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!'
Then they should have been bothered for years by such commercial-killers like the toilet or refrigerator. People have been using those for years to skip commercials.
Personally, I channel-surf when commercials are run during a favorite show.
I am the evil aardvark!
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
With commercial skippers and channel surfers being thieves and all that, violating their contracts with the networks....
Gee, and I thought that paying for cable in the first place was meant to eliminate the need for commercial spots.
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?
Commercials integrated into the shows. Basically, the commercials will be the shows. (as if they wern't already).
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.
either make them REALLY eye catching so i notice them when i fastforward over them(which works, cuz if i DO see an ad worth watching i slow down and take a look, and am still able to skip over the feminine itching ads)
:) that way you'd see them in normal time FFing over them... sux to be a normal TV veiwer hehe :)
or make them in slow-mo
In case you're not the 'free registering' type.
Use this account info:
Username: slashdottroll
Password: slashdottroll
should work, i just set it up...
But how to make money off of syndication? When a show is in reruns the local station, or cable network, makes money by selling advertising. But if the ads are embedded in the show, how will the station make any money? Remembering that, without money they don't show the show. Will the backgrounds of the shots have to be digitally altered to sell new advertising? Or the foreground? Will we see Willow using a Mac on the first run, and a Dell in the rerun?
Best Slashdot Co
Perhaps the answer is for brodcasters to switch to a "sponsor" model, like NPR and PBS do.
Note that this is the model that CNBC is using with "Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser", and it seems to be working very well for them.
John
The drops of water don't know themselves to be a river; and yet the river flows.
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.
They also see fewer than half the commercials they used to, compressing hourlong shows into 40 minutes
That's right. One-third of network television's airtime is dedicated to advertising. And they're wondering why people are getting fed-up with commercials. It seems to be a rising trend as well.
I used to tape the Tick on Fox back when it was first run. The earlier seasons had approximately one more minute of programming than later seasons.
Stop bombarding us already!
I am the evil aardvark!
There's lots of ways to fix this:
* Ads that are *INTERESTING*. I watch those on my TiVo. I skip the boring ones.
* A *VARIETY* of ads. Even I get bored watching the same ad the upteenth time in half an hour. Penalties for those who show the exact same ad twice in one commercial break.
* Pay-Per-Show. Let people buy shows without ads. Problem solved. If I want to watch x with ads, then make it so I have to watch the ads. If I don't want to watch it with ads, I'll buy it.
TiVo, ReplayTV, etc are not the problem. It's the archaic business model. If you require ads to be seen in this technological age, and lots of people have the technology to skip it, well, it's time to rethink the way you do business. Make people pay for shows is one solution. The shows I watch tend to get cancelled all the time (the only TV show I watch that I can count on running it's full length is Enterprise). Other than news, and the occasional movie, I only watch *5* (yes 5) hours of TV programming regularly. If I could pay for the shows that were cancelled, I could set my TiVo up to record them at any inane hour of the day (3:30 AM? why not?). Especially since it'll be commercial free.
Of course, the entire TV industry would be turned upside down now that ratings don't really matter - just making money from the show.
- Especially bitter because of the number of shows he watched has been cancelled or will be cancelled. Heck, the way the TV stations and studios are going, I might not even need a TiVo or TV anymore - there would be *NOTHING* interesting on for me to watch.
To bring this video to the box of (just about) every tivo user, Tivo buys time on Discovery Channel around 4:00am. They broadcast the video in the clear and have Tivo record it, but hide it from the list of recorded programs. The trigger to display the icon indicating extra available material is broadcast on a not often used (and masked by the Tivo) secondary closed captioning stream. Tivo intercepts this and acts accordingly.
Unfortunately, Tivo also adds an extra icon and menu item on the main menu, advertising the availability of (and giving you a direct link to) the videos. This isn't the first time this has happened -- Tivo "teamed" with BMW a few months back to do a similar promotion. There is a big debate going on in the Tivo Community Forums on if this is acceptable to Tivo users (who are already paying $13/mo for the service).
