Holy effing commercials

[Kelly the Dog]

Let's face, you guys are so interesting to chat with we don't want to get up and watch the game when the commercials finally end! 

765554[/snapback]

Please do.

[sweetbaboo]

Does that mean you're not going to run right out and buy a Chevy today?

764814[/snapback]

no commercial could make me attempt to flush money down the toilet

[kasper13]

The amount of commercials is disgusting. It makes it really difficult to get into a game not involving the Bills. I ended up watching more of other crap instead of the game becasue of the commercials. That's why Sunday Ticket kicks major behind. You can flip between games and avoid most of the commercials. I have a lifetime ban on buying anything ever advertised in a commercial during a football game (except Budweiser and Madden games)

[Simon]

I once counted 23 minutes of commercials in a quarter and a half. So much for shortening the game.

 

They "shortened" the game by restarting the clock when a guy goes out of bounds. That way they don't have to cut back on all their advertising opportunities. So now there's less actual football and a higher ratio of advertising : action.

I predict their next move will be to wind the clock after incompletions so there's an even higher percentage of time for advertisement in the alloted 3 hr slot. I can hardly wait.

[Orton's Arm]

What do you think pays for the game to be on TV? Would you rather cable cost $700 a month? I mean, I don't like to be bothered either, but DVR'ing is just causing advertisers to think of other ways to intrude in our lives.

765184[/snapback]

Are you honestly implying that cable companies are only charging what they need to to cover their costs? Or that there's only enough advertising to give the NFL what it needs? Please.

 

Cable companies used to provide advertising-free channels. That was what your cable bill paid for. Then gradually, advertising began creeping into most of those channels. Meanwhile, cable bills went up. It was an imbalance of power between customers and cable companies, and customers got raped.

 

The NFL is another example. The salary cap goes up every year--which means the league's revenues go up each year. That, in turn, means the league is getting progressively better at extracting money from its fans each year. Most of that money gets pocketed by millionaire players, while the rest goes to the likes of Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones. Should I feel encouraged that this category of people has gotten better at absorbing everyone else's money? Or that the way they're getting the extra money is by reducing the quality of the game?

 

Forget that. I see absolutely no reason why NFL players, football owners, cable companies, or television networks should be getting any more money than they are right now. I see absolutely no reason why I should waste my time sitting through yet another Budweiser ad. TiVo all the way!

[beerme1]

I'm seriously debating if I should just record the game Sunady and watch it when I get home from playing Hockey around 7. I feel like I'm wasting a whole sunday afternoon watch a little football and a lot of commercials when I could watch the whole game in an hour later.

765553[/snapback]

 

I always record Bills games that I am not attending and watch them at about 4 or 5 or 6pm and rewind all the incredibly stupid calls the refs made and scream at the tv, are you fu kcing kidding me?

But it's hard to do around here because we all do the Bills on Sundays.

 

You have to basically do yard work wearing headphones with Zep or SRV screaming in your ears, or work inside the house all day with the windows closed and music pumped up loud enough to overide the neighbors new found love. A school issued trumpet or trombone so you don't know whats happening.

Last year I did that for a game and the neighbor had friends over, I was working in the yard making the ol lady happy and being a good guy with the intention of sitting down about 6 and getting lit and watching the game.

Son of a B word at about 4:05 I hear a loud collective groan from the neighbors house! Now I'm pissed and miserable and the ol lady asks me whats wrong? I tell her I don't need to watch the game now I know we lost and get some blank stare like there's something wrong with ME!

 

And if you live local, you better think twice about recording the game and going to Tops or Wilson Farms or something because they usually have the game on their speakers! And if you do go in and don't hear it and think oh hey, they're not playing it , I'm cool.

BAM, when you get to the checkout some tool at the register says something like hey what a game huh Or hey, what a sh-- ty game huh?

Obviously, I like 4:00 or later games and unfortunately this year, unless we get surprisingly good late in the year, we wont have any late games.

The Denver game last year was an unforgettable game to attend. It was a blast.

 

 

I'm rambling though and my post is probably starting to equal the length of something Pyrite Gal would post. Not in quality mind you, but i'm just say'in in quantity.

In all honesty though after reading all of this ramble, if you made it this far, you're probably just as confused

[Marshmallow]

Are you honestly implying that cable companies are only charging what they need to to cover their costs?  Or that there's only enough advertising to give the NFL what it needs?  Please.

 

Cable companies used to provide advertising-free channels.  That was what your cable bill paid for.  Then gradually, advertising began creeping into most of those channels.  Meanwhile, cable bills went up.  It was an imbalance of power between customers and cable companies, and customers got raped.

 

The NFL is another example.  The salary cap goes up every year--which means the league's revenues go up each year.  That, in turn, means the league is getting progressively better at extracting money from its fans each year.  Most of that money gets pocketed by millionaire players, while the rest goes to the likes of Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones.  Should I feel encouraged that this category of people has gotten better at absorbing everyone else's money?  Or that the way they're getting the extra money is by reducing the quality of the game?

 

Forget that.  I see absolutely no reason why NFL players, football owners, cable companies, or television networks should be getting any more money than they are right now.  I see absolutely no reason why I should waste my time sitting through yet another Budweiser ad.  TiVo all the way!

765713[/snapback]

 

Dude, wake up. It's a business. Networks pay 3x what the NFL contract is worth because sports are less DVR'd and advertisers can hit their male 18-45 target audience. They have to make their money somewhere.

 

I'm agree with you that it sucks...no doubt. But I'm telling you, the advertisers backlash to Tivo's technology is about to unleash marketing holy hell on us consumers. Within the next five years, when you call someone, instead of hearing ....

 

Riiinnnggg......Rinnnnngg....Rinnngggg (hello?)

 

you're going to hear....

 

Drink Diet Pepsi.....Volvos are safe....Watch Lost on ABC (hello?)

[Orton's Arm]

I'm agree with you that it sucks...no doubt. But I'm telling you, the advertisers backlash to Tivo's technology is about to unleash marketing holy hell on us consumers. Within the next five years, when you call someone, instead of hearing ....

 

Riiinnnggg......Rinnnnngg....Rinnngggg (hello?)

 

you're going to hear....

 

Drink Diet Pepsi.....Volvos are safe....Watch Lost on ABC (hello?)

If advertisers thought they could do that and get away with it, they'd do it. They're not going to say, "Wow! I'm perfectly content with the huge sums of money we're making on the TV, so I'm not going to seek new revenue streams elsewhere." No--they'll take every second of our time we let them have. There is no limit whatsoever to the amount of advertising you'll be subjected to, except insofar as you set one.

[Kelly the Dog]

If it weren't for all the commericals, the Bills would not be in Buffalo. Simple as that. It ain't that big a sacrifice.

[Orton's Arm]

If it weren't for all the commericals, the Bills would not be in Buffalo. Simple as that.

765881[/snapback]

Why not? The Bills have a big stadium, and seem to sell a higher percentage of their tickets than many teams from larger markets. If you take away the commercial money, it would reduce revenues for all owners about equally. It would also reduce expenses for all owners equally, because the salary cap would be a lot lower.

 

The Bills were in Buffalo before television revenue became that big a deal. They could stay in Buffalo if television revenue once again shrank.

[Kelly the Dog]

Why not?  The Bills have a big stadium, and seem to sell a higher percentage of their tickets than many teams from larger markets.  If you take away the commercial money, it would reduce revenues for all owners about equally.  It would also reduce expenses for all owners equally, because the salary cap would be a lot lower. 

 

The Bills were in Buffalo before television revenue became that big a deal.  They could stay in Buffalo if television revenue once again shrank.

765897[/snapback]

Nonsense.

 

First, to say that the Bills were in Buffalo before TV became a big deal, in 1960, is just simply stupid.

 

Second, the only reason, I repeat, the only reason that the NFL is so well off financially, and the best run league in the world is the television contracts. That is where the parity comes from. That is where they share the big money that literally makes it an even playing field. Yes, there is a 60-40 split in the ticket sales which would help small markets a wee bit, but without TV, the Bills simply could not exist, let alone compete. Ralph is arguing that with TV and its 117 million a year windfall he can't exist.

[true_blue_bill]

I always record Bills games that I am not attending and watch them at about 4 or 5 or 6pm and rewind all the incredibly stupid calls the refs made and scream at the tv, are you fu kcing kidding me?

But it's hard to do around here because we all do the Bills on Sundays.

 

You have to basically do yard work wearing headphones with Zep or SRV screaming in your ears, or work inside the house all day with the windows closed and music pumped up loud enough to overide the neighbors new found love. A school issued trumpet or trombone so you don't know whats happening.

Last year I did that for a game and the neighbor had friends over, I was working in the yard making the ol lady happy and being a good guy with the intention of sitting down about 6 and getting lit and watching the game.

Son of a B word at about 4:05 I hear a loud collective groan from the neighbors house! Now I'm pissed and miserable and the ol lady asks me whats wrong? I tell her I don't need to watch the game now I know we lost   and get some blank stare like there's something wrong with ME!

 

And if you live local, you better think twice about recording the game and going to Tops or Wilson Farms or something because they usually have the game on their speakers! And if you do go in and don't hear it and think oh hey, they're not playing it , I'm cool.

BAM, when you get to the checkout some tool at the register says something like hey what a game huh    Or hey, what a sh-- ty game huh? 

Obviously, I like 4:00 or later games and unfortunately this year, unless we get surprisingly good late in the year, we wont have any late games.

The Denver game last year was an unforgettable game to attend. It was a blast. 

I'm rambling though and my post is probably starting to equal the length of something Pyrite Gal would post. Not in quality mind you, but i'm just say'in in quantity.

In all honesty though after reading all of this ramble, if you made it this far, you're probably just as confused 

765730[/snapback]

Good post! I use to record the game and then go to the down town public l;ibrary and do research for a book I was writing. I would hear the score sometimes, but once when they were playing Miami--it was the game in 1999 I think, where Sammy Morris played a big role in the game but fumbled late--and I didn't hear the score at all. I was driving home around 4:30 and I could read on all the other drivers faces that we had lost. Maybe I just read too much into that, but the people I looked at all looked so down and sure enough I watched the game and we lost.

[beerme1]

Good post!

765905[/snapback]

 

Nah, too many smilies. Sorry to those offended.

[Orton's Arm]

Nonsense.

 

First, to say that the Bills were in Buffalo before TV became a big deal, in 1960, is just simply stupid.

 

Second, the only reason, I repeat, the only reason that the NFL is so well off financially, and the best run league in the world is the television contracts. That is where the parity comes from. That is where they share the big money that literally makes it an even playing field. Yes, there is a 60-40 split in the ticket sales which would help small markets a wee bit, but without TV, the Bills simply could not exist, let alone compete. Ralph is arguing that with TV and its 117 million a year windfall he can't exist.

765904[/snapback]

Surely you realize that the financial success of the NFL--or of any professional sports league for that matter--comes at the direct financial expense of its fans? Suppose you were to reduce the NFL's revenues to 25% of what they are now. Player salaries would fall in direct proportion to the revenue decrease. Other expenses could be reduced as well. You'd have a league that was still profitable, albeit on a smaller scale. You'd have the same men playing football, but instead of signing $100 million contracts they'd be signing contracts for $25 million. In other words, there's no benefit to the NFL being well off financially, unless you're a player or an owner or a coach. But back when salaries were smaller, you had coaches like Vince Lombardi and quarterbacks like Bart Starr.

 

I think that your argument stems from the fact that a portion of the local revenues teams generate counts towards the salary cap--and therefore drive up expenses for people like Ralph Wilson. Obviously, that's not good. But if people follow my advice by reducing their acceptance of advertising, the companies that promote those sponsorships will start getting less value for their money, and will spend elsewhere instead.

[Kelly the Dog]

Surely you realize that the financial success of the NFL--or of any professional sports league for that matter--comes at the direct financial expense of its fans?  Suppose you were to reduce the NFL's revenues to 25% of what they are now.  Player salaries would fall in direct proportion to the revenue decrease.  Other expenses could be reduced as well.  You'd have a league that was still profitable, albeit on a smaller scale.  You'd have the same men playing football, but instead of signing $100 million contracts they'd be signing contracts for $25 million.  In other words, there's no benefit to the NFL being well off financially, unless you're a player or an owner or a coach.  But back when salaries were smaller, you had coaches like Vince Lombardi and quarterbacks like Bart Starr.

 

I think that your argument stems from the fact that a portion of the local revenues teams generate counts towards the salary cap--and therefore drive up expenses for people like Ralph Wilson.  Obviously, that's not good.  But if people follow my advice by reducing their acceptance of advertising, the companies that promote those sponsorships will start getting less value for their money, and will spend elsewhere instead.

765951[/snapback]

Not only does that have zero chance of happening but it has zero to do with what we were talking about. The networks lose money on their football deals, but use them as loss leaders promoting all of their other shows because the ratings for the NFL are so high. But again, without the enormous TV contract, the small market teams could not compete or exist, regardless of whether $100 million contracts were $75 million.

[Pyrite Gal]

Why not?  The Bills have a big stadium, and seem to sell a higher percentage of their tickets than many teams from larger markets.  If you take away the commercial money, it would reduce revenues for all owners about equally.  It would also reduce expenses for all owners equally, because the salary cap would be a lot lower. 

 

The Bills were in Buffalo before television revenue became that big a deal.  They could stay in Buffalo if television revenue once again shrank.

765897[/snapback]

 

I think Kelly F & B is essentially right that your cut on things based on the Bills would be fine with lower TV revenues if only the revenues were like they were in the before time is essentially nonsense.

 

The reality is that TV revenues are the lionshare of the NFL revenue take and that even if that revenue amount dropped we would be working from a reality embodies in the CBA that was designed with TV revenues being the lead source.

 

It is nonsense to propose a world based on the 60s revenue reality because that situation would not be recreated merely by cutting the revenue numbers. The big change between the 60s and now is that what use to be a war between the team owners and players is now a partnership (with the players arguably being the majority partners (because of their % take of total revenues under the new CBA).

 

To argue that life all things would be like they were in the 60s where the Bills existed quite nicely makes no sense because it is quite unlikely to be true. Actually, if revenues from TV dropped, the partnership between the players and team owners would likely turn to trying hard to increase other revenues.

 

Likely this would mean a far larger bias toward placing teams in large markets and working to enhance the take not merely from ticket sales (which the Bills do nicely in but no where near as well as the sold-out waiting listed large markets like DC for example). If TV revenues dropped then I think it would be quite likely you would see the Bills move to LA where they would work hard to sell T-Shirts and Zubazz pants to the millions of LA residents and the increasing number of emigrants coming to LA and get a cut from that rather than trying to sell to the slightly over a million Erie County residents or even the 2-3 million potential customers in a Bills regional strategy.

 

In fact, without the wonderful subsidy which TV revenues give to small market teams like Buffalo, what probably makes the most sense is to move the Bills to what is becoming by many measures the richest city in North America and the growing population base of Toronto.

 

Maybe you keep historic ties to Buffalo for marketing purposes and to take advantage of exchange rate difference by calling them the Buf-Tor Bills but if we are lucky this formulation results in a 4/4 split of regular season games (though there are also worlds where we simply get the pre-season and camp at the Ralph).

 

However, understand as unlikely as either of these scenarios are they are actually far more likely than a simple return to a world of the 60s where Buffalo does quite well as TV revenues drop.

 

In essence this view is nonsense because i does no recognize that the TV rvenues subsidize the small market teams big time because we get an equal cut with team owners in NYC, Dallas, and Atlanta even though we provide far fewer viewers which is why companies pay large amounts to the TV nets.

 

If this TV money went down the rationale of us providing competition rooted in history to the big market teams is further diminished and it likely would be a very bad thing for us.

 

As unlikely as LA and Toronto scenarios may be they actually are far more likely than the nonsense of the Bills being fine here with the TV subasidy for small markets lessened or eliminated.

[Marshmallow]

Surely you realize that the financial success of the NFL--or of any professional sports league for that matter--comes at the direct financial expense of its fans?  Suppose you were to reduce the NFL's revenues to 25% of what they are now.  Player salaries would fall in direct proportion to the revenue decrease.  Other expenses could be reduced as well.  You'd have a league that was still profitable, albeit on a smaller scale.  You'd have the same men playing football, but instead of signing $100 million contracts they'd be signing contracts for $25 million.  In other words, there's no benefit to the NFL being well off financially, unless you're a player or an owner or a coach.  But back when salaries were smaller, you had coaches like Vince Lombardi and quarterbacks like Bart Starr.

 

I think that your argument stems from the fact that a portion of the local revenues teams generate counts towards the salary cap--and therefore drive up expenses for people like Ralph Wilson.  Obviously, that's not good.  But if people follow my advice by reducing their acceptance of advertising, the companies that promote those sponsorships will start getting less value for their money, and will spend elsewhere instead.

765951[/snapback]

 

 

 

So the most popular sport in the most capitalist society should voluntarily take less profit?

 

Because there’s no benefit to the NFL being well off financially?

 

I don’t know where to start so I won’t.

 

But I respect your position and I think you should follow your own advice. Cancel your cable. Your Internet. Stop reading magazines and newspapers. Get rid of your cell phone. Don’t play videogames. I think then you’ll understand that everything you buy is both at your benefit as well as your expense and that entertainment isn’t free.

[Marshmallow]

If advertisers thought they could do that and get away with it, they'd do it.  They're not going to say, "Wow!  I'm perfectly content with the huge sums of money we're making on the TV, so I'm not going to seek new revenue streams elsewhere."  No--they'll take every second of our time we let them have.  There is no limit whatsoever to the amount of advertising you'll be subjected to, except insofar as you set one.

765879[/snapback]

 

The technology for this has already been invented, copyrighted and patented.

 

It's estimated to generate 3-5 billion dollars in the first 5-8 years.