Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays Hardware Hacking The Media Build

A Video Ad, In a Paper Magazine 295

Posted by timothy
from the who'dathunkit dept.
lee1 writes "The first-ever video advertisement will be published in a traditional paper magazine — Entertainment Weekly — in September. The video will be displayed on slim-line screens around the size of a mobile phone display and will have rechargeable batteries. The associated chip can hold up to 40 minutes of video, and uses technology similar to that used in singing greeting cards, playing the movie when the page is turned. The first clips will preview CBS shows and advertise Pepsi, but they will only be distributed in Los Angeles and New York. Imagine the fun hacking possibilities."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Video Ad, In a Paper Magazine

Comments Filter:
  • How long will it be before someone turns the page in the news paper and Jimbo from Jimbo's Used Cars and Ammo starts screaming about his amazing auto deals (free ammo with every car!) in a VERY LOUD OBNOXIOUS TONE?

    Not long, that's my guess.

    • by qortra (591818) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:21PM (#29138353)
      I searched in vain for anything in the article that says something about sound. Even if the ad will have audio, I don't think it will last long in that form. From what I understand, the technology to put relatively cheap audio ads in print periodicals has been around for sometime - nobody uses them for a reason. It would make the periodical a menace for any environment where quiet is valued (e.g. doctor's office or library). Pure video, on the other hand, does not suffer from this problem.

      Moreover, I'm sure that if they can make a small flexible screen, then can probably also make a small "unmute" button that allows the user to choose to listen to the ad.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Again (1351325)

      How long will it be before someone turns the page in the news paper and Jimbo from Jimbo's Used Cars and Ammo starts screaming about his amazing auto deals (free ammo with every car!) in a VERY LOUD OBNOXIOUS TONE?

      No need for Flashblock, just read with a hammer next to you.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by R2.0 (532027)

      "Jimbo from Jimbo's Used Cars and Ammo starts screaming about his amazing auto deals (free ammo with every car!) "

      Really? How many rounds? And what caliber? And will they take my Prius in trade?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Em Emalb (452530)

        Yes, really. a box, of 50, 9mm, and hell no, they won't take your Commie-Liberal Hippy wagon. Are you nuts?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hurricane78 (562437)

      Wait for Goatse to appear on those ads!

      I'm stunned it didn't already happened on one of those screens at Times Square in New York. But I'll get right to it. Just a sec... ;)

    • by CMBJ (1278418) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:00PM (#29139041)
      INTERGALACTIC PROTON POWERED ELECTRICAL TENTACLED ADVERTISING DROIDS
      INTERGALACTIC PROTON POWERED ELECTRICAL TENTACLED ADVERTISING DROIDS
      INTERGALACTIC PROTON POWERED ELECTRICAL TENTACLED ADVERTISING DROIDS

      Hi, I'm Darth Harrington of Darth Harrington's Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids Emporium and Moon Base. Due to a garbled subspace transmission, I am currently overstocked on all Intergalactic Proton Powered Electrical Tentacled Advertising Droids, and I am passing the savings onto youuuuuuu!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Chyeld (713439)

      You make it a joke but... [timesonline.co.uk]

    • by chucklebutte (921447) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @06:48PM (#29140543) Homepage
      Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man! Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man! Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man! Hi I'm Al Harrington, president and CEO of Al Harrington's Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man Emporium and Warehouse! Thanks to a shipping error, I am now currently over-stocked on Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Men, and I am passing the savings on to yoooooooouuuu! Attract customers to your business! Make a splash at your next presentation! Keep Grandma company! Protect your crops! Confuse your neighbors! African American? Hail a cab! Testify in church! Or just raise the roof! Whatever your Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man needs are! So come on down to Al Harrington's Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man Emporium and Warehouse! Route 2 in Weekapaugh!!! lol like this ad every time you turn your page!
  • by nomorecwrd (1193329) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:12PM (#29138173)
    Congratulations!! you are the 1.000.000 reader... push here to collect
  • Wait, so they expect user to recharge the screen so that they can watch ads? Doesn't seem too effective and easy to pass over...
  • So this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BigJClark (1226554) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:16PM (#29138265)

