The problem is that TV shows are only profitable because of opportunity costs, which is the amount of money generated by advertising revenue during their run, etc. So while they do make money on DVD sales, that's just additional money. The real money to be made is in commercials.
That's why even if shows are "profitable," they'll still be canceled, because the network can replace their slot with something MORE profitable.
A show like Firefly, which only cost like $1 million per episode (which is practically nothing), doesn't get canceled because it costs too much to make, but rather because it's filling up valuable air that could be making a larger profit. So while you may see more direct-to-DVD stuff in the future, the revenues there are practically nothing compared to advertising dollars.
i guess that makes sense, although I dont really understand why advertising brings in so much $. I practically never buy anything i see on tv. (and now, i dont even watch tv ads). Yeah, budweiser has funny commercials, and so does burger king, but i despise bud, and am not really a fan of burger king either. (thats my fast food chain of choice lately b/c its the closest one to my house.)
If that commercial airtime is so precious, then why do all of the networks spend %40 of the time advertising for themselves? ("we've the best - no, we're the best. stay tuned for our award-winning news at 11!") Sure, i guess you have to advertise your new shows so that people will want to watch them (or at least your advertisers think people will be watching them...), but this seems excessive.
Id be really interested in seeing how much money companies bring in based on tv advertising, and how that number changes as tivos and such start becomming more popular in the home. Of course, that info is probably kept fairly private...
Comments 2
That's why even if shows are "profitable," they'll still be canceled, because the network can replace their slot with something MORE profitable.
A show like Firefly, which only cost like $1 million per episode (which is practically nothing), doesn't get canceled because it costs too much to make, but rather because it's filling up valuable air that could be making a larger profit. So while you may see more direct-to-DVD stuff in the future, the revenues there are practically nothing compared to advertising dollars.
Reply
If that commercial airtime is so precious, then why do all of the networks spend %40 of the time advertising for themselves? ("we've the best - no, we're the best. stay tuned for our award-winning news at 11!") Sure, i guess you have to advertise your new shows so that people will want to watch them (or at least your advertisers think people will be watching them...), but this seems excessive.
Id be really interested in seeing how much money companies bring in based on tv advertising, and how that number changes as tivos and such start becomming more popular in the home. Of course, that info is probably kept fairly private...
Reply
Leave a comment