Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

AOL-Time/Warner's PVR to Skip Ad-Skipping 404

Posted by michael from the they-control-the-horizontal dept.
btempleton writes "Echoing recent comments that PVR users are thieves a story from CNET announces that AOL's set-top box plans may not allow skipping ads. Broadcasters continue to be afraid of the PVR, admitedly with good reason for their current business model. As I point out in my essay on the future of TV, PVRs and Advertising, TV ads are a terrible bargain for the user, paying us about $1.20 per hour of our attention, and something has to change. It's worth noting that they say they like the Tivo over the Replay because the Tivo does not have 30 second skip, but in fact it does."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AOL-Time/Warner's PVR to Skip Ad-Skipping More

AOL-Time/Warner's PVR to Skip Ad-Skipping

Comments Filter:

  • Well who'll buy that then? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by johnburton ( 21870 ) <johnb@jbmail.com> on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @07:58AM (#3516234) Homepage
    I certainly wouldn't buy one if it didn't let me skip the adverts and I can't see that anyone else will either

    • They will force it on you (Score:5, Informative)

      by kawika ( 87069 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:39AM (#3516418)
      If you live in an area served by Time Warner AOL cable, they will give you the choice-limiting box as part of the service. For analog service, you can simply bypass the box and use your cable-ready TV. But for digital cable and premium channels, you'll have to use their box.

      Don't expect to buy some unencumbered replacement box from another source either. Most of these boxes are made just for the cable industry. Yes there are gray-market sources, so you can get a box that lets you watch HBO for free. That constitutes theft of service under 47 U.S.C section 553. They could use the same argument for these new boxes.
      • Isn't there some law that says the cable industry has to allow you to purchase a third party cable box?
        • Sure you can buy a 3rd party box, but it doesn't mean we have to let it on our network

          -Henry
        • Yes it is called the "Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices" and was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

          July 1, 2000 was the initial deadline. The FCC has refused to sanction or demand that cable comply with this deadline.

          Of course the MPAA and friends have their fingers in this pie, demanding that these STB's have the ability to downrez content to analog displays.

    • Re:Well who'll buy that then? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Erasmus Darwin ( 183180 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @10:42AM (#3517135)
      "I certainly wouldn't buy one if it didn't let me skip the adverts"

      I think the problem is that we've got two different notions of skipping ads here. The first is to fast-forward through advertisements. Even though the ads are being played without sound and the majority of frames are being dropped, they're still briefly popping up on the screen with a chance to grab your attention (especially since you're actively watching the screen to know when to hit play). This is the ad skipping method used by Tivo owners who haven't enabled the 30 second skip backdoor.

      The other ad skipping method is to really skip over the ads using a 30 second skip button or even automatic commercial detection/elimination. The user just whacks the skip button until the TV show is back on screen (or does nothing in the case of the automated process). Under this situation, even the most well-written ad has no chance at grabbing your attention. The 30 second skip button is the method used by ReplayTV owners.

      Now it's my guess (based on what little the article says and a little common sense) that they're using the notion of ad skipping to refer to the second skip method. I don't believe that they're disabling the fast-forward button every time a commercial break shows up.

      Based on your comment that you don't see why anyone would buy this at all, I suspect you interpreted the article to mean that they were prohibiting the first type of ad skipping. I think that isn't the case here.

    • I don't care what kind of content-delivery method you can come up with... if I don't want to see the ads... YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!

      Look, when I buy a newspaper or magazine, if my eyes "skip" over an ad on a page, am I stealing the magazine? When I go to the movies and decide to "skip" the previews, am I stealing the movie? Well then if I'm not interested in your stinkin' TV commercial, TOO BAD!

      The author hasn't put as much thought into this as I have. You want to make it so most likely people will see your ads? Ok, here's what ya do:

      1. Make them entertaining. I probably won't watch it if I don't get a chuckle.

      2. Have a system similar to a PVR where the commercials are downloaded seperately from the program being recorded.

      3. Don't make me watch the stupid commercial over and over and over and over and over and...

      4. Don't make it impossible for me to watch the commercial over and over again. I might want to share.

      5. Some storage of the commercial might be nice... later when my ass itches, I might go to TiVo to find out what the name of the product is so I can put the fire out. (What was it... Preperation G?..hmmmm)

      The best method of advertising that a lot of companies don't realize is "word of mouth." I can be your company's best promoter. I got a big mouth. Make my job easier, and you'll get the benefit.

      The added benefit of this system I just described is that you could even add some kind of statistics on who is watching the ads, who likes which ads (by placing them in a "favorites" folder) or who deleted them before the end of the commercial. Plus you reduce bandwitdh for showing the same ad to the same user hoping they saw it, and that increases the worth of the ad displayed. And, now I don't have to take a stupid test on commercials.

      • BAH! (Score:3, Funny)

        by gnovos ( 447128 )
        This is an INTELLIGENT solution to the problem. Just how do you expect this to be even the least bit helpful? The AOL/TW execs aren't just going to grow brains here at the last moment are they? PLEASE PEOPLE! If you are going to be suggesting ideas, make sure they are IRRATIONAL, POORLY THOUGHT OUT, and above all else, ANTI-INNOVATIVE (preferably sucking the life out a previous innovation through both legislation *and* poor technological replacements). If you can't keep your ideas in line with the status quo, you are part of the problem, not the solution?

    • Re:Well who'll buy that then? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Binky The Oracle ( 567747 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @01:29PM (#3518313)

      Agreed. Given recent behavior, however, I wouldn't be surprised to see them find a legislative solution.

      A point that I find interesting is that the networks are screaming bloody murder about ad skipping when it isn't really their concern. It's the concern of the ad agencies that produce and purchase ad time. These agencies already know the risks and return rates for broadcast advertising and assume fairly low ROI. Yet they buy ad time for millions of dollars a shot anyway.

      All the network needs to be concerned about is how many TVs were tuned to their channel at a given time. What the networks should be concentrating on is creating really great content that my TiVO is going to think I want to watch and here's why:

      Networks set ad prices based on the number of viewers they have. That's why sweeps periods get so annoying ("Tonight, on yet another very special Boston Public: Ally McBeal has to substitute teach as community service after dating a student in a chat room, but will Fox Mulder be able to pay attention in class when 7 of 9 turns up the heat?")

      So - the number of viewers during a certain time period determines the price of ad time. Well guess what? I've now got a little robot that's watching TV for me 24 hours a day. My TiVO has the ability to bump up ratings in bad time slots for the networks allowing them to charge even more for ad time. And if the show is interesting, I'll watch it.

      And my guilty secret is that I like many commercials. I laugh at the guy licking the handle of "his" Volkswagen. I'm glad Jack's Back. I love making fun of low-budget local ads that feature a guy on donkey-back shooting out truck windshields (and high, city prices) with a shotgun (I am not making that up). There are a lot of really interesting short films out there that just happen to be hawking a product, and I don't mind watching them.

      But it's a pleasure to be able to skip ads for feminine hygiene products, Herpes medications, commercials I've already seen 32 times, diarreah spots, or anything featuring Shaq. Too bad I can't give thumb ratings to commercials and let TiVO select the ads it thinks I might like.

      I used to FF at the 60x speed, but I now FF at 20x because I like to scan for interesting looking commercials which I'll then go back and check out. Not that the commercials have done a great deal to influence my buying habits, but they're capable of being really entertaining at times.

      So ad agencies: start making better commercials. Networks: start making better shows that I want to watch and get the hell out of my living room. It's none of your business if I ad skip, only if I'm tuned to your channel at a specific time of day.

  • This is so obviously dumb, I don't know where to begin.

    How about... With TiVo, et al. why would you even bother with such an idiotic invention?

  • Information wants to be free (Score:4, Interesting)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:01AM (#3516248) Journal
    Many ./ adepts adhere this slogan, which also applies to advertising. No matter how many skipping systems, popup blockers, spam filters, etc are invented, there will always be unwanted advertisment. Just as much as Falung Gong pamflets for instance just can't be killed in china.

    That aside, offcourse you're free to block anything you like. I've personaly found that little on/off switch on my TV to be an excellent advertisement filter !
    • Advertisement blocks can be replaced by advertising during a show. In a show, the actors could wear certain clothing, use certain cars, eat certain foods. The appearance of products in shows could be sponsored by companies. I'm sure this is occuring to a certain extent right now, but it could easily be more, avoiding the need for commericial blocks.

      This type of advertising cannot be filtered (easily), so the stations can stop complaining about people blocking commercials. They have an easy alternative.

      • Re:Information wants to be free (Score:5, Funny)

        by C_nemo ( 520601 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:23AM (#3516348)
        "Advertisement blocks can be replaced by advertising during a show. In a show, the actors could wear certain clothing, use certain cars, eat certain foods"

        shurly not on Star Trek or?
        Picard: "Geordi, I think it's time we replace that old warp core with a brand new Hundai, affordable quality "

        Geordi: "Shure Captain, i'll just finish my happy meal with a go large for just 3$, soooo tasty"

        • Subtler than that... (Score:2, Interesting)

          by ringbarer ( 545020 )
          Some of the monitor screens on Andromeda have the 'IBM' logo displayed prominently underneath.

          And it makes you wonder if the new Enterprise series was moved a bit closer to the present day just so that you can conceivably imagine current corporations having their goods advertised on the show.
        • I use Nortel stock [thehammer.ca] to buy my happy meals.
      • Advertisement blocks can be replaced by advertising during a show. In a show, the actors could wear certain clothing, use certain cars, eat certain foods.

        There are plenty of things you cannot do with product placement. Especially if you have something set in the past or future. Let alone that you cannot advertise specific promotions and if your sponsor goes the way of Pan Am you have no revenue from repeat showings.
        The advantage of advertisments which are not part of the actual programme is that they can always be current when the broadcast is made. Even if the programme itself is decades old (or was made several thousand miles away). This is also one problem broadcasters have with programmes being recorded let alone transfered around the planet by the time things get watched the advertising may be either out of date or utterly irrelevent (viewer could not buy the product or service even if they wanted to.)
        Also product placement will only even make sense to large (especially trans-national) business. By using it broadcasters have just thrown away most of their potential advertisers...
        What's needed is some kind of system where the PVR never records adverts in the first place. But can generate its own ad breaks, pulling material either from an online source or ads only broadcast channel. Where each ad comes with some kind of header which specifies start and end dates for running the advert, metrics for running the ad including what type of programme is being watched and current location of the PVR.

  • it is in the name of money and their business mode (Score:4, Insightful)

    by I Want GNU! ( 556631 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:03AM (#3516257) Homepage
    Don't you get it? TV doesn't make itself. I agree that ads are highly annoying and personally I tape record items and fast forward, but if there were none at all, why would TV make good shows? It is the main source of revenue for them, and they make such programs because of the ads. If not for the ads, TV would be vastly more expensive, with every channel a premium channel. Monopolies on markets would only add to this.

    Now, some companies might make money by making products that allow you to skip over ads but AOL Time Warner owns several channels and thus does not want to shoot itself in the foot.
    • There are no ads on the WWW and it is free.
    • Because you paid the producer for his product maybe? The BBC and, ISTR A&E and other services provide an uncontaminated feed. I'm sure you value your time - why waste it watching adverts you pay for indirectly anyway?
    • Yeah....and Time Warner sells cable service. Unlike your local stations which broadcast for free. Seems to be win/win for T/W.
    • why would TV make good shows?

      I wasn't aware they did.

    • Don't you get it? TV doesn't make itself. I agree that ads are highly annoying and personally I tape record items and fast forward, but if there were none at all, why would TV make good shows?

      Slashdot had the same problem. I filtered ads, and so did a lot of other people. Then Slashdot solved the problem: they gave people a way to pay.

      PBS never had the problem to begin with, and they gets a couple hundred dollars per year from me. Try to tell me that Frontline (#1 on my season pass list) and Nova (#8?) aren't good shows.

      AOL Time Warner can either solve the problem too, or suffer the consequences of not keeping up with technology. And if they decide to not keep up... well, the world won't miss them.

      I will be a happy camper when ad-funded-anything is faintly remembered as a 20th Century historical oddity. The amount of waste and inefficiency (which gets paid for by you and me, whenever we buy an advertised product) is immense. Think of how absurd this is: Coca Cola is priced higher than gasoline.

  • Sheesh.... so dunt include ad skip and everyone will just fast-forward or go to the bathroom or the kitchen like we do during commericals now.. this is really silly....

  • I see.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Disevidence ( 576586 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:04AM (#3516260) Homepage Journal
    But do they get the first 100 hours ad-free?
  • what da hell, i'm just gonna go live on a boat in international waters!

  • SlashDot ads a terrible bargain for the user! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by I Want GNU! ( 556631 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:06AM (#3516264) Homepage
    "TV ads are a terrible bargain for the user, paying us about $1.20 per hour of our attention, and something has to change."
    And how about those Big Annoying Slashdot Ads? Are they not a terrible bargain for the user? It pays us about 4 cents per instance of our extra viewing attention, and something has to change!

  • My contact information (Score:4, Funny)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:09AM (#3516272) Homepage Journal
    TV ads are a terrible bargain for the user, paying us about $1.20 per hour of our attention

    If you are a TW/AOL exec, please contact me at my email address: ObviousGuy@hotmail.com [mailto]

    I need to give you the necessary information on where to send the check.

  • Ihave Tivo and I watch some ads (Score:4, Insightful)

    by balister ( 225746 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:12AM (#3516285)
    Well I have a Tivo. Sometimes when I FF through the ads, I'll see one that catches my eye. Then I will watch the ad.I won't watch the same ad a million times, which is what happens on alot of of shows.

    Just make ads we want to watch.

    Philip
  • . . . is that these players are all are remotely "upgradable," and that TiVo and Replay will disable features customers like in half a heartbeat when it suits their revenue model, or the whims of a judge in the pocket of the MPAA.

  • broken product for sale! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tps12 ( 105590 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:12AM (#3516288) Homepage Journal
    Oh, man. I bet they are going to be baffled, too, when their box fails to sell any units.

    Hello? Would you buy a VCR without a "FF" button?

    I thought that companies generally tried to research their markets before introducing new products...

  • I seem to remember... (Score:5, Funny)

    by morgajel ( 568462 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:13AM (#3516290)
    ...paying for MY cable- so I owe it to AOL/TW to watch their commercials?

    I think not.

    They can get in that long line of people who are full of crap and can blow me.

    I guess they can just lose a customer over this.
    /. is more entertaining anyways.
    • so I owe it to AOL/TW to watch their commercials?

      They're not AOL's commercials. They are the station's. AOL and the station are (usually) two entirely different companies; your cable bill compensates AOL while your watching commercials compensates the station.
  • Networks are *STUPID*. If viewers can skip commercials, who cares? More people will watch TV, so ratings will increase and that's what network wants. Why would they give a fuck about viewers skipping commercials since nobody can know that viewers skip commercials except the viewer????

    If nobody wants to watch the ads, perhaps the ads are not worth watching? Now, this would be a good incentive for the advertisers to make ads worth watching!!!

    • the ratings are used to determine advertising rates. if ratings are high but no one looks at the lads, then they can not accurately determine what the blocks of advertising are worth. Said shorter, the ratings don't matter if no one watches the ads to begin with.
    • Networks are *STUPID*. If viewers can skip commercials, who cares? More people will watch TV, so ratings will increase and that's what network wants.

