Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

TV People Meter: Monitoring What You Watch 155

Posted by michael from the judge-judy-and-matlock dept.
bj3g2j writes "CNN has an interesting article about the People Meter that is built by Arbitron. It seems that the device is portable and picks up on signals sent from the TV (and/or radio) to determine what people are watching. This is supposed to improve the accuracy of tracking viewer habits. The best quote is that 'it includes a motion detector to verify someone is actually wearing it.' Lots of motion while sitting on the couch? Interesting concept in light of the recent ruling in California."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TV People Meter: Monitoring What You Watch More

TV People Meter: Monitoring What You Watch

Comments Filter:
  • Who would voluntarily put this on their TV? I know the rating devices that're used now are used voluntarily, but I don't think people would like a motion detector on their TV.
    • It seems that the device is portable and picks up on signals sent from the TV (and/or radio) to determine what people are watching

      From what I gather this is to be used by others to pick up your signals, next to legal action you really can't do anything about it

    • Um, from taking the massive effort of actually reading the article, I can tell you this: the device is worn by the person watching. Not attached to the TV. Besides, your ability to associate the motion detection with something that is "put on the TV" makes my mind create weird images of how you watch TV...
    • ``I don't think people would like a motion detector on their TV.''

      Heh, heh. You obviously don't have children. A motion detector could be useful for turning the TV off when they leave the room.

      But you're right. I wouldn't want someone tracking my viewing habits (though if they did, it'd foul up their statistical analysis something fierce). Besides, I watch it infrequently so I wouldn't be a valuable source of data for the networks.

  • big brother (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Partisan01 ( 547933 )
    Telescreens a la 1984?? Stuff like this freaks me out, there is no need for the TV to be a two way device, it was meant to be one way, the signal goes out, no need to get info back, trying to build functionality into a system like this is playing with fire.

    • Telescreens are great (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What do you mean?

      Imagine if we could vote by pushing buttons on the remote controller. I bet that would make people vote more often and prevent racist nazi bastards like Le Pen from getting so much power and publicity.

      When ordinary people stop voting only the fringe elements like the far right and left will benefit.

      • Actually, when all of the ordinarily apathetic people vote, you end up with a woefully uneducated voter base making clueless decisions. Keep in mind that in France something like 80-85 percent of the eligible population votes in every election, and M. Le Pen is a result of that effect.

        Politics in America are so centrist anyway that it hardly would matter here.
        • Keep in mind that in France something like 80-85 percent of the eligible population votes in every election, and M. Le Pen is a result of that effect.

          Le Pen is the result of a relatively apathetic vote split between at least two indistinguishable candidates on the left. M. Le Pen will have his ass handed to him tomorrow.
          • Chirac a leftie? Uhm, no. Someone, I don't remember who, put it thus: 'Right now, the people of France have a choice between the corrupt right and the fascist right'.

            The original poster did have a point, btw. In Belgium, citizens are *required* to vote. All those people who don't really want to vote but have to, vote Vlaams Blok (=extreme right).
        • A) In this election only 72.8% of eligible voters voted.
          B) Only 17.2% of those voted for Le Pen, who came in second.
          C) The "expected" second, Jospin, came in third with 15.85%, while Chirac got 19.4%.
          D) The other 13 candidates got 47,55% of votes.

          So Le Pen got into the second round, because there were more apathetic voters than usual, and more candidates than usual (of which there were only 2 extreme rights to split votes between, but 5 from the currently governing left coalition and 5 from the conservative opposition block). The dedicated voters (about as much as in the last election) got Le Pen in, and the "protest" voters (both those who voted for the coalition partners or extremists lefts, and those who didn't vote) got Jospin out of the race.

          • Let me give you a word of advice: you're not destined to be a political pundit. Your analysis is all but completely meaningless. Back your shit up with exit polls or something, if you want to have a case about who voted for whom. Until then, squeezing blood from rocks.
            • What are you, a moron? Do you think I made up these numbers? Can't your feeble, little, anti-democratic mind take the truth?
              • So, in other words, if you looked around for the exit polls I requested, you couldn't find any that supported your claims. More probably, you didn't even bother to look, because you didn't understand my point. I suspect this is true because it goes with the profile you've already demonstrated as a true buffoon.
                • Sure, Mr. Airhead, I did neither find the 1995 results [adam-carr.net] nor the the current results (first round only, of course) [elysee.fr].

                  Which don't show that Le Pen got 4,804,713 votes this election and 4,565,946 last election (1995), which means he got 238,767 votes more this election which is a whopping 5% increase.

                  Now tell me why you didn't find them, or better yet, why you should be allowed to vote under the election system you propose.

                  • I'm sorry that you didn't do the research that I asked for.

                    I'll restate it if you're still interested in continuing this mockery of a debate. I want exit polls tied directly to demographics, rather than electoral tallies. Those can be made to mean anything through a properly tinted lens.

                    I'm not finding them because I'm confident I'm right, and I don't need reassurance.
                    • Do your own research. If you find something to back up your silly opinion, feel free to post it. Exit polls can be made to mean anything, esp. when they are as "good" as those pre-election polls [bbc.co.uk]. The fact remains, this election's first round had the lowest turnout ever.
    • Telescreens a la 1984??

      How long before it will be illegal to turn your TV off? (A la 20 minutes into the future from 1985.)
    • Welcome to the internet.
    • there is no need for the TV to be a two way device

      Perhaps this represents a misunderstanding on my part, but the article seems to state that the device would be returning what you're watching on TV, not watchin you as you watch it. Why be freaked out? I would gladly wear something that would improve the current Nielsen system, especially because so many shows that I loved ("Bob Patterson", "Wednesday at 9:30 8:30 Central", and "Dilbert" specifically) were cancelled so quickly by their respective networks. Information should be collected to ensure that the networks program for what people are watching, not simply what they think is adequate.

      I agree with the article's assessment of the current system as well. Too much relies on the person using it, for one thing, which means that the data collected are probably very inaccurate. Also, it seems that this device would report that a person watched even a show that he had taped, so ratings would not be lost to those shows that were put off until later. It seems to me that this system is reasonable, easy to use, and more reliable than anything proposed so far.

      Telescreens a la 1984??

      Furthermore, if I may nitpick, your telescreen analogy is groundless. With this device, I could quite easily place it in another room, leave it at home, or (I assume) turn it off. The telescreens were always on, were always watching, and were reporting their data to a mad government that wished to quash freedom. As I see it, this is giving me the freedom to keep the shows I like on the air, not taking any freedoms away.
    • Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer; though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing. A kilometer away the Ministry of Truth, his place of work, towered vast and white above the grimy landscape. This, he thought with a sort of vague distaste - this was London, chief city of Airstrip One, itself the third most populous of the provinces of Oceania . . . For some reason the telescreen in the living room was in an unusual position. Instead of being placed, as was normal, in the end wall, where it could command the whole room, it was in the longer wall, opposite the window. To one side of it there was a shallow alcove in which Winston was now sitting and which, when the flats were built, had probably been intended to hold bookshelves. By sitting in the alcove, and keeping well back, Winston was able to remain outside the range of the telescreen, so far as sight went. He could be heard, of course, but so long as he stayed in his present position he could not be seen. It was partly the unusual geography of the room that had suggested to him the thing that he was now about to do...
      • How many times am I going to have to explain this:

        THESE THINGS ARE VOLUNTARY. They are not going to be included in anything. What happens is the ratings firm, like Neilsen, asks you if you'd like to participate (they do this already) as a Neilsen home and have your viewing habits monitored. Now currently they either give you a diary, and ask you to fill it out, or they hook a monitoring box to your TV. This device is just a more accurate way to gague what you watch. Don't want it to know what your doing at a given time? Leave it in it's charger. Don't want it to know what you're doing at all? Say no, you don't wish to participate.

        You don't HAVE to be a Neilsen home. They asked me, but where I lived at the time it was journals, and I wasn't willing to spend the time filling it out so I told them no. Actually, I just never responded to them, but same difference.

        Most people WANT to participate, since then what you watch controls what is on TV. The Neilsen rating are one of the most important things in determining what happens to shows on TV. If you have a Neilsen unit, your viewing habits have a direct infulence on what shows stay and what ones go. That means what you like to watch, gets higher ratings.

        So, if you don't like this, just stuff the Neilsen letter in the trash if they happen to send you one. They don't care, they just ignore you and find someone else.
    • ...it was meant to be one way....


      "Meant" by who? The guy who invented it? I'm sure he's long dead. Who cares what it was "meant" for. It probably wasn't meant to have a vcr or playstation hooked to it either. Big deal.

      This is something that people elect to have in their homes. If it reports your viewing habits back, all that is doing is making your (implicit) opinion heard, so that they will make more shows to keep you happy. If you are paranoid about your privacy, don't get one. You probably shouldn't vote either, since it's none of the government's damn business what your political views are.
      • "This is something that people elect to have in their homes." Yes, for now. Perhaps, however, the technology will become so cheap to produce, so very prevalent, that it will be V-chipped into every set. Perhaps then, perusal of your favorite programs will be conditioned on you physically sitting there watching advertisements. (See, e.g., this article on LawMeme @ Yale [http].) And perhaps -- just perhaps -- other, more nefarious uses for the damned box will be discovered. They're doubleplusgrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat!

        'How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?'

        Winston thought. 'By making him suffer,' he said.

        'Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but ~more~ merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy - everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except for the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.'


        Happy Saturday!

  • Are your eyes open? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Innominate Recreant ( 557409 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @01:50PM (#3463139)
    Will this device make sure that your eyes are open during the commercials, so that you won't be accused of stealing [slashdot.org]?

    • Re:Are your eyes open? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Raul654 ( 453029 )
      It's been done.

      It was the next day, Brothers, and I had truly done my best morning and afternoon to play it their way and sit like a horrorshow cooperative malchick in the chair of torture while they flashed nasty bits of ultra-violence on the screen. Though not on the soundtrack, my Brothers, the only sound being music. Then I noticed in my pain and sickness what music it was that like cracked and boomed. It was Ludwig Van's Ninth Symphony, fourth movement. Ahhggggg! No. No. Stop it. Stop it. Please I beg of you. It's a sin! It's a sin! It's a sin!!!

      • In this particular case (qouted from A Clockwork Orange for those of you who do not know) I believe that commercials would have been a welcome break for the boy, considering they were putting him though his own personal hell.

        Nice reference tho :)
  • I will get one of these as soon as possible. Currently I don't watch very much TV because I feel that the content is only loosely relevant to me. I would watch a lot more TV if stations were able to accurately target me with programs that I would like, based on the viewing habits of mine that they've observed.

    I don't really see how this could be bad. I trust that the TV companies won't misuse the information they receive. Most likely, their doing so would constitute a serious breach of contract (as I assume there is an accompanying sheaf of paperwork in order to become eligible to use this).

    While I imagine many people here will tear their hair out while bleating about large companies invading privacy, these people need to get a reality check. Not everyone cares if some nameless faceless person at company X knows you watched some porn last night, and most people would appreciate the service that company X could provide with that information.

    • It sounds like you're not crazy about the mainstream crap that is so common on TV.

      Problem is, if everyone had these devices, it would simply confirm to the networks that the majority of people liked that mainstream crap, and that people like you are in a tiny minority. Hence, they wouldnt waste money on creating non-mainstream, decent shows - they would spend their money on catering to mainstream tastes, to maximize profits, and niche markets be damned.

      This same trend it evident in the music industry - the record companies don't bother taking risks with esoteric, semi-decent music - they stick to generating the sort of cliched tripe that they know will sell en masse (n sync, limp bizkit etc).

      I trust that the TV companies won't misuse the information they receive

      I honestly can't say for a moment that I trust any large corporation not to misuse the information they'd receive. In fact I can't think of any big corporations that wouldn't eagerly engage in something scummy if it means making more money. As an example, I have fairly strong evidence that a local very large, reputable financial firm that I have an investment policy with illegally sold my personal information - to a bulk emailing company, of all places (and thats just the one I know about). From Enron to Microsoft to Oracle, corporate execs will obviously do anything for a quick buck.

