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."
I certainly wouldn't buy one if it didn't let me skip the adverts and I can't see that anyone else will either
Sig is taking a break!
Many ./ adepts adhere this slogan, which also applies to advertising. No matter how many skipping systems, popup blockers, spam filters, etc are invented, there will always be unwanted advertisment. Just as much as Falung Gong pamflets for instance just can't be killed in china.
That aside, offcourse you're free to block anything you like. I've personaly found that little on/off switch on my TV to be an excellent advertisement filter !
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
How long will it take for one of their "compliant" boxes to be reversed engineered and a 30-60-90 second skip function added? Maybe a month? The firmware will be on a flash chip. Now as for AOL Timewarner you're going to start seeing a lot more product placement ads (ie:Spiderman & Dr. Pepper (PepsiCo)) and Rosie O'Donald & her Wendy's salad. Not that this is anything new, but were going to start seeing more of it.
... I don't own a TV or a Tivo or any of those "advertainment" devices. I choose to IGNORE all advertising... even though I work in print media and my livelyhood depends on ads.
Umm... well Maybe I won't
---
when they ban enctryption only criminals wi$21*J *#JF$%!@#$':
If people stop watching TV ads, then maybe advertisers will put more money into the banner ads. That would be nice.
-Geoff
Check out TrailRegistry.com, my hiking site, Maps, altitude pr
Who's fault is it that consumers do not wish to view the adverts?
tivo and replay are providing the consumers with a service which allows them to choose what they do and dont watch
If I dont want to watch ads, no one can make me
If someone came up with an amazing device to sift all of the mail ads that you recieve as they fall through the letterbox, would they get this same treatment?
In most countries, there are services which prevent direct marketing calls to your phone, for people who dont want cold calling and the like
The same thing for SMS spam
Email isnt there yet, but it wouldnt supprise me if it was
So, if a consumer can choose whether they recieve ads via phone, sms, mail (there are some services to prevent you getting ads via mail I believe) - why shouldnt they be able to choose whether they recieve the TV ads too?
Hmmm, Etwas ist faul im Staate Daenemark...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Some of the monitor screens on Andromeda have the 'IBM' logo displayed prominently underneath.
And it makes you wonder if the new Enterprise series was moved a bit closer to the present day just so that you can conceivably imagine current corporations having their goods advertised on the show.
"Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
I'm pretty sure it was Taster's Choice
I have been pwned because my
Isn't there some law that says the cable industry has to allow you to purchase a third party cable box?
I agree that TV ads are annoying and overall not all that desirable, but the key point is no one has come up with a good workable alternative that will still give TV to the masses. Paying per channel is likely to be expensive and cost prohibited to many people (think cable, but about 10 times as expensive as most cable channels also have ads). Placing ads in the corner of the screen is IMHO worse than regular ads. You end up losing part of the show because it's covered up with an ad. And eventually those will go the way of the banner ad and become more and more loud, obnoxious and annoying. Product placement has to be the worst choice though, as you will quickly end up losing creative control of the show to advertisers (much worse than now). Do you really think any product is going to want to pay to be used by the murderer or rapist on the show? Do we really want every person on the show wearing big banners on their chest for whatever product is paying the most? And what happens when a show takes a chance and has the good guys do something controversial? No one will want to advertise on them or the bad guys at that point, effectively eliminating that show (or at least that episode).
So the question is, if 30 second ads aren't the answer, what is?
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
This is just silly:
- The viewer isn't getting paid; the network is.
- The advertisers aren't just paying for the viewers' eyes; they're paying for the whole infrastructure of the network too (which ain't cheap).
- The viewer isn't going to be giving full attention to every (any?) commercial.
- The viewer isn't doing any "work" as such, so there goes your "minimum wage" argument.
- That $1.20 also goes to subsidize viewers like you that don't watch any commercials.
Expecting to get paid a "wage" on par with what you make at work is completely ludicrous. If "something has to change", then that something will be the viewer writing a check to the network for television instead of receiving the signal for free. Somebody has to pay for the programming, and right now it ain't you.The only problem is the automatic recording thing... the PVR needs to be able to decide on the channel and if downstream of the cable box it can't, directly. I have seen people with IR emitters taped to the top of the cable box so the PVR can change the channel by pretending its the remote. Not especially elegant, but it works.
Milo
From the Brad Templeton article: For a typical hour of TV with 15 minutes of advertising, I would much rather pay them the 30 cents than give them my time to watch 30 commercials.
It's so easy to claim this when you're not doing it, and I've seen this sort of claim a million times: The reality is that when systems like this go public, many of the same people who are ranting and raving about their god given, constitutional right to skip commercials (in essence stealing the TV program, as the commercials are a part of the implicit contract when you watch it) will then be ranting and raving about "the man" and how criminal it is that Dawson's Creek is now scrambled, damnit, but the freedom fighters are hard at work haxxoring it.
In essence what I'm saying is this: If all the networks switched to a pay model tomorrow (BTW: If they DON'T and you continue to advocate for commercial skipping PVRs, realize that what's next is in show commercials [yes, we already have them to a point, but expect them to get worse] : i.e. Joey holding up a box of Cheerios and dead panning "Cheerios, the choice for the new generation."), I GUARANTEE either the circumvention would go in full gear, or the absolutely laughably moronic "Uh, why don't they just use a tip jar? Oh, I'd tip FOR SURE if there was a tip jar! Just don't force it on me, man.". Blah.
There was an episode of the Simpsons once where nearing the end Homer exclaimed "When will people learn? Democracy doesn't work!" : While laughable, to a point it has some merit -> So many people will promote whatever self serving rhetoric fits their needs today, never considering the whole picture from beginning to end, creating a sustainable system that works for everyone.
Sure you can buy a 3rd party box, but it doesn't mean we have to let it on our network
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
So what's the problem with the 30-second fast-forward? Ad producers don't want to take advantage anymore?
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Actually, the 30-sec skip was not included in the 2.x version of the software (currently on 2.5). I neverf really like the 30-sec skip, anyway. I tend to fast forward through commercials on the 2md fastest FF speed and always stop for something that looks interesting. I at least -skim- the commercials.
-- derby
-- derby
Is if the pvr had the ability to recognize repeated commercials, and would allow the user to skip over a commerical they have already seen.
I mean seeing the same damn cell phone ads over and over again isn't going to make me buy something I don't have any use for.
- "they rescale the main show to a new aspect ratio for 15-20s while running the banner ad. Makes everyone look short and fat. Freaking annoying" - seems like if they care about their program enough to bitch about people not watching the ads, they should care enough to preserve the aspect ratio. If they steal 10% off the bottom, steal 10% off the side.
- Grabbing the desired window isn't hard. Automatically determining which is the target is an exercise left for the reader.
Both are just a simple matter of software.the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I already do. It's called a "Cable Bill".
See above. IANAL, but the way I see it, it's not my problem that network television can't support itself. I pay my local cable carrier (AOL/TW) more than enough money each month for DCable (full of crap)/Premium channels (some good, some crap)/Roadrunner (slower by the day, yay!) to compensate them for me refusing to watch ad's on my television. And don't tell me that I'm just paying for infrastructure, it' supposedly included. Nor is there any mention in my contractual agreement/AUP/TOS w/ AOL/TW regarding my viewing habit's, or lack of them.
Sometimes people just have to learn and adapt to change, it is one of the requirements of being a living thing.
I remember those ads, and while they didn't exactly draw me in, I thought the idea was pretty clever.
Television is going to have to change to keep up with technology. I'm not sure how to do it, but if I were doing a TV show I'd find a way to work the sponsorship into the content of the show. It's been done often enough before. On radio's Fibber McGee and Molly show, for instance, the ads for Johnson Wax were written into the show's dialogue, with pitchman Harlow Wilcox taking part in each show and there being no continuity break between the ads and the dialogue. More recently, Elizabeth Taylor was on some show or another pitching one of her products.
The idea is not without its flaws but it wouldn't surprise me to see something like this become more common as time goes on.
Someone you trust is one of us.
I am not one to put enough effort even in being aware that "a new episode is airing this week!", let alone being near a TV to watch it at a specified time. If a media company puts out a product that is worth my time to view, then I am willing to pay for such a product. As long as I can see it when I have the time/desire to do so.
When reading these posts, it becomes clear that people just take the existence advertising for granted. Ads don't save us money, as the cash that goes to pay for those ads eventually comes from us (the consumer) anyway. I'd rather have the choice to pay for what media I deem worthy of funding. Versus paying an extra dollar for a pair of pants in order that Gap Co. can then go finance a teenie-bopper mini-series on the WB.
In the end, ads don't really buy us anything other than a loss of control over where our money goes. And in return, they propogate a horrible sense of materialism that
But the price of ads are still based on the laws of economics. If there is no supply (of viewers) then there won't be as much demand for ad time and as a result the prices will have to drop and the stations will suffer. The question is not will companies lose money but is it a bad thing. Cable companies and media companies in general have very monopolistic tendencies. Like oil companies, they want to control a market with limitted supply. But with digital technology there is now unlimitted supply of content, similar to what is happening (albeit very slowly: no funding) with alternative energy sources and technologies. Eventually this trend will catch on and people will just step around the AOLs and AT&Ts of the world. But until then they're a 900 pound gorilla throwing their weight around. I'm just glad their throwing it into products that will naturally fail and cost them a lot of money instead of into legislation to hold back progress.