# you've been sold out for $20,000



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

I haven't seen any discussion of this AP article:

More ads coming to TV _ even to one-time havens

The shocking thing to me was this sentence:

*One ad buyer was told by TiVo that a "pause" ad costs $20,000 a week with exposure on 15 programs.*

So there you go. Your eyeballs are being sold for peanuts.

And, just so you know this is the shape of things to come:

*"We were once a foe of the networks, now we've become a friend," said Tara Maitra, TiVo's general manager of content services and ad sales. "We're working with the industry ... to get users to engage in a world increasingly equipped to fast-forward through commercials."*


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I haven't seen any discussion of this AP article:


because not one bit of it is really news to most here. Yes, we have pause ads, yes TiVo wants to embrace content owners/providers and yes with just 2 million standalones the ad revenue does not even get a line item on SEC filings. Old news and YAAT 

oh and the new places were the cable companies getting in on the act

"For instance, Time Warner Cable Inc. is layering another ad on top of a TV commercial in order to keep the viewer engaged past the 30-second spot. In several markets, Time Warner Cable subscribers watching a Big O Tires commercial might see a banner from the company pop up at the bottom of the screen, telling them to push a button on the remote control for more information. Then pushing another button would let them request a coupon in the mail."

"Cablevision Systems Corp. has been adding advertiser-specific video-on-demand channels over the years and now has nine, including one dedicated to Walt Disney Co. People who tune in can watch videos of Disney theme parks, order a free DVD featuring Disney vacation locales and ask a customer service agent to call. Cablevision found that Disney ads snagged 7 to 10 minutes of viewers' attention - a long time compared to 30-second TV commercials."

in short ads, like these stupid threads, are inevitable.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

There's *plenty* of news here. First, the insignificant revenue involved; second the clear statement of direction on TiVo's part.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 1, 2007)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> There's *plenty* of news here. First, the insignificant revenue involved; second the clear statement of direction on TiVo's part.


No - none of it is news.

The revenue amount may sound low, but remember TiVo has a pretty small installed base. While Google (or a regular TV 30-second spot) will cost a much larger amount, they have audiences thousands of times larger.

And if this is the first time you've seen a statement from TiVo that they are actively working with advertisers and networks, then you just haven't been paying attention.


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

Unless my calculator is broken $20,000 a week works out to over $1,000,000 a year. Doesn't sound like insignificant revenue if they can eventually sell multiple adds a week for the whole year.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Well not exactly sold out, I could win an XL unit - http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=431026


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

LifeIsABeach said:


> Unless my calculator is broken $20,000 a week works out to over $1,000,000 a year. Doesn't sound like insignificant revenue if they can eventually sell multiple adds a week for the whole year.


So for a piddling $1 million it's OK to alienate your customers? (That's rhetorical, TiVo has already decided YES!)

TiVo could be making so much more money in other, less intrusive, ways. For example, Nielsen Media Research makes piles of money selling information about television viewership. I'd be much more willing to participate in that (on an opt-in basis) than to have ads for "bands" and "mascara" and whatever else I'm forgetting constantly shoved in my face (and the GUI degraded). Why hasn't TiVo been able to "monetize" their box better (yes I know they have tried)? Nielsen *pays* (me) for the information. Instead, I *pay* Tivo!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> TiVo could be making so much more money in other, less intrusive, ways. For example, Nielsen Media Research makes piles of money selling information about television viewership. I'd be much more willing to participate in that (on an opt-in basis)


You have not been paying attention then - this also has been around for a couple of years. Admit it, you just want to ***** about the ads some more. Fine in itself but at least do not act like we have no idea what is going on.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Nielsen *pays* (me) for the information. Instead, I *pay* Tivo!


Cool, how much does Nielson pay you? Does it offset the cost of your TiVo sub?


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Admit it, you just want to ***** about the ads some more. Fine in itself but at least do not act like we have no idea what is going on.


If you go and read my old posts (not that you should, there is only a finite amount of time before the heat death of the universe), you will see that I ***** about a lot of things, including ads, but I haven't *****ed all that much about them. Looks like my last snide remark about ads was over 2 months ago. So I don't think its fair to say I'm *****ing "some more".

You knew that TiVo was selling us out for a mere $20,000? They're willing to alienate the vast majority of their subscribers in return for chump change?

Kind of reminds me of when there is corruption exposed in politicians and judges. The amounts are often so small: $100, $1000, etc. They commit felonies for chump change.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

daveak said:


> Cool, how much does Nielson pay you? Does it offset the cost of your TiVo sub?


That was phrased poorly. I edited my post to add a sentence, so was in a hurry.

Nielsen doesn't pay me. My point is that viewing information is so valuable that there are companies that have created successful business collecting that information. They make enough money that they can afford to pay people for that information. OTOH I pay TiVo plenty each month and yet still have to suffer through more and more advertising, that becomes more and more intrusive.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

None of this had impacted the functionality of my TiVo, so it doesn't bother me. I say "good for TiVo".


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> So there you go. Your eyeballs are being sold for peanuts.[/b]


Not really. TiVo has about 1.5 million subs. That is about same size as Denver TV market. I can buy a lot of TV time on major network affiliates for $20,000
I don't know what programs TiVo will put your pause ads on, but even if all of them are prime-time it is not a bargain.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> ...viewing information is so valuable that there are companies that have created successful business collecting that information.


Including TiVo. They've been selling their Stop|Watch service for 3 years now. And yet, they remain barely (if at all) profitable .


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

If you "Hate"(My words, not yours) the ads, why don't you switch to a different DVR maker? 

Why not Moxi? No ads!(That's what I'm doing(At least for my main DVR)


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

How about having two service tiers: one subsidized and one NOT.

Software often works that way. TV works that way HBO vs and Ad supported network.
That way it would become apparent how many people prefer which service.

DVDs kind of piss me off because you often can't skip their startup crap.
Is there a difference between rented DVDs and purchased DVDs?


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

Quite frankly, as long as the ad doesn't come over moving program, I could give a rat's [email protected]@. Almost all the time I freeze an image, it's because I need to pause watching a show to do something else. Let them put up an ad then, if it helps keep them in business and keeps their subscription rates lower. There are two conditions. I need to be able to clear it off the screen while still frozen. And when the graphics start coming in the TV shows as they are playing, then I'm really pissed.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)




----------



## JohnBrowning (Jul 15, 2004)

The pissin' and moanin' about ad continues... Nothing has changed and the whining really gets old...


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

I don't give a **** about the ads....so they haven't alienated me.

You know what WOULD alienate me? GOING OUT OF BUSINESS.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> They're willing to alienate the vast majority of their subscribers in return for chump change?


[citation needed]



Enrique said:


> If you "Hate"(My words, not yours) the ads, why don't you switch to a different DVR maker?
> 
> Why not Moxi? No ads!(That's what I'm doing(At least for my main DVR)


Moxi ONLY does digital cable, no OTA, no analog cable without an adapter... and AFAIK, only one analog station at a time. Moxi is also about the same price as a Tivo with lifetime subscription, at least counting the discounted lifetime for owners who already have a Tivo and/or recent promos (e.g. Father's day I think).

Don't get me wrong, I *like* more competition, and the pause ads slightly bug me... But there are lots of things that bug me WAY more about Tivo (like features I would pay extra money for, even though I have lifetime subscription).

But even saying that, it pretty much "just works", unlike many other DVRs.. (I personally haven't used Moxi, but even though I currently am using digital cable on ONE of my Tivos, I want the _option_ of using OTA & analog cable.)


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

mattack said:


> Moxi ONLY does digital cable,no analog cable without an adapter... and AFAIK, only one analog station at a time. Moxi is also about the same price as a Tivo with lifetime subscription, at least counting the discounted lifetime for owners who already have a Tivo and/or recent promos (e.g. Father's day I think).
> 
> But even saying that, it pretty much "just works", unlike many other DVRs.. (I personally haven't used Moxi, but even though I currently am using digital cable on ONE of my Tivos, I want the _option_ of using OTA & analog cable.)


I thought it only supporting 1 analog tuner(With the adapter) was going to be a problem, but when I looked into what my cable co offered in digital only and analog only, I found I was able to balance it out, So I would say to go through all your SPs and take a look if you can too(If your looking into Moxi ).

And Now that it supports SDV, Time Warner Cable(And many other Cable Co's) Simulcast all of their analog channels in digital and now I have access to them.

I don't use OTA, but if that's important to you then that will be a problem.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> You knew that TiVo was selling us out for a mere $20,000?


You keep saying "mere $20,000". It's 20K a week. Would you feel better if they were selling you out for one million a year? How about $120 an hour? Better or worse?



Phantom Gremlin said:


> They're willing to alienate the *vast majority *of their subscribers in return for chump change?


Vast majority? I'm willing to bet the vast majority don't even know about it. As an experiment, I just asked my wife if she noticed the change in the pause screen. She had no idea what I meant. I paused her TiVo (yes, we think of them as mine and hers ), and showed her the banner ad. She'd never really paid any notice to it, she said.

Us TCF'ers tend to get all excited about everything TiVo--good, bad or ugly. The rest of the TiVo world--not so much.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Enrique said:


> If you "Hate"(My words, not yours) the ads, why don't you switch to a different DVR maker?
> 
> Why not Moxi? No ads!(That's what I'm doing(At least for my main DVR)


I don't trust Paul Allen. Moxi operates at his whim. He's run a number of companies into the ground, the largest being Charter Communications.

Those of us in Oregon had to suffer through his "loony" behavior with the Rose Garden (home of the Trailblazers, which he also owns). He tried to screw the bondholders, then lost control of the arena, then whined that he was the only basketball owner who didn't control his arena. Then he went through a period (or maybe it was a charade) where he threatened to sell the basketball team because of the situation.

That's the beauty of being a billionaire. You get to act eccentric.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

samo said:


> I don't know what programs TiVo will put your pause ads on, but even if all of them are prime-time it is not a bargain.


I really hate the pause ads, because I constantly pause programs, often to see what's on the screen. That's what has me upset. They're much worse than the previous ads. TiVo is way down the "slippery slope".

OTOH previously I've watched a few ads for upcoming movies, upcoming TV shows, BMWs, etc. But now I will make sure *never* to watch another ad on TiVo again.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

astrohip said:


> You keep saying "mere $20,000". It's 20K a week. Would you feel better if they were selling you out for one million a year? How about $120 an hour? Better or worse?


How about they sell me out for enough money to eliminate the monthly fee? That would be better. Then, I would still be willing to pay a lifetime fee to avoid all ads for the lifetime of the box!

Maybe that's the real source of my anger. I bought into TiVo nearly a decade ago because it was a superior product. At the time AT&T (my cable company) had just infested their STBs with ads. TiVo was a breath of fresh air, definitely worth paying for. But now they continue to devalue their brand for peanuts.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Okay, my last post talked about what a "superior" product the TiVo was previously. Kind of like the cult of the Mac and the cult of the iPod, both of which I also own, and both of which are still superior products.

What if an Apple software update pushed ads into your Finder? What if, every time you paused a song on your iPod, it displayed an ad?

You wouldn't stand for it. And yet, I pay much more every month for my TiVos then I pay for updates to my Mac software or iPod software. Where is my premium experience?


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I don't trust Paul Allen. Moxi operates at his whim. He's run a number of companies into the ground, the largest being Charter Communications.


Then it seems like your out of luck(Other then going with Moxi or your Cable co's DVR(Which most suck) or switching providers and going with DirecTV or Dish(As I don't see Tivo going back on this).

I do hope Tivo adds the option of not having them(Like a tiered services or something)

Good luck in whatever you decide.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> But now I will make sure *never* to watch another ad on TiVo again.


ooh, yet more shattering news. 

BTW - Saying Moxi does not have ads is kind of like saying my home videos do not have ads. Give Moxi enough eyeballs and they will be selling ads with the rest of them.

oh and I suppose you have canceled all those extended channels and gone back to basic cable. Used to be they were ad free, but now they all devalued themselves with ads.

PS - you paid for the content on your iPod. You do not pay for the content you record from a broadcaster. The ads pay for them and any TV tech will need to deal with ads or no content or pay a heck of a lot more content. I vote for ads since it spreads the cost of content out over stuff I decide to buy versus having to decide if I will spring money directly for some new series on TV


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

My cable bill begs to differ with your comment about paying for content.

I don't have a problem with ads until they interfere with the viewing experience, and/or take up too much screen real estate while navigatiing through the menus and guide. Right now it's not a problem, but it very well could be in future. The analogy's been made before, it's like putting a frog in a pot of water and slowly bringing it to a boil. Hopefully it won't get hot enough for us to jump out.


----------



## bmgoodman (Dec 20, 2000)

JohnBrowning said:


> The pissin' and moanin' about ad continues... Nothing has changed and the whining really gets old...


Why don't you treat the "pissin' and moanin" threads exactly as you feel everybody should treat Tivo ads? Just ignore them completely, without comment or complaint, no matter how many there are or where they appear?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> My cable bill begs to differ with your comment about paying for content.


Time warner cable nor comcast nor DirectTV nor none of the others make or own any significant content. Yes there are some charges for carriage but they are not significant amounts for the content *creators*. In short your TV bill is for the infrastructure and services from the broadcaster and not the content.

Does anyone seriously think Ads are not the significant revenue for the people who create the content?

If there is not a way to generate that revenue for the content creators then your viewing experience will be significantly interfered with. The article linked to is all about that point and how the broadcasters are now also coming on board with the approach TiVo has already taken of delivering the ads in an alternative way to the 30 sec spot that more and more people are getting the ability to just skip over.


----------



## wedenton (Jun 13, 2002)

bmgoodman said:


> Why don't you treat the "pissin' and moanin" threads exactly as you feel everybody should treat Tivo ads? Just ignore them completely, without comment or complaint, no matter how many there are or where they appear?


Well said!


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

bmgoodman said:


> Why don't you treat the "pissin' and moanin" threads exactly as you feel everybody should treat Tivo ads? Just ignore them completely, without comment or complaint, no matter how many there are or where they appear?


How else is common sense going to reach you? You can't avoid it no matter how hard you try, it's out there.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Time warner cable nor comcast nor DirectTV nor none of the others make or own any significant content. Yes there are some charges for carriage but they are not significant amounts for the content *creators*. In short your TV bill is for the infrastructure and services from the broadcaster and not the content.


ESPN has, what 90mil+ subscribers? And gets about $4/month per sub? You do the math.


----------



## haansgruber (Aug 6, 2009)

No matter how much you give them. It will never be enough. They have no conscience, they have no morals. The corporation "mantra" is profits! Television, for all intents and purposes IS to brainwash (although mind pollute is more accurate). I tend to agree with the people who want the service they pay for, and not some sold out to the media conglomerates. The best way to cast your vote is at the end of the year when the subscription expires don't renew. Build yourself a linux machine and "Tivo" your own television. You lose the little mascot and the pretty channel guide GUI. But, you take back control ....... and add savings of those adorable little printed freemason portraits while you're at it. The only message they understand is, you may do it, but, you are not going to do it to me. I am in the process of building a "Tivo" from open source linux. Tivo can add anything they want but, not in my house. When the subscription ends, it's over! Bye-bye Tivo! That's my vote!

peace,

haans


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> ESPN has, what 90mil+ subscribers? And gets about $4/month per sub? You do the math.


Professional football does not license its games for free- your Math is missing a few rather large variables. But sure try and claim that ads are just secondary revenue to the cable bill - really lets people see where you are coming from 

haansgruber - nice troll try but if TV is seen as so bad as you see it, a rational person would not spend any time or resources on it.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 1, 2007)

haansgruber said:


> I tend to agree with the people who want the service they pay for


Then they should be prepared to pay a fair price for it.

But that's not what we have. When TiVo try to increase their revenue stream without raising end-user prices all we hear is endless whining about the fact. The alternative, of course, would be TiVo raising their subscription prices. Do you really think that would be a more popular solution? It's been bad enough with all the complaints about TiVo not transferring lifetime service from units over four years old; I can't even imagine what it would be like if TiVo raised monthly rates enough to break even without alternative income sources.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Professional football does not license its games for free- your Math is missing a few rather large variables. But sure try and claim that ads are just secondary revenue to the cable bill - really lets people see where you are coming from


I never claimed that, just pointing out that your blanket statement that 'we don't pay for content we record' is patently false, as is evident by the amount of money paid to ESPN (for example) every month. That money goes directly towards paying rights fees to the NFL, SEC, etc. just as you indicated. If those fees were not paid, ESPN would not deliver that content to my Tivo. Cable and sat co's complain every year that the price we pay rises faster than inflation primarily because of the increasing cost of sports.

