Slashdot Mirror
TiVo to Sell Your Fast-Forward Button
Thomas Hawk writes "PVRblog is reporting today that TiVo will begin to place banner advertisements on your screen when you are fast forwarding. As one of the whole points for people getting a TiVo is to remove obtrusive advertising, it seems like a really bad move to force advertising on people at the exact moment that they are using your technology to avoid advertising. This act points to the desperation of TiVo and their management team and although it might help them in the short run it will most certainly backfire in the long run." This is ironic for a company whose slogan used to be "TV Your Way," but not surprising, since its CEO says he wants to move to a largely advertiser-supported revenue stream. I've bought three TiVos in the past four years, but my next PVR will run MythTV -- unless HR2391 passes and makes me a criminal for skipping commercials.
.... I mean, its not like you are looking at anything useful while you are fastforwarding, and "free tv" needs some sort of revenue.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Then hammer them with advertising. Its the american way :)
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
I'd think most peoples' motivation is to save the time of viewing commercials, not because of some aversion to advertising.
I'd think as long as the banners don't make the ffwd through commercial slower (by assuring they're on the screen for some specific time) people won't mind.
Better for the marketing folks to pay tivos electric bills then us.
"However, it's the implementation that is the concern. If the law is *interpreted* to mean that even things like fast forwarding through commercials are inappropriate, well, then we have a problem. But that is NOT the intent nor the purpose."
In an age when we have so many thousands (millions?) of lawyers in the nation, I do not think you can separate intent or purpose from what is written and how it is interpreted. We can't afford to be writing laws that are vague, and we have the resources to ensure it does not happen, should we choose to use them.
"Sure, your cable/satellite bill can, but only to a point. There are billions of dollars that come from advertising. Is there not that side to this story as well?"
I'd pay more per channel for cable if it had no advertising, no problem. Note I say per channel -- as in a la carte. Since I watch 2 or 3 channels via my TiVo I would probably end up paying less overall, but the channels whose services I use would be getting more.
"How and when is it acceptable for products to be advertised?"
It's acceptable exactly up to the point that the consumers allow it to be. If the consumers revolt, spend extra money on a product and service that allows them to skip them, it's no longer acceptable to them.
Listen, TiVo needs to make money. They're a company selling a product. Everyone seems to forget that and whine when they don't give you everything for free. I applaud them for coming up with a way to sell ad space without interfering with normal use of the product.
Nobody's asking to get anything for free. TiVo already charges for the unit and you have to pay a monthly charge to just use the damn thing. If they want to add banner ads and give me the service free, that's great, but it's not what they're doing.
Boy, you must really hate Firefox's Adblock and Flashblock features.
As much as I'd like to preserve the old business model of being forced to look at ads for minutes at a time, it's time to rethink this strategy now that we have 21st century technology... simply giving them billions of dollars in revenue because the're accustomed to getting billions of dollars of revenue doesn't cut it anymore.
How does this make it less wrong?
The point is that if I want to attach a device to my television that translates every third word into Algonquin once the signal comes into my device it's none of their business. If I write a module for MythTV that allows me to change all the commercials in my LiveTV programming into mpegs of dancing midgets throwing pickles at a naked woman it's none of their business.
Their revenue stream and rights to artistic integrity end when they reach the consumer. At that point it's my signal in my device and as long as I don't rebroadcast it they need to leave me the hell alone.
Never confuse volume with power.
"What about newspapers? Sure, you can argue that newspaper ads aren't "intrusive", in a time-dependent way, but would a newspaper or its advertisers welcome a service that made it free or easy to eliminate all ads, and keep the other content, while still keeping the newspaper cost at 50 cents?"
The difference is that tv, especially broadcast television, is a much more limited resource than a newspaper. Anyone can start up a newspaper and start distributing it, it is not regulated in the least. Which is a very good thing, but also appropriate for the medium which allows for naturally unlimited competition. If you don't like the content or presentation of one newspaper, another could take its place without much trouble.
Television, especially broadcast television is considered a public resource. So, we as individuals have every right to demand that the use of the airwaves meets our best interests and not solely those of the licensees. We can argue about the rightness of that approach, but until broadcasters stop using public airwaves and the public rights of way (cable) then I demand that I be able to view the content anyway I damn well choose.
Good for TiVo for using their technology for profit. Isn't that the point of going into business?
Ideally (this is how I think it should work, I don't know exactly how it works...):
Think of how many commercials are on the air. If advertisers are concerned about commercial skipping, they pay TiVo for the software needed to encode a billboard into their ad, similar to the "press thumbs up to record" or "press thumbs up for more info" that you see often on NBC.
When TiVo is fast forwarding through the ad and sees the bill board encoded in the video stream, it displays the bill board.
So:
- TV stations are happy because advertisers want to buy longer ad slots in order to increase the time their bill board is on the screen during a TiVo fast forward.
- Advertisers are happy because they have a captive audience for their ads. (you actually have to attentively watch the screen or you'll fast forward into your show)
- TiVo is happy because they have another revenue source.
- TiVo owners are still happy because they are still getting through commercials at the same rate as they did before TiVo added this feature.
Who exactly is loosing?
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Well, economist Joseph Schumpeter came up with the theory of "creative destruction". In short, every now and then, a new innovation destroys the old economic model (think TiVo or, in the retail field, think Wal-Mart). The capitalist society comes up with a new way to respond to that innovation. In the case of TiVo, it appears that they will now have pop-up ads. In the case of Wal-Mart, you now see Sears and KMart merging. However, TiVo started the revolution, and now they are trying to take a step backwards. Unfortunately for them, there is a good chance the revolution is about to pass TiVo right by.
What does that do for the Advertisers? Well, they better figure something out, otherwise, their economic model completely falls apart. In a capitalist society (which the US claims to be), it is up to the advertisers to figure their way out of this mess. If the advertisers don't figure it out, you'll see less money flowing to the TV networks and, a potential reduction in TV show budgets. Now, wouldn't THAT be a disaster! Those overpaid actors and network executives would start losing money. Oh well. If Hollywood isn't providing me with dumb entertainment, my entertainment dollar will go elsewhere.
Creative Destruction. It's time that advertisers re-read their college economics textbooks. In short, I don't care about the advertisers, nor do I care about how the networks make money. In our economy, their problems are not my problems.
First of all, RTFA... This is not about putting banner ads during fast forward. It is about putting up interaction during ads. This has already been tested and is shown to work. (IE people respond to it).
It is also an article showing that TiVo can provide advertisements that have better response rates than interstitial advertising provides.
But this slashdot posting is editorializing from beginning to end. I can understand that *you* don't wnat to see any advertising ever... Good for you. (but look at the banners at the top and right of the the slashdot page you nit.) But you know nothing about why I or many people have TiVo! And for the most part all this editorializing is WRONG. The interstital is being replaced by the more attractive click-ins. The ads are better produced, more entertaining, more informative. And they are not being replaced by more intrusive advertising. It is being replaced by *less* intrusive and more interactive advertising. And you can still opt out of the data collection! Get a friggin grip.
I have a problem with it anyway. It's a law that says I can do a thing but I cannot have a machine that does that thing for me. WTF? It's as though they passed a law that says you cannot use an electric can opener because forcing people to open cans manually will keep the market for food contained in glass bottles competitive with cans.
And make no mistake, the intent is to keep people watching commercials, whatever the mechanics of the process. If the law as written doesn't have that end result, it will be reinterpreted or a new law will be written to further restrict our options.
How and when is it acceptable for products to be advertised?
How about letting the market decide that? If the payback from advertising drops to the point where it can no longer support creation and delivery of programming, what then? Will the demand for programming go away? I sincerely doubt it. Other revenue models will emerge, including direct payment (subscription and pay-per-view). What's wrong with that?
Yes, I use TiVo to skip over commercials. I also use FF for shows I can watch without sound and faster than real time. Will the service know if I'm FF over a commercial or for some other purpose?
For example I can watch a 3-hour football match in about half the time. I don't need the analyst's inane chatter, and I can always go back to regular speed to catch a big play.
In addition, this 'feature' contradicts TiVo's own marketing. There's no sound while a show is in FF, but one of TiVo's tips is to turn on the closed captions and read the dialogue while watching the show faster.
If the banner ad is anywhere on the screen where I can see it, then it is intrusive.
"Listen, TiVo needs to make money. They're a company selling a product. Everyone seems to forget that and whine when they don't give you everything for free. I applaud them for coming up with a way to sell ad space without interfering with normal use of the product."
That's just wrong. TiVo gives NOTHING for free. I've already paid for the hardware and paid for the service, and I didn't whine about it. This is TiVo unilaterally changing the terms of the deal after they have my money. Would you applaud nVidia if they decided to display banner ads on every computer with their graphics cards? Listen, nVidia needs to make money, right?
"What would you rather have, no fast-forward, forcing you to watch commercials, or a fast-forward with a small screen overlay that you only have to look at for as long as you are fast-forwarding?"
I'd rather have the service I paid for. But you're missing the real question, would you rather have FF with a small screen overlay, or a boat anchor that's useless if TiVo goes out of business and no other company picks up the service?
Been following them for the past year. They are facing a problem of becoming a commodity. Each independent cable/satellite company is rolling out their own home grown DVR box. DirectTV dropped them last March and divested from them quite a bit.
the last big news was that Microsoft just signed a deal with Comcast to provide DVR service, which directly competes with TIVO.
This ad-skipping commercial is good news for us shareholders. They need to prove that they have alternative revenues than just subscription.
Now to put on my consumer/techy hat. Why would anyone have a problem of seeing a banner ad rather than a blank screen when they fast forward? It's not hurting you in any way. I understand that since you pay 12.95 a month you should get it ad-free. But why not make the same request to cable television? I'm paying $33/month for cable TV, should I have the same expectation that Comedy Central is ad-free?
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
Been using mythTV for over a year now and commercials ARE that bad. My broadcast channels show commercials that are far worse than any commercials on my dishnetwork channels.
Once you are used to watching commercial free and something happens (computer crash etc...) and you watch TV you feel assaulted after watching the commercials. I don't want to know (nor my kids to know) about the newest (fe)male enhancement drug.
I don't care about the next episode of some stupid sitcom with low ratings.
People say tv makes you dumber. I would have to say that commercials just add to that. Why waste 15 minutes watching an hour show when you can watch it later and in shorter time
The only dissadvantage to not having commercials is trying to make time for a pee break(oh I guess that is what the pause button is for)
Can you ping me now?... Good!