Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Media

AdCritic To Return 117

Posted by Hemos
from the arise-from-your-grave-o-addled-one dept.
jspectre writes "The Ad Age Group has acquired advertising archive AdCritic which was shut down last year and are bringing it back new and improved. They're also looking for comments on what people did and didn't like to help improve the site."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AdCritic To Return

Comments Filter:
  • Don't force my browser window to resize. WTF is up with that?
    • exactly what I was going to post. Not only resize it, but jam it against the left side of the desktop.

      I guess that's what happens when marketing people get ahold of javascript.
  • by moldar (536869) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @06:57PM (#3245077)
    Now I can peacefully go back to pretending that sports don't exist! I never did like sitting through a Super Bowl game waiting for the next new commercial. I say 'Bless you all!' to the folks behind this revival!
  • They're Back but... (Score:5, Informative)

    by jhaberman (246905) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @06:59PM (#3245085)
    It ain't gonna be the same ol' AdCritic... If you read their site, it is going to be geared to advertising professionals only. No general public consumption. Complete with membership subscriptions and everything. Which is all too bad in my book. I enjoyed that site. I sure as hell ain't gonna pay to watch their commercials.

    Oh well...

    Jason
    • by the way its being marketted for advertising proffesionals i really doubt that it will be some nominal fee that the normal old ad-critic fan would be willing to pay.

      that's a shame really, but their web site was a very high bandwidth using one i suppose.
    • by Ford Fulkerson (223443) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @07:09PM (#3245171)
      I sure as hell ain't gonna pay to watch their commercials.

      Something is definitely wrong if that's their business model..

      A better idea would be to use the site as a testing ground for new commercials. Let the users watch and rate the clips in the same way as test screenings are used for movies. A service like that could be very valuable for the advertising industry.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Yeah, but chances are the users would start bitching that they were being used as a focus group and not getting paid. Users always get bitchy when a website gets popular enough, I mean, look at whats happened here [slashdot.org].
      • Does this bit not make sense to anyone else too : "on what people did and didn't like to help improve the site." - if it does could someone explain it to me?
        • They want to know what you did and didn't like about the old AdCritic site. I said that I liked that it was free of charge and that the QuickTime videos were high-quality. I also said that I was ok with the range of ads but would like to see it increased, for example by including all of the Got Milk ads.
      • There are others out there who already play in this niche. A particularly well known one is the
        offshoot of the International Advertising Festival
        who put together a reel of their Gold, Silver and
        Bronze Lion winners as well as their honourable mentions. The "Cannes Lions" Reel oftens plays
        in some of the more out-of-the way movie houses,
        or at least it used to in Quebec.

        Their web site is: http://www.canneslions.com/
        but they too require a pricey subscription...

        ...robert
      • A better idea would be to use the site as a testing ground for new commercials. Let the users watch and rate the clips in the same way as test screenings are used for movies. A service like that could be very valuable for the advertising industry.
        Although I wonder how useful this would be. I don't imagine that the type of people who would take the time to view pilot commercials on line and rate them for free would be representative of the TV viewing population as a whole. This might work with for technology related commercials, but I don't think the data would be useful to the advertising industry as a whole.
      • No. Wouldn't work.

        Currently my clients pay upwards of $10M a pop to get people to comment on their commercials.

        Is this a lot of money? Yes.

        Is this a lot of money to someone that has a $25MM advertising budget? No.

        There is definitely a difference in having multiple focus groups tell you what they like and don't like about a commercial. Subtle nuances that some people might glaze over might really tweak off a bunch of other people. Can a 1-10 "hot or not" scale duplicate this? No. Would an advertiser expose its creative to competitors before it airs? No.

        With all due respect, I'll listen to you guys when it comes to tech stuff but when it comes to advertising leave it to the professionals.

        Hell yes they're going to charge for access to the site. And agencies will pay lots of cash for a RELIABLE commercial database. Right now if we want to get a copy of a commercial on .5" or .75" tape we have to call VMS and pay $100. This will make things cheaper and easier. Let me put it this way: The new adcritc will almost be like a Commercial Napster for agencies. If VMS was the RIAA they'd be asking for legislation to put adcritc out of business.

        (Insert multiple comments here about how advertising is the bane of society and how all marketing people are exactly as smart as they portray them in Dilbert cartoons)
        • "my clients' pay upwards of $10M a pop to get people to comment on their commercials."

          You get that much "a pop," either your raking in BOATLOADS of cash, or the "suckers" are about a year apart in frequency. JUST TO TELL YOU IF THE AD IS INTERESTING? Yet 90% of the TV ads SUCK?

          If that's all true, well then here is my resume! [current.nu] I'm well educated and extremely critical by nature!

          With all due respect, I'll listen to you guys when it comes to tech stuff

          Oh, BTW, for you, that's going to cost "10M a pop" from now on. Consider each Slashdot page load "a pop." My lawyers will contact you shortly.

          PS: VMS is an OS, and an old one... Good luck trying to call it!

        • There is definitely a difference in having multiple focus groups tell you what they like and don't like about a commercial. Subtle nuances that some people might glaze over might really tweak off a bunch of other people. Can a 1-10 "hot or not" scale duplicate this? No.

          exactly how much are you willing to wager on that? Your company CAN do better than a 1-10 "is this hot or not" online rating scale? Are you REALLY willing to take that gamble with your money? With your companies reputation? If so, then, contact me to layout the conditions... I'm sure there are 1000's of "skript kitties" that will do set it up for free.... gimme a legit chance to put in the bandwidth and promotion it deserves (say 1 month, and $25,000 which is a fraction of the time and money an ad firm will charge), and we'll test your theory!

          _IF_ you were in advertising, you broke so many rules here by exposing what a "racket" it is, and how much empty BS is really involved to justify the money.

          Oh, BTW, if any of this guy's client's are out there, your welcome to contact me to try this "experiment" as well!

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Something is definitely wrong if that's their business model..

        Nothing wrong with it. You're not their target market. The ad industry is. Everyone in the ad industry used that site.
    • I sure as hell ain't gonna pay to watch their commercials.

      You said it yourself... unless you are part of the ad industry, they don't want you as a member, so I really wouldn't worry about it.

      It sounds like Advertising Age really bought AdCritic for the back-end stuff. They didn't want the users, they wanted the hardware/software/library/whatever.

      • Exactly.

        They don't want JoeShithead browsing through their archives and using up their bandwith. They are going to turn adcritic into a service. And they will charge accordingly. Agencies will pay because it will be a useful resource. No more waiting for two days to see the latest commercial that is being test marketed in just a few DMAs. We can have it NOW. This coupled with CMR will let us know what they are running when they ran it and how much the spent to air it. This is cool.

        Raise your had if you know what a DMA and CMR are.
        • Me! Me! Me!

          CMR: Competitive Media Reporting. A report on who spent what and where.

          DMA: Designated Market Area. A.C. Nielson geographic map of the various television areas around the country.

          Okay, so I cheated and used Google...

        • Raise your had if you know what a DMA and CMR are.

          YMBSTUBYKWTASF;)*

          *You must be smarter than us because you know what those acronyms stand for ;)

          The purpose of slashdot isn't to impress each other with how much we know about a specific field, but to have a discussion that will hopefully educate. Yes, it's frustrating when people assume that their knowledge generalizes to other fields, especially when you know they're full of shit, but you render your own posts meaningless by using jargon that is unfamiliar to the target audience. I'll shut up now; you probably knew this already being in the advertising field.

    • Why would "advertising professionals" pay lots of money to look at other peoples' commercials? Research? Historical reference? I guess, but I don't buy it. Which ad-pro role would be responsible for using this site, the CEO? The intern? Advertising people tend to know what has come before and what else is out there, since...you know...it's their job and stuff.

      Advertising is about differentiation and identity, and unless New-AdCritic is aiming at the lowest common denominator AdCritic isn't going to be able to differentiate their own selves from basic TV (HBO/PayTV with commercials, but without content. SIGN ME UP!). The real point of this is that they're saying that "AdCritic is coming back...for a fee". That's all. Everything else is speculation on the demand they hope to plug into. Perhaps they'll try and snag a billionth of the advertising data market, but I'd say it's more likely that lusers will have access for a subscription fee and the advertising professionals will pay through the nose to get a peek at the demographics of commercial viewers. Gotta love that registration data, and I bet all of this would still come prepackaged with banner ads! If history is any indication and they latch onto the sales/marketing dweeb stereotype, they're overstating their importance and hoping that they can make *any* money off of people watching commercials and only commercials and telling their friends about commercials for hours on end.
        • Advertising people tend to know what has come before and what else is out there, since...you know...it's their job and stuff.

        I'm not in the ad business, so I don't really know what they go through, but I would guess that it's actually really hard for them to stay on top of what's out there and what's gone before.

        The big agencies have to maintain costly archives and constantly be scanning the horizon for the new stuff.

        This will make it easier for them. Of course, it'll make it cheaper. It'll make it easier to bring new people up to speed on the history, too.

        A really great thing about something like this is that it would make the entry cost to become a serious ad agency much lower. Now, one great cost of running a serious ad agency, the archives and the ongoing research, has been commoditized to some extent.

  • by Corvaith (538529) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @07:01PM (#3245101) Homepage
    We're so steeped in our own commercialism now that we watch advertisements for entertainment on their own.

    This scares me. Of course, I'm in front of the television for about two hours a week--but I don't get what the attraction is. They're trying to sell you stuff. Most likely, stuff you don't need and frequently stuff you wouldn't want if you knew the whole story behind it.

    I guess this is one of those cases where I just smile and nod and go back to reading.
    • Some of the advertisements are really quite clever. Yes, they are trying to sell stuff, but does watching a commercial in which a hammer is thrown at a big screen with some old guy talking on it make you want to buy a computer? Well, maybe that's a bad example because they are actually saying something interesting in that one, but the point is that if you weren't going to buy a computer before you saw that commercial you probably wouldn't buy one after you saw it... Watching a commercial won't force you into buying something right? However, it can sometimes give you a laugh. Just remember not to buy things because you saw it on TV. Buy things you need (or want) for their own merits. Come to think of it, you can buy things for whatever reason you see fit, however I will buy things because I need or want them on their own merits, not because some marketing makes it look attractive. Though sadly, sometimes the marketing influences other peoples buying decisions and for compatibility reasons I am forced to buy the same product, rather than a better made competitors product. (nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more)
    • Yes, I think its absolutely ridiculous that advertisements have become a form of entertainment. Of course, /. appeals to the yuppie generation, where materialism means a lot, and hence, advertisment becomes an inherent part of their life.

      People here at /. complain about web banners, popups, popunders, etc. but they go giddy when they get to watch TV commericials. Some are willing to pay money to watch advertisements. How does that make any sense? Of course that's not that surprising when you can see t-shirts everywhere advertising nike, armani, ck, etc, for 20-30 bucks a pop. Simply calling a form of advertisement by a different name - fashion - and people are willing to pay.

      Check out adbusters [adbusters.org] for some good critical views on advertisments and over-commercialization.
      • by jesser (77961) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @08:29PM (#3245604) Homepage Journal
        People here at /. complain about web banners, popups, popunders, etc. but they go giddy when they get to watch TV commericials. How does that make any sense?

        I am one of those people. Let me try to explain why I like some ad formats and dislike others.

        I like television ads because many are funny, and because my interest in psychology makes it interesting to think about why a particular ad works. I like most web banner ads because they don't get in the way and are sometimes funny. I love Google text ads because they're useful, sometimes more useful than the search results.

        On the other hand, I don't like the large square ads Yahoo News uses because they can make it very difficult to read the text around them. Slashdot uses similar square ads, but Slashdot's flash less and are positioned between paragraphs rather than floated next to them, and so are no more annoying than banner ads.

        I don't like pop-ups and pop-unders because they require my attention to dismiss, and because they take away the option of "quickly leaving the site because the ads are annoying" available on television and sites without pop-ups. They turn leaving the site into a two-step process, closing the ad and leaving the site. I don't consider "you may open windows on my desktop" to be part of the implied contract of going to a web site.
      • Yes, I think its absolutely ridiculous that advertisements have become a form of entertainment. Of course, /. appeals to the yuppie generation, where materialism means a lot, and hence, advertisment becomes an inherent part of their life.

        What does materialism have to do with it? Most of the ads I like are for products I neither own, nor intend to -- for example Mitsu cars, I like the "mini music video" feel they have, but I don't like the cars. I like the VW bug comercials too, but I'm not in the market for that car, and my wife happens to hate the bug. I like the smartbeep comercial, but I'm not about to buy a pager, and they don't sell in my area either.

        People here at /. complain about web banners, popups, popunders, etc. but they go giddy when they get to watch TV commericials. Some are willing to pay money to watch advertisements. How does that make any sense? Of course that's not that surprising when you can see t-shirts everywhere advertising nike, armani, ck, etc, for 20-30 bucks a pop. Simply calling a form of advertisement by a different name - fashion - and people are willing to pay.

        Well when you are forced to watch them they are intrrupting whatever it is you were looking for. When you go look for them they are what you wanted. If you are forced to watch them you see the ones you hate (Oxy Clean anyone?) along with the ones that are cool. If you seek them out you only watch the ones you like (or have some chance of liking).

        Check out adbusters [adbusters.org] for some good critical views on advertisments and over-commercialization.

        Been there. My life is slightly better since killing most junk mail, and using a TiVo to skip most TV ads, but there are still a few I do like to see.

    • We're so steeped in our own commercialism now that we watch advertisements for entertainment on their own.

      actually, i think this says a lot of good things about our society. the ability of the populace to look at advertising as entertainment says two things:

      1) advertising is no longer trying to force you to buy anything, instead they are looking for brand recognition - the only form of advertising beyond personal recommendation from a friend that actually works, and probably one of the least intrusive.

      2) people know they're trying to sell them something, and can take the entertainment at face value. they're not the moronic fools people like AdBusters would like you to believe.

    • I remember reading something by Marshall McLuhan that stated that eventually, we would pay just for advertising, not the product. I don't think this is what he meant, but I'm sure he'd be impressed at how far things have gone.
      • For most large media operations this is the model they already operate on, it's just that the consumer doesn't know it.
        The 'news' in a newspaper is really just advertising to get you to buy the 'ads' which is the real content as far as the publisher is concerned, since this is what makes them the money.
        It's the same with tv.
        A sitcoms only use is to entice you to watch the advertisements, which is the networks real offering.
        So in a sense, this is what we already do, get sucked in by transparent 'content' (i.e. the 'product') and end up paying for ads.
    • Reminds me a lot of Demolition Man and their commercial jingles radio station... absolute cheese...
    • Have you ever seen that commercial for Orange Juice with Robert Loggia?

      This kid is sitting at the table with his parents, and they're trying to get him to drink his orange juice. He refuses. So they ask if there's anyone who could convince him to drink the orange juice. Hesitantly, he replies: "Robert Loggia?"

      So then Robert Loggia actually shows up at the door, wearing a black mafioso-esque suit, and tells him, "Drink your orange juice, kid!"

      Now if that's not genius, you tell me what is. I would pay money to see that ad again.
    • ...there was even an Onion article [theonion.com] about you...
      • Bang on.

        The lame old "Television sucks! Why would you watch TV rather than read a good book?" line is a worse cliché than anything that ever appeared on television itself.

        You're either fooled by the pretense and you consider television an artistic medium, or you watch TV and appreciate it for exactly what it is: mildly entertaining shows trying to sell stuff. It can be enjoyable either way.

        If you're too smart to enjoy it one way, and too stupid to enjoy it the other, don't blame the rest of us. Just shut up.

    • by babbage (61057) <cdevers.cis@usouthal@edu> on Thursday March 28, 2002 @10:12PM (#3246047) Homepage Journal
      You know it's funny. I think I see things more or less the way you do -- I've got a TV just because the VCR wouldn't work without one, but I never ever have the compulsion to watch any of the broadcast shows anymore. I'd much rather sit and read a copy of AdBusters [adbusters.org] :)And yet, my fiance does have some shows that she likes to watch, and I do catch bits and pieces of it.

      AND IT ALL SUCKS.

      All of it, that is, except for the commercials. It's so strange to me. All the sitcoms are boring, banal ripoffs of one another. All the dramas this year seem to be about people that work with cadavers and, well, there you go. The news is little better than supermarket tabloids (the "news magazines" are probably worse if only because they pretend to be better than what they are), and I'm really starting to find Jay Leno's stubbornly middlebrow idea of entertainment deeply offensive. How can anyone actually enjoy this crap? I used to like Jay Leno, now I just want to strangle the fucker. Another Clinton joke? Let it go man, just fuckin' let it go.

      And yet mixed in with the crappy entertainment and quote-unquote news are these little fifteen second masterpieces, with clever writing, brilliant cinematrography and effects, and better music than anything available on the radio. Nevermind the fact that it's all brilliantly crafted to make you CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME -- it also happens to be the only thing on broadcast television that is brilliant. Full stop.

      Why isn't there a commercial station on the radio playing the techno & indie rock & jazz you hear in car commercials these days? Why are the only clever examples of wordplay & wittiness (and, again, more good music) in Apple commercials?

      I mean, you're right that there's something seriously disturbing about this inversion: the networks always did try to make the shows just interesting enough to keep the audience watching commercials, but now they're making the commercials themselves far more interesting than the shows. I should be rebelling against that, as a card-carrying, Nader-voting, NPR-listening, anti-consumerist liberal. But I can't help it.

      If it wasn't for the clever commercials, I'd want to leave the house every time my fiance turns the television on. As it is, I just sit and use the computer or read a book, and look up whenever the commericals come back on. Part of me dies every time this happens ...but part of me likes it, too.

      :-/

      • You know, it's funny. I agree with both of you. I do watch some tv; but the ads are often the best part.

        There should be a channel devoted to only the ads.
      • it also happens to be the only thing on broadcast television that is brilliant. Full stop.

        That is occasionally brilliant, maybe. The percentage of good ads is still in the low single digits, though I'd say it is actually climbing. But the sheer volume of formulaic baby-in-costume diaper ads, et al, drags the average down to sub-tolerable levels.

      • You obviously are watching the wrong things on television. To think that network sitcoms and dramas are the only thing television offers is closed minded. You should start checking the Indy Films, SCIFI, Discovery, History, A&E, Learning, and HBO channels. I agree with you if all you are referring to is network television, but if you pay a little extra for cable/sattelite, there *Are* things worth watching. But then if you actually start watching TV, you can't look down your nose at people who actually enjoy the programming. As far as commercials, I don't find them very entertaining at all. I can't get into anything 30 seconds long. The most a commercial could do is amuse me. Entertain? No.
        • I know there's some marginally better stuff on cable, but I'm in no way interested enough in watching teevee to shell out fifty bucks a month or more for the privilige. That much doesn't feel like "a little extra" to me -- it's thedifference between $0.00 per year and $500.00 per year or more. I've got a big stack of movies that I know that I like here, so if the urge to watch something comes over me I'll pull one off the shelf.

          I'm really not trying to "look down my nose" at anyone here. Just because *I* think "Friends" is the most boring thirty minutes a week doesn't mean that the millions of others that enjoy the show have to change their minds, and I'm fine with that. Most of them would probably find my shelf full of O'Reilly books just as boring, and that's okay with me. But I'm not kidding when I say that I really *do* think that most of the stuff is just ambitiously awful, as if they're trying to outdo each other in terms of how bad these shows can be. I really do think that it's incredibly difficult to be an informed member of society when all you get is the slash & burn pap on broadcast news, and I really do think it's an insult to think that the infotainment on shows like "Dateline" is in any way insightful, investigative, or, well, relevant. Others disagree. That's okay. I don't want everyone to see things my way anyhow.

          But my main point remains. Think what you will of the shows, but the commercials is where the real creativity seems to be these days. They have a lot more freedom to do innovative stuff within their "must sell in thirty seconds" format, than the regular shows get to do in 22 or 48 minutes of paint by numbers genre programming. Even if all they do is amuse, that in my opinion is a head start over their competition.....

          • Until a few months ago when I upgraded to a dish/pvr system (which is really good if there are only a few shows that you like but you don't like them enough to modify your schedule to watch them), I was paying $18/mo for cable, complete with sci-fi, discovery, and comedy central. I personally dislike sci-fi in general, but that's where MST3K is. You might see if you can get a complete rate guide from your cable folks - several offer a few premium-like channels as an add-on to simple basic cable.

            A PVR seriously increases my tv watching joy, and gives me time to read my bookcase full of O'Reillys at my convenience. You can skip the shows and go straight to the commercials if that's what turns you on... :)
  • Ack. /.'ed already (Score:2, Informative)

    by dciman (106457)
    I hope the new site will be able to handle traffic better than the story link. There isn't even 6 comments posted yet and it is already dead. Nice work guys!
  • More bandwidth! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Steev (5372) <steve@[ ]vedinn.com ['ste' in gap]> on Thursday March 28, 2002 @07:03PM (#3245119) Homepage
    The only thing I can think of to really improve the old AdCritic would be to have given it more bandwidth. It just got severly overburdened most of the time. Especially when the superbowl commercials came out.

    I still laugh uncontrollably at the "Damn vikings!" Bud Light ad :)
    • Re:More bandwidth! (Score:3, Informative)

      by CaseyB (1105)
      It did have more bandwidth, once. Adcritic was great when they were using Akamai. Once they couldn't afford that anymore, it became useless.
  • by jhaberman (246905)
    http://www.adcritic.com/default.html [adcritic.com]

    Like I said above... this ain't your old AdCritic...

    Jason
  • It will be good for that once-in-a-year time that you want to download a comercial and can't find it on a p2p. Besides that, commercials are pretty much unoriginal, not funny, and typically appeal to the Aly McBeal crowd (ie: super edumicated).
  • I didn't like it going down, that's what. It's the revenge of the AdCritic's 'going down' post. Times have changed. The timing is good now. BitTorrent [slashdot.org] exists.

    I hope they go for it. It would become the first large scale deployment of a non-mp3 centric p2p network.

    • A non-mp3-centric p2p network? must be you haven't tried all of them. I find this one [edonkey2000.com] has nearly any movie i'd want, but rarely has more than 5 songs by any artist. It does movies really well, with multiple (slow) simultaneous connections, I always get what i can find. However, finding an MP3 is not worth the work, although YMMV. don't forget to check out this site [sharereactor.com] if you do decide to use the donkey.

      -Dave
      • Well, ok, I actually ment non-copyright-infrigement centric. Today, p2p networks are currently being used for massive civic disobedience againts the sad state of copyright laws. I fear that, if p2p doesn't justify its existance soon, it might be declared illegal before it has a chance to. After all, the ratio of legal to illegal uses today is near zero. It is concivable congress will write a gun control type law for p2p code.

        Thanks for the links though. Creating the edk2 links (based of file hashes) is a big step ahead in usability. I need to find out more about the protocol, who developed it and who owns it.
  • by xtal (49134) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @07:04PM (#3245129)


    I mean, if a wildly successful site in terms of visitors who's CONTENT is nothing but ADS can't make any money, then a lot of people are going to have to pick up their marbles and go home..

    • I don't think AdCritic charged the companies for ads. They video captured it and tossed it up onto their site.

      I suspect that companies would not be willing to pay for their placement of their commercials using the old AdCritic format because there is no content control. You got to see every commercial made by a certain company. Companies often have a certain plan where one commercial is seen following another or a theme was dropped (like the talking frogs). AdCritic kept everything.

      Additionally, since AdCritic ran every companies' ads, a company's message got lost. For example, I'm sure that McDonald's would not pay for an ad that is placed right next to Burger King's.

  • I have to cheer! This is great.

    Now, let's just get the 24-hour Commercial Channel on cable, and I'm set.

    • I get several of those, they all suck. They are 24 hour infomercials.

      I don't get it... who watches shopping and infomercial channels? Does the sat company get paid to carry them, instead of the normal vice-versa?
  • Suggestion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hemos (editor) (569506) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @07:09PM (#3245169) Homepage
    My major suggestion would be to support more media formats.

    Some people cannot or do not choose to use Windows Media Player or Quicktime.

    RealMedia isn't that horrible, and it has free players for Linux.

    Although, Crossover plugins work nicely for viewing Sorensen-encoded Quicktime files in Linux.

    But still, just make sure you guys allow EVERYONE the opportunity to check out some funny commercials :-)

    A Site I Visit Several Times A Day [monolinux.com]
    • I beg to differ, RealMedia IS that horrible.

      • I've tried to install Real for linux, I really tried, over and over.... It was one of the few programs that could lock up the whole kernel hard, requiring a reboot. I got parts of the player to come up, but it never worked.
  • P2P for websites? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kizzle (555439)
    I think if some P2P program came out for websites, it would solve the bandwidth problem of alot of sites. For example, you go to a website, you start downloading a video file or whatever, but instead of downloading it from the main site, it would download from a bunch of differant people. Only certain sites would be allowed to put content on the network. Then once you get the file, people can download it from you. Anybody think somthing like this will actualy come out some day?
  • It's a great site but there are too many ad's on it.
    I haven't even found out what the content are about.

    .. think ...
  • by sdflkgfljdqshgjkqsfg (129027) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @07:14PM (#3245206)
    I liked adCritic because living in France, just makes it that much harder to see some good US ads. Of course we also do have a specialised weekly "advertisement" show (that is excellent IMO) that shows the world's best adds or just concentrates on a theme (more of a marketing show)...well to make a long story short, yes, people like watching adds. Why? Because a lot of time and money are put in to produce 30 seconds that are going to keep you riveted to the ad, you have humour, eye-candy, series...
    I don't know if I'd actually pay to see ads (who would have thought)... but I'd be real pleased if adcritic were open again to the bigger public.
  • The thing that was wrong with AdCritic.com was that it wasn't about criticism of advertisements, either in general or of particular ads; people just went to watch ads.

    The best thing they could do to improve it is give it to the AdBusters [adbusters.org] folks.
  • Gee... Here's a freaking idea, how about making money off all those ads people download? That is the point of the entire damn website.
  • by xtermz (234073) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @08:03PM (#3245513) Homepage Journal
    ...over why they even took adcritic down in the first time. Are big corporations so stupid that they cant realize they are getting free publicity? Adcritic could of and should be a marketing execs dream. Mother fuck wasting hordes of money to get time on a large network during a popular show's timeslot... just make it funny, post it to the net, and let the word of mouth do the rest.. i swear, sometimes i think companies that go out of business do so not because of poor sales, but because of stupid,ignorant, closed minded people running them
    • They took it down simply BECAUSE it was free publicity for the companies whose ads appeared on AdCritic.com

      .

      From what I recall, only very briefly right near the very end did the concept of "revenue stream" even remotely cross the minds of anyone associated with the website. From what I remember, AdCritic, free of charge, took the time (labor cost) to digitize television ads; they free of charge hosted the ads on their servers, and free of charge let the hordes of consumers get access to them. That's a lot of free of charges without any return.

      Only near the very end did they realize what they should've done in the first place - and what the new buyers haven't quite realized apparently, based on the press release. What they should do is put together a package they can sell to manufacturers - "You have ads. We have a server to host them, and the bandwidth to do so. Hire us, and we'll do the work for you - all you do is add a link to your ad on our website. All this for a small percentage of your television advertising budget."

      As an example of the type of website they could have been, look at Apple's Quicktime Movie Trailers website. Apple's selling the service to the movie industry - host your trailer on our site for a fee. Apple gets publicity out of it, through the fact that they get the traffic and the fact that it's all in QuickTime, and the movie industry gets the publicity for their films.

  • by oo7tushar (311912) <slash.@tushar.cx> on Thursday March 28, 2002 @08:55PM (#3245686) Homepage
    Lots of people complaining about the costs...of course it is a worthy cause so I did buy membership at the old AdCritic.

    If it's worth it then buy it, ain't that the tr00th?

    Also, the advertising professionals section (to which I subscribed) was quite worth it. Giving feedback on the ads (most of which were specatuclar) helped the industry and led to some ads that marketing execs thought were st00pid getting aired (success) and those that were st00pid not getting aired. You're not only helping others you're helping getting sn00ty marketing execs get fired.
  • Here's a hint (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'd just like to say that I hate tv commercials because of the fact you always get one thrown in the face just before you find out who killed the guy (movie generalization). I don't like the fact that it is pushed in my face.
    HOWEVER, I do find some commercial witty, funny and sometimes refreshing. Just let ME decide when and which ones to view.

    P.S. I also hate seeing the same damn commercial 2-3 times in the SAME break.
  • by envelope (317893) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @09:25PM (#3245812) Homepage Journal
    AdCritic was gone
    But now it has come again
    Get out your wallet

    • nice HAIKU!
      unfortunately you're writing to slashdotters :P

      I LOVE adcritic.com. Being that I don't own a television, I can go watch commercials of my own volition! It is a great place to go for "controversial" ads, for example, the Nike commercial with the world class runner running away from the scary slasher guy. Its setup like a B movie, so all wannabe scary and cheesy. Tres chic!
  • what we want?!? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by VoiceOfRaisin (554019)
    we want mpeg or mpeg4 files please.
    none of this quicktime crap.
    • Re:what we want?!? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      i hate quicktime too, although there shouldnt be a reason. Before december of 2001, when my pc was a 200mhz 64mb box, quicktime ran horrible. But now that I have a 1.4ghz 512mb it runs fine. But I still hate it, why? Quality. Most videos are so tiny, and if you try to double the size, it becames horribly pixelated. MPEG for example seems to almost resample when you resize, whereas quicktime just resizes, its horrible.

      fix it damnit :(
  • This is truly a miracle!
  • I was just searching on Gnucleus for that "What are YOU doing?!" Budweiser commercial, thinking what a tragedy losing AdCritic was, when up comes the best news I've heard all week! Sweet, I can't wait!!!
  • It would be nioce if they were to support more than just quicktime. Maybe Realplayer also or wmp.

    Also more sizes. For people who have high bandwidth it would ber nice to be able to see the clips at about 640x480 or something larger.

    • I'm not sure how an audio/video site can afford to store all their content three times over, and while we're at it different bit rates too, so the 56kinda people can use it.

      What I'd like to see is something that could encode a media clip in realtime as the user downloads it for whatever player they're using. Pretty far fetched, admittedly, having converted stuff between formats before (and having uncompressed and then recompressed it) but is storage more expensive than CPU time?
      • storage is cheap, cpu time is limited. Especially on a multi user box. Think of 100 people asking for a file that has to be converted 100 times. that is a lot of expensive CPU. Even using AMD you still need the machines to go with the CPU. that adds up.
  • I wrote in with my suggestions, basically these--

    1) Allow local saves of the videos, both because it'll please visitors of the website, and because it'll SAVE YOU MONEY on bandwidth costs. Streaming a video 1000 times because some guy likes those Victoria's Secret commercials is just wrong, and won't turn a profit.

    2) Provide higher quality video content; work with the advertisers to get these high quality copies (I know there's some red tape involved, but really-- what advertiser DOESN'T want free advertising? Especially to people who WANT to see their ad?). Every year, compile all the ads that can fit on one DVD together, and release it at a profit-getting price ($25-35 seems reasonable here). Or use two DVD's, if need be. I can think of atleast 1-2 ads I'd like in a permanent format to view at my leisure (or show to friends) that would make it worth the money to buy such a collection (especially if they were high-bitrate, high resolution versions).

    I can't really think of anything else worth suggesting, someone mentioned adding more available formats, and if I had my way, they'd be distributing MPEG1 or MPEG2 files instead of ASF/WMV/MOV. That'd be about the only thing I left out. =)
  • but PLEASE, for the LOVE OF GOD no more quicktime! It freezes my computer, or makes the whole screen flicker with each frame. It takes too long to load some videos, and while it's loading, if I want to close it, I have to end task! Forget subscriptions. I'll send them money RIGHT NOW if they promise to use good old no-problems, compatability-across-the-board MPEG!
  • Here were my comments to them:

    The attempted elevation of advertising to art is a colossal waste of human effort on the part of everyone involved. Art is meant to move people's hearts, not move producers' products. Modern advertising is the opposite of therapy - it tells me I am ugly, unliked, unloved, and unhappy, and that the only way to solve that is to buy, buy, BUY!

    To whomever reads this, I am sure you are fairly well off, and relatively secure economically. Isn't it time you considered that there may be more to life than the consumer lifestyle? Advertising is all illusion - why not see what reality feels like?
  • So, uh, there was this site where people went to see ads and did not even get paid for it? And now these people might even PAY to SEE ADS?

    These people are obviously nothing but consumers. Disgusting.

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...