U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Frugal Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-27-2016, 01:55 AM
 
Location: Suburban wasteland of NC
253 posts, read 151,905 times
Reputation: 266

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
On what basis?
They probably doubt that based on the number of original Amazon Prime and Netflix shows & movies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...uted_by_Amazon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_by_Netflix

I'm not convinced the death of TV as we used to know it would be such a bad thing. Advertisers have many other avenues of running ads, and heck people would have more disposable income to buy the things advertised if they weren't paying for cable. That's assuming you're even the type who watches TV shows, a lot of us mostly watch movies and a documentary here and there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2016, 03:52 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,690 posts, read 8,170,927 times
Reputation: 7985
Quote:
Originally Posted by happygeek View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Without consumption, the vast majority of readers of this thread would be in far worse economic condition. Consumption fuels our economy. We couldn't sustain such a population without it.
I doubt that.
On what basis?
They probably doubt that based on the number of original Amazon Prime and Netflix shows & movies
Original Amazon Prime and Netflix shows & movies has no impact on the overall amount of consumption and surely no impact on the effect of consumption on our economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2016, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Suburban wasteland of NC
253 posts, read 151,905 times
Reputation: 266
Never said they did

Full quote for those who didn't read 8 pages worth of thread:

Quote:
Be careful what you wish for. Without advertising (or much higher direct costs to consumers), television dies. What's worse: Without consumption, the vast majority of readers of this thread would be in far worse economic condition. Consumption fuels our economy. We couldn't sustain such a population without it.
Quote:
I doubt that
I was responding on the assumption that the doubting poster was questioning the first two sentences of your quote. The rest of it is an academic exercise.

Last edited by happygeek; 05-27-2016 at 08:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2016, 04:17 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,690 posts, read 8,170,927 times
Reputation: 7985
Quote:
Originally Posted by happygeek View Post
I was responding on the assumption that the doubting poster was questioning the first two sentences of your quote.
You're still not clearly saying what you seem to want to say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2016, 04:56 AM
 
Location: Suburban wasteland of NC
253 posts, read 151,905 times
Reputation: 266
Quote:
Be careful what you wish for. Without advertising (or much higher direct costs to consumers), television dies. What's worse: Without consumption, the vast majority of readers of this thread would be in far worse economic condition. Consumption fuels our economy. We couldn't sustain such a population without it.
Perhaps because this quote isn't all that clear, so the responses to it are less so?

Are you saying that without advertising that network TV would die, or cable? Are you saying that advertisers don't have other avenues to run ads outside of cable? Are you then jumping to a third assumption from there that if cable dies, then ads stop running, then consumption is reduced. Then from there we're jumping to a 4th conclusion that the economy then dies (this is where it gets really academic and probably doesn't even belong in the frugal living subforum).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2016, 05:10 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,690 posts, read 8,170,927 times
Reputation: 7985
Quote:
Originally Posted by happygeek View Post
Perhaps because this quote isn't all that clear, so the responses to it are less so? Are you saying that without advertising that network TV would die, or cable? Are you saying that advertisers don't have other avenues to run ads outside of cable? Are you then jumping to a third assumption from there that if cable dies, then ads stop running, then consumption is reduced. Then from there we're jumping to a 4th conclusion that the economy then dies (this is where it gets really academic and probably doesn't even belong in the frugal living subforum).
I wrote, "Without advertising (or much higher direct costs to consumers), television dies." That's very clear. Television production and distribution costs money. It has to come from advertising or direct costs to customer.

I also wrote, "What's worse: Without consumption, the vast majority of readers of this thread would be in far worse economic condition. Consumption fuels our economy. We couldn't sustain such a population without it." That's also very clear. Our economy is a consumption economy. Most people in our society who can pay their own way can do so because they earn income doing work that in some way can be traced back to someone else's consumption of consumer products and services. Remove the consumption that was maligned earlier in the thread, and our economy becomes as if the bloodstream has no blood. The body collapses and dies.

