ABC Wants DVR Fast Forwarding Disabled 718
Anonymous CE Worker writes "The television network ABC is looking to develop technology that would disable the fast-forward button on DVRs, and allow commercials to run as intended on their channel." From the article: "Some research executives — even at networks with sales departments that acted differently — had argued before the upfront that ads viewed in fast-forward mode generated value for advertisers, since consumers were at least partly exposed to their messages. But Shaw said ABC was only interested in finding a way to receive compensation for un-skipped ads."
stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
NEWSFLASH: If your channel is the only one disabling fast forwarding then people aren't going to bother watching your shit in the first place.
Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
More of the same ol' same ol' of screwing the consumer.
This would not be pretty (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, an important part of advertising is getting people to hear your message. However, it's also important not to inspire feelings of hatred toward you by trying to force your message down people's throats. If the net result of your invasive advertising is that everyone hates you, how is that a good thing for the advertiser?
Right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any DVR manufacturer that goes along with making a DVR less useful than a VCR is going to suffer in a huge way. In 1988 we had a VCR with a 30-second fastforward button.
I'm not even going to get into how making someone watch commercials is wrong.
Aw piss on 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
ABC was only interested in finding a way to receive compensation for un-skipped ads
Whoops, time to change their business model!
Let me introduce myself. I'm an olde farte. I was a teenager back in the 1970's when they were laying the first cable around our neighbourhood. Back then people (the They as in "they say ...") said "nobody will pay for what they already
get for free" and "nobody will pay to see advertising." Well... "they" were wrong as it turns out, people now pay upwards of
50$US for the honour of watching bad programmes and watching Enzyte Bob lose his shorts (tell me those floats in the pool
aren't phallic, go on).
Now it's the content providers who are insisting the viewer (those with satellite and cable) watch the advertisements they are already paying to see.
<Stimpy>Ironic, huh, Ren?</Stimpy>
Time for network execs and particularly the viewers to wake up and smell the coffee.
Re:I see no ads (Score:2, Insightful)
somewhat unrelated DRM rant (Score:5, Insightful)
yes I do understand that if I copy this disc I just bought I will get into trouble, yes, I known this since vhs cassettes in my youth thank you very much
that will probably never change, but I think dvd player fabricants should enable skip option on content you paid for...
Explain, please? (Score:3, Insightful)
If a person skips an ad (or, fast forwards it), they very obviously had no desire to ever submit dollars to that product/company, or would do so already without the ad in the first place.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Aw piss on 'em (Score:3, Insightful)
Today's acronyms: ABC FOAD (Score:2, Insightful)
So they want to force viewers to watch obnoxious commercials? Here's some news, Mr. VP -- you can't. And the harder you try, the less success you'll have. You see, you have to entice viewers, not force. This is simply Proof #482 that these 'executives' don't understand that pissed off customers don't buy stuff. True, their real customers are the advertising companies, but stations live and die by their viewer numbers ("share", they call it). Fewer viewers = lower billable rate for ad spots = lower revenue = asshat executive retires early to "persure other opportunities".
Re:Hey, here's an idea! (Score:1, Insightful)
In any case, this is just another reason why programming will continue to get pirated to the 'Net via BitTorrent (or insert newfangled filesharing technology here).
Get over it, it's time to move with the technology, not inhibit it because it's chunking away at your profits.
Re:Right.... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the commercial mindset: authoritarian and deceitful.
Retard Alert (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not going to be converted to some life insurance, or a box of cookies, so why am I watching ads for those things? Rather, why are these people throwing money away on me if it's not going to turn into a conversion for them?
I skip any commercial I'm not interested in, and that's an awful lot of them. If I woke up one day and my fast-forward button no longer skipped commercials, it wouldn't equal a new conversion for these guys. So they'd still be out the money for the commercial, and on top of that, the money they gave to the lobbyist to disable my fast-forward button.
This is like saying spam-blockers are hurting the business of Viagra and timeshares. The people using blocking and deleting spam aren't going to buy viagra if just those spam-blockers were somehow less effective, and what's next, stopping the delete button from functioning when it's an advertisement?
Does ABC really think that if only they could get us to watch more SPAM, they'd somehow make more money?
