PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else noticed? No commercials




Jugney
Aug 29, 2013, 08:54 PM
So it's been great to see all the app-channels added to AppleTV this summer.

And as I check out all the new ones each time they come out, I'm struck by one thing - I've never seen a commercial on one!

WatchESPN just shows some of ESPN's own sports photos during breaks. For everything else, you might as well be watching Netflix. Except of course that I'm not paying anything. It's awesome. And it seems too good to be true.

How could this be? Networks just going along with this disruption of the advertising model.

I tried Googling to find articles addressing this. Something that might answer the burning question - How on earth did Apple pull this off?!

Does anyone have a clue?



brand
Aug 29, 2013, 09:48 PM
I would think that they used negotiations until both sides reached a mutual agreement.

Kingrsmchugh
Aug 29, 2013, 09:54 PM
I imagine commercials are coming. Doesn't the Fox News streaming App have commercials?

bozzykid
Aug 29, 2013, 10:22 PM
WatchESPN just shows some of ESPN's own sports photos during breaks. For everything else, you might as well be watching Netflix. Except of course that I'm not paying anything. It's awesome. And it seems too good to be true.


You are already paying for WatchESPN so they don't need to add commercials. I believe Apple also pays a small cut to ESPN for providing access as well.

Jugney
Aug 30, 2013, 07:28 AM
You are already paying for WatchESPN so they don't need to add commercials. I believe Apple also pays a small cut to ESPN for providing access as well.

Actually, I don't have cable. And don't forget cable channels still have commercials thrown in, even though you're already paying for it.

And while I miss ESPN's live top-tier content, it offers plenty of other live and recorded content, commercial-free, without paying anything. This is part of what makes Apple's offering remarkable.

I'm surprised more people don't get the significance of this or have curiosity about where this will go in the future.

SandboxGeneral
Aug 30, 2013, 07:31 AM
I'm surprised more people don't get the significance of this or have curiosity about where this will go in the future.

I enjoy the commercial free environment the Apple TV provides - I don't use Hulu - and sometimes, I feel like not even bringing up comments like these just in cases it gives ideas to those who would put commercials in! :p

GarrettL1979
Aug 30, 2013, 07:31 AM
I imagine commercials are coming. Doesn't the Fox News streaming App have commercials?

Fox News is one giant commercial already, so that doesn't really matter.

Jugney
Aug 30, 2013, 07:44 AM
And while I miss ESPN's live top-tier content, it offers plenty of other live and recorded content, commercial-free, without paying anything. This is part of what makes Apple's offering remarkable.


Maybe I should elaborate on this.

On my iPhone, WatchESPN doesn't let me watch anything without a cable subscription.

On their website, ESPN doesn't let me watch anything that's live without a cable subscription. The recorded content you can watch comes with commercials.

So the AppleTV not only lets you watch more than anywhere else - the live content is nothing to sneeze at because of the infrastructure required to deliver it - but it does so without any commercials or any branding (i.e. "Powered by Charter") besides ESPN's own.

Or let's look at the YouTube app. There was a rift between Microsoft and Google this year over the Windows 8 YouTube app not displaying ads, which naturally Google didn't like, and they blocked it.

You have to think there is mounting pressure for the AppleTV YouTube app to begin showing ads. I wonder how they can get around this long-term?

----------

I imagine commercials are coming. Doesn't the Fox News streaming App have commercials?

Fox doesn't have an app for Apple TV. Whatever they've already done on iOS doesn't count because we've already seen the rules are different on Apple TV.

dXTC
Aug 30, 2013, 08:27 AM
The YouTube app's lack of annotations, pre-video commercials and on-video banner ads makes for nice extended viewing as well.

bozzykid
Aug 30, 2013, 10:02 AM
Maybe I should elaborate on this.

On my iPhone, WatchESPN doesn't let me watch anything without a cable subscription.

On their website, ESPN doesn't let me watch anything that's live without a cable subscription. The recorded content you can watch comes with commercials.

So the AppleTV not only lets you watch more than anywhere else

The Xbox WatchESPN app is the same way. The reason you see content is because of your ISP is paying for ESPN3. So it is not free. Some ISPs still have ESPN3 access even though they are killing it off and using WatchESPN access through your tv provider. And I have seen commercials during NFL games. But the lack of commercials is the same on all platforms for WatchESPN.

avaloncourt
Aug 30, 2013, 12:14 PM
You are already paying for WatchESPN so they don't need to add commercials. I believe Apple also pays a small cut to ESPN for providing access as well.

Under that theory, people paying for Hulu Plus shouldn't be seeing commercials. Not the case.

It's just a situation where a negotiation has been made for OTA advertising and not for online. Look at the Super Bowl, two very different negotiations.

vega07
Aug 30, 2013, 04:16 PM
You can watch any replay with ATV's WatchESPN app. What you can't watch however is live streaming. That requires a TV provider subscription and activation on the app.

Michael CM1
Aug 31, 2013, 01:52 AM
Well if Apple becomes more of a content provider with more channels, don't get used to it. None of this stuff gets made for free, so it's got to be paid for somehow. Don't expect some WatchESPN app as part of a subscription package to come at you for $4 or $5/month, which is what I think the ESPN channels cost per month to cable companies. That's the cost WITH all the ads ESPN runs. If you want it without commercials, 1) I'm guessing it would be upward of $20/year, 2) It's not going to help you with most live content.

If all video content moves toward on-demand channels delivered over the Internet, I think a good experiment would be to charge one price for no commercials, one price for whatever you want to deem as limited commercials, and then another for whatever you want to deem normal commercials. Aside from live events, this could work with the right infrastructure.

But what you're still going to find out is most people will pay the much cheaper prices for commercials. I work for a newspaper, and just because you pay 75 cents or whatever for a copy comes NOWHERE NEAR paying the bills. Magazines and cable channels are the exact same. They put X number of commercials and ads in because that's how they think money is best made.

The vast majority of people aren't going to pay for these products sans all commercials. The Atlanta newspaper has kind of a neat experiment with its pay vs. free websites. The free website has the gluttony of ads that make you want to puke. The pay one I think has three ads on a page and none of the HEY LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME expanding ads that most people hate with a passion. So if that works, maybe Apple can develop it for video channels.

SluGuru
Aug 31, 2013, 02:27 AM
Actually, I don't have cable. And don't forget cable channels still have commercials thrown in, even though you're already paying for it.

And while I miss ESPN's live top-tier content, it offers plenty of other live and recorded content, commercial-free, without paying anything. This is part of what makes Apple's offering remarkable.

I'm surprised more people don't get the significance of this or have curiosity about where this will go in the future.

WatchEspn and the new Disney Channels along with countless apps on both iOS and Android all require you to authenticate a paid cable/sat account. They are extensions of your paid subscription, they will not work for cord cutters.

These apps without commercials are a way for these channels to solidify their marketshare in an emerging market. Paying a couple dollars a month for the channels you want to stream is the future of these channels. Their only goal at this point is to get as many viewers as possible so they can profit in the future. The will profit in the billions just by solidifying their market over the coming streaming infrastructure. There is nothing miraculous about it, simple business.

alent1234
Aug 31, 2013, 02:17 PM
i think commercials are played via some other system and localized to where ever you live, that's why you don't see them when you stream. i bet in 1-3 years they will have commercials in the stream as well.

i would rather have ads than the content locked to a cable TV bill. even with MLB TV i would rather have ads than stare at that dumb graphic when there is a break.

Michael CM1
Sep 1, 2013, 11:21 AM
i think commercials are played via some other system and localized to where ever you live, that's why you don't see them when you stream. i bet in 1-3 years they will have commercials in the stream as well.

i would rather have ads than the content locked to a cable TV bill. even with MLB TV i would rather have ads than stare at that dumb graphic when there is a break.

I believe it's because the commercials are sold to advertisers based on being seen by X eyeballs on TV systems. So the advertisers aren't paying for commercials on a streaming service, which means the broadcaster isn't going to just throw these ads on a different system for free. Hence the countless in-house ESPN ads when you watch ESPN streaming.

Different ads via streaming makes a ton of sense because you can target them to location and time. If someone watches a replay of the Super Bowl today, what sense would a movie ad for "The Hunger Games" coming to theaters in March make? The business probably just isn't there yet.

I would also rather have ads than the stock ESPN logo just staring at me. But make them different. I have a podcast I listen to that places ads in it, but they are the same 3 or 4. They get old. Quickly.

Alrescha
Sep 1, 2013, 05:22 PM
I would also rather have ads than the stock ESPN logo just staring at me. But make them different.

When I first saw the logo/pictures instead of ads on MLB and ESPN, I wanted to celebrate. I loathe ads on television, and mute them without fail. I can't imagine wanting to see them for any reason. I'd rather watch grass grow.

A.

bozzykid
Sep 2, 2013, 07:36 PM
[QUOTE=avaloncourt;17809599]Under that theory, people paying for Hulu Plus shouldn't be seeing commercials. Not the case./QUOTE]
Huh? Why does Hulu have to act like ESPN. ESPN uses watchespn to charge cable companies ridiculous fees. But at the same time it drives customers to their product. They don't need to add commercials to streaming although they do occasionally.