And Now, a Commercial Break That Doesn’t Seem Like One

This article is about making commericals better on ABC. Their goal is to encourage viewers to stick around rather than getting up for a snack, or stop watching altogether. The recently had a meeting to show some of their ideas and ways to hold the auidence the best that they can. They want to bring the audiences right to the commercial so they dont feel they have gone into the commercial said Mr. Michael Shaw the president for sales and marketing at ABC.
His theory is the more commericals that are being seen the more value you are to the advertisers.
If ABC changes how they show, and present commercials breaks during big shows like Lost, and Desperate Housewives, and Grey's Anatomy they get more viewers, and more people that will like to advertise and have their commercials on there. CW is selling commercials that resemble programs with the sponsor's products incorporated into the plots.
On cable tv such as VH1 they are putting snippets and spots ina way that it is intended to lead the viewers through the commerical pods to the moment the show came back.
Without change they don't know how long television can be sustainable as an adverstising medium said Andrew Jung senior director for advertising and media services and the Kellogg Company. The bottom line is that they need a way to attract the viewers and make them want to watch commericals!


My opinion on this whole subject is I hate commercials. I am going to say Thank God for DVR's because without them then; I would have to be forced to watch commercials. Now all you have to do is click on one button and it goes to the show and no commercials. I know that back in the day you would fast forward it which took so much time. I am happy that we have DVR's now. I am thinking that in order for people to be intreseted in these commercials they better catch the viewers eye somehow. Like they said in the article maybe if they put famous celebrity's in the commericals like Patrick Dempesy then more people would watch. I personally would. I also know that a lot of my friends, and I watch a ton of TV and commercials are such a pain and sometimes we tape the show just so we don't have to sit through commercials. They better start thinking of good ideas, and ways to advertise or they are going to be hurting bad in the advertising and commercial area. What does that mean for people who want to advertise things. When I am forced to sit through a show; I see the same advertisment at least four times and that bugs the crap out of me. So the solution is to think of a better more appealing way or they are going to lose viewers altogther.
This article can be found:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/business/media/21adco.html

1,000 Journalists Killed in 10 Years While Reporting

This article is about journalists that have been killed while reporting the news over the past 10 years. The victims are men mostly and are more likely to be shot and killed while investigating local issues instead of reporting from the battlefield. Since 2000 the annual tool has increased with 147 dying in 2005 followed by 167 fatalities last year. The three deadliest countries were Iraq, Russia, and Colombia. They think that killing a reporter is risk free. Most of the murders have never been prosecuted. The way I see it is what kind of message is that sending to people who want to become reporters? it seems to me that people who take these tasks head on like going to different part of the country really need to consider going before they leave. Another thing I don't understand is why do they only act that way over there? How come that stuff doesn't happen as much over here in the USA? How does this look on us? I think that it is crazy to think of that many people dying just because they were a reporter. Just think closely what kind of society do we live in today? It is just sad and depressing. That is all .

the article can be found here
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/world/07safety.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Microsoft Attacks Google on Copyright

This article is about Microsoft and they are going to take a blistering attack on rival Google. They argued that web search leader took a cavalier approach to copyright protection. Associate general counsel of Microsoft Thomas Rubin argues that Google's move into new media markets has come at the expense of publishers of book, videos and software. Rubin also argues that companies create no content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people's content, are ranking in billions through advertising revenue and IPOs. Google takes the position that everything may be freely copied unless the copyright owner notifies Google and tells them to stop. He also invoked criticism that Google has faced since its acquisition of YouTube, which has come under fire from media companies for allowing copyright infringement of professionally produces video. David Drummond Google's senior vice president for corporate said in response that Google worked with more than 10,000 publishing partners to make books searchable online and recently added the BBC and YouTube, and NBA as video partners.

I think that if there is no consent or form saying that you have permission to use something then it should not be taken from.Copyright infringement is starting to become a huge deal especially when it comes to websites such as YouTube, and things of that nature. I think that Google should have some kind of documentation showing that they did have permission and didn't just steal or take something. The whole copyright thing as a whole to me is starting to get out of hand. I can understand the major broadcasting companies trying to keep what rightfully belongs to them, but still even then people don't care and do things anyways. I also think that the laws for copyright need to become more enforced so maybe then it will stop happening as often.

More on this article can be found here
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/business/media/06speech.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin