Slashdot Mirror
Google to Transform Television Advertising?
Brad Zink writes "According to Robert X. Cringely, Google is poised to enter into the world of television advertising. This would usher in a new era for the venerable medium, creating a tidal wave of revenue for the networks, while solidifying Google's position in the advertising industry. Cringely develops this prediction based on his belief that Google is developing a network of data centers to be placed around the globe, which would be used to serve television commercials in addition to its current online content."
I was working on some scotch theory with a very good friend about 6 months ago -- we were both in a very short lived video production business ages ago. I had recently considered adapting Google to television in a very unique way and wanted his input.
My thought was to take television's closed captioning text and IMDB show data and run it through Google's "I'm feeling lucky" API in real time. Eventually you could have really cool "pop up" information program running that can give you pop up information correlated to what is happening on screen. Software running on a Media Center PC (or a Tivo?) could give you real time information on actors and what they're talking about. Imagine watching ER, wondering about a disease or illness they're talking about, and instantly having that information pop up without anything but a button click (if even that). Remember VH1's Pop Up Video?
As the conversation moved forward, we realized the real power of bringing Google to TV is advertising -- bringing ads to the web (more than just a GIF or SWF) and bringing web ads to the television -- contextual of course. Hours passed and the ideas that moved through the conversation seemed revolutionary (until we realized that Brin is a billionaire and we, well, aren't). Google certainly has the most powerful contextual algorithms in the market (although Yahoo is quickly catching up). Google's use of gmail and possibly AOL e-mails and IMs to aggregate even MORE user data (not just contextually but also within a physical region) will definitely give them more specific insight into a user's needs based on more than just what they browse.
The number one complaint I hear on why people use Tivo (or ThePirateBay as it seems to be lately) is that advertising sucks -- it is unimportant, too generalized and the same thing over and over. During our conversation half a year ago I made mention of how I'd love to see old commercials for current products -- the old Coke commercials are priceless (and comical) and there is NO reason why Google couldn't offer to bring back this and more. Instead of the same 40 ads in rotation, they have over 60 years or so of advertising they could bring back (some pre-TV movie theatre advertising) and stick in rotation, especially if the company is more logo-centric than actual product-minded.
I just signed on to Akimbo (need to set it up on my MCE box) and wonder how long it will be before these guys connect with Google. Tivo, Akimbo and MCE are programmable set top boxes just waiting to be utilized by Google. As even video game systems become more of a set-top programming station rather than a specific use peripheral, Google has an opportunity to really jump on everyone's hardware rather than design and sell their own. "Designed for Google!" could be the new sticker on every consumer device.
The conversation finished up (as far as I remember, I wish I recorded these nights of single malt drinking!) with us discussing things that Google might not even have put much weight in at the time -- SMS, VoIP, WAP searches and other data to be aggregated and utilized. If Google offers free VoIP, what prevents them from anonymously and generically aggregating your phone call keywords? If you're using Google SMS searches from your GPS-enabled phone, what prevents them from offering advertising to a local business (other than the one you're searching for). Taking all that information into their data centers and using their complex heuristic analysis gives them an awesome amount of information that advertisers could only have dreamed of 10 years ago. Being able to match price to need is also a big deal -- imagine what car dealers would offer Google for a local car buyer searching for a deal or how Google could knock around the realty market? Not exactly topical in terms of television advertising, maybe, but Google + Advertising can change how we define "on demand programming" nonetheless. Tomorrow's TV could just be today's BitTorrent with the Go
When it comes to google I find that advertising isn't a problem. Google aren't weren't "in your face intrusive" and I feel fine having them there, it's the ones that pop up, make loud noises or drain my CPU which are the ones I hate.
I think when it comes to advertising, Google can somehow pull it off.
".... knowing that Google will still be the only game in town for the crux of the whole thing: the ability to show every viewer the specific ads that companies will pay the most to show him at that specific moment. What Google wants to do with these trailers is SERVE EVERY TV COMMERCIAL ON THE PLANET because only they will be able to do it efficiently. Only they will have the database that converts those IP addresses into sales leads, only they will have the servers and disk space close enough to the viewers to feed the ads. Only Google will have the chops to run a constant, real-time auction for the next ad every consumer is about to see, and then serve that ad at the moment the program goes to commercial."
So you really want that Viagra/Valtrex/Cialis/Levitra ad to always be showing up when your new girlfriend is watching TV with you?
I would think not.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
This could be an interesting idea, but Google's advertising model doesn't translate so well to television. How would you go about compartmentalising viewers into groups, and serving the relevant ad? Sure, you could go on household viewing stats, but that might require extra hardware to get to; and I'm sure some people would object.
Also, it can't be as simple as the article suggests - when you have someone going to Google.com, you can be fairly sure there is one person (usually) behind the monitor. Many many more in front of the TV. How do you weight your targeting?
I just can't see how this would practically work.
...are they going to be text-only adverts, or do we have to put up with some animated Flash-style nonsense on our screens?
Sure, it's just a "what if," but if Google hasn't thought of this already, they should. It's a nearly perfect extrapolation from AdSense: contextual advertising for television.
If they could also get in bed with the media metrics folks, like Nielsen, they'll be able to tie in the demographic information and, like Cringely supposes, only show Alzheimers drug ads to seniors and their children, and only show beer ads to people over 21.
If Google does go in this direction, I can only hope that ads will be rotated in the manner of AdWords ads. I.E: Only the ads that interest people will be shown, or shown more often. I love to watch well-done commercials, and most of them are so poorly scripted that they A) don't convince me to buy and B) are just plain boring.
I don't know that this is going to happen, or if it's even feasible, but it sure is fun to think about.
I, for one, welcome our new Monostad 7 ad-serving overlords.
Hot in the heels of Google's entrances into the markets of TV advertising, PC production, and other 'secret' markets, Minor news agencies are announcing Google's intention to begin international fruit sales. One excited googler said "This is complete rubbish, I wish people would stop all this wild speculation.", his denail further confirming our suspicions.
Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
The Big Thing for 2006 is TV on demand, downloaded via some p2p technology.
Take a look at the top downloads on a site like Piratebay and you'll see that they are all TV episodes.
What Google is probably lining up to do is to compete against Apple, who are moving into the same market.
Google are betting that they can deliver TV episodes for free, with advertising. Apple are betting they can sell TV episodes with no advertising. Microsoft are trying to make it all happen through the XBox.
This is why Google's been buying dark fibre. This is why Google is buying into AOL, for access to TW shows. This is what will drive the next generation of portable gadgets.
Yes, the Internet and P2P is finally going to transform TV into something that actually produces good entertainment, and will one day turn around and redefine the movie industry as well.
My blog
This could be bad news for married people who are secretly searching the web for a "special friend". Opps!
This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
When he's right, it's only because he makes so many stupid, hacky positions and predictions that by the law of averages he has to hit one once in awhile.
Not to say he's a bad source of information, mind you, just that he's a source of information no better than, say, a magic 8 ball.
Over the last few years I've been struck by Google's ability to compete in a very effective way. Generally they seem to eschew a fight with the main competitor and rather simply rewite the rules and assert their dominance in that field (think online ads). Advertising is one of those ivory tower industutries where small firms must 'play ball' in order to get any decent contracts (my brother was in advertising for a number of years). Google, it is speculated, will simply rewrite the notion of broadcast advertising and assert a stranglehold on the new style. An interesting gamebit, to be sure.
The big New York ad firms will be scrambling to figure out how to beat Google at this new game. No if Google opened Google Studios, where they could produce the content of the ads, they would be richer than God
It seems as though they are transforming slashvertising, at least.
I guess I will have to get ready for those hard core porn commercials during
... not sure how my wife will react it....
"The Apprentice"
If they could also get in bed with the media metrics folks, like Nielsen, they'll be able to tie in the demographic information
If Google went into this space, they would almost instantly put Neilsen out of business.
Neilsen familys need to volenterr, and be paid. Google can give *actual real* dmeographic infromatio, because they already know where you live (from the cable company), and what you are interested in (from Google searches), and who you talk to (from GTalk/GMail).
Neilsen can only dream of the kind of demographics Google could extrapolate. Google would mak ethe Neilsen ratings obsolete, because after all, it doesn't necessarily matter if a TV show is being viewed by a lot of people, what matters is if the ads being shown in it key into the demographic enough that the show is profitable. Google can *ensure* that, all Neilsen can do is make educated guesses based on the surveys it sends it families.
Most people know how overrated google has become. Why then do we keep writting about only the good things? I don't read Cringely very often, but I've never seen even him have anything really negative to say about google. What's up with this? Is it just because they put out some nifty tools that raise large amounts of privacy concerns? Is it because it was ONCE a killer search engine?
Why aren't poor search results being reported? For example, in the city of Vallejo, CA we are the only facilities based DSL provider and we even own vallejodsl.com, but up until today (which is the first time I've done this search in 2 months) we weren't even on the first 5 pages. We don't participate in the shadey SEO practices so we were shoved so far back we weren't visible even when actualy looking specifically for a vallejo based DSL provider. I've been given huge amounts of excuses for why that could be, but when 80% of the results were blackhat SEO tactics that shoved us back I could care less about them. We are a well established company (15 years in business) and there should be no reason why we should have been so low on the results. We have plenty of backlinks but google only lists like 36 while others list as many 3000. We stood in that "state" for well over 2 years regardless of what we did on our end.
I still have a hard time understanding why people are considering google the greatest thing to happen to the internet since TCP/IP. Google's core business is search, that's where it got it's start. If it can't maintain it's core, then why should we be thanking them for giving us other tools? And to be perfectly honest, google is a noun not a verb and it drives me insane when langauge gets twisted for marketing purposes and it should bother everyone else too. Being mindless is what these people count on, so why are we caving to it. Blog anyone? IT'S A WEB LOG! Calling it a blog puts a buzzword to something that's been around for a decade but someone just wanted to make money off the idea so they had to create a word that people liked saying.
Google would not be interested in the studios concept. It puts them into competition instead of controlling the interest. It also makes them have to engage in risk in an area for which they are not experts. They know how to analyse ads and determine relevance, etc. They do not create media, though, and the cost to compete is very high.
Were they to engage in that, the stock price would take a serious hit.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
I have a friend who is developing a technology that would mix seamlessly with this Google idea, and I believe he is currently in talks with cable companies about it. The device he's engineered will actually map the picture coming accross the broadband cable to your television set, and with a joystick-like remote control you can navagate around the screen and click on products that you are interested in. Information, or links to information, about each product or person in a show would be served along the broadband stream making virtually everything you see in a show "clickable." It would allow you to say, get information about the gadget that is being used in CSI, or stats on your favorite sports player/team.
It seems that integration with Google would be invaluable for something like this, and it would really change the landscape of advertising content. We would begin to choose what ads we want to see based on our personal interest in a certain item. Since DVRs are striking a blow to the standard 30 second spot, and product placement is growing in leaps and bounds this really seems like the new stage for advertisement in general, but best of all it might allow us to finally have seamless programming.
Sorry I don't have a link to info about this device, he doesn't have a product site built up yet since it's still in development.
Who is going to film the ads? Who is going to edit the ads? Who is going to appear in the ads and do voice-overs?
With text ads, just about anybody can make one quickly and easily. With picture ads, you don't even really need to be an artist as long as you can paste a picture of your product next to some text in Photoshop. Flash ads are a bit more work, but even then, it's little more than animating and scripting a bunch of pictures and text.
But with narrowcast video ads, how are they going to look when they are filmed by amateurs? Think about stereotypical used car dealer ads from movies and go down from there. Way down. It's a brave new world, and we're going to run out of pancake makeup pretty quick.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
The proposed, targeted advertising could work for cable, but what about broadcast mediums such as over-the-air or satellite?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can see them possibly having a database matching the IP of my television to the IP of my home computer...so in theory, if I Google a product, they'll be able to match those IP numbers. But let's say I don't Google the price of a new radio or whatever. Let's say I go straight to the manufacturer's website, or I go to Amazon or Best Buy. Google won't know what I'm looking for...unless they somehow cut a deal with those other companies, perhaps offering cheaper advertisements in exchange for information about which IP numbers were browsing which products. On a happier note...does this mean that if I write myself a little script to Google Jennifer Garner every half hour or so, that I will only get commercials featuring Jennifer Garner? Cuz that would totally kick ass.
In the last two years the Weather Channel has been making a big push in this direction. They have been a technological innovator in the cable world especially in the way they push the local forecast to every individual head end that carries TWC. Leveraging that technology they have begun regional targeting and weather specific targeting.
An example of this is a tire company. On any other network when they buy national time one commercial for one tire is aired. With regional targeting rain tires can been served to the northeast and good weather tires to the south - in the same :30 seconds two spots run simultaneously in different parts of the country. Take that a step further and you really begin to see the value in the premium price TWC gets for these spots.
TWC links it's ad serving to it's local forecasts at each head end. If it's raining in your county you'll see a rain tire commercial, while your buddy up north on another cable system where it's snowing will see a spot for snow tires. An hour later when the snow turns to rain he's see a spot for rain tires.
While conceptually the idea of Google leveraging these trailers is conceivable Cringely's prediction is flawed. Google will not be able to sell targeting to the networks. National network commercials are still carried over the air. Cable operators simply retransmit them. The minute or two of local time is sold by the local affiliate, also over the air and then retransmitted. Neither the nets nor the affiliates would let a cable operator insert commercials over the ones they've sold and no technology exists to legally insert them over the air interrupting the original signal. There may be some room in the cable only universe for cable MSO's to sell national advertisers more targeted spots in the 2 minutes an hour then get but the idea of Joe's Restaurant down the block spending money on production of a TV ad and then paying extra to target me seems a little far fetched.
I think the prediction in today's NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/technology/06onl ine.html makes more sense. Downloads an convergence of the TV and PC are where it's going to be at.
Or we could just wait and see what the announcement is. What is the point of specualting anyway besides driving traffic to /. everyday? :)
http://www.worldsoccerbars.com
seems to be building itself on top of the M$oft platform. Most hardware vendors are going w/ media center pre-installed. What's different in this scenario is that the browser isn't going to be as centric as it is on the desktop pc. Apple seems to be heading in this direction as well with front row [http://www.apple.com/imac/frontrow.html%5D. I don't know but I think Google is going to need to pursuade hardware vendors to use their new GoogleOS instead of windows media center (ROFL) before being taken seriously in "interactive TV Land".
Sounds promising. Firefox will develop a TV. We could use the adblock plugin to get rid of commercials forever. Everybody is happy. Advertisers gets to pay for ads. Google gets paid for ads. I get to block ads. Now, we just need a Firefox to get in on bill board displays, and we won't have ads anywhere.
If anything, all I want is more of a rotation of commercials during series or specifically, multi-part sports programming. Ie, I HATE having to watch the SAME commercials during the entire NBA playoffs, or March Madness, etc. They bombard you with the the whole game, EVERY GAME.
If you believe Bill Hicks (and I'm not entirely disinclined to disagree with him on this point) the advertising industry is inherently evil. If you believe some recent psychological theory on the matter, the reason people are more depressed and unhappy in western developed societies, is the promotion of the "have" culture, over the more positively beneficial "be" culture.
Rampant consumerism is the champion of the "have" culture. it's tool of choice is advertising.
Google say they're comitted to doing no evil (and I'm prepared to believe that this is a genuinely held intent).
Is it possible to ultimately square this with being involved in the advertising industry, and the promotion of the "have" consumerist society?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
... used for all the latest google posts.
"According to {INSERT BLOGGER}, Google is poised to enter into the world of {INSERT FIELD/INDUSTRY}. This would usher in a new era for the venerable medium, creating a tidal wave of revenue for {INSERT BENEFACTORS}, while solidifying Google's position in {INSERT FIELD/INDUSTRY}. {INSERT BLOGGER} develops this prediction based on his belief that Google is developing a network of data centers to be placed around the globe, which would be used to {INSERT FIELD/INDUSTRY} in addition to its current online content."
Let me give this a shot.
According to Mike Hunt, Google is poised to enter into the world of dog food manufacturing. This would usher in a new era for the venerable medium, creating a tidal wave of revenue for Purina, while solidifying Google's position in dog food manufacturing. Mike Hunt develops this prediction based on his belief that Google is developing a network of data centers to be placed around the globe, which would be used to create dog food in addition to its current online content.
Even with hundreds of cable channels we don't get "narrowcast" ads. The technology to do it is all there already. Why do I currently get tampon ads during a midnight episode of Evangelion? Nobody thinks that is the target market. The tampon maker had no idea that their ad would show up there. What they buy are these large horizontal "media buys". They make a "Buy" for a few million $ that includes spots all over the place. For the same $ that it would take to buy targeted time on the Lifetime Network, they can get the same amount of time there and a bunch of other ad spots that are basically "free". A favorite of some friends of mine that worked together in the early 90's is the company's placement of a full back cover ad for a rather arcane pice of sofware in Field and Stream magazine. Yeah, it was a stupid place for the ad and there are million of better things you could spend the $ on. But it was one of those "media buy" packages. For the same $ that it cost to put it on the back cover of Byte and PC World you could do one of these deals and get those two and Field and Stream and Ladies Home Journal and a few others as well - so why not?
"The system" isn't set up to narrowcast its ads to those who are the likelies customers. If they don't use what they could do now, they are unlikely to use this type of thing from Google.
Sure, they could wake up and smell the money. It's a pretty hide bound industry though.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Let me guess here: Blipverts?
I eat bees -- they taste stingy.
The boring alternative is that they are putting up data centers to increase rundundancy and reduce lag(network hops). The fact that it, combined with owning a bunch of dark fiber, also helps them hedge against brain dead network operators attempting to charge for access, probably doesn't hurt.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The more and more I read these articles about all of these peripheral businesses Google is getting into, the more and more I wonder if there is any cohesive strategy to the whole thing. Are Google's executives just going bonkers with all the money they have to spend? Are they just trying to grab headlines to prop up their stock price? What's next, Google brings back the Pets.com sock puppet to serve as the mascot for their new service which lets you store up to 1 Gigabyte of email on your dog's flea-collar which is connected 24/7 to their global Wifi network and enables you to zoom in on your dog via satellite photography?