Given the overwhelming success of my recent post on the new Tracks Across Africa, I figured I'd weigh in on the perpetually roiling tempest over program sponsors and their advertising.

Like threads on Mark Sullivan, there seems to be a never ending appetite for bashing hunting programs on TV. The tireless and always predictable complainants barely mask their contempt for what is in essence a model of free enterprise and capitalism: They see commercial support for programs like Tracks Across Africa as an affront to their right to be entertained without cost. Some of them sound like members of the obnoxious entitlement class, whining about how there has to be a payment associated with a service.

I have to assume that most of those bleating their drumbeat of complaints are employed by the government or are somehow insulated from the realities of creating and fostering a business of their own. Otherwise, why don't they get it?

Unless you want to live in my native country of Denmark - or some other quasi-socialist country - where television programming is, for the most part, underwritten by the taxpayers and produced by government committees, you have got to pay for the privilege of independently produced programming. That means enduring commercial encroachment on your viewing pleasure every seven minutes or so. Don't like it? The alternative would be no African hunting programs at all, as I can assure no apparatchik would endorse tax-payer support for a hunting show.

"Okay, but why do we have to see product placement along with celebrity endorsements, decals, and logos on shirts intruding on the actual hunting segments themselves? They're turning into infomercials!", some of you will reply. Well, if so it's our fault, not the sponsors. When you have the majority of posters on these threads bragging about how they record and then fast-forward through the commercials, what do you think the underwriters of those programs - folks who read these posts - are going to do? They have two choices: Place their adverts into the hunt scenes themselves, or walk away from sponsoring the programs in the first place.

For all of you who brag about how you live off the grid and haven't watched TV since All In the Family was cancelled, who cares? You're not part of this debate. As for the rest who, like myself, enjoy quality African hunting programs that tide us over until the next safari, you had best accept the realities of the bargain we have with the program producers and their sponsors - or accustom yourself to a future bereft of Tracks Across Africa, Under Wild Skies, Dangerous Game, and the like.

The value proposition is simple: Watch a commercial and get to see a cool show. And if you think that's unfair, then set your station to PBS and try not to screw it up for the rest of us who are willing to 'pay' for the privilege of seeing good programming like TAA.

I don't know about you Kim, but i have to pay for my TV every month......

It is in no way free. This is getting to be much like the highly anticipated Satellite radio that upon its inception boasted 'Commercial Free' radio. Now it has just as many commercials as regular radio and i pay MORE for it every year. (which i will no longer be renewing)

I think the only problem i have with TV advertising is that there always seems to be more and more of it taking up the valuable programming time.

I would gladly pay more to see the programs i want if it meant less or no advertising (commercials). I can care less about the advertising during the hunt with either decals, embroidery or the odd verbal plug by the hunters. That doesn't really bother me.

The amount of commercials is just getting to the point where i don't enjoy the program anymore....

I will be doing one of the following things very soon:

1) Get a PVR
2) Cancel all TV subscriptions and watch more videos and read more books and probably get more s@!t done around the house and yard..

I'm leaning toward the latter, and i think that advertisers and networks need to realize that this may be the trend in the future if they don't start changing for the better....Its not just hunting programs, but all of TV..

Advertisements aren't unfair, in moderation, but the current amount now is RIDICULOUS. Now advertisers/networks think its OKAY to somehow boost the volume of the commercials??!!

And lastly, i am not a government employee, i own and operate my own business and i am damn sure that if i constantly did things to annoy my clients, they would no longer use me either....

quote:

Originally posted by Bryce Dillabough:
I don't know about you Kim, but i have to pay for my TV every month......

Maybe that's part of the disconnect, Bryce. You're paying for the delivery of programming to your TV, but not for the content (with the exception of 'premium channels' like HBO).

Producers of programs like TAA are not paid by the network for their show, but just the opposite: Safari Classics has to pay to have their program broadcast on the Outdoor Channel. In addition to that expense, they have equipment, salaries, travel, meal expenses, booking fees (albeit discounted), trophy fees, etc. So naturally they have to recoup those costs and, hopefully, make a modest profit.

Where do you expect that money to come from if not advertisements – in sufficient quantity and type – to cover costs? I'm willing to wager that neither Dave nor Tim nor Ivan is making money hand-over-fist in creating TAA every week. I suspect, rather, that they are covering their nut and making just enough profit to keep a 'labor of love' viable.

If the cost to the consumer is viewing a program with 25% advertising content, that's a bargain in my book.

quote:

Originally posted by Bryce Dillabough:
And lastly, i am not a government employee, i own and operate my own business and i am damn sure that if i constantly did things to annoy my clients, they would no longer use me either....

And I'm damn sure that if you didn't ensure a reasonable return on investment you wouldn't have to worry about annoying your customers: You'd be out of business.