  • Well, this is only for sample data collection, people. For the advertisers to survey what people are watching and to put their money into it. The article says it's based on sex and age group groups as their demographic partitions but who knows ...

  • Depends (Score:2, Funny)

    by teslatug ( 543527 )
    Lots of motion while sitting on the couch?
    It depends on what you're watching ;)
  • Seems like this is the same idea as a device
    that's been used in Britain for maybe 30 years.

    In UK, about half of TV broadcasting is paid for
    by the purchase of Television receiver licenses.

    Unlicensed TV's are therefore illegal and vehicles
    equipped with Television detectors drive around
    trying to nail offenders.

    They work (IIRC) by picking up stray signals
    emitted by the intermediate frequency generator
    inside the TV. They can even detect which
    channel a TV is tuned to and which room it's in.
    • Silly big brother and his vans. Well, these "television detector" vans may have to deal with computer monitors now:

      is that a licensed copy of Windows he is running?
      is that a DVD or a home video?
      just a screensaver?
      or is that a TV card?

      You are being watched. Your silence is appreciated.
      • The frequencies radiated by computer monitors are significantly different to that of TV sets. Not to mention that the van can actually reconstitute the signal, inside the van, and record to VHS with a burnt-in GPS record and estimated distance and direction.

        They may be big brother (I don't care, I pay my licence fee and reckon it's well worth it) but they're not completely stupid.

        Simon
        • Back when I was a student, and couldn't afford a TV Licence, I got a visit from a TV Licencing officer. I told him the truth and said I had just got the TV, and was saving up for a licence. He replied "well, okay, but mind that you do!"

          I took the opportunity to ask him what they could do about PC TV cards, and also RGB monitors tied to VCRs (ie. no live display)

          He said "Dunno, but I'd expect we wouldn't have an f'in clue!"

          Digressing even further... a few years earlier my mother had tried to get a refund out of TV Licencing due to their mistaken records and had failed to get a reply. So, living in Bristol, home of TVL HQ, I doorstepped them. Managed to get a handwritten cheque out of them on the spot by sitting in the lobby for about two hours until someone came to speak to me. =)

          I used to think the TV Licence was worth it, but now that the BBC are spending the money on crappy idents, silly DOGs and "The Tweenies", I'm starting to think switching to an opt-in BBC Subscription when the analogue switchoff comes is a good idea.
  • Research on this kind of stuff has been done for a while. About 10 years ago I remember reading about how Nielsen was working on a camera-based system that would use face recognition to identify which family member was sitting in front of the TV. That is, is the 5-year-old kid in the family watching, or the parent?

    This would help them eliminate spurious data on their Neilsen families, and get a little more -- like find out whether or not the little kid likes to watch Nightline, or Sesame Street.

    It was actually kind of cool research. I'm curious if anything ever came out of it.

    This IS NOT Big Brother, by the way. Do not jump to the typical Slashdot conclusion that THE MAN wants to track what you're watching.

  • Arbitron Haiku (Score:5, Funny)

    by small_dick ( 127697 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @02:01PM (#3463168)
    Porno flick tonight
    Young couple in love
    Motion sensor pegs.

  • New fasion (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @02:04PM (#3463173) Homepage Journal
    Wow. Quite literally "Spy Wear"
  • The gadget requires nothing of participants other than to wear it during the day and place it in a home docking station each night so data can be collected and transmitted to Arbitron.

    Where can I sign up to get one today?
  • The coolest system I've seen to track when people are in front of a TV uses both a motion sensor and an electic field sensor to find out if people are there - moving or no. It was part of some really expensive home automation project.
  • And this will be small enough to be included in the mandatory National IDs. It'll be a boon to the television industry. Mmm... instant "tickets" whenever we fast forward. Or time shift. Or blink.
  • There was also more information on viewing and listening by young males -- a key demographic group for advertisers -- who are notoriously sloppy about recording their habits in diaries, Mocarsky said.

