Log In | Register
10 Votes
14 Comments
ABC Looks Into Blocking Fast-Forward on DVR Remotes
News Type: Event — Seeded on Fri Jul 7, 2006 2:22 PM EDT
Article Source: MediaPost | Online Media Dailyadvertisement
I'm not so sure that the whole issue really is one of commercial avoidance," Shaw said. "It really is a matter of convenience--so you don't miss your favorite show. And quite frankly, we're just training a new generation of viewers to skip commercials because they can. I'm not sure that the driving reason to get a DVR in the first place is just to skip commercials. I don't fundamentally believe that. People can understand in order to have convenience and on-demand (options), that you can't skip commercials.
Just another example of a highly-paid CEO being completely out-of-touch with what his customers actually want.
I realize that advertising is part of the deal -- but the solution needs to be more creative and less insulting than "we won't let you skip ads that you don't want to watch".
Especially considering that "ad-supported" television isn't free. If I'm paying to watch these ads -- I'm going to fast forward through the ones that I don't like.
This guy is no different than the RIAA and the MPAA in that he clearly thinks that ignoring reality will solve problems. (They are also ignoring the fact that their own failure to embrace technology is the root of many of their troubles.)
Published to:
- Brian Ford's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (14)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
8.6
3.2
{"commentId":195641,"authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
Especially considering that "ad-supported" television isn't free.
It may not be free, but your subscriptions do not in any way even come close to covering their costs.
But your point is correct that the CEO is out of touch with consumers' wants. But I also think that often we the consumer are out of touch with how much our favorite programs actually cost and what is needed offset those costs, and of course give that CEO a nice yearly salary and bonus ;-)
In that light, commercial breaks are obviously on their way out and are rendered obsolete by DVR technology, which of course is just following the path of VCRs before them. However, we as consumers are either going to have to pony up a lot more money in subscription fees, or else we are going to have to tolerate new and innovative and some old and less innovative methods of advertising that are not as dependent on "breaks" in the programming or as easily circumvented.
Personally, the method that I find least obtrusive is product placements as long as they do not detract from the characters, plot, dialog or experience of the program. It is perfectly possible to place products in such a way, the most famous and successful of which is the placement of Reese's Pieces in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and of course the placement of Subway in Happy Gilmore was a less subtle occurrence, but still effective and it did not detract from the movie at all.
{"commentId":195641,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"thevineofhob"}
- 3 votes
#1 - Fri Jul 7, 2006 2:35 PM EDT{"commentId":195709,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
I agree -- to a point.
I think the problem I have isn't so much with watching them it's that they always look at ways to force us to watch stuff we don't want to watch rather than ways to adapt the system in an effort to get us to avoid skipping the content.
There are commercials I'll watch -- and then there are commercials that I won't. Making us watch them won't solve the problem -- we'll just utilize the mute button or the bathroom. It -will- piss a lot of people off, though. (Just like the ads on front of DVDs that we -pay- for but cannot skip.)
You're probably right that our cable subscriptions do not offset certain costs but they have to realize that our monthly bills are getting close to being "too" expensive as is. They need to find a solution that works for the customer and the corporation. (Rather than pretending that the current solution is working when it's not and doggedly enforcing it.)
{"commentId":195709,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":195778,"authorDomain":"lvthunder"}
The only thing I find annoying about commercials is how often they repeat the same ones. If I were in charge of that I would tell my people not to play the same commercial more then once an hour. I think half the reason people like the commercials during the Super Bowl is that you'll only see the commercial once maybe twice during the game. Why do I want to watch commercials that I can say word for word.
{"commentId":195778,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"lvthunder"}
- 1 vote
#2 - Fri Jul 7, 2006 4:07 PM EDT{"commentId":195802,"authorDomain":"carolynford"}
What bothers me are the ads that appear at the bottom of the screen during the show. Usually it is for another show, but it's completely distracting. Do they want me to watch their shows or the ads for their other shows?
{"commentId":195802,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"carolynford"}
- 4 votes
#3 - Fri Jul 7, 2006 4:25 PM EDT{"commentId":195862,"authorDomain":"cqtech"}
It looks like you scooped me while I was writing an analysis on my own seed for this story.
From my take:
To the MSOs, I would suggest that if you have the technology to restrict the ability to fast forward thru commercial breaks, then you also have the technology to give the viewer the ability to rate those same commercials.
