PDA

View Full Version : Fuck you, ABC. Fuck you straight to fucking hell!


dietrologia
01-01-2001, 08:20 PM
I'm wise to you, ABC.

I know the Rose Bowl in Pasadena doesn't have a giant billboard on the east side of the stadium.

It doesn't exist!

Why must you create fake billboards!

And for God's Sake, why do it so poorly?

I mean, it flickers as you slowly zoom in to the field.

Shot's from the Goodyear Blimp (tm) clearly show no billboards.

ABC, your computer-generated billboard might have earned you $50,000 from your advertisers, but you've earned my eternal emnity!

Asphixiate on your vomit while sleeping, ABC!

And, by the way, FUCK YOU, SCUM!!!!

Jello
01-01-2001, 08:28 PM
More evidence that corporations are taking over Amerika. That's disgusting.

pldennison
01-01-2001, 08:37 PM
I'm confused . . . did this CGI billboard obscure part of the game action, or injure you in some way?

dietrologia
01-01-2001, 09:31 PM
I'm confused . . . did this CGI billboard obscure part of the game action, or injure you in some way?

Hey, Dipshit, it's GENERAL PRINCIPAL that I'm rallying against.

Any other questions, or are you too busy getting ass-fucked by the major-three?!

Enderw24
01-01-2001, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by dietrologia
Hey, Dipshit, it's GENERAL PRINCIPAL that I'm rallying against.

Wow, I had no idea that broadcasting corporations hired militant school administrators to run their advertising department. No wonder you're so pissed.

waterj2
01-01-2001, 09:58 PM
Oh, dear God, you've been exposed to more advertising! Yup, that's comparable to being ass-fucked (for those who are very much opposed to such things).

I'm with Phil here, what the hell does it matter? Do you expect ABC to show you a football game you want to see purely out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you expect them to be concerned with the eternal enmity of people irrational enough to be seriously object to CGI billboards? Get a fucking sense of perspective.

alibey
01-01-2001, 10:20 PM
do they have to show a game at all, with all of the football, my monday night ABC viewing got trashed. at least there was the Iron Cheif marathon on food network

Alibey formaly of Arabia and now in the great white north

minty green
01-01-2001, 10:29 PM
Yeah, man. I can't stand how they put a football game on instead of Monday Night Football. :rolleyes:

alibey
01-01-2001, 10:34 PM
well, I did come back from 6 months in Saudi. When I left they had nonfootball shows on.

Fredge
01-01-2001, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by dietrologia
Why must you create fake billboards!

I suppose you'd prefer a pay-per-view game? or perhaps we should pay more taxes so ABC can get a subsidy from the government?

You're getting to watch a game on TV and you don't have to pay any money to do so but you have to look at an advertisement so you're pissed off?

You're one of those people who bitches about the Olympics when they're held in the U.S. because "they're too commercial" aren't you? I guess in your mind it'd be better for everyone in the whole country to pay for sporting events even if they have no interest in them.

The Ryan
01-02-2001, 12:40 AM
As much as I sympathisize with your annoyance, I can't help admiring the evil genius of it. It sounds like something Dr. Evil or the Brain of Pinky and the Brain would come up with.

pldennison
01-02-2001, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by dietrologia
I'm confused . . . did this CGI billboard obscure part of the game action, or injure you in some way?

Hey, Dipshit, it's GENERAL PRINCIPAL that I'm rallying against.

Uh, yeah. Hey, did you know that it doesn't cost ABC anything to broadcast those games, so all the ad money goes right into Disney's Corp.'s pockets?

Any other questions, or are you too busy getting ass-fucked by the major-three?!

Let's see . . . total hours of network television watched by me over my 5-day weekend (Th-M): Zero. Any other questions?

TommyTutone
01-02-2001, 09:12 AM
Errr... before everyone goes jumping on Diet (too late), I have a question. Were there commercials during the game (during time outs/in between quarters, etc)?
If so, the I also give a hearty 'fuck you' to ABC. This means they either paid to much to get the thing on their network or they are shamefully greedy.
Of course, if it was a trade-off for a commercial free game, then let the billboard stay. Hell, for commercial-free, let them stick a Pringle can on the football itself.

I also got pissed at the Discover card plastering itself all over the big ball in Times Square, but I guess I'm old fashioned.

RickJay
01-02-2001, 09:28 AM
Here's a question:

Is it better to have some CGI phony billboard during crowd shots, or another 30 seconds of mindless shit ads instead of football coverage?

I'd take the former.

Milossarian
01-02-2001, 10:18 AM
My advertising/bowl game question is, do these insignificant companies not realize that naming the bowl after themselves is not only annoying, it detracts from the bowl's significance?