    So this is the best usage for this technology they can find? How about changing 300lb university textbooks into paper thin alternatives? Updating libraries to use this new technology, increasing the life of the books... etc etc

    Ad's? How.... capitilist..
    • Re:So this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by squoke (1447831) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:21PM (#29138359)
      Let the advertisers foot the bill for the technology. Eventually it will become cheaper and more efficient due to their use. Then academia can reap the rewards.
      • Re:So this (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BigJClark (1226554) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:29PM (#29138511)

        Whens the last time you can think advertisters have footed the bill? Has the cost of your movie tickets dropped since they've introduced a half-hour of commericals into the movie theaters? Has the cost of your video games dropped since the inception of inline video game ad's?

        Hardly. Relying on advertisers to lower the cost of new technology so that academia can reap its benefits is knowledge probably gained from an academic institute that is relying on advertisers to lower the cost of new technology.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by squoke (1447831)
          Or........ we could look at the fact that the lion's share of the cost of a technology is wrapped into the conceptualization and production of the first unit brought to market. Then we could look at the fact that the cost of technology decreases as the "new hotness" factor wears off. Do you see where this is going?
        • Re:So this (Score:4, Insightful)

          by tlhIngan (30335) <(ten.frow) (ta) (todhsals)> on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:17PM (#29139341)

          Whens the last time you can think advertisters have footed the bill? Has the cost of your movie tickets dropped since they've introduced a half-hour of commericals into the movie theaters? Has the cost of your video games dropped since the inception of inline video game ad's?

          Hardly. Relying on advertisers to lower the cost of new technology so that academia can reap its benefits is knowledge probably gained from an academic institute that is relying on advertisers to lower the cost of new technology.

          Except print media relies on ads to pay the bills, The cost you pay tends to pay a very tiny portion of the actual cost production - most of that cost is distribution (printing, shipping to distributors, distributor markup, shipping to retailers, retailer markup, etc), which is how they can easily make subscriptions 50+% off the cover price.

          In this case, the ads pay for the technology behind this. If it's successful, more advertisers would want it in more magazines, which implies that developments would make the technology cheaper. And when the technology gets cheap enough, it'll be everywhere.

          Advertisers are paying for this, plus the normal ad fees. If it succeeds, it forms a demand for this technology, making it cheaper so everyone else can add video to their pages for little extra cost.

        • Re:So this (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CecilPL (1258010) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @06:43PM (#29140489)
          Yup. 5 years ago, movie tickets used to cost $14 at my local theatre. Now they cost $10.99 - a 30% drop after accounting for inflation.

          Most new video games cost $59.99 - the same as new SNES games cost in 1994. That's another 30% drop after accounting for inflation, not to mention the hugely increased costs of development since then.

          It stands to reason that if content producers can recoup some of their costs via alternative revenue models, competition will force the prices down.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DragonWriter (970822)

          Whens the last time you can think advertisters have footed the bill?

          Free-as-in-beer broadcast TV? Much of the free-as-in-beer content on the internet? A number of free-as-in-beer local newsweeklies? The vast majority of the cost of not-free print daily newspapers?

      • by ArsonSmith (13997)

        Hmm, let someone else pay for your products. how....socialist

    • Re:So this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by east coast (590680) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:44PM (#29138759)
      So this is the best usage for this technology they can find?

      They're the ones paying the bills. I know, how capitalistic of me. But that's the system in play.

      How about changing 300lb university textbooks into paper thin alternatives? Updating libraries to use this new technology, increasing the life of the books... etc etc

      Fantastic ideas. How soon can we expect for you to get the betas out? The great thing about capitalism is that if think this is a good idea for the technology you can make a play at being one of the first ones to market with the product. Why are you waiting for someone else to take up the cause? If you're waiting for the government to take the lead, which I'm guessing you are by slighting capitalism, you are going to have a long wait.