      Because what they charge the advertisers is based around ratings, knowing that the ads are unlikely to be seen means that the advertisers would not want to pay as much money.
      Why they have kicked up such a fuss about this, when people have been using fast forward on VCRs for years, let alone chenging channels, getting drinks, going to the toilet, etc is anyone's guess. Maybe because it's "digital" or some such nonsense.
    • Networks are *STUPID*. If viewers can skip commercials, who cares? More people will watch TV, so ratings will increase and that's what network wants. Why would they give a fuck about viewers skipping commercials since nobody can know that viewers skip commercials except the viewer????

      If nobody wants to watch the ads, perhaps the ads are not worth watching? Now, this would be a good incentive for the advertisers to make ads worth watching!!!

  • Remember Kids... if they build it we can "fix it" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cdtoad ( 14065 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:15AM (#3516300) Homepage
    How long will it take for one of their "compliant" boxes to be reversed engineered and a 30-60-90 second skip function added? Maybe a month? The firmware will be on a flash chip. Now as for AOL Timewarner you're going to start seeing a lot more product placement ads (ie:Spiderman & Dr. Pepper (PepsiCo)) and Rosie O'Donald & her Wendy's salad. Not that this is anything new, but were going to start seeing more of it.

    Umm... well Maybe I won't ... I don't own a TV or a Tivo or any of those "advertainment" devices. I choose to IGNORE all advertising... even though I work in print media and my livelyhood depends on ads.

    ---

  • I like the PVRs (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bogamo ( 96489 )
    If people stop watching TV ads, then maybe advertisers will put more money into the banner ads. That would be nice.

    -Geoff
  • ...in front of the TV screen?
    I think they will because I'm actually "developing a technology" that allows me to "avoid restrictions" put on "digital media".

    Obviously I'm joking.

    They won't sue me because I'll patent this "technology" (the black cardboard) and make money from it, so since I'm getting paid for that I am under the law. A disclaimer will avoid me the legal stuff.

    Thank God I didn't want to release that idea under a GPL-style license!
  • If we don't watch out, networks will go to the CNN format where the show is only a portion of the screen with crap in windows elsewhere. Think of what they could do by going to letterbox format and then using "banner advertisements" in the bands above and/or below. The up side to something like this is then we could get 30 minutes of programming instead of 22 in a half hour show.


    • > If we don't watch out, networks will go to the CNN format where the show is only a portion of the screen with crap in windows elsewhere.

      Then someone will come out with a box with a handy "zoom" feature and a convenient preset that "zooms" the drek off the edges and shows only the content.

      More likely the networks will go for rendered-in ads.

    • I wouldn't mind TV programs being filled widescreen and aired letterbox with banner ads at the top and bottom. My 16:9 TV has a "Zoom" function...

      ...of course, then makers of 16:9 TVs would be sued for having that feature.
    • Think of what they could do by going to letterbox format and then using "banner advertisements" in the bands above and/or below.

      Then they will moan when someone starts selling devices to simply mask off parts of the picture. Or even more low tech, sticks a piece of card over the front of their TV.
  • Who's fault is it that consumers do not wish to view the adverts?
    tivo and replay are providing the consumers with a service which allows them to choose what they do and dont watch
    If I dont want to watch ads, no one can make me

    If someone came up with an amazing device to sift all of the mail ads that you recieve as they fall through the letterbox, would they get this same treatment?

    In most countries, there are services which prevent direct marketing calls to your phone, for people who dont want cold calling and the like
    The same thing for SMS spam
    Email isnt there yet, but it wouldnt supprise me if it was

    So, if a consumer can choose whether they recieve ads via phone, sms, mail (there are some services to prevent you getting ads via mail I believe) - why shouldnt they be able to choose whether they recieve the TV ads too?

    • Re:Can they really complain? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SmileyBen ( 56580 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @09:07AM (#3516580) Homepage
      And you know the really funny thing? There *is* a way to get people to watch ads - make good ads. People didn't watch the WASSSSUP ads because they had to, but because they enjoyed them. Same with Gap adverts. Same with movie trailers. How strange an idea is it that people will watch adverts if they're good?
  • Scientific Atlanta will be providing the DVR box. It will be able to record both analog and digital channels. It will not use Tivo software. It has dual tuners so you can record one show while watching another. For more info, see this press release. [scientificatlanta.com]
  • That the same companies, that started their business model by initially stealing (and later cheaply licensing) TV signals have something against companies cleaning TV signals and they would like to prosecute you for theft of service, if you dare to go to the loo, instead of oogling their crappy ads?

    Hmmm, Etwas ist faul im Staate Daenemark...

  • AOL spokesman Mark Harrad confirmed the company's ad-skipping plans

    They're skipping now? A bit of a typo...

    cable operator is also looking at including copyright-protection technology in such devices. The technology would limit how viewers can use content delivered to their homes.

    This is getting insane. Next they will have a CDTBPA like law for video players. If your sending out the content to my home, and im paying for that service (either through the advertising or subscription) I'm damn well allowed to do what I want with that stuff (within piracy laws, obviously).

    Just because they send out advertising with it, doesn't mean I have to watch it. So how's this different from deleting it? I spose they'll be telling us what to watch, what to listen to etc, Oh wait......

  • Possibly I'm overlooking something here... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Observer ( 91365 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:30AM (#3516376)
    ...that is blatently obvious, but it seems to me that if your audience is taking steps to actively avoid advertisements - whether by using technology so advanced that TV execs cannot distinguish it from magic ;-) or simply by taking a natural break when the ads come on - then the ads can't be doing a very good job of attracting attention to the products or services they are promoting.