Show of hands on how many of you watched the furniture.com bowl or the Insight.com bowl. That's what I thought.

If it was the Sun Bowl or the Liberty Bowl, you might have had some recognition of it, and taken a peek.

100 years from now, college students will look in some trophy case on their campus and laugh.

"Hey! We won the vinylsiding.com Bowl back in 2000! How impressive!"

Montfort
01-02-2001, 10:45 AM
I first noticed the fake billboard during a screw-up: they were flashed over the sky just before a shot was shown of the crowd. I thought "what the?" and then realised, "oh, they're fake ads. Neat."

Face it: commercial TV is a profit-making effort by the networks. It costs ABC jillions of dollars to broadcast the Rose Bowl and they're lucky when they get a good game. They have to make money, and if virtual ads are the way to go, then that's what they're going to do.

Personally, I'm a proponent of public broadcasting, but I doubt you'll ever see the Rose Bowl on PBS.

Oblong
01-02-2001, 11:02 AM
TV doesn't consist of programs with commercials thrown in during the breaks. TV consists of comercials and advertising with programming to try to lure you to watch them. Advertising is the whole point of the medium. If not for that, then no TV. Then we may be forced to read or talk with our families... the horror.

That's the genius of The Super Bowl. We talk more about the commercials then the game itself

Amok
01-02-2001, 11:24 AM
Show of hands on how many of you watched the furniture.com bowl or the Insight.com bowl. That's what I thought.


Hey, I watched the Insight.com Bowl... Of course, one of the schools that played is my alma mater, so I am a bit biased. But yeah, I wonder how effective renaming the Copper Bowl to the Insight.com Bowl has been in generating business. It certainly hasn't prompted me to go their site.


"Hey! We won the vinylsiding.com Bowl back in 2000! How impressive!"


Or in the case of my school: "We lost the vinylsiding.com Bowl".

As for the fake adds, I'm fairly ambivelent. Sports broadcasting is journalisim of a sort, and the adds distort the truth of what happened at the event. However, their effect practically is quite trivial. Their not my favorite thing, but I can certainly live with them.

neutron star
01-02-2001, 12:11 PM
I suppose you'd prefer a pay-per-view game? or perhaps we should pay more taxes so ABC can get a subsidy from the government?

Uh, I don't think that was what the OP was getting at at all. There's a big difference between paying for the game and reaping profits at every fucking opportunity possible.

Ten or fifteen years ago, there were no CGI billboards. There was no Doritos halftime report, Preperation H Play of the Game, Aflac trivia question, Quaker State MVP, Tostitos score ticker, or, god forbid, a Blockbuster All-Madden Team. No Poulan/Weedeater Independence Bowl, either. There was a Goodyear blimp and that was it. But somehow the networks managed to reap mighty profits.

If you look at advertising rates for back then compared to the rates today, you can see that they've kept pace. In fact, from what I've heard, the dot com ads raised the bar even more. This isn't good enough for the networks. They want more, more, MORE! You may call it good business sense. I call it pure fucking greed.

So yes, I think seeing a product logo every twenty seconds, in addition to the HUGE glut of regular commercials, does detract from the experience. It feels like I'm watching three and a half hours (Hey! Where did that extra half hour come from? Football games usually only lasted three hours ten years ago! Oh yeah, extra commercials...) of advertisements with a few minutes football thrown in. I'm taking bets on how long it will be before the teams actually start naming themselves after corporations. I say three years. Any takers?

01-02-2001, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by pldennison

Uh, yeah. Hey, did you know that it doesn't cost ABC anything to broadcast those games, so all the ad money goes right into Disney's Corp.'s pockets?


You forgot the :rolleyes:...unless you actually believe this, which is too frightening to consider.

Oblong
01-02-2001, 12:35 PM
So yes, I think seeing a product logo every twenty seconds, in addition to the HUGE glut of regular commercials, does detract from the experience. It feels like I'm watching three and a half hours (Hey! Where did that extra half hour come from? Football games usually only lasted three hours ten years ago! Oh yeah, extra commercials...) of advertisements with a few minutes football thrown in. I'm taking bets on how long it will be before the teams actually start naming themselves after corporations. I say three years. Any takers

well too fucking bad. ABC's objective is to make profits and be greedy. That is why they exist. They don't exist to show football games.

neutron star
01-02-2001, 12:55 PM
Well, no shit, Captain Obvious. They wanted big profits ten years ago, too. But at least they had enough respect for the viewer not to accept a corporate sponser for every fucking aspect of the game, and then some.

Every year, advertisments show up in more and more places. At first people bitch and whine, then they get used to it. When I go to the movies, I pay $7, yet I still see a commercial or two, and I hear people in the audience groaning about it. A couple years from now, they'll get over it. As soon as they do, they'll probably stop the movie every 40 minutes for commercial breaks. When people stop groaning about that, they'll stop it every twenty minutes.

I know this is starting to sound like a slippery slope argument, but a slippery slope is all I've been seeing for the past decade. If this keeps up, I'm afraid I'll walk into a forest ten years from now and see signs that say "THIS TREE WAS PROUDLY BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE MILLER BREWING COMPANY!" and, of course, in teeny, tiny letters next to it, the obligatory "Please drink responsibly."

Crunchy Frog
01-02-2001, 01:20 PM
Kinda on track with the OP, since it has to do with a bitch at ABC, but not about CG billboards:

A few years ago, there was an ice skating special scheduled to be aired especially for ABC. The Russian skaters Gordeava and Grinkov(sp?) were to skate together. These two were married and the husband, Grinkov, had died very suddenly and very young. ABC hyped this up as the last time the two publicly skated together.

So of course, ABC announcer says they "chose" to skate to music from Pocahontas, which is coincidentally being released on video in a week or so. During the performance, ABC splices clips of the cartoon into the skating performance. Hey, assholes, maybe some of us actually wanted to see these gold medalists SKATE! I thought it was disgusting to use this man's death to hype up their show as the last time you can see these two skate with each other, and then use their last public skating performance to plug the soon-to-be-released on video Pocahontas piece of crap.

Much worse than a CG billboard IMO. Way to go Disney/ABC.

pldennison
01-02-2001, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by neutron star
Well, no shit, Captain Obvious. They wanted big profits ten years ago, too. But at least they had enough respect for the viewer not to accept a corporate sponser for every fucking aspect of the game, and then some.

Hey, if you're ABC, and you're showing college bowl games, and Doritos comes to you and says, "We'll help you recoup your costs faster by paying you $X to put our name all over the halftim report," what do you answer? "No, we'd hate to allow commercial considerations to destroy the deep-rooted integrity that is NCAA Div. I college football"?

01-02-2001, 01:38 PM
and what's wrong with advertising anyway?

Companies want business. What do you expect them to do? Telemarketing? I don't think so. People are willing to spend the money to advertise in these sporting events, people are willing to take the money from the advertisers, why does that affect you? You don't like CG advertising? Don't patronise the company. Ignore the billboards, and watch the fucking game instead. But don't tell them to go fuck themselves for running their business, that's just not fair.

Crunchy Frog
01-02-2001, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by neutron star
But at least they had enough respect for the viewer
I'm sorry, but ABC has respect for its viewers? Yet Full House and that Urkel idiot were on the air for YEARS! ;)

The truth is, ABC is owned by Disney. Disney is a conglomerate corporation, and for the longest time, has cared only about exploiting whatever opportunity available to make more money. People don't refer to Disney as The Evil Empire for nothing.

Originally posted by pldennison
"No, we'd hate to allow commercial considerations to destroy the deep-rooted integrity that is NCAA Div. I college football"?
HAHAHAHA!!!

neutron star
01-02-2001, 01:59 PM
Well, I'm not saying that I don't understand why they do it. Of course, if I worked at ABC and it was my decision, I would reject the offer. To put it mildly, let's just say that I'm not CEO material. :)

I think the networks are walking a very fine line with these practices. They're risking not only alienating (at least some of) their viewers, but also the companies that paid them for the advertisements. Your commercial is surely going to get more attention if it only has twenty other commercials to compete with instead of a hundred (note that these are arbitrary numbers. I've never actually counted the commercials in a game). A four minute commercial break is much more likely to make me want to go take a whiz and get a soda (thereby missing ALL the commercials) than a two minute break would.

I just don't see how it can keep getting worse like this for much longer. At some point, people are either going to get fed up and stop watching (okay, maybe not), or, more likely, the advertisers will get tired of their messages being diluted, and will refuse to pay the big bucks.

But don't tell them to go fuck themselves for running their business, that's just not fair.

They ran their businesses just fine a few years ago without all of this dreck. They were making a tidy profit, the fans were happy, and everything was going great. But they got greedy. They couldn't just leave good enough alone. They had to pinch every last fucking penny out of it! That is what I object to, but I guess it seems to be the American way. *sigh*

neutron star
01-02-2001, 02:14 PM
Oh, and there's some integrity left in college football. Unfortunately, it all seems to rest on one man's shoulders - Joe Paterno. He never did a commercial, doesn't put stupid stickers on the helmets of team members who make big plays, and refuses to even let the players put their names on their jerseys.

He must be doing something right, too, because he's just a couple wins away from being the winningest coach in NCAA-1 history. Let's just hope that Bobby Bowden retires before he can catch up to Joe. :)

Weirddave
01-02-2001, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by neutron star
I suppose you'd prefer a pay-per-view game? or perhaps we should pay more taxes so ABC can get a subsidy from the government?

Uh, I don't think that was what the OP was getting at at all. There's a big difference between paying for the game and reaping profits at every fucking opportunity possible.

Ten or fifteen years ago, there were no CGI billboards. There was no Doritos halftime report, Preperation H Play of the Game, Aflac trivia question, Quaker State MVP, Tostitos score ticker, or, god forbid, a Blockbuster All-Madden Team. No Poulan/Weedeater Independence Bowl, either. There was a Goodyear blimp and that was it. But somehow the networks managed to reap mighty profits.

If you look at advertising rates for back then compared to the rates today, you can see that they've kept pace. In fact, from what I've heard, the dot com ads raised the bar even more. This isn't good enough for the networks. They want more, more, MORE! You may call it good business sense. I call it pure fucking greed.

At the risk of stating the obvious, ( always a mistake) 15 years ago, ABC was competing with CBS and NBC. FOX haden't even come around yet. Now ABC is competing with 100 other channels and Pay-Per-View. Is this starting to make a little more sense? If you don't like it, don't patronise the companies that advertise this way. Sheeesh!

neutron star
01-02-2001, 03:16 PM
FOX may have been in its infancy 15 years ago, but there were certainly plenty of cable channels to choose from.

Also, most of the cable channels barely register a flicker in the ratings. When it comes to football, the big channels have it pretty much locked up. You might find some no-name NCAA-II games on cable, and maybe even a few NCAA-I games featuring unranked teams, but nothing to even come close to competing with watching Penn State, Florida State, Notre Dame, etc, on the networks. It's competition, yes, but nothing for the big three (four?) to get worried about.

Yes, it costs more to get the rights to those games than it did in 1985, but the advertisement rates are keeping pace - and then some!

If you don't like it, don't patronise the companies that advertise this way.

Yeah, I can imagine the size of that boycott list. I'd probably have to order my groceries from overseas!

SuaSponte
01-02-2001, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Milossarian
My advertising/bowl game question is, do these insignificant companies not realize that naming the bowl after themselves is not only annoying, it detracts from the bowl's significance?
What significance?
:gd&r:

manhattan
01-02-2001, 05:57 PM
Not to get all GQ and all, but can I get a cite for the assertion that the networks are making mighty profits from these free games?

It had always been my impression that for at least the past several contracts, the nets took a bath on pro football and made marginal profits, if even that, on the college games.

waterj2
01-02-2001, 09:42 PM
Also, ten or fifteen years ago, people actually watched commercials, rather than simply changing the channel constantly.

Chief Crunch
01-02-2001, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by neutron star
Oh, and there's some integrity left in college football. Unfortunately, it all seems to rest on one man's shoulders - Joe Paterno. He never did a commercial

Actually, Joe was featured in a Burger King commercial for their now defunct "Big King" sandwich. Bowden did a Big King commercial, too. Plus, Joe does a lot of PA local commcerials for things like Milano bread. You can see his mug on the bread packages and on billboards all over Pennsylvania. Lions fans will buy anything that has his picture on it. He even has an ice cream flavor named after him, "Peachy Paterno".

neutron star
01-03-2001, 01:57 AM
Wow, really, Chief? I never saw Joe in a BK commercial, but I remember Lou Holtz did one. Was that who you were thinking of, or did Joe do one too?

I spent the first 19 years of my life in a town not much more than an hour from State College, and I can truthfully say that I've never seen him advertise anything, and I've never seen his face on anything that wasn't PSU parapharnalia.

Guess I wasn't paying close enough attention.

neutron star
01-03-2001, 02:01 AM
Manhattan:

I seem to be coming up empty looking for a cite. Guess I'll concede this argument until I can come up with something concrete.

Mr2001
01-03-2001, 02:54 AM
As for the virtual billboards interfering with the game... it did overlap the score box at one point. ;)

Chief Crunch
01-03-2001, 04:16 AM
neutron,

The commercial is described at this site:

http://members.nbci.com/TASponsler/page29.html

neutron star
01-03-2001, 10:01 AM
Huh. So it is. That's weird. I must have seen the Holtz and Bowden commercials two dozen times apiece, but I'd never seen Paterno shilling for their greasy shit.

Bummer. :(

PunditLisa
01-03-2001, 11:13 AM
Were you forced at gunpoint to watch the game? Nooooo. Then quit yer bitchin'! I noticed that there were only 2 people at the Hula Bowl, or whatever they're calling it these days. Obviously Hawaiians had something better to do than to sit and watch a bunch of advertisements disguised as a football game. Maybe THEY have lives, you bunch of mindless idiots!

