Slashdot Mirror
AOL-Time/Warner's PVR to Skip Ad-Skipping
btempleton writes "Echoing recent comments that PVR users are thieves a story from CNET announces that AOL's set-top box plans may not allow skipping ads. Broadcasters continue to be afraid of the PVR, admitedly with good reason for their current business model. As I point out in my essay on the future of TV, PVRs and Advertising, TV ads are a terrible bargain for the user, paying us about $1.20 per hour of our attention, and something has to change. It's worth noting that they say they like the Tivo over the Replay because the Tivo does not have 30 second skip, but in fact it does."
Don't you get it? TV doesn't make itself. I agree that ads are highly annoying and personally I tape record items and fast forward, but if there were none at all, why would TV make good shows? It is the main source of revenue for them, and they make such programs because of the ads. If not for the ads, TV would be vastly more expensive, with every channel a premium channel. Monopolies on markets would only add to this.
Now, some companies might make money by making products that allow you to skip over ads but AOL Time Warner owns several channels and thus does not want to shoot itself in the foot.
Well I have a Tivo. Sometimes when I FF through the ads, I'll see one that catches my eye. Then I will watch the ad.I won't watch the same ad a million times, which is what happens on alot of of shows.
Just make ads we want to watch.
Philip
. . . is that these players are all are remotely "upgradable," and that TiVo and Replay will disable features customers like in half a heartbeat when it suits their revenue model, or the whims of a judge in the pocket of the MPAA.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Hello? Would you buy a VCR without a "FF" button?
I thought that companies generally tried to research their markets before introducing new products...
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
If nobody wants to watch the ads, perhaps the ads are not worth watching? Now, this would be a good incentive for the advertisers to make ads worth watching!!!
I wasn't aware they did.
Possibly, just possibly, it might be worth trying to commission ads that don't insult the intelligence of a dead sheep? I seem to recall a campaign in the UK a few years ago that ran a whole mini soap-opera to promote a brand of instant coffee, and people's attention was caught because the ads were (a) well made, and (b) the audience wanted to see what happened at the next stage in the story.
(Of course, this does take a bit more effort and genuine creativity than you need to produce the usual dreck.)
It's just a matter of time the network embed the adds within the programming itself. If people constantly skip through the ads, they will scroll the bottom of your screen. Notice how networks now put that annoying logo in the bottom right corner of your screen. Discovery, TLC and History channel have recently been putting huge adds for upcoming programs there. It's just a matter of time before you start seeing commercials for other stuff there. You can't stop it.
I had assumed that the solution is for advertisers to make high quality and entertaining commercials that actually border on content, which necessitates making fewer of them and running them for longer.
And then I remembered that last night I was watching a Captain Scarlet rerun, and thinking "Hey, these little wooden guys are better actors than half of the ones in mainstream drama and comedy shows."
So given that we've shown a propensity for accepting any old crap as original content, perhaps the solution is for advertisers to go that way and produce more content, and damn the quality. If you're watching two hour of TV, you can easily see the same advert six or more times. If it didn't work as a sales pitch the first time, it won't work the second or the sixth time. If you switch over to avoid it, it doesn't even gain brand recognition. If you make it too good as content, the message is lost (there's a lovely commercial on UK TV just now featuring cat herding as a metaphor for some service, but I'm damned if I know what service, or who it's for). And no matter how good it is, you simply can't actively watch the same advert six times a night.
However, if they ran six different commercials, even cheesy ones, you get some novelty value. Twist endings, different tunes, even the same scene but with different actors, anything to make you go "Hey! That's not the same as the last one!" Or even (gasp) live commercials. What, we don't have the technology to do that any more? Bollocks, we just don't want to do it, because it cuts out the dickweeds in Armani suits who have to run it past focus groups and debate endlessly on whether it's "on message" or not, all the time missing (or avoiding, rather) the point that we just don't want to watch the same advert more than once.
I'm not saying that I'd actually want to watch commercials, just that I believe there are far too many commercial directors who are frustrated feature directors, and want to produce a single wonderful masterpiece, that looks great - to a bunch of suits in a boardroom who watch it once. Just because I'll buy Buffy on DVD even after seeing in on cable doesn't mean I'll watch even the best quality commercial more than once. You just can't make me care enough during your 30 second slot to make me want to watch it even one more time. But make a dozen 30 second slots, and I might - might - watch them all.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
3. Lawyers
That's what will happen and always seems to happen. When will corporate folks look at this progression and contemplate something else?
