# ABC wants to kill DVR ad-skipping



## Leo Valiant (Apr 19, 2000)

http://www.adjab.com/2006/07/06/abc-wants-to-kill-dvr-ad-skipping/

"ABC executives have held discussions with the people providing consumers with DVRs about a potential future feature for the devices that would disable the ad-skipping. "

What, pressure TiVo into disabling FF during commercials? Good luck with that.


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

> He doesn't think this is going to be a big deal for consumers, since they'll still be so happy the can easily record their shows for later that they'll barely notice and definitely won't be part of any backlash.


This refers to ABC President of Advertising Sales Mike Shaw. What dream world is he living in?


----------



## Mamoth (Jun 21, 2004)

Gregor said:


> What dream world is he living in?


America ... ever see copyright laws in practice? Despicable. Seems like we in America are so litigious we can (if we have the money) bend the courts at our will.

Sigh.


----------



## painkiller (Jun 23, 2005)

What's an ABC?

Izzat something important? Impotent?


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=45264
"Shaw also threw cold water on the idea that neutering the fast-forward option would result in a consumer backlash. He suggested that consumers prefer DVRs for their ability to facilitate on-demand viewing and not ad-zapping--and consumers might warm to the idea that anytime viewing brings with it a tradeoff in the form of unavoidable commercial viewing. "

Tell that to my 7 year old and 3 year old that have been watching TiVo all their life.
The 7 year old can now skip them on his own but the three year old and he used to yell out "TiVo Daddy TiVo" to get me to skip over the commercials for them.

Using a VCR or the older ReplayTV you even have automatic commercial advance (Man I wish TiVo did that too).

This horse has long left the gate and I hope TiVo doesn't help them bring it back...


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

MighTiVo said:


> http://publications.mediapost.com/i... program their DVRs to block it? I doubt it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

This is never going to happen. There are just too many technical problems with implimenting it. For example, what if the user wants to FF half way through the show to get back to a point where they fell asleep the previous night? Would the unit force then to stop and watch every commercial break? If so I can't see people putting up with that. And if they add any logic to allow the unit to skip the commercails for one situation then there will be a loop hole that will allow people to skip by them under normal circumstances.

This is like the whole MPAA DRM problem. Instead of trying to adjust their business model to compensate for a changing market they're trying to use technology to force people back to the old way. That's just stupid and will NEVER work!

Dan


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

I think Dr. Phil should call this Shaw idiot and tell him:

"Good luck with that."

I know personally, if I cannot watch television without watching commercial advertising, I'll tape with my VCR and watch that. If they disable the ability to FF on the VCR, I'll wait for the DVDs to come out and watch those. If they disable the ability to FF on the DVDs, then I'll tray to hack anything possible that I can to get back the functionality. If there is no way left to bypass commercials, I'll send them a Xerox of my ass and tell them to pound sand. Then, I'll use the time I would have used to watch television in the first place, to play more Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot and World of Warcraft. Plain and simple.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Good luck with that, ABC.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

There is a simple way to address the issue, and that's to make the advertising worth watching.

Let's use figure skating as an example, since it's on ABC. Here I am watching the show. They stop to show commercials. Then they come back to the show and as a lead-in to the action, they say "sponsored by" and list off all the sponsors, which are the same companies whose ads they've just shown us.

Ore-Ida Fries. Campbell's Soups. Smuckers jelly. Over and over again.

And in every commercial break, they run the SAME DAMN ADS.

When I see the Ore-Ida Fries ad, the one where they boast about the fries that stay crispy even in the microwave, and the voice-over says "We know what you're thinking..."

Do you really, Ore-Ida? Because what I'm thinking is "HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU EXPECT ME TO WATCH THIS SAME DAMN COMMERCIAL?"

MasterCard, on the other hand, by doing its spoof of MacGuyver, gets me to stop and watch Richard Dean Anderson every time. :up:

Jan


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

DrewTivo said:


> Agreed But if they do, they'll lose a lot of market share. Sure, tivo is the generic term, but the networks would have to agree with all the dvr makers to block ad skipping to work. Are the cable cos. going to program their DVRs to block it? I doubt it.


I did not mean a generic term but TiVo specifically.

TiVo has never used automatic commercial advance even though it existed in VCRs for years prior to the introduction of the DVR. TiVo also supports the macrovision copy protections which block recording of a DVD, transferring files using MRV, and even keeping a program for more than a week (as evidenced by the bug that activated the feature). TiVo even hides the 30sec skip as a undocumented and unsupported feature that could easily just disappear!

TiVo has done a lot for us the consumer, but they still seem dangerously close to the content owners and seem to fear lawsuits more than customer dissatisfaction. I hope they don't lose sight of where they really owe their allegiance.


----------



## MighTiVo (Oct 26, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> This is like the whole MPAA DRM problem. Instead of trying to adjust their business model to compensate for a changing market they're trying to use technology to force people back to the old way. That's just stupid and will NEVER work!
> 
> Dan


AMEN!


----------



## LordFett (May 6, 2005)

murgatroyd said:


> MasterCard, on the other hand, by doing its spoof of MacGuyver, gets me to stop and watch Richard Dean Anderson every time.


I personally like the Captial One horde ads. I see ads all the time that I stop and watch and have bought stuff because of them, but when it is the same thing over and over or spoiler tv/movie ads I want nothing to do with them.

When 24 or Rescue Me is on I do everything in my power to not see what is happening until the episode is actually on, this can get pretty hard with live tv.

One thing I do really dig is when a commercial or preview comes on and it has a green thumbs up (why isn't there a smilie of the TiVo :up: and :down: on the board?) and you hit it to schedule or see more about the product. That is really sweet.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I think some of you have hit the nail on the head. People will watch commercials if they're worthwhile. Many of them are downright entertaining (ditto on the Capital One spots) but the vast majority are just too painful to watch and are just a waste of my valuable time. Repetetive ads run back to back just plain piss me off to the point where I'll change the channel and watch something else (except for the fact that I rarely watch anything live anymore). I can't actually remember the last time I purchased an item based on an advertisement I saw on TV (or anywhere else for that matter) so showing me a TV commercial isn't going to suddenly make me a customer for whatever product they're selling.

Some of the Bud Lite commercials are quite entertaining but my neck's not red enough to buy the swill. I would never buy an automobile based on a commercial, especially not from one of those idiotic local dealers you see with ridiculous ads. I did enjoy watching the ads for Art Grindle Dodge in Cocoa Beach, FL, back in the early 70's when I attended school. The guy was a local car dealer and was the sponsor for The Outer Limits airing Saturday afternoons on a local TV station. He'd always rip up the price sticker on his used cars and do all sorts of whacky antics in the ads, which I believe were aired live at the time. I remember him wanting to get a better view of a car he was hawking so he jumped on the hood and then proceeded to jump through to convertible roof with the top still up. Needless to say he slashed the price on that car. Now that's entertainment!


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

I am one person who will not watch them at all - entertaining or not. There's bound to be a few of us though.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

The only commercials I will watch are political ads, or occiaisionally something else of local interest. But not the big national commercials that the advertisers are really concerned about.


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

Well, I still watch anything that catches my eye, either because I'm interested in the product, or because the commercial is interesting. And I still watch way more ads with my Tivo than I did with live TV or my VCR. They're kidding themselves if they think people watch ads any more with live TV or VCRs. (There are exceptions I suppose...)


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Fine. So we are all in agreement that we all hate commercials and have no desire to watch them. That works today because only 5% of the public has a dvr. In a sense that 5% is getting something for nothing today. They are getting to watch the programming that networks are creating but they are not having to watch the commercials that pay for that programming.

Now fast forward into the future when 75% of the public has a dvr. Now 75% of the public is getting something for nothing and not having to watch any commercials. Where exactly do you see ABC or every other network for that matter getting the money to continue making the shows you like to watch?

They can start putting the commercials in the show, but that has serious consequences. Now the show has the same embedded commercials forever. Not sure what the point would be of watching a 10 year old commercial that was embedded in a show.

I suppose every channel could start charging like HBO does. But then your cable bill would be considerably larger than it is today.

How about the providers like DTV, Echostar, and cable companies? They also make money from commercials. If no one is watching them then where does their revenue come from?

If you eliminate all commercials then you may not be happy with the result. They can't all just start sending their money to Tivo for special ads. Tivo is not the largest dvr market share out there anyway. And be for real, even if commercials were sitting on your dvr waiting for you to voluntarily play them the play rate would be near zero.

It's easy to criticize ABC and say you are never going back to commercials and they should embrace the future, etc. But until you show them an equivalent revenue stream you won't be getting the shows you like to watch.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Puppy76 said:


> They're kidding themselves if they think people watch ads any more with live TV or VCRs. (There are exceptions I suppose...)


They know that, but by "forcing" people to watch ads they can lie to the advertisers and get more money.

Dan


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

Frankly I don't care that I'm not supporting the shows I like to watch by not watching the advertisements. It really doesn't matter if I watch the commercial or not, because even if I did, there is zero chance in my case that I'd actually go out and purchase anything based on an advertisement I saw, anyway. So, one might argue that by not purchasing goods from the advertising vendors who sponsor my favorite television programming, I am indirectly also not supporting my favorite programming and if everyone was like me, then there'd be no programming. Again, I say I don't care, if there was no programming in the first place, then I'd find other things to do with my new found free time - massive multiplayer games most likely. If they infiltrate that with advertising that I can't skip - it's on to more books. If they screw up books the same way, I spend more time outdoors actually enjoying life. If they plaster billboards all around my neighborhood - I move to a more rural area. If they plaster billboards all over the planet, then I shoot myself and call it good.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> There is a simple way to address the issue, and that's to make the advertising worth watching.


Advertising will never be worth watching on its own merits. The only way to make advertising worth watching is to integrate it so completely into the story or the broadcast that you have no choice but to take the advertisement with the program, i.e., invasive product placement, or advertising bugs that appear while you're watching a program.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MighTiVo said:


> I hope they don't lose sight of where they really owe their allegiance.


Their shareholders, of course.

If you really thought anyone owes you anything beyond what they've promised, because you're a customer, you're sadly mistaken.

Furthermore, without sponsors, there is no program. If the sponsors don't derive the expected benefit from their sponsorship, then they'd be idiots to continue paying for our entertainment.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

Of course ABC is network most concerned about this.

Have you watched a show on ABC lately?
Maybe it's just my imagination, but they have more commercials then the other networks.
Most shows I can actually set the remote down and enjoy the show before I have to FF through the commercials,
not ABC, 5 minutes of show, 3 minutes of commercials, 5 more minutes of show, 3 more of commercials, on and on for the whole 1/2 hour, or hour.

Maybe it's just the even spacing, and other networks run most of the breaks towards the ends of the shows, but it sure seems like ABC is more commercials than show.


phox


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

HiDefGator said:


> Fine. So we are all in agreement that we all hate commercials and have no desire to watch them. That works today because only 5% of the public has a dvr. In a sense that 5% is getting something for nothing today. They are getting to watch the programming that networks are creating but they are not having to watch the commercials that pay for that programming.


Everything's going to change. The ones who ride the change will get rich (product placement, anyone?). The ones who cling to what will become an increasingly outmoded business model (commercial break television) will die out.


----------



## OldTownTreadles (Mar 15, 2006)

HiDefGator said:


> They can start putting the commercials in the show, but that has serious consequences. Now the show has the same embedded commercials forever. Not sure what the point would be of watching a 10 year old commercial that was embedded in a show.


They're already embedding commercials into some shows. The discussion right now is on how much they can do ths before the show becomes one long commercial. Currently there are some laws that will prevent this, and lots of lawyers paid to study and circumvent these laws. It won't be long before the networks reach out to their senators and congressmen about this, to get the laws regarding the amount of commercial content present in the shows revised.

I know, this doesn't address the impact of DVRs on commercial presentations, except perhaps to the extent that embedding commercials in shows was spurred on by commercial skipping.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

I got a DVR for time shifting as well. I was missing shows I wanted to watch. Plain and simple.

but now that I can FF over commercials I never want to go back.
so the guy is not an idiot but indeed quite correct on his two main points.


now - how he thinks he will ever get FF turned off is quite a different thing  
either the FF button would have to be gone form the remote and any code to allow it taken out or hacks will easily re-enable it and you can be darn sure I WILL hack my DVR to re-enable it.

and why would TiVo ever take the FF away. What large incentive could they be given to do that to compensate for the immediate backlash that would ensue and I would quite frankly be a willing part of.


so, as Rob Helmerichs said, ABC will just have to replace dinosaurs with new energy that start coming up with what consumers now want.


----------



## rdowty (Dec 31, 2002)

Leo Valiant said:


> http://www.adjab.com/2006/07/06/abc-wants-to-kill-dvr-ad-skipping/
> 
> "ABC executives have held discussions with the people providing consumers with DVRs about a potential future feature for the devices that would disable the ad-skipping. "


That sounds like a great "feature". I'd gladly go out and spend $750 on a Series 3 plus pay the monthly fee if it had that feature.


----------



## painkiller (Jun 23, 2005)

If these Executives had any brains - they'd be making deals with TIVO to gauge consumer likes/dislikes. Then they'd know better what we want. (Since they don't listen to us.)

They don't have to rely on the Neilsen system so much anymore.

With the advent of DVR technology, they now have the ability to get some real-time analysis - and know what works and what doesn't.

Remember Janet Jackson's malfunction?

Wasn't there significant TIVO data about that?????


----------



## Gai-jin (Feb 28, 2000)

murgatroyd said:


> There is a simple way to address the issue, and that's to make the advertising worth watching.
> 
> MasterCard, on the other hand, by doing its spoof of MacGuyver, gets me to stop and watch Richard Dean Anderson every time. :up:
> 
> Jan


One example, which got me to not only watch a commercial, but to rewind through it and play it again in slow motion, was a recent GE commercial.

It was the one with the animals in the rainforest, and elephant dancing to Singin' in the rain. As the show went to commercial, there was a short message saying for dvr users to watch for a hidden secret in the commercial.

What they ended up doing was adding a few frames in the middle of the commercial with text on them, that you would really only catch if you paused or watched in slow motion. The text was regarding the commercial, telling more about the 'actors' involved, etc. Humorous, and it got me to PAY ATTENTION to the commercial. I had heard that commercial a dozen times before, but couldn't tell you what it was for. This time, when they added the 'hidden' content, I remembered what they were advertising for.

THAT is what good advertising is about.


----------



## bugeyes (Jul 7, 2006)

Not sure if this rumor was true, but didn't KFC just get in trouble for inserting messages in their commercials that were only noticeable when FF'd? If not, maybe I just thought it up subliminally- ERRR, I mean subconsciously


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> Fine. So we are all in agreement that we all hate commercials and have no desire to watch them. That works today because only 5% of the public has a dvr. In a sense that 5% is getting something for nothing today.


Right. The other 95 percent skips them with their VCR.

This horse is far out of the barn. People will cancel their DVR subscriptions and go back to VCR's if they can't fast forward through commercials. Cable operators and satellite operators will lose a lot of money, since they don't collect any fees on VCR's and have no control over how they operate.

Someone will invent a DVR like device, oh wait...it's out there...DVD recorders with hard drives, over which the cable and satellite guys have no control. And folks will use those to fast forward through commercials. People have been ff-ing through ads since 1980. No matter what anyone says, they are going to keep doing it.


----------



## TiVo Kid 2003 (Sep 1, 2003)

Dan203 and BillyT2002 in posts 7 & 8 summed up my thoughts EXACTLY.

If ABC tries this, it can and will be circumvented. Period.

Like Sony with their rootkit CDs, ABC will be humiliated and embarassed and incur the wrath of a lot of consumers.

But my real point is this: the carnage would really go beyond ABC and it would DIRECTLY affect companies like TiVo, and the cable/sat. providers, for 2 reasons:


as someone else pointed out, there will *always* be (usually PC or Mac-based) alternatives that do not respect this insanity. People will buy these instead of a TiVo.
all it takes is *one person* to record the program, EDIT OUT the commercials, and upload/share it. Now *everyone* benefits. (Of course this is happening today anyway.)

If ABC (and other networks, and TiVo, and the cable/satellite companies...) want to send people running into the arms of sites that provide downloadable shows (and perhaps a new generation of devices that encourage & facilitate this), they should move forward with this full speed ahead.

As many have said, "Adapt or Die".

With the internet, backlash can be quick and severe.... ABC's Mike Shaw might be selling hotdogs on the corner after publicly discussing such a stupid idea.

My coworker has a T-Shirt that says, "Your failed business model is not my problem" - maybe I should have him send it to Shaw.


----------



## fastep (May 22, 2004)

Is this the same idiot that came up with the idea of increasing the volume during commercials?


----------



## supasta (May 6, 2006)

There are plenty of other shows on other channels.....


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

phox_mulder said:


> Of course ABC is network most concerned about this. Have you watched a show on ABC lately? Maybe it's just my imagination, but they have more commercials then the other networks.


I think you're confusing them with NBC.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

My wife needs closed captioning turned on as she is diagnosed with a hearing disability and losing her hearing a little more every year. I notice for a lot of programming, the captioning is illegible (like they have inner city heroine addicts typing it while high). When the captioning is actually readable, a lot of times, it's paraphrased and sometimes it's not even paraphrased correctly and alternate meanings are suggested. (I feel bad for the deaf people out there as they're not getting the whole truth).

However during commercial advertising (which I only really watch when watching news live), the closed captioning is always 100% correct. This is sad.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

My wife is 60/40, and has been hearing impaired since long before closed captioning was first offered. 

While there is a lot of bad captioning out there, more things are captioned these days as compared to years ago. The general quality of captioning hasn't changed much, though since the quantity of captioning has increased markedly, the quantity of good captioning has also increased markedly. The best captioning is done by the US Department of Education. Live captioning is, of course, horrible as compared to captioning on recorded programs. If you're watching a news broadcast, you'll see a big difference between the quality of captioning between the news itself and its commercials, but remember, the news is live, and the commercials are recorded.


----------



## tbeckner (Oct 26, 2001)

What I don't understand is, why can't the producers of the show supply the script in electronic form to the closed captioning companies, so they don't have to paraphrase, can't this process by semi-automated.

Now, back on topic, ABC has about as much chance of killing the FAST FORWARD function (or 30 second skip) as they have of taking over the world. 

And what advertisers need to understand, is that most DVR users don't skip ads completely, they just watch the ads that are entertaining or are of interest, which actually INCREASE THE VALUE OF THOSE ADS. 

What ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and others need, is an accurate way to measure DVR commercial watching.

And everyone is right; we male watchers are NOT GOING to stop and watch a tampon ad, although we might watch a Victoria's Secret ad, a car ad, or a sports ad.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> Fine. So we are all in agreement that we all hate commercials and have no desire to watch them.


No, we aren't.

Jan


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

tbeckner said:


> And what advertisers need to understand, is that most DVR users don't skip ads completely, they just watch the ads that are entertaining or are of interest, which actually INCREASE THE VALUE OF THOSE ADS.
> 
> What ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and others need, is an accurate way to measure DVR commercial watching.
> 
> And everyone is right; we male watchers are NOT GOING to stop and watch a tampon ad, although we might watch a Victoria's Secret ad, a car ad, or a sports ad.


By the way, have you guys seen the ad which is playing on OLN during the Tour de France coverage for Star Motorcycles? The opening shot especially may be of interest to some of you.

I imagine it would be worth your while to stop and watch it at least once. 

Jan


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

> By the way, have you guys seen the ad which is playing on OLN during the Tour de France coverage for Star Motorcycles?


No.


----------



## cheridave (Mar 2, 2004)

I'm also in favor of "Product Placement". I think if it is done right it could be a "win-win" for all parties involved.

But be sure to place a 2-3 minute "Intermission" each half hour for water, beer, bathroom, etc.

That is all

Dave


----------



## ccooperev (Apr 24, 2001)

LordFett said:


> I personally like the Captial One horde ads. I see ads all the time that I stop and watch and have bought stuff because of them, but when it is the same thing over and over or spoiler tv/movie ads I want nothing to do with them.
> 
> When 24 or Rescue Me is on I do everything in my power to not see what is happening until the episode is actually on, this can get pretty hard with live tv.
> 
> One thing I do really dig is when a commercial or preview comes on and it has a green thumbs up (why isn't there a smilie of the TiVo :up: and :down: on the board?) and you hit it to schedule or see more about the product. That is really sweet.


There are a number of commercials that are entertaining but don't entice me to buy the product. The Capital One commercials for me are very entertaining but I'm quite happy with the credit cards I have now.


----------



## tbeckner (Oct 26, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> By the way, have you guys seen the ad which is playing on OLN during the Tour de France coverage for Star Motorcycles? The opening shot especially may be of interest to some of you.
> 
> I imagine it would be worth your while to stop and watch it at least once.
> 
> Jan


Actually, yes! I like the EYE turning into a HEADLIGHT at the beginning, great concept.

Of course, I have watched the TOUR since before Greg LeMond won in 1986, which included the 1985 race where Greg had to help Bernard Hinault win the TOUR, long before OLN existed, which will soon to be VERSUS.

But back on topic, good ad.


----------



## jimmymac (Nov 6, 2002)

Simple solution. ABC forces me watch ads and I stop watching ABC. I can live without Desperate Housewives. 

If enough people do it, then nobody will buy ads on ABC.


----------



## DTVPro (Jun 24, 2005)

jimmymac said:


> Simple solution. ABC forces me watch ads and I stop watching ABC. I can live without Desperate Housewives.
> 
> If enough people do it, then nobody will buy ads on ABC.


who the hell watches network tv anyways


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I doubt any network would do this alone. They'll feel each other out, and if they all do it then it'll stick, otherwise not. 

In another forum, someone pointed out that we already have enforced disabling of fast-forward: On DVDs, you cannot fast forward through the FBI piracy warning. That makes Shaw's suggestion even more credible, though I still believe he was just pushing people's buttons to pave the way for a less controversial means of recapturing some of commercial's lost effectiveness.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

you all are missing that this is a double edge sword. In order to enable tech that does not allow FFing then the commercials have to be given a distinct flag to give the playback program the signal to disable FFing. Hmm I wonder what a Hack would do with that Flag  

Also this would not be a network by network thing since DVRs are handed out by cable companies and 3rd parties, not by networks.

It sounds like a desperate cry by the guy trying to convince cable providers that the networks and their content will dry up and go away if more people keep skipping the commercials. Why that is a bad thing I am not so sure about


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

DTVPro said:


> who the hell watches network tv anyways


A lot of people still watch network television. Just because you don't like it, doesn't dictate what others might like or not like.

I know that if ABC starts forcing advertising down my throat - I'll quit watching their channel altogether (I don't watch much there now). I know my wife would quit too. I would hope that enough people would quit watching that it would really affect their bottom long and they'd take notice.

However, I don't really have any faith any more that it would be anything else for them, but business as usual. I say that because the average person is a lemming who cannot think for themselves and will usually just do what they are told to do. It's unfortunate, but very true.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> It sounds like a desperate cry by the guy trying to convince cable providers that the networks and their content will dry up and go away if more people keep skipping the commercials. Why that is a bad thing I am not so sure about


Cable channels face the same quandary. About 90% of what we watch is on either broadcast or cable channels. So, yup, it would be a bad thing if all that programming dried up and went away.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

bicker said:


> Cable channels face the same quandary. About 90% of what we watch is on either broadcast or cable channels. So, yup, it would be a bad thing if all that programming dried up and went away.


I completely disagree. Look at all the time that would free up to pursue other life opportunities. For me I'd spend the rest of that time in World of Warcraft or something.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BillyT2002 said:


> I know that if ABX starts forcing advertising down my throat - I'll quit watching their channel altogether (I don't watch much there now). I know my wife would quit too.


What would you do if all the broadcast and cable channels started doing this?


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

If there was no more television programming or were no more movies to watch, I would just start playing Everquest 2, Dark Age of Camelot or World of Warcraft more on my PC. I'd also spend more time reading, etc and maybe once in a while I'd actually get out and get some sunlight. For a lot of us, the world would keep spinning and that is precisely what the networks and the advertisers need to understand.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Earlier you said to DTVPro, "Just because you don't like it, doesn't dictate what others might like or not like." Similarly, just because you like playing video games doesn't mean that's a good option in the minds of the general public. Faced with the choice of watching commercials or watching a video game, I'll choose the commercials.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

bicker said:


> Earlier you said to DTVPro, "Just because you don't like it, doesn't dictate what others might like or not like." Similarly, just because you like playing video games doesn't mean that's a good option in the minds of the general public. Faced with the choice of watching commercials or watching a video game, I'll choose the commercials.


Why don't you read what I wrote again and then direct me to precisely where I stated anything implying that what I like to do is a good option for others. I didn't say any such thing and in articulating my post(s) I have been completely careful to suggest that what I stated I would do was purely subjective to me.

Frankly if the programming dissappears, I don't care what you or anyone else would do with your freed up time. You asked me specifically what I would do with my freed up time and I told you.

As to watching the commercials, good for you. Now crawl back into your hole.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Cable channels face the same quandary. About 90% of what we watch is on either broadcast or cable channels. So, yup, it would be a bad thing if all that programming dried up and went away.


actually my thought was that things would evolve to a lineup of cable channels that touted their lineup of content as a way to get viewers to buy into whatever business model they came up with. Someone with a focus like ESPN, cartoon network or CNN is more likely to succeed vs the big 3 or 5 networks that have a more generalized makeup.

eg - we may see the model (d)evolve into more the idea of menu selections with fringe content having a hard time and eventually moving to the internet download model

the interesting thing is what will become fringe content? Silly sitcoms or cop shows or science fiction, etc.. ?


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

MighTiVo said:


> I did not mean a generic term but TiVo specifically.
> 
> TiVo has never used automatic commercial advance even though it existed in VCRs for years prior to the introduction of the DVR. TiVo also supports the macrovision copy protections which block recording of a DVD, transferring files using MRV, and even keeping a program for more than a week (as evidenced by the bug that activated the feature). TiVo even hides the 30sec skip as a undocumented and unsupported feature that could easily just disappear!
> 
> TiVo has done a lot for us the consumer, but they still seem dangerously close to the content owners and seem to fear lawsuits more than customer dissatisfaction. I hope they don't lose sight of where they really owe their allegiance.


AFAIK, TiVo Inc. has never turned a profit. That's where they "owe their allegience".

Currently TiVo walks a thin line between program providers and viewers. Without profitability TiVo will undoubtedly be sold to a large electronic or media enterprise which will have little incentive to focus on further developing TiVo's unique features.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BillyT2002 said:


> Why don't you read what I wrote again and then direct me to precisely where I stated anything implying that what I like to do is a good option for others.


I was just pointing out that people have different priorities, and the priorities of the general public are what matter rather than the priorities of individuals.



> Frankly if the programming dissappears, I don't care what you or anyone else would do with your freed up time. You asked me specifically what I would do with my freed up time and I told you.


Frankly, I doubt you really think that was what I was even remotely interested in!


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

What I want to know is if any of you people would pay to not have ads: something or someone has to support the Free TV programing, now, the people who can't afford or want a recorder type device are supporting us TiVo watchers. I give up 5 seconds on my cell phone for a ad so I don't have to pay a $1 for information (1-800-FREE411) but I don't need to use use it much. I would, if I had to, pay something a month to get ads out altogether from my TiVo and Cable HD-DVR. They could call it the Ad free TV package for $X/month.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

I would happily pay _something_ for TV that came through with no commercials. Not sure what kind of price point I'd come in at, though. As long as my TiVos can skip the ads, it would be a pretty small number, since pressing ff a couple times per show is no big deal. If my TiVos couldn't skip commericals, then it would be a much bigger number. And count me in as one who thinks she would stop watching TV altogether rather than go back to watching commercials.


----------



## painkiller (Jun 23, 2005)

Free television. Hhhhmmmm.

Let's see if I remember this right.

Commercial advertisements on 'free televison' are supposed to help pay the costs of broadcasting (at least). Usually local channels to each one of us.

Subscribing to cable/satellite still includes a host of more channels that have commercials within their programs - except for those 'premium' channels that we already pay extra for.

So what are we already paying for - if the basic subscription set still includes commercials that fund those particuilar stations? Are we just paying down the cost for the satellite downlink??

Why should we pay more to not get commercials? We have bottomless wallets?
I doubt it would ever happen.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

painkiller said:


> Free television. Hhhhmmmm.
> 
> Let's see if I remember this right.
> 
> ...


The real problem is that let's say they allowed us to pay more not receive advertising. (I'd jump at that too for the shows I wanted to watch). It would only be a matter of time before everyone forgot why they were paying extra and some scumbag advertising executive would get the notion to start showing commercials again and not remove the fee people are currently paying to not see the advertising in the first place. Look at the movie theater industry. You pay $10.00 to get in and watch a movie and you sit through twenty minutes of advertising nevertheless. It's stupid and frankly I don't understand why anyone goes to the movies anymore.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

bicker said:


> I was just pointing out that people have different priorities, and the priorities of the general public are what matter rather than the priorities of individuals.
> 
> Frankly, I doubt you really think that was what I was even remotely interested in!


Aye and there lies the rub, because the way I see it, my priorities are only to me. I really could care less about anyone else and I don't think I'm the only person in the world who feels that way.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

yep. and they are asking 1.99 a pop for shows without commercials that have a resolution only good for an iPod. So they start a resolution capable of being displayed nicely on a regular TV for 1.99 a pop but include ads.

It can happen very easily, but just as sure people will always find ways to skip the ads in whatever medium comes along. Those so inclined will do the work to be able to skip ads while many others will just be looking for the easiest way to watch a show nad be miffed if it is not just on at some time and they have to do something ahead of time to have it available. The lemmings march on


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

At this point, I think that anyone who tries to subject me to advertising in any form places no value on my free time. Therefore if I really want to see the programming, I will use whatever legal means necessary to skip the advertising and still watch the programming. (Not only that, but I make a small mental note of the advertiser and I make sure not to purchase anything from them or any other company which might be affiliated with them). If it gets to the point where I can no longer skip the advertising by any means, then I'll just forgoe the programming. There is nothing on television that is that necessary to me that I just have to see it. There are still other entertainment options out there. I'm sure that there are a lot of other people who think this way.

In my humble opinion, the advertising industry needs to stand up and make note that they are definitely going to lose some of us altogether if they do not adapt their business model(s). It's that plain and simple.

Some of us are definitely not lemmings and we also think out of the box. Unfortunately, our numbers are fewer compared to the rest of the masses.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

BillyT2002 said:


> At this point, I think that anyone who tries to subject me to advertising in any form places no value on my free time. Therefore if I really want to see the programming, I will use whatever legal means necessary to skip the advertising and still watch the programming. (Not only that, but I make a small mental note of the advertiser and I make sure not to purchase anything from them or any other company which might be affiliated with them). If it gets to the point where I can no longer skip the advertising by any means, then I'll just forgoe the programming. There is nothing on television that is that necessary to me that I just have to see it. There are still other entertainment options out there. I'm sure that there are a lot of other people who think this way.
> 
> In my humble opinion, the advertising industry needs to stand up and make note that they are definitely going to lose some of us altogether if they do not adapt their business model(s). It's that plain and simple.
> 
> Some of us are definitely not lemmings and we also think out of the box. Unfortunately, our numbers are fewed compared to the rest of the masses.


Suit yourself.

I find that commercials bother me a lot more when I'm FF'ing through them than when I just let them play. (More than half the time I watch TV in realtime. When I FF it's generally to catch up with realtime rather than eliminate commercials.) Commercials are easy to ignore and they often provide convenient programming breaks.

I like to check out certain commercials anyway, perhaps 10% of the total. I've not bothered to enable TiVo's 30 second skip as easy as it is because I don't care AND because any time there's a power outage it needs to be reset. But mine is a minority opinion.

There may be a real reason (such as a financial commitment from a significant investor if skip isn't officially supported) why TiVo has chosen to be coy with 30 second skip, which almost (?) all other DVR's offer, but if the reason is based on nothing more than executive conjecture IMHO it's a mistake. TiVo should give people what they want as long as its bottom line isn't adversly affected.


----------



## ccooperev (Apr 24, 2001)

To paraphrase Charlton Heston - "They can take my TIVO Fast Forward through commercials when they pry the peanut remote from my *cold dead hand*."


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BillyT2002 said:


> I really could care less about anyone else and I don't think I'm the only person in the world who feels that way.


That's perhaps part of the problem -- part of many problems we have in our society. There used to be an old warrior adage: Know your enemy. In business -- and incidentally, watching television is a business transaction, even though money doesn't change hands between the viewer and the broadcaster directly -- in business, that "know your enemy" adage translates into knowing your customer or knowing your supplier. The more you understand what drives THEM, the better you can use that understanding to drive your relationship to a mutually-advantageous result, and the more you can avoid frustration and disappointment that stem from unfounded expectations on that relationship.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

bicker said:


> Faced with the choice of watching commercials or watching a video game, I'll choose the commercials.


Faced with the choice of watching shows I like for free w/commercials vs. paying to avoid commercials I'd choose the commercials. Even PBS runs commercials these days.


----------



## bferrell (Jun 22, 2005)

And companies like mine are paying to part of the show, either showcasing our products in the story line or at least getting on-screen time. I'm getting pretty close to the limit of what I'm willing to pay for TV, because I watch (and enjoy) very little of what's on. But I very rarely watch anything live, even to the point of doing my errands or web-surfing while the Tivo spools up 20 or 30 minutes of a show, so I can skip the commercials and get something else done with that time. If I need a break, I press the pause button, so the "break" is as long or short as I need.

Brett


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

I see things 180 degrees differently than you bicker. I do not acknowledge that I as the consumer have any permanent relationship with the supplier. To me suppliers come and suppliers go and if they can't do business the way I expect them to as a consumer, then I will no longer do business with them and I will instead seek out a supplier who will see things my way. It's that plain and simple.

I have no care or desire to understand what drives the supplier. All I know is that usually there are multiple choices for suppliers and there is always one who will deliver the good the way you want those good delivered as the consumer. Tha't all I need to know.

I do not care if my relationship with my supplier is advantageous to anyone but me. I assume they must be getting some advantage or they wouldn't take my business in the first place.

I don't get frustrated or dissapointed at all with the supplier. If they are not meeting my needs I change suppliers. If there are no suppliers to change to, then I'm not worried about it, there are still plenty of things to do in life to keep me busy and happy.

When it comes to dealing with corporate America, I have absolutely no loyalties. Plain and simple and it works for me.


----------



## Deacon West (Apr 16, 2006)

MighTiVo said:


> Tell that to my 7 year old and 3 year old that have been watching TiVo all their life.
> The 7 year old can now skip them on his own but the three year old and he used to yell out "TiVo Daddy TiVo" to get me to skip over the commercials for them.
> 
> Using a VCR or the older ReplayTV you even have automatic commercial advance (Man I wish TiVo did that too).
> ...


I'm with you there, my 8 year old does it on her own, and if she and the 4 year old are watching together and the older one forgets to fast forward the commercials, the younger one shouts, "peanut, Daddy, peanut!"  Now that's funny.


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

Ha ha! I love that!


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Personally, I think TIVO should secretly add commercial skip to the software via an SPS code. However, wouldn't the networks have to have a 'signal' in their programming to let TIVO know there was a commercial break coming?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

No. Other incarnations of "commercial skip" work by detecting the solid black frames that come just before and after a commercial break. It's not 100% accurate, but for the most part it does work.

Dan


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> No. Other incarnations of "commercial skip" work by detecting the solid black frames that come just before and after a commercial break. It's not 100% accurate, but for the most part it does work.
> 
> Dan


It works more than half the time, but Commercial Skip on ReplayTV 4500's and 5000's is flakey at best. Sometimes it works seemingly perfectly and then a few hours later on the same channel doesn't work at all. Sometimes it won't work the first time but after you see something you'd like to check out again it works perfectly every time after that. It always works perfectly when there's an interesting commercial I see playing in realtime, and then a few minutes later want to go back to!

ReplayTV's Commercial Skip has one dependable attribute that I dislike intensely. When Commercial Skip is turned off it only affects what is recorded from that time on. Previously recorded commercials are still skipped.

I've turned Commercial Skip off for good.


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

That sounds like what I expected. For me, if it dosen't work perfectly, I don't want to risk using it.

And actually I really don't mind seeing ads in fast forward, because for one, they are paying for it, and for another, I quite often see ones I'm interested in and stuff I wouldn't have known about otherwise.


----------



## tgr131 (May 23, 2001)

The Twit guys were discussing a perfect commercial that 24 fans would love to watch. I thought it was a hilarious idea.

Over the years, we've never seen Jack Bauer eat.

So Jack, right before the commercial break, says, "I'm hungry", and whips into a fast food restaurant. The timer displays, fade to black. Next Scene, Jack walks into to order, and finds a gunman holding up the restaurant. He beats the tar out of the guy, grabs a burger, runs out and jumps back in the car.

Now that's one commercial I would watch.


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

Now THAT would be awesome on so many levels.
We've really never seen the guy eat? Also funny. Guess they all take bathroom breaks off camera too 

I loved that Verizon ad that played immedietly after the opening credits for Angel, where the Verizon guy was literally in the same alley and all that. Pretty awesome (even though I'm not so crazy about Verizon).


----------



## JohnBrowning (Jul 15, 2004)

Puppy76 said:


> That sounds like what I expected. For me, if it dosen't work perfectly, I don't want to risk using it.
> 
> And actually I really don't mind seeing ads in fast forward, because for one, they are paying for it, and for another, I quite often see ones I'm interested in and stuff I wouldn't have known about otherwise.


I'd like to see a real unbiased study of the differences in the message delivery of a commercial to the brain at normal speed versus >>> FF. I contend that I still receive at least 90% of the message at >>> speed as normal - particularly with the repetitive nature of commercial insertion.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

TiVo Troll said:


> > Faced with the choice of watching commercials or watching a video game, I'll choose the commercials.
> 
> 
> Faced with the choice of watching shows I like for free w/commercials vs. paying to avoid commercials I'd choose the commercials.


Yup, I'd agree with that too.



BillyT2002 said:


> I see things 180 degrees differently than you bicker. I do not acknowledge that I as the consumer have any permanent relationship with the supplier. To me suppliers come and suppliers go and if they can't do business the way I expect them to as a consumer, then I will no longer do business with them and I will instead seek out a supplier who will see things my way. It's that plain and simple.


I see nothing wrong with that; I'm not sure what you thought I said to the contrary.



> I have no care or desire to understand what drives the supplier.


Then you'll suffer -- that's all I was saying before. Your satisfaction will simply flap in the wind because you choose to be an uninformed consumer.



> All I know is that usually there are multiple choices for suppliers and there is always one who will deliver the good the way you want those good delivered as the consumer.


Even worse, you have unfounded expectations on the marketplace. Rather than there "always" being "one who will deliver" more often than not all the suppliers deliver the same. That's really the consumer's greatest quandary, that they're subject to go from supplier to supplier to supplier, not being satisfied by any.



> I do not care if my relationship with my supplier is advantageous to anyone but me.


Yet to maximize the extent to which your business relationships are advantageous to you, it is necessary to know more, understand more, and internalize more than just your personal situation.



> When it comes to dealing with corporate America, I have absolutely no loyalties.


You may be surprised how many people object to this when I say the same thing. They claim that the businesses they're doing business with should view them as loyal customers (and some go so far as to claim that they're being maltreated as customers) when in reality they don't understand what these business would perceive of as a "loyal" customer. (In business, a loyal customer is one willing to pay a premium for your product or service -- not just someone who buys a lot of stuff. Buying a lot of stuff on discount doesn't make you a loyal customer.)


----------



## alldidasmc (Jul 19, 2006)

Here are some articles on the subject:
http://newsbusters.org/node/6287
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=45264

I think it is ridiculous, and I actually started a petition against it. I would like to ensure the companies know how we feel BEFORE they try this, as afterward would be too late to stop the forward motion.

I just started it, so please get on the list! http://www.petitiononline.com/DVR2006/petition.html


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

alldidasmc said:


> Here are some articles on the subject:
> http://newsbusters.org/node/6287
> http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=45264
> 
> ...


I am not signing it as *you give the ABC exec ammunition by explicitly stating in the second paragraph that consumers buy DVRs mainly to skip commercials*.
His point is that people really want to and thus anything he can find that proves it will actually help his case.

I think it needs a better wording along the lines of 
"Broadcasters and content providers need to keep their hands off my DVR and let me timeshift and placeshift as needed, further they need to let me watch whatever part of the show I want to and FF/skip whatever part I want to"


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

TiVo Troll said:


> ReplayTV's Commercial Skip has one dependable attribute that I dislike intensely. When Commercial Skip is turned off it only affects what is recorded from that time on. Previously recorded commercials are still skipped.


 Huh? ReplayTV auto commercial skip setting has nothing to do with what gets recorded. All content always gets recorded and at the time of recording some other files get generated along with the mpg file that track video and audio levels (note audio is used in determination as well not just video which is another common misconception). The commercial skip option is simply a playback option that looks at these "helper" files to determine skip points. It's surprsingly accurate most of the time on the 5xxx series. Even when it messes up it's very clear when it fails since a swish is displayed for a second following a skip at which point you can hit the 7-second jump back button and disable CA and continue along your merry viewing way with manual skipping options.

This is the technology that really got me interested in ReplayTV instead of Tivo in the first place and sadly future non-HTPC based DVRs will likely never use again.


----------



## dtreese (May 6, 2005)

ABC can suck it.


----------



## sdzc (Sep 4, 2005)

So were they complaining back in the 80's and 90's when VCR's were around? I do not remember hearing a thing...

Why all of the sudden is is such a problem with DVR's? 

what morons...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

sdzc said:


> So were they complaining back in the 80's and 90's when VCR's were around? I do not remember hearing a thing...
> 
> Why all of the sudden is is such a problem with DVR's?
> 
> what morons...


They did complain, long and loudly. But it didn't come to much. This time, they're right--DVRs will almost certainly mean the end of traditional TV advertising. The major difference is that in the vast majority of cases, VCRs didn't change the way people watched TV (most VCRs were used only to watch rented movies). DVRs do seem to be changing people's viewing habits.

Here's an article that's a bit more insightful and constructive on the issue...

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/...Vo-Effect-Does-the-Web-Have-the-Answers.xhtml


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I am not signing it as *you give the ABC exec ammunition by explicitly stating in the second paragraph that consumers buy DVRs mainly to skip commercials*.
> His point is that people really want to and thus anything he can find that proves it will actually help his case.
> 
> I think it needs a better wording along the lines of
> "Broadcasters and content providers need to keep their hands off my DVR and let me timeshift and placeshift as needed, further they need to let me watch whatever part of the show I want to and FF/skip whatever part I want to"


Yeah, I agree. I'd never sign that. In the first place, it's not true for me. And anyway, I watch MORE commercials since getting my Tivo, not less. WAY more commercials, as do the other members of my household. If I was stopped from fast forwarding, I'd probably just quit watching TV, but certainlly I'd see far fewer ads as I would just leave until I got control of my own system back.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The major difference is that in the vast majority of cases, VCRs didn't change the way people watched TV (most VCRs were used only to watch rented movies). DVRs do seem to be changing people's viewing habits.


A lot of that has to do with the fact that the technology is simply _better_. Skipping commercials using a VCR was a chore. Even today, compare skipping commercials with the Motorola 64xx/34xx DVRs versus with pure TiVos. If all the broadcasters had to worry about were more DVRs like that Motorola 64xx/34xx, then there wouldn't be much to worry about. However, the TiVos are so far superior in that regard that it becomes a legitimate consideration.


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

My VCRs skipped commercials just fine, and jumped back a few seconds just like Tivo.

But I didn't see nearly as many commercials as with Tivo, because for one, the image wasn't as clear when fast forwarding, and also I didn't want to wear out the mechanism by going back to the start of a commercial.

With Tivo though I do that regularly (plus can see the commercials just fine in FF anyway).


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ccooperev said:


> To paraphrase Charlton Heston - "They can take my TIVO Fast Forward through commercials when they pry the peanut remote from my *cold dead hand*."


I thought it was
*"get your paws off my TiVo, you D_mn, Dirty ABC"*


----------