      Capitalism has a really cruddy underside because someone has to lose for someone else to win but it's also this same reason that people step up to challenges such as this. Having an incentive to produce has worked out pretty well. You can still champion the idea if you want to do it for "ethical" reasons and give your profits away. No one is stopping you.

      • I'm merely making social commentary. I don't wait for the government for anything, and do my own amount of volunteer work around the community. But be rest assured, that if I had the brain capable of inventing a device, good or process of some sort that either

        A) benefited the large group of people for free
        B) Made me disgustingly rich

        I would choose (a). No, I've never been put in that place, and no I don't ask you to believe me.
        • All I'm really saying is that those who develop a technology should be allowed to get some benefit out of it. That was my social commentary.

          And being rich doesn't mean that you can't help a large group of people. There are tons of win-win situations in technology. If I need to list some for you'll I'd have to first ask you to hand in your geek card.
        • Ok, lets say you did invent this particular invention in your garage.
          How do you implement it in a way that will benefit a large group of people for free?

          Where the heck does the money for the factory or materials come from?

          Don't get me wrong, I have a part time volunteer job. If you know of a better system for moving ideas from concept to communal good, I'm all ears.

  • by squoke (1447831) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:17PM (#29138271)
    when Playboy starts using them.
  • Cost? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) <elmuerteNO@SPAMdrunksnipers.com> on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:21PM (#29138361) Homepage

    Isn't this insanely expensive? I thought the return on ads was already very low. How is this going to be any better.

    • Re:Cost? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by east coast (590680) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:29PM (#29138507)
      You kidding? People are going to buy this nonsense rag just for the novelty alone. They'll make a killing on sales and be able to charge more for other ads at the same time.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        yea and i'll take 50 so I can get the screens and batteries to make my next Burning Man costume. Adds? I'll never see em I'll use the Mags to fuel my woodgas generator to recharge the batteries.
        • by Yvan256 (722131)

          yea and i'll take 50 so I can get the screens and batteries to make my next Burning Man costume. Adds? I'll never see em I'll use the Mags to fuel my woodgas generator to recharge the batteries.

          P.S.: please buy another 100 or so, then sell them on eBay for those of us not living in one of those two cities.

          • Re:Cost? (Score:5, Funny)

            by supernova_hq (1014429) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:22PM (#29139409)
            Good lord, the thought of literally buying used advertisements on ebay is kind of mind-blowing...
            • It's not precisely unprecedented. Toulouse-Lautrec's posters outgrew eBay some time ago.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by WNight (23683)

              I'm waiting for the lawsuits against people who resell these, hack them, etc.

              When one of these ends up on a lamp-post in Brooklyn with a timer on it who will the department of homeland security waterboard? Putting electronics in the hands of terrorists is a serious charge.

              Totally baseless of course because bombs don't need fancy timers and a cheap ipod device, like many manufacturers make for almost nothing, could do the same if you wanted a timer, but hey, when has law been about reason?

              I've got popcorn.

    • by Itninja (937614)
      Well I imagine for news of an add in Entertainment Weekly to trickle all the way down to us nerds, it's got to already be buzztastic in Hollywoodland. Sure it cost them several orders of magnitude more to run the ad, but I bet they will get the same in returns.
      • Re:Cost? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by qortra (591818) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:38PM (#29138655)
        Exactly! I was going to say this if nobody else did.

        I bet this is going to be a collectors item. Everybody in LA and New York will have to buy one. So, not only will EW get a huge sales boost, but there will be millions of people who are pushing, clawing, and begging just to watch the ads for their novelty. How many other ways can you get people to seek out your advertisement rather than have it forced upon them? I bet USA and Pepsi are paying through the nose for this.

