Will Fox’s ‘Remote-Free TV’ work?
Cory Bergman May 16th, 2008
Fox is debuting two new shows next season with dramatically fewer commercials. Calling it “Remote-Free TV,” the shows “Fringe” and “Dollhouse” will run about only five minutes of commercials an hour. “It’s a simple concept and potentially revolutionary,” Fox Entertainment Chairman Peter Liguori said. “We’re going to have less commercials, less promotional time, and less reason for viewers to use the remote. We’re going to redefine the viewing experience.” To counter the loss in inventory, Fox plans to charge higher rates for the ads. Ad buyers were “generally upbeat” about the announcement, says the Hollywood Reporter. So, what do you think? Is this a new paradigm for network TV or will you just skip the shorter/fewer breaks with your fast-forward button anyway?
15 Comments Add your own
1. Gorman | May 16th, 2008 at 10:54 am
The paranoid Whedon fan in me thinks Fox is establishing a way to give “Dollhouse” an early axe if the first few episodes’ ratings don’t overwhelm.
Has anyone seen my tinfoil hat? I just had it a second ago…
2. Jason | May 16th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Less clutter during programming? Are they stealing ideas from clutter free Web sites now? Must have been an idea from those ‘crazy’ Hulu people.
3. Kesten Migdal | May 16th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Yeah, it could work, but not for me. I’m a TiVo devotee. A part of me thinks it’s a smart and innovative move. The other part thinks it could be a short lived experiment.
4. BuyRosevillePottery.com | May 16th, 2008 at 11:59 am
My remote doesn’t recognize the different lengths of the commercial breaks- a short break is no different than a long break- all it gets bypassed.
And why don’t they “redefine the viewing experience” by giving us quality shows? Nobody will flip the channel if the show is good. American Idol could probably run 35 minutes/hour with little change in ratings (and the results show sometimes feels like that anyway).
55 min shows will give more work to video editors in the (highly unlikely) chance these move to syndication where they still run 42 minutes an hour.
5. tdc | May 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
making the folks that pay the bills and everyone’s salaries out to be the bad guy doesn’t seem like it’ll work this time either.
clear channel tried this with radio several years back and look where it got them.
pull up yahoo!’s ‘max’ stock chart of ccu and see what i mean if in doubt.
6. Rick Ellis | May 16th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Wow…talk about a lot of knee-jerk reactions.
Actually, the stations where Clear Channel reduced their commercial load did see some ratings help, but they did it in such a clumsy way (and their hourly load was still so high), that it wasn’t any big revolution.
What people seem to miss in all of this, is that the increase in people watching video online (as well as on-demand), means that a network like Fox could lessen its commercial load on the broadcast side to the point where it matches what people see online. Since you can’t generally skip the online commercials (or the ones increasingly showing up in on-demand), Fox could sell the same ads across a number of platforms a lot easier.
Overall, it’s a win-win, if they can pull it off.
7. tdc | May 16th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
and thank you for that knee-jerk response.
evidently you didn’t bother to take a look at the chart i mentioned. had you you would see that ccu did NOTHING from the date of its inception (2004) to today.
you’d never have guessed with all the spin coming from mgmt. over that same timeframe.
google: clear channel’s less is more, if there’s still any lingering doubt.
besides, cory did ask “So, what do you think?”
and i told him.
8. Charles | May 16th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Remote-free TV? Thank goodness. I’ve been waiting for a real-life reason to say “lost remote” outside of this web site.
9. Safran | May 18th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Go on Hulu and note that a sitcom from the ’60s or ’70s was 25 minutes. (I Dream of Jeannie, Bob Newhart Show.)
Now look at a show from this season. Say, The Big Bang Theory. 19 MINUTES.
They’re actually trying to drive us away. Yeah - more time entertaining and less advertising is fine with me.
10. Wes | May 19th, 2008 at 8:18 am
It’s not really the time / placement of commercials. Many people have TiVo’s that skip them anyway. Plus, shows are going digital (such as hulu.com) that offers the same programming with fewer time devoted to commercials. Sounds like you don’t need the remote… but for a different reason.
11. wtf Adam Smith? | May 19th, 2008 at 10:20 am
amazing how user friendly is “revolutionary”
or is revolutionary now short for getting ones head out of their ass?
12. Anonymous | May 19th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
One thing to note is that there will be more than 5 minutes of commercials per hour.
The Up Front presentation stated “5 minutes of national ads” versus the traditional (roughly) 10 minutes during prime.
Local Stations won’t have their inventory cut at all, so you’re still looking at 12-17 minutes of commercials per hour of programming, just half the national ads.
13. Anonymous | May 19th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
(The other ANON meat)
Many folks I know already sit there going click-click for 20 minuies before you hit them upside the head politely and remind them YOU EXIST.
INSERT COIN(S)
14. Mike | May 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Well it works on local radio, at least I listen to the ones that have fewer ads.
For TV it doesn’t matter, I have TiVo.
15. Shannon | May 26th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
My husband and I were watching racing on ABC over the weekend and noticed that when it came time for commercials, they squeezed back the race to the left-hand side of the screen and placed the commercial on the right-hand side. It was cool because you could still watch the race and when something happened, like a crash, ABC dumped the commercial and went to full screen on the race. Very cool.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed