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.

Comments

I dont think its such a bad idea

[TheRealMindChild]

.... I mean, its not like you are looking at anything useful while you are fastforwarding, and "free tv" needs some sort of revenue.

Re:I dont think its such a bad idea

[AKAImBatman]

The problem is that the TIVO is NOT free. You paid for that device, and you paid for that service. Getting ads you don't want is a betrayal of the customer.

Now if they wanted to provide a "free" version of the TIVO subscription that was advertiser supported, then I could see this working.

Re:I dont think its such a bad idea

[kb7oeb]

Thats not true, many of the channels charge the cable company per subscriber with ESPN and Disney being the most expensive

Re:I dont think its such a bad idea

[Shakrai]

How many cable companies have to pay for Food Network, or Spike TV? Not many, I'd say. If those channels weren't available, most people wouldn't have a problem with it.

You can have my Emeril and ST:TNG reruns when you pry them from my cold dead hands!

Re:I dont think its such a bad idea

[Monsieur Canard]

Then why did my cable bill go up $3 a month when Steinbrenner's YES network was forced on me? It really irks this BoSox fan that part of my bill is paying Yankee salaries.

Re:I dont think its such a bad idea

[Robber Baron]

Getting ads you don't want is a betrayal of the customer.

Exactly. Somebody needs to whack these morons with a cluestick. If I've gone to the trouble to avoid watching advertisments, you ramming them down my throat anyway is going to endear me to your company and make me want to buy your products...how exactly? Personally I will actually go out of my way to avoid purchasing stuff because the advertisments have pissed me off.

Re:I dont think its such a bad idea

[wibskey]

HBO is doing this. There are also cable companies that offer "on demand" services, that let you watch programs when you want, without commercials.

While you're entitled to your opinion about what's "worth watching", there are millions of Americans willing to watch just about anything. The networks are still doing quite well with the quality of shows they are currently producing. Things are probably going to get worse before they get better.

Re:I dont think its such a bad idea

[EvilStein]

I watch BOTH of those channels a lot!

Rachael Ray is hot, and MXC is hilarious. :P

Re:I dont think its such a bad idea

[mcmonkey]

Cry me a friggn river. Oh no! They're going to show me non-invasive ads that in no way impeed my use of the product! Help me! Help me! The sky is falling!

Would it be OK if graphics card or monitor companies decided to show you non-invasive ads while you used your computer? Those companies need to make money too, right?.

Of course you assume there is such a thing as a non-invasive ad. If it's non-invasive, that means I won't see it. If I see it, then it's invasive. So how are they going to show me ads I don't see? Perhaps they'll be subliminabable.

Re:I dont think its such a bad idea

[AKAImBatman]

Allow me to spell it out for you:

You pay for cable to get a set of channels. You can pay a premium for channels that guarantee not to interrupt the programming with commercials (e.g. HBO, Cinemax, etc.)

Similarly, people are paying a premium for TIVO services above and beyond regular TV service. One of the features they are paying for is to remove commercials from their programs. To forcefully add commercials back in is akin to HBO adding commercial breaks to their movies.

Comprenda?

Re:I dont think its such a bad idea

[dbc001]

Stop worrying. Grass-roots produced, bittorrent-distributed, creative commons licensed media will replace TV eventually. I have several friends who do pro-level video that have projects in the works. They will be free. If you don't believe me, check the new Wired magazine - Beastie Boys are putting out Creative Commons licensed tunes. Old school media conglomerates will wither and die. But we have to stop supporting them first.

Re:I dont think its such a bad idea

[ArsonSmith]

Uhh, they do. Every time I boot my system I get a Tyan motherboard advertisement, an AMD advertisement, then a quick Nvidia advertisement (actually I was able to turn this off with the NoLogo option), as it boots I get a grub advertisement, then a Linux kernel advertisement. Once I log in there is a big Debian advertisement. Hell sitting her at work there is a big DELL advertisement just below the screen on my monitor and another in the upper left section of my keyboard and another on my mouse. Even my stapler has a big Swingline written in a nice cursive font across the top. Sure these are non intrusive. During boot and Post it almost looks like it is part of what needs to be done.

Get people hooked...

[Chatmag]

Then hammer them with advertising. Its the american way :)

This is really going to ruin the spice channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Suffering Viagra ads while I'm skipping to the money shot.

that's fine with me

[rtsai]

The real value-add from TiVo here (for me, anyway) is not so much avoiding commercials as it is saving time.

If the banner-ad-while-fast-forwarding still allows me to skip 4 minutes of commercials in 5 seconds, that's fine with me, as long as the banner-ad goes away when I'm *not* fast-forwarding ...

Questions

[daveschroeder]

First of all, HR 2391 doesn't make it criminal to "skip commercials".

It's meant to disallow technologies that bypass commercial and advertising content explicitly (such as things like the commercial skip features of old which skipped all ads, regardless of length, and returned you to the programming, or features that simply delete or auto-skip ad content altogether), but it won't prevent good ol' "fast forward" and 30 second skip features from working, nor will it make their use, even for commercial content, "criminal".

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.

On the subject of TiVo and placing banner ads during fast forwarding, and the general idea of *automatic* ad content skipping/deletion:

If the entire TV industry is predicated on advertising, and the idea of advertising is predicating on paying to have as many people see your ads as possible (and the payment is proportional to proven amounts of people who may be watching), if an increasing number of people (many in educated and financially stable demographics) have the capability to avoid ever seeing any advertising, what, exactly, makes it worthwhile for advertisers to continue paying for it, at least at the same levels? You are choosing to watch content whose creation and delivery is funded in large part by advertising revenues. What funds it if that model is completely broken?

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?

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?

Additionally, I've seen people here and elsewhere say they actually wouldn't mind "advertising" for products and services they're actually interested in - but at the same time, people argue against giving anyone the data needed to do exactly that kind of targeted advertising as a violation of privacy.

So, my question is, what takes the place of the advertising revenue? How and when is it acceptable for products to be advertised?

Re:Questions

[realdpk]

"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.

Re:Questions

[Japong]

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.

Re:Questions

[Mr Guy]

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.

Re:Questions

[bigpat]

"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.

Re:Questions

[lucabrasi999]

You are choosing to watch content whose creation and delivery is funded in large part by advertising revenues. What funds it if that model is completely broken?

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.

Re:Questions

[igaborf]

If the law is *interpreted* to mean that even things like fast forwarding through commercials are inappropriate, well, then we have a problem.

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?

Re:Questions

[rmarll]

Totally off topic...

Funny that in blocking the ad's for "internet accelerator" I've accelerated my connection speed far more than their product ever will.

So Ridiculous

[blackmonday]

Next announcement: It will be a criminal act to get up and take a leak while the commercials are on.

Avoid ads or save time?

[Covener]

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.

Re:Avoid ads or save time?

[fname]

I own 2 TiVos and I could not agree more. I fast forward through commercials to save time, nothing more nothing less. As long as I can still fast-forward through them, what's the big deal?

The submitter's hysterical comments show an obvious distaste for this decision by TiVo, but his statement, "although it might help them in the short run it will most certainly backfire in the long run," displays a profound sense of arrogance; he knew about this for about 10 minutes before drawing a conclusion based on nothing more than gut, while TiVo Inc., has clearly thought about these issues and decided they were a net benenfit. I would like to know how the submitter became so "certain."

This has nothing to do with your rights or online, or Your Rights Online, it's a business decision no worse than Apple papering NYC with iPod ads. Get over yourself.

[good thing I have karma to burn]

Well, TiVo's owners like it

[jfengel]

TiVo stock was up 7% yesterday on no news whatsoever and another 4% today. (Where "no news whatsoever" means "already known through back channels to everybody on the rumor boards, as well as close personal friends of the executives.)

So the people who own TiVo seem to think that this is a profitable idea. Not just "profitable" in the sense of "charging more" but profitable in the sense of "making more money total", i.e. revenue - customers lost - lawsuits.

Everyone chill out!

[Slider]

Wow, talk about overreacting.
Do you really think Tivo is stupid enough to alienate its customers? If you read the article you'll see that this in no way interferes with skipping commercials. It basically expands the "press thumbs up for more info" tag that appears in the top right of the screen during some commercials and makes them more of a billboard size. This is actually a popular feature among Tivo users as you could say, get a brochure for the new Corvette sent to your home by simply pressing thumbs up during the Chevrolet commercial. I welcome this.

Agreed

[Shakrai]

Allow me to begin by saying that I just purchased a TiVo less then a week ago. I actually netted it for a lousy $30 ($180 on Amazon - $50.00 promotional certificate - $100 mail-in rebate) figuring that I'd get the cheapest one and could always add a Hard Drive later (thanks to TiVo still being somewhat hacker-friendly).

In one lousy week it has already changed the way I watch TV. Just the quick case in point: I didn't start watching Amazing Race until 9:45pm last night. By 11:30 I had seen both Amazing Race and Jon Stewart -- without watching a single commercial. That's 45 minutes of my life to do productive things (or surf Slashdot).

Needless to say I will be the first one to cancel my service (after-all I only have a $30 investment) and stick pins into my TiVo voodoo dolls if they take the fast-forwarding away from me. What the heck would be the point of a DVR if they were to do that? I'd just go back to my VCR days.

But if all they intend to do is place some advertisements on your screen while you are fast-forwarding then what exactly is the big deal? Did Jamie bother to RTFA before he went on his rant about switching to MythTV? To quote: "Kent says the advertising revenue will probably bring down the cost of TiVo to its 2 million subscribers -- currently $12.95 a month" So they sell some ad space (that I can just ignore for those 5-10 seconds I am FF'ing -- less if you use the 30 second hack) and my service becomes cheaper?

Perhaps we should adopt a wait-and-see approach before we break out the torches and pitchforks.

Re:Agreed

[Todd Fisher]

Perhaps we should adopt a wait-and-see approach before we break out the torches and pitchforks.

Let me be the first to welcome you to Slashdot.

Re:Actually, I think this is an EXCELLENT idea.

[FroBugg]

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.

Email Directv and Tivo

[thealpha]

Let them know that you are not pleased. I just sent a message to directv and will follow through with cancellation if this becomes reality. I have a PVR just don't use it because the Tivo is easy for my wife and kids to use.

Here is a link to the Directv Feedback page,
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/glb/Form_Feed back.ds p

and a link to Tivo's contact page
http://www.tivo.com/5.9.asp

Good for TiVo.

[Xibby]

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?

Cheese and Crackers!!!

[barfy]

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.

Enable the 30 second skip and don't worry about it

[Luscious868]

Just enable the 30 second skip and you'll never use fast forward to skip commercials again. When it's enabled, the -->| button becomes a 30 second skip button.

To enable:

1. Grab your TiVo remote.

2. Bring up any recorded program. (You have to be watching a recorded program rather than "Live TV" in order to enable the feature.)

3. On your TiVo remote, key in the following sequence:
SELECT PLAY SELECT 30 SELECT

4. If you've successfully entered the code, you should hear three "bings" in succession to inform you that you've successfully enabled the 30 second skip.

The only down side is that any time your TiVo is rebooted (such as after a power outage or a software update) you'll have to re-enable this feature.

Actually, I think this is a REALLY CRAPPY idea

[mcmonkey]

"When you fast-forward, the content isn't all that interesting anyhow." That's the assumption. Where's the support?

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?

Re:Tivo's revenue stream and stock price.

[Tazzy531]

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?

Re:Good Point

[willy134]

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)

Make your TiVo "ReadOnly"

[SurfTheWorld]

I own 3 TiVO's and have modified them with larger disks, network connectivity, and video extraction capability. I've been doing this since I bought my first TiVO in Fall 2000.

One of the primary drawbacks to root'ing your TiVO was that the next time a software update was transmitted from the magic entertainment boob in the sky, all your hard work would be erased, as the update would wipe the OS install clean (usually).

While my work in the TiVO community has dwindled significantly in the past months, I did happen to take note of a warning that said something to the effect of "Disable Remote Update". I'm not certain what this feature of the hack does, but it sounds (at least from the name) that it would not allow TiVO or DTV to upgrade your TiVO's OS from 3.1 to 3.x in the future.

I'm going to go look into that option now. But I think that if you really feel strongly about TiVO and DTV whoring themselves to the ad-nipple in California, you might want to invest a Saturday afternoon in root'ing your TiVO so that you won't receive this unwanted feature.

-c