Tivo causing ad changes!?
 

So, I caught the latest episode of Monk and right at the very beginning
(the setup, if you will), they are describing the contents of a box of
groceries to be delivered. Obviously small details are important in
Detective shows, but it seemed beyond odd that one of the items
described (both shown prominently and described by voice) was very
specifically "Glad Forceflex trash bags". Sure enough, during the show,
I noticed that there were numerous regular ads for Forceflex bags (just
before I skipped over them).

So is this the new advertising model? It was pretty blatent, and really
took away from the story because they emphasized it so much. They're
not going to win any converts advertising this way, all it did was make
me resent the intrusion. If they could've worked it into the plot or
didn't actually bring the episode to a halt during the placement it
might have been more palatable!

Randy S.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:16:23 -0400, "Randy S." wrote:

So is this the new advertising model?

Everything old is new again. This is a decades-old advertising model being
revived, updated for the times, over the last five years or so.

--
"It is more uplifting to find the beauty, wonder, spirituality, and
reverence in what we can see, than to imagine they only exist in what we
can't see." - http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn/

In article , Randy S.
wrote:

So, I caught the latest episode of Monk and right at the very beginning
(the setup, if you will), they are describing the contents of a box of
groceries to be delivered. Obviously small details are important in
Detective shows, but it seemed beyond odd that one of the items
described (both shown prominently and described by voice) was very
specifically "Glad Forceflex trash bags". Sure enough, during the show,
I noticed that there were numerous regular ads for Forceflex bags (just
before I skipped over them).

I didn't notice the commercials (so there, Man from Glad!) but the plug
at the beginning of the show was so utterly blatant that even I (a
notorious clod when it comes to this sort of thing) noticed it.

So is this the new advertising model? It was pretty blatent, and really
took away from the story because they emphasized it so much. They're
not going to win any converts advertising this way, all it did was make
me resent the intrusion. If they could've worked it into the plot or
didn't actually bring the episode to a halt during the placement it
might have been more palatable!

People noticed a few years ago when Mrs. Soprano kept coming home from
the grocery store with her stuff in a Gateway Computers shopping bag.
Product placement is a big deal these days. Advertisers see it as an
anti-skip tactic, which I suppose it is, but a better one would be to
make commercials that get our attention even as we skip past them, and
inveigle us into watching them.

The Glad bag thing didn't ruin the show for me. Lt. Disher's stupid
idiocy about Kiefer Sutherland did that -- oh, and them running a
Halloween show in July. That didn't work for me at all, even though I
realize why they had to set it then.

"Randy S." wrote in message
...
So, I caught the latest episode of Monk and right at the very beginning
(the setup, if you will), they are describing the contents of a box of
groceries to be delivered. Obviously small details are important in
Detective shows, but it seemed beyond odd that one of the items described
(both shown prominently and described by voice) was very specifically
"Glad Forceflex trash bags". Sure enough, during the show, I noticed that
there were numerous regular ads for Forceflex bags (just before I skipped
over them).

So is this the new advertising model? It was pretty blatent, and really
took away from the story because they emphasized it so much. They're not
going to win any converts advertising this way, all it did was make me
resent the intrusion. If they could've worked it into the plot or didn't
actually bring the episode to a halt during the placement it might have
been more palatable!

Randy S.

It is called product placement, and it is a multi-million dollar industry.
Did you think it was a coincidence that ET liked those particular peanut
butter candies?

TIVO and its ilk are the future of TV and advertisers are sh*.*ting
their pants. Viewers get free (broadcast) or VERY cheap (standard
cable) TV because it's subsidized by advertising.

The only way to (almost) guarantee that your product is "eyeballed" by
viewers is to put it in the show itself. Annoying, yes, but less so
than paying $10.50 to see a movie prefaced by lame TV-quality ads.

Maybe someday the costs of television will shift somewhat to viewers
willing to pay for quality and away from mass-marketed products
overpriced by marketing costs. (And maybe someday we'll get a flat
income or consumption-only tax.)

"Randy S." wrote in message
...
So, I caught the latest episode of Monk and right at the very beginning
(the setup, if you will), they are describing the contents of a box of
groceries to be delivered. Obviously small details are important in
Detective shows, but it seemed beyond odd that one of the items described
(both shown prominently and described by voice) was very specifically
"Glad Forceflex trash bags". Sure enough, during the show, I noticed that
there were numerous regular ads for Forceflex bags (just before I skipped
over them).

So is this the new advertising model? It was pretty blatent, and really
took away from the story because they emphasized it so much. They're not
going to win any converts advertising this way, all it did was make me
resent the intrusion. If they could've worked it into the plot or didn't
actually bring the episode to a halt during the placement it might have
been more palatable!

Randy S.


The average American consumer is much less intelligent than you believe.
They are prone to want what they are told they need and what they see
celebrities using, especially when it's claimed to be from Europe.

If the product placement had been for Tivo rather than trash bags you'd be
all 'school girl giddy' about it.

The average American consumer is much less intelligent than you believe.
They are prone to want what they are told they need and what they see
celebrities using, especially when it's claimed to be from Europe.

If the product placement had been for Tivo rather than trash bags you'd be
all 'school girl giddy' about it.

No, I wouldn't, and I fully understand the place of ads in subsidizing
broadcast and non-pay cable TV content. I can even understand and
tolerate in-show product placement. I just wish they weren't as
obnoxious about it. ET's Reeses Pieces were minimally intrusive, they
had to use some type of food, and Reeses Pieces were as good as
anything. They didn't stop and discuss for 30 seconds how it was *so*
much better to use Reeses Pieces because 3 out of 4 candy lovers prefer
them!

I'm also not going to try to rationalize banning obnoxious ads because
they supposedly don't work. Other people in this thread claim that
annoying ads don't work and just **** people off, but the advertisers
use them anyway. What sense does that make? Product manufacturers pay
ad firms to boost sales. If they don't see a sales boost, said ad firm
is fired. The unfortunate truth is that annoying ads work!
Subconciously they stick with you, and you remember that product later,
even if you don't remember why. Forceflex is now stuck in my head. As
long as I remember why, I won't purchase them, but perhaps at some point
I'll forget where I heard about them. At that point, as much as I hate
to admit it could happen, that ad may still influence my purchasing
decision.

There are things I hate worse. I accept that the ad is enabling me to
see a production for free. What I hate is paying for something and then
*still* having ads forced on me. I don't know how the Movie theaters
these days are getting away with it. And the forced commercials on
DVD's are just as bad.

Randy S.

In article , Howard
wrote:

There is a commercial in my local area that has a very loud annoying sound
repeated several times during the commercial. What effect was the
advertiser looking for? Well, presumably to get your attention, of course.
What effect does it really have? People scramble to, if not change the
channel, then at least mute the tv. Several people have written letters to
various places...newspaper editor, tv gossip column, etc...to express their
opinion of these commercials and that they would never even consider
thinking about purchasing from these idiots. It would appear obvious that
this commercial must immediately be cancelled and never shown again, before
further damage is done to their reputation.


I remember a TV ad in NYC about twenty-five years ago. It was for
jeans -- I think the brand name was Bonjour. It began with a loud
reproduction of a telephone off-the-hook alert. It got your attention,
and not in a good way. (The rest of the ad consisted of video of a
skinny girl walking back and forth wearing the jeans, and a guy
shouting "Bonjour!" over and over again, more and more rapidly, as if
he were approaching orgasm. I think the brand is dead now.)

Alphageek ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
It is called product placement, and it is a multi-million dollar industry.
Did you think it was a coincidence that ET liked those particular peanut
butter candies?

Well, yeah, it was, in a sense:

http://www.snopes.com/business/market/mandms.asp

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Macarena.gif

Once upon a time, Jeff Rife said:
Alphageek ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
It is called product placement, and it is a multi-million dollar industry.
Did you think it was a coincidence that ET liked those particular peanut
butter candies?

Well, yeah, it was, in a sense:

http://www.snopes.com/business/market/mandms.asp

In no sense of the word was it a coincidence; it was straight up product
placement (as the previous poster said), and that's exactly what the
Snopes page you referenced said.
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

There are things I hate worse. I accept that the ad is enabling me to see
a production for free. What I hate is paying for something and then
*still* having ads forced on me. I don't know how the Movie theaters
these days are getting away with it. And the forced commercials on DVD's
are just as bad.

Randy S.

I know. I hated paying for Starz and having them show upcoming Saturday
premieres during a movie's credits so I couldn't listen to the soundtrack. I
paid extra on my provider to see these movies uncut and commercial free and
not butchered like they are on basic cable. They may have cut back on their
logos and credit squeezes now, but doing it just once has left a bad taste
in my mouth that can never ever be washed away.

Once upon a time, Howard said:
Jeff is entirely correct. In a sense, yes, it IS a coincidence that that
'particular' candy was ET's favorite. The intent (and, as you noted, this
is very clearly explained at snopes.com) was for product placement, and for
that product to be M&Ms. They said no. Again, as that page points out, is
IS that way in the book.

If you go to a restaurant and order Coke but they bring you Pepsi, do
you consider it a "coincidence" that you are drinking Pepsi?

coincidence: A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have
been planned or arranged.

The movie producers wanted to have a product placement for the candy (no
accident). One choice rejected the placement but a second choice agreed
(no accident).
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

In article , Michael
Walker wrote:

There are things I hate worse. I accept that the ad is enabling me to see
a production for free. What I hate is paying for something and then
*still* having ads forced on me. I don't know how the Movie theaters
these days are getting away with it. And the forced commercials on DVD's
are just as bad.

Randy S.

I know. I hated paying for Starz and having them show upcoming Saturday
premieres during a movie's credits so I couldn't listen to the soundtrack. I
paid extra on my provider to see these movies uncut and commercial free and
not butchered like they are on basic cable. They may have cut back on their
logos and credit squeezes now, but doing it just once has left a bad taste
in my mouth that can never ever be washed away.


I absolutely agree with this. When I'm paying for a premium channel, I
want the movies intact, and that includes the end credits and the
soundtrack under them. I enjoy soundtracks, and some of the best work
in them is in the end credits.

I understand Starz! is hanging on by its fingernails. ****ing off
loyal subscribers isn't going to help any. I don't quite trust them
anymore.

You even quote the definition of the word coincidence,
then explain that Reese's Pieces being the candy was accidental, but seems
to have been planned...while admitting that it was NOT the candy planned.

We can only give you the water, we can't drink it for you.


To be honest, I'm not sure it qualifies. Putting Reeses Pieces in the
movie *was* planned, it was not an accident. It was just their second
choice rather than their first. Now if Hershey had *asked* (without any
prior knowledge) to be placed in the movie as Mars was declining it,
*that* would be coincidence, or if they ran out of M&M's and just
*happened* to have a bunch of Reeses Pieces on hand, *that* would be
coincidence. But I think the actual story is more an example of irony
then coincidence.

Randy S.

Once upon a time, Howard said:
You even quote the definition of the word coincidence,
then explain that Reese's Pieces being the candy was accidental, but seems
to have been planned...while admitting that it was NOT the candy planned.

Choosing Reese's Pieces wasn't accidental.

accidental: occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance.

Reese's Pieces didn't appear in the movie unexpectedly (there was a deal
with Hershey's to use them), unintentionally (after the deal was made
they showed Reese's Pieces prominently), or by chance.

Not getting your first choice doesn't make it accidental when you get
your second choice. It would have been a coincidence if, when the prop
guy went to the Kwik-E-Mart, they were out of M&Ms so he grabbed Reese's
Pieces, and at the same time Hershey's was working on a big marketing
campaign, and then the producers went to Hershey's and they decided to
do a product placement. When a movie or TV producer is looking to sell
product placement, they get rejected on the first try all the time and
they try someone else. It isn't an accident; it is business.
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

Randy S. ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
To be honest, I'm not sure it qualifies. Putting Reeses Pieces in the
movie *was* planned, it was not an accident. It was just their second
choice rather than their first.

The coincidence is that there was another candy that fit the "specs" for
the story.

Despite the fact that it did turn into product placement, M&Ms would have
been used anyway if Reese's Pieces didn't exist (or also turned down
the producers), because the style of the candy was somewhat important
to the plot. But, they would have gotten "normal" screen time, instead
of getting shots that made sure you could read the bag, etc.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/AngryTVGod.gif

Jeff Rife wrote:
Randy S. ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

To be honest, I'm not sure it qualifies. Putting Reeses Pieces in the
movie *was* planned, it was not an accident. It was just their second
choice rather than their first.


The coincidence is that there was another candy that fit the "specs" for
the story.

Despite the fact that it did turn into product placement, M&Ms would have
been used anyway if Reese's Pieces didn't exist (or also turned down
the producers), because the style of the candy was somewhat important
to the plot. But, they would have gotten "normal" screen time, instead
of getting shots that made sure you could read the bag, etc.


So the "coincidence" is therefore that Reeses Pieces are shaped like
M&M's and could be used in exactly the same way? Yes, I can buy that
then.

Randy S.

"Randy S." wrote...
So is this the new advertising model?

As others have written, not new at all. It used to annoy me that we were
always treated to a prolonged shot of the Ford emblem whenever Efrem
Zimbalist Jr. first pulled onto the scene in the FBI in 1965. Not only did
we not have TiVo, I'm not sure we had a remote!

In article , Don Jennings
wrote:

"Randy S." wrote...
So is this the new advertising model?

As others have written, not new at all. It used to annoy me that we were
always treated to a prolonged shot of the Ford emblem whenever Efrem
Zimbalist Jr. first pulled onto the scene in the FBI in 1965. Not only did
we not have TiVo, I'm not sure we had a remote!


I remember that they had to add a disclaimer that the FBI was not
actually endorsing Ford cars.

Some TV execs have convinced themselves that product placement is the
way to go. I don't think it is, especially as they tend to do it so
poorly, but I'm just out here watching TV and buying stuff. My guess
is that they need to return to the practice of having the stars of the
show do a commercial for the primary sponsor after the tag, but before
the end credits. I think people would watch a pitch by the actors on
the show they've just seen.

Otherwise, I don't think most commercials will ever be good enough to
snag our interest as we whiz past them.

In article ,
"Dr. Personality" wrote:

In article , Don Jennings
wrote:

"Randy S." wrote...
So is this the new advertising model?

As others have written, not new at all. It used to annoy me that we were
always treated to a prolonged shot of the Ford emblem whenever Efrem
Zimbalist Jr. first pulled onto the scene in the FBI in 1965. Not only did
we not have TiVo, I'm not sure we had a remote!


I remember that they had to add a disclaimer that the FBI was not
actually endorsing Ford cars.

Some TV execs have convinced themselves that product placement is the
way to go. I don't think it is, especially as they tend to do it so
poorly, but I'm just out here watching TV and buying stuff. My guess
is that they need to return to the practice of having the stars of the
show do a commercial for the primary sponsor after the tag, but before
the end credits. I think people would watch a pitch by the actors on
the show they've just seen.

Camels, not a cough in a carload.


Otherwise, I don't think most commercials will ever be good enough to
snag our interest as we whiz past them.

"Howard" wrote in message
...
"Dr. Personality" wrote in
:

In
the 50's, smoking Camels because John Wayne did was cool, now people
aren't
quite that stupid.

You obviously aren't, but I think you overestimate the intelligence of the
product placement's target market.

Advertising methodology is continuously and exhaustively researched. If an
ad makes it to TV, the chances are very high that it will be effective, even
though it might turn some small percentage of people off to the product.

"Don Jennings" wrote in message
...
"Randy S." wrote...
So is this the new advertising model?

As others have written, not new at all. It used to annoy me that we were
always treated to a prolonged shot of the Ford emblem whenever Efrem
Zimbalist Jr. first pulled onto the scene in the FBI in 1965. Not only
did we not have TiVo, I'm not sure we had a remote!


No remote? Yeah, right! How did you turn it on, change channels , volume,
etc? Open the back and rewire it? Sheesh, next thing you'll be telling us
that earlier TVs didn't have color or something.

Adam Corolla wrote:
No remote? Yeah, right! How did you turn it on, change channels , volume,

That's what children are for. I can still hear it... "Stephen, can you
switch to BBC1".... "Stephen, can you switch to channel 4".

The first TV we had with a remote... "Stephen, the remote is by the TV;
can you switch to BBC1"...

--
Stephen Harris

The truth is the truth, and opinion just opinion. But what is what?
My employer pays to ignore my opinions; you get to do it for free.

"Stephen Harris" wrote in message
...
Adam Corolla wrote:
No remote? Yeah, right! How did you turn it on, change channels ,
volume,

That's what children are for. I can still hear it... "Stephen, can you
switch to BBC1".... "Stephen, can you switch to channel 4".

The first TV we had with a remote... "Stephen, the remote is by the TV;
can you switch to BBC1"...

LOL


Stephen Harris

The truth is the truth, and opinion just opinion. But what is what?
My employer pays to ignore my opinions; you get to do it for free.

LOL

My parents FIRST TV (and I remember watching it) was a 1946 RCA Victor
console unit with Hi-Fi.....not only did it NOT have color,it did not
have a remote either....and believe it or not(!) you had to change
channels and volume by actually WALKING UP TO THE
TV and turning knobs!! (Gasp!) There were NO recording video devices
either.
And to top it off,there were ONLY TWO (2!) TV stations to tune
to......one VHF and one UHF.
That was it....that is all you had! I bet you erudite techies could not
have survived in such a situation.

I live in the Pacific Northwest.I was a child at the time.The station
you mentioned,KPTV 12/27 WAS one of the stations I watched on it.
I barely remember the programs I saw on it.
The TV itself had a cherry wood cabinet with brass ring "knockers" on
the front doors that hid the TV screen.The screen itself was oddly
shaped too.It had "circular" sides with flat top and bottom.The UHF dial
was separate from the VHF dial.It had a "U" on the VHF dial to switch to
that band.The UHF had no "click" stops either like the VHF dial did to
demarcate the channel positions.And of course,the Hi-Fi (phonograph) was
mounted horizontally in a sunken cabinet to the right. It played
33=B9/=B3,45,and 78 rpm vinyl records.It was considered "state of art"
at the time my grandparents owned it.
Apologies to TIVO posters for this trip down memory lane....

In article , SAC 441
wrote:

I live in the Pacific Northwest.I was a child at the time.The station
you mentioned,KPTV 12/27 WAS one of the stations I watched on it.
I barely remember the programs I saw on it.
The TV itself had a cherry wood cabinet with brass ring "knockers" on
the front doors that hid the TV screen.The screen itself was oddly
shaped too.It had "circular" sides with flat top and bottom.The UHF dial
was separate from the VHF dial.It had a "U" on the VHF dial to switch to
that band.The UHF had no "click" stops either like the VHF dial did to
demarcate the channel positions.And of course,the Hi-Fi (phonograph) was
mounted horizontally in a sunken cabinet to the right. It played
33¹/³,45,and 78 rpm vinyl records.It was considered "state of art"
at the time my grandparents owned it.
Apologies to TIVO posters for this trip down memory lane....


My parents had a 21" RCA Victor b&w set they were very proud of. They
bought it in 1952, I think, two years after they were married. It was
furniture, with doors you could close over the screen. Apparently
people back then thought TV sets were ugly and tried to disguise them
as, I don't know, big wodden boxes you put plants on top of.

The set broke down every six months. I suspect the components
overheated, because there was black condensation of some sort, like a
light soot, on the wall behind the set.

The speaker was rather large and was placed under the screen. You
could remove it and disconnect the wire leads very easily. We never
did connect a Blabbo or anything. A Blabbo was a little device that
was connected to the speaker by wires, and you could mute the TV with
it. There were ads in TV Guide for Blabbo.

The channel tuner was a round dial with points at opposite ends, kind
of like the hands of a clock reading 6:30. Each channel would clunk
into place as you turned the dial. I would lounge around in front of
the set and change the channel with my foot by hooking my first and
second toes around the dial and turning it.

We got a 25" Sears color set in 1966. Dual mono speakers. It broke
down even more frequently than the RCA, but it was really big, so every
year we put the Christmas Nativity on top of it.

Still waiting for 3D and Smell-O-Vision.

In article , Dr. Personality wrote:
In article , SAC 441
wrote:

I live in the Pacific Northwest.I was a child at the time.The station
you mentioned,KPTV 12/27 WAS one of the stations I watched on it.
I barely remember the programs I saw on it.
The TV itself had a cherry wood cabinet with brass ring "knockers" on
the front doors that hid the TV screen.The screen itself was oddly
shaped too.It had "circular" sides with flat top and bottom.The UHF dial
was separate from the VHF dial.It had a "U" on the VHF dial to switch to
that band.The UHF had no "click" stops either like the VHF dial did to
demarcate the channel positions.And of course,the Hi-Fi (phonograph) was
mounted horizontally in a sunken cabinet to the right. It played
33¹/³,45,and 78 rpm vinyl records.It was considered "state of art"
at the time my grandparents owned it.
Apologies to TIVO posters for this trip down memory lane....


My parents had a 21" RCA Victor b&w set they were very proud of. They
bought it in 1952, I think, two years after they were married. It was
furniture, with doors you could close over the screen. Apparently
people back then thought TV sets were ugly and tried to disguise them
as, I don't know, big wodden boxes you put plants on top of.

The set broke down every six months. I suspect the components
overheated, because there was black condensation of some sort, like a
light soot, on the wall behind the set.


Most likely that black soot was a mold growing on the wall due to moisture
from the plants being on op of the TV set.

Did any of you suffer any respiratory problems in life?


The speaker was rather large and was placed under the screen. You
could remove it and disconnect the wire leads very easily. We never
did connect a Blabbo or anything. A Blabbo was a little device that
was connected to the speaker by wires, and you could mute the TV with
it. There were ads in TV Guide for Blabbo.

