# Be very afraid - Nielsen to measure DVR commercial viewing



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/pr.aspx?id=20060719cbs01

There's a line in here sounding optimistic: "Poltrack also noted in his presentation that Nielsen's tracking of DVR playback will now give the networks credit for viewers who watch commercials in playback mode, which is expected to show an increase in the number of viewers who watch ads. Prior to the availability of these numbers, it was impossible to quantify how many viewers skipped through the commercials when viewing programs outside of live viewing."

However, if they show a significant decrease if DVR viewing of commercials, the next steps are:
1) Demand that DVR's provide a tool to prevent commercial skipping 
2) If they don't, then charge viewers to view the "commercial free" programs

This was already tried when ReplayTV had the actual commercial skip feature, and is a valid argument in that context. The issue to date has been that there was no way to measure if people were skipping commercials, so the issue has effectively gone into hybernation. Remember, free TV gets revenue from ads, and the more people that don't watch ads, the less revenue they get.

There are lots of other options, like changing how they do commercials (e.g. more creative product placement, banners, etc.), but advertisers are a slow-to-adapt bunch, and they've been seething over DVR's for almost a decade - and this new measurement could finally give them the ammunition they need.

Now, with measurements on the horizon, if the results are what we expect (i.e. that most DVR viewers skip commercials), then the argument of either FF prevention, or fees, will be coming back.

This sucks for all of us. Keep a very watchful eye on this, as it could have a dramatic impact on DVR's.


----------



## srt (Jan 27, 2006)

on NASCRAP they tried a split screen and determined people were not watching the commercials, not we would seem to be facing sanctions for using technology to make our viewing pleasurable.
How many people really make a buying descision based on what they see on tv? I bought a tivo becausie I saw it there...


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

remind me...where's the law where you must watch commercials?  

and what prevents me from leaving the room during a forced commercial? And do they think by forcing me to watch something that it will endear me to their product. 

I'm definitely no marketer but can someone explain this logic to me? 

If someone has paid X dollars for a commercial skipper, that's what they want to do. If someone hadn't put out the money for one, that means they dont value that so much and are more willing to watch commercials.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

Obviously I agree with you as a viewer.

However, the issue is around revenue for free TV, which is funded mostly by advertising during those shows. If a device offers those same shows, but without the commercials, then courts basically agreed (in the ReplayTV case) that the device must pay licensing/rebroadcast fees to the program owner (which they can collect from the viewers if they want).

This makes sense, and is defensible in the auto-skip commercial example, where the single intent is to remove commercials. It's really more of an issue if it's recorded without commercials, versus the viewer skipping them each time. But if Nielsen shows that DVR owners are viewing substantially fewer commercials than regular viewers (which accounts for walking out of the room as a wash across both), then this will reignite the issues around DVR's (since advertisers couldn't possibly see it as a reason to change the advertising model).

We were dangerously close to this a few years ago with the true commercial skip feature in ReplayTV's. Tivo almost implemented it, then removed it and stayed with FF (they also "hid" the 30-second skip, which isn't quite the same thing, but could be an issue, too).

Tivo has tried to walk the line between what viewers really want, and what will keep broadcasters happy (they were originally heavily funded by broadcasters like NBC and Discovery Channel).

It's a valid issue - that is, rebroadcasting shows without their commercials - however, it's taken to an extreme with DVR viewing, and it's really based on the lack of innovation from advertisers and broadcasters.

The danger is that people with DVR's will just stop watching commercial TV where they are forced to watch commercials, which has an even worse effect on revenue. Unfortunately, broadcasters and advertisers don't see it that way, and won't until the tide has turned.

The only good news is this will likely be an optional "flag" that the broadcasters can turn on or off. So cable networks will leverage this as a competitive advantage, and we'll see a shift of viewers and programming from broadcast networks to cable nets. That is, if this actually happens (which is more likely that you might think).


----------



## annenoe (Oct 19, 2003)

srt said:


> on NASCRAP they tried a split screen and determined people were not watching the commercials, not we would seem to be facing sanctions for using technology to make our viewing pleasurable.
> How many people really make a buying descision based on what they see on tv? I bought a tivo becausie I saw it there...


I have to admit I've seen things on commericials that I've tried - hate to admit it but I have. Little things like the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser - the commercial pulled me in, I tried it, loved it, and have used it ever since - would I have done that if not for the commercial. I also have tried stuff that sucked and never used it again.

And anyone who thinks they are not influenced by commericials are fooling themselves.

I also have a commercial permanently stored on my tivo - yes I do - we loved it so much (and so did our dog), that we saved it. As a matter of fact, I sometimes record something I'm watching live just to save the commerical to show my husband. I actually think some commercials are quite imaginative.

All that said, I'd go bug nuts if they ever forced me to watch the ads.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

if you do not watch commercials you can't be influenced by them....except to say you dont like to watch them, which i do realize is a form of influence


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

My TiVos do not call in. They don't know that I haven't watched a commercial in 5 years, and they never will.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

I won a BetaMax in a contest in 1975, and so have skipped virtually every commercial that has been broadcast for over 30 years. DVRs made it simpler, but I have always been motivated enough to watch only what I want, which ain't commercials. I guess there is some broadcaster sales slut somewhere who would figure I owe the broadcast industry about a mil or so for my non-compliance.

When I got an HD set there was a 4-month period before I got my first HR10 (which were still a grand and somewhat questionable) where I watched TV old-school. I.E., rushing home to catch the first act, making sandwiches and scheduling bathroom breaks strategically, reading the paper with the commercials on mute, etc. Even then, I was motivated to skip ALL of the commercials, and even without a tool to facilitate that, I still managed.

So, bring it on. You can lead a horse to water....

At some critical tipping point the broadcast industry is going to have to finally admit that the commercial break business model has never really worked since Zenith debuted the "Spacemaster" remote control in the 60's, and is less effective day by day. This has been the quintessential example of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Everyone knew this model and the ratings system surrounding it has been severely flawed since day one, but without something better to replace it, that's all they have, and they are left to keep telling themselves over and over (and anyone who will listen) that it actually works, when it probably never has.

The newest trend is the one-second commercial. Expect a ton of those starting soon. Also, the commercial positions just before the next segment starts are commanding the highest ad revenue, because they are somewhat DVR-proof.


----------



## DevilishTX (Dec 31, 2002)

> I won a BetaMax in a contest in 1975, and so have skipped virtually every commercial that has been broadcast for over 30 years. DVRs made it simpler, but I have always been motivated enough to watch only what I want, which ain't commercials. I guess there is some broadcaster sales slut somewhere who would figure I owe the broadcast industry about a mil or so for my non-compliance.


As a friend of mine who does not have DVR's but does have VCR's. what's the difference between fast forwarding DVR's and FFing a VCR through commercials?

Which, as like you, he, and I have done for about 30 years (Beta and VHS in my case).

Heck, I still have 2 Proscan VCR's that have the automatic commercial skip and to this day are amazingly accurate.

All in all and as an aside, I really don't watch network TV anymore save for Football and NCAA basketball. Oh, and the local news.


----------



## missparker10 (Sep 29, 2005)

annenoe said:


> I also have a commercial permanently stored on my tivo - yes I do - we loved it so much (and so did our dog), that we saved it.


I just have to know, what commercial?! You left me in such suspense. I get silly over little things like this.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

DevilishTX said:


> ...what's the difference between fast forwarding DVR's and FFing a VCR through commercials?...


VCRs are linear, and you have to actually wind through the commercials. DVRs are nonlinear, like DVDs, and you can instantaneously jump around, specifically, directly to the end of commercial islands with a little practice. Or you can FFW, but FFW on a DVR is not true FFW, it is a simulation (frames are dropped, making it appear as FFW). Bottom line, it's significantly easier. But the end result is the same--no commercials to sit through.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

annenoe said:


> ...And anyone who thinks they are not influenced by commericials are fooling themselves...


That's like the old Philosophy 101 bullsh!t question..."If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound if no one is there to hear it?"

I think it is awfully hard to be influenced by something you haven't ever been exposed to. People sometimes mention "that commercial" with "the talking dog" or "where the guy's refrigerator opens into the apartment next door" or whatever. But as one who doesn't ever really see commercials, I have no frame of reference for that, can't relate, and usually end up looking at them like they just asked me to calculate pi to 43 decimal places.

So, regarding that, I also say, bullsh!t. The only one fooling themselves is probably the one claiming the rest of us are. And BTW, it's "anyone who...is...", not "anyone who...are...".


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

DevilishTX said:


> what's the difference between fast forwarding DVR's and FFing a VCR through commercials?


A couple a significant things:
1) FF on a DVR is substantially faster than FF on a VCR in play mode. DVR's go up to 60x play speed, consumer VCR's a fraction of that (unless you stopped them, which was inconvenient for the viewer).

2) You can actually instantly skip things on a DVR - e.g. 30 second skip, skip-to-tick.

Commercials long ago were designed to be viewed in FF mode, a la VCR FF. You'd still get images and the intent of the commercial, and you might even stop it and watch it. Advertisers were not happy with this, but satisfied enough to ultimately leave it alone.

With DVR's, they've lost their mind. For about 10 years they've been trying to figure out what to do. A few innovative folks are doing more creative product placement where it's integrated into the plot, so you have to watch (Smallville had a good one with some contact lens manufacturer; reality shows do a ton of it). Most advertisers won't let go of the commercial break, and will do anything possible to ensure it stays. Including getting DVR's to prevent FF during commercials.

Scary. We can only hope cable-nets and HBO/SHO get more and better series.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Another big difference is with a VCR you have to find the right tape, and then find the right spot on the tape. That's why most people never adapted to VCR time-shifting. A DVR makes it so easy, even my Dad can do it...

As for how commercials sink in, I know a number of people who have TiVos or other DVRs. And I am the only person I know who is generally clueless about the content of commercials. So, even WITH the ease of DVRs, there are still a lot of people who watch the commercials. It's going to be a major problem for the advertisers (and by extension the networks), and the whole advertising model is going to change eventually. But the sky is not falling today.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Prior to TiVo, there wasn't even the technology available that could legitimately cause the sky to fall. My mother, who generally is clueless with respect to technology and especially remote controls, picked up fast-forwarding through commercials on my TiVo pretty quickly. It's that easy. That's the concern, and it is coming soon, unless measures are taken to keep the vast majority of DVRs brain-dead with regard to fast-forwarding.


----------



## speedcouch (Oct 23, 2003)

TyroneShoes said:


> I won a BetaMax in a contest in 1975, and so have skipped virtually every commercial that has been broadcast for over 30 years. DVRs made it simpler,


Actually they don't IMHO. I had three VCRs that had true "commercial skip" before I got my first Tivo in 2003. They went back and marked the commercials after recording something and you had the option to have them fast-forward and show "blue screen" while doing it. Without you EVER having to touch the remote while playing back a program. As much as I love the other features of my Tivo, in reality, I've always felt it was a step back from the wonderful [in this case] "blue screen" on my vcrs. Because I have to use the remote to ff'd manually. This is the one claim by the promoters and users of Tivo that bugs the heck out of me, because they don't truly "automatically" skip commericals. :down:

Cheryl


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

Since I got my first DVR, a Dish Network DishPlayer in late 1999, I have wondered if the whole DVR thing (at least as we knew it then) was really going to be a limited time super cool service for geeks. That as soon as enough people started to use one the networks would take notice and eventually we would lose the functionality.

For me, as long as I have the FF, I am fine. Heck, I often will rewind to a commercial that looks interesting. If we have to go back to watching commercials, I will bnot have as much time to watch shows and will jus tnot watch as much TV. PErsonally, I would say that decently done product placement will work great. I guess the worst case scenario will be limited abilities to FF or skip comercials and having product placements as wel.


----------



## String (Aug 2, 2005)

My issue seems to be the same across the board for all big business. These are advertisers, the RIAA, telecoms, etc. Instead of working on a way to endear the public, or ways to get people to pay attention to commercials, or pay for music, etc., they whine and complain, instead of being proactive, adding ingenuity, and providing a better product.


----------



## yaddayaddayadda (Apr 8, 2003)

annenoe said:


> I have to admit I've seen things on commericials that I've tried - hate to admit it but I have. Little things like the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser - the commercial pulled me in, I tried it, loved it, and have used it ever since - would I have done that if not for the commercial. I also have tried stuff that sucked and never used it again.
> 
> And anyone who thinks they are not influenced by commericials are fooling themselves.