    Maybe once this thing comes into wide use, geek-oriented shows will get the ratings they should be getting and we won't constantly have to bemoan their cancellation.

    ~Philly

  • Why I like this. (Score:3, Funny)

    by gnovos ( 447128 ) <gnovos.chipped@net> on Saturday May 04, 2002 @02:12PM (#3463204) Homepage Journal
    It's very simple, I want this in my TV because I want to skew the results as easy as I can. I want the "Star Trek Marathon watching" demographic to skyrocket.

  • I'm gonna sue! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have copyrighted all of the electronic emissions
    eminating from my house. I charge for this information.
    These guys are building circumvention technology
    and I am gonna sue under the DMCA!

    Man, we really need copyright protection built
    into all digital devices!

  • Look, you've got this whole thing wrong... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DJ TG ( 577807 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @02:27PM (#3463246) Homepage
    Take it from a guy in commercial radio. Arbitron only deals in radio ratings and internet radio webcasts. That's it. There's no TV tracking going on with Arbitron, no matter what the story says. They've done the diary thing for years, and now they're looking at a better way to track RADIO LISTENING. Your TV watching habits are safe. This entire process also requires the stations in the TSA (Total Survey Area) to have special encoders for the stations to be picked up by the PPM. If a station doesn't have the encoder, they're not picked up. Sucks for low-budget stations, huh? Nielsen could use a PPM if it needed to, and I'm sure they're considering it. However, they'd probably be better off using set-top boxes like they've been trying out. Just remember the following equations: Arbitron = Radio Nielsen = TV.
  • it includes a motion detector to verify someone is actually wearing it

    This is excellent! Now cable companies can successfully monitor when their viewers go to the bathroom and can recoup lost damages due to copyright infringment! This will save the industry billions!
    • "it includes a motion detector to verify someone is actually wearing it"

      This would be a situation where we all get one and attach it to the dog, so that their data will be polluted.

  • If only someone like AllAdvantage (of course they're dead) picked up on this...
    Flash of insight! Put it on your cat and tie him/her to the TV while it's tuned to Jerry Springer!
  • Maybe then "Futurama" would get to stay on the air while crap like "Everyone Loves Raymond," "Dark Angel," and "Politically Incorrect" would fade into the electronic dustbin of history .
  • I honestly don't see a large problem for using this to replace they diary approach. These won't be required by any means. Even if they were used for TV they are just an easier way to keep diaries and an easier way for the companies in charge to get good information. I've done the radio survey (I think I got 5 dollars for the 1 week log) and it would have been much easier just to carry one of these. I honestly don't care if these are used to do the monitoring. It's only if they become rquired, (ie the TV won't work unless it detects one of these).

    It's not the existance of the technology,itw what's done with it.

  • Ok, so now to skew the results, I put one of those water-drinking toy ducks in front of the motion detector, and turn on Oprah. There you go, skewed results.

    Now the only thing that I may be in danger of, is Arbitron thinking that my wife really loves to give head when Oprah is on...
  • http://www.citypaper.com/2001-01-31/feature.html [citypaper.com]

    Didn't we also have a story about a year ago that described a watch that was worn by the user (instead of this pager device) that did the exact same thing? I can't find it at all.
  • And cover up the motion sensor, problem solved

  • Here's how it works. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @03:08PM (#3463364) Homepage
    The system works by encoding "inaudible" (or at least noise-like) digital data in audio. Arbitron has a patent [uspto.gov] on this. At the broadcast station end, there's an encoder [arbitron.com], and the people meter has the corresponding decoder. The People Meter listens with a microphone.

    As to the Big-Brother aspects of the thing, Arbitron says this to broadcasters: [arbitron.com]

    • Measuring Compliance
      Compliance began with undocking the meters each day. We instructed panelists to undock their meters first thing in the morning and dock them in the recharging unit at bedtime. During November, the median undocking time on weekdays was 7:39AM, and the median docking time was just after 11PM. As expected, the undocking time was later on the weekend, around 9:00AM, as people tended to sleep later. The docking time was also later, 11:25PM, as people stayed up later (Figure 2). The PPM detects encoded media even while it is in the recharging unit, which means it picks up the clock radio in the morning and late-night TV viewing by people in bed.
    So they know when you've been sleeping. They know when you're awake. They know if you've been bad or good. So get out there and consume.

