Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Youngsters Skip DVR Ads Less Than Seniors

Posted by kdawson on Wed May 14, 2008 02:11 AM
from the thumb-cramps dept.
Dekortage writes "Analyzing DVR viewing research, Ad Age has noted something unexpected: older DVR users are more likely to skip ads than younger DVR users. The skew is particularly apparent among men: 50% of seniors skipping all the ads, but only 20% of teens do so. Women of any age group tend to be around 35%. Ad Age hypothesizes that younger viewers 'just pay attention to other media when the ads are on TV or, worse yet, perhaps the TV is just 'background music'... I always thought that ad skipping was a major benefit of DVRs. Do you skip all the ads?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by opencity (582224) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:15AM (#23399864) Homepage
    I barely watch tv and when I do the ads are the best part.
    well ... there's bbc world news
    • by Kpau (621891) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @12:51PM (#23406532)
      Disclosure: I am 50, I don't watch more than a few hours per week. I'll watch *entertaining* television ads. However, they stop being entertaining after the fifth or sixth viewing. When I see the *same* commercial 5 or 6 times in a two hour block, the advertzoids have lost my willingness to view their ad. Non-entertaining ads lose immediately. Shouting at me loses immediately. Gross repetition of the same ad loses immediately. Ads I'm really willing to watch are the ones that evolve or tell a story over a few chained commercials. I don't care if it costs them more - if they want me to watch it, they have to work harder. Frankly, I'd like to see fewer commercials per hour, or bundled at the hour marks -- and I'd be willing to tolerate product placement within a series like they used to do in the 1950s and 60s. Believe it or not that was less intrusive and actually more enticing to buy the product because you saw it used in context. (mmmmmm, Blammo's Evaporated Milk made these cookies scrumptious, don't you think, George?)
      • by DarkSarin (651985) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @07:15AM (#23401110) Homepage Journal
        It sort of skips ads. Not intelligently. I have it, and the button on the remote can be set to one of several distinct time frames, and that's about it. It's a 'dumb' feature in that it doesn't try to figure out how long the ad is or anything, it just moves forward a set amount of time. I can't remember off the top of my head what the options are, but generally you can get through ads in about two or three clicks. It's a bit annoying, but not "I'm going to kill the programmer" annoying.

        No the "I'm going to kill the programmer after I hunt him down and torture him for three weeks" 'feature' that FiOS has is the general buginess of the on-demand stuff. You push the button and about 1 out of 3 times it will simply get confused and refuse to give you access to anything for about 2 minutes. If you are scheduled to record ANYTHING during that time, you are screwed because it will not start recording, and it will not let you fix that fact either (grrr).

        Another annoyance where I'd love to hunt someone down is the recently discovered 'feature' that means if you are going to watch something on DVR, but have 2 shows scheduled to record, you can't have it paused at the moment they are scheduled to start recording, or it will malfunction and fail to record, but if you try to fix this like 2 seconds after the fact because you've realized what's happening, you can't because the machine thinks its already recording (but isn't) and it will only give you the option to cancel the recording (which doesn't work). Argh!

        That said, overall, if you learn to avoid the one bug, and that starting to watch something On Demand just before a taping is scheduled to start is probably a bad idea, then you'll be okay. Annoying (as in, let me shoot someone so their replacement will have motivation to fix it), but not a deal breaker, because overall they have an excellent selection of channels for the price, and their internet service is quite good and very reliable (at least it has been for me so far), which is something I really appreciate. I've never hit bandwidth caps or shaping or anything, and I'd know--I use torrents and isos quite frequently, so there.
  • Ads? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elvum (9344) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:15AM (#23399866) Journal
    • Re:Ads? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bazman (4849) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @03:32AM (#23400188) Journal
      What about all the ads for other BBC programmes? Trailers, promos, Radio 1 DJ ego-vertising? I sure skip those! I even skip the credits of most BBC shows now that they shrink them down to 1/8 screen size...

      • Re:Ads? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Hal_Porter (817932) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @05:28AM (#23400622)

        I don't have ads on my tech news site [wikipedia.org] ... because they are now so intrusive and annoying.
        Why not have Inline Infotainment? I found out InfoTourettes patented scripting system will add tailored product DIET COKE! placements that don't MARLBORO LIGHTS! LO FAT VEGETARIAN SALAD! disrupt the flow of the article TAMPONS! WONDERBRA! and adapt your site's likely audience PONIES! so as not to annoy them or seem intrusive PERSONAL TRAINERS! MANOLO BLAHNIKS!

        You probably haven't even noticed, but I'm using it now.
  • by ludomancer (921940) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:17AM (#23399872)
    .. by not watching at all! This is trite, but I stopped watching TV specifically because of advertising. If I had a DVR, I would most definitely skip them, but from the few shows I've downloaded in the past I can see they're just putting the ads in the show itself now, so... Guess I'll keep not watching TV instead.

    I just really hate that everything in our society has to be about selling you something, or pushing something else into your view.
    • by teebob21 (947095) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:58AM (#23400080) Journal
      The last bit in your post made me think...so prepare for a little ramble... Is today's society really any different than in the past? Corporate sponsorship of such things as stadiums is relatively new, but every time I read an old newspaper (I'm talking Wild West to Great Depression) I am fascinated by the blatant advertising for snake oil remedies and get-rich-quick gold rush schemes. It was right out there on the front page, too. Are we really any different today in America than the rowdy Chinese and Indian markets of yesterday? Perhaps the only difference is that these ads come faceless, in print or in video, rather than a hard-up vendor pushing his wares on the market corner.

      To that end, why are there so many ads? Well, ads simply *work*. If they didn't, there would be no marketing departments and no billboards, no jingles on the radio, no Super Bowl extravaganza commericials.

      I also think ad dollars (and the inevitable ads they pay for) save the average American a lot of money each year. How, you might say? Ad sales finance ventures that may otherwise be unprofitable or unsustainable. When Google became more than just the new kid on the block, and needed to finance a "real" business, they turned to ad sales for revenue. Broadcast TV is free to the public only because advertisers pay for airtime. I cannot imagine a scenario where ABC/NBC/CBS could stay in business broadcasting for free, without the life support of ad sales. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Even if 13 minutes of every half hour program is advertising, I get to watch an episode of [your favorite show] for free, courtesy of Tide or Tampax or Ford or whichever ad was on while I was digging in the fridge for some mustard on my sandwich. Unfortunately, those broadcasters (and most cable networks) are now addicted to this revenue and try to find more new places to sell ad space, like in-show interstitials.

      Does some advertising go to far? Certainly. There's no need for annoying interstitials during a show, especially when it covers up an important part of the action. Do ad dollars shape the world we see today? Of course. Some of our most American retreats are named for advertising. Wrigley Field for example...possibly the first stadium named for an advertiser. It's a historic name now, but we're all weary of Pac Bell/SBC/AT&T Wireless/Minute Maid Park and the Nokia Sugar Bowl. (That said, I would have hated to see Candlestick Park in San Francisco fade away into the shadows over something simple like the naming rights...my all time favorite ballpark, and I'm not even from California)

      Ads can be annoying and overdone, but they are a product of a free capitalistic society. Considering the available societal alternatives (China, Myanmar, and Cuba come to mind), I'll take a few ads and nearly constant product placement. Besides, I didn't buy a Tivo for nothing!
      • by Moridineas (213502) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @03:30AM (#23400184) Journal

        The last bit in your post made me think...so prepare for a little ramble... Is today's society really any different than in the past? Corporate sponsorship of such things as stadiums is relatively new, but every time I read an old newspaper (I'm talking Wild West to Great Depression) I am fascinated by the blatant advertising for snake oil remedies and get-rich-quick gold rush schemes
        You make a really excellent point, and you're exactly right! The poster you replied to just doesn't get it!

        I would actually go beyond what you said--you said that for instance, corporate sponsorship of stadiums is a new thing. Maybe corporate, but in years past it would have been an individual. Think of in the US have many buildings (universities, etc) are named after people who gave money to build them--Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.

        Going back even farther in history, Pompeii gives countless examples of graffiti that showed politics then was no different than today--slanderous and brutal! Same for advertisements, they were everywhere.
      • by Eivind (15695) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 14 2008, @03:51AM (#23400248) Homepage
        Yes we're different. Not perhaps, different than a MARKET earlier, the purpose of a market is, afterall, to SELL stuff. But different in the pervasiveness. This has many reasons. One is a large selection of goods that are really quite equivalent to the buyer, where marketing tries to create incentive to select brand A over brand B on reasons other than price alone when really the differences are debatable. Another is the rising distance (physical and otherwise) between producer and consumer. You don't -know- the guy growing your potatoes anymore. And so mass-marketing has taken over from reputation and word-of-mouth. The worst is, though, that it is EVERYWHERE. Walk down a street in Berlin, and the Brandenburger Tor, one of the most famous landmarks there is is under renovation, and covered with a GIGANTIC telecom-banner. Your shopping-cart has advertising on the handlebar. So does the fuel-pistol-thing when you refuel. All the products you buy are packaged in advertising. TV has more comercials than programming, radio ain't much better. The Internet is filled with banner-ads and stupid flash-crap. Things wheren't always like this. And I'm not convinced we're better off for it. I'm not in favour of banning advertising or anything. But I *am* in favour of having a reasoned debate about under just which rules we want it. And I don't think "anything goes" is it. There is such a thing as visual pollution.
      • by pla (258480) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @04:27AM (#23400392) Journal
        I also think ad dollars (and the inevitable ads they pay for) save the average American a lot of money each year. How, you might say? Ad sales finance ventures that may otherwise be unprofitable or unsustainable.

        Then such ventures should fail. I have no problem with that.

        Advertising makes products that I do want cost more, simple as that. Without spending money trying to convince people who don't want a product that they need it anyway, companies would have a lower overhead and thus could sell for less. Of course, they would sell less overall, and only companies with legitimately useful products would thrive (with the occasional freak exception, of course), but I don't view either of those as necessarily a "bad" thing.

        Look at our society, look at the current economic crisis, look at Bratz dolls, and tell me we don't have an outright disease of buying crap we don't need. We have a problem, and we can thank advertising for hefty chunk of that.


        Ads can be annoying and overdone, but they are a product of a free capitalistic society.

        Just as you can have dinner without gorging yourself to the point of bursting; Just as you can drink without passing out drunk; You can have capitalism without encouraging people to spend more than they have on crap they don't need.
        • by Jellybob (597204) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @04:48AM (#23400500) Journal

          You can have capitalism without encouraging people to spend more than they have on crap they don't need.


          I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

          The problem isn't that people are buying things, it's that they're buying things that are truly unneccesary, and in some cases actually harmful.

          Taking the example of Bratz dolls, if I had children, I wouldn't even consider buying them. As far as I can see, they're teaching children that being succesful is the same as being famous. For any reason, no matter how degrading.

          It appears that society agrees though. The person named as the most popular role model in the UK for teenage girls recently was Amy Winehouse. Which leads me to think I should probably leave the country, before another generation of kids grow up who believe they're entitled to fame just because they exist, instead of having to work for it. After all, if Amy can do it just by getting wasted in front of cameras now and again, why shouldn't they?
          • by somersault (912633) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @05:29AM (#23400634) Homepage Journal

            The person named as the most popular role model in the UK for teenage girls recently was Amy Winehouse
            That is insane. So teenage girls want to be drug/alcohol fuelled nervous wrecks with their partner in jail (and from a quick google I see he almost died in freaking prison from a drugs overdose, how on earth do they manage to get that stuff in there?)? Amy has a spectacular voice, but I can't see anything else attractive about her life. Of course I'm a mid twenties male, not a teenage girl, so maybe my priorities are a little off. Who voted for her to be the 'most popular role model'? I dont think I'll ever understand these crazy women-folk.
            • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14 2008, @08:14AM (#23401652)
              Simply put, people are much less likely to copy simulated violence because there are a thousand voices saying "No, that's wrong, you can't do that". These bratz dolls are more destructive because they're encouraging behaviour that isn't actively discouraged by other media, therefore more people are going to hear it and not hear anything else saying that it's wrong. It's a little like how alcohol poisons more people than arsenic - the solution is teaching kids that both are poisons, even if one doesn't seem to be.
        • by DrLang21 (900992) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @07:01AM (#23401022)

          Advertising makes products that I do want cost more
          There's a double edged sword here. Without advertising, new product awareness takes an extremely long time to mature. You are relying entirely on word-of-mouth from those who just happened to walk by and notice it in a store. This means volume will be extremely low and cost per item relatively high. The consequence of this is that the manufacturer must charge more for the product. It always costs a lot less per unit to make 1,000,000 of an item than to make 1,000 of an item. Advertising done appropriately spreads product awareness rapidly, informing those who would want the product that it exists, thereby increasing the product market and lowering the price. The problem with advertising only comes when advertising is done in excess and causes the prices to start to climb again.
        • by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @07:09AM (#23401076) Journal

          Then such ventures should fail.
          Why?

          Advertising makes products that I do want cost more, simple as that.
          No, woefully bad advertising makes products cost more, and if a company's advertising fits that description, they can usually tell by the lethargic sales. If the advertising is effective enough to recoup costs, it will pay for itself through increased profits. Without it, those increased profits those shareholders demand must come from your pockets. You've got it completely backwards.

          Without spending money trying to convince people who don't want a product that they need it anyway, companies would have a lower overhead and thus could sell for less. Of course, they would sell less overall, and only companies with legitimately useful products would thrive (with the occasional freak exception, of course), but I don't view either of those as necessarily a "bad" thing.
          Wrong again. Companies wouldn't thrive, period. People would be completely in the dark about different options and choices, and would inevitably go to their inefficiently run local shop, which would almost always have a monopoly on whatever you're looking for. Products that can't be made locally would be done by big businesses, but at reduced inefficiency, and consequently everything would become a lot more expensive.

          Advertising is one of the most important tools of modern business. If you deny businesses the right to advertise, we'll have far worse problems than those catchy jingles.
        • Not really (Score:4, Insightful)

          by tkrotchko (124118) * on Wednesday May 14 2008, @07:34AM (#23401256) Homepage
          "companies would have a lower overhead and thus could sell for less."

          Unless there is perfect competition, the overhead a company has is only marginally related to the selling price.

          If I can sell a widget for $100, that's what I'll ask for it, regardless of cost. If the market is buying my widgets as quickly as I can produce them, I would be stupid to reduce the price, even as efficiencies reduce costs to produce.

          It's the same incorrect argument that people make that "shoplifting costs everyone more money". No, it doesn't. Shoplifting costs the store owner money, and is morally wrong. But the shop owner can't raise prices because the store next door (who has a more efficient loss prevention program) will undercut their prices.
      • by Ihlosi (895663) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @06:12AM (#23400798)
        To that end, why are there so many ads? Well, ads simply *work*.



        Ads work on the majority. On me, they usually have the opposite effect (not going to buy stuff that's advertised in particularly annoying/stupid/psychologically exploitive ways).



        Ads can be annoying and overdone, but they are a product of a free capitalistic society.



        Ads take away the consumers freedom to chose the better product (yes - ads _work_ that way on many people. There are subconscious effects that are very, very hard to suppress. Most people can't do this at all, which is one of the reasons why ads work so well), shifting the focus on the product that is marketed best. Quite possibly, ads are what turns customers into consumers.



        If you came up with a formula for a soda that tastes better than the established alternatives while being healthier, do you think it'd fly off the shelves ? Nope. It's not Coke or Pepsi. You'd first have to fight a marketing battle against companies whose marketing budget is probably a few orders of magnitude larger than what your company is worth. And they'd fight your better product with tooth and claw - not by making their products better, but by stepping up their marketing efforts.

        • by rickwood (450707) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @07:52AM (#23401416)
          It's interesting that this came up, because I've been thinking about this subject quite a bit in the last week or so. Interesting enough, in fact, that I'll undo my mods to reply in the affirmative.

          Manners demand that I preface the following by saying that I am not trying to brag, I am trying to provide some bona fides. I'm a smart guy with a strong engineer's mind. I read a newspaper, watch a television news program, and browse dozens of web feeds every day. My library contains more than a thousand volumes. I spend more time than the average person on introspection and self-analysis. Additionally, I'm extremely stubborn. The surest way to get me to not do something is to try to browbeat me into doing it.

          Like many of you, I didn't think advertising worked on me. Yet a couple of weeks ago I inexplicably found myself spending half an hour at marines.com looking into enlistment. That the Marines are heavily advertised during adult swim, which I often have on while coding, can't be a coincidence.

          World-class advertisers are very good at what they do. They literally have it down to a science. Even if you can use your intellect to protect yourself from the overt message, there's still the more subtle psychological cues and even sheer repetition if nothing else works. It wasn't that long ago the Marines couldn't get enough recruits. The AP reported this week that they've met 142% of their recruiting goal [google.com] for April. That's not likely to be a coincidence either.
      • by Digital Vomit (891734) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @06:13AM (#23400804) Homepage Journal

        Considering the available societal alternatives (China, Myanmar, and Cuba come to mind), I'll take a few ads and nearly constant product placement.

        I almost believed you weren't a shill for some advertising or marketing agency until I read that hilarious line. "If we didn't have ads plastered everywhere, we'd have COMMUNISM!!!1!"

        Ads are not so much a product of a free capitalist society as they are a symptom of a culture that values money over things like time, aesthetics, and integrity.

      • by malsdavis (542216) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @06:38AM (#23400916)
        "Ads can be annoying and overdone, but they are a product of a free capitalistic society. Considering the available societal alternatives (China, Myanmar, and Cuba come to mind), I'll take a few ads and nearly constant product placement. Besides, I didn't buy a Tivo for nothing!"

        It's not an either/or situation. It's totally feasible to have a free capitalistic society without unregulated advertising. In fact, unregulated advertising hurts capitalism.

        A central pillar of capitalism (from Adam Smith's original work) is that people buy things they need or desire. If people are tricked into buying things they don't need or desire (whether via deception, lies, force or just clever advertising), then classical capitalist theory breaks down and the efficiency which makes capitalism great, goes out the window!
  • by Nutria (679911) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:18AM (#23399878)
    ... just get captivated by the high-energy movement and noise of commercials. At least that's how my 8yo & 10yo act. I'm constantly yelling (from the next room) "Skip over the commercials!!!".

    • by Thanshin (1188877) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @03:14AM (#23400138)

      I'm constantly yelling (from the next room) "Skip over the commercials!!!".
      They watch the ads as an act of rebellion.

      Next they'll install Vista, put all their personal info on facebook and answer Nigerian spam.

  • Television? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:18AM (#23399882)
    I thought tvrss.net and Miro kind of made that irrelevant these days.

  • by Bwerf (106435) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:18AM (#23399888)
    I don't know if anyone was confused by the abbreviation, but anyway, DVR seems to be Digital Video Recorder [wikipedia.org]. Maybe it's just because I'm from sweden. Anyway, hope it helps someone.
    • by LanMan04 (790429) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @07:06AM (#23401054) Homepage

      I don't know if anyone was confused by the abbreviation, but anyway, DVR seems to be Digital Video Recorder. Maybe it's just because I'm from sweden. Anyway, hope it helps someone.
      I believe the Swedish acronym is BBB. Then again, BBB is the Swedish acronym for just about anything; ask that famous chef of theirs.
  • women (Score:3, Funny)

    by William Robinson (875390) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:20AM (#23399896)

    Women of any age group tend to be around 35%.

    That proves, women never grow :P

  • by Mike1024 (184871) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:22AM (#23399906)

    I always thought that ad skipping was a major benefit of DVRs. Do you skip all the ads?
    If you assume most people who pay for DVRs want to skip ads, one would expect DVR buyers to skip ads.

    Their teenage children may not feel as strongly about adverts because children of DVR buyers, unlike DVR buyers themselves, have not self-selected for wanting to skip ads.

    Jusy my $0.02.
    • by aztektum (170569) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:41AM (#23399992)
      Pretty much the first thing that popped into my head as well.

      Younger people are more into popular culture, which is heavily marketed on tele. They have more of a propensity to stay in touch. "Older people" are going to be far more "set" in their way and less influenced by ads.

      Hence, as the parent suggests, their desire to purchase a DVR
      • by Pharmboy (216950) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @08:37AM (#23401944) Journal
        I'm in a different camp of sorts. I have a DVR to record when I am not there, of course, but the main advantages are:

        1. Skip commercials, so I can watch 3 30 minute shows in one hour. It's a better use of my time and it makes the shows flow better to not have the interuptions.

        2. I let shows stack up on the drive, and watch a few in a row. I hate "to be continued" episodes without the next episode handy. I usually stay a couple episodes back just for this reason.

        3. I like to watch runs of old programs. I can tear through a whole years worth of series in 2 to 4 weeks. Shows have better continuity when you watch them closer in time. Same reason I buy DVDs of TV shows. (Firefly comes to mind, and Futurama)
  • TiVo (Score:5, Informative)

    by riceboy50 (631755) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:23AM (#23399912)
    I love the TiVo easter egg for enabling 30-second skip [bigmarv.net]. I don't know how I lived without it before. I've heard of Myth and other software DVRs stripping out commercials altogether, but I enjoy the TiVo service.
  • Solution (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tx (96709) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:29AM (#23399948) Journal
    Advertisers should slow their commercials down so that the play at the right speed when we're doing a 32x fast forward. Think about it - everybody wins. The TV companies sell more ad space, because a 5min break only gives 9 seconds of ad playback time. We the viewers get really concise, focussed ads. And the advertisers will actually get their ads watched the whole way through. I am a fricking genius, am I not!
  • by joeflies (529536) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:31AM (#23399954)
    between channel surfing and ad skipping?

    Just based on personal observation, I notice most young people don't skip ads, but rather start watching another program. Their hyper short-term attention spans drive them to find new content instead of finishing the content they were originally watching. A teen will watch 10 minutes of 5 different shows in an hour, without having to use the skip button on the dvr at all.

    Older people, with greater attention spans, want to continue the program they were watching, and thus use the technology to skip the ads in order to watch the entire program.
    • by Neoprofin (871029) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @03:00AM (#23400090)
      As a young person who, thankfully, doesn't really watch TV on a regular basis I can tell you the reasoning for this is part of why I don't.

      Say you're watching a show and an ad comes on, you've got a good three minutes, at least, before your show comes back. So you find something else good to watch until it goes to commercial. Then you switch back, but wait, show #1 is still on commercial, find show #3. When it goes to commercial #1 is probably back, if not maybe number #2. The way shows repeat themselves over and over again and the increasing length of commercial breaks means you can just about watch two or three shows at a time if you're intent on doing so.

      Finding three good shows to skip between, that's the challenge. I can rarely find one, which may explain why catching 50 minutes of one show or 10 minutes of five different ones all comes out about the same in the end.
  • by Dieppe (668614) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:45AM (#23400008) Homepage
    Hell, I skip the articles about skipping the ads.

  • Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rts008 (812749) <rts008@@@hotmail...com> on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:59AM (#23400084) Journal
    When I first started paying attention to TV, the commercials were between the half hour shows, or one commercial break (a word from our sponsors was the term used) halfway through an hour long show.
    Then it went to commercials between the half hour shows, with one commercial halfway through at 15 minutes. An hour show would have the commercials between, and then every 20 minutes.
    Then it went from two commercials between shows, and then one ever 15 minutes.
    Then two every 15 minutes.
    Then two every 10 minutes.
    When I finally could not take anymore, and just quit watching TV altogether about 5 years ago, it was 3-4 commercials every 4-5 minutes. I tried recording a 30 minute show-pausing during the commercials, and ended up with 18 minutes of show...the other 12 minutes were commercials...over one third of the 30 minute show was commercials, not the show.

    And those insidious 'infomercials'- 30 minute commercials WITH commercials...WTF?!?!?!

    Enough already!
    So yeah, I enjoyed being able to watch a show with only one or two SHORT commercial breaks, but I cannot enjoy the way it is now where the commercial breaks seem to be longer than the show breaks in between them.

    To me it seems to have done a complete 180. It started as a way for advertisers to use a show to get a chance to show an ad or two and provide the entertainment draw to increase the audience to view those couple of ads.
    Now the show is only an vehicle to drown you in commercials, the show be damned.

    So now, with a DVR (with say a 200GB HDD), you're filling up over 70GB's of it with commercials, and during playback, you end up having to either hold on to the remote, or pick it up every 4 minutes to fast forward through the commercials.

    No wonder most kids today have short attention spans, or just do something else and leave the TV playing in the background.

    This sounds like a study done back in the early 1990's (given an $86,000 USD grant) to find out if people preferred warm or cold showers, and why. Duh!

  • Non-DVR owner (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ledow (319597) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @03:46AM (#23400228) Homepage
    I don't have a DVR but I think I can explain this quite simply. I don't buy a TV to watch ads. Myself, being an old fart, just wants to watch the highlighted programs that I know I will like. I no longer want to "try" watching much unless it really grabs my interest. By flooding me with ads, the TV companies have made it almost impossible to get me interested in any new series that I might want to watch. I'm more likely to read about it in a paper/online or pick up on it via word of mouth once it's been established for about two or three series. Thus, I have a tendency to totally skip all ads for anything.

    If I was a kid today, I wouldn't see the point in TV at all. It's all just ads. When I was younger, there were a handful of ads that, even back then, I used as a convenient break in my programs to use the bathroom, make a drink etc. But now there's nothing of interest to them, and if they manually skipped them all they'd never get anything done. They are actually doing what the TV companies would fear most - they are learning to completely ignore ads in all media because they are saturated with them from an early age in all media. That's a good skill for them to have, I say. Thus, they can leave them playing and it makes little difference.

    Myself and my wife gave up on broadcast TV about five years ago. By that I mean that the TV is now just a display device - we watch DVD's (and even still videos) and we play games on it all the time. But that's pretty much it. We have a satellite subscription on the lowest paid rate because then we get the "old programs" channels and things like Discovery but we're even considering giving that up because it's no longer of much value to us. We watch a "new" program about once a year, if that. But if I stumble across a favourite, I'll watch it if I'm in the mood.

    The chances are that we only watch maybe one or two half-hour programs a night now and only about three or four nights a week unless we are working hard. That's WAY down on our previous rates. Most of the programs we do watch are re-runs that we know we are going to enjoy (although they are being slowly ruined by being edited for broadcasting during the day and then repeated with those same edits during the evening - so we "jar" on the gaps because we know the programs well enough to know something "naughty" was cut out, even though it's way past most people's bedtime). We have the remote on hand to mute all the adverts (because of the "let's raise advert volume levels" stupidity) and wait for the channel banner until we turn it back on. In the gap, we read, make phonecalls or prepare food. A lot of the time we just switch the thing off or, if our interest was peaked by a favourite program being on but it being yet another repeat of that episode we've watched a thousand times, what we will do is dig out our "complete set" DVD and choose a better episode of the same series.

    Broadcast TV is slowly dying under the weight of the ads, for which the good programming has given way - it has been for years. They are poor quality (especially the ones that seem US-based when broadcast to a UK audience - the Cillit Bang man really needs a volume-reduction operation and the "US advert with dubbed fake UK voices" is just too grating when it's every other advert), uninteresting, not well targetted, over-used, over-frequent, and too forced. And the programs that they are replacing are becoming more like adverts every day. Even the bloody movies are adverts now (the bit in "I Robot" about the trainers really annoyed me in an otherwise very enjoyable film).

    I can remember a time when I was younger, when a Saturday night was a non-stop run of fantastic programs, some old, some new and some which even then were 20-year-old repeats but it didn't show that badly - that made you stay in front of the TV all evening. The example that my wife likes to use is Tony Hancock (although we're both far too young to remember it the first time around, that's our sort of humour and type of era/program
  • DVR? Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Randall311 (866824) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @06:44AM (#23400938) Homepage
    I just use BitTorrent. I have a client that broadcatches my favorite shows from RSS feeds. They are always in matroska format 720p (half hour shows run about 500 MB, hour longs about 1 GB). I have a cron job that runs every 15 minutes detecting if a torrent has finished downloading and I am seeding. If it has, then the file is unrared, extracted from it's mkv format container, audio gets converted from AC3 -> 6 channel PCM -> 6 channel AAC, video is kept as is (H.264), then it is remuxed into mp4 format and served up to my media server (uShare). Then the file automatically shows up in my media server when I turn on the PS3 (I have a Perl script for all this). This whole process takes from 20 mins to 2 hours for the torrent download, then 10-15 minutes for the file conversion. The result is ad-free beautiful 720p shows that I can watch anytime. I thought this was the Slashdot way! Who needs a DVR? All you need are seeders... Seed plz!
    • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:21AM (#23399902)

      I also have Adblock
      I wouldn't equate skipping ads with a dvr to adblock. With the DVR, it requires forethought and actions on my part whenever an ad comes on. With adblock, I just turn it on and occasionally right-click on an ad to get it to work. I also usually watch TV with my wife, so we can talk and "interact" during the commercials; sometimes we even get so into the interaction that we have to pause the commercials.
      • by ccandreva (409807) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @05:51AM (#23400724) Homepage

        I wouldn't equate skipping ads with a dvr to adblock. With the DVR, it requires forethought and actions on my part whenever an ad comes on. With
        Then you have the wrong dvr.

        MythTV automatically marks and skips all commercials , with fairly high accuracy. It's a rare event that I have to manually do anything. Most commercials are just gone.

        http://www.mythtv.org/
          • Yes, lowest user ID, but I'll bet you're sad you called yourself "Pestilence".

            On topic: I notice that almost every ad I see contains something dishonest or adversarial.

            TV ads are a good source of information for me. They tell me what not to buy. If it's on TV, it's over-priced or unnecessary, with few exceptions. Otherwise the advertiser would not be able to pay, or be willing to pay, the huge cost of TV ads.
          • by drsoran (979) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @06:16AM (#23400810)
            The trouble with claiming to have the lowest user ID in a thread is that someone with one lower will inevitably show up just to post and annoy you. N00b.

            Now, as for the topic at hand, MythTV does allow automated commercial skipping, but you have to remember that most DVRs consumers use do not support anything more than a glorified fast-forward like a VCR. My Scientific Atlanta PVR from the cable company is like that and doesn't even offer skip feature. I believe TiVos are the same way unless you use the code to unlock the 30-second skip feature.
            • by dwater (72834) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @07:37AM (#23401274)
              My ReplayTV 4000 skips adds automagically and still works after all these years (so I'm told - I let my old room-mates use it since I'm out of the country and last time I visited it was working just fine).

              It isn't 100% reliable though, so I noticed that they will often skip back 5 seconds to see if it skipped forward too far ...
            • by Eccles (932) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @04:00PM (#23409650) Journal
              The trouble with claiming to have the lowest user ID in a thread is that someone with one lower will inevitably show up just to post and annoy you.

              I hate people like that.

    • by Jellybob (597204) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @04:57AM (#23400536) Journal
      You download TV, and then decide to watch American Idol?

      Do feel free to jump in front of the nearest bus. You'll be doing the genepool a favour. Maybe if we get enough people removing themselves, "I should be famous because my mummy loves me" TV will slowly die out.