An I person.

@LouisCyphre what should Swisscom communicate to the outside world? “Attention, it may be that at some point in the future we will no longer be allowed to rewind advertising, so please start complaining…”?

As long as politicians don’t get down to business and ban the over-winding of advertising, none of the providers can say specifically what impact the ban will have on their product and how it will be implemented. As long as it stays as it is known today -> you can skip the advertising without any problem for the time being!

Have you already noticed that skipping advertising is not a Swisscom issue, but rather an issue for the broadcasters? When the Spulverbot comes, it will affect all TV content distributors in Switzerland, including UPC, Sunrise, Zattoo, Wilmaa, etc…

Swisscom is not really interested in this ban. On the contrary, we are already providing a share today because this topic is not new but has existed since it was possible to over-wind advertising. What’s new (okay, not so new anymore) is that this way of consuming TV is so popular, which is why everyone is now relying on this technology and the broadcasters now see an opportunity to make more money here.

@kaetho

It’s not about the broadcasters wanting to siphon off more money, it’s just about compensating for the shortfall in income that overwinding brings with it.

@hed ultimately they want more money. And to enforce this with a means that 99% of the Swiss population does not like. Good luck making it happen

@kaetho

Nobody wants more money, but wants to compensate for the collapse in advertising prices “thanks” to replay in another way. This is even clear to the providers, because some type of compensation payments is also being discussed there.

Whether the population likes it or not, if there is a lack of money, that will be reflected in the offer. The result is even cheaper productions and certainly also broadcasters that have to close up shop.

If the population doesn’t like forced advertising, then they have to be prepared to dig deeper into their pockets if the issue comes to the ballot box. And I’m very confident about that. The No-Billag initiative also showed that the stingy-is-cool free option has no chance.

If things were really so bad for the purely advertising-financed channels in Switzerland, why do more and more keep popping up?

In addition, compulsory advertising has very poor chances in today’s media diversity, because the vast majority of media consumers can easily switch to other channels in the meantime.

Instead of the linear TV channels simply continuing to unimaginatively saw the branch on which they are sitting anyway, they would do a much better job of working on a more customer-friendly presentation of their advertising vessels and on additional financing concepts.

However, if some TV providers are actually no longer able to finance themselves in the future, I see this as a normal market shakeout where there has been oversupply for a long time and demand is shrinking at the same time.

If the consolidation process is not artificially slowed down by lobbying measures (it cannot be stopped anyway), the stations with the lowest customer acceptance will simply fall out and the survivors will hopefully have become better at the same time due to the pressure of competition.

@hed

If no one wants more money, then what’s the problem? I also have a problem with the low euro. Can I come now and demand that the euro, which is now at 1.10, be compensated to 1.60? Even. If I can’t handle that, I’ll just have to move and see if I can handle the 1.10 on my own.

With your thumb it’s clear what’s missing. That will be around a fiver per month per TV-Box. But if I have to spend more money to skip the advertising (and I would be willing to do that), I would also like to be able to decide for myself which station gets money from me. This brings us back to the concern of @LouisCyphre with the exclusion of channels… (and no one should come and say that this is too time-consuming. Swisscom can already say exactly to the second who and when The information is all there, you just have to evaluate it).

I’m also confident that something like this would make it to the ballot box. Only: so far I haven’t read anywhere that rewinding advertising should remain possible in principle, as it is now, but should become more expensive. So far the only thing that has been discussed is that they want to stop this.

---

@hed wrote:

@kaetho

According to your suggestion and that of @LouisCyphre, you could, for example, only subscribe to 2 channels, but consume them at a ratio of 9:1. Nevertheless, both broadcasters would each get 50% of your money. You haven’t really thought your suggestion through, have you?

---

No, why shouldn’t that work? You would have to change the recording system for IPTV. My consumption ratio of 9:1 is guaranteed to be already recorded somewhere in the depths of Swisscom’s TV system. You would then have to resort to this data.

But then you would have to collect the data from all providers and would still not have recorded the users who only watch TV via the Internet.

It is also questionable whether data protection allows such background recordings. At Kantar, the representative consumer group explicitly agrees to the monitoring of their media consumption.

And obviously the broadcasters, providers, advertising industry and consumers are mostly satisfied with the current, proven survey procedure.

If I had, would have and had to have stayed when the euro fell from over 1.50 to 1.20 within 2 years, “me” would no longer exist today

@LouisCyphre

Yes, of course that would be technically possible, but apart from the effort for Swisscom, which all customers would then have to pay indirectly, it brings no additional benefit, as has already been explained several times, neither in the present nor in the future, except at best to satisfy your ego.

Simply saying no out of principle doesn’t help anyone. We then told him “state-certified doubter”. What is true today can be completely wrong tomorrow if the circumstances change.

What if politics suddenly switched to the “polluter pays principle”? Then delimitation to the individual channel would suddenly be an advantage because it would allow billing to be precise.

Clearly an absurdity today, but so is the ban on skipping advertising. But: how much longer?

So open your eyes, ears and mind, creative ideas are sought. You won’t get very far with a blockade 😉

Politics in Switzerland doesn’t change so suddenly overnight. There are countless variants conceivable, so there is little point in thinking about and discussing a plan A, B, C… Z. Therefore…

Let’s cross the bridge when we come to it.

I think it’s right to start the discussion about compulsory advertising while watching television early on and to register our needs as customers and consumers. If we wait until the decision has been made, it’s too late, then all that’s left is to complain. So let’s let the decision-makers know what we want, whether they will take it into account is another question, but we have put forward our opinion.

I find fast-forwarding advertising very beneficial and always use it. I never watch live but always with a time delay so that I can skip ahead as I like, not only when watching commercials but also, for example. B. also with uninteresting articles in the news. I no longer want to do without it and am therefore against forced advertising. If it comes, I will cancel my TV subscription, only keep internet access and the landline connection and watch documentaries from the media libraries, via video rental or from a purchased disc.

But it is clear to me that most TV channels finance themselves to a large extent through advertising and this market collapses if the advertising is no longer watched. We therefore have to collect ideas on how to combine the two requirements to some extent. I see the following approaches, some of which have already been adopted in a modified form by other participants:

I want to be able to choose with my subscription whether I want to watch the advertisements or skip them (which of course costs something extra)

I don’t need 270 channels or more, about 20 are enough for me. So when I subscribe, I want to be able to choose how many channels I want and, above all, which ones. I imagine that in the basic package e.g. B. 20 channels are included and that I can buy more in packages of another 10 channels

The stations I select receive a corresponding contribution to the overrun advertising blackout based on my usage time, all other stations I did not select receive nothing from my subscription fee.

The distribution key for the broadcasters will be adjusted accordingly; the data for this will certainly already be recorded statistically by the providers or can easily be supplemented.

We customers are the ones who decide what we want to consume. Through our choice of products, be it providers, daily purchases or the election of our politicians, we control what is successful and what is not. So we use the power we develop together. And by supporting foundations such as B. We will also support consumer protection in our spirit.