        Of course, the novelty aspect only works once. My guess is that we won't see this regularly until the technology becomes significantly cheaper (if even then).
    • It's an ad for e-ink advertizing technology.
  • by rminsk (831757) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:23PM (#29138401)
    What toxic materials are in this screen? Most of the magazines will end up in a landfill instead of being recycled by a proper electronics recycler.
  • by Silentknyght (1042778) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:23PM (#29138405)

    Seems great, but TFA seems light on details that would seem to come to most peoples' minds:

    • Is it actually an insert into the magazine, or is it part of a page, itself?
    • How durable is it? And its corollary:
    • How flexible is it?
    • Is it always on, or can you turn it off?
    • Wait, the battery is rechargeable? If this is an ADVERTISEMENT in a paper magazine, why would you want to recharge it beyond the novelty? What good is this, and with a battery of 70min, wouldn't they ALL have no power by the time you get it off the shelf?
    • Can I rip it out of the magazine and keep the screen/device and repurpose them for something actually useful?

    FYI, here's what it does list:

    • Screen uses liquid crystal display (LCD) technology
    • Each is 2.7mm thick with 320x240 resolution Can store 40mins of video
    • Battery can be recharged via mini-USB
    • Rechargeable battery lasts up to 70 mins
    • Developed by LA-firm Americhip
    • by Mal-2 (675116)

      First of all that's 70 minutes of runtime. Standby wouldn't be nearly as draining.

      I have to wonder though -- presumably one reads a magazine in reasonable lighting. Couldn't the ad be solar powered, with only a small battery to make sure it wakes up when it needs to?

      Mal-2

      • First of all that's 70 minutes of runtime. Standby wouldn't be nearly as draining

        I wouldn't expect the standby capacity of that to be much longer than the time it would take insert the device into the magazine, finish production, box up the magazine(s), and ship them to the point of sale. Can you imagine needing dozens upon dozens of USB power cords to recharge these things at your local bookseller? I'd imagine someone is paying for that kind of ridiculous service to ensure that this very expensive advertising venture delivers as promised to the target audience.

    • by elrous0 (869638) *
      It's just a publicity stunt. Let me know when they can actually distribute these things en masse, and not just in a few hundred copies in two selected cities.
    • by blackbear (587044)

      Wait, the battery is rechargeable? If this is an ADVERTISEMENT in a paper magazine, why would you want to recharge it beyond the novelty? What good is this...

      Because if they didn't include a rechargeable battery then you would complain that "The damned thing doesn't even have a rechargeable battery! What good is this..."

    • From ECN: [ecnmag.com]

      The inserts are being distributed to EW subscribers in NY and LA. Newsstands and other subscribers will get regular versions. The success of Video-In-Print could stimulate more widespread video print ads, but as of now, the prohibitive cost of these items (especially compared to traditional motionless ads) prevents wider distribution.

      So don't expect to buy one off the shelf.

  • by ilkensai (1615567) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:25PM (#29138431) Homepage
    Hi, this is Vince with Slap Chop... watch this, you're gonna love my nuts...
  • by jonnythan (79727) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:28PM (#29138495) Homepage

    Best line I've read all day.

    "It's believed the new technology will cost much more than normal print ads."

    That's the kind of biting, insightful comment I love from big media.

  • by Zhe Mappel (607548) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:28PM (#29138497)
    How long before I can play Doom on my copy of Entertainment Weekly?
  • by lumenistan (1165199) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:31PM (#29138525)
    The fools at the Academy for the Slightly Evil laughed at me when I introduced my doctoral dissertation proposal last month, but now look, the winds are shifting in my favor! This is going to go far to aid my goal of getting as many batteries as possible into the landfills that service Los Angeles and New York.

    1. Average Joe gets/reads/disposes of newspaper
    2. Batteries get dumped along with newspaper
    3. ???
    4. Profit!

    Looks like I WILL get my D.Ev after all!

  • I see those fucking musical birthday cards, and now this, and I wonder what kind of metals are in those little batteries. We're not poisoning the land fills any more for this crap, are we?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CAIMLAS (41445)

      You're kidding, right?

      The answer is: no, not to any appreciable degree.