Re:They never learn (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice marketing there (Score:3, Insightful)
I barely watch TV anymore, and commercials are one big reason why. I'm so used to being able to choose exactly what I see and hear that I find the idea of passively accepting ads unacceptable; the annoyance level spoils shows for me. Note that I *am* willing to pay for programming; I'd just rather do it directly, through subscription fees, than have content force-fed to me on the remote chance it might make me buy something.
Re:Fine by me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They never learn (Score:5, Insightful)
What would it take to MOTIVATE you not to use the word "incentivise" ever again? Do you think that using (not utilizing!) large words makes you sound more intelligent?
It makes you sound like a blathering idiot who doesn't know the language.
Ok -- there -- I feel better now. My co-workers thank you for diverting my flames from them for the rest of the day.
P.S. I'm waiting for someone to post that incentivise is a perfectly cromulent word.
I see more commercials with Tivo (Score:4, Insightful)
And what's with commercials being twice as loud as the show you're watching!
-Ben
Re:Mighty VHS Skillz! (Score:3, Insightful)
Next thing you know, I'll start incurring Paradox when mundanes see me slinging fireballs around.
Shaw, pshaw! (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article, an opinion by the ABC tool Shaw:
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong! Mr. Shaw! What a tool you've turned out to be. People are not grateful for the timeshifting of their shows... they're grateful for being in control of their watching preferences. Some will watch commercials and will do so whether or not they can skip the ads. Others don't ever watch ads, don't ever want to, but happen to inadvertantly bump into ads every once in a while -- that's the best you're going to get with them.
You want to piss off the customers? Disable the fast forward during commercials... Plain and simple... there will be a backlash.
Re:I see no ads (Score:5, Insightful)
You are watching 1 hour of Television a day.
Ads on US television, 3 minutes every 10 minutes - rough estimate.
1 x 6 x 3 x 365 = 6570 minutes per annum = 109 hours per annum.
What's your time worth $10/hour (conservative figure)?
So that's $1090 p.a. for pretty crappy programming vs £150 p.a for what is without a doubt the best television in the world.
You've been had, mate!
Re:Make better commercials (Score:4, Insightful)
The Roots of Corporate Welfare (Score:2, Insightful)
The networks should be the last people with any input into the technology that will define the future of the TV industry. All the decent television is elsewhere
You see, ABC, CBS and NBC are the suvivours of the age of Radio and early Television networks. They were the Passive Pay-to-view means of televised entertainment in the USA. Now they are old and out of touch, their programmes are rubbish, their news is rubbish, but they are still huge and powerful, probably because they are merged or bought out by other companies which made their profits doing something other than grasping straws in a dwindling market to feed a one trick pony (nice combination of cliche's, eh?)
They demand special treatment. In light of dozens of competing channels which now produce excellent and diverse entertainment, they need this old business model to succeed. Otherwise, heavens(!), they'd have to role up their sleeves and get down to the business of creating content worth paying for.
Can't have that, can we? So corporate welfare, let's demand special treatment from hardware vendors, cable/satellite distributors and special laws which protect our vested interests from big government.
Too many ads is the base problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
With 22 commercials per hour, it is not worth the time to watch the show live.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm Just Curious... (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference is the bottom line (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertisers are concerned about DVR fast forwarding diminishing the reach of their advertising and they are right to, it is diminishing the reach of their advertising. Advertisers pay networks for that reach so networks are justifiably concerned about the rise of DVRs impacting their revenue. ABC's arguments that people don't have the right and (most amusingly) don't really want to FF through ads are idiotic, but the counter-argument that ad-skipping is not going to mess with the business model of sponsored television doesn't hold water either.
That isn't what they're doing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hey, here's an idea! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
"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."
It's obvious that he pretty much doesn't understand his viewers. Which are, of course, the product he is selling to the advertisers. A signficant chunk of people hate commercials.
He's also ignoring the fact that on demand viewing was possible before now to anyone who had a VCR. PVRs have a lot of nice features, but the single biggest one that improves my video on demand experience is the fact that the commercials are automatically skipped for me (or require tapping a button a couple of times) rather than holding down the fast forward button and watching the high speed commercials and trying to hit the 'play' button in time again. For me, 'convenience' was the more efficient skipping of commercials.