    The system covers TV as well as radio. Arbitron is partnering with Neilsen on this. The details [arbitron.com] are:

    • Encoding Status
      (As of July 18, 2001, in the Wilmington, Delaware test area)

      Of the 71 media outlets invited to participate, 63 are now encoding their audio full time.

      • All 38 radio stations.
      • All 8 local TV stations
      • 17 of 25 cable networks.

    The Arbitron Portable People Meter listens to audio, has a DSP, "extensive storage", and an uplink system via its docking station. So it could potentially be used as a bugging device if reprogrammed. One more small step towards the surveillance society.

    At least the current model doesn't have a GPS.

    • can listen to audio, has a DSP, extensive storage and internet access. So it could potentially be used as a bugging device if reprogrammed. One more small step towards the surveillance society.
    • Of course it doesn't use GPS, its main use is inside houses - no GPS reception there.

    • Ummmmm (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )
      You DO understand that this sort of thing is VOULANTARY, don't you? It's just like Neilsen TV monitoring. They'll ask you if you'd like to participate. Then they either send you a diary that you fill out on what you watched, or they hook a monitoring box to your TV. It's not like they kick in your door and force you to do this, they ask you to, and I believe you are compensated for your trouble. This is the same thing, if you don't like it, tell them no if and when they ask you if you'd like to participate.
      • Right, right... "VOLUNTARY"...

        But if I was an evil Cable Co (or PVR Co, I guess) who wanted to get at that sweet sweet market data, you know what I'd do?

        I'd offer a huge discount to people who choose the Cool New PeopleMeter enabled CableBox(!) vs. the "Dumb Old Box." Then, over time, I'd jack up the base price of the old "outdated" tech in order to favor the "better" big brother version (that also gets a better economy of scale). At that point it's a take it or leave it proposition, where all the "privacy nuts" leave it.

        Same deal with "voluntary" National ID...at least potentially.
        --

        • Do you know who Neilsen is? They are the people that do TV ratings. These people are the Neilsen of radio. They actually, believe it or not, DON'T want everyone to have one of these. With research, you get batter data from a good sample than you do from a random portion of the population that you entice in other ways. Also it is certianly in their best intrests to keep the technology to themselves. They want to stay in bussiness.

          Incase you don't know how Neilsen works: They ask 5,000 people in the nation, based on certian selection criteria, to participate. IF you don't respond to their letter, they find someone else. They fit their sample population with monitor boxes on all their TVs, or just give them diaries in the event that the local infastructer doesn't support their system. After a given peiord, they switch to a new sample. The is the same thing for radio (it's all diaries right now) and also will work for TV.

          In the unlikely event you are selected (it is fairly unlikely given the population of the US) just stuff the letter in the bin, they'll go on to the next person.
      • Should volantary selling of your soul be legal? Compelling question. Kind of goes along with docter assisted suicide, except that suicide actually reduces suffering.

        Volantary or not, this is DEFINITLY part of that there Axis of Evil.

        But seriously, I think they should include a urine sample so we can see which pot smokers are watching what.
        • By getting this you are not selling your soul or even your personal data. They don't give a FUCK about you personally, it's your demographic they are interested in. These things AREN'T going to be sold, they'll work just like Neilsen units. They contact you, ask you if you want to participate. Ie so, you give them details about yourself, they send you one of these and tell you how to use it. What you listen to then affects ratings. When they are ready to change sample groups, you give it back and that is that.

          It is a small sample that is used, 5,000 people out of the whole US is Neilsen's sample, and it is NOT a perminant thing. They want a samle sample, based on a cross section they choose, not everyone who decides they want one, and it is a time limited thing.

          This is market research and, like any other kind of group research, it's the group trend you care about, not the individual. I've never participated in Neilsen ratings (several years ago my family was asked but since our area wasn't outfitted for the monitors we would ave had to keep a journal, and didn't want to bother) so I don't know for certian but I'm betting all data is collected in such a manner that it can't be tracked back to an individual. Also, they don't release individual results, noone cares, they want to see the group trends.

