been off the air for much longer than Buffy? The whole
point of these DVD sets is to allow people to be able to watch the
episodes now that they're no longer being aired on primetime television.
the q is silent
>
> On the q is silent <j-wa...@northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> >NickKnight wrote:
> >>
> >> Remember BTVS on UPN is gone, the only
> >> barometer of interest in BTVS is going to be
> >> Angel, Reruns on FX, Syndication.
> >
> >And DVD sales, which have been great.
> But with the UPN show driving that train will the train
> grind to a halt? Now that the UPN show is gone
> will DVD sales grind to a halt?
The show being on UPN had very little to do with DVD sales of previous
seasons. Why would you assume that the show no longer being on the air
means that there's no more interest in the show? I can't think of any
evidence at all which supports that idea, while there's mountains of
evidence against it.
BTR1701
<NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On the q is silent <j-wa...@northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> >NickKnight wrote:
> >>
> >> Remember BTVS on UPN is gone, the only
> >> barometer of interest in BTVS is going to be
> >> Angel, Reruns on FX, Syndication.
> >
> >And DVD sales, which have been great.
> But with the UPN show driving that train will the train
> grind to a halt? Now that the UPN show is gone
> will DVD sales grind to a halt?
No. As has been pointed out *several* times, there are dozens of shows
being produced on DVD that haven't been on the air in decades
(Battlestar Galactica) and the DVD production is independent of the
show's airing on either FX or UPN.
I personally stood in the same room and watched Marsters film an
interview segment for the Season 7 DVD set. They wouldn't be shooting
interviews with the actors if they didn't plan on producing and
releasing the set.
NickKnight
>The show being on UPN had very little to do with DVD sales of previous
>seasons. Why would you assume that the show no longer being on the air
>means that there's no more interest in the show? I can't think of any
>evidence at all which supports that idea, while there's mountains of
>evidence against it.
For one DVD sales are still very new, it's hard to get shows
released on DVD when the show itself is not on the air.
Fans of Forever Knight have been trying for years to
get FK released on DVD. With no new episodes
being made and extremely limited Syndication TPTB
were very hesitant to release it on DVD. Rumor has
it someone finally bit and it will happen soon. But it
took alot of fans alot of years and alot of effort to
get that much.
Alot of fans have been asking for Night Stalker to be
released on DVD and so far it has not been successful.
Before you assume every season of BTVS will be
released on DVD in region 1 look at all the shows
that aren't on DVD.
ER (any season)
Stargate (after season 4)
Charmed (any season)
7th heaven (any season)
NickKnight
>No. As has been pointed out *several* times, there are dozens of shows
>being produced on DVD that haven't been on the air in decades
>(Battlestar Galactica) and the DVD production is independent of the
>show's airing on either FX or UPN.
And there are shows on the air now that aren't available on
DVD like ER, Charmed, 7th Heaven.
>I personally stood in the same room and watched Marsters film an
>interview segment for the Season 7 DVD set. They wouldn't be shooting
>interviews with the actors if they didn't plan on producing and
>releasing the set.
And you may well have to go outside Region 1 to get it......
Tirya
> On BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >No. As has been pointed out *several* times, there are dozens of shows
> >being produced on DVD that haven't been on the air in decades
> >(Battlestar Galactica) and the DVD production is independent of the
> >show's airing on either FX or UPN.
> And there are shows on the air now that aren't available on
> DVD like ER, Charmed, 7th Heaven.
The complete first season of ER is coming out on DVD next month...
Tirya
--
TDC Inca Jeeper
A dirty Jeep is a happy Jeep.
BTR1701
<NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >No. As has been pointed out *several* times, there are dozens of shows
> >being produced on DVD that haven't been on the air in decades
> >(Battlestar Galactica) and the DVD production is independent of the
> >show's airing on either FX or UPN.
> And there are shows on the air now that aren't available on
> DVD like ER, Charmed, 7th Heaven.
All you've done is further bolster my point. DVD releases have NOTHING
to do with a show's on-air run.
> >I personally stood in the same room and watched Marsters film an
> >interview segment for the Season 7 DVD set. They wouldn't be shooting
> >interviews with the actors if they didn't plan on producing and
> >releasing the set.
> And you may well have to go outside Region 1 to get it..
What the hell are you talking about?
The Buffy DVDs have been among the top selling box sets in the USA for
every season released so far.
With a track record like that, why would they suddenly only limit
releases to overseas?