If those budgets are decreased, then do companies need to charge as much for their products?
If companies charge less for their products, then we have more money to pay for access to media.
It would seem that a big reason that we can't really afford to pay for television is because we are spending such an insane amount of money on our sneakers.
Stop advertising of all forms, read Consumer Reports instead. Slash marketing budgets of all major companies, lower prices on retail products. Consumer has more personal wealth, consumer then gives said wealth to the Media company in exchange for hassle-free entertainment.
(this is obviously a very cheery outlook on modern economics. naturally, removing ads from television just means more ads in other places. or simply more profit for cooperations)
I have a TiVo.
Actually, I have two TiVos. One with the stock 20 GB drive and additional 75 GB drive I added, the other with two 100 GB drives.
They're great. I record shows and I watch shows using the fast forward and play buttons to whip through advertisements in a few seconds.
I do play closer attention while the high speed commercials are playing so I don't miss the return of the show. Whether that closer attention does anyone any good, I don't know, but it's a real phenomenon.
Secondly, I've noticed that the only shows I watch live anymore are news shows. I don't record these for later viewing. Hence, those are the one place I end up seeing car commercials, etc.
The moral of the story is that if you're an advertiser, your dollars are better spent on CNN Headline News than they are on conventional entertainment.
Probably the same is true of sporting events. I doubt many people will tolerate watching "old" sports for the benefit of racing through the commercials.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
For me, it's not a question of whether PVRs which skip ads should be allowed. It's more a question of whether ads themselves should be allowed. The whole point of advertising is to increase desire for things you don't have, and are often better off without.
If you watch US television for long, you will start to understand the obesity levels. Stuck between 10 minutes of inane rubbish featuring potentially beautiful but dangerously starved people, you are subjected to 5 minutes of carefully crafted manipulation inviting you to go further into debt, then pig out on sugered drinks and ultra high fat junk.
Simply by increasing obesity, advertising is responsible for more deaths than heroin. See this [guardian.co.uk]. One could argue that it should be banned entirely, like heroin. Personally I think dangerous and destructive things (like adverts or heroin) should be regulated rather than banned outright.
One valid argument against legalised heroin is that sometimes people's choices harm others. For instance, if I end up having to foot the medical bills of heroin users, then it *is* my business what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. So, along with legal drugs I would also support education to warn people of dangers.
It would seem a bit off to me if far more effort went into trying to persuade people to take heroin than was being spent telling them it might not be such a good idea. I don't believe in stopping people from doing stupid things, but I do have a problem with relentless propoganda telling them that stupid things are a good idea.
The existence of adverts on TV effects me adversely even if I don't watch it. For instance, the advertising for PizzaHut leads to increased obesity, the additional burden on medicaid and welfare which increases my taxes. I would be willing to pay money to educate people about dangers of eating high-sugar high-fat diets because education is cheaper than cure. By the same token, I would be prepared to pay extra not just to avoid adverts myself, but to avoid your exposure to adverts.
In general advertising leads to increased consumerism: more roads, driving, shops, stress and pollution. In fact, it leads to what is hilariously called "progress". The direction it leads people in has only got the faintest association with this idea of "choice". The only "choices" proposed in adverts are ones which will make the advertiser richer.
For a purely capitalist solution, we need to somehow calculate the true costs of advertising. So, by all means: persuade people to buy that new BMW or pizza, that is perfectly fair - just make sure the cost of the extra death, pollution, congestion, road accidents, etc is paid by the advertiser.
It looks like PVRs will destroy the current business model of TV companies. Excellent: good riddance to bad rubbish. If they want to lobby for legislation regarding advertising, they should get some backlash.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
We need an Open Source PVR system that does a better job then Video 4 Linux at helping users install and operate PVR functionality. It would be neat to see something like the sputnik distribution accept for PVR. We can call it GiVo. (GNU TiVo.. ) Make it so any Pentium or better PC with a CD Drive, TV Card, and Lots-o-disk can boot up a very small kernel and turn it's self into a PVR box.
When I was in the market for a PVR, I looked at the Tivo web site, and found that they had a FAQ which said that that commercial skip "appeals to the pirate in us all", but that us adults know that it isn't reasonable. Needless to say, I purchased my ReplayTV the same day.
By making 30 second skip an undocumented magic key sequence, Tivo seems to be trying to play it both ways. The vast majority of users will never find out about it, which will make media companies happy. However, the more technically inclined minority are more likely to care about the issue, and they'll be able to find out about it. Personally, I'd rather support a company which openly defies the advertising industry.
