The purpose of Tv is to sell us stuff

[sweetnpetite]

The purpose of TV and consumer magazines is to sell us stuff and convince us that we need stuff. (I LOVE TV and magazines btw, and go back and forth on consumerism and materialism... I do feel that they are negative influences, but I am not immune to them in the slightest)

I know that soaps where created by product companies to sell their stuff (I love soaps too) and everything on TV now suggests to bring viewers to advertisers. It's really a Venus Flytrap. BUT I'm wondering, was TV always meant to be for this purpose? Or has it been corrupted from it's original intent? Thoughts?

 

[Xelebes]

TV was originally meant to be a theatre in your own home. The problem lies in the cost to bring it to you. You don't pay a subscription (unless you have cable or satellite) so the money has to come from somewhere. Today, the subscriptions do not cover the cost of production but only aid in doing so.

 

[Verdad]

I’ve barely watched any TV in about eight years. Can’t say I miss it, either.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Cable has tons of commercials.

 

[Liar]

The purpose of TV is not to sell stuff to us. The purpose of TV is to sell us to stuff.

We the audience is the product, and the buyer is the companies that wants access to us.

 

[TE999]

Television, as the radio and the phonograph that preceded it, was originally though of as a means of bringing both culture and education to the masses. Initially, phonograph recordings and radio programs consisted of operatic selections, symphonic music and readings from the classics in literature. The masses tired quickly of this and demanded to be entertained as they were in Vaudeville.

The first TV programs were equally highbrow, but that too fell by the wayside in favor of televised Vaudeville and the like. The commercial advertising potential of TV was recognized early on and has paid the bills, at least in part, ever since. In fact, many of the early commercials are now considered 'classics' and are enshrined in many a film collection and the Library of Congress.

 

[R. Richard]

Nothing is free.

However, anything that people want costs. The costs have to be met somehow. Commercials are how. Yes, TV and radio try to sell you stuff. The opportunity to try to sell you stuff is the way TV or radio productions are financed.

 

[TxRad]

The purpose of TV is not to sell stuff to us. The purpose of TV is to sell us to stuff.

We the audience is the product, and the buyer is the companies that wants access to us.

"Stuff Slaves"

There has to be a plot bunny in there somewhere but I think Rod Sirling already did it several different ways.

 

[sr71plt]

"To sell you stuff" is behind any healthy marketplace enterprise, isn't it?

 

[oggbashan]

Advertising on TV isn't as effective as it used to be. We have become more sophisticated. "As advertised on TV" on packaging makes me think that the product is useless tat.

Advertisers now try to sell lifestyles. A new kitchen? You must be entertaining the neighbours in an impossibly large area equipped with the latest gadgetry.

A small car shown on TV? It isn't sold on its technical merits but on where it is shown. Boring details such as fuel consumption are in the small print. But do you believe that your neighbours are going to gush over your new cheap, tinny car? Or that it shows your executive lifestyle? Get real. It's a cheap mass-produced form of transport that you'll need to replace within five years.

Product placement is considered more effective. If your favourite TV character is seen with a product, would you buy it? The advertisers think so and pay real money to get it shown.

TV requires revenue. The advertisers provide it. Without their money you wouldn't have the choice of channels you've got now.

Og

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think any of the media advertising is cost-effective beyond getting the name brand into the mind of the viewer. Adverts on the Internet seem particularly ineffective. But as long as they pay a big share of having the program on offer and me not having to subscribe to it, I'll just pretend they are worthwhile.

 

[Handley_Page]

The purpose of TV is to sell us stuff and convince us that we need stuff.

Or has it been corrupted from it's original intent? Thoughts?

It is now, although uK TV was not, in the beginning. Only after 1955, with the introduction of 'Commercial TV' was the idea to make money for someone

Pity really. . . .

 

[Huckleman2000]

As Handley points out, other countries have had different ideas about how TV programming is financed. I'm surprised neither he nor Ogg mentioned the TV "license" that has paid for the BBC, for example. (Is it still commercial-free?)