You're 100% correct. As I type this, I'm applying HEAD-ON directly to the forehead.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

TyroneShoes said:


> At some critical tipping point the broadcast industry is going to have to finally admit that the commercial break business model has never really worked


You'd hope so, but there's almost no sign of it. The best we have are some clever product placements integrated into the plot of shows (a la Smallville and the contact lenses), but these are viewed as additive, not replacements.



> Everyone knew this model and the ratings system surrounding it has been severely flawed since day one


While both things are true, the ratings system is flawed for different reasons. Mostly statistical (e.g. too small a sample; bad sample cross sections; horrible diary system, etc.). However, since everyone is measured the same way, it kind of balances itself out (except for certain racial demographics).



> The newest trend is the one-second commercial. Expect a ton of those starting soon.


Have you seen the GE one with the dancing elephant? There were two commercials with a 1-second thing at the end that was basically amusing flash cards on the CGI characters. Very funny, and I watched it a few times. You pretty much can only view with a DVR in frame-by-frame mode.


----------



## kbohip (Dec 30, 2003)

TyroneShoes said:


> I won a BetaMax in a contest in 1975, and so have skipped virtually every commercial that has been broadcast for over 30 years.


Yea, no kidding. Before I had a DVR, which was around 2001, I was still using a VHS vcr (shudders) and when a commercial came on I would just press FF, no different than Tivo at all in that respect. Time shifted recording has been around for a LONG time and it's here to stay, much to the advertisers disgust.

I will say this. As I scan through commercials I'm still watching them to see if there's anything interesting. I, as a Tivo owner and a commercial skipper have still seen commercials while skipping and have actually bought the product advertised in it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

String said:


> My issue seems to be the same across the board for all big business. These are advertisers, the RIAA, telecoms, etc. Instead of working on a way to endear the public, or ways to get people to pay attention to commercials, or pay for music, etc., they whine and complain, instead of being proactive, adding ingenuity, and providing a better product.


That's pretty darned silly. That's all these businesses do care about: endearing the public so they can translate that endearment into profits. It's all these businesses exist for. Every decision they make is specifically made to endear the public.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

Nonsense. They aren't trying to endear the public. They're trying to get the public to spend. Two very, very different things.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

bicker said:


> That's pretty darned silly. That's all these businesses do care about: endearing the public so they can translate that endearment into profits. It's all these businesses exist for. Every decision they make is specifically made to endear the public.


Hardly hardly hardly. I'm speaking from knowing. The advertisers view programming as something there to keep you watching between advertising. They don't care about anything other than keeping you glued to the tube. If that means scaring you about money, your kids, the world - they'll do it.

In fact, fear is a much better "glue" than having you like them.

Just look at organized religion.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

Wow. The numbers in that article seem hard to believe.

Only 10% of DVR viewing is "playback" while 90% is "live"?

Seems totally opposite of what I would have guessed. We watch about 99% of TV from playback and about 1% live.

I almost think they are skewing the number because the networks and Nielsen have a vested interest in making advertisers believe that DVRs aren't reducing viewing of advertisements. Either that or many people are technical dummies and not fully utilizing their DVRs.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

SpankyInChicago said:


> Either that or many people are technical dummies and not fully utilizing their DVRs.


Bingbingbingbingbing.

I know plenty of people who have DVRs and treat them like VCRs, essentially. They'll timeshift a few things here and there but they don't do that "Tivo thing" where we essentially no longer watch live TV except for news and sports.

I'd also argue that the lack of reliability found in many non-Tivo DVRs can hamper this too.

I know at least one fellow who almost exclusively uses his DVR for pausing live TV.

Different strokes and all that.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

cheer said:


> I know plenty of people who have DVRs and treat them like VCRs, essentially. They'll timeshift a few things here and there but they don't do that "Tivo thing" where we essentially no longer watch live TV except for news and sports.


I know that feeling. Lots of times I will be talking about how great a show is at the office and someone will ask when it is on. I'll have to think for a second and usualy the answer is, "hmm, I don;t know, maybe early (or late, if I can narrow it down that much)in the week?"


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

SpankyInChicago said:


> Wow. The numbers in that article seem hard to believe.
> 
> Only 10% of DVR viewing is "playback" while 90% is "live"?
> 
> ...