And you know the really funny thing? There *is* a way to get people to watch ads - make good ads. People didn't watch the WASSSSUP ads because they had to, but because they enjoyed them. Same with Gap adverts. Same with movie trailers. How strange an idea is it that people will watch adverts if they're good?
You can...
- Watch PBS. No ads, no pay (but you should donate money.)
- Get HBO. A few decent shows (but you have to pay.)
- Rent DVDs. Some good movies out there (but you have to pay.)
- Watch the networks. Once in a while something amusing is on (but you should watch the ads.)
Hardly a monopoly, and you can choose whichever model suits you best: pay, donate, watch ads. Isn't that what we want? Choices?
Milo
Is there a legal precedent set in the telecom industry that either allows or disallows people to attach their own devices to telecom networks that would be applicable to cable TV?
Didn't we go through this battle with modems, where we were required to notify the phone company if we used a modem and they had the right to approve or disapprove?
The real question I'm asking is this: Can we hook up our own PVR to our cable feed or can the cable company lawfully deny us such access and require us to use their device? Second, is there any reason that we can't get descrambling technology, lawfully licensed, from a third party or ever write our own?
Agreed. Given recent behavior, however, I wouldn't be surprised to see them find a legislative solution.
A point that I find interesting is that the networks are screaming bloody murder about ad skipping when it isn't really their concern. It's the concern of the ad agencies that produce and purchase ad time. These agencies already know the risks and return rates for broadcast advertising and assume fairly low ROI. Yet they buy ad time for millions of dollars a shot anyway.
All the network needs to be concerned about is how many TVs were tuned to their channel at a given time. What the networks should be concentrating on is creating really great content that my TiVO is going to think I want to watch and here's why:
Networks set ad prices based on the number of viewers they have. That's why sweeps periods get so annoying ("Tonight, on yet another very special Boston Public: Ally McBeal has to substitute teach as community service after dating a student in a chat room, but will Fox Mulder be able to pay attention in class when 7 of 9 turns up the heat?")
So - the number of viewers during a certain time period determines the price of ad time. Well guess what? I've now got a little robot that's watching TV for me 24 hours a day. My TiVO has the ability to bump up ratings in bad time slots for the networks allowing them to charge even more for ad time. And if the show is interesting, I'll watch it.
And my guilty secret is that I like many commercials. I laugh at the guy licking the handle of "his" Volkswagen. I'm glad Jack's Back. I love making fun of low-budget local ads that feature a guy on donkey-back shooting out truck windshields (and high, city prices) with a shotgun (I am not making that up). There are a lot of really interesting short films out there that just happen to be hawking a product, and I don't mind watching them.
But it's a pleasure to be able to skip ads for feminine hygiene products, Herpes medications, commercials I've already seen 32 times, diarreah spots, or anything featuring Shaq. Too bad I can't give thumb ratings to commercials and let TiVO select the ads it thinks I might like.
I used to FF at the 60x speed, but I now FF at 20x because I like to scan for interesting looking commercials which I'll then go back and check out. Not that the commercials have done a great deal to influence my buying habits, but they're capable of being really entertaining at times.
So ad agencies: start making better commercials. Networks: start making better shows that I want to watch and get the hell out of my living room. It's none of your business if I ad skip, only if I'm tuned to your channel at a specific time of day.
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
While most commercials demand me to channel surf or go to another room until the show resumes, only one company consistantly makes commercials that I will rewind the VCR tape just to watch: Jack in the Box.
Their commercials are hilarious, entertaining, and very witty. I have even downloaded a few of their commercials off the net. They get your attention, make you laugh, and I never get sick of them. I remember his presidential ad campaign from 1996, the Spicy Crispy Chicks, the Meaty Cheesy Boys, and the Carnivores Football team. The new one has Jack saluting Americans of all types, while eliciting a chuckle.
I have to give this company a 10 for originality! In fact, I think I will stop by them today to grab a bacon ultimate cheeseburger as a reward for being clever!
I myself actually hope TIVO doesn't catch on...not because I don't use it and love it, but because of the consequences if everyone uses it. I'd much rather it just remain for the techy masses and everyone else who doesn't know what they are missing can suffer through the commercials.
I'm sure there will eventually be widespread adoption and the consequences will be felt all around, but the longer that it is delayed the better.
How's that for selfish motives.
It's our airwaves, we should be free to tune selectively on them.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.