Re:Hey, here's an idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, I lie when I say "I don't understand". I fully understand: that would be hard. It takes talent and dedication to sit and come up with an engaging story that people will stick with, and that undermines the formulaic "churn 'em out" policies of network TV's reality TV cash cows. They'd also have to stop paying the outrageous 1/2 million an episode for big-name actors, which wouldn't go over at all, and god knows it would just be a horrible loss for the world if Jennifer Aniston couldn't make enough money to buy a goddamn Ferrari after every episode.
Whatever. I don't care what they do. Until my fiance moved in I had bunny ears that picked up PBS, CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox, and the only things I ever watched anyway were Nova, the local news, and Simpson reruns. I don't care what they do. Hopefully more people will wise up and stop plugging into the boob tube every night and send their stupid little marketing schemes into a death spiral with or without DVR.
Re:Indeed, Worse to Come for Networks (Score:3, Insightful)
TV's were rated indispensible by something around 40% and dropping.
Networks are BEHIND THE CURVE, & still trying to save the sales of buggy whips.
Time for a mass cleanout of Network Execs, to be replaced by people who have grown up with computers, as the new era is already here.
Re:This just in... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they decided to get even more money by charging us and getting money from advertisers. Then they decided to get even more money by putting more commercials. Then they decided they could get even more money by raising rates and tying users with tiers with crap they dont need. Now they want even more money by skipping commercials ff options. Where does it end? People are paying $100 a month because there is a show they like on HBO on only that tier offers it and for every 30 minute show there are over 15 minutes of commercials.
Is this what this crap buys?
No wonder I refuse to watch any tv. There are some shows I like such as Boston Legal and the West wing but I refuse to just sit there and stare at a tube?? Especially if half the content is now crap.
Back in the 60's you had only 1 or 2 30 second commercials and you could live with antenna.
Re:This would not be pretty (Score:3, Insightful)
I dare you to watch late night Comedy Central without timeshifting and fast forward.
Sure, trying to look between the DVD boxes in the Girls Gone Wild commercials are OK the first 50-100 times you see them, but after that, good old fashioned free hardcore porn is better!
Instead of there being just a fast forward button, there should be a "I'm simply not interested, can you put me on your do not call list" button. I mean:
Re:Hey, here's an idea! (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think TV is a monster. I just think it's an utter waste of time when there are more interesting things to do. And most anything is more interesting than TV.
They're throwing us in the briar patch... (Score:3, Insightful)
They could be shooting themselves in the foot with this one because it so clearly subtracts a capability that everybody has had for nearly 25 years with VCRs. I imagine even FCC commissioners and congressmen fast-forward now and then.
And if they succeed? TV becomes less watchable and just buying the show, more desireable. More and more people will give up on anything not enhanced by it's "live" nature (sports, Idol, etc) and just get the download (legal or not) or of course buy or rent the series on DVD a year later.
Which means the production company still has a business model, but the TV network, not.
"It is difficult to produce a television documentary that is both incisive and probing when every twelve minutes one is interrupted by twelve dancing rabbits singing about toilet paper."
- Rod Serling
DVRs would be obsolete. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't people just switch to DVD recorders or a media center capable system, whether it's Linux or Windows or even custom made?
Removing features from an established product like DVRs would only infuriate not only your veiwers but the owners of the products who bought them for the very features you intend to disable. Millions of DVR owners would just stop watching ABC, and download the commercial free versions of their favorite shows online - bypassing any revenue you would intend to make over this change.
I believe I'll go sell all my Disney/ABC stock now, I want no part in such idiocy nor the loss in profits if it actually happens. If I were a financial adviser, I'd advise others to do the same.
Re:stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
They have a right to try. However, they don't have a right to succeed, despite attempts to purchase legistlation from the US Congress.
Re:Hey, here's an idea! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
same answer given everytime this subject comes up.
You make advertisements people want to watch. heck I have even paused the GE comericials that have just a few frames for the DVR people to pause on.
I even pull the Harbor freight, and compUSA adds out of the sunday paper. I think DVR's will become the new AID to increase advertising. After all when all have HD DVR's they can put 1800 pages of decent resolution text on my TV in a 30 second comercial, that seams like alott more value for advertisers if they just put the info people want enough to look at it in their.
new idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Gads, this is already getting stupid and they want to pile on more crap?
As if having ads every 5 min now (usually for their shows) and running a little ad in the corner for their next show and a logo that seems stuck to my screen just isn't enough....
I used to get DVDs instead but even those are getting too annoying to bother with. I mostly buy/rent older stuff, much less annoying crap on em. People pay big for convenience, why keep making your stuff less so ?!?
I made an interesting discovery when i was home during the day last week. Perry Mason must have a 100-year distribution agreement for no cuts...the commercials weren't even enough to go pee. I swear there were like 4 60-90 sec breaks the whole hour.
Re:Fine by me... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the networks could have us chained to our sofas and forced to watch advertising for 8 hours a day, kept awake by electrical jolts, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
So anything that makes their advertisers unhappy results in worse conditions for the herd. I mean viewers.
Would not an in-band signal be required? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please do this! I hope all channels do this!
There would have to be some signal that "commercial starts here" and "commercial ends here," otherwise how would the DVR know when to disable fast forward? The OSS DVRs, such as MythTV, could key in on the signal and outright block the commercials entirely. Wow... sign me up!
A la carte (Score:2, Insightful)
Wasn't congress trying to force this issue with the major cable and satellite providers? If I could choose to have only certain channels (each seperately priced) then I think I could personally cut down on my cable bill significantly. History Channel, National Geographic Channel, and Cartoon Network - I would gladly pay for these seperately so I didn't have to subsidize crap channels like Soap and E!.
Re:Hey, here's an idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe because we aren't "mindlessly" using our time.
Sitting in front of a box that prompts you when to laugh (laughtracks), what to buy (commercials), how to feel (fox news) is completely different than posting your OWN opinions on topics, reading about those topics, interacting with other people, and taking an active role in what is entertaining you and entertaining others.
Comapring TV to slashdot or any of your other examples is at best misguided and at worst stupid.
Re:stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Quite frankly, free-to-air television programming should never have happened because now we're stuck with entrenched welfare queens like ABC.
PBS (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my two cents,
(I would expect lots of geek and nerd comments but I am posting to
Re:Fine by me... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you misspelled legislators
A la carte TV (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hey, here's an idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it: with few exceptions, most of what passes for entertainment today sucks. Sure there are a few exceptions here and there, but what gets ratings is "reality shows" with no substance.
Simple solution.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear sirs,
I was forced to watch your commercial on my dvr last night because ABC has taken it upon themselves to somehow deactivate the fast forward button function. They state they do so to benefit their advertisors. Why your company and ABC believes it has the right to break a piece of equipment that I worked very hard to save for and to purchase, I do not understand. However, since that is your position and my dvr is no longer functioning correctly, I am no longer going to purchase the products you manufacture. Not only that, I am telling my friends and family to boycott your products as well.
Sincerely,
Then follow through on it. Most likely, you will get a letter back saying it is not their policy to do this, but ABC and that they have no control over it. However, companies take serious the threats of boycotts, particularly when they are on grounds such as these. If they have enough complaints, they'll pressure ABC to quit or they will pull their advertising. Either way, in the end, ABC will have to change the practice.
KFC superbowl comercial (Score:2, Insightful)
MythTV (Score:2, Insightful)
Piracy (was: Re:Hey, here's an idea!) (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, hold on a second here. Let's be accurate about something. Anything, and I mean ANYTHING that is shown over the ABC airwaves that is recorded and shared via the internet IS NOT piracy. Over the air television, HD or analog, is free for the taking.
Re:Hey, here's an idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Thief. Or at least, ABC and all the rest would like you to think so. Because you know, it's now your DUTY to watch television, where once they were grateful for your viewership - now it's your responsibility!
Re:Hey, here's an idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know much law, but to pull a precedent from what I do know, what about the Betamax case? That established that "private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home" counts as fair use under US law. If you can do whatever you like with TV shows that have been broadcast publicly, why did this case even reach the Supreme Court, and why did the justices add so many qualifications to the very limited use of home recording that they decided was legal?
I was under the impression that this still was in a bit of a 'grey area', since they were publicly aired...
The vast majority of the things that people believe are "grey areas" are, in fact, simple black-and-white questions that people just want to believe are grey, because it makes them feel better about doing something they know damn well is probably illegal.