The "buzz" is that this advance PR is trying to show that they aren't on a witch-hunt to kill DVR's. That they believe they'll find people watch ads all the time.

Then, when the data shows most people don't watch ads, they will be shocked and dismayed, and obviously they'll need to do something about it. They were on our side until the data showed us something that obviously no one expected - people don't watch ads on DVR's!

Then, lobbying for no commercial skip/FF on DVR's, or pay a rebroadcast fee.


----------



## cheesybear (Aug 17, 2005)

I pay for cable,
I pay for my DVR subscription,
and now I might have to pay to skip commercials???

Anyone who doesn't think that digital rights are under attack, isn't paying attention. The fair use doctrine used to allow 1 personal copy of anything for your own personal use. If you bought an album, you owned that album, not just that album in a specific format. Now, record companies are trying to say that you only own the rights to a song in the format that you bought it it.... so to enjoy a song in different formats, I need to buy those songs in those formats?? 

This is the same way. I created the digital copy that I have... I pay for television service, I paid to create the copy, and it is within my rights to use it for personal use. To attach some condition that I can only use it in a certain way in the privacy of my own home is not right.

Say you buy a drill, is it reasonable for the manufacturer to then charge you extra everytime you want to use that drill as a screwdriver? Or is it ok, for Ikea to charge you extra for using your drill instead of using the cheapo screwdriver that's included??

I don't have any sympathy for the idea that commercials are how TV makes money argument. If that business model isn't working anymore, then maybe it's time to adopt a new business model... regulating competition and free enterprise is simply unamerican. Just because they cannot adapt to the changing market conditions, doesn't mean that I need to pay them more to use products and services that I have legally aquired. This was never an issue with VCR's, the only reason it's an issue now is that now techonogy allows networks to force consumers into watching commercials.

Tivo users watching recorded shows in the privacy of their own home are not rebroadcasting a program. This argument is completely bunk... now if I streamed it on the internet, that would be rebroadcasting, but watching it in your own home is not a broadcast by the very definintion of the word 'broadcast'.

Fair use is fair use... just because media companies are being threatened doesn't mean we need to undo years of copyright law.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

cheesybear said:


> I pay for cable,
> 
> I don't have any sympathy for the idea that commercials are how TV makes money argument. If that business model isn't working anymore, then maybe it's time to adopt a new business model... regulating competition and free enterprise is simply unamerican. Just because they cannot adapt to the changing market conditions, doesn't mean that I need to pay them more to use products and services that I have legally aquired. This was never an issue with VCR's, the only reason it's an issue now is that now techonogy allows networks to force consumers into watching commercials.


I totally agree about media companies trying to erode our rights. However, if the business model is that commercials pay for TV as we know it and eventually not enough people are watching to justify the costs that are charged for commercial time, something must change. That thing could bvery well be what we like about TV, so there is some potential impact.


----------



## darthrsg (Jul 25, 2005)

I never buy anything based on a commercial. I don't think I am alone on that. They should just bundle all the ads and put them at the beginning or end of whatever show. Better yet try mass mailing.


----------



## dmastro (Mar 25, 2004)

I believe we'll continue to see more and more embedded commercials within our favorite shows (product placement in scenes, i.e. close up of the logo while the lead actor is drinking a soda). We won't be given the option of avoiding product advertisements because they'll be part of the plot.

Everyone wins - viewers don't have commercial interruptions and broadcasters are assured that we're watching their "ads".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

cheer said:


> Nonsense. They aren't trying to endear the public. They're trying to get the public to spend. Two very, very different things.


"Endear" wasn't my word, but rather String's. Of course it is all about getting eyes on the advertising.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

cheesybear said:


> I pay for cable,
> I pay for my DVR subscription,
> and now I might have to pay to skip commercials???
> Anyone who doesn't think that digital rights are under attack, isn't paying attention.


You seem to be overlooking where those rights are invested. You don't have any rights to any entertainment programming. Entertainment programming is owned by those who produce it; they grant rights to broadcast it to networks, who in turn grants you the right to use it according to the terms and conditions they outline. If you don't like their terms and conditions, you can elect to forego their programming.



> The fair use doctrine used to allow 1 personal copy of anything for your own personal use.