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
You'd think that advertisers would get a clue.
Before I bought my Tivo, I was taping shows. I fast forwarded through commercials then too. Nothing has changed in that regard for most people.
If a commercial catches my eye while I'm fast-forwarding, I'll actually go back and watch it (usually if it has sufficient babe-content).
I think that the music and television industry's current "Greed Fest" is going to come back and bite them in the ass.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
Yes - it's the BBC. For those who might not know, there are no adverts on the BBC. We pay a 'license fee' (euphamism for a tax levy). This fee then goes towards paying for the BBC. In addition, the BBC also has some merchandising and sells off programmes to foreign stations.
But then you know that. It always raises a giggle from me when I'm in the US and I see PBS saying "it's only with your donations that we're able to bring you quality programming like the Teletubbies". Really? Leaving aside whether you believe Teletubbies to be quality (I do, for it's target audience), I could have sworn that the real reason it exists is because of my UK taxes going towards it...
So there's your answer. Directly funded TV is possible, and does exist. Just not in the US as far as I'm aware.
Cheers,
Ian
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
Did they ever stop to realize that maybe they're not even an industry worth having? Flawed business model perhaps?
Examine the evidence:
#1 Inability to prove that people actually are paying attention, or that they can influence spending in a significant way. Even if they can, are they being manipulative in an unethical way?
#2 Advertising pollution becoming increasingly intrusive, even for products that are directly paid for by the consumer. Can't drive down the road without seeing billboards, watch a movie, even in a theatre. On and on and on...
#3 They use money that might actually be used in more worthwhile ways by companies. Such as increased production, better employee benefits, R&D, planning for consequences... hell, you guys probably have a better idea than I do where the $$$ could go, including places that benefit consumers, employees AND shareholders.
#4 The difficulty of drawing the line between advertising and fraudulent claims. Before you boo and hiss, are Miss Cleo's commercials on tv at 2am valid advertising? How low does she have to go before it isn't? How many in the past have sunk that low?
#5 Existence of products that were market hits even without much of an ad campaign. Word of mouth and quality were good enough, and the product filled a real need (instead of trying to invent a dubious one).
#6 The ability of advertisers to steal people's valuable time from them, even when they haven't expressly or implicitly agreed to give such time (unlike watching TV). Well maybe the ability isn't the bad thing, but their willingness to exploit such an ability is unbounded. Only fear of law and PR backlash keeps them in check, and then not always.
Again, do we need this industry? If it disappears off the face of the earth, will we be so much poorer? The workers will adapt, find new employment, and our country would be stronger. And even if they don't deserve it, maybe a few idiots would get scammed less often.
Does anyone know how Tivo and SonicBlue get the master TV programming schedules from the networks? NOTE: I'm not asking how *my* Tivo gets the schedule from Tivo central, but how Tivo central gets them from the TV networks. Are they sent out from the networks electronically using standard protocols as soon as the schedule is set or do the Tivo guys go out and buy the TV Guide every week and type 'em all in by hand? For that matter how does TV Guide get them?
The reason I ask is that it seems to me that TV schedules function in an analagous fashion with DNS and IP addresses for web sites. Namely, if my Tivo doesn't know when the Simpsons is on, it can't record it for me. Is there any possibility the networks could try to sabotage PVRs by restricting access to their schedules?
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
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.)
Unless our government is full of idiots or media cronies (and it is, unfortunately), then here's how I see this "problem" shaking out:
The "entertainment" industry, which has been bloated with crap and getting fatter and fatter every year as wannabes climb over each other to get something published, will stop making so much money indiscriminately. The cash cow of advertising, now getting old and sick, will die off, and "free" TV will disappear. (I have not had "free" TV since 1989, when I first signed myself up for cable.)