    Possibly, just possibly, it might be worth trying to commission ads that don't insult the intelligence of a dead sheep? I seem to recall a campaign in the UK a few years ago that ran a whole mini soap-opera to promote a brand of instant coffee, and people's attention was caught because the ads were (a) well made, and (b) the audience wanted to see what happened at the next stage in the story.

    (Of course, this does take a bit more effort and genuine creativity than you need to produce the usual dreck.)

    • I might be wrong of course, but isn't that where the name soap opera comes from? Weren't soap commercials the origin of the genre?
    • I remember those ads, and while they didn't exactly draw me in, I thought the idea was pretty clever.

      Television is going to have to change to keep up with technology. I'm not sure how to do it, but if I were doing a TV show I'd find a way to work the sponsorship into the content of the show. It's been done often enough before. On radio's Fibber McGee and Molly show, for instance, the ads for Johnson Wax were written into the show's dialogue, with pitchman Harlow Wilcox taking part in each show and there being no continuity break between the ads and the dialogue. More recently, Elizabeth Taylor was on some show or another pitching one of her products.

      The idea is not without its flaws but it wouldn't surprise me to see something like this become more common as time goes on.

  • It's just occurred to me (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:31AM (#3516386) Homepage

    I had assumed that the solution is for advertisers to make high quality and entertaining commercials that actually border on content, which necessitates making fewer of them and running them for longer.

    And then I remembered that last night I was watching a Captain Scarlet [captainscarlet.tv] rerun, and thinking "Hey, these little wooden guys are better actors than half of the ones in mainstream drama and comedy shows."

    So given that we've shown a propensity for accepting any old crap as original content, perhaps the solution is for advertisers to go that way and produce more content, and damn the quality. If you're watching two hour of TV, you can easily see the same advert six or more times. If it didn't work as a sales pitch the first time, it won't work the second or the sixth time. If you switch over to avoid it, it doesn't even gain brand recognition. If you make it too good as content, the message is lost (there's a lovely commercial on UK TV just now featuring cat herding as a metaphor for some service, but I'm damned if I know what service, or who it's for). And no matter how good it is, you simply can't actively watch the same advert six times a night.

    However, if they ran six different commercials, even cheesy ones, you get some novelty value. Twist endings, different tunes, even the same scene but with different actors, anything to make you go "Hey! That's not the same as the last one!" Or even (gasp) live commercials. What, we don't have the technology to do that any more? Bollocks, we just don't want to do it, because it cuts out the dickweeds in Armani suits who have to run it past focus groups and debate endlessly on whether it's "on message" or not, all the time missing (or avoiding, rather) the point that we just don't want to watch the same advert more than once.

    I'm not saying that I'd actually want to watch commercials, just that I believe there are far too many commercial directors who are frustrated feature directors, and want to produce a single wonderful masterpiece, that looks great - to a bunch of suits in a boardroom who watch it once. Just because I'll buy Buffy on DVD even after seeing in on cable doesn't mean I'll watch even the best quality commercial more than once. You just can't make me care enough during your 30 second slot to make me want to watch it even one more time. But make a dozen 30 second slots, and I might - might - watch them all.

    • If you make it too good as content, the message is lost (there's a lovely commercial on UK TV just now featuring cat herding as a metaphor for some service, but I'm damned if I know what service, or who it's for).

      There is also the BT ad featuring a singing telephone, which isn't what the ad is selling, but quite a few people would probably want to buy one.

      However, if they ran six different commercials, even cheesy ones, you get some novelty value. Twist endings, different tunes, even the same scene but with different actors, anything to make you go "Hey! That's not the same as the last one!"

      This is sometimes done, but usually with only 2-3 different edits and/or actors.

      Or even (gasp) live commercials. What, we don't have the technology to do that any more?

      Another possibility would be some kind of interactive advert. Instant feedback on how many people have actually watched it and an incentive for viewers to want to see the next part.

      Bollocks, we just don't want to do it, because it cuts out the dickweeds in Armani suits who have to run it past focus groups and debate endlessly on whether it's "on message" or not, all the time missing (or avoiding, rather) the point that we just don't want to watch the same advert more than once.

      Maybe they could take a hint from The Simpsons/Futurama where every title sequence is different.
  • 3. Lawyers

    That's what will happen and always seems to happen. When will corporate folks look at this progression and contemplate something else?

  • TiVo's 30-sec skip feature (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sc00ter ( 99550 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:41AM (#3516433) Homepage
    First off, let me explain how it works now. You get to the commercials, you click fast forward two or three times, it starts going really fast. You see the show, you click play, the TiVo will jump back a few seconds and you don't miss any of the show.

    The 30-sec skip feature was never documented except in FAQs on the net, it was never a feature advertised or talked about by TiVo. It was in fact removed in one version of the software, but it was later put back. It requires users to find out that it's there, and turn it on. Most probably don't even know about it's exsistance.

    With that being said, if you go to the TiVo formus there's always talk about 30-sec skip and the fastfoward with the back up. Most people that post in those that have set up 30-sec skip switch back because they like the fastforward better.

