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 ?
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.
But do they get the first 100 hours ad-free?
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
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)
...paying for MY cable- so I owe it to AOL/TW to watch their commercials?
I think not.
They can get in that long line of people who are full of crap and can blow me.
I guess they can just lose a customer over this.
/. is more entertaining anyways.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
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$21*J *#JF$%!@#$':
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.)
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.
If you live in an area served by Time Warner AOL cable, they will give you the choice-limiting box as part of the service. For analog service, you can simply bypass the box and use your cable-ready TV. But for digital cable and premium channels, you'll have to use their box.
Don't expect to buy some unencumbered replacement box from another source either. Most of these boxes are made just for the cable industry. Yes there are gray-market sources, so you can get a box that lets you watch HBO for free. That constitutes theft of service under 47 U.S.C section 553. They could use the same argument for these new boxes.
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"
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."
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.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?
This could be a real problem if I ever get my idea of an All Commercial Network off the ground. I can just see the folks with their PVR's clicking on the 30-second buttons grumbling "man, these commercials go on FOREVER!".
Miko O'Sullivan
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
Sticking the names of real companies and products into drama can make it look very dated, especially if those companies or products cease to exist (including simply through changing their name).
Problematic in movies about the future too, like PanAm in "2001: A space Oddessy" and Control Data in "Colossis: The Forbin Project"
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
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.
A recent article in Ad Age quotes statistics which show that
PVR users are as likely to watch ads as ordinary viewers
and
PVR viewers watch more televisions than ordinary viewers.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
TV ads are a terrible bargain for the user, paying us about $1.20 per hour of our attention
...and we have the TV companies telling us that ad skipping is theft as we have a contract with them to watch their advertising. So, if they honestly regard it as a legal contract, can we sue them under minimum wage legislation?
It'd be kind of entertaining to charge for 2 hours a day x 365 days a year x the last 20 years worth of my back pay. I think I'm owed about $60,000. *grins*
This is an INTELLIGENT solution to the problem. Just how do you expect this to be even the least bit helpful? The AOL/TW execs aren't just going to grow brains here at the last moment are they? PLEASE PEOPLE! If you are going to be suggesting ideas, make sure they are IRRATIONAL, POORLY THOUGHT OUT, and above all else, ANTI-INNOVATIVE (preferably sucking the life out a previous innovation through both legislation *and* poor technological replacements). If you can't keep your ideas in line with the status quo, you are part of the problem, not the solution?
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"