That's incredibly far from the truth of Fair Use.

Here's what Fair Use is _*really *_all about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Use

Your perspectives are so off-target it's mind-blowing.


----------



## annenoe (Oct 19, 2003)

missparker10 said:


> I just have to know, what commercial?! You left me in such suspense. I get silly over little things like this.


You've probably never seen it - IKEA. A stubby-leg jack is seen running to her house and enters the doggie door. She slides to a stop and looks around the house - 3 quick glances right/left/center - (really fast so you know there's a squeeky toy somewhere off camera) - like she's going "WTF????". She goes back outside, looks up at the house number, then slowly back in the doggy door.

We're dog people; specifically terrier people (yes, I have the same dog as is shown in my pic). It made us laugh and Mickey (the dog) loves it - he always whips his head to watch TV when he hears the opening sounds of the dog. So we play it every now and again and it still makes us laugh. I am very easy to please.


----------



## wje (Jan 8, 2005)

bicker said:


> You seem to be overlooking where those rights are invested. You don't have any rights to any entertainment programming. Entertainment programming is owned by those who produce it; they grant rights to broadcast it to networks, who in turn grants you the right to use it according to the terms and conditions they outline.


Since you seem to be willing to slam the other poster over his improper reference, seems it's only fair to apply the same standards to you.

Check 'copyright' on Wikipedia:

_In addition, copyright, in most cases, does not prohibit one from acts such as modifying, defacing, or destroying his or her own legitimately obtained copy of a copyrighted work, so long as duplication is not involved.
_

Skipping a commercial would seem to fall under the non-prohibited act of 'modifying'.

Of course, as the originally cited article explains, the digital copyright holders are also violating many of the principles of what fair-use really is. Perhaps you should read the article a bit more closely.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wje said:


> Since you seem to be willing to slam the other poster over his improper reference, seems it's only fair to apply the same standards to you.
> <snip>
> Skipping a commercial would seem to fall under the non-prohibited act of 'modifying'.


What the heck are you talking about? I never said anything about skipping commericals being a copyright violation -- heck, I even mentioned that I skip commercials.



> Of course, as the originally cited article explains...


Which, incidently, I haven't made any objections to. 



> Perhaps you should read the article a bit more closely.


Perhaps you should read the messages you reply to a bit more closely.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

Fair Use and the DCMA are in conflict with each other, so this is all a moot point.

And the broadcast networks have already proven in court that if you rebroadcast their shows without commercials, you have to pay a rebroadcasting fee.

So it will be short work to get this extended to DVR's if Nielsen's data shows what we expect.


----------



## tucsonbill (Aug 11, 2004)

AbMagFab said:


> http://www.thefutoncritic.com/pr.aspx?id=20060719cbs01
> 
> However, if they show a significant decrease if DVR viewing of commercials, the next steps are:
> 
> ...


 Actually, I don't know who they would do either of these things.

Option 1) is really sue and demand that the DVR makers not include this as a feature -- which is what they did with ReplayTV. Every unit that was build with this feature still has it. WRT requiring them to provide a tool that wouldn't allow this -- you mean actually require them to disable FF during commercials? I had "true" commercial skip and I can assure that this would take something more than fade out/fade in detection to be workable.

Option 2? Well when you've built your business model on free distribution by broadcast which can be received by anyone with a TV?? Then you lobbied for legislation requiring the cable companies to provide at no additional cost?? Are you suggesting that they would petition the government to license receivers? (UK model).



> There are lots of other options, like changing how they do commercials (e.g. more creative product placement, banners, etc.), but advertisers are a slow-to-adapt bunch, and they've been seething over DVR's for almost a decade - and this new measurement could finally give them the ammunition they need.


Actually this is the option they can do -- and are doing now.


----------



## wje (Jan 8, 2005)

bicker said:


> Perhaps you should read the messages you reply to a bit more closely.


But, that would take all the fun out of it!


----------



## herdfan (Feb 5, 2003)

In 10 years or maybe even sooner, all of this will be moot. DVR's will exist only to pause and replay Live TV. An "On Demand" type of system will replace traditional broadcasting. 

So if I want to watch Lost, I will call it up with a remote and will pay $0.99 for the privledge to watch it commercial free. And I will still be bombarded with product placement ads.


----------