After all, if you are going to force me to watch the commercial (and are assuming that I will react positively to such an idea) then it probably also makes sense to you gather feedback on which commercials actually have a positive effect on my viewing experience.
...of course, that would also seed the idea that you might have to value my ratings of the shows themselves.
{"commentId":195862,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"cqtech"}
- 1 vote
#4 - Fri Jul 7, 2006 5:14 PM EDT{"commentId":196140,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
Looks like the link is broken, or the server can't handle the mass of people reading Brian Ford's column. ;)
How does this technology work? I can't imagine anything short of forcing DRM on the DVR makers would prevent fast forwarding. Since I got a DVR I've found myself watching very little live TV because I can't stand watching the commercials. I just can't sit through them. If commercials come on, then I either change the channel or do something else (like surf Newsvine! :) until the show comes back on. I don't think I'm alone, and I think the number of people who are like me is growing (scary, eh?). They're going to have to come up with a better solution than going back in time to where we couldn't skip commercials.
{"commentId":196140,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
- 2 votes
#5 - Fri Jul 7, 2006 9:20 PM EDT{"commentId":196234,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
Actually -- as much as I'd like the ego boost -- I think it's been slashdotted.
At any rate, I think they mention in the article working with the people who make the DVR but that might have just been one idea. I don't think they "have" the technology at this point. It's more of a "let's see what our options are" stage. Hopefully it doesn't go further than that.
{"commentId":196234,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":196251,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
They would have to use something like the broadcast flag coupled with a law that all digital devices respect the broadcast flag coupled with further restrictions on certain types of broadcast flags (like "no fast forwarding here"). This type of legislation has been introduced in Congress several times. I think it has eventually failed each time, but not by as much as it should.
As of right now, even if ABC talked to, say, TiVO makers, there are still other DVRs. I use Time Warner's DVR feature through digital cable. That would probably be a relatively easy sell for ABC, but there are also Linux DVRs which no one owns. Basically they would have to make all current TV incompatible with their network in order to make this technology work. That can't happen for at least a decade, I'd say (the deadline for al new TVs having digital tuners has been pushed back several times, and it would take a while after that to expect every home to have one).
In short, this is all just empty threats. By the time the technology could actually work it will be too late.
{"commentId":196251,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":197001,"authorDomain":"cqtech"}
I would not say it is an empty threat, but it is a case of ABC's execs making assumptions about how the technology works without taking into
acount the technical hurdles involved in getting it to work exactly how they expect.
It would be the other DVRs that are more likely targeted by this effort than TiVO, since the TiVO boxes are essentially Linux DVRs in their own right.
There would start a coordinated effort on the part of TiVO hackers to change the behaviour of such a flag from "no fast forwarding here" to
"automatically skip to the next open flag"; effectively using Shaws own
idea against him.
{"commentId":197001,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"cqtech"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":196400,"authorDomain":"bmvaughn"}
Iger will slap this guy's hand shortly...
{"commentId":196400,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"bmvaughn"}
- 1 vote
#6 - Sat Jul 8, 2006 2:55 AM EDT{"commentId":196606,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
I will say that Iger seems to "get it" more than most.
{"commentId":196606,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":196627,"authorDomain":"bmvaughn"}
It would be great to see the guys that "get it" all in one company. Disney has two of them now.
Where's Mark Cuban when you need him...
{"commentId":196627,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"bmvaughn"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":197165,"authorDomain":"Paradox460"}
Most DVRs already show little image or text ads on the menus, these work well enough.
Why cant we instigate the Technology Inquisition and burn all these neanderthalic folks who dont want to embrace newfangled tech.
{"commentId":197165,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"Paradox460"}
- 2 votes
#7 - Sat Jul 8, 2006 7:44 PM EDT{"commentId":198072,"authorDomain":"StephanieBamBam"}
Didn't ReplayTV have the ability to automagically skip commercials? There must have been some way that it could tell what was a commercial and what wasn't, although I have no idea what it was. I imagine that same tech could be used to disable the ability to ff.
I hate this idea, obviously, and I agree with Adam in that I'd prefer non-obtrusive product placements within a show to this. For example, 24 only used a certain kind of car this past season, and often refered to their cisco routers. That's fine with me.
{"commentId":198072,"threadId":"9949","contentId":"280779","authorDomain":"StephanieBamBam"}
- 1 vote
#8 - Sun Jul 9, 2006 6:04 PM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"9949","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
