Slashdot Mirror
Will TiVo Destroy Ad-Supported TV?
windowpain writes "According to a column in Television Week, the increasing popularity of digital video recorders will actually cause a decline in ad revenues in the next few years. 'The rollout of DVR-type technology ... will reach critical mass with 11 percent penetration of U.S. television households by 2005 and 15 percent by 2006...As a result, five-year earnings growth for TV station groups could fall from as much as 10 percent to as low as 4 percent.'
Why?
DVR users skip at least two-thirds of commercials and the 'collective impact represents a threat to revenue and cash flow growth that cannot be offset ... Fifteen percent DVR penetration implies that 9.1 percent of all ads would not be watched and that advertisers would be overpaying by 9.1 percent, or $6.6 billion as calculated from projected 2006 total ad revenues of $72 billion.'
And another business model goes down in flames."
There are other ways to advertise on TV besides commerical breaks, advertisers will just have to adapt.
If people are talking about a show, and saying it's really good, I ussally just rent the first season on DVD, if it's good, me and my girlfriend rent the next, and so on. We've watched all 4 seasons of the Sopranos, as well as the first two seasons of 24, Simpson I don't worry about, becuase i buy those box sets anyway. We also tune in for the occasional Discovery Channel feature, or some good college football, other than that TV is shite, but hopefully I didn't have to tell you that.
Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
Now, I don't like advert breaks and I don't like the rampant commercialism they imply, but seriously: isn't this going to make a lot of TV unprofitable? So what happens now? Will less TV be made? Will good shows magically suceed and only bad shows not get made (fat chance)? Or will the overall proportion of "World's Blankiest Blank" shows increase (seems likely)?
Perhaps DVD box sets are the answer.. but then again, if the only money was in the DVD release, why do TV at all? And anyway, Futurama sells by the truckload and that still got cancelled. I suspect the real answer is "new and insidious advertising methods". Hurrah for FCC-approved "cannot skip" bits, coming soon to a digital TV adbreak near you! And hurrah too for product placement! You must buy Pepsi, because Joey Tribbiani does!
Not that I can see a way to put this genie back in the bottle, admittedly. Ah well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what whacky adventures come next.
You win again, gravity!
I don't know if it could kill ad supported television really. VCR's have been out for years, with the ability to time-shift programs, and hit the ole fast-forward button on the remote. Just sounds like a bunch of speculative nonsense to me.
.
So, 72 BILLION a year just for TV advertising, of which 90% is trying to convince consumers to spend as much as possible on things that they very probably hadn't even imagined they would ever want - and then to replace those with the newer model ever 6 months.
Will anyone really lose too much sleep over this?
Of course there will be a fight - how DARE consumers want to avoid being hearded like so many sheep! the very thought of it.
Would it really be that bad to pay for the entertainment you want, rather than simply being fed the entertainment, and advertising, that they want to give you?
Then again I work in TV, but very rarely watch it. Maybe I'm just plain wrong.
The consumer is currently being screwed for television so cry me a river. Cable television was supposed to be ad free, that's why the consumer would pay. The additional cost of HBO and similar services illustrates that the dream of commercial free television is attainable. Television providers should stop shafting us long enough for us to pay for content we want without commercials, I'm sure that would offset PVR based losses.
vampirical
It really makes me sick watching some of the older shows in re-runs due to the re-editting in order to squeeze in more commercials. Twilight Zone and Warner Bros cartoons come immediately to mind. And forget trying to watch movies on ad-supported stations, damn "Compressed for Time" and "Editted for Content" can bite me.
Jonah Hex
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Wouldn't PVR recorders tend to watch the commercials for products they are interested in and skip the ones that would obviously not apply?
And if they watched a commercial for a product they're interested in but missed a detail like an address or phone #, they could go back and retreive it.
So overall, it probably won't be as big a loss as is stated.
Now, if only advertisers would make commercials we want to see. Does anyone besides me make a mad dash for the Mute button every time Detrol's "gotta go gotta go gotta go right now" commercial comes on???
why is that a surprise? Just like how the RIAA is dying (no BSD jokes here), business must adapt to technology. Technology has always changed society, adapt or you lose.
VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.
because most people grab the remote and flip to other channels when the adverts are on anyway...
So what ? Television can sustain itself without the revenue from advertising ? Then too bad for the broadcasters, but they don't have a protected right to a profitable state of business. I, for one, am looking forward to the death of advertisement.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Maybe all the super high salaries pseudo-actors in poorly written popular pabulum like "Friends" will have to adjust to reality and will only make as much as people in other professions. Or, worse yet, they might actually have to work for a living.
The execs and everyone else are just scared because they have gotten used to being powerful and able to manipulate the rest of the world and they'll have to adjust to making what amounts to fair pay for the work they actually do.
On the other hand, I like the model PBS uses. I like Nova, the News Hour, and a number of other shows on PBS, so I pledge regularly. The result is well written and well produced TV with quality I can count on every day of the year. Maybe other stations or cable channels will have to count on viewers paying directly in some way.
I know most shows on the major networks would not be worth paying for, but I have no trouble paying for shows as good as Babylon 5, Farscape, or Monty Python.
I find myslef less and less inclined to tolerate advertising on TV since spam on email became so irritating.
I also liken product placement to search-engine placemnt and fooling, and I don't like that.
In the UK we have the BBC, and if the commercial channels disappear, I can live with it.
I am old enough to remember similar prediction in 1980's. Popularity of IR-based remote control units and taping TV programs was also supposed to harm advertising - but it didn't happen. The TV commercials have changed, they are now much more witty and provocative than in 1970's and earlier (a good example of this evolution are the TV ads of Coca-Cola - they were INCREDIBLY boring in 1960's!). It turned out that people are simply too lazy to bother with switching channels or skipping ads on tape. They will also be too lazy to use TiVo. Besides, if you are not lazy, you are not a good target audience for the advertisers - if you are active enough to put some effort into skipping ads, you are probably also active enough to make your own market research and you generally don't buy something just because you saw it on TV.
With things like that happening, they've created the market for TiVos, and helped expand it. If one of two things (or even both) happened, then TV companies would be fine. 1. Commercials need to be entertaining, not boring as hell, and 2. TV programs need to be worth watching and putting up with commercials (even if the commercials aren't entertaining.)
I'm really surprised that they haven't figured this out already given that the Super Bowl has more people watching it for the commercials instead of the game. You'd think companies would realize spending more on a commercial that people will actually watch is worth more than spending less on a bunch noone will watch. As a bonus, people remember fun commercials, and the products better. That has to help create more demand for the product, and isn't that what advertising is all about?
Still, I won't be surprised if this is another industry that'll take the RIAA/MPAA route of trying to get legal protection for their flawed business plan instead of fixing it. Oh joy, I can't wait until congress passes the DMAA (Digital Millienium Advertising Act) making it illegal to skip commercials, and requiring every citizen to watch 2 hours of commercials a week or they lose their cable/satellite connection.
If everyone timeshifts, then concepts like Prime Time become useless; people watch the program they want, not the one shown at 8pm on a Tuesday evening.
But there are major advantages to advertisers too. There is much better market segmentation; you *know* exactly how many, and what type of person watched your advert.
It's not all bad...
--- My dad's political betting
I have a DirecTivo and am part of the 'bad people' who will help destroy annoying commercials. As a solution, please just sell me the channels/shows I want to watch. Why am I paying for fundie nutcases like Trinity broadcasting when all I watch is 6 different channels?
This "one-size-fits-all" method of lots of channels for a large amount of money per month is failing, not just commercials.
I'd rather pay a 20-40 dollar bill that lets me "subscribe" to 20 or so shows with the ability to view *anything* for the first 10 or so minutes (or maybe x amount of episodes). In other words I can channel surf all I want and purchase the stuff I really like. The purchased items would be just like my "Season Pass" items.
Arguably, this dynamic will force networks to produce decent content instead of filler and better ways to squeeze in an extra half-commercial here and there.
TV will have to go through 'napsterization,' the genie is simply out of the bottle. A smart cable or satellite company can lead the way and make lots of money, especially targeting the "Cable is too expensive" crowd who just want Comedy Central and 2 or 3 other channels.
The networks won't like it, but its going to be either this or DRM forced commercial watching.
You forgot...James Bond, ever since Roger Moore retired, has been nothing but a shill for luxury brands. Heck, the owners of the Bond brand brag about it in Wall Street Journal interviews...
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I'm getting the CD vs. MC jitters here.
But aren't VCRs used for the same thing? I usually do. Tape a show, and hit FF every time a commercial comes on. The only difference with TiVo is that it is easier to use... and it is new(er).
Just look at the casette: Everybody could tape their favourite music. Nobody really made a fuss about The CD only made it easier to copy music (ok and in better quality) and it became a scapegoat. If you have a drop in revenue blame it on the CD-copying.
Since TiVo's do not have better quatity than VCR's, isn't this the same thing happening all over again?
When you record something on tape you fast forward thru it (you only go as fast as the forward mechanism on your VHS head). The 30second skip button OTOH happens instantaneously. Milliseconds on a HD. In the grand scheme of things they preferred you video tape their shows instead of Tivo'in it
The secret to getting modded up is to allways say i've got karma to burn in your sig..
Exactly! I own a TiVo with my dish (week 2 - still the newest toy in the house).
;-)
Skipping over the commercials works great for stuff that's been recorded, but isn't very effective on live tv (you *could* pause it for 2 mintues then skip over them). About the only time I'll do any skipping on "live tv" is to play catch up if I needed to pause the program for some reason or another (potty break, g/f talking about something, feeding the little one, etc).
Few nice features are the pause and slow motion buttons. They get as much use duing the victoria's secret commercials as the ff button gets during the rest of them
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
> I find that skipping the programs to get to the commercials to be more interesting than the other way around.
That's probably the best strategy for finding soft porn.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Obviously they're just going to transfer their "losses" on to the consumer. Cable rates will get a hike. Then PVR's will magically become illegal, or HD streams will not be recordable so things will be back to normal with advertising rates, so to speak. Yet the cable rates for the end user will stay the same. So in the end, what appears to be a good omen for the consumer will end up costing us buckets of money, as usual.
I've read a lot of comments here expressing a fear that broadcasters/advertisers will resort to product placement in leu of traditional advertising oportunity. I for one don't think that product placements (when done in moderation) are all that bad.
/. about how the technical workarounds weren't hurting the industry?
For example, I find it much less distracting when a character drinks a Coke than when he/she drinks an obviously generic softdrink.
Bottom line, I think that this kind of advertising can be both effective and fairly harmless to the content if done right. (Not that I have a lot of confidence in the industry's ability to do it right.)
The other thing is that I see a lot of people here saying that they think that getting rid of ad-supported TV would be good-- that they wouldn't mind paying for content. While I agree that profits are not guaranteed by the constitution, I DO think that free (or EXTREMELY inexpensive) television content is something I'd hate to see go. While most programming is CRAP, there's some good stuff to be found, as well as the occasional guilty pleasure. (Terrible shows that we secretly enjoy.) Would you pay for this stuff? Would you REALLY? Or would you find technical workarounds to paying while posting on
jrjBlog
No. I mean, 'I watched some of the above movies but they didn't make me want to go and buy stuff.'
I've seen it written that if you notice advertising in movies, it's too obvious. I don't know if that's true because if you miss it, maybe you won't buy it later... but that aside, just because I see something doesn't mean I want it. Possibly that works on teens, but late-20's geeks need a little more. "Cool" isn't enough.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Actually, I even skip the commercials when watching live TV without a DVR.
It's called changing the channel until the commercial is over!
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
The cable companies and television networks will lose out because their business model is ancient. Only in recent years have cable companies slightly innovated with digital cable. But digital cable sucks. Changing channels is laggy, and it's really not *that* much different from normal cable (at least compared to a tivo).
To keep up with stuff like tivo, the cable companies will need to (gasp) compete with it. Come up with something that meets or beats the functionality, convenience, and price point of PVRs. But unfortunately I can picture what the cable companies will do instead: file lawsuits, use shady business tactics, etc. Oh well. While that might hold them over in the short- to mid-term, I think it would eventually catch up with them.
Btw - you may have misunderstood what's meant by subliminal advertising. It's not illegal, nor does it even exist.
'Subliminal' advertising - in this case, flashing a logo onscreen for too short a time to be consciously perceived - happened once, as part of a carefully-controlled experiment, in one cinema many decades ago. It's never been used since except as a spoof. And no, product placement isn't subliminal - otherwise, walking down the street would count! (Look at all those BMWs and Toyotas driving past! Gotta get me some of that!)
Chris
- Read fiction at www.espressostories.com
Once again, it all comes down to the advertising revenues - usually of crap you don't want to buy.
I gues it's yet another occurrance of new technology making Traditional Business methods obsolete.
Money from subscriptions, OK.
Money from License, OK.
Money from advertising, OK. But choose one, dammit. Otherwise of course people are going to start either skipping the adverts, or using them for comfort breaks!
When paying for the "privelege" of getting content, it gets annoying when not only do they bombard you with adverts, but they complain when you don't want them.
Gods, earlier this year there was a program. I forget which, but have a suspicion it might have been the MTV VMAs. Every damn commercial break they ran the same damn advert for sanitary protection. Important product, perhaps. But, as a (single) man, it's hardly a product line that I really need (or want) to be persuaded to buy.
And it doesn't stop there!
I'm not quite sure why - possibly to do with a legal crackdown on toy advertising durings kids TV shows - but the kids channels here in the UK are often full of adverts for Financial Assistance (Loans, car credit, etc) or Charity Donations.
The former are bad enough. That kind of stuff just has no relevance at all to the target audience.
And the latter? Well I'm sorry, but I don't think a hard push of charity concerns to children (in the form of adverts) are appropriate.
Teaching them at school/church/home/etc, fine. Guilt-tripping young kids halfway through an episode of Power Rangers or Digimon? I don't think so.
I understand the importance of advertising. but you should at least play to your target audience. (Though, as I said, I think there's a UK law about toy adverts aimed at kids) /.) at least have banner ads relevant to the theme of the site. Like Webhosting and Geek Toys. :-)
It's like the banner ads on websites. Some are offering noting to do with the site, or stuff I couldn't care less about. but other sites (including
Now if only the advertisers/TV-execs would realise that the reason people ignore the adverts is 'cos they don't want what's being sold!
TiggsYou want advertising revenue? Advertise something your viewers actually want to buy.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
Just keep the ad prices as they are. Sure, it will mean that the ads are more expensive per viewers' time, but that's not the networks' problem, and not advertisers' problem either -- all that cost is passed to the customer.
Don't tell me that less effective ads will mean that companies will choose to buy less ads and use those money to improve their products -- it's beyond ridiculous.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Good lord you're all nuts. I don't understand why the mere mention of the Television Licence sets of the paranoia alarm in preople like you. Oh no! People are required to pay a direct tax for a state sponsored service! Oh no! Tax avoidence is being detected! Oh no! The tax may occasionally be used to pay for a service I do not directly require! Oh the horror of modern living!
Newsflash: People pay thousands of pounds in taxes every year, and it doesn't mean those people are living in Police States. The only difference between the Television Licence and an indirect Tax is that the TV Licence is collected directly and with much less overhead than an indirectly collected tax. Get over it and leave it to those of us who actually pay our licences to complain, if and when we want to.
The biggest problem I see with this trend is that if it does kill traditional advertising, it will likely also kill smaller productions: both TV and film. If companies start to think that buying ads isn't financially profitable, then they won't buy ads, and only the biggest ticket items will get made due to the financial viability and/or the profit margin.
Of course, there will be indie works still, but less so, since many of them have private corporate sponsors as well.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I wouldn't be surprised to see a new bill written, and perhaps passed into law, that forces TiVo and all DVR producers to remove the fast-forward capability from all boxes manufactured after 200x. Or at least to disable fast-forward during commercials (using a "commercial broadcast flag" that reliably indicates what part of a showing is a commercial and what isn't).
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
This isn't as bad as it seems. First off, television has always been a license to print money and while the revenue growth slows, it's not going to be crimped off. There isn't going to be rampant adoption of Tivo in most households; if there were, it would have happened already.
More importantly, the move to a 16:9 format will allow for even WORSE methods of advertising. We've all become accustomed to seeing 'bugs' in the lower quadrant of a screen, now they'll just have advertising on a panel somewhere on the screen.
Yeah I know the add problem is big and scary and easy to digest. But the real problem should scare the hell out of the networks.
When you get a Tivo there is no reason to watch crappy TV.
Period.
Seriously, why would I want to watch lowest common denominator TV when I always have something I enjoy at my finger tips?
Seems to me that is the real issue, people that own a Tivo are much, much less likely to watch something 'cause nothing better is on'.
Funny thing about Tivo and I, I watch a hell of a lot more HBO and pay TV then I used to.
Sorry, I just can't leave it alone... In his "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" Jerry Mander points out that the more heavily advertised a product, the more the advertisers are aware of the fundamental fact that YOU DON'T NEED THIS PRODUCT. Advertising is ALL about creating need. If you believe you actually need Coke or Pepsi then you're already lost, "You are a slave, Neo"... Personally I despise the thing, and my life is enriched immensely simply by not watching it at all. In a nutshell, without televsion I have more time for everything else. Just my two drachmas, but I tell my students that every hour spent in front of that tube is an hour utterly wasted. Well, what's to be expected from a junk and throw-away culture if not junk and throw-away lives ? I choose better for myself. Frankly, I'm a believer in the motto "You can't be free if you watch TV"... Okay, you may now return to your regularly scheduled programming...
Yes - but only if you recorded the show with your VCR. It isn't so much the mechanics of being able to fast-forward through commercials that is significant about PVR technology - the significant thing is the change in viewing and recording habits that it tends to bring about.
Recording stuff with a conventional tape based VCR is a pain (finding a tape to record on, making a note of which tapes have what on, keeping track of which tapes can be re-used, programming the timer, putting the recorder into timer-record-mode, not being able to use the recorder for anthing else - such as playback - once you've set it up to record something). VCR time shifting tends to be used for shows that you really want to see, but can't be in front of the TV set for, or which clash with other programming that you really want to see - it is a mechanism for handling exceptions.
Recording stuff with PVR with built in program guide, wishlists, season passes, suggestions, etc, is actually easier than remembering to watch the shows that you are interested in on live TV, at particular times, on particular days. Once you have got used to it, PVR time shifting tends to be the preferred form for scheduling and watching TV. Experience suggests that TiVo users tend to stop watching live TV and time shift nearly everything - even stuff that they could have watched live if they had wished to.
PVR viewers are therefore in a position to ad-skip during almost all of their TV viewing.
Too bad the technology isnt there yet for it.
Basicly, the idea is that the ads are targeted based on the viewer. For example, geeks are more likely to buy computer gear so they would get more ads for the latest PC gizmos. And housewives are more likely to buy things like cleaners so they would get more ads for cleaners, detergents and such.
Better yet is if the viewer could choose the categories of ads they get (everyone would get the same number of ads but they would get a mixture from whichever categories they picked, perhaps with a requirement to choose at least n categories)
Example catetories:
Financial services (i.e. credit cards, home loans, bank accounts etc)
Electrical (i.e. TV sets, stereos, DVD players etc)
Movies (i.e. ads for movies that are in the cinemas or coming out on video)
Junk Food (i.e. ads for hamburgers, chicken, subs, ice creams, chips, lollies etc)
Health Food (i.e. ads for breakfast cereals & other generally healthy food)
Boys Toys (i.e. things like GI Joe, Transformers, Pokemon, Star Wars, Action Man etc)
Girls Toys (i.e. things like Barbie, Baby Born etc)
Toys (i.e. things that are unisex like LEGO, Pool Toys etc)
Music (although I suspect that music would be big enough to warrant a split up into things like Classical Music, Rock & Roll, Rap, Pop, Jazz etc)
Technology (i.e. ads for things like MP3 players, Cellular Phones, PDAs, Computer Gear etc)
Some ads might be in more than one category (for example, an ad for a McDonalds Happy Meal featuring Disney Movie toys might appear under Toys, Fast Food and Movies)
The real looser would be those companies that advertize/sell things which you dont want and would never buy were it not for the pursuasive marketing campaign. For example, its doubtfull that many people here would be interested in Credit Cards & would probobly choose not to watch ads for them (I know I wouldnt, I dont have one and dont want one). On the other hand, its a good bet that at least some of the people (not necessarily here but in general) who arent interested in Credit Cards and who would not select to watch ads for them have been convinced by one of those ads to buy a credit card.
Basicly, this problem essentially boils down to the fact that certain kinds of ads wont be selected by enough people (for example, its likely that kids will probobly all want to select "toys" and "video games" and "movies" and probobly "pop music" but who would voluntarily pick "finantial services" unless they were specificly looking for such things.
Not to mention the case of things that you would never have thought of buying in a million years but which you decide to buy after seeing the ad (for example, someone who is not a classical music fan per se might not select "classical music" but at the same time that same person might be likely to consider going to a concert if they saw an ad for it).
Another problem is the case where you already have something (such as a home loan) and have no plans to switch. Therefore, you would probobly not select "home loans" (say) and wouild be less likely to be sucked in by the "you already have this but the one we have is better, buy from us" marketing trick.
Another problem is how to decide which category a given ad falls under. For example, what categories should a 15% off everything at kmart sale fall under?
Plus, what about ads like "anti-drug" ads or whatever, do you really think that a teenage drug-adict is going to want to watch ads designed to help kick him off the habit?
I don't see what the big deal is. The networks are already handling TiVo in their own way.
Yeah, they're driving away 18-to-34 year-old males, the demographic segment most likely to own a TiVo.
How? Shitty programming that doesn't interest men. One lame reality show after another. Even the basic cable mainstays are sissifying their shows-- I used to watch Discovery and TLC a lot, now practically all they have are semi-disguised "decorating" shows and junk like "A Dating Story."
The only network with shows I actually watch is FOX, and even they do dumb shit like "Skin"-- maybe it was an interesting show somewhat aimed at men, but you're not gonna beat Monday Night Football with anything acceptable enough to be run on broadcast television-- and you might not even beat it with Naked Lesbian Jell-O Wrestling.
Spike TV actually has the right idea-- they ran a James Bond movie marathon during most of the holiday weekend, and unless it was Simpsons time or there was something more interesting on the History Channel, that's what I "watched" if I had the TV on while I was doing something else.
~Philly
[ed. note: in the following text, former TV developer Master Controll Program gives his reasons for abandoning TV]
When I stood for election to the TV core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the TV project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
TV used to be fun. ...
I'm sorry. I can't go on. It's too fuckin easy.
Read the rest of this comment...
Most advertising is not trying to get you to run out and buy a product today. Late-night TV carries "Call Now!" ads, but this type of advertising is not suitable for product placement. (After all, you're not likely to run out in the middle of the movie to buy a Land Rover!)
Instead, the purpose of most advertising is to create or increase brand equity. The idea is to affect your thinking months or years from now, when you (or someone like you) are actually in the market for a new SUV. If your final choice is between a Land Rover and a Glurnmobile, you will presumably have a sense of familiarity and relative comfort attached to the Land Rover. It's not that you agreed with the points the ad was making, or that you felt particularly attached to the Land Rover at the time you saw the ad - it's that if you keep hearing about Land Rover over and over, through the years you will eventually accept that Land Rover is a longstanding and reputable brand of SUV. But nobody ever heard of Glurnmobile before today, so you will probably want to do a more careful analysis of the Glurnmobile product before you buy it. Which in turn means you're more likely to buy a Land Rover.
Of course, in the automotive market, there are no Glurnmobiles. It's inconceivable that someone could jump through all the investor and regulatory hoops to bring out a new type of car, and not make sure people knew about it. Nevertheless, brand equity still depends on the amount of advertising and the length of time it has been going on. What do you think of Kia vs. Land Rover? What are your reasons for thinking what you think?
Note that human beings are wired to defend their conceptual systems against (whatever they perceive as) assault. If you believe X and someone comes along preaching not-X then you attack them, or at least defend yourself. If you believe X and Y and someone comes along preaching that X implies not-Y, the effect is the same. So: Many Slashdotters no doubt believe that (a) Land Rovers are of higher quality than Kias, and (b) that their own thinking is not affected by advertising. I am saying that the major reason to believe that a Land Rover is better is in fact the advertising, particularly the length of time they have been advertising. This challenges (b) unless you can prove that Land Rovers are objectively better. Therefore it is to be expected that many people will jump in and insist that Land Rovers have variable (blurble) with intermittently assisted (gnashing of teeth).
Instead, consider this: Insisting that you are unaffected by advertising is the same as claiming you have never been had by a troll. This is false: You are a social mammal with fairly predictable responses. This gives the trolls and advertisers their edge. No matter how l33t you may be, there's always a smarter troll (or a better advertiser) who has your number.
-Graham
The crux of the matter, for me anyway, is the quantity not the quality. This has occurred as a direct result of deregulation to both television and radio. To alleviate the onslaught of television advertising I bought Tivo, for radio I bought an iPod car adaptor and simply stopped listening to anything other than NPR.
During the 80's the average number of commercials run hourly was 10 to 12 when the federal government regulated commercial time. Since deregulation the average is about 20 commercials.
I see three viable choices for the future:
1) Change the compensation method. Harry Shearer had an item on his radio show awhile ago that it would cost about $280 annually from every TV watcher to do away with ads completely. Do something similar to what the UK and the BBC do now. It would give the content producers more freedom as well, no more sponsor pressure to change this or that.
2) Cable companies need to change. ATM I pay about $80 for 250+ channels of crap I mostly don't watch and about 8 channels that I do. Let me pay $1-$2 per month for the channels I *do* want and pass the extra back to the networks that I support. The networks would then have more incentive to have better programming and less incentive for advertising. The cable company has to pay a monthly fee for every channel they carry - let the consumers decide via the marketplace which are worthy of survival.
3) Tivo/RePlay and FF past the commercials if networks don't get a clue. I suspect sometime soon we'll see a major television set manufacturer embed a Tivo, or a Tivo like device, in the set itself.
If the content producers and networks think they can get around this with product placement they are just wrong. In my house we have a game: anytime we see product placement in a show we all shout "Product Placement!". The key to stripping its power is to be aware of it (and making fun of it also helps).
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
Maybe banner adverts will be used?
Forgive me for saying this, but why did you get a TiVo then?
I thought that everyone was like me and bought the TiVo specifically so they could avoid the advertisements.
If I never see another BOWFLEX commercial it would be too soon.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
It's not the jet-set crowd. BMWs and superpremium liquors are easily affordable by the merely affluent. Heck, you can get a BMW for $25,000! For that small price, you can pretend that you're elite. You can buy a $200 bottle of tequila, as well, even though the major tequila-making families in Mexico admit there is no difference between it and the $40 bottle...however their customers demand such a product, so it exists!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
You're dicounting the probability of ad creep. Been to a movie lately? Despite paying $9 for the ticket you still get commercials. Not just for coming movies but for soft drinks and websites.
Why? Because the theater chains think that despite paying $9 for a ticket you'll be willing to watch a couple commercials. When you get used to that they'll find more ways to slip in some ads. When you get used to those they'll add a couple more. Repeat until the medium is useless.
Withness cable TV. It was supposed to have fewer ads because it wasn't free, right?
So they give you on-demand TV shows and you pay 50 cents per half-hour show. That'll last till they get some market share, and then there'll be an ad or two. Short at first, so you won't object too much. Then they'll get longer. Then there'll be a couple more. Soon enough you're paying 50 cents for 20 minutes of programming.
It's also only a matter of time before you must watch commercials from tivo. Not because broadcasters need you to watch them but because tivo can make another buck making you watch them.
Amy
Believe me, Transformers absolutely was the Pokemon of its day. They just hadn't gotten things quite as perfected back then.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
then it's the advertisements that ultimately did it in. If the commercials were half-way interesting or entertaining, people wouldn't want to change the channel or use the time as a bathroom break. All TiVo does it let consumers express their displeasure with incessant, inane advertising much more loudly.
Statistics can be great. They can also be utterly totally horrible. Sure, perhaps one day, 15% of people will own and use a DVR. But how many of those people previously owned and used a VCR?
I've used my VCR for time shifting for years, and I always skipped the commercials there. I doubt 15% of people that have never used a VCR are going to purchase and use a DVR.
Moreover, the 15% prediction number is fluffed up. Oh so many digital cable and satellite providers give you a DVR right in the box they make you use. I wager a significant number of people with DVR boxes do not use them.
Health is simply dying at the slowest rate possible.
Is it just me or does everyone seem to be missing this? People, they are not losing money! Their growth is simply being slowed. Sure, they aren't making as MUCH money, but they are still making money and growing! I'll be the first to admit that I'm no economist, but it just kills me that we get sucked into this kind of FUD. I just don't get it. What am I missing?
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!