    Why? Well for me there's three reasons. The first is that it seems to give me more control, the other is that I know exactly what I'm missing, and the last reason is that even at 3x fastforward, I can still kinda make out the commercials, and some I might want to actually see. Like a new trailer for Spider-Man, and add for next weeks ER, a commercial for a new fangeled computer gadget.

    It's because of that reason that TiVo is never picked on as much as ReplayTV.

  • Long-Term Effect (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Captain Large Face ( 559804 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:44AM (#3516442) Homepage

    So what will the long-term effects of increased usage of advertising-removing equipment such as that mentioned in this article?

    If less viewers are being reached by the advertisments, then logic would dictate that advertisers will pay less for their 30 second slots. This means that networks will have to either increase the advertising periods to increase revenue, or decrease expenditure of programming. Both of these outcomes will result in a drop in programming quality.

    Whilst some wits might note that quality of programming may already be at a low, the increasing popularity of this equipment will likely lead to a never-seen-before depth.

    The solution of Pay TV (as mentioned in the latter article) seems to be a good solution, if only more would take it up. In the UK, the BBC (a sort of mandatory Pay TV) delivers some excellent programming, all for a bargain price of ~£120 for several TV channels and a load of radio channels.

    That said, instead of watching "6 hours of TV a day", families could do something else, like erm, go outside, or see friends or something equally "sociable".

    • The solution of Pay TV (as mentioned in the latter article) seems to be a good solution, if only more would take it up.

      It works for HBO (Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Band of Brothers, etc.) and Showtime (Stargate SG-1, Jeremiah, etc.). They consistently have some of the best TV available, and no commercials.

  • no workable alternative (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:44AM (#3516445) Homepage
    I agree that TV ads are annoying and overall not all that desirable, but the key point is no one has come up with a good workable alternative that will still give TV to the masses. Paying per channel is likely to be expensive and cost prohibited to many people (think cable, but about 10 times as expensive as most cable channels also have ads). Placing ads in the corner of the screen is IMHO worse than regular ads. You end up losing part of the show because it's covered up with an ad. And eventually those will go the way of the banner ad and become more and more loud, obnoxious and annoying. Product placement has to be the worst choice though, as you will quickly end up losing creative control of the show to advertisers (much worse than now). Do you really think any product is going to want to pay to be used by the murderer or rapist on the show? Do we really want every person on the show wearing big banners on their chest for whatever product is paying the most? And what happens when a show takes a chance and has the good guys do something controversial? No one will want to advertise on them or the bad guys at that point, effectively eliminating that show (or at least that episode).

    So the question is, if 30 second ads aren't the answer, what is?

  • But what about.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by blaize ( 16903 )
    With all the numbers being thrown around, what about the actual ramifications of companies not advertising on television? If television advertising was no longer worth the dollars spent, (and the viewers then needed to buy access to the media), then would that mean advertising budgets would be decreased?


    If those budgets are decreased, then do companies need to charge as much for their products?


    If companies charge less for their products, then we have more money to pay for access to media.


    It would seem that a big reason that we can't really afford to pay for television is because we are spending such an insane amount of money on our sneakers.


    Stop advertising of all forms, read Consumer Reports instead. Slash marketing budgets of all major companies, lower prices on retail products. Consumer has more personal wealth, consumer then gives said wealth to the Media company in exchange for hassle-free entertainment.


    (this is obviously a very cheery outlook on modern economics. naturally, removing ads from television just means more ads in other places. or simply more profit for cooperations)

    • Stop advertising of all forms, read Consumer Reports instead. Slash marketing budgets of all major companies, lower prices on retail products. Consumer has more personal wealth, consumer then gives said wealth to the Media company in exchange for hassle-free entertainment.

      This could very easily kill off broadcast television for drama. Because viewers would only want to pay for what they actually wanted to watch and probably prefer to pay the production company for a download/DVD/video tape subscription. You'd then get episodes as they were complete. So that they could watch it when they wanted to watch, rather than having to wait for a local broadcaster to be bothered to show it.

  • News Advertising Rates Will Increase (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:50AM (#3516481) Homepage Journal

    I have a TiVo.

    Actually, I have two TiVos. One with the stock 20 GB drive and additional 75 GB drive I added, the other with two 100 GB drives.

    They're great. I record shows and I watch shows using the fast forward and play buttons to whip through advertisements in a few seconds.

    I do play closer attention while the high speed commercials are playing so I don't miss the return of the show. Whether that closer attention does anyone any good, I don't know, but it's a real phenomenon.

    Secondly, I've noticed that the only shows I watch live anymore are news shows. I don't record these for later viewing. Hence, those are the one place I end up seeing car commercials, etc.

    The moral of the story is that if you're an advertiser, your dollars are better spent on CNN Headline News than they are on conventional entertainment.

    Probably the same is true of sporting events. I doubt many people will tolerate watching "old" sports for the benefit of racing through the commercials.

  • Silly analogy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by micromoog ( 206608 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:56AM (#3516505)
    TV ads are a terrible bargain for the user, paying us about $1.20 per hour of our attention...

