End of private television?
I am in favor of abolishing private television.
It's actually not needed by anyone, but it costs everyone (even those who don't watch these programs) money. Officially, these programs are "free," but they're financed through advertising. And everyone who buys the corresponding products has to pay for this advertising—even if they don't watch the private TV channels.
Anyone who wants to watch the films broadcast there can do so via streaming services (without advertising, but with direct payment). And everyone saves money on all the products because these completely unnecessary advertising costs are eliminated.
(3 votes)
Loading...
Just because you don’t need them, that doesn’t mean that’s true to everyone else. The view of the switch-on rates shows that normal television has no spectator’s tail.
Without (TV) advertising for a product, the demand for the same decreases and thus the price increases. If that weren’t the case, any company would waive advertising.
If TV advertising would fall away, then companies are looking for other platforms to place their advertising.
It doesn’t always have to be like that.
I remember a case (but it has been a few years ago), since a dairy company had a sports star under contract for TV and other advertising.
Revenue increased and also profit from pure product production.
However, this company (AG) could not distribute dividends to the shareholders, because the entire merit in the advertising contract with this sports star fless.
Management had to go. And then the advertising effort was significantly reduced.
my TV is used for 90% eh only for PS5 and movies on physical disks
and the remaining 10% consist of film streaming like Prime Video or Youtube
What makes you think they’re not needed by anyone.
the advertising costs on products also do not fall away, as advertising is simply switched elsewhere
the GEZ is superfluous, because if you want to stretch different shows, you have to pay almost everything.
And I am in favour of the public television being finally abolished. Why? Because fees are demanded by everyone for this Sch..ß, whether you want to see it or can only receive it. And despite these fees, the advertising is almost comparable to the private television, which is financed only by the advertising sent to them.
In addition, apart from the obviously lacking neutrality of journalism, the public broadcasters also think that the entertainment programme is completely below my level. Maybe it would be okay for me if I had been in old age for 20 years, but I still lack a few decades.
And the additional TV fees are paid so or so, depending on the provider, whether via cable, HD card, streaming service, internet provider or whatever. In addition to these fees, there are also fees for publicly legal broadcasting, which I mentioned at the beginning, because this also includes publicly-law television. So, if you mean television fees, this does not relate to private television (unless you mean PayTV, but to book it, any person can decide freely because at least nobody is forced to pay for it, unlike public broadcasting) but to this public broadcasting.
No private but much less advertising!
Before the private are dismantled, the ecological way.
WArum, they show much less advertising.
Just because of the publicly legal television stations (and also similar radio stations), there are also only radio fees which are forced to pay for each person with residence, regardless of whether they want to see them or can only be seen.
They’re expensive, and they’re making bad money.
Of course (at least in part).
Despite all the surely justified criticism, I still think that public law is much more serious than the private TV (which almost all belong to the same publishing group).
But with regard to the excessive cost of sports transfers, I fully agree with you. However, the public service stand in a bidder competition with the private. My proposal here would be that the publicly legal ones withdraw from the complete transfer of expensive sport shows (football, formula-1, …) and report only briefly (last in the form of messages) on the results. This could reduce the GEZ fees, the better.
This also applies in a similar way to the really exaggerated executives. But these are also of course aimed at the likewise exaggerated board of the private TV stations (as the board of directors of the Deutsche Bahn is governed by the executives of the DAX Group), although this is more administrative than management positions in public-law TV. This would, of course, also be a way to reduce the GEZ fees.
Balanced basic services? How? They are not much more serious in public legal news, just a little less sensational than in the picture.
The publicly legal TV stations, such as ARD and/or ZDF, are also relatively large in sports, such as cycling and winter sports, and they are just calling for broadcasting fees and still bring advertising.
In your question of your choice of words, you’re calling for private broadcasters, but you’re actually criticising the methodology of public television broadcasters. You should be aware that you are accusing private television of what is not true of this, but of public television.
True, but for this, (by TV and radio) at least in Germany a semi-way balanced basic supply with messages is obtained.
And the costs, in particular for the transmission rights of sports shows (which I all do not think of) are increasing practically into the immeasurable by the advertising rush of the private TV stations.
What is more expensive now is another question. In any case, the public are too expensive in relation to their contribution.
Unfortunately, the exact opposite is the case, because the private TV stations are significantly more expensive than the public law.
Only the cost of the consumer is not so obvious. Here the TV costs are transferred to the products via advertising revenues and the then higher product prices I have to pay even if I don’t look at a private TV program.
I always care about the TV. Live YouTube! There’s something for everyone at all times.
You can avoid buying expensive products. There is no advertising for cheap products (which are not qualitatively worse!). So grab it. It’s not forbidden.
The TV’s going to get rid of itself at some point. I think. It’s just a matter of time.
the publicly legal, certainly not. somehow, money has to be made and that cannot be missed, even if they change to streaming, then 100% will remain the contribution fee
Hmh – I’m not so sure. If no one turns on, this TV doesn’t make any sense.
as I said, as you know, but it will definitely run out on streaming and this will also be justified with mandatory contribution, perhaps it will not be any longer at all at some point, but that will certainly not be so fast, possibly in 2060 or later, I am very sure
It’s just hoped. There are also jobs behind it. Acquisitions were made – studios etc. That can’t have been all for the cat.
Yes, it is. Then if there’s no one interested. Exactly: The numbers are falling. And that’s gonna be okay. The time of classic television is over when you ask me.
the numbers of the spectators have fallen drastically in recent years, and yet there are constant increases in contributions, which can still run so badly, at the end the money flows, as will the legal system be behind it as always
I really don’t even watch classic television anymore. And if very rarely, then Arte or 3 sat.
The entire television private as well as public can disappear from me.
That’s it. ^