NickKnight
> Why do you seem to think that just because a show is no longer in
>production, all interest in it disappears? Have you never wandered
>around your local retailers' DVD racks to see the box sets of dozens of
>shows which have been off the air for much longer than Buffy? The whole
>point of these DVD sets is to allow people to be able to watch the
>episodes now that they're no longer being aired on primetime television.
And have you looked to see how many shows ****aren't
avaiable***** on DVD?
Here is a little test for you, try to find a place where you
can get Kolchak on DVD.
Not every show is available on DVD......
BTR1701
<NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On the q is silent <j-wa...@northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> >The show being on UPN had very little to do with DVD sales of previous
> >seasons. Why would you assume that the show no longer being on the air
> >means that there's no more interest in the show? I can't think of any
> >evidence at all which supports that idea, while there's mountains of
> >evidence against it.
> For one DVD sales are still very new, it's hard to get shows
> released on DVD when the show itself is not on the air.
> Alot of fans have been asking for Night Stalker to be
> released on DVD and so far it has not been successful.
Weird considering I have two Night Stalker DVDs sitting on my shelf.
Coyote27
>>
>They way I got it figured, here's how it works:
>> The longer we watch the FX reruns, the longer it will take for FOX to
>> release the DVD sets. They have already released Season 6 in most overseas
>> countries, why are we being discriminated against? Because FX is making
>> money hand over fist on the commercial space they've ripped out of the
>> edited BTVS reruns, and they're not about to give up this goldmine. At the
>> pace they are going at now, we won't see season 7 until December 2005.
>>
Nice theory. Nothing to do with reality, but it's fun mental masterbation.
Actually, at the current pace, we'll get Season 7 in December 2004. And
syndicated reruns have always been chopped up for extra commercials and will
continue to be. From I Love Lucy to Star Trek to Seinfeld, syndicated reruns
have never been the full episode as shown first run.
And I doubt FX is making THAT much money on the commercial space during Buffy
eps. Check out how many commercials are house ads for FX or Fox Network shows.
I'll wager one reason the DVDs got released in Europe quicker than North
America is Buffy is, proportionally, more popular over there than in North
America. For as much as Buffy has become a part of North American pop culture
and was a "huge" hit for two lesser networks, it's numbers still defined it as
a "cult" hit over here (5.3 million viewers a week at its peak). Especially in
England, Buffy is truly huge, but Euro networks don't pony up in syndication
the way US stations/networks will for a big hit. If I know I'm not effecting
any possible massive syndication windfall in that region -- the reason we won't
see Seinfeld on DVD for a while -- I release first where it's most popular.
No. 2, the release pace is consistent with that of other current TV shows
released in seasonal DVD box sets (an exception being a show such as 24, for
which Season 1 was rushed into the marketplace to take advantage of the heavy
buzz and hype for Season 2). Now that Universal has started to release the Law
& Order seasons on DVD, they're on the same timetable as Buffy and Angel
seasons. And, the pace has nothing to do with the syndicated reruns, rights in
the US bought by AOL Time Warner for its TNT network. It's just good business
sense.
It's generally not a good idea to pull a market flood by releasing too much
product in a short time frame. In the case of DVD sets of TV shows, this would
be releasing multiple full seasons too close to each other. Why? Customers
aren't going to consume the flood.
Some potential customers can't afford to devote that much of their
entertainment budget to one product in a short time. Many others can afford
it, but won't want to because it feels like they're dropping too big a load on
one product in a short time. Especially these days, you don't want to risk your
customers feeling overly self-indulgent in any way.
Besides, DVD sets are often bought as gifts. Space it out, you have a better
shot at catching more birthdays and anniversaries in addition to Christmas and
Valentine's Day than if you just loaded up for the Christmas and Valentine's
Day shopping seasons.
Also, most stores don't have unlimited space. You release multiple seasons in a
flood and the local Suncoast, FYE, Sam Goody, whatever isn't going to order
your entire flood unless they're certain they can move the product quickly.
NickKnight
>Weird considering I have two Night Stalker DVDs sitting on my shelf.
Where did you find Night Stalker DVDs? I've been looking
and haven't found any.
NickKnight
>The complete first season of ER is coming out on DVD next month...
But there are many seasons NOT available on DVD.
BTR1701
<NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On "Tirya" <Ti...@spamfree.addy> wrote:
>
> >The complete first season of ER is coming out on DVD next month...
> But there are many seasons NOT available on DVD.
That's because they usually release them in order starting with the
first.
Are you being purposely obtuse?
Coyote27
>released on DVD in region 1 look at all the shows
>that aren't on DVD.
>
>ER (any season)
>Stargate (after season 4)
>Charmed (any season)
>7th heaven (any season)
Friends after the fourth season, Homicide: Life on the Street after the second
season, MASH after the fourth season, Mary Tyler Moore after the first season,
yada, yada, yada.
It all has diddlysquat to do with Buffy. As someone else pointed out, BTVS has
a track record of solid sales for its DVD sets. That trumps all.
Season 5 is to come out in December. Season 6? Yeah, they're not going to
release that even though they know a shitload of fans would buy it just to get
the full Once More With Feeling episode. Right. Season 7? Subpar as the season
was, the good folks at FOX know Buffy fans would pony up just to have the
entire series or just to have the series finale.
We'll see all 7 seasons of Buffy on DVD just as we'll eventually have all
seasons of The Simpsons, MASH, etc.
Hank Tiffany
>
> Before you assume every season of BTVS will be
> released on DVD in region 1 look at all the shows
> that aren't on DVD.
>
> ER (any season)
Not a show with a "cult" following. Marcus Welby,
MD hasn't been released on DVD yet either (AFAIK)
doesn't mean much.
> Stargate (after season 4)
Season 4 isn't out yet either, Season 3 just came out
last month, and S4 is scheduled for September. This is
a major change form the way S1 dribbled out over a couple of
years followed by nearly a years wait between s1 & s 2 and
about 8 months between s2 & s3. But some people would
complain if you hung 'em with a brand new rope.
8-{)#
> Charmed (any season)
Probably being held up to wait for first run in syndication,
just like Buffy was. I'm just amazed & thankful we're
getting the early Angel seasons now instead of having to
wait until 2005 or so.
> 7th heaven (any season)
Again, not exactly a "cult" show so not very relevant.
Hank
--
Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small
Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all
NickKnight
>> 7th heaven (any season)
>
>Again, not exactly a "cult" show so not very relevant.
But for the WB 7th Heaven has the best ratings of any show.
NickKnight
>Are you being purposely obtuse?
ER has been on the air for a number of years. They should
be much further along than one season on DVD.
the q is silent
>
> For one DVD sales are still very new, it's hard to get shows
> released on DVD when the show itself is not on the air.
They're not all that new, and many shows that aren't currently on the
air are being released on DVD.
>
> Fans of Forever Knight have been trying for years to
> get FK released on DVD. With no new episodes
> being made and extremely limited Syndication TPTB
> were very hesitant to release it on DVD. Rumor has
> it someone finally bit and it will happen soon. But it
> took alot of fans alot of years and alot of effort to
> get that much.
>
> Alot of fans have been asking for Night Stalker to be
> released on DVD and so far it has not been successful.
I'd never even heard of these shows beforey ou mentioned them here.
They're shows with a very small fanbase (much smaller than Buffy's) and
limited appeal, so of course they're less likely to be released on DVD.
> Before you assume every season of BTVS will be
> released on DVD in region 1 look at all the shows
> that aren't on DVD.
I'm not assuming, it's a fact that every season of Buffy will be
released on DVD in region 1. Fox has pumped too much money into the
project not to release the DVDs.
> ER (any season)
> Stargate (after season 4)
> Charmed (any season)
> 7th heaven (any season)
I believe ER's first season is already slated for release. I'd be very
surprised if Charmed DVDs aren't already in the planning stages. 7th
Heaven will probably be a bit longer, since they're doing very well in
syndication and I don't think there's a huge demand for the show on DVD
at the moment. I don't know anything about Stargate, although you
mention that it has four seasons already on DVD.
the q is silent
>
> On BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Are you being purposely obtuse?
> ER has been on the air for a number of years. They should
> be much further along than one season on DVD.
There is no "should" here. There is no overarching DVD release calendar
by which all television shows must abide. The schedule for ER DVDs
releases is NBC and Warner Brothers' prerogative. They'll release
seasons of the show as they see fit to maximize their own profit and
exposure.
the q is silent
>
> And have you looked to see how many shows ****aren't
> avaiable***** on DVD?
Those shows aren't Buffy.
JohnnyDarko1979
X-Files has been off the air over a year now, and Fox is still releasing the
seasons the same rate as before until they've gotten season 9 out on the shelf,
why should Buffy be any different?
JohnnyDarko1979
>release that even though they know a shitload of fans would buy it just to
>get
>the full Once More With Feeling episode.
did they state season 6 is NOT coming out here? or is it just figuring since
it's not on the schedule yet? I figure season 6 to be out around June 2004,
and season 7 to be out that Xmas or Jan 2005
JohnnyDarko1979
>>The complete first season of ER is coming out on DVD next month...
>But there are many seasons NOT available on DVD.
well hell, they usually release shows in chronological order. Why would you
expect season 8 of Friends to come out before season 4 for example?
JohnnyDarko1979
>product in a short time frame. In the case of DVD sets of TV shows, this
>would
>be releasing multiple full seasons too close to each other.
exactly, I know plenty of Trekkies who still don't have all 7 seasons of The
Next Generation because of how quickly they were released one after the other
(all 7 seasons came out within a 9 month period) and above that, they retailed
over $100 each. I have several friends who are into Trek who only have 4 or 5
sets so far. Whereas every Buffy, South Park and Sex And The City fan I know
owns every single season on DVD thus far, because they time out the releases
far apart enough that the fans don't have to sacrifice for it.
BTR1701
<NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Are you being purposely obtuse?
> ER has been on the air for a number of years. They should
> be much further along than one season on DVD.
Says who?
BTR1701
j-wa...@northwestern.edu wrote:
> I believe ER's first season is already slated for release. I'd be very
> surprised if Charmed DVDs aren't already in the planning stages. 7th
> Heaven will probably be a bit longer, since they're doing very well in
> syndication and I don't think there's a huge demand for the show on DVD
> at the moment. I don't know anything about Stargate, although you
> mention that it has four seasons already on DVD.
This guy seems to basically be arguing that the mere fact that every
single episode of every single show in television history is not
currently available on DVD argues for the premise that Buffy's final
seasons will not be released on DVD either.
Why he thinks that is a mystery for sure.
forge
poignant, dramatic
VampXander-and-VampWillow-feed-on-Cordy-right-in-front-of-caged-Giles
scene was cut right after the bite, for a fucking commercial break.
That was when I decided I could very easily do without the FX reruns.
Coyote27
That was sarcasm, son. I'm quite sure Season 6 will be out on DVD in the same
time frame...
Ed Rhodes
> On the q is silent <j-wa...@northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> >The show being on UPN had very little to do with DVD sales of previous
> >seasons. Why would you assume that the show no longer being on the air
> >means that there's no more interest in the show? I can't think of any
> >evidence at all which supports that idea, while there's mountains of
> >evidence against it.
> For one DVD sales are still very new, it's hard to get shows
> released on DVD when the show itself is not on the air.
>
> Fans of Forever Knight have been trying for years to
> get FK released on DVD. With no new episodes
> being made and extremely limited Syndication TPTB
> were very hesitant to release it on DVD. Rumor has
> it someone finally bit and it will happen soon. But it
> took alot of fans alot of years and alot of effort to
> get that much.
Yeah, but the producers of Knight Rider never handled the show properly to
begin with and couldn't acknowledge the fact that they were screwing around
with a format that didn't need teaking! They fought any sort of promotional
tie in, because if it was popular, they'd have to admit their concepts about
the show's popularity were incorrect. I'm glad someone got the rights and
I'm looking forward to seeing the episodes in clear splendor instead of my
grainy low-quality tapes!
Ed Rhodes
> On BTR1701 <BTR...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Are you being purposely obtuse?
> ER has been on the air for a number of years. They should
> be much further along than one season on DVD.
ER doesn't have the fanatical following of something like Buffy. It would
take longer to develop a DVD deal. (Also, this just off the top of my head,
could it be that they have to go into negotiation with everybody over
royality rights? Seems to me a TV series, unlike a movie, might not
automatically put reproduction rights in the contracts and with a series
with a cast as large and varied as ER, the negotiations could have taken
quite a while.)
Bob
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, NickKnight wrote:
> >
>
> > 7th heaven (any season)
>
> Again, not exactly a "cult" show so not very relevant.
Unless you count the cult of Christianity.....
JohnnyDarko1979
>>
>> Again, not exactly a "cult" show so not very relevant.
>
>Unless you count the cult of Christianity.....
lmao, but how many Christian fan-fictions do you see about the Camden family?
LOL