Too Busy For TV? Apparently So.

        Now I may have mentioned this before, but I don't really watch TV. If I catch an hour a week, then it's a fair bit for me. Not that I have anything against TV, mind. I just don't watch it. I have a TV, but that's because I have an X-Box and it would be a very noisy and pointless decoration without one. Plus, you've got to centre the sofa around something. However even if I was overcome with the swelling and irresistible urge to be able to join in knowledgeably when someone asks "ooooo, did you see what Dot said on EastEnders the other day", I don't know how I would fit it in. I mean, I barely have enough time to do do everything I need to do as it is, let alone joining the rest of the country with four hours a day watching people in Essex say "er ma gerd" and someone in America say "gee" a lot. Also, as I've possibly mentioned before, my house lacks an actual arial in the roof, meaning that I'd have to spend even more time climbing up there, staring at the wall and pretending I know exactly what I'm doing before giving up and ringing someone, possibly called Nigel, to do it for me. Then I can spend many hours sitting in a semi-catatonic state watching other people pretend to be other people, just so I can join in a conversation that I wasn't really that interested in anyway.


        But here's the thing; the few programmes that I do enjoy are the sort that my Dad would describe as "American rubbish". Unfortunately, this would involve me having to order Sky TV just to catch it. this is even more hassle as it involves asking Nigel to come back in a van that's been decorated to advertise a programme that finished three years ago, while he puts an eyesore of a satellite dish on my wall, then I have to pay £eleventyten a month for all that. Now Sky in their infinite wisdom have realised that I am not always in, so they let me record a load of stuff to watch later. I can record weeks' worth of Family Guy to watch at once, but when am I going to watch it? There's still that problem! However there's one part of the whole "watching TV" deal that I do sometimes feel like I'm missing out on, and that's a really clever advert. I know, right? Occasionally, someone will ask me if I've seen some commercial for, I don't know, some brand of toilet roll. Naturally I say no, and I'd say "no" even if I had, because your life is effectively over if all you can talk about is bog roll adverts, but some of them are classics.

        But I can't really complain about adverts on TV. When I was in San Francisco, I discovered the concept of a programme showing the opening credits... followed by an ad-break. Then there are two or three throughout the programme, then another one at the end followed by the closing credits. Why would you put adverts before the closing credits? Nobody cares about the closing credits, except for maybe the actors' Mums, but why taunt people by making them wait through adverts for feminine hygiene products, only to have the name of the "dolly grip" as your only reward? Suddenly, one in the middle and one between shows suddenly isn't so bad. But here's the only other gripe: if I'm paying up to £50 a month to watch everything from The Simpsons to some dodgy Russian news channel, why have they still got adverts in the first place? I mean, the BBC can get away with criticising a Ford on Top Gear because they're not funded by Ford. They're funded by the TV Licence, not adverts. So why do we pay more per month for Sky when they still have ad breaks?

        Well, after a bit of research, it turns out that not a penny of that £50 a month goes to pay the actors in 24. It doesn't even pay the production company that makes Dexter. Hell, it doesn't even make it to the Networks who compile everything together for you. So where does it go. Let me explain: Sky don't have anything to do with what you watch on Sky TV, at least not directly. No, they're made by the production companies. If you like Big Brother, then you can thank Endemol for making it. They gamble on making something you like, and they've got to be paid, so they have to speak to a Network. Now a network is like a restaurant: they take food made by farmers or factories (production companies) and make it into a nice package that you want to eat, in the right order, at the right time. But, a network still needs to be paid, people! So now they've got to speak to someone. And who comes to their rescue? Why, it's an affiliate! The BBC is an affiliate. Channel 4 is an affiliate. They buy content from a network and pump it out, just for you, and when they haven't got enough they say "screw it, this is news time now". Then you get the weather. But what about Sky? Why are you paying them? What exactly are they being paid for? Well you know those cables in the ground, or that satellite that your dish faces? That's what your paying for. Not programmes. Not Gerry Seinfields $5m per episode. Nope, it's for the stupidly expensive job of maintaining a satellite in orbit, or installing miles of underground cables.

        So that means adverts will always be part of the deal. They are like the News. You don't have to watch them, you don't have to enjoy them, you can go and make a cup of tea and a sandwich when they're on, but they always will be on. Without adverts, you wouldn't have TV. It's as simple as that.

        So therefore, I'll stay being "that guy" who doesn't watch TV. I'll never guess what did happen to Dot, or whether they found out that Dexter killed all those people, or what happened in Desperate Housewives. And do you know what? I'm cool with that.

        And anyway, without adverts, who else is going to give you suggestions about what to buy for Valentine's day?

Tweet