If it were up to me, the t.v. would be OFF during the holidays. I'm sick of watching the back of my male relatives' heads all day. Is this what Christmas is supposed to be? I don't think so. I thought you were supposed to gather together with your family and, I don't know, CONVERSE once in a while.

Sheesh.

P.S. The previous rant was brought to you by the Converse Shoe Company. Happy Holidays!

kpm
01-03-2001, 11:52 AM
If it makes you feel better, I was surprised at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. The reason was they allow no ads in the stadium or arena. All they had was country flags and the Olympic flags.

Of course downtown Atlanta was turned into a giant mall, but that's another issue.

Avumede
01-03-2001, 07:22 PM
So, the prevailing attitude seems to be that it's stupid to complain. After all, ABC is just after making extra money, and that's what they are supposed to do. ABC has the right to make money any way they want too, evidently.

Ahem. Let me try and bring some rationality into this discussion: While you may think people shouldn't complain at ABC acting in it's own interest, complaints of this nature happen to all companies all the time. All companies to some extent are influenced by the public since no company wants bad PR. Saying that people should quit bitching about things they don't like is a jaw-droppingly bad idea. Bitching helps people, and ultimately it helps the company as well.

Davidbw1
01-03-2001, 08:56 PM
Well, on behalf of all Disney stockholders out there: UP YOURS: it Makes us Money, if you don't like it, write up a formal complaint and send it to ABC

super_head
01-04-2001, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Avumede
While you may think people shouldn't complain at ABC acting in it's own interest, complaints of this nature happen to all companies all the time. All companies to some extent are influenced by the public since no company wants bad PR. Saying that people should quit bitching about things they don't like is a jaw-droppingly bad idea. Bitching helps people, and ultimately it helps the company as well. [/B]

Be careful there, Avumede, I don't think rationality is allowed in these parts. :)

Anyway - agreed - for the OP, go bitch to ABC about the fake billboards, maybe they will listen. Or, perhaps since you continued to tune in to game - and perhaps ended up buying some products from their advertisers - they will continue to add more advertising to the point that they wrap all actors in cellophane advertisements during sitcoms.

ABC is a corporation - they are in business to make money - they do this by selling the audience to advertisers. Now, if you are so mortally wounded by the fake billboard, quit watching ABC - perhaps a lot of people will do the same, being as how fake billboards are known to be a major source of irritation to people around the world - suddenly, ABC will find themselves with no audience to sell, and ta-da, no more fake billboards.

I really don't see the issue, but then again, it could be that it's blocked by the fake billboard ABC just put in front of me. :p

2sense
01-04-2001, 01:30 AM
Since the PR value of bitching has been noted all I can add here is that manhattan is right. The networks have been losing money on NFL football since the four year contracts they signed in 1990* ( $3.6 billion total ). Those deals were made before FOX jumped into the game and drove the price way up. I don't know the numbers behind college ball, not being a fan due to the fact that there is no "deep-rooted integrity that is NCAA Div. I college football". ( LOL Phil )

As for JoePa's alleged integrity, let me get this straight. It's OK to put the swoosh on the uniform but not a player's name so I could tell who the fuck was making that tackle?

Personally, I am wondering what the NFL will do when Keyshon Johnson has his last name legally changed to "NIKE".
-

*- My source is the 1991 edition of The Sporting News Pro Football Guide.

Bill H.
01-04-2001, 03:39 PM
It's this simple: if you don't like the product, don't buy it. There are plenty of alternatives for entertainment.

The last I checked the constitution, there were no entitlement guarantees regarding college football.

Bottle of Smoke
01-04-2001, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by waterj2
Also, ten or fifteen years ago, people actually watched commercials, rather than simply changing the channel constantly. And therein lies the answer to the many anti-advertising rants in this thread.

You may be sick of seeing the FedEx Orange Bowl and the Toyota Halftime Report and "this time out brought to you by the Big Ass Giant Corporation," but those sponsors are even more sick of paying a fortune to advertise their products on TV only to have the audience they are paying for clicking their remotes the instant a commercial comes on. Hell, I can't even think of the last time I watched a commercial during a game. I always click away at the first break in the action to see what else is on.

The sponsors know that a lot of viewers are avoiding their commercials, so they do everything they can to put their names on the stuff that the viewers will see. I don't see what the big deal is. Tagging a sponsor's name to a feauture, a billboard, or a box score during a game doesn't take away from any of the action on the field. It makes good business sense, and network broadcasts of games are a business.

Let's not forget why they are called sponsors. They are paying big bucks so that you and I can watch football for free.

dietrologia
01-04-2001, 05:55 PM
I'm sorry. You guys are right.

They should just superimpose a giant 100-yard cgi-created KMART logo over the field and have the players play football upon that.

