Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Getting blown into traffic is never fun.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Superbowl on 2 channels

One for families one for relaxed moral standards
  (+12, -7)
(+12, -7)
  [vote for,

The superbowl draws in a TV audience of some 130 million people. As such, advertising space for TV commercials shown during the superbowl are insanely expensive, and those networks that did not get the superbowl are left out in the cold as far as ratings and advertisers.

So, I propose what I believe is a win-win situation: Show the superbowl on 2 channels.

One channel will be considered the "adult" channel. Beer commercials, feminine hygiene products, ED products, upcoming R rated movies, etc, will be allowed to show commericials on this channel only.

The other channel will be the family channel, devoid of beer commercials, etc. Their will be plenty of other products to advertise: Soda, Cars, G- PG-13 movies, toys, restaurants, stores, and so on.

Advertisers will have a segmented market, and can divide and conquer. The ads will be more targetted, and cheaper, due to lower audiences. And perhaps more people will watch the superbowl, when given the choice of one showing with risque ads, and one with a family atmosphere.

I think it's a win-win-win situation: consumers win, advertisers win, networks win.

Madai, Feb 06 2005


       ....embarassed that in my country it's ok for children to see someone getting shot on TV, but it's not ok for children to see a woman's breast.....
normzone, Feb 06 2005

       It is sad that our country says that it is O.K. to lust over women that are not yours, and desire to see violence, and degrade your own bodys, BECAUSE you are OF AGE! Is it right or is it wrong! Make up your mind! if it is wrong nobody should see it, if it is right let everybody see it. We have held a double standard too long! What kind of message does it send children when we tell them that it is O.K. to look at porn and smoke, once you are "grown up". Parents should realize that if they are looking at porn or smoking or drinking way too much it will confuse the morals of their kids. Is it right or is it wrong? Make up your mind!!!
fity, Feb 06 2005

       ..and now, from the famous Python skit...   

       "I see. Do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?"
JungFrankenstein, Feb 06 2005

       The grown-up channel should have grown-up commentary.
wagster, Feb 06 2005

       // Make up your mind!!!//Try it yourself, first, [fity].
gnomethang, Feb 06 2005

       //to lust over women that are not yours//
hmm, interesting [fifty], a new women 'ownership' model I wasn't familiar with.
neilp, Feb 06 2005

       Fity actually, our country has two kinds of people. those that don't mind a little risque humor, and those that are offended by it. Children are a convenient excuse.
Madai, Feb 07 2005

       The people who would seek to deny others are a very very small minority. Meanwhile, this idea represents an excellent compromise.
Madai, Feb 07 2005

       You're assuming that ads are good.   

       Ads (esp. superbowl type) are 2% info, and 98% manufacturing desire.   

       I'd rather the tykes see ads for totally irrelevant things, than to see ads for things that they'll pester parents to get them and are only detrimental to them.
sophocles, Feb 07 2005

       Daaaaaady.... buy me some viaaaaagra!
Madai, Feb 07 2005

       [fity]: There are many things that are perfectly acceptable for adults to view which are nevertheless inappropriate for children, without the need to fall back on "morals" as a reason. The ads for ED are a good example. Adults may be interested in this product, but may NOT wish to explain to a 6 year old what a "four hour erection" is. It's not that erections are somehow bad or immoral, but that a young child has no frame of reference in which to discuss them, and no need yet to know. One hopes.
gardnertoo, Feb 07 2005

       now, a "four-hour boner", on the other hand....
Madai, Feb 08 2005

       That'd be a good idea. A little variety's always good..the left I presume?
JungFrankenstein, Feb 08 2005

       I'd like to see a third channel. Perhaps a more softcore porn version. I'm thinking topless beachball for halftime, and nude cheerleaders. Beer logos on helmets. Ridiculous perverse insults and hand gestures.   

       Justin Timberlake can stay home with his mouth closed, where he belongs.
Blumster, Feb 08 2005

       Personally, I'd like to see the superbowl on no channel. But this idea is a good one for the huge numbner of people who do. +
energy guy, Feb 09 2005

       How much would tickets to the game cost if the SuperBowl wasn't broadcast on television?
ORISIS, Feb 09 2005

       You could have the superbowl broadcast on two channels, one with a slight delay so should something terribly shocking and damaging to a childs morality (such as a partly exposed breast) appear it can be edited out of the channel showing on the delay, but people who don't care and want to see the live feed can still do so.
RichieRich, Feb 09 2005

       I must say, that was a fine post for someone named [fity]. I also like the "way too much" qualifier, after the call for absolute definitions of right or wrong. You've got to post some stuff, [fity], so I can give you a big steaming bun!
bungston, Feb 09 2005

       "Step right up folks! Don't push and shove, we've got enough judgement for everybody!"
half, Feb 09 2005

       In Australia the superbowl is played live on one channel, and then is reviewed on the nightly news. Most news reports showed the highlights of the game - only after listing the commercials that were played during the game, and even showing a full lenght version of the best commercial. All of this reporting lasted longer than the actual game report.   

       Either Australians aren't very interested in the sport, or there's some weird intercontinental advertising deal going on.
benfrost, Feb 10 2005

       [BrauBeaton]: There was a time, not so long ago, that many of the values which you attribute to the "conservative right" belonged to our entire culture. Right now our country is shifting its values to accomdate changing views - and as with most movements toward a change of attitude, this change is most clearly evidenced by extreme views on both sides of the issue. So, if anything, you should be labeling those who rally behind those values as old-fashioned. To imply that they originated with the group of opinions that currently call themselves conservatives is foolish.   

       Once upon a time, shielding the eyes of children from the "evils" of nudity and violence was considered the best way to protect them. But, in today's world, there are so many sources for these influences that you cannot simply shelter your children. You must teach them early how to understand these things so that they won't learn from all the wrong places. Parents today treat their teenagers like children, instead of teaching them how to behave as adults and to live responsably in a complex world filled with sex, drugs, violence, and bad fashion.   

       It is the parents' right to decide how to expose thier children to these things. I think that consistent TV ratings are the best thing for this. But, they are not the ONLY thing. Complete isolation is neither convinient nor desirable.   

       I think the bigger problem is that parents today seem to think that it is somehow desirable to let government- run schools raise their children for them. I think the large under-parented groups of teenagers in public high schools have more of a bad influence than any TV program.
ooys, Feb 10 2005

       It would certainly be a good test to see what america REALLY wants to watch. You have the "anti smut " people on one side while you have the "free choice" people on the other side. I would be interested as to who has the bigger audience.
Jscotty, Oct 31 2005

       The FA Cup final is always shown on two channels. One with advertising, and one without. The one without (BBC) wins the rating war hands down every time in spite of John Motsam.   

       Of course the discerning viewer watches the box with the sound off and the radio on.
Jacob Marley, Nov 01 2005

       I bone you. Many feel that the ads are the best part of the Superbowl. Airing the game on multiple channels would diminish the $ value of ad time because there would not only be twice as much ad time to fill but there would also be competition as networks woo advertisers with lower & lower rates. Lower ad value would result in diminished ad quality. That would be a pity. As much as I deplore TV and bad ads, I am the first to praise a good ad. The 1984 ad introducing the MacIntosh was well worth four hours of huddling and grunting. Not to mention the football.
luxlucet, Nov 01 2005

       Am I the only person to wish they'd show sporting events (I'm thinking Formula 1 tbh) on 2 channels with STAGGERED ad-breaks, so that the fanatics like me can flick between and not miss any of the action?   

       <braces himself for barrage of comments decrying F1 for "no action">
kmlabs, Nov 01 2005

       Wish all you want [kmlabs], but with ad revenue paying for the broadcast airtime, advertisers have zero incentive to make it easy for you to ignore them. Get a Tivo or equivalent, record the program, and start watching from the beginning once the Tivo gets about an hour ahead of you. You can fast forward the commercials and gain on the live broadcast, perhaps catching up at some point during the race/game/match, or not.
gardnertoo, Jun 08 2006


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle