# Super Bowl ads -in Canada, eh?



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

So, apparently today is super bowl sunday down south.... haven't heard or seen much hype on tv about it...but I believe I'm right... (will take tongue out of cheek now)
Anyhoo...I haven't watched too many sb games since that fella Namath was on the go..
But...is there some way we canucks can see all these fab tv commercials today (tonight?) - or are we still banned from seeing them? Anyone know?
How 'bout dem Bears, eh?


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Unless a US federal judge issued a TRO, or an Executive order has been issued, Canadians should be able to tune in an American Station and actually see that broadcast, commercials and all, not the substituted Canadian one.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/super-bowl-commercials-2017-1.3963385

Why wait, though. You can see some of the best in that link.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

A great victory for human kind and the CRTC....unless you're among those Bell Media just laid off.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Eder said:


> A great victory for human kind and the CRTC....unless you're among those Bell Media just laid off.


Nobody likes to see people lose their jobs, but do you actually believe that by giving Canadians the option to watch a complete American program on an American station for which they pay to receive, that has led to lost jobs? Bell Media doesn't need any excuse to lay people off. 

If you want to make a statement, you can still watch the game on CTV and see the Canadian ads, I believe. For people who only get their TV off an antenna, out of range from US stations, that will be their only choice.

I hate that CTV preempts our local 6pm Sunday TV news almost every week during the season to give us American football, just so that they can rake in more advertising dollars than the news would get. They have TSN for sports. Boo hoo for Bell Media.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Userkare said:


> Unless a US federal judge issued a TRO, or an Executive order has been issued, Canadians should be able to tune in an American Station and actually see that broadcast, commercials and all, not the substituted Canadian one.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/super-bowl-commercials-2017-1.3963385
> 
> Why wait, though. You can see some of the best in that link.


Thanks for that link userkare!
The KIA ad is the best.
Gotta love the Peter Fonda / mercedes ad too!!!


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The thing is Bell Media needs to make money (unlike the CBC) but the CRTC changed the rules after Bell spent a pile of money to get Canadian rights to Superbowl. They stand to lose several million dollars and about 100 people lose their job. 

Anyone that wants to see the American commercials (includes me) always could go on the net to view them. I'm seeing the game in Mexico today...what commercials do you think I'll be watching on Fox?

Apuesto a que será anuncios españoles


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

....well, so far, I'm watching the (long, dragged-out) pre-game show, on my Rogers Fox channel 526. jeez...it's like the second coming or something... Anyway...all I seem to be seeing is ads for El Greco Pizza....hahaha


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

oh jeez,,,how to butcher a beautiful song like "America The Beautiful"


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I can't even figure out what this Mexican commercial is about rotf.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Eder said:


> The thing is Bell Media needs to make money (unlike the CBC) but the CRTC changed the rules after Bell spent a pile of money to get Canadian rights to Superbowl. They stand to lose several million dollars and about 100 people lose their job.
> 
> Anyone that wants to see the American commercials (includes me) always could go on the net to view them.


Well sure, Bell needs to make money; their shareholders demand it. Some of them might even be here. For a company that deals with selling a product to consumers, they have to understand that in order to make money, they need a product that people will buy. With cord-cutters and cord-nevers becoming more and more prevalent, they have to adapt to that new reality. They only react by firing their employees, and making a big public stink about how they "had to do it" because of the latest CRTC ruling, whatever that might be. Does it look like they're hurting from CRTC rulings? BCE just boosted their dividend after the 4th quarter earnings are up to $667M from $615M in 2015. This was partly due to Crave TV - customers who prefer to watch what they want, when they want. Will they learn anything from that?

I think in their heads, they're still living back in the days of their telephone monopoly - when you could only hook Bell owned equipment to the line - when they charged extra for long distance to call across the street just because of arbitrary boundaries - when they charged extra for touch-tone service, even though all their equipment was based on touch-tone, and it actually cost them extra to put a pulse dial converter on a subscriber line. That philosophy of not giving the customer what they wanted, but what would profit Bell the most.