Then, whenever there is a slight lull in the action, there should be a fourth man in the booth... a Commercial man in addition to Play Caller, Color, & Commentary. He or she could fill in any gaps in the game calling with various and sundry plugs for doo-dads and gee-gaws.

In addition, I don't think it would be asking us viewers too much (after all, we are so privileged to be getting the game for free) to endure a constant scroll of text... say 1" high on the bottom of the screen telling us about the oh-so-wonderfull-and-benevolent sponsors.

I also don't think commercial breaks are long enough. Why, it's getting durned tough to get a 5-minute nap in these days. Plus, I think commercial breaks should not only be taken during change of possession or time-outs, but also in between downs and during huddles. After all, nothing's happening during these wasted seconds and we really wouldn't be missing any of the actual game.

God, what sheeple you are.

Arjuna34
01-04-2001, 06:35 PM
Um, dietrologia, you may have just advanced ABC several years in ad development ... you might want to keep those ideas quiet! ;)

I'm surpised no one's mentioned the cgi products placed in some sitcom repeats (like a box of cereal sitting on a kitchen counter that wasn't in the original show), and the fake billboard one network put over another network's REAL billboard in Times Square for the 2000 New Year's celebration. Wasn't that ABC also? I know the network caught some flack for that ....

Arjuna34

manhattan
01-04-2001, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by dietrologia
...superimpose a giant 100-yard cgi-created KMART logo over the field and have the players play football upon that... a Commercial man in addition to Play Caller, Color, & Commentary... a constant scroll of text... say 1" high on the bottom of the screen telling us about the oh-so-wonderfull-and-benevolent sponsors.


Uh, oh. Who wants to fill in the dietromaster in on how Europe and South America do their football games?

Warning, dietrologia. You are not going to like it, not even a little bit.

Duke
01-04-2001, 10:04 PM
Well said, Manhattan. When I was in England more than one person asked me who the shirt sponsors of NFL teams were. And if you buy a soccer shirt from almost any team in Europe, the name of the sponsor will be in giant letters and the name of the actual team will be in the tiniest of script.

I was irked by the constant commercialism of the bowl games myself, but the US has a long way to go before reaching total saturation. Why, even in my own sport of cricket, the sponsors' names are painted right on the field, and appear on the shirts of even the national teams. Something just doesn't seem right there.

super_head
01-04-2001, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by dietrologia
They should just superimpose a giant 100-yard cgi-created KMART logo over the field and have the players play football upon that.

Hey, if that's what they want to do and it's in the contract - I don't see where it's our business to tell them what to do. Again, I don't see what is so difficult about this issue - if you don't like it, don't watch it - if you're pissed off, don't buy the products.


In addition, I don't think it would be asking us viewers too much (after all, we are so privileged to be getting the game for free) to endure a constant scroll of text... say 1" high on the bottom of the screen telling us about the oh-so-wonderfull-and-benevolent sponsors.

I'm sorry - when did folks get this perception that television is a right? Hey, it's not!

God, what sheeple you are.

God, what a whiner you are. Turn the damn channel, for god's sake.

capacitor
01-05-2001, 12:26 AM
Hey, how about some real rants on ABC:

About how they cancelled Sports Night, the best show about a TV studio since Murphy Brown and replaced it with a certainly overworked Regis Philbin (don't get me wrong, I like him, but he is on air with new material more per week than anybody else on TV--9 hours!!)

How they retain shows like Two guys and a Girl....

neutron star
01-05-2001, 02:55 AM
Hmmm. Well I guess I stand corrected - on virtually everything I've said in this thread. Thanks for the numbers, 2sense.

I'm not exactly happy about the over-commercialization, but if they have to do it, they have to do it. I just wonder why they let the bidding for the broadcasting rights get so high. I guess they figure everyone will think that the networks that have the games are the shiggity shiznit and will be more likely to tune into the network's other shows. Now I can't speak for every viewer, but it sure as hell doesn't work on me. Oh well...

As for JoePa and the swoosh: you're right, 2sense. I can't believe that little nugget of commercialism had slipped my mind when I posted. I hadn't seen too many of their games this year, but I had noticed it in the ones that I did.

Lizard
01-05-2001, 06:39 AM
I totally agree with the spirit of the OP. The way TV networks insert things into programs (and some of them do it in newscasts as well) can have serious long term consequences. There is now talk of doing fake "product placement" in regular TV shows, which is already common overseas.

I think this is bad because people are already pretty out of touch with reality as it is. A lot of 13-year-olds already think MTV's "The Real World" really is the real world, and not hand-picked quasi-actors in a totally artificial setting. Now things that don't exist are being put into the programs themselves, so we can't even know if what we're seeing is literally real or not. Where will it end? Some cartoons are already just half-hour commercials for some lame-ass toy line. How long until everything on TV is just one long product pitch? I know I don't watch TV for the ads, and if it reachs the point where I can't escape them by hitting the mute button I'm going to seriously scale back my TV watching.
I wish I could convince other people of how truly unnecessary television is to lead a full life but alas, I'm usually preaching to the unreachable.