The channel tuner was a round dial with points at opposite ends, kind
of like the hands of a clock reading 6:30. Each channel would clunk
into place as you turned the dial. I would lounge around in front of
the set and change the channel with my foot by hooking my first and
second toes around the dial and turning it.

We got a 25" Sears color set in 1966. Dual mono speakers. It broke
down even more frequently than the RCA, but it was really big, so every
year we put the Christmas Nativity on top of it.

Still waiting for 3D and Smell-O-Vision.

So that is why they put fart jokes in about every movie released nowadays!
Hmmm.....

"GMAN" wrote in message
...
In article , Dr. Personality
wrote:
In article , SAC 441
wrote:

I live in the Pacific Northwest.I was a child at the time.The station
you mentioned,KPTV 12/27 WAS one of the stations I watched on it.
I barely remember the programs I saw on it.
The TV itself had a cherry wood cabinet with brass ring "knockers" on
the front doors that hid the TV screen.The screen itself was oddly
shaped too.It had "circular" sides with flat top and bottom.The UHF dial
was separate from the VHF dial.It had a "U" on the VHF dial to switch to
that band.The UHF had no "click" stops either like the VHF dial did to
demarcate the channel positions.And of course,the Hi-Fi (phonograph) was
mounted horizontally in a sunken cabinet to the right. It played
33¹/³,45,and 78 rpm vinyl records.It was considered "state of art"
at the time my grandparents owned it.
Apologies to TIVO posters for this trip down memory lane....


My parents had a 21" RCA Victor b&w set they were very proud of. They
bought it in 1952, I think, two years after they were married. It was
furniture, with doors you could close over the screen. Apparently
people back then thought TV sets were ugly and tried to disguise them
as, I don't know, big wodden boxes you put plants on top of.

The set broke down every six months. I suspect the components
overheated, because there was black condensation of some sort, like a
light soot, on the wall behind the set.


Most likely that black soot was a mold growing on the wall due to moisture
from the plants being on op of the TV set.

Did any of you suffer any respiratory problems in life?


The speaker was rather large and was placed under the screen. You
could remove it and disconnect the wire leads very easily. We never
did connect a Blabbo or anything. A Blabbo was a little device that
was connected to the speaker by wires, and you could mute the TV with
it. There were ads in TV Guide for Blabbo.

The channel tuner was a round dial with points at opposite ends, kind
of like the hands of a clock reading 6:30. Each channel would clunk
into place as you turned the dial. I would lounge around in front of
the set and change the channel with my foot by hooking my first and
second toes around the dial and turning it.

We got a 25" Sears color set in 1966. Dual mono speakers. It broke
down even more frequently than the RCA, but it was really big, so every
year we put the Christmas Nativity on top of it.

Still waiting for 3D and Smell-O-Vision.

So that is why they put fart jokes in about every movie released nowadays!
Hmmm.....

My folks had a TV set that was so old it didn't even have a screen. Just a
dial, which you could use to tune in audio-only signals.

In article , Adam Corolla
wrote:

In article , Dr. Personality
wrote:

My parents had a 21" RCA Victor b&w set they were very proud of. They
bought it in 1952, I think, two years after they were married. It was
furniture, with doors you could close over the screen. Apparently
people back then thought TV sets were ugly and tried to disguise them
as, I don't know, big wodden boxes you put plants on top of.

The set broke down every six months. I suspect the components
overheated, because there was black condensation of some sort, like a
light soot, on the wall behind the set.


Most likely that black soot was a mold growing on the wall due to moisture
from the plants being on op of the TV set.

Did any of you suffer any respiratory problems in life?


No plants on our set, although it was reasonable to assume so from what
I said. (There might have been some plastic grapes, though.) The
black spot was caused by heat from the set. Something inside it was
vaporizing slowly.

Whatever respiratory problems we have had were probably caused by
second-hand smoke. The TV was the least of our problems.

I wonder.....can you even get vaccuum tubes anymore as replacements for
old tech like this?
I have not seen a vaccuum tube sold anywhere for years where I am at
least.

"SAC 441" wrote in message
...
I wonder.....can you even get vaccuum tubes anymore as replacements for
old tech like this?

yes

"SAC 441" wrote in message
...
I wonder.....can you even get vaccuum tubes anymore as replacements for
old tech like this?
I have not seen a vaccuum tube sold anywhere for years where I am at
least.


There is an electronic store in Tokyo that specializes in
hard-to-find/antique electronic parts. If it exists or can be made, they
will get it for you... but it's expensive.