    This is just silly:

    • The viewer isn't getting paid; the network is.
    • The advertisers aren't just paying for the viewers' eyes; they're paying for the whole infrastructure of the network too (which ain't cheap).
    • The viewer isn't going to be giving full attention to every (any?) commercial.
    • The viewer isn't doing any "work" as such, so there goes your "minimum wage" argument.
    • That $1.20 also goes to subsidize viewers like you that don't watch any commercials.
    Expecting to get paid a "wage" on par with what you make at work is completely ludicrous. If "something has to change", then that something will be the viewer writing a check to the network for television instead of receiving the signal for free. Somebody has to pay for the programming, and right now it ain't you.
    • Somebody has to pay for the programming, and right now it ain't you.

      Networks pay for programming.

      Advertisers pay networks.

      Viewers pay advertisers by buying their products.

      Why do you think a box of cornflakes costs so much? Advertising budget (and profit margins :).

      This is why the term 'free-to-air' is a joke, why commercials on cable TV (that you're paying extra for) are even more of a joke, and why you should watch at least some television each week if you want real value from your shopping basket. :) (If I'm forced to cross-subsidise all the other crap, at least I can get The Simpsons out of it.)

  • Ads cost you more than time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joss ( 1346 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:57AM (#3516516) Homepage
    For me, it's not a question of whether PVRs which skip ads should be allowed. It's more a question of whether ads themselves should be allowed. The whole point of advertising is to increase desire for things you don't have, and are often better off without.

    If you watch US television for long, you will start to understand the obesity levels. Stuck between 10 minutes of inane rubbish featuring potentially beautiful but dangerously starved people, you are subjected to 5 minutes of carefully crafted manipulation inviting you to go further into debt, then pig out on sugered drinks and ultra high fat junk.

    Simply by increasing obesity, advertising is responsible for more deaths than heroin. See this [guardian.co.uk]. One could argue that it should be banned entirely, like heroin. Personally I think dangerous and destructive things (like adverts or heroin) should be regulated rather than banned outright.

    One valid argument against legalised heroin is that sometimes people's choices harm others. For instance, if I end up having to foot the medical bills of heroin users, then it *is* my business what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. So, along with legal drugs I would also support education to warn people of dangers.
    It would seem a bit off to me if far more effort went into trying to persuade people to take heroin than was being spent telling them it might not be such a good idea. I don't believe in stopping people from doing stupid things, but I do have a problem with relentless propoganda telling them that stupid things are a good idea.

    The existence of adverts on TV effects me adversely even if I don't watch it. For instance, the advertising for PizzaHut leads to increased obesity, the additional burden on medicaid and welfare which increases my taxes. I would be willing to pay money to educate people about dangers of eating high-sugar high-fat diets because education is cheaper than cure. By the same token, I would be prepared to pay extra not just to avoid adverts myself, but to avoid your exposure to adverts.

    In general advertising leads to increased consumerism: more roads, driving, shops, stress and pollution. In fact, it leads to what is hilariously called "progress". The direction it leads people in has only got the faintest association with this idea of "choice". The only "choices" proposed in adverts are ones which will make the advertiser richer.

    For a purely capitalist solution, we need to somehow calculate the true costs of advertising. So, by all means: persuade people to buy that new BMW or pizza, that is perfectly fair - just make sure the cost of the extra death, pollution, congestion, road accidents, etc is paid by the advertiser.

    It looks like PVRs will destroy the current business model of TV companies. Excellent: good riddance to bad rubbish. If they want to lobby for legislation regarding advertising, they should get some backlash.

  • Need OPEN SOURCE PVR solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by greensquare ( 546383 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @08:59AM (#3516526)
    MS has announced Freestyle [microsoft.com] which is going to build PVR functionality right into Windows XP. They plan to have PC vendors sell desktop systems with TV Cards installed. This will support stuff the TiVo supports, except with Windows Media Protection turned on.

    We need an Open Source PVR system that does a better job then Video 4 Linux at helping users install and operate PVR functionality. It would be neat to see something like the sputnik [sputnik.com] distribution accept for PVR. We can call it GiVo. (GNU TiVo.. ) Make it so any Pentium or better PC with a CD Drive, TV Card, and Lots-o-disk can boot up a very small kernel and turn it's self into a PVR box.

  • ReplayTV and commercial skip (Score:3, Insightful)

    by samweber ( 71605 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @09:06AM (#3516573)
    When I was in the market for a PVR, I looked at the Tivo web site, and found that they had a FAQ which said that that commercial skip "appeals to the pirate in us all", but that us adults know that it isn't reasonable. Needless to say, I purchased my ReplayTV the same day.

    By making 30 second skip an undocumented magic key sequence, Tivo seems to be trying to play it both ways. The vast majority of users will never find out about it, which will make media companies happy. However, the more technically inclined minority are more likely to care about the issue, and they'll be able to find out about it. Personally, I'd rather support a company which openly defies the advertising industry.
  • This could be a real problem if I ever get my idea of an All Commercial Network off the ground. I can just see the folks with their PVR's clicking on the 30-second buttons grumbling "man, these commercials go on FOREVER!".
  • TV ads are a terrible bargain for the user, paying us about $1.20 per hour of our attention.

    The ads don't pay us anything. The advertisers pay the TV network.

    Assuming about 10 minutes of ads per hour, and a penny per 30 seconds, the advertisers pay the TV network 20 cents/hr/viewer to deliver content "free". So, assuming the content is worth that much, the alternative is to have each viewer pay 20 cents/hr to view a show with no advertisements. Would the majority of viewers pay that? I don't know. Perhaps I would. But then I rarely watch TV anyway, except cartoons with my son while reading /. in the background, so I don't think I'm a good example.

  • A Common Claim (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ergo98 ( 9391 )

    From the Brad Templeton article: For a typical hour of TV with 15 minutes of advertising, I would much rather pay them the 30 cents than give them my time to watch 30 commercials.

    It's so easy to claim this when you're not doing it, and I've seen this sort of claim a million times: The reality is that when systems like this go public, many of the same people who are ranting and raving about their god given, constitutional right to skip commercials (in essence stealing the TV program, as the commercials are a part of the implicit contract when you watch it) will then be ranting and raving about "the man" and how criminal it is that Dawson's Creek is now scrambled, damnit, but the freedom fighters are hard at work haxxoring it.

    In essence what I'm saying is this: If all the networks switched to a pay model tomorrow (BTW: If they DON'T and you continue to advocate for commercial skipping PVRs, realize that what's next is in show commercials [yes, we already have them to a point, but expect them to get worse] : i.e. Joey holding up a box of Cheerios and dead panning "Cheerios, the choice for the new generation."), I GUARANTEE either the circumvention would go in full gear, or the absolutely laughably moronic "Uh, why don't they just use a tip jar? Oh, I'd tip FOR SURE if there was a tip jar! Just don't force it on me, man.". Blah.

    There was an episode of the Simpsons once where nearing the end Homer exclaimed "When will people learn? Democracy doesn't work!" : While laughable, to a point it has some merit -> So many people will promote whatever self serving rhetoric fits their needs today, never considering the whole picture from beginning to end, creating a sustainable system that works for everyone.

  • Back when VCRs first became popular, and I was time-shifting a lot of programming, I noticed that some commercials seemed to be designed to be "buzzed through". It's illegal, you see, to use subliminal cuts in commercials. But that restriction only applies to the normal-speed reproduction of the ad. I remember seeing many, many commercials that, when seen at fast-forward speeds, had the effect of subliminal cuts. The visual presentation was pretty obviously designed to work in the absence of a soundtrack, as well. (in many cases, this visual bias held even when the ad was viewed at normal speed, which appeared to be a reaction to the mute button)

    So what's the problem with the 30-second fast-forward? Ad producers don't want to take advantage anymore?

  • TiVo 30-second skip, NOT.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by c.derby ( 574103 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @10:03AM (#3516872)
    Actually, the 30-sec skip was not included in the 2.x version of the software (currently on 2.5). I neverf really like the 30-sec skip, anyway. I tend to fast forward through commercials on the 2md fastest FF speed and always stop for something that looks interesting. I at least -skim- the commercials.

    -- derby

  • TV ads are a terrible bargain for the user, paying us about $1.20 per hour of our attention

    It's worse than that because ultimately it is the consumers themselves who pay for those ads, in the form of higher product prices. Why not just tax consumer products directly and give the money to the television networks? At least we wouldn't have to watch the ads.

  • btempleton: For a typical hour of TV with 15 minutes of advertising, I would much rather pay them the 30 cents than give them my time to watch 30 commercials

    With product placement and product re-placement (where a budweiser beer is digitally replaced with a miller beer in a movie), I'd say there's more than 15 minutes per hour of adverts in TV and movies.
  • I fully support AOL/TW's rights to make a PVR that doesn't do ad-skipping. Hell, I support their rights to make a PVR that replaces all programming with a picture of Bugs Bunny(tm) flipping off the viewer. If people want to buy that, they can.

    But what's going to happen is that the media companies are going to buy enough Congressmen so as to make unauthorized PVR technology illegal, and then the media companies will only authorize non-ad-skipping PVRs, eliminating customer choice. And it'll happen, too, because few people will raise enough of a stink, and the money will keep flowing into the campaign coffers of the very representatives who are selling our freedoms for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver.

    So, AOL/TW, by all means feel free to come out with your crippled PVR. But have enough respect for the citizens of this country, put your cowardace behind you, and let the people decide what technology they want to support.

  • What would be great (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jhines ( 82154 ) <john@jhines.org> on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @10:16AM (#3516957) Homepage
    Is if the pvr had the ability to recognize repeated commercials, and would allow the user to skip over a commerical they have already seen.

    I mean seeing the same damn cell phone ads over and over again isn't going to make me buy something I don't have any use for.

  • Ad Age dosn't Sound so Glum on PVRs (Score:3, Informative)

    by Royster ( 16042 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @10:19AM (#3516978) Homepage
    A recent article in Ad Age [adage.com] quotes statistics which show that

    PVR users are as likely to watch ads as ordinary viewers

    and

    PVR viewers watch more televisions than ordinary viewers.

  • Minimum Wage (Score:3)

    by nick_davison ( 217681 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @12:51PM (#3518009)
    TV ads are a terrible bargain for the user, paying us about $1.20 per hour of our attention

    ...and we have the TV companies telling us that ad skipping is theft as we have a contract with them to watch their advertising. So, if they honestly regard it as a legal contract, can we sue them under minimum wage legislation?

    It'd be kind of entertaining to charge for 2 hours a day x 365 days a year x the last 20 years worth of my back pay. I think I'm owed about $60,000. *grins*

Slashdot Top Deals

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Close