          I've done research (psychology research) and really, when it's group research individual results are wrose than useless, they are misleading. That's why you take a group, by doing stastical test you are able to correct for individual variation and give a real picture of what you can probably expect in terms of group behaviour or preferences.

          However if you hate and fear this sort of thing, I encourage you not to participate. In the fairly unlikely event you are one of the 5,000 they contact, just stuff the letter in the bin, they'll find someone else.
          • Yes, they are gathering statistics. And no, they don't care about you. Having said that, your information is VALUABLE. It takes a lot of nerve for a company to think it can just ask for information and get it. I never participate in surveys unless they are not-for-profit, and I certainly wouldn't participate in one like this. It bothers me that other people do. It's only going to promote a more consumeristic society. We have enough consumerism in American society and I don't want any more.

            Corporate surveys (A) intrude on your privacy (whether it's personal or not), (B) are only used to market to you and fellow consumers more useless goods that you don't need and shouldn't want, (C) find out what levels of absolute bullshit you will put up with.

            Oh, yes, gee. Why wouldn't I want to give my information, free of charge, to a massive advertising network that will use it to ram me in the ass? Show me what GOOD this information -- which belongs to me -- will do. Then I'll give it to you without hesitation. More advertising and more consumerism and more credit card debt across America is NOT GOOD.

            I'm very close to giving up TV altogether anyway (I'm down to only PBS news), so they probably wouldn't care much for what I don't watch.
            • Yes, they are gathering statistics. And no, they don't care about you. Having said that, your information is VALUABLE.

              Actually in the case of the so called "Neilsen ratings" in the US, the statistics probably arn't that valuable. Indeed they are probably rather valueless. For the simple reason that the broadcasters know when they are likely to be monitored and thus change their output.
        • Who are YOU to dictate what I should and shouldn't do? Who are YOU to say I shouldn't participate in this if I so choose?

          Nerd hypocrisy at its finest. "Don't you tell me what to do because I know what's best for you!"

          And you wonder why nobody pays attention to the attitudes of the slashdot mind.

  • If I were an advertiser, I wouldn't be convinced that no-motion in front of television means anything.

    People that are zoned in on the television (and are therefore not moving all that much/often) seem more likely to be imprinted with advertising than are those who are more active while the television is on (indicating that they are probably not paying any attention at all.) I know if I am moving in front of the TV it's usually because I'm not paying any attention at all.

    And if the room lights are off, how does the motion sensor not detect the blinking lights of the TV as motion?
    • And if the room lights are off, how does the motion sensor not detect the blinking lights of the TV as motion?

      because a motion detector doesnt use light.
      • because a motion detector doesnt use light

        Ok... sorry, I must be totally misinformed. What does it use? Gravitons?
        • Never mind I did some research and answered my own question. Looks like infrared and "radar" type detectors are pretty common. But I know all the ones I've ever seen are tricked by light falling on them... and some of them are intentionally... like the driveway ones that turn on when you turn the headlights on in your car.
          • I imagine they would use accelerometers built out of tiny gyroscopes (kind of like what they use on the Segway). The accelorometer would let the beeper know when you were moving about or if it was just sitting in one spot. Even on the couch, most people tend to move around a little bit (reach for potato chips, drink coke, etc.).

  • RTFA (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Read the f!ing article people. This is not a big brother device. This is not a micro-chip tag in the base of the skull. This is voluntary market research.

    If you choose to sign up to be a subject, they give you one of these gadgets. They track what you watch, they use it to generate program ratings. End of story. The fancy electronics helps them estimate how attentive you are. I'd imagine that there is some renumeration involved as well.

    I see nothing wrong with this. I wouldn't volunteer, but then no one is making me.

  • TechTV is running the "Based on a true story" series, "Max Headroom"
  • YES! my master plan can now begin! strap the sensor to the dog and/or ferret and leave the tv on only when there is a CHIPS marathon on FX! NOW I WILL CONTROL THE MINDs OF THE YOUTH... corperations and MTV FEAR ME! FEAR ME! MWA HAHAHAHA
  • This "high tech" device doesn't seem quite in keeping with the times. I don't watch commercials anymore. Their billions of advertising dollars never reach me. I do, however, watch a handful of television shows. I would be willing to pay a fee to keep these shows on the air. I'm not sure if viewer subscriptions could match the money advertisers currently throw at the networks, but I'm pretty sure something has to give. Of course, I AM a criminal by avoiding the commercials. Probably better to ignore me and my money, since I'll be locked up soon and the government will seize my assets to pay the network moguls.
  • If I were wearing this device, I wouldn't want Arbitron recording what I hear in traffic as a positive vote for any of these mega-watt car stereos going "BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!" Now, if that car went "KA-BOOM!", that would be entertainment value! So, if this became widespread, different stations would rig up these "blasters" in cars, vans, trucks, to drive around in traffice and annoy the other drivers, just to pump up their ratings.
    When watching TV, I tend to use the commercials to use the bathroom or get something from the kitchen or frig. With the SonicBlue court decision, am I stealing programming by not watching commercials? AdCritic was fun to watch while it existed; it only "aired" funny, or interesting commercials. My wife will flip to another channel and forget to flip back to the original.
    Unfortunately, creativity with commercials is non-existant with regular programming.
  • It's the motion detector that scares me. Especially when it senses that I'm home alone. Especially when it senses excessive hand motion when I watch Robot Wars and Mick Foley's new co-host is on the screen.

    I'm afraid they'll discover me for the loser I am. I just hope none of these Spyware people read this. They might program a lockout onto the TV just for me and then I'd be pissed.

  • I live in Switzerland and I participate in the market analysis studies for radio stations.

    To get more exact results than answering a questionnaire, a "radio control watch" is used (since about 1-2 years).

    It's a wristwatch with additional features:
    - A microphone which records for 3 seconds every minute
    - A motion detector to determine if the watch is worn
    - A button to switch between "at home"/"out of home"

    The recorded audio signal is frequency analyzed and stored in a compressed form in the watch. After some days I have to send the watch back to the institute. They compare the recorded signal spectrum with the one of all radio stations receivable in Switzerland and determine, what I was listening to, and how long. It even works in a noisy environment.

    This procedure is repeated with different test persons in an intervall of several months.

    Probably I'm falling out of the normal scheme, since I'm listening more and more to internet radio :-).

  • Are we going to see alot of "Motion Detecting" when monitoring the porn channels?
  • From the article: The device uses sensitive microphones to pick up codes embedded in television, radio and even streaming Internet broadcasts -- and it includes a motion detector to verify someone is actually wearing it.

    Ummm, not necessarily. Consider the following scenario:

    • Record your favorite shows on your TiVo.
    • Before heading out to run some errands:
      • Initiate playback of these shows.
      • Move PPM from your belt to your dog's collar.
      • Lock dog in room with TV.
    • Run errands.
    • Move PPM back to your belt.
    • Watch ratings on favorite shows skyrocket!

    Of course, in this case, the PPM stands for: Personal Pet Meter!

    Of course, there's always directly hacking the PPM itself, but this is arguably more fun knowing that the ratings have gone to the dogs. =)

    If you still want to do some hacking, then take advantage of the Record-And-Send feature of a RePlay PVR; this requires help from someone whose shows are NOT encoded for PPM detection.

    • Have your buddy send you a copy of a show.
    • Compare your recorded copy against his.
    • Reverse engineer their encoding scheme.
    • Determine encoding for favorite shows.
    • Program computer to output favorite shows' encodings through your sound card and speakers.
    • Attach PPM to dog's collar.
    • Enjoy boosted ratings.

    For those who lack pets, you could always just continue to wear the PPM, but while the hacked encodings are playing, watch or listen to whatever you want -- while wearing headphones.

  • It's a one eyed, one horned, flying portable people meter and it sure looks strange to me.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mausoleum: The final and funniest folly of the rich. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close