      You do know what happens to all those 9V, AA, and AAA batteries you see in grocery stores after people use them up, right? How about the batteries in laptops? Yeah, that's right: the average person throws them away. As in, in the landfill.

      If they don't throw them away when they die, they throw them in the trash when they're doing some housecleaning or getting ready to move. Even in the locations where recycling batteries is possible and

  • by east coast (590680) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:34PM (#29138585)
    For your intellectual edification:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7GErbdNRrE
  • by Tim4444 (1122173) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:36PM (#29138605)
    If newspapers devoted this much energy to the actual content and quality of journalism, maybe they wouldn't be hurting so much for revenue.
    • by PylonHead (61401) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:33PM (#29139605) Homepage Journal

      The crisis in the newspaper industry:

      a) They're all giving away their content for free on the internet, print subscriptions are falling through the floor.

      b) No single paper can charge internet subscriptions, because people will just turn to other papers.

      c) Web ad revenue brings in less money than print ad revenue used to.

      d) Craig's List has completely destroyed the lucrative classified ads revenue source.

      So basically, they haven't found a way to make enough money to do the journalism that we expect from them. The whole industry is sinking, from the best of them to the worst.

      • Man I am sure a Perl or even more advanced Haskell etc. genious can code today's mainstream newspaper generator easily. Just add couple of leftist/rightist/shadowy columnists who writes no better than your IRC bot, all you need is a A3 printer to go.

        I really think it should be done, just to show how worthless they have become internationally, yes, ALL newspapers except always lower selling intellectual types can be generated dynamically. You can even add some sort of "evil layout AI" to promote/demote stori

  • Now we just need a way to rip the video to DivX and put it in a torrent on The Pirate Bay!
  • was first

    but really this direction just seems like it is destined to fail because of cost and the lack of people already buying physical things to read.

  • Because paper mags are the ultimate means of conmmunication and we should all be spending millions of dollars on this booming new media!!

    Just wondering, will the mags also be equipped with AdBlock??
  • by f8l_0e (775982) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:41PM (#29138701)
    • That looks awfully bulky for a magazine insert...

      Maybe it'd work as a standalone advertising pamphlet for some expensive toy... But as a magazine insert?

      Yeah, I understand that folks will run out and buy this magazine just for the advertisement. Just for the novelty. But... The thing depicted in that video is easily as thick as a magazine.

      • Agreed. This isn't "video in print", this is "we've taken your typical hardcover book and put a ridiculously small screen with a bad interface inside it. Other content, what other content?"

        If I a device like the one shown in the youtube vid, I'll just take one that's not bound in cardboard, thanks.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by EkriirkE (1075937)
      This is just a mock up, the video you see is edited in. As they pan/zoom around the video disconnects from the window.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Okay, the Geek in me wants to take the YouTube Video of this thing, and put it ON this thing, make a video Youtube of the new video on the thing, and then video that and put it on it and then get a video of that, and put it on it ....

  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:41PM (#29138703)

    ...and will have rechargeable batteries.

    In case you want to watch the commercials over and over again.

  • Looks like one of the Mission Impossible guys decided to go work for an ad agency. :-P
  • First? I swear I read a /. article quite a while ago about this exact same thing... It was the cover of some magazine.

  • So now, not only can I not toss the magazine into recycling without a thought, but in many municipalities it will be a crime to even throw it in the regular trash due to the electronics. Thanks Hollywood!
    • So now, not only can I not toss the magazine into recycling without a thought, but in many municipalities it will be a crime to even throw it in the regular trash due to the electronics. Thanks Hollywood!

      But it's ROHS compliant!

  • Yeah, but how many click-throughs will it get?
  • by EsJay (879629) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:50PM (#29138859)
    Esquire had an E-ink cover last year [slashdot.org]. Was there any interesting re-purposing?

