CBS, football, kids, and ads

[rkmsuf]

Blood and gore in commercials - not so much.


Tight shots of the cheerleaders - booyah!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by panerd

OK. But the key part is the whole world part. I would be right with you if it was about something at school or elsewhere in society. But I personally don't feel that it is the network's responsibility to make everything kid friendly. Maybe they will lose customers as a result, but that is their business decsion to make then.

I don't question parent's values, I just question when they need to be applied everywhere they want to go. Like in the case of the original poster that they have to watch the football game.

I agree with you. They don't need to make everything kid friendly. I don't object to CSI or Without a Trace in the least. They can show whatever they want.

My point is don't mix in non-kid-friendly ads in a show that is otherwise kid-friendly. That's all. I'd like to be able to watch a football game with my kids and not have to turn it off during commercials (or halftime shows). If CBS wants to turn Saturday / Sunday football watching into adult-only entertainment, I agree it is their right, I just would have appreciated some warning. And now that I know about it, my habits are changing. I just think it's a shame that otherwise-family-entertainment no longer isn't, not because the content of the program is changing, but because the ads shown during the program are changing.

FWIW, I did send feedback to CBS about it. I even checked the "Comment" instead of the "Complaint" box (which is why I'm not reporting to the FCC). I said basically "It's your right to do this, but be aware that your actions have cost you a viewer". They may not care, but hey, that's the one action I can take.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Every movie theater shows previews, and I would think there would be a significant amount of backlash if they showed R-rated previews right before a PG movie. While the previews may be "For All Audiences" I don't think anyone would appreciate having to cover their kids eyes and ears during the previews.

Not sure what is done specifically these days, but I recall seeing plenty of R-rated movies previewed way back when I was in the G/PG age group. Off-hand, I don't recall seeing them lately, but I attribute that far more to the demographics of the movies I'm seeing in theatres than to any sense of "appropriateness".

Additionally, the target demographic is different.

Bingo.

[Pumpy Tudors]

What I wonder is why these bloody and violent commercials make somebody want to watch a television program. I mean, I get the idea of advertising, even to people who already watch the program, so I'm not heading in that direction. Still, if you already watch CSI or whatever, you know that there's going to be some bloody, violent content. If you have never watched it (like me), why would that stuff in a commercial make you want to watch? I'm certainly no more likely to watch it after the commercial I saw yesterday, perhaps even less so.

I'm not questioning whether this advertising works. I'm simply wondering why it works. Even the bloodiest feature films - whether they're "realistic" or just splatter films - don't show commercials on television like the stuff I saw in that CSI ad yesterday, yet people still go and see those movies. Seriously, if this is what it takes to get people to watch CSI, count me out. I've never watched the show, and the ad just makes me think that each episode is an hour of watching people get killed and then having to look at their torn-up bodies. Sure, millions of people watch the show, so CBS doesn't need me to watch, but is this the only way to advertise the program? For a show that's supposed to be "smart", the commercials make it look like it's just a body count with some medical-speak in it. I guess it's working at keeping current CSI viewers interested in the show, but I guess I'm not in the market of new viewers that they're trying to reach.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I just think it's a shame that otherwise-family-entertainment no longer isn't, not because the content of the program is changing, but because the ads shown during the program are changing.

Somewhere in there, I think you've drawn an overly narrow distinction.

The ads shown during football haven't changed nearly so much as the programs being shown in other timeslots. The promos do what they've always done -- attempt to tease with the most compelling moment of the upcoming show.
The change in the content of those shows dictated the change in the content of the promos.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

KSyrup, that article actually states that sex on TV has gone DOWN since 2001. So, the headline is contradicted by the facts.

No, it doesn't:

"The study showed that the number of scenes featuring the risks of sexual activity were down to 23 percent from 2001's high of 36 percent."

What it says is that the number of sex scenes has almost doubled since 1998, but the number of scenes in which the risks of sex are featured, has declined. Basically, a double whammy.

[Raiders Army]

I'd also like to see more beer commercials like the Heineken one with superpowers and the Bud Light Venus De Milo one.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Somewhere in there, I think you've drawn an overly narrow distinction.

The ads shown during football haven't changed nearly so much as the programs being shown in other timeslots. The promos do what they've always done -- attempt to tease with the most compelling moment of the upcoming show.
The change in the content of those shows dictated the change in the content of the promos.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. The point is that the content of the ads have changed. They may still be "show promos", but they are choosing to take some of the most violent parts of those shows to use in the promos, meaning that there is now violence in those ads that didn't used to be there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I'm simply wondering why it works.

The same reason disaster films, horror movies, etc. work.

And, thinking about it a little further, I believe I understand better why CSI is such a success than I did before this whole thread.

I've seen a few episodes, I think the show is "okay", occasionally reaching "pretty good" at its best moments. I'm not a fan, I'm not a hater either. But obviously I'm also not in the mainstream of primetime tv viewers with that rather lukewarm opinion. And then it hits me -- they're putting up numbers in part due to the very presentation

They're feeding the "I-can't-look-but-I-can't-turn-away" desires of people who can't really stand 90 minutes of the stuff (modern cop movies, horror movies, etc) but not only tolerate but enjoy 9 seconds worth of it, especially when its toned down several notches.

Based on the descriptions here, this is pretty mild stuff compared to the whole spectrum of violence-on-film. It's the violence equivalent to a little television T&A versus full-frontal nudity.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The promos do what they've always done -- attempt to tease with the most compelling moment of the upcoming show.
The change in the content of those shows dictated the change in the content of the promos.

Isn't the "most compelling" part of CSI and like shows not the murder/death that occurs in the first 3 minutes, but the manner in which the CSI team goes about determining who, what, where, when, and why? IMO, CSI would be just as good a show if they didn't have the "reenactment" scenes sprinkled throughout. But that's about all you get on the promos. Some of those scenes are just "what if?"-type reenactments that did not, in fact, happen.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

No, it doesn't:

"The study showed that the number of scenes featuring the risks of sexual activity were down to 23 percent from 2001's high of 36 percent."

What it says is that the number of sex scenes has almost doubled since 1998, but the number of scenes in which the risks of sex are featured, has declined. Basically, a double whammy.

ack

Too confusing. I need a chart. Or perhaps a presentation by the Oklahoma State dance squad.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Isn't the "most compelling" part of CSI and like shows not the murder/death that occurs in the first 3 minutes, but the manner in which the CSI team goes about determining who, what, where, when, and why? IMO, CSI would be just as good a show if they didn't have the "reenactment" scenes sprinkled throughout. But that's about all you get on the promos. Some of those scenes are just "what if?"-type reenactments that did not, in fact, happen.

For part of my take on this, see the post above (which I was posting while you were posting).

For the other part, there's a couple of things that come to mind:
1) A lot of football fans don't watch for the one big play, they watch for the chess match that a game can become ... but what shows up on the highlight reels? Same principle, the most exciting moment is what they'll show.
2) Minus the re-enactment scenes it isn't the same show though. And the current formula is working, I'd be loathe to tamper with it much if I were producing. (good point about the reenactment aspect of this, even if it does nothing to change the content, it's an interesting point nonetheless IMO).
3) You've got ten to fifteen seconds to work with, kinda hard to show " the process" in that time ... but a memorable scene like the one described here? Tailor made for promos, a visual sound-bite if you will.