Lizard
01-05-2001, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by super_head
I'm sorry - when did folks get this perception that television is a right? Hey, it's not!
[/B]

Of course, if enough people decided cable wasn't worth it you'd see those rates drop real fast!

My personal beef with TV is that much of it is designed to manipulate your thinking. It's no coincidence that nobody unnattractive ever shows up on MTV, or that female newscasters are always attractive women. Television is intended from start to finish to appeal to the prurient interest and other base desires in order to keep your attention long enough to sell you a product. Changing the channel won't work, because it's done the same way at every network.

I don't mind advertising. But I DO mind when it is subtly inflicted upon me. If I had to choose between that kind of TV and no TV I'll take none, thanks. Too bad more people dont see it my way. Hitting that "off" button would be the only thing that would make the networks pull their noses out of the money trough and pay attention to how their pursuit of the bottom line affects real people..

neutron star
01-05-2001, 09:02 AM
that female newscasters are always attractive women

Apparently you've never watched CNN Headline News.

Avumede
01-05-2001, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by super_head
Hey, if that's what they want to do and it's in the contract - I don't see where it's our business to tell them what to do. Again, I don't see what is so difficult about this issue - if you don't like it, don't watch it - if you're pissed off, don't buy the products.


First of all, you are making a wrong assumption. That is, if enough people stop watching, ABC will figure out why. You give too much credit to ABC. Probably, if enough people stop watching, the ad rates will drop, and they will have to put more ads in. So not watching will probably only make the situation worse. This is why direct complaints are a good idea.

I find the posters here are pretty naive when it comes to capitalism. I can imagine their reactions to problems of the past:

(response to food cleanliness complaints in "The Jungle"): "Quit whining! If you don't like any old crap going into your meat products, then don't buy them!"

(response to the stock market crash of 29 and the run on the banks): "Hey, no one forced you to buy stocks or put your money in banks! If you don't like the uncertainty of banks or the stock market, quit putting your money there!"

(response to the quiz show scandal): "What the networks do on their shows is their own business! Quiz shows are not a right! Simply stop watching the program!"

(response to Ponzi schemes): "Who are you to tell people how they can make money? No one is forcing you to put any money in these things. So if you don't like it, ignore it!"

(response to corporate pollution): "What do you mean you want to pass laws so that corporations restrict pollution? These companies have to expel waste to function! If you don't like it, don't buy their products!"

Yes, the world would be a lot better if SDMB posters ruled it...

dietrologia
01-05-2001, 01:39 PM
I guess what really irks me is that Sports used to be the last great drama on tv--It was the only event in which the participants and viewers had no idea as to the outcome. Sport even embodied some pretty good values at one time--the notion of friendly competetion on an even playing field. Now it's apparent that even this is being fucked with--and the rampant commercialism is Chief Offender on my list.

What strikes me in this thread are what doormats people have become. The "Ah, wattaya gonna do? That's the way it is." attitude. I point out that "Hey, something's not right here" (abeit in a very crude way) and I'm called a whiner. Excuse me for thinking that the increasingly sneaky commercialization of our society blows on ice. Tolerance is one thing, but blind acceptance is another.

And the "You should see how bad it is in South America" argument doesn't do much for me. I'm sorry, the levels to which commericalization here in the US has risen to still sucks. This isn't South America. The comparison doesn't make the situtation here right.

I guess I'm just of the mindset that television should provide programming and a few commercials are necessary... not the other way around.

Perhaps I'm just extremely naive.

super_head
01-05-2001, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Avumede
[QUOTE]
This is why direct complaints are a good idea.


In an earlier post, I recommended just that thing - if you don't like something, complain - it's your right. However, this thread had more taken the turn of almost sounding like television was a right people had.


(response to food cleanliness complaints in "The Jungle"): "Quit whining! If you don't like any old crap going into your meat products, then don't buy them!"


A bit of an absurd comparison. First, food quality deals with human safety - commercials plugging soda do not. Second, the average person is not equipped with the resources to test their food for safety without doing it "the hard way" (eating it). Not so for deciding you don't like an ad and turning the channel.


(response to the stock market crash of 29 and the run on the banks): "Hey, no one forced you to buy stocks or put your money in banks! If you don't like the uncertainty of banks or the stock market, quit putting your money there!"


Well, I actually almost agree there - I am invested in banks, stocks, bonds, funds, etc. I also fully accept the potential that I could lose every cent I keep there - it's called risk vs reward. Now, if a bank wants to guarantee the safety of my funds, that's just a selling point in their favor isn't it?