    Google tells me it was possible but I didn't find any interesting projects.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Yvan256 (722131)

      AFAIK that cover was fixed areas, kinda like those old LCD games, or a 7-segment display, etc. You can only turn areas on and off, it wasn't a pixel-based display.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:20PM (#29139385)

      It couldn't be repurposed. It was a fixed layout Eink design. Nothing more than an overglorified LCD style animation, similar to those in the Tiger Electronics and Game & Watch systems. Portions became dark, those portions became light. The screen itself couldn't have been salvaged for anything because while it was Eink, it wasn't the kind of Eink that many people hoped it would be (individual granules acting as pixels.)

  • So, what's up with talking about the Esquire bit but still claiming it's the 'first' ever?
  • Let me know when full-motion color video comes to thin, flexible displays. eInk/ePaper isn't there yet and this doesn't even look like it's an advance in that direction, but rather off-the-shelf, conventional rigid LCD repackaged with a small battery and storage as a gimmick. Hardly more innovative than singing birthday cards.
  • Given how often I see articles claiming that "print media is in trouble, everything's online now", is investing R&D into video advertisements, not to mention increasing printing costs with this gimmick, REALLY the way to go? Are you trying to tell me that the only thing killing print media this whole time has been it's lack of flash ads!?
  • Waste of resources (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mmustapic (1155729) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:16PM (#29139331)
    Yes, the device is supposedly rechargeable and new content can be uploaded, but why would you make the effort to upload ads? How is this better than reading the same info on the internet, on a bigger screen and better interactivity? Whit will surely end in a landfill. How fucking wasteful.
  • How long until ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jumperalex (185007) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:29PM (#29139529)

    [queue article about malware distributing video magazine ad in 3...2...1...]

  • Entertainment Weekly (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sloppy (14984) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @06:26PM (#29140285) Homepage Journal

    I hate these asshole spammers. I started getting their crap about a year ago. Every damn week, one of these things. I rent a mailbox and only check it about once a month. Now it physically fills up with their unsolicited junk mail. Fuck you, Entertainment Weekly.

    I tracked down how it happened. Turns out Ticketmaster sold me out -- they're who Entertainment Weekly got my snailmail address from (and email address, that's how I caught 'em -- Entertainment Weekly sent spam to tm@example.com). So: fuck you too, Ticketmaster. You'll never hear from me again.

  • by kheldan (1460303) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @06:40PM (#29140471) Journal
    Just fold the magazine sharply and firmly in half. No more annoying ad!
    Seriously though, if it's possible to erase the ad content and use the mini-player for other video, I think I (and at least half of /.) would buy the mag just to dink around with the player.
  • by Doug52392 (1094585) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @06:44PM (#29140505)

    Imagine this: A person is quietly reading a magazine in a quiet and peaceful room. Suddenly, as he flips the page, a video advertisement is played, displaying the Pepsi logo, filling the room with a low-quality, low-bitrate sound of the Pepsi jingle so loud everyone in the room turns and looks at him. And, guess what? NO WAY TO STOP THE DAMN AD!

    Come September, this will be a reality.

    First TV ads got louder and louder and annoyed the shit out of me to the point where I can't even watch TV anymore. Then Internet ads did the same. Now fucking paper ads will annoy me.

    I, for one, will not purchase a product whose developers chose to advertise in this manner, nor will I purchase magazines that have these ads. Fuck you, spammers!

  • by SlashDev (627697) on Thursday August 20, 2009 @06:44PM (#29140511) Homepage
    .. is that I can turn the page. Can't do that with video ads on 'live' TV.
  • novel idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tom (822) on Friday August 21, 2009 @02:07AM (#29143633) Homepage Journal

    The more ads I see, the more I get pissed at advertisement in general.

    I have a truly novel idea. Maybe I should patent it. How about we charge for the actual content, save a lot of money on all the staff and equipment that doesn't have to negotiate, draft, implement, print, etc. all the advertisement anymore, and end up with a smaller, more content-dense product? I'll call it "business purpose re-engineering".

    You see, when your business has slowly eroded from informing your customers to selling your customers, and your customers have started to notice and are leaving you in droves, it might be time to change back, instead of speeding up.

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...