Slashdot Mirror
PVRs and Advertisers' Worries
Jurisenpai writes "Today's NYT has an article on the conflicts between PVRs and advertisers, mentioning the recent Sonicblue case, as well as Tivo and ReplayTV."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
"We've trained people that you can buy things at 3 in the morning in the nude on the Internet and make a call to anyone from anywhere on a cellphone, and the idea that CBS is going to determine when I watch `CSI' flies in the face of that trend," said Josh Bernoff, an analyst with Forrester Research. "TV networks are going to have to figure out how to make money from a TV viewer that is not nailed to the chair waiting for the commercial to end."
Amen to that!
'ARRGH! Pirate Designers of the Internet, we be!'
Don't panic. The sun may come up tomorrow.
The advertising world is rapidly approaching the point when they are going to have to realize that TV ads are not >>nearly as effective as they thought they were. The reason people think (or rather know) that banner ads are ineffective is because you can measure it. There's no such technology for TV ads but between people getting up to pee, fast forwarding their VCR's or just tuning out in general -- I submit that they are grossly ineffective (especially for the price paid). An entire industry (Neilson, Ad agencies, the networks) has sprung up to propagate this lie, but that doesn't make it anymore true.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
is it possible for there to be any kind of media without advertising?
I received my latest National Geographic magazine yesterday, and immediately went for the map included with that issue. It's a beautiful map of Mt. Everest and the various expeditions that have ascended that peak.
I flipped it over and saw a bloody ad for Ford taking up the entire poster. Instead of providing additional information about humanity's accomplishments in relation to the mountain, we get to hear about Ford's support of mountain climbing. I'm less than pleased with this.
Advertising is becoming so pervasive you can't do anything without seeing an ad. Watching a movie? Look for the product placement. Driving a car? Look for the billboards to roll by every quarter mile. I can't answer my phone any more because literally 90 percent of calls to my home are telemarketers.
When will it stop? When will we (consumers) be able to find something to do without being bombarded with advertising?
Right now the only ones that are whining are the CEO's and the other clueless wastes of space that like to make noise and get media attention.
... they cant)
at the sales front, advertising sales are down, why? BECAUSE THE ECONOMY SUCKS. and the CEO's who will be the first to be fired for sales dropping by the board are trying to point the focus of blame elsewhere. it's a simple Cover your Ass move, blame something out of your control.
In reality, companies buying advertising is still buying advertising, they aren't saying, "I dont want to buy TV spots as PVR owners will just skip them, I'll advertise in the newspaper instead" and they wont say it. It does not affect them, they do not lose money no matter what lies they try and create. (Make them show proof of 1 client that stopped advertising with them because of PVR's
basically, everyone needs to call these whiners on the carpet, make them prove it or shut up.
and the bottom line is they cant prove it because the impact is not real.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Do advertisters honestly believe that we sit enthralled by their crapulous offerings? Commercials are the point in a television show where I have the chance to take a leak or grab some cookies.
Hehhehe.. Record a commercial? I don't even do that now. that's what the "Pause" button is for.
I'm seeing more and more prominent product placement on the main networks nowadays. It's like how there are products that are off in the background, but aren't too blurry to read when they're doing a close-up of the actors face.
He does have a point. A large amount of the funding of programmes comes from adverts. If advertisers don't use it any more because they're not seeing a return on costs then they won't bother.
Here in the UK we pay a shade over 100 pounds ($150) a year to have a couple of advert free TV channels and a number of advert free radio stations. Yes, they still push out rubbish, but our rubbish is still of a higher quality than elsewhere in the world.
It is worth noting though that it only works because everyone is forced to pay this by law if they own a TV set.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Digital successors to the VCR that eliminate the frustration of recording television programs have crossed a popularity threshold, raising alarm among advertisers and TV executives who see the devices as a threat to the economics of commercial television.
the times they are a changin boys. get used to it. brick and mortar stores learned to augment their sales online, now it's time for you to get with the times and learn how to supplement with the pvrs. Use product placement instead. God knows we see enough of it now.
You're not going to hold it back. we all know that. I'm planning on buying a PVR as soon as possible... i never thought i would, but then my boyfriend gave me a dvd player for christmas. It's easier, more convenient, and fun than a VCR, and i'm betting PVRs are even better. i'm hooked on digital TV and now i want it all. ALL DAMN YOU!
Numbers like that have provoked gloomy pronouncements from industry executives. Some even come close to accusing habitual ad skippers of theft.
"The free television that we've all enjoyed for so many years is based on us watching these commercials," said Jamie C. Kellner, chief executive of Turner Broadcasting. "There's no Santa Claus. If you don't watch the commercials, someone's going to have to pay for television and it's going to be you."