I've never liked the practice of sim-subbing. If you sell me a TV package that includes the American Networks, I expect to tune in to see just that. Not a substitution with a Canadian channel that happens to be airing the same show. I remember back when S.N.L. was still funny; I would tune in to NBC, but I would see the Global TV program instead. When the guest host said "stick around, we'll be right back", Global would cut to a commercial. I would be livid, because that's when the show would put in a funny fake commercial. I know that was Global, not CTV, but the practice is common to all the big Canadian providers. The issue is that the TV content is being delivered by the same company that owns and controls that content. They will do what gets them the most $$$ whether the customer likes it or not.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Userkare said:


> Well sure, Bell needs to make money; their shareholders demand it. Some of them might even be here. For a company that deals with selling a product to consumers, they have to understand that in order to make money, they need a product that people will buy. With cord-cutters and cord-nevers becoming more and more prevalent, they have to adapt to that new reality. They only react by firing their employees, and making a big public stink about how they "had to do it" because of the latest CRTC ruling, whatever that might be. Does it look like they're hurting from CRTC rulings? BCE just boosted their dividend after the 4th quarter earnings are up to $667M from $615M in 2015. This was partly due to Crave TV - customers who prefer to watch what they want, when they want. Will they learn anything from that?
> 
> I think in their heads, they're still living back in the days of their telephone monopoly - when you could only hook Bell owned equipment to the line - when they charged extra for long distance to call across the street just because of arbitrary boundaries - when they charged extra for touch-tone service, even though all their equipment was based on touch-tone, and it actually cost them extra to put a pulse dial converter on a subscriber line. That philosophy of not giving the customer what they wanted, but what would profit Bell the most.
> 
> I've never liked the practice of sim-subbing. If you sell me a TV package that includes the American Networks, I expect to tune in to see just that. Not a substitution with a Canadian channel that happens to be airing the same show. I remember back when S.N.L. was still funny; I would tune in to NBC, but I would see the Global TV program instead. When the guest host said "stick around, we'll be right back", Global would cut to a commercial. I would be livid, because that's when the show would put in a funny fake commercial. I know that was Global, not CTV, but the practice is common to all the big Canadian providers. The issue is that the TV content is being delivered by the same company that owns and controls that content. They will do what gets them the most $$$ whether the customer likes it or not.


how 'bout dose Falcons, eh?


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

jargey3000 said:


> how 'bout dose Falcons, eh?


Did they win? I'm not even watching it.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I hear you, except for the fact that simsub is the standard except for whoever paid for the Superbowl?? Lets see how much the Superbowl gets bid for next year...$40 and a subscription to the National?
Sounds like more layoffs coming in Canadian television till all we'll have left is broke investors and The Nature of Things reruns.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Eder said:


> I hear you, except for the fact that simsub is the standard except for whoever paid for the Superbowl??


It does seem unfair, doesn't it? They should have done away with the whole practice. I believe that a lot of people complained that a commercial would be inserted during one of the many times in football that nothing interesting was happening.... guys in stripped outfits with poles and measuring tapes moseying around the field. When they returned from commercial, a player was doing a dance in the end-zone and the crowd was roaring. Many bowls of Doritos, and cans of beer where flung at TVs, so the CRTC ruled that no more Doritos, beer, or TVs shall be wasted in this manner. :smile:


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Userkare said:


> Did they win? I'm not even watching it.


when're they gonna run that Mean Joe Greene Coke ad??????


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Userkare said:


> Did they win? I'm not even watching it.


Then you missed the best part. Lady Gaga doing a flip.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

what's with all the little "show-offy" moves by the players, after they make even just a routine play...?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Lady Gaga i must reluctantly admire.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

agent99 said:


> Then you missed the best part. Lady Gaga doing a flip.


+1


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

So far I have to defer to Lady Gaga for making the super bowl great because the Patriots are off today. Offensive line and turn overs are the difference here.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

new dog said:


> So far I have to defer to Lady Gaga for making the super bowl great because the Patriots are off today. Offensive line and turn overs are the difference here.


Bit premature with your assessment


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

boink!!


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Strange way of deciding the game. Grey Cup gave both sides offense a chance to score.


----------



## aliwaaliwa (Feb 9, 2017)

I hate that CTV preempts


----------

