Will TiVo Destroy Ad-Supported TV? 943
windowpain writes "According to a column in Television Week, the increasing popularity of digital video recorders will actually cause a decline in ad revenues in the next few years. 'The rollout of DVR-type technology ... will reach critical mass with 11 percent penetration of U.S. television households by 2005 and 15 percent by 2006...As a result, five-year earnings growth for TV station groups could fall from as much as 10 percent to as low as 4 percent.'
Why?
DVR users skip at least two-thirds of commercials and the 'collective impact represents a threat to revenue and cash flow growth that cannot be offset ... Fifteen percent DVR penetration implies that 9.1 percent of all ads would not be watched and that advertisers would be overpaying by 9.1 percent, or $6.6 billion as calculated from projected 2006 total ad revenues of $72 billion.'
And another business model goes down in flames."
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
What, like movies? (Score:5, Informative)
The question is, is it subliminal or not (read illegal)? And does it even work? Personally, I've gotten very good at filtering advertising...
Re:What, like movies? (Score:5, Funny)
And by filtering I'm sure you mean 'I watched the above movies but couldn't tell you what they were ads for'.
Re:What, like movies? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. I mean, 'I watched some of the above movies but they didn't make me want to go and buy stuff.'
I've seen it written that if you notice advertising in movies, it's too obvious. I don't know if that's true because if you miss it, maybe you won't buy it later... but that aside, just because I see something doesn't mean I want it. Possibly that works on teens, but late-20's geeks need a little more. "Cool" isn't enough.
Re:What, like movies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, the purpose of most advertising is to create or increase brand equity. The idea is to affect your thinking months or years from now, when you (or someone like you) are actually in the market for a new SUV. If your final choice is between a Land Rover and a Glurnmobile, you will presumably have a sense of familiarity and relative comfort attached to the Land Rover. It's not that you agreed with the points the ad was making, or that you felt particularly attached to the Land Rover at the time you saw the ad - it's that if you keep hearing about Land Rover over and over, through the years you will eventually accept that Land Rover is a longstanding and reputable brand of SUV. But nobody ever heard of Glurnmobile before today, so you will probably want to do a more careful analysis of the Glurnmobile product before you buy it. Which in turn means you're more likely to buy a Land Rover.
Of course, in the automotive market, there are no Glurnmobiles. It's inconceivable that someone could jump through all the investor and regulatory hoops to bring out a new type of car, and not make sure people knew about it. Nevertheless, brand equity still depends on the amount of advertising and the length of time it has been going on. What do you think of Kia vs. Land Rover? What are your reasons for thinking what you think?
Note that human beings are wired to defend their conceptual systems against (whatever they perceive as) assault. If you believe X and someone comes along preaching not-X then you attack them, or at least defend yourself. If you believe X and Y and someone comes along preaching that X implies not-Y, the effect is the same. So: Many Slashdotters no doubt believe that (a) Land Rovers are of higher quality than Kias, and (b) that their own thinking is not affected by advertising. I am saying that the major reason to believe that a Land Rover is better is in fact the advertising, particularly the length of time they have been advertising. This challenges (b) unless you can prove that Land Rovers are objectively better. Therefore it is to be expected that many people will jump in and insist that Land Rovers have variable (blurble) with intermittently assisted (gnashing of teeth).
Instead, consider this: Insisting that you are unaffected by advertising is the same as claiming you have never been had by a troll. This is false: You are a social mammal with fairly predictable responses. This gives the trolls and advertisers their edge. No matter how l33t you may be, there's always a smarter troll (or a better advertiser) who has your number.
-Graham
Re:What, like movies? (Score:5, Interesting)
The VAST majority of commodities almost by definition, have zero distinguishment in quality due to brand. You know what "Windex" is? It's fucking vinegar. But sure, consumers will buy the anti-bacteria this, and orange-fairy-spirits that, because consumers are stupid and like to feel comfortable that they are buying a socially acceptable product (there is even a product on the market that kills "germs in the air"! GERMS IN THE AIR OH MY FUCKING GOD). Do your Nikes make you a better athlete? Probably not. Is your Abercrombie and Fitch wardrobe any more functional than "generic" clothes you could buy at a store like Target or KMart? The trend is actually reverse - now you pay extra for PREWORN clothing! What a deal! Can you really notice any difference whatsoever between butter and milk brands? Are you sure what you think a product tastes like is really what it "should" taste like, or just what you've grown up to accept as correct? (e.g. How did they know that the cereal tastes correct in the Matrix?).
Feel free to scale your purchases based on quality. That is something to encourage - regardless of brand name. In my experience the case is the opposite - for the vast majority of products the brand name provides NOTHING more than better marketing and more social acceptance among consumer peers. Sure there are some premium brands that are better and get my money, but they are few and far between, and usually not worth the premium even IF they are better (value is the point).
Unfortunately less and less of America knows how to make a meal from commodity ingredients or make/use commodity cleaning agents (vinegar, laundry bar soap, borax, washing soda, etc.) so they will gladly buy a product marked up %500 if it has a pretty label and includes the fashion ingredient of the day ("orange oil" seems to be popular these days). As a corollary, more and more "generic" products are getting nominal "brand names" just to make the consumer feel more comfortable with them - KMart, Target, and many stores now "brand" their generic clothes with some random name even though they are more or less generic...but they know if there is a "brand" name on it people will be more inclined to buy it (oooh, it's not KMart clothes, it's Route 66 - I feel special now).
Re:What, like movies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Tomb Raiders == Land Rover then Jeep adverstisement
Mission Impossible == Apple advertisment
Top Gun == RayBan advertisement
The African Queen == Gordens Gin advertisement
etc...
The question is, is it subliminal or not (read illegal)? And does it even work? Personally, I've gotten very good at filtering advertising...
I'd say your filter needs updating - it seems a number of ads are getting by and making an impression on you...
Seriously, product placement will probably be the next big wave - since one goal of an ad is to get you to remember the product.
Re:What, like movies? (Score:5, Funny)
Viciously hot babe in a bikini runs/bounces onto an all-white screen in slow motion
Hot babe: Hi, my name's Bambi. I've got HIV. Do you know how I got it?
Bambi pauses
Bambi: I had mad hot animal sex with an ordinary, greasy geek, just like you, and he gave it to me. *giggle*
Bambi bounces off the screen
fade to black
white lettering appears on the screen:
HIV: Find A Hot Model and Let Her Give It To You
Re:What, like movies? (Score:4, Insightful)
'Subliminal' advertising - in this case, flashing a logo onscreen for too short a time to be consciously perceived - happened once, as part of a carefully-controlled experiment, in one cinema many decades ago. It's never been used since except as a spoof. And no, product placement isn't subliminal - otherwise, walking down the street would count! (Look at all those BMWs and Toyotas driving past! Gotta get me some of that!)
Chris
Re:What, like movies? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I used the word intentionally.
Below the threshold of conscious perception. Used of stimuli. is from The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, and similar definitions are provided by Websters and others.
When most folks see The Italian Job, they don't realise the Minis are there as advertising. They see a neat little car with cool people driving fast - they are not conscious of being subjected to advertising, compared to say TV where they can consciously "switch off" when the ads come on. That's why I say "subliminal". Sure, it's not Coke ads flashing bewteen frames, but many people are unaware that it is happenning.
Technically, you are correct about the legality. The FCC said in 1974 only that it was contrary to the public interest.
Re:What, like movies? (Score:4, Informative)
No it didnt. [snopes.com]
Re:What, like movies? (Score:5, Funny)
Movies and TV have been successfully 'advertising' lifestyles (and their accompanying trinkets and trends) for years and years - much longer than the current "lifestyle" adverts that we've seen in the last 5 years or so (Mt. Dew being a big "lifestyle" brand). Unlike traditional ads (generally), however, TV and movies get you involved in the plot, characters, and situations, thus increasing your desire all the more - unlike most ads, which we tune out (and thus why advertisers try their damnedest to create witty ads). Someone is much more likely to buy a Desert Eagle handgun if Lara Croft is using it in the movie (sweet! a chick with a gun! I want one just like that! maybe it'll make me just like her/find a girl just like her), than if they were to see a subsequent ad on TV or as a trailer advertising the gun itself.
The most obvious examples that you'll see almost everywhere are: clothing, soda, furniture (if I buy the furniture on The Cosby Show, I'll be witty and have a perfect family), and the like. Some specifics off the top of my head:
Terminator (and others like it): leather jackets and other things 80's.
The Matrix - leather catsuits, trenchcoats, sunglasses, technology appeal, etc.
James Bond - cars, watches, pens, cologne, beer, soda, women (woot!), sex, etc.
Fast and the Furious (I and II): cars, performance parts, soda, clothing, sex
Wayne's World I and II: Pepsi, Doritos, etc. (done ingeniously, I might add)
even LotR: trinkets from the movies, books, soundtracks
Re:What, like movies? (Score:4, Funny)
Dude, seriously, I know we're geeks, but I, for one, do not yet need a gun to get girls to go out with me.
And I think it might be illegal...
: )
Re:What, like movies? (Score:4, Interesting)
When was the last time you saw a TV program or movie where they didn't use a Mac? Even my wife, who understands virtually nothing about computers, goes "Oh look, they're using an Apple" on a regular basis (her knowledge extends to identifying them by the big apple on the side).
Re:What, like movies? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
-
pay-to-view programmes
-
pay-to-view channels
-
blip-verts
-
embedded advertising.
Only blip-verts could be more annoying than a traditional ad break.Justin.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nope (Score:3, Insightful)
It's far more satisfying as you get to experience fewer annoying cliffhangers, no commercials and it's on when you feel like watching.
These days I get more "programming" on my TV than I have time to watch, and it's the "programming" I actually want to see. No more "1200 channels and it all sucks".
Colgate Comedy Hour (Score:5, Interesting)
The amount of commercial breaks we have now is a recent development. It was a change to go to this model - another change won't kill TV. We'll have end up with the Dr.Pepper Late Late Show, where the host and all guests are always drinking a clearly labeled bottle of Dr.Pepper (or maybe some other Pepsi product).
In-show product shots, product references and product promos were - and can again become - the norm. Ever watch The Price is Right? Those fabulous product descriptions by the smooth voiced announcer who always used the full slogan of the product.
A different advertising model won't kill TV. Bad shows and far better alternate forms of entertainment (we've all seen the growth in video game revenues - especially the online games, which often taken up people's "prime time" evening slot).
No Clue.
Adapt - exactly! (Score:4, Insightful)
To keep up with stuff like tivo, the cable companies will need to (gasp) compete with it. Come up with something that meets or beats the functionality, convenience, and price point of PVRs. But unfortunately I can picture what the cable companies will do instead: file lawsuits, use shady business tactics, etc. Oh well. While that might hold them over in the short- to mid-term, I think it would eventually catch up with them.
Re:Adapt - exactly! (Score:5, Interesting)
Where I see the industury going in the future is more to the "pay TV" standard, with the price of a channel is included in your package. Some cable companys already include "comercial-less" channels in their various packages. It might even get to the point where if you want the history channels package you'll need to pay $2/month, the news package of CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC will be another $2/month. The stations themselves will have more pay-for-placement and inline ads. The cable companies will have in-line flash-like ads for the various menus (static ads are already there for digital cable). Also, I believe that good story-telling ads will become more important, where people even choose to watch the ads because they are funny, interesting or touching. With on demand tuning you might even be tempted to say "hey, man, play the new Subway ads they're side-splitting funny". Ads which the viewer choose to watch are certainly much more effective.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
Viewers evidentally skip at least 2/3 of commercials anyhow. The Tivo (or ReplayTV) statistics simply make people more aware of that fact.
I know that before I got my ReplayTV, I didn't sit in rapt attention during every commercial break.
Even WITH the Replay, I see enough of a given commercial to know if it applies to something I'm interested in buying, ir is in any way entertaining. I tend to watch a commercial if its of use to me.
Maxi-pad commercials and FTD Florist shilling, I skip.
I did it before Replay, I'll continue to do it.
No one's business model is being destroyed here.
Nothing has changed to any appreciable degree. People are able to make more efficent use of their TV watching time, and still get exposed to commercials. They just don't have to waste time on commercials that would NEVER RESULT IN A SALE ANYHOW.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
And you'll see more of a movement to sports programming where two things come into play:
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I already pay for NFL Sunday Ticket. The cost for a whole season is less than a pair of tickets, parking, overpriced food, beer, etc. for one game. I don't mind paying for something I enjoy. (Of course, going to a game is fun too, which is why I have season tickets as well...)
On the flip side, there is not much on regular television (or even most pay stations) that's worth watching anymore. There are only about one or two movies worth watching on HBO a month for example. Netflix is a much better value.
Regular television? Bah. Nothing there but mindless garbage like "Buffy" and "Friends."
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Daniel
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously - I go months at a time without watching TV, but when I do, I'm usually interested in watching ads - to see what's been going on in the world around me.
Also, ads will always have a place in live TV, as someone pointed out above, i.e. sports, news, etc. I think they'll also have a place whenever multiple people are watching TV together, sports or not.
~Will
Re:Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nope (Score:4, Informative)
On one side, you have things like Levitra, which airs during football games, and shows a guy throwing a football through the hole on a tire swing...repeatedly. With his wife smiling and clearly pleased. Does anyone NOT know what this is for?
On the other, you have things like last year's ads for Propecia, which briefly stated that how it was for combating hair loss in men, but then had to follow it with lines like "women who are pregnant or who MIGHT be pregnant should avoid handling broken tablets", and had to mention the "risk of certain sexual side effects". Supposedly, the manufacturers were rather confused why their multi-million dollar ad campaign wasn't going well.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the rule of Tivo as I see it personally. I find that I will often forget to FF the commercials if they are interesting and/or entertaining enough. But, inevitably, a Carrot-Top or similar ad, designed deliberately to be annoying, comes along. Now I am fast forwarding the rest of the commercial break. Advertisers should start to think of these ads as break killers. Sustaining interest should be of paramount importance, not just to the individual advertiser, but to the programming director as well.
I'll be back - at Pizza Hut! (Score:4, Interesting)
Or maybe advertisers will just make ads that fool Tivo - ramping up informercials, perhaps?
Re:I'll be back - at Pizza Hut! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nope (Score:4, Funny)
Here are some things you should expect from rampant product placement:
(CBS) Moses Miniseries - Moses comes down the mountain holding a PocketPC 2003 PDA with 10 Commandments, then uses OnStar GPS navigation system to get directions out of the desert.
(NBC) Hitler Movie - During his final hours in the bunker, Hitler takes 2 50mg Zoloft tablets to make him feel better and deal with depression.
(ABC) That 70's Show - The gang logs on the internet via AOL 9.0 to find a good deal on mortgage through Ditech.com
(FOX) Civil War Special - Lincoln delivers Gettisburg Address in GAP jeans.
As you can see, it's not a catch-all solution. Of course, this could potentially limit programs not concurrent to our time or boost the number of futuristic sci-fi shows. Either way, product placement isn't the answer to everything.
Current model of advertising just isn't efficient enough, and horribly outdated on top of that. There is no godly reason, why I, a single 20-something male, should endure barrage of commercials dealing with vaginal hygiene products or senior life insurance plans. The TV advertising is reminiscent of e-mail Spam. Throw enough crap out there and something will stick with the target demographic which is likely to consider purchasing those products.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Funny)
Surely it would be a tablet pc
Ob "History of the World" Reference (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Nope (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you turn the current model on its head. The producer tracks down the advertisers who pay the producer. The producer then pays NBC to put the show on.
Ironically (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Ironically (Score:3, Insightful)
> I find that skipping the programs to get to the commercials to be more interesting than the other way around.
That's probably the best strategy for finding soft porn.
I don't get it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Skipping over the commercials works great for stuff that's been recorded, but isn't very effective on live tv (you *could* pause it for 2 mintues then skip over them). About the only time I'll do any skipping on "live tv" is to play catch up if I needed to pause the program for some reason or another (potty break, g/f talking about something, feeding the little one, etc).
Few nice features are the pause and slow motion buttons. They get as much use duing the victoria's secret commercials as the ff button gets during the rest of them
Re:I don't get it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Me - I only have a general clue when my favorite shows are on. I don't have the time to drop whatever I'm doing and run over to the TV because some network exec decides that show xyz should be on at time 123. And many stations rerun their new episodes in the middle of the night, so if shows confl
Re:I don't get it? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called changing the channel until the commercial is over!
Re:I don't get it? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you know that you're essentially stealing that programming by not watching the commercials? Just like copyright infringement is theft, so is skipping commercials. See, in our new enlightened society dominated by our mass-media overlords, anything that fails to generate revenue for them is called theft.
The only TV i watch is in DVD form. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The only TV i watch is in DVD form. (Score:5, Funny)
That's exactly what I do, except I "borrow" them from a friends I suddenly met over the Internet.
Is this a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps DVD box sets are the answer.. but then again, if the only money was in the DVD release, why do TV at all? And anyway, Futurama sells by the truckload and that still got cancelled. I suspect the real answer is "new and insidious advertising methods". Hurrah for FCC-approved "cannot skip" bits, coming soon to a digital TV adbreak near you! And hurrah too for product placement! You must buy Pepsi, because Joey Tribbiani does!
Not that I can see a way to put this genie back in the bottle, admittedly. Ah well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what whacky adventures come next.
Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody is going to shell out hard earned dollars on DVD box sets of content they have never seen or know nothing about. You could think of the television shows as advertisements for the DVDs. Perhaps this will cause the quality of shows to improve because if the show sucks, nobody is going to buy the dvd. This is a pretty strong incentive.
Or perhaps this will lead to the pay-per-view system dominating the ratings. This has worked for HBO quite well.
The Tivo/DVR watchers are skipping the commercials because for the most part they are annoying. This should be seen as a strong feedback signal to the advertisers that their methods do more to annoy than to inform.
Perhaps Hollywood isn't entitled to the gravy train that has been going on for the past 40 years or so and they might have to *gasp* INNOVATE, like everybody else to maintain a healthy profitable business.
Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
oh, for a mod point.
Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
You mention that the IP based companies are suffering. This might be not because they are being screwed over, but because they were doing well in the first place due to lucky coincedence which procected their 'right' to profit. Unfortunately, people will always try to pay less for the same product. They will buy cheap imitation breakfast cereal that costs less than the original if it is not significantly different. They will buy cheap clothes if they are not significantly inferior to expensive clothes. This is the way of the consumer. This is why people go to sales and bargain-hunt.
It seems that your respect for so-called intellectual property goes so deep that you are exhorting people to buy the expensive stuff, because of some moral obligation to repay the creators of their wares. This has never been the way of the consumer. A hard-working but unskilled woodworker could not charge more for his product because it took him longer to make, just as a skilled musician is not expected to ask less for his music which he composes for fun. They are forced to ask what the market will pay or not be payed at all.
Where this is all going is that you need to innovate to make money from any endeavor. It is becoming more difficult to rely on the difficulty of obtaining alternatives in the entertainment industry, and they will go under if they do not respond. However, people will continue to seek out good deals and pay as little as possible for as much as possible. It's just human nature. Deal with it.
Cable on demand services (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, I'm sorry, that would KILL TV advertising industry, but should I care? I get enough advertising crap all the time anyway. At least with on demand, the tv shows would still make money. The networks would just recoup their cost directly from the consumer instead of advertisers and I'd only have to waste 22 or 44 minutes of my life instead of a 30 minutes or an hour respectively.
Between that and DVD box sets (which I figured I paid almost $1000 last year alone for), I think there's still a profitable world out there for TV production companies.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:5, Funny)
"Open the living room door, HAL."
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to see a more direct marketing approact to TV broadcasting. Living in the UK, I often don't see shows until as much as a year after they were released stateside. I then see them on channels like Sky One, which are 25% advert. Alternatively I could download them from the 'net in SVCD quality within a week of release and watch them ad-free. If I could download the shows directly from the studios, in a known quality, then I would be more than happy to pay for this, even with some kind of `only watch 2-4 times' kind of DRM (if I want to watch it more, I can buy the DVD, although I should possibly be given a discount on the DVD if I've paid for it once already), and even if I could only watch it on a closed-platform set-top-box.
I would also be prepared to pay in advance for a second season of a show I liked, so that the creators would have enough funds to extend popular shows, free of the whims of the networks.
Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:3, Informative)
Details at http://www.tv-l.co.uk/ [tv-l.co.uk].
(116? Has it gone up about ten quid recently?)
Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:3, Funny)
Five Pounds a couple of weeks ago.
Which was WELL SPENT - because now there are even more chances to see that advert for Freeview starring Alan Titchmarsh.
And don't worry if you miss them on BB1, you'll be able to catch the advert again on BBC2, on BBC3 ON BBC1, BB4 ON BBC1, BBC Radio 1, 2, 3 and 4...
Best wishes,
Mike.
Is this a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Will anyone really lose too much sleep over this?
Of course there will be a fight - how DARE consumers want to avoid being hearded like so many sheep! the very thought of it.
Would it really be that bad to pay for the entertainment you want, rather than simply being fed the entertainment, and advertising, that they want to give you?
Then again I work in TV, but very rarely watch it. Maybe I'm just plain wrong.
obligatory Mander reference (Score:3, Insightful)
Being Screwed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Being Screwed (Score:3, Interesting)
We also have seve
About time they get rid of ads! (Score:5, Insightful)
Jonah Hex
How do they tell? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, why does this not apply to VCR's? I've always fast-forwarded through commercials with a VCR. I don't see advertisement companies crying.
Re:How do they tell? (Score:5, Informative)
To answer your second question, this differes from a VCR for two real reasons. One is that it is effortless to set and record sometimes up to 100 or more hours of programming. Even realistically speaking I probably tivo between 5-10 hours of programming a day. This could not be done with one single VCR and one tape, and even doing so with multiple tapes/VCR's it would never be anywhere near as easy. Second, while watching live tv a tivo user is able, automatically, to pause and then resume anything they are watching. This is the caching I spoke of above. I pause the show I want to watch live for seven minutse while I prepare dinner, shave, shower, etc. and then come back and resume the show 7 minuts behind. Whenever there is a commercial I fast forward. in this way unless its a sporting event or a show which I can't watch delayed because friends are over I rarely even see a commercial in live TV. To do this with a vcr would mean, recording, rewinding and watching the episode after it has completely finished and then missing out on whatever comes next to do so. With tivo you can do this back to back and never miss a "live" show.
Yeah but... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if they watched a commercial for a product they're interested in but missed a detail like an address or phone #, they could go back and retreive it.
So overall, it probably won't be as big a loss as is stated.
Now, if only advertisers would make commercials we want to see. Does anyone besides me make a mad dash for the Mute button every time Detrol's "gotta go gotta go gotta go right now" commercial comes on???
Re:Yeah but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Point being people would go to this site and burn precious bandwidth downloading advertisments! Some of the best adds I've seen were on that site.
Point being, there are examples where people will go out of their way to see a really well done add. We've all seen the Honda "Rube Goldberg" add. Everyone remembers
Re:Yeah but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, non-Tivo watchers aren't watching 100% of the commercials either. While you still "see" the commercial with a VCR, few advertisers have effectively altered their commercials to have any impact without sound and in fast forward. Not to mention the people that get up and leave the room during the commercial.
Anyways, I've alwa
Will TiVo Destroy Ad-Supported TV? (Score:5, Funny)
Product Placement (Score:3, Interesting)
Profits are no Constitutional Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe TV People Will Earn Realistic Pay (Score:5, Insightful)
The execs and everyone else are just scared because they have gotten used to being powerful and able to manipulate the rest of the world and they'll have to adjust to making what amounts to fair pay for the work they actually do.
On the other hand, I like the model PBS uses. I like Nova, the News Hour, and a number of other shows on PBS, so I pledge regularly. The result is well written and well produced TV with quality I can count on every day of the year. Maybe other stations or cable channels will have to count on viewers paying directly in some way.
I know most shows on the major networks would not be worth paying for, but I have no trouble paying for shows as good as Babylon 5, Farscape, or Monty Python.
Re:Maybe TV Companies will grow more slowly (Score:3, Interesting)
We're not predicting a loss making situation here, or even a 'borderline breakeven', we're just predicting a slowing in the rate of growth of the companies.
Were TiVos slashing the profitability of the companies to the point where they lost money on the next 'last season' of Friends this would be a different story. As it stands they are 'not getting rich quite so quickly'. Awwww - poo
Remote control and VCR's didn't harm ad-based TV (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertisers Have Largely Done This To Themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
With things like that happening, they've created the market for TiVos, and helped expand it. If one of two things (or even both) happened, then TV companies would be fine. 1. Commercials need to be entertaining, not boring as hell, and 2. TV programs need to be worth watching and putting up with commercials (even if the commercials aren't entertaining.)
I'm really surprised that they haven't figured this out already given that the Super Bowl has more people watching it for the commercials instead of the game. You'd think companies would realize spending more on a commercial that people will actually watch is worth more than spending less on a bunch noone will watch. As a bonus, people remember fun commercials, and the products better. That has to help create more demand for the product, and isn't that what advertising is all about?
Still, I won't be surprised if this is another industry that'll take the RIAA/MPAA route of trying to get legal protection for their flawed business plan instead of fixing it. Oh joy, I can't wait until congress passes the DMAA (Digital Millienium Advertising Act) making it illegal to skip commercials, and requiring every citizen to watch 2 hours of commercials a week or they lose their cable/satellite connection.
Of course not. (Score:3, Interesting)
National governments will simply step in and legislate profitability - even if they have to outlaw the new technology.
Actually, TiVo has a much more important impact (Score:5, Insightful)
But there are major advantages to advertisers too. There is much better market segmentation; you *know* exactly how many, and what type of person watched your advert.
It's not all bad...
Re:Actually, TiVo has a much more important impact (Score:5, Informative)
Please give me pay-for-TV (Score:5, Insightful)
This "one-size-fits-all" method of lots of channels for a large amount of money per month is failing, not just commercials.
I'd rather pay a 20-40 dollar bill that lets me "subscribe" to 20 or so shows with the ability to view *anything* for the first 10 or so minutes (or maybe x amount of episodes). In other words I can channel surf all I want and purchase the stuff I really like. The purchased items would be just like my "Season Pass" items.
Arguably, this dynamic will force networks to produce decent content instead of filler and better ways to squeeze in an extra half-commercial here and there.
TV will have to go through 'napsterization,' the genie is simply out of the bottle. A smart cable or satellite company can lead the way and make lots of money, especially targeting the "Cable is too expensive" crowd who just want Comedy Central and 2 or 3 other channels.
The networks won't like it, but its going to be either this or DRM forced commercial watching.
TV kind of did this to themselves (Score:3, Interesting)
The other route is to start making the ads entertaining again. The ads used to be the only reason I watched with superbowl in the first place.
British TV (Score:5, Interesting)
Another business model dying, so what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Business models change all the time. TV is no exception to that. People are slow to react when their moneyspinning model starts to break down - a lot of people have made that point. The broadcasters still have their heads in the sand, but progress is inevitable. I believe technology will not stifle quality because viewer choice is becoming more and more measurable, marketable, and most of all possible : you can vote with your remote on pretty much any type of content, and really pick what you want to watch.
Taking on the start of the article -
The economic shift is beginning, we're still with the early adopters but critical mass is about to happen. This might not be such a bad thing. Those broadcasters that learn first will take these viewers with them, and create themselves a nice market out of it.
Yet the article seems to see doom and gloom, saying quality will be sacrificed, as if the networks care about anything other than their bottom line anyway :
I have a less negative take on this. Hopefully advertisers and broadcasters alike will catch on to the fact that the people don't want to be blasted with adverts. Most of us, given the choice, won't watch them, look at them, or download them as part of web sites. The dot com crash had a lot to do with the realisation that ad supported sites would not flourish; few today make revenue purely from advertising - unless their content is astounding.
So I'd suggest that TV will lose some channels, lose some obscure and niche programming, but just maybe quality will prevail. Because good art, good acting, and good screenwriting will always seek an audience. That audience is getting cleverer, more choosy, and has more tools at its disposal. It can't be that bad if we suddenly choose to really watch stuff we want, and even if we pay a premium for it, that's not so bad. A lot of people have mentioned buying TV stuff on DVD these days, and for me Internet + fixed media (TV on demand) is a much better delivery mechanism than streamed scheduled broadcasting. TV (as defined in the traditional model) will be, and indeed should be, much more centered around live events, sports, debates, etc. I predict that eventually all non-live scheduled content will become time shifted, on demand, and paid for. This model has every chance of success.
Less content on less channels and more stuff paid on demand just shifts the econmics around. It doesn't mean that quality is lost. Most decent programmes these days rely on DVD sales and syndicated sales to other countries to make a profit. The big networks don't make money on them just on broadcast in the US. Arguably the best shows sell best - nobody buys crap on DVD in bulk all around the world, but most of us watch it on TV if we have no other choice.
They're already adapting. (Score:5, Interesting)
We started with advertisements that got your attention because they were funny and we're going to end with comedies that have more punchlines that end with "
From the article: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the affiliates must get a way to pop-up those animations for local advertisers. Lots of IP related issues here, can they pop-up an ad over the network's pop-up?
There are too many ads! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not surprised that PVRs are so popular in the US, with the amount of ads there are on US channels. Maybe it is not such a problem when you get used to it, but to Europeans visiting the US, the intrusiveness of the ads is overwhelming.
We're used to privately held channels which show a lot fewer ads, and still produce good programming. Take a look at Britain's ITV or Sky and the Dutch, German and Scandinavian channels to see fairly high-quality programming with at most 2 commercial breaks in a 30 minute programme, versus the four or more seen on some US channels.
Leaving aside the state/taxpayer-funded channels such as the BBC (which has no ads), the European model shows that reduced advertising still brings in enough revenue for good programming, while being a lot less annoying for the viewer.
Re:There are too many ads! (Score:5, Informative)
Plus we get most of our good programming outside the country (US, France, UK, Germany).
Wrapup (Score:3, Informative)
Other ways of skipping commercials (Score:5, Interesting)
What's actually changing is that advertizers are becoming aware of the impact of technology. Their initial reaction is negative but will become positive when they realize the control it will give them, particularly interactive TV. You will have to have viewed the commercial in order to supply the correct prompts to view the rest of the program. Welcome to the future. Welcome to hell.
In two years, the total was something like $6.82. (Score:3, Interesting)
I kept track for two years of the money I spent because of seeing something advertised on TV. In two years, the total was something like $6.82.
I'm in favor of micropayments for shows. Five cents to watch an hour-long show would pay more than the present system.
Don't they know the answer already? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't tell me that less effective ads will mean that companies will choose to buy less ads and use those money to improve their products -- it's beyond ridiculous.
popups? (Score:5, Funny)
Hrmm.. I could swear I've seen this idea some place before!
the biggest problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, there will be indie works still, but less so, since many of them have private corporate sponsors as well.
Advertising destroyed advertising-supported TV (Score:5, Funny)
There's a lot more advertising on TV, and a lot more obnoxious advertising gimmicks. I can't help but think that if TV advertising was the same way it was in the 1960s and early 1970s, the idea of paying for a DVR wouldn't be as appealing as the advertising wasn't as obnoxious, it was more of a fair bargain.
But then there's some questions about content, too -- broadcast television used to make some weighty programming. Now it sucks, and if you want anything interesting, you need to have HBO or Showtime for drama, and Tivo and 400 other channels for anything else.
Expect new legislation soon... (Score:3, Insightful)
TV Will Adopt (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly, the move to a 16:9 format will allow for even WORSE methods of advertising. We've all become accustomed to seeing 'bugs' in the lower quadrant of a screen, now they'll just have advertising on a panel somewhere on the screen.
They are hiding the real problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you get a Tivo there is no reason to watch crappy TV.
Period.
Seriously, why would I want to watch lowest common denominator TV when I always have something I enjoy at my finger tips?
Seems to me that is the real issue, people that own a Tivo are much, much less likely to watch something 'cause nothing better is on'.
Funny thing about Tivo and I, I watch a hell of a lot more HBO and pay TV then I used to.
Ever listened to a radio play? (Score:3, Informative)
Many sponsor's ads during the radio play ages were performed inline with the show, by the show's performers, but still in such a way that they were clearly advertisements. Sure, not everything could be advertised this way, but it would probably bring back some of the creativity and interest in advertising that seems to have sunk into the world of the one-time superbowl ad.
Advertisers know that people all over tune in to the superbowl just for the ads, yet they don't seem to be spending that kind of effort on a large scale to make every day ads that interesting. Sure, there are exceptions (usually humorous ads), but not enough to keep me glued to the set during show breaks.
What is Good in Life (Score:4, Funny)
TiVo: To block commercials, delete them unseen, and hear the lamentation of their advertisers.
Couch Potato & TiVo: bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! bwa-ha-hA-HA-HA!! BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
Re:Nah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, not having to change out tapes means I'm more likely to record more shows. I already do this on my computer. I almost never watch TV anymore. If there's something I'm interested in, I cap it, edit out the commercials, and then watch it while doing my nightly email/websurfing. Not because I want to steal TV programming, but because those commercials take up precious bits on my CD/DVD. Also, it's easy to set up a batch of encodes and walk away.
Now a valid argument in place of yours is that people tend to tune out commercials if they even stay in front of the telly during them. But TiVo si a formalization of this process, which is what scares advertisers. Wasn't it some Turner executive that said that technically it was ok to go to the bathroom during commercials, but that having commercial-skip was pushing it too far?
Oh my god! They killed Transformers! You b**tards! (Score:5, Interesting)
It gets worse. I used to watch Transformers as a kid, and while it clearly was tied into the toy line, it was still a decent well written TV series, with only one annoying kid in it. I caught Transformers: Armada the other day and I was stunned. What the hell? It's Pokemon, for crying out loud! There are kids in it that get more air time than the robots, and even Optimus Prime is going on about catching 'minicons'. Talk about an obvious ad. Jesus..
Yes, drive away the TiVo-owning demographic! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, they're driving [adage.com] away [philly.com] 18-to-34 year-old males, the demographic segment most likely to own a TiVo.
How? Shitty programming that doesn't interest men. One lame reality show after another. Even the basic cable mainstays are sissifying their shows-- I used to watch Discovery and TLC a lot, now practically all they have are semi-disguised "decorating" shows and junk like "A Dating Story."
The only network with shows I actually watch is FOX, and even they do dumb shit like "Skin"-- maybe it was an interesting show somewhat aimed at men, but you're not gonna beat Monday Night Football with anything acceptable enough to be run on broadcast television-- and you might not even beat it with Naked Lesbian Jell-O Wrestling.
Spike TV actually has the right idea-- they ran a James Bond movie marathon during most of the holiday weekend, and unless it was Simpsons time or there was something more interesting on the History Channel, that's what I "watched" if I had the TV on while I was doing something else.
~Philly