Ok, this one pisses me off. So the $50 i pay a month for my satellite TV service is a gift from santa claus? how about the $5 i spend every time i want to watch a pay per view movie? or the $40 when my boyfriend wants to watch one of those silly wrestling specials? And don't get me started on the prices for pr0n!
TV has never been free for consumers. we pay for it, and we pay big. It might not look like a lot to someone who's making a six figure salary to bluster and spread FUD to the media, but to John Q. Public, $50 a month is a lot of money. Multiply that by the number of cable viewers in the country, and you get a nice fat number. I'm not sure how its all divvied up in the end, nor do i really care... if network exec salaries and stars getting $1 million a show are any indication, things aren't dire yet. (i realise not everyone pays that much for cable, and some pay more.. i'm just going by what i personally pay).
And FYI: I've seldom actually watched a commercial since i was 12. the only ones i'll actually stay still for now are those funny blockbuster ones with the guinea pig and the rabbit.. those i love. So maybe you can take a clue from that? If you made commercials entertaining instead of annoying and loud, perhaps more people would watch them.
Speaking of loud, that's another thing that pisses me off. Is it just me or have commercials gotten even LOUDER? I know they intentionally raise the volume a few knotches during commercials to get your attention, but it's at the point where as soon as the program cuts to commercial, i automatically hit 'mute'. Here's another hint: LOUDER ISN'T BETTER!
And that's my rant for today, May 23, 2002.
claudia
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
TV and radio advertising were based on 'sponsorship', not ads. Instead of a 22 minute show bookended and broken up by commercials, we had the "Alka-Seltzer Variety Hour" brought to you by "Alka-Seltzer" with the fizz that says "relief".
We'll probably be back where we started with similar sorts of corporate sponsorship in a few years. I don't really think it would be so bad, mostly I just flip channels during commercial breaks anyway looking for cooler commercials to watch than the ones paying for the show I'm watching.
Remember, in our universe, "Annoyance" is a conserved quantity - those wishing to advertise will certainly find ways to do so.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
I've discovered these three talents from commercials. Nick Drake's "Pink Moon" was on the VW Cabriolet commercial. Devo's "It's A Beautiful World" was on a Target ad. Iggy Pop's "Lust For Life" was some car commercial. The radio stations around here suck and I never really got into trading MP3s. After getting the CDs from the Record Exchange, I learned that: the chick at the counter *really* likes Nick Drake; that Target ad is the ultimage irony about the "world we live in"; and some car company is using the same song that was on the "Trainspotting" soundtrack. Anyway, I'm just saying that I WILL PAY ATTENTION to commercials... if and only if they're well done. Think about it in these terms -- Carrot-Top: Delete; the Dell Guy: Delete; the Florida Orange Juice commercial with people dancing to a Brady Bunch song: SAVE. You know, advertisers should realise that with PVR and broadband, people will *share* their favorite commercials.
simon adkins
Shouldn't the burden fall on the networks in this situation? As a viewer, I have not in any way signed a contract to view commercials. If a commercial is interesting, I will view it. The disturbing prevailing thought of the day is to give the content providers control over the mediums. Mp3 players, PVR's, where does control stop? Same logic behind Sony attempting to enforce digital music "security" in devices--leveraging their weight as a media content provider to "strongly encourage" security technology to prevent playing certain music. By having citizens nodding their heads saying "gee, it sounds fair to me--they should be compensated" means that media corporations already have a strong foothold and have warped the minds of many. Never mind the enormous privacy concerns--media companies seeking to obtain demographics forcefully.
Okay, I'll admit it... I can't stand football, but I watched the Superbowl for the commercials! Why? Because they're interesting and (mostly) sorta clever.
On the other hand, would tons and tons of "intersting" commercials really keep my attention? Doubtful. I don't even remember which commercials I liked from the superbowl, let alone what they were advertising.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
Max Headroom Died for Your Sins.
Yes, but you're still SEEING the commercials - they're just going extremely quickly.
With PVRs, the jump is instantaneous, like skipping to track 6 of a CD. That's the problem, that's what advertisers are complaining about.
Plus, it takes maybe 15 seconds to fast-forward through 3 minutes worth of commercials. It takes 0 seconds to skip over them them a PVR.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
While Joe Sixpack (to whom I am superior) might like watching his Budweiser ads, I feel that television advertising has absolutely no effect on me.
This may surprise you, but this statement is contradicting itself. By naming a specific brand, you are proving that television does have an effect on you.
The primary purpose of TV advertising is to create brand awareness - in other words, to let you know that a product exists, and to cause you to remember it. The mere fact that you mention a brand name in your sentence means that not only did the TV ad have an effect, it had it's intended effect.
The previous poster's comment about banner ads shows that he (and the people selling the banner ads) doesn't understand what most advertising is supposed to do - it's not supposed to make you stop everything you're doing and buy the product, it's supposed to let you know that the product exists (although there are exceptions to this rule.)