(response to the quiz show scandal): "What the networks do on their shows is their own business! Quiz shows are not a right! Simply stop watching the program!"


If people enter a contest, signing legal agreements in the process, in which they are lead to believe that the playing field is even - then it should be. You'll have to provide me more details on the scandal as I've not read the story nor seen the movie.

Anyway, rather than write a 1400 page post... you probably get the idea.

PunditLisa
01-05-2001, 04:04 PM
I guess what really irks me is that Sports used to be the last great drama on tv--It was the only event in which the participants and viewers had no idea as to the outcome.

Clearly you don't live in Cincinnati.

Lizard
01-05-2001, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by PunditLisa
I guess what really irks me is that Sports used to be the last great drama on tv--It was the only event in which the participants and viewers had no idea as to the outcome.

Clearly you don't live in Cincinnati.



I do hearby nominate PunditLisa for the next open spot on "Whose Line Is It, Anyway?"

ROTFLMAO

Of course, this wouldn't be nearly as funny if I weren't from Ohio.

SterlingNorth
01-05-2001, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Arjuna34
...the fake billboard one network put over another network's REAL billboard in Times Square for the 2000 New Year's celebration. Wasn't that ABC also?

Actually, that's was CBS. The flack came because this was during a CBS News program. CBS was superimposing their logo over NBC's peacock on that giant TV screen in Times Square. I remember the president of CBS News, when defending the move, said if there was a murderer who uses the NBC logo to kill people, CBS would go ahead and show that!

dietrologia
01-05-2001, 11:42 PM
SterlingNorth wrote : I remember the president of CBS News, when defending the move, said if there was a murderer who uses the NBC logo to kill people, CBS would go ahead and show that!

What?! I'm confused. Can you explain this in a bit more detail?

(Sounds like a crazy argument.)

Thanks.

SterlingNorth
01-06-2001, 02:18 AM
Well dietrologia, I'll begin with the quote from Les Moonves
Anytime there's an NBC logo up on our network we'll block it again.
and Andy Heyward
If somebody uses the NBC logo to commit a murder, we wouldn't cut it out.

News Years Eve 1999, Dan Rather was reporting from the festivities at Times Square, New York. He was standing on a balcony, which offered a grand view of the city and the festivities. It was a great spot to catch everything that happens when the new millennium (don't start with me) begins. However Dan was also standing in front of the giant Jumbotron, which has a large NBC peacock logo underneath. The wizzes at CBS Television didn't want to move Dan Rather, nor provide "free air" for their arch nemesis NBC. So they used that digital technology that places virtual ads in sporting events and placed a fake CBS billboard where the Jumbotron should have been.

There was an immediate outcry in the journalistic communities over this.

However, before you connect this, and the act of selling ads using the fifty yard line, there is a subtle difference. In the news business, much is made of credibility and honesty. You shouldn't change the story. In a news live shot, what you see should actually be what is or was happening.

Here are some links on what happened and some commentary, too:

http://usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cth775.htm
http://tvnewsweb.com/newstalk/2000/01/14newyork.shtml
http://globalethics.org/members/commentary1-17-00.html
http://poynter.org/offthenews/

{Note: coding fixed, as requested. Lynn}

[Edited by Lynn Bodoni on 01-06-2001 at 04:29 AM]

Best Topics: furnace permit tits for beads pissed off origin cute mean century millenium roller coaster metaphor waiting for google flight idle chobham armour massage therapy forum fireplace floor plate franciscan greetings delicates dryer setting papaya taste danny the shield walgreens nicotine patch over drying clothes arabic skin tone male duets fingernail stopped growing gods 3.5 interchangeable rims chart my goldfish died wolverine strength alabama accent generic salutation verizon voicemail full contra points bird in garage shoes carrier chuck berry pee yard spikes bowl of salt craigslist sewing machines comcast won't let me pay my bill online unable to get blood from veins cartoon character with hair sticking up how do you spell exercising format for dvd player fixing pvc pipe joint leaks are dinosaur names capitalized killing moles with exhaust how much money does the average person spend in a lifetime how much does it cost to paint a cessna 172 how to get kitten to eat difference between cream and creme background check salary discrepancy air conditioner plug keeps resetting tiger woods half asian why do people hate southern accents if you accidentally like something on facebook then unlike it who makes fancy feast how fast does blood travel klondike big inch land co. inc seven deadly sin costume what is cf. in writing us marines in europe ww2 6 foot tall man usd or us$ how is pizza sauce different from spaghetti sauce are there 80 days in a month hit the back of my head really hard spanish for white boy what happened to the borg baby on voyager what ear is gay