The money in TV will shift from the producers of shows to the companies that deliver those shows--the makers of the DVRs and the suppliers of the DVR services. These companies, in order to keep profits high and unable to make fortunes on advertising, will charge consumers for their services, and they will use that money to fund programs that consumers will actually watch.
These services will license their most popular programs to the other vendors, and those vendors will probably charge premiums (pay-per-record, premium fees for non-native shows, etc.) for them to their clients.
In this way, the services will compete on overall quality of ALL their content--they won't have 18 hours to fill with crap every day, so they won't have the burden of those costs.
This is a Very Good Thing because it actually democratizes the content industry. Independent producers will be able to produce and license their shows to the DVR service companies. Big studios will still produce and license content, but they won't have the overhead of providing all the crap they do now.
All this assumes that Congress and our courts manage to keep their heads out of their arses and don't play lackey to the Chicken Little studios.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
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
[adjective] successors to the [product] that eliminate the frustration of [action accomplished by product] have crossed a popularity threshold, raising alarm among [group or groups of greedy, old, rich white men] who see the devices as a threat to the economics of [industry that refuses to change with the times].
I've got one!:
"Internal-combustion successors to the horse and buggy that eliminate the frustration of traveling moderate distances have crossed a popularity threshold, raising alarm among buggy whip manufacturers who see the devices as a threat to the economics of the entire horse-beating-implement industry."
Now you try!
~Philly
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.
... adults can be convinced of anything, given enough time. There was once a study done where an adult was convinced the sky was red through sheer repetition alone, despite knowing otherwise. Although that didn't hold ... their knowledge that the sky was blue was too powerful, and no harsher techniques were employed to break them down first, the subjects of the study had a difficult time differentiating between red and blue for a very long time after the study was concluded. I wish I could find the exact reference to that study, but I'm at work and the name of the study doesn't spring to mind for a handy google search. Perhaps some kind soul reading this will provide a link). Something like, say, a disgustingly flavored, surupy dark brown sugary drink laced with cocain or, when that becomes illegal, caffein. Especially if it has a nice bright, easilly recognized logo that can be plastered about, reinforcing that conditioning in people's every day lives, and especially if it has a short, rythmic name like, say, Coca-Cola.
... George Orwell's nightmare didn't come from government, it came from industry, powered not by some sinister desire to dominate mankind, but by simple, benal human greed. There is a very profound social lesson in all of this, though I'm not sure we as a society are very equipped to learn from it.
schon is absolutely right here, though the actual impact is missed (brand awareness is a very small part of the overall marketing picture).
Repetition is one of the most reliable indoctrination (often called by the misnomer "brain washing") techniques around, particularly if you are working without a deadline (if you do have a deadline, there are other, quite effective means of breaking a person and reconstructing the desired attitude, but while they are faster, none of these are anywhere near as reliable as simple repitition over an extended period of time). If you do not believe that marketing involves the application of serious indoctrination techniques, I suggest you read a couple of advanced textbooks, or graduate level thesis, on the subject. Indoctrination is most definitely what it is about, though that terminology is generally avoided.
In short, you can be talked into liking and desiring the most unlikely of things through sheer repetition, particularly if such repetition begins during early childhood (but it doesn't need to
When was the last time you made it through the day without seeing that logo, or hearing the name, at least once?
Advertisers do not want to allow us to change our viewing habits because doing so takes away one of the primary conduits by which they can condition us to want their products, and advertisers pay top dollar for access to these conditioning conduits. Believe it or not, we as viewers are sold as chattel to advertisers, literally, at a little over a dollar an hour for our viewership.
They have no desire to sell the content to us, to make us their customers. We are the chattel they sell to their paying customers today, the advertisers, and they don't believe they'll ever make as much money selling their entertainment to us as they do selling us to their advertisers.
It is rather a sobering and disturbing thought
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
[sigh]
Where were you five months ago, when this was discussed at length?
TiVo picked up aggregate data on this, from those who have not opted out of having their TiVo send such data.
They ARE aware that a large group of Joe Schmoes rewound and watched Britney bounce around on Pepsi's dime a few extra times. They ARE NOT aware that you, Joe Q. Schmoe, watched it ten more times that night with a box of Kleenex in close proximity, while Mrs. Schmoe was upstairs fast asleep.
~Philly
A lot of people complain about cable, saying "I'm paying for 150 channels when I only actually use 5 of them". With the onset of digital cable and satellite, along with pay-per-view, I think a more sustainable model for the future is "micropayment pay-per-view". Want a season pass to Boston Public? Sure, it's $1 per episode with unskippable ads, or $2 per episode without ads. We'll give you a 10% discount if you order the whole season at once.
Why would this work? For most people, it'd be cheaper or at most the same as what they're already paying. If they go on vacation for a couple weeks, either it doesn't cost them anything, or they'll be able to catch up on the shows when they get back. For the networks, they get fine-grained details of what people are watching, and will be able to easily manage their schedules. They could have special promotions for free showings of good but unpopular shows. And they'd be freed from the competition amongst the other networks for prime slots.
Josh Woodward
Unless you're really feature-hungry, buy the cheapest Series 1 TiVo you can find on eBay, crack it open, put a HUGE hard drive (or two) in it, and get the lifetime subscription if the TiVo auction doesn't include it.
Works for me-- 120GB HD = 90 hours of programming at "medium" quality. I've got a huge library of shows I like enough to watch a second or third time if nothing good is being recorded, and I still have plenty of space left for the 'disposable' shows that I just time-shift, watch without commercials, and delete.
~Philly
Actually, modern commericals are broadcast with side (unseen) data. This is used so advertisers can verify their commercials were actually played, as opposed to the olden days, when they had to litearly pay somebody to sit and watch TV all day and manualy record when the advertisers commericals were aired. Automated commercial skipping in VCRs simply look for that, and stop the recording mechinism.
=
The Internet is generally stupid
I think the problem with television network executives is that there's been a pretty strong warning about changes in TV viewing habits that Alvin Toffler mentioned in one of the most prophetic books ever written, The Third Wave.
The book was published (in 1979) at the time when home videocassette recorders were starting to become popular. What VCR's did was to effectively destroy the whole idea of synchonized television watching Toffler mentioned in this book, where everyone watched TV all at the same time. With VCR's (and now DVR's), you can record a TV program for viewing at a later time; the rise of VCR's was a big contributing factor in the ascendency of David Letterman's success (NBC's Late Night with David Letterman was one of the most recorded shows on TV, according to Nielsen Research).
Indeed, with VCR's being so inexpensive nowadays many people own more than one VCR; it makes even the idea of network counter-programming obselete since the viewer can record multiple shows at the same time and watch it later at their own leisure.
I think the networks will have to really start factoring in the wide use of VCR/DVR devices; in a way, ABC is already doing this by running a number of their ABC network first-run programs as a first rerun on the ABC Family cable channel.
>>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?
Why do I buy Diet Coke instead of Safeway Diet soda? Because Safeway diet soda tastes like crap.
Why do I buy Eggo frozen waffles instead of Safeway frozen waffles? Because Safeway waffles taste like crap.
Why do I buy Freschetta pizzas instead of Safeway frozen pizzas? Because Safeway pizzas taste like crap.
Yes, there are products where the store-brand and name-brand are identical, but where food is concerned, there frequently is a difference. Yes, amazing as it may seem, sometimes, when you pay more money, you aren't just paying for advertising, but you're also paying for a higher quality product.
From the TiVo FAQ:" In 2.5, there is a unofficial, undocumented way to turn on 30 second skip. This will turn the "skip to end" (->|) button into 30 second skip. However, this means you will lose the current functionality of that button, including skip to tickmark while in RW/FF. To try it, enter the following sequence of buttons: Select-Play-Select-3-0-Select. The code will toggle 30 second skip off/on so enter it again to switch back if you don't like it. Also, after any reboot, the button will revert to original standard functionality."