This is why banner ads are "failing" - they're not ineffective, it's how they're measured that's flawed. (Now, this is orthogonal as to whether people pay attention to them or not - which is a better measure of whether advertising is effective or not - if nobody's paying attention to them, then they're failing... but this isn't the same as the number of people who click on them.)
This message will doubtlessly spawn messages accusing the industry of lack of ability to change with advances in technology, and so forth along with the usual crapola about "it's our airwaves, dammit" [emphesis added]
... the fact that the broadcasters have used them with relative impunity for 70+ years doesn't change that, and pointing that fact out certainly isn't "crapola" by anyone's definition, except perhaps that of the broadcasters themselves.
How on earth is that "crapola?" They are public airwaves that the broadcaster's are using
It may win on some minor points, but it mostly just gives the broadcasters time to secure settlements with PVR companies and come up with alternate technologies and models.
Based on the demands of Hollywood and the recording industry to date, and the trends in Washington, how on earth can you justify a "don't worry, be happy" attitude like this? Those new technologies and models are likely to incorporate the worst in big brother activity monitoring (perhaps even two way samplers?) and certainly draconian copyright controls, if those industries have their druthers (and it looks like they very well might). In the context of what has been happening a "don't worry, be happy" attitude is absolutey and completely unjustified. Indeed, it such an attitude is likely to insure that one of the more repressive scenerios is more likely to play out.
This mantra of don't get involved, don't worry, relax, be apathetic, go one with your life, nothing to see here, is exactly why we are in the mess we are in today. I really can't believe people were stupid enough to moderate that up to +5 insightful, except that some gullible people hear cynicism and mistake it for worldliness, intelligence, and even wisdom, when in fact it is none of those things, nor does it even imply any of those things.
Yes, the sun will come up tommorow. It rose and set perfectly on schedule over the killing fields of cambodia and the repressed millions in the old soviet block, and it will rise and set right on schedule over the western world, whether that world enjoys the freedoms of the past, or a future of authoritarian rule grounded in the enforcement of "intellectual property" in a society whose technology has long since made that notion incompatible with individual freedom.
If people follow your advice and do nothing, the latter becomes signficantly more likely.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
For example, why in the world do people pay three times as much for brand-name sodas over store brands with essentially the same formulation?
Our economic system does not promote wise activity, it just promotes activity. Anything to whip up a frothy head on the national economy so the cream can be skimmed from the top by the owners of the entrenched brands, and by those who make a cut every time a transaction of any kind takes place, regardless of what it is.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Yes, but you're still SEEING the commercials - they're just going extremely quickly.
Not really. The VCR I bought 3 years ago has built in commerical skip. It has the option of letting you watch it skip through the commercials or blue screening while doing so. I usually left it on the blue so that I would know once it was done skipping. My TiVo doesn't let you instantly skip the commercials. Granted you can enable the 30-second skip, but that still doesn't get you to the exact end of them.
Not all PVR's let you skip over them in 0 seconds and not all VCRs require you to watch them while skipping.
Maybe on the Replay, but with the TiVo, you cannot skip 30 sec. automagically; you do see the video (no audio) whilst you are fast-forwarding (at one of 3 speeds).
I actually prefer this; there are some pretty cool commercials once in a while. And it's nice to only have to watch them *once*.
Just as the VCR didn't kill the movie industry, so shall this pass. They will likely resort to more product placement, etc, but this is not something new; all advertisement was of this form in the infancy of television.
think you've described advertising a little bit more insidius than it usually is. Most advertising is nothing more than brand or product awareness, as the prior poster excellently described
... indeed some of the techniques are outright subliminal).
You mistake motive and means. If you study some of advanced texts in marketing (I had a friend who studied marketing, so I did read some of these texts, and had some very interesting and illuminating conversations on the subject with her as a result), or peruse some of the even more interesting graduate work that has been done in the field, it is all about indoctrination and conditioning, much of it through repetition (not all of it, there are other rather insidious and borderline-subliminal techniques that are used
That isn't to say that techniques of indoctrinating or conditioning the masses are being used to promote this evil goal or that evil goal, as I said in my final paragraph, the reason these techniques, which most people, were they aware of them, would consider evil or at least unethical, are being used is for a much more banal reason: simple profits, be they profits for a legitimate, small time entrepreneur (like another friend who runs a computer consultancy), al egitimate large corporation, or a neferious large corporation (e.g. Monsanto or Microsoft).
No neferious agenda is needed for the methodology itself to be insidious, and any scruitiny of our current marketing methodologies shows their lack of compunction in employing some of the more neferious strategies available, and known to the non-military world, in doing so.
The ends may be relatively benign (as in my coca-cola example), but the means are appalling and dehumanizing, to say the least.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy