This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Corahs Uncle: Why do cable and satellite TV providers advertise themselves on their own services? Probably for the same reason newspapers run "house ads": as Filler. I worked for a daily newspaper for 6½ years, most of that time as a paginator, using house ads to fill empty space on pages I laid out. Apparently the principle is the same with TV: When cable and satellite operators haven't sold enough advertising time, they fill the holes with their own ads.
Looney Toons: Maybe, but also to convince their existing customers not to switch, no matter how much their current service sucks.
Ununnilium: Yeah, I'm thinking more the latter. Note that this kind of commercial avoids the issue of what the system you're already using has to offer.
Morgan Wick: I have Comcast Digital Cable, so why do I still see ads entreating me to switch to Comcast Digital Cable and get so many cool features like all my local channels in HD (I don't have HD), and all my favorite channels like ESPN and TBS? I still see quite a few pro-cable ads.
Actually, I also see the odd satellite ad as well. Both of these are probably from the network or cable channel itself, as opposed to inserted by the cable company.
Idle Dandy: I've long believed that a big part of advertising is preaching to the choir. The viewer theoretically gives himself a little pat on the back for already being smart enough to buy the product. They also court other advertising. Take for example the ads that have aired on WCBS-AM radio in New York, which describe the station's listeners as intelligent and successful professionals (who will buy your product) and loyal Yankees fans (who will keep buying your product.)
Ununnilium: That may be the theory, but experience leads me to believe that they just see it as you giving them something they don't want (ads) that they don't need (since they already buy your product).
BT The P: It's a bit of FCC rigmarole; bear with me, policy content ahead. In order to only target the opposition's customers, the satellite or cable provider would need to buy franchise-level ads directly from his rival, which the other service would -- quite wisely -- not accept.
So, they have to advertise a step "upstream", at the content provider/network level, or on local affiliates. Ads coming in off the network data feeds or community antenna have to go through, according to the contract agreements and federal regulations governing these types of things. The network has to send the ad on all feeds (in accordance with the contracts used to purchase ads), and the providers are only allowed to insert their content (the local ads) in the designated "gaps" in the program feed.
This means that the provider has to just grin and bear his rival's ads on his bandwidth, and at the same time cannot legally block his own ad from being transmitted to his customers, as this would violate his agreement with the network. Is there something in game theory about this? It's not the "prisoner's dilemma", but it's something like that.
Also, network affiliate stations still broadcast over-the-air, so the few remaining members of the rabbit-ear user base (it's not such a small number) may be on the fence over cable vs. satellite, and they are worth reaching. </BT The P>
Red Shoe: There's still a piece missing, though, if they're selling these ads at the content provider/network level. Aren't cable companies regional? If they're selling their ads directly to the Sci-Fi channel, why is it that I'm seeing ads for my local cable provider and not, say, ads for whoever provides cable service in California? I'd understand if it were only the broadcast channels that showed these ads. Is there yet another level of distribution going on?
B Tthe P: Cable franchises are administered and operated locally, in case-by-case agreements with local governments that allow them to install coax trunks in public right-of-way, but most of them (the ones that advertise nationally) are owned by big parent companies. This is a case where multiple explanations are true in parallel: small cable companies buy ads on local stations, parent companies buy ads on national networks and local stations, and they both fill unsold time with ads for themselves, especially for their own ad division -- as when a billboard operator fills an unleased space with an ad asking someone to lease the space. This is an asymmetric relationship, since the satellite provider bottlenecks nationally on FCC-licensed spectrum, while the cable is more piecemeal and sectionalized at the will of the various city and county authorities, but the overall paths are the same.
This troper is glad that in australia, whether you get cable or satellite is basicly dependant on where you live, as you get the same service out of them. (except that the commercial free to air channels dont seem to want to rebroadcast over satellite but dont mind ging over cable)
