Google Patent Proposes $2 Fee To Skip Commercials

theodp writes "A day after Google debuted its new Google TV website, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,806,329 to the search giant for its Targeted Video Advertising invention. Among other things, the patent proposes having viewers take 5-10 minutes to 'fill out a consumer survey and perhaps to provide additional information such as a mailing address survey before starting the program' to avoid having to watch 10 minutes of commercials. 'As another alternative,' the patent continues, 'the broadcaster may offer the users an option to pay $2 (such as through a micro-payment system, such as GBuy) to exchange for skipping all commercials.' More from the patent: 'The system may allow a user to skip all of the promotions that they want to skip, but may also require the user to fully watch at least four promotions before the program will continue. Likewise, the system may require the user to follow activities that generate a certain amount of advertising revenue or advertising points (e.g., that may correspond directly or indirectly to advertising revenues) before the program will continue.'"

Comments

Greed

[iONiUM]

To me, at this point, commercials are greed. We already pay subscription (cable or otherwise), and most movies/TV shows use product placement among other things to supplement the cost. What really gets me is that now movies have 10 minutes of commercials before them. Did I really just pay $10 to watch 10 minutes of commercials before the 15 minutes of movie trailers? It's odd that only a few years ago, the movie/theatre business made a nice profit without having these commercials, yet now they cannot live without them.

I hope in time commercial-less media is the norm.

Re:Greed

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope in time commercial-less media is the norm.

I guess you haven't seen Demolition Man, have you?

Re:Greed

[MozeeToby]

What really gets me is that now movies have 10 minutes of commercials before them. Did I really just pay $10 to watch 10 minutes of commercials before the 15 minutes of movie trailers?

Go somewhere else then, seriously. Most often it's the small, independent, or even budget theaters that actual treat their patrons nicely. Even in the relatively small town I live in there is at least one budget theater that promises no commercials, less than 10 minutes of previews, and (as they love to point out as often as possible) real butter on the popcorn. And the manager actually knows the regulars, gives out free tickets and popcorn before the start of many movies, apologizes in person if something is wrong, and actually tries to make the whole experience enjoyable. And all for less than half the price of going to one of the big name theaters. Ok, sure, you won't get to see new releases opening weekend, but how often can you really not wait an extra month or two before you see a movie?

Re:Greed

[the_fat_kid]

do they want me to get things from bit torrent?
I haven't had cable television in over a year. I got tired of all the infomercial crap.
I don't think that I will be paying for a show with comercials.
I think that it will be a cold day in hell that I pay $2 extra for one without.
Just how much do they think that television is worth?
Not gonna do it. no thanks.
now you will have to excuse me, I have some Dexter to watch...

Re:Greed

[takowl]

I hope in time commercial-less media is the norm.

In glorious soviet UK, we have four major TV channels (and minor channels, national and local radio stations) without commercials. This costs £145 per year ($230, or ~$20 per month). In fact, the radio channels and website can be used for free, you pay if you have a TV (although I wonder if this will change in the future).

Re:Greed

[maxume]

There are plenty of commercials on PBS, they just happen to be between programs, rather than interrupting them.

Re:Greed

[aardwolf64]

The whole commercial thing goes back a long way. Television used to be free, over the air. Consumers were promised that paying for cable would keep the content commercial-free. Then the media companies got greedy, and stuck advertising in there anyway... It's not like we have much of an alternative.

I don't watch shows until around 15 minutes after they come on, so that I can start at the beginning and fast forward through the commercials.

Re:Greed

[h4rm0ny]

Not where I live in the UK. Here the small independent cinemas are so squeezed by the big chains that they put on an absurd amount of adverts before the film. After carefully calculating whether or not my friend and I would have time to see a movie before I had to get back for a meeting, I found that there were over half an hour of adverts and trailers before a one and a half-hour film. Needless to say, I wasn't pleased. I'd allowed some leeway but I hadn't expected forty-minutes. And I don't even mind the trailers usually as I like to see them, but this was mainly car ads. I'm unlikely to go there again.

I think at this point, society is seriously messed up. If we have to pay to avoid being monitored and hit with sales pitches, then the world of advertising must be either so desparate or so avaricious, that it's lost all reason. It's tantamount to a protection racket where people pay not to be hassled. And you'd think that if you were an advertiser, your target audience would be the ones that could afford not to see your ads, no?

I don't think it's even the advertising companies that are to blame. Well they are, because they pay for all this, but ultimately they're just driven by the investors with quarterly whips to increase profits higher and higher. It's the market analysts (or whatever they're called these days) who keep offering them this magic ticket whereby the wonderful technique of stripping everyone of the last dregs of their privacy, will connect each seller with an untapped market of people who desparately want their product. They mine every last drop of data they can from us and then try to flog their services to the product manufacturers saying "look - we know who'll buy your goods. Pay ussssss."

Advertising long since stopped being about companies trying to make money off the public. Advertising is now about advertisers trying to make money off the companies.

Re:Greed

[uniquename72]

I managed a movie theater for a few years in the '90s. It cost about $60 to show a movie -- primarily in utilities and employee costs. Tickets were $5 a piece for an adult, but most of that went to the studios. So if 12 people came to a movie and all bought something at the concession stand (which made about $5 on average per person), we broke even. Of course, since most of the shows had about 125 people in them, it was a money-making machine. The vast majority of our money came from selling overpriced popcorn and soda.

Today, the theaters themselves are the ones who get paid off of pre-movie advertising -- that's on top of vast mark-ups on concession items. Meanwhile, ticket costs have tripled in the last 15 years, and movie studios are making record profits -- particularly given that there are additional revenue streams like product placement, DVD sales/rental, fees from TV, etc.

So no, ticket costs without showing ads would certainly not be more that $10. In fact, pre-movie ads are almost entirely unrelated to ticket prices.

Re:Greed

[TheGratefulNet]

I'm over 40 and have not been to a movie theater in probably 5 years. maybe even more.

I would not even weep if all the movie 'theaters' went out of business tomorrow.

when businesses get that greedy and evil, the sooner they fade away the better.

the unpleasantness of being in the theater and being overcharged at every step turns me off so I choose not to go there.

I rent movies at home all the time. 1000% better experience. the fact that my screen is 32" wide does not bother me in the least! any movie that -needs- a big scream and jet plane level sound is too weak on its content to hold my interest for very long, anyway. being in the comfort of home trumps all 'benefits' of what the theaters give.

let this model die. it had a good run but its not needed anymore.

Re:Greed

[IndustrialComplex]

The whole commercial thing goes back a long way. Television used to be free, over the air. Consumers were promised that paying for cable would keep the content commercial-free.

No we weren't. This is looking at the past with rose tinted lenses. A few channels may have been SOLD as commercial free, but that's not why we bought it.

My TV had 13 buttons on it, I could program them and tune them to 13 radio frequencies. What cable offered was 32 channels, all without snow/noise and I wouldn't have to maintain an aerial on top of my house. I was USED to commercials on most of those stations I received (not 13, I think I could receive about 3 on a good day) But I was sold on the fact that I wouldn't have to bother with an antenna, it would always be clear, and I'd get a lot more. Prism and HBO were big selling points.

(As an aside, boy I miss that TV. After it was 13 or so years old, My little sister once tried to get the cartoon characters out and tossed a rock at it. Slight crack in the center we got used to. 13 years after THAT it finally gave up the ghost in a rather ghostlike fashion by shooting blue plasma out the back)

But back on topic, I don't ever remember being sold on no commercials except on channels like HBO.

Re:Greed

[Lumpy]

You can.

Get a Satellite dish and receiver that is supported by them and buy your channel subscription. Buddy does it with his C band dish.

He pays for $110 a YEAR for 38 premium channels from Starz, HBO and Cinemax.

It's been this way for decades.

Re:Greed

[ran-o-matic]

Broadcast television is still free, over the air, and have always had commercials (in the case of PBS stations more subtle, but still there). I don't remember anyone promising me that cable would eliminate commercials. Provide better and more reliable picture quality and add choice, yes, but not change the actual programming delivered.

Re:Greed

[commodore64_love]

I haven't been in a regular big movie theater in probably 7-8 years - the damned effort of having to take a bath and get dressed drove me away. Bittorrent is easier. Download at night and watch tomorrow.

Re:Greed

[phantomfive]

I think at this point, society is seriously messed up.

lol how do you know when your life is too good? When you think advertising before you get entertained means society is seriously messed up.

Seriously, this is messed up society, and so is this, but having your entertainment delayed is not.

Re:Greed

[BrokenHalo]

I don't think it's even the advertising companies that are to blame.

I do. Advertisers have arrogated to themselves the right to pollute every single surface visible by humans with their inane excreta, and NOBODY is doing a damn thing to stop them.

Re:Greed

[An ominous Cow art]

Netflix has solved the problem for me, but there is still the tedium of selecting which DVDs I want, and the hardship of making the trek to the mailbox...

Re:Greed

[EdIII]

When studios finally realize that annoying a customer to the point where he would rather steal than deal with your product, they might try a different model.

That is wholly untrue though. Most unfortunately so.

Your logic is sound. The problem is that you think backing "them" into a corner will cause them to act rationally since they have no choice left. The reality is the crazy bastards pull out a nuclear bomb, and with eyes twitching, their faces contorted in rage and madness, consign the rest of us to oblivion.

Big Media, as they are so fondly and often referred to as, have more in common with fundamentalist terrorists than they do with normal, rational people.

We are at serious, imminent, and direct risk of losing all of freedoms because they can't accept or adapt to the situation. Look at ACTA, the DMCA, etc. Our rights to privacy, anonymity, etc. are being literally destroyed in the name of protecting copyrights. Copyrights themselves keep expanding their rights and time limits in ways that are clearly damaging to society. Software patents, patents on DNA for fucks sake, all of it together is causing serious harm to innovation.

You are entirely correct, but in the worst way possible. They ARE trying a different model. They are changing the playing field and the rules itself. We are the ones that are going to suffer most intensely because of it.

When you no longer own your hardware, software must centrally managed and authorized by the government, every action in your digital realm (aka Cyberspace) is watched and monitored, and all of your content and communications are vetted before they can be accessed, viewed, or even commented on, are you FREE?

You may be thinking I am nuts, but is Big Media heading that direction with technology and lobbying in Congress, or are they getting ready to be rational and come to the table for good faith negotiations with the People?

Heh. The Doomsday clock is at 1 minute to Midnight for us in entertainment.

Re:Greed

[Jeppe Salvesen]

I don't watch TV (aaarhhh!), I use adblock, and most of the stuff I subsribe to comes with only a few ads. My phone is not listed for telemarketers. And on my mailbox, there's a "no advertising, please" sticker.

Life is good. At least in that respect.

(I still get hassled a bit by pushy salespeople in the streets, though. I'm just waiting for the Norwegian law enforcement to become so inefficent that I can punch them without risking getting hassled by the Man. And the public space is filled with advertising.)

Re:Greed

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing like a self-righteous lecture to make you feel better, huh?

Well, there goes my "Fast Forward" button

[elrous0]

The fast forward button on my DVR was one of the last bits of freedom I had, to skip some guy screaming at me about some car/cereal/appliance that I just *HAVE* to buy. I guess Google TV will forgo "Fast Forward" for a "Pay Us Money Not To Have To Watch These Annoying Commercials" button. Ain't technological progress grand?

Re:Well, there goes my "Fast Forward" button

[mikael_j]

My freedom is in the form of pirated TV shows and movies, if you won't let me pay for and download them (I'm in Sweden and the choices for US TV shows are pretty much nill) legally then I'll just get them for free without commercials. I'm not waiting several months just for the privilege of commercials and subtitles made by some college student who doesn't understand what he or she is translating...

Before everyone gets crazy...

[L3370]

Remember...

We can still go grab a beer and fix a sandwich up during commercials. Don't freak out. Just do something else.

Re:Before everyone gets crazy...

[mark-t]

Right.... until they start adding commercials to books as electronic readers start becoming more mainstream. You won't be able to turn the page until you sit through this 15 second commercial that the publisher figures might interest you based on the content of the book.

Better idea

[Pojut]

Google is the "king" of targeted ads...so why not do the same thing with Google TV? If I'm watching an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force, I obviously will not give a shit about life insurance...but a video game? Sure. I'll sit through an advertisement for that. Unless it's one of those lame Gamestop machinima commercials...

This seems like a strange direction for Google to take...what with their algorithms used for serving up ads online, one would think they would utilize something similar for their TV service...I despise advertisements, but I'll tolerate them if it's relevant to what I'm watching.

Re:Better idea

[Jaqenn]

Perhaps I undervalue my security and privacy, but I keep hoping for an increase in the targeted advertising I experience.

I don't want to refinance my house. I don't want to find relationships online. I don't want to find old classmates. I don't want to earn money by signing up for free trials. Even though I don't want these things, I see these ads a lot.

I like videogames and boardgames. I like anime. I like paintball. I like cooking. I already go out of my way to learn about new products and discounts in these areas.

I would love to surrender information about my interests in order to replace the ads I don't care about with ads that I do care about. I'm fine with the idea that they need to make money somehow, and I'm willing to sell them my attention if they talk to me about products that I agree to myself, 'Yeah, I might have wanted that'. Give me an internet radio style thumbs-up / thumbs-down button for the ads, including a 'Never show me an ad for this product again'.

OMG

[DoofusOfDeath]

If there was ever a situation that deserved writing scripts that control a video player, this is it.

Script #1: Fill in the customer survery with bogus-but-valid-looking info.

Script #2: During commercials, cut off the video player's access to the screen and audio output, and instead have the computer present either silence or some alternative form of entertainment (music, etc.)

Just an Example Amount

[eldavojohn]

From reading the paragraph in context, it seems like Google was just showing an example of how a broadcaster or content provider could become indifferent to how their broadcasting revenue is generated. The patent gives three examples for making up $1-$2 of advertising revenue on a one hour program for each viewer. It could be done through commercials as traditionally is done, by survey or even at a direct charge to the viewer. I think it's important to note that the $2 figure doesn't seem to be set in stone, it's more an example of how a broadcaster who demands $2 in advertising revenue per viewer could recoup or mitigate those costs.

The real question is: how is this any different than someone forking over a couple bucks to watch the latest Futurama episode on iTunes?

You can call it "skipping commercials" or you can call it "selling the right to view content once" or whatever the hell you want. But it all comes down to you reimbursing the broadcasters for their content--which has traditionally been done through advertising. I'm surprised this is invoking so much ire from the Slashdot crowd.

Patent?

[joeyblades]

I'm not sure why a strategy is considered an invention... moreover, a strategy that has been used for a while by FOX.

Is $2 too much?

[yuna49]

I looked at current advertising costs to see whether $2/episode is justified. Right now advertisers pay about 3.3 cents to put an ad in the face of a 25-54 year-old adult during a prime-time show. In an hour-long show, there are about sixteen minutes of non-program material, though some of that is promotions for other shows and local advertising. Let's say that ten minutes of every prime-time hour includes national advertising. That means advertisers are willing pay about thirty cents per show; two dollars seems like gouging in comparison.

Re:Absolutely Evil.

[gstoddart]

That about sums it up. Who have they been hiring lately?

I can only hope they're trying to patent this so no one else can do it, then they just sit on it never using it.

Yeah, no kidding. Fill out a survey before I can watch TV? Pay them for the privilege to not watch commercials? Generate a certain amount of ad revenue?

My PVR already allows me to do this for free. I can guarantee that as soon as my TV watching will enforce that I watch commercials or pay to skip them, I will simply cancel my TV subscription and stop watching it altogether. I will occasionally rewind to see a commercial which catches my eye, but I'm not generally interested in being advertised to.

Google is in the middle of the worst possible scenario of monetization of my viewing time. None of these "features" would do anything other than drive me away. I don't give a tinkers damn about their advertising revenue, and if they make advertising more intrusive than it already is, I will deny them any more. Give me what I want without making the experience suck more, and maybe.

Everything described in this patent removes value from TV, and makes cost of watching TV (both monetary and time) not worth it.

Tell you what, pay me to watch commercials instead of forcing me to watch them or paying to skip them -- I refuse to be obligated by your advertising contracts. Until then, your business model is between you and your advertiser. My TV watching is between me and my remote, and ends at the point where I say to hell with it, and turn off the TV.

Re:Why, on Earth, is anyone complaining?

[Viewsonic]

Cable was invented to be commercial free. That was why people originally paid the premium for all those commercial free channels.

Then came the premium cable channels like HBO, Showtime, etc. For the most part those are commercial free, but if you watch Showtimes "Big Brother" they have commercials through-out that. I can only imagine this will get worse and worse and eventually these premium commercial free channels are littered with them. It's bad enough we get to watch a bunch of movie stars in Entourage drink a brand of beer no one in their right mind would ever think about drinking unless they're 50 and sitting in their underwear watching infomercials all night long.

Alamo Drafthouse

[shawnmchorse]

Case in point: The Alamo Drafthouse. They play first run movies (as well as cult films and other such), serve food and alcohol, and have actual pre-show video entertainment (not commercials). If a movie isn't playing at the Drafthouse, I generally don't bother going. It's not worth putting up with general obnoxiousness of the large corporate theater chains like Cinemark.

Re:Alamo Drafthouse

[Jawnn]

Case in point: The Alamo Drafthouse. They play first run movies (as well as cult films and other such), serve food and alcohol, and have actual pre-show video entertainment (not commercials). If a movie isn't playing at the Drafthouse, I generally don't bother going. It's not worth putting up with general obnoxiousness of the large corporate theater chains like Cinemark.

Good point. Portland, OR has the McMenamin's establishments that operate in a very similar manner. I reckon that most major cities have something similar. The clientele is more polite (don't insist on texting and annoying every patron behind them) , the menu is far superior, and there's good beer. What's not to like?
Even the small town I lived in a few years ago had a small, locally owned theater that offered an experience that was superior in every way to the multiplex chains that have so fucked up the cinema business. I confess that I still hit the big theaters once or twice a year, for something that I just can't stand to wait for, but that's a tiny fraction of what I used to do. I've sent my message. How 'bout y'all?

I'll do them one better - pay me to watch the ads.

[zerofoo]

How about Google shares their ad revenue with me if I agree to watch the commercials?

I've been told many times that the show is not the product - the viewers are the product. Fine, if I allow Google to show me the ads using MY bandwidth, why not give me a cut of the ad revenue?

-ted

Re:Nothing is free

[The MAZZTer]

But we already pay for cable/satellite TV... commercials on public airwaves I understand.

Re:$2

[kidgenius]

How much is a pay-per-episode of a TV show on iTunes? Isn't it like $1.99? You get to skip all of the commercials, right? Isn't that the equivalent of $2/episode? This isn't that outrageous.

Re:Well Sure, If That Covers the Costs

[wed128]

i worry you'll sit through commercials AFTER paying for the book, just like cable.

My simple life

[Andy Smith]

I hate the logos that TV stations put in the corner of the screen throughout shows. So I stopped watching TV three years ago.

The high number of adverts in each show was becoming a problem, but the logos annoyed me more. Now, since I've stopped watching TV because of the logos, the adverts don't bother me. Funny that.

When it gets to the point that hour-long shows have half-an-hour of interactive adverts that you MUST watch or they play again, that won't bother me. Because I still won't be watching TV.

I have so much more time to be productive since I quit the tube.

Re:Why, on Earth, is anyone complaining?

[Alien Being]

"Cable was invented to be commercial free."

As much as I share your sentiment, that statement is not true. Cable TV (CATV) was invented to distribute regular broadcasts to areas where private antennas are not feasible.

Re:Absolutely Evil.

[FatSean]

Wow, way to apologise for this kind of thing.

I just download TV via torrent with the commercials already cut out. If that means the shows stop being made, oh well, I'll move on to other entertainment.

At this point I feel adversarial towards the distributors and producers of TV content. They just take and take and take. Fine, I played along for years but not anymore. Now I'm going to actively subvert their revenue stream just to fuck with them.

Re:Absolutely Evil.

[geekoid]

Evil? really? yeah, here is an option, you don't have to do it but if it adds value for you then you can opt in.

Yeah, freaking evil~

yea.. what's your take on Boeing's charge

[way2trivial]

'cause a 777 STARTS at $205 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

Re:Absolutely Evil.

[flooey]

Yeah, I sure hope none of the websites I frequent would ever have a system by which I could give them some money to have the advertising removed. That would be awful!