I think what Bryce was talking about is already happening to "regular" TV. I dont watch it at all because of all the annoying commercials which break up the programming to the extent its no longer enjoyable.

Kim-
Philosophically, I couldn't agree more. It's just that the commercials have gotten so long and frequent, it's pushed me over the edge. Until fairly recently, I never bothered to hop over the commercials with the DVR, but now do so because they've simply exceeded some kind of threshold for me. I don't mind the odd logo or little plug, but I won't sit through an infomercial, either, hunting or otherwise.
The market will take care of things. If it gets so out of hand that people stop watching, it will change. I'd hate to see that mean the end of these programs, but rather that things morph into something that works for the sponsors, producers, and viewers. We don't need to be at cross purposes.

Kim, Sorry you and I didn't see eye to eye on the other thread but I agree 100% with you on this one.

I never watch anything in real time anymore including Football. DVR!!

Why do you think the click forward on the DVR is set for 30 seconds?

Although most advertising on hunting shows is both disruptive and attempts to sell mostly garbage, the real problem to me and maybe me alone, is that it damages the image of hunters. Whether its accurate or not, it helps fuel the fires of those undecided, that we are a bunch of cheats trying to get a techno advantage or just a bunch of inbred rednecks.

Unfortunately we will not know its effect until hunting is gone and we have the time to monday morning quarterback it.

If I find a strong desire to watch something I will buy a DVD, but I never watch television due to the abundant commercials. I quit buying dvd's by certain producers due to the high volume of product placement. People have every right to produce and sell shit, I just don't have to buy it.

I had the opportunity about 12 years ago to be a guest on a hunting show, and the experience was quite a revelation as to the behind-the-scenes business of producing such a show.

Typically, the show's producer (who may also be the talent, the writer, editor and cameraman)buys time from the network.

Then, to cover air time, the show must sell advertising.

If the show doesn't collect more revenue from advertising sales that the cost of producing and airing the show, it cannot remain on the air--simple math.

When we filmed my segment, the show's "star" was also the writer and cameraman. In fact, after we did my hunt, he filmed himself doing a bow hunt.

I could go into detail about the "real" and "re-enacted" portions of the show, but suffice it to say that the hunt itself was absolutely true-to-life--a few "set-up" shot were recreated, but nothing significant was faked.

Had the show not had advertisers, the series would not have aired.

I agree that some of the "product placement" in today's shows approaches overkill, but you have to understand that without advertisers, there would be no show, period.

So here's the question: is it better to have shows with excessive advertising and product placement, or fewer (to no) hunting shows?

I got some advice from my father when I got my first job in high school. He told me to remember only one thing -- That people were in business to make money not jobs and as long as I could help them make money I would have a job. I am 77 years old and have been employed all my working life by following that advice. If you are not in business to make money and you give away your product no matter what it is then I applaud you for being so independently wealthy and generous to us lesser beings.

KPete, add one more to what Todd said. While I don't agree with you on the post you made about TAA. I agree with you 100% on this one. While I may not watch them that often, having programs like TAA and Under Wild Skies available to watch, comes at a price. The only way those quality shows make it on to the air is thru sponsors, that is just life.

So now another thread saying, "if you don't like excessive advertising, there is something wrong with you" .....


Talking about quality viewing and Denmark vs USA, watch a Hunters Video DVD and then one of many USA made safari vidoes and tell me which is better and which has little advertising in it ...

Consumers need to vote with their wallet and viewing time. Don't watch the infomercials parading as hunting films. Perhaps more QUALITY and less QUANTITY is needed in production circles. Everyman and his dog seems to have a videocamera these days making often crap hunting films.

As Zim said you need to make money. I remember back in the 50's the President of Bethlem Steel said "We are not in the business of making steel we are in the business of making money and making steel is the best way we know how." I have always told my employees if you don't make me money I don't need you, I use the KISS system in my life.

PT Barnum said it best: "There's a sucker born every minute." All media has us by the shorts. The grand plan; the scheme of things. They bait and switch just like the Chinese buffet (no longer includes all you can eat crab legs but still costs $12.95 per pax). Phone/Cable companies call it "bundling," I call it "getting screwed." Just like our corrupt Government, it exists because we allow it. We complain but what do we do about it? Nothing...just pay the bill and bitch.

I really don'tknow what the big bitch is really all about. I have never had a gunsmith build me a rifle for nothing and the last ammunition I bought and I paid for and it still had the name of the manufacturer in big letters on the box,and the laptop I'm typing this on has the logo on the cover and the name just below the screen. But I again paid for it and it is mine. My car is a Ford and it has all kind of Ford emblems all over it. And I again paid for it also. I'm sure the people who object to these programs are independently wealthy, and if they aren't they are dumber than wedges if they don't understand what makes it all work ----- P R O F I T. They obviously get their African hunts for free and the Airlines fly them over on the cuff. But then that's why the country is in such poor shape,everyone wants something for free and it just ain't there .