In the US, there is some nominal public responsibility for the privilege of owning a broadcast station (now mostly affiliates of the four major networks, i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) and using the airwave spectrum, which is considered a public resource. The FCC regulates these issues. The Fairness Doctrine is gone since the Reagan administration; PSAs (Pubilc Service Announcements) aren't exactly required, although broadcasters must keep public records of PSAs that they air. Broadcasters must devote a certain number of hours each week, with limited commercial time, to children's "educational" programming. Other FCC rules have limited the degree of "vertical integration" in the media, keeping the ownership of the production of programming (i.e., Hollywood) separate from distribution (i.e., broadcast and cable). The FCC has also regulated media cross-ownership, limiting companies from establishing local media monopolies of broadcast and print media. The stated goal of these regulations is to ensure that no one voice can drown out others, and that all parts of the country have competitive media sources.

Within that regulatory framework, there are several different ways for broadcasters, cable channels, cable companies, and programming producers to make money. However, the broadcast of entertainment, with intermittent commercial breaks, is historically dominant.

The vast, largely homogeneous audience has been unique to the US. No other country has such a large population that speaks the same language and has the disposable income to attract advertisers. This has allowed the development of a diversity of programming that other countries cannot match. The audience for Flemish-language programs is not large enough to support a Flemmywood, for example.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

But as cable/satellite stations proliferate, broadcasting gives way to narrow-casting and individual markets can be more finely targeted. Consider how many stations there are in SoCal showing non-English programs. No, it's not all in Spanish and they've been on the air for years. Of course, they still sell stuff.

 

[R. Richard]

But as cable/satellite stations proliferate, broadcasting gives way to narrow-casting and individual markets can be more finely targeted. Consider how many stations there are in SoCal showing non-English programs. No, it's not all in Spanish and they've been on the air for years. Of course, they still sell stuff.

I know that there's a large Vietnamese community south of Los Angeles, or at least was a few years back. I had to go into Little Saigon to buy some computers we needed right now! I managed to convince some Vietnamese gang members that it was better for the leader's uncle to sell me computers, instead of killing me. Good computers, good price. I suspect that they have a TV station.

 

[Huckleman2000]

But as cable/satellite stations proliferate, broadcasting gives way to narrow-casting and individual markets can be more finely targeted. Consider how many stations there are in SoCal showing non-English programs. No, it's not all in Spanish and they've been on the air for years. Of course, they still sell stuff.

Well, yes - they are operating in the market the way it was created. Just as there are blocks of non-English programming on the BBC.

SoCal has a large enough non-English population to justify broadcast spectrum targeting them specifically. Most of the country can't justify that. Local broadcasters used to get money from the networks, coupled with the agreement to let the network show their programs over the local's licensed spectrum, including a certain number of network-sold ads. In addition, local broadcasters sell ads for their own broadcast area, and produce some programming of their own (mainly news). That's the free-to-air model that developed before for-pay cable and satellite.

The two models differ in that one is pay-for-programming that is commercial-free; the other is free programming that is supported by commercial airtime. The commercial-supported model needs to attract an audience large enough (through the national network), or specific enough (through the local broadcaster) to justify ad expenditure.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The FCC has also regulated media cross-ownership, limiting companies from establishing local media monopolies of broadcast and print media. The stated goal of these regulations is to ensure that no one voice can drown out others, and that all parts of the country have competitive media sources.

There are exceptions to this. The Tribune Company in Chicago owns two papers, a number of radio stations and a television station.

So that monopoly thing has been bypassed a number of times...re. Murdock, etc.

I haven't really watched TV per say, I do however watch television programs via the internet. There are commercials but the don't last as long, 15 to 30 seconds, four times during an hour long show. Although that show is really only 42 1/2 minutes long now a days. Even with the commercial breaks it take less then 50 minutes to watch.

 

[oggbashan]

As Handley points out, other countries have had different ideas about how TV programming is financed. I'm surprised neither he nor Ogg mentioned the TV "license" that has paid for the BBC, for example. (Is it still commercial-free?)...

The BBC is still commercial-free and paid for by the licence fee. At present, and for the last couple of years, there is considerable debate about how the BBC is funded and how it spends its money. It cooperates with other countries' public channels to produce some of its drama but probably spends too much trying to compete on popular programming such as game shows and fly-on-the-wall observation of ordeal programmes.

Advertising revenue has dropped for the commercial channels and they have proliferated, reducing the income for each one. Pay-per-view and subscription channels are becoming more common.

Og