And in the context of this forum: Frugality would prefer that the value of other people's attention to advertising would generate the revenues necessary to fuel television and distribution. And: Frugality would prefer that the value of other people's consumption would generate the economic activity necessary to keep the American economy from collapsing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2016, 01:33 PM
 
9,082 posts, read 9,238,531 times
Reputation: 4670
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
I wrote, "Without advertising (or much higher direct costs to consumers), television dies." That's very clear. Television production and distribution costs money. It has to come from advertising or direct costs to customer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FX -December 16, 2015
FX continues to beat the too-much-TV drum to a mostly receptive audience of Reporters Who Cover Television, today issuing a report that the total number of scripted series hit a new high this year with 409 dramas, comedies and limited series across broadcast networks, basic and pay cable and OTT services.
Obviously, video series are more numerous than ever, but more and more they are raising revenue via direct costs to customers. Surprisingly actors like Johnny Galecki, Jim Parsons, and Kaley Cuoco are being paid far more today to attract an audience that would only have been average 30 years ago. Probably far more people saw Johnny Galecki first run on Roseanne when he was a teenager, then see him today on first run for TBBT.

But, as you said, quality television production and distribution costs money. Certainly with over 400 series, most of them will have small budgets.

NBC, the former king of sitcoms, has cancelled 33 sitcoms in a row over 7 seasons. While a small number made it to a second season, none has produced enough episodes to be available in syndication. That sounds horrific, since in prior decades 1 out of 3 sitcoms on NBC were syndicated. But by the same token, no current NBC sitcom actor is getting mega-million dollar salaries. Perhaps the sitcom division is just as profitable as ever.

It will be interesting to see if The CW (ten years old) becomes a streaming service. As the smallest network with the lowest ratings and the youngest viewers one wonders if it is financially viable to keep it on broadcast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2016, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,396 posts, read 8,354,967 times
Reputation: 7679
Explore You Tube a world of entertainment and knowledge awaits. You get to choose what You want to watch... not the entertainment dictators.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2016, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Suburban wasteland of NC
253 posts, read 151,905 times
Reputation: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
I wrote, "Without advertising (or much higher direct costs to consumers), television dies." That's very clear. Television production and distribution costs money. It has to come from advertising or direct costs to customer.

I also wrote, "What's worse: Without consumption, the vast majority of readers of this thread would be in far worse economic condition. Consumption fuels our economy. We couldn't sustain such a population without it." That's also very clear. Our economy is a consumption economy. Most people in our society who can pay their own way can do so because they earn income doing work that in some way can be traced back to someone else's consumption of consumer products and services. Remove the consumption that was maligned earlier in the thread, and our economy becomes as if the bloodstream has no blood. The body collapses and dies.

And in the context of this forum: Frugality would prefer that the value of other people's attention to advertising would generate the revenues necessary to fuel television and distribution. And: Frugality would prefer that the value of other people's consumption would generate the economic activity necessary to keep the American economy from collapsing.
That's more clear, but it's still not obvious if you're talking about network TV or cable. Then of course there's the discussion as to whether it even matters if cable dies off.

The rest of it about consumption and what not is an academic conversation.

I'm not sure I even follow you here:

"Frugality would prefer that the value of other people's attention to advertising would generate the revenues necessary to fuel television and distribution."

Huh? TV shows and movies were made before cable existed, and many are made currently without cable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2016, 05:21 AM
bUU
 
Location: Georgia
11,690 posts, read 8,170,927 times
Reputation: 7985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzelogik View Post
Explore You Tube a world of entertainment and knowledge awaits. You get to choose what You want to watch... not the entertainment dictators.
Indeed, and that really does give us some idea of what we have to look forward to. I've watched a few straight-to-streaming series and they were interesting diversions, but no Game of Thrones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by happygeek View Post
That's more clear, but it's still not obvious if you're talking about network TV or cable.
I'm sorry you're having trouble following my comments. It would help to just take them at face value rather than trying to read into them what you may hope that they're saying, for whatever reason. The term "television production" should be interpreted literally, without any adornment or tilt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by happygeek View Post
The rest of it about consumption and what not is an academic conversation.
Everything in this thread is an "academic conversation".

Quote:
Originally Posted by happygeek View Post
I'm not sure I even follow you here: "Frugality would prefer that the value of other people's attention to advertising would generate the revenues necessary to fuel television and distribution."
A legitimate inquiry earlier asked for a more explicit understanding of how these things related to frugality. Again, your confusion seemed to have stemmed from ignoring the words and instead reading into the statement matters it didn't even raise. It was highlighting that this model that the industry is grounded in, now - advertising paying for a good portion of the programming - is one that frugal people can exploit to their advantage, by having others ostensibly subsidize their entertainment costs, by way of those other people watching advertising and allowing it to affect their purchasing decisions, while the frugal person avoids advertising, thereby avoiding paying that price for the the programming they watch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Frugal Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top