Unfortunately, that also means that millions of people pay for content they don't give a damn about, but that's a subject for another thread.


----------



## kingkong316 (Jul 13, 2008)

LifeIsABeach said:


> Unless my calculator is broken $20,000 a week works out to over $1,000,000 a year. Doesn't sound like insignificant revenue if they can eventually sell multiple adds a week for the whole year.


The above poster is exactly right. And is a good thing.

Lets make this simple. More ad revenue means more money to invest into user services which attract more users which increases revenue. See a pattern? Good for Tivo means good for the users.

Tell you what. I bet all major PC manufactors get some money to preinstall those programs you are never going to use. You either deal with it or build your own.

Those of you *****ing. Make your own PVR. Your in control.

But thanks for giving the chance to talk about revenue steams, ROI, and marketing techniques.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> Unfortunately, that also means that millions of people pay for content they don't give a damn about, but that's a subject for another thread.


Unless I am mistaken, lrhorer seems to have this concept wrapped up with the opposing view for the suggestion to having hulu on tivo: http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=402810

I'll readily admit that I pretty much live in ignorance pertaining to such things, as I imagine most folks do as well. I found the comments an interesting read.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> I never claimed that, just pointing out that your blanket statement that 'we don't pay for content we record' is patently false


sports is a special case of really being expensive content and getting worse all the time. That is also a different thread.

However you know full well my main contention is that ads are the significant source of revenue that pays for the creation of the bulk of the content we record from a broadcaster. eliminate ads and the amount and quality of content will decrease dramatically. That is a simple economic fact of the business model. If you want to argue the real point then let me know otherwise you are just throwing up straw man arguments that have no significant relevance.


----------



## kmill14 (Dec 11, 2006)

Phantom, do you get upset at TV stations like TNT for putting up big banner ads that cover the lower 3rd of your TV a few times every hour?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> sports is a special case of really being expensive content and getting worse all the time. That is also a different thread.
> 
> However you know full well my main contention is that ads are the significant source of revenue that pays for the creation of the bulk of the content we record from a broadcaster. eliminate ads and the amount and quality of content will decrease dramatically. That is a simple economic fact of the business model. If you want to argue the real point then let me know otherwise you are just throwing up straw man arguments that have no significant relevance.


OK, here's another 'straw man'  - HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz, TMC. No ads, you just pay for what you record.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

orangeboy said:


> Unless I am mistaken, lrhorer seems to have this concept wrapped up with the opposing view for the suggestion to having hulu on tivo: http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=402810


You are mistaken in this particular case (ESPN etc.), because hulu has nothing to do with sports. Internet sports video, so far, consists mostly of prerecorded content with very few live broadcast feeds. espn360.com and mlb.com's subscription services are a notable exception, but the content is poor quality compared to the HD feeds we get on cable today.

The 'other thread' argument I was talking about is paying for channels a la carte instead of in large blocks, so the people that don't want sports don't have to subsidize the people that do. Internet streams might be an alternative for sports one day, but it's not happening anytime soon IMO.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> OK, here's another 'straw man'  - HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz, TMC. No ads, you just pay for what you record.


and they run a boatload of movies that have already been through Theater/PPV/DVD sales cycle. Or they release original content knowing they can also do the DVD sales/rental cycle. Indeed you have come up with another strawman. We are talking Televison show broadcast here not movie channels.

Again you are not disproving the central contention that without ad revenue - the bulk of the _original_ content would not be created or else people would be paying a whole lot more for it. (like they already do with movies, would you want to be directly billed 10$ for every 2 hours of say "Dark Blue")

Let me know when you want to actually debate the real issue.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

astrohip said:


> You keep saying "mere $20,000". It's 20K a week. Would you feel better if they were selling you out for one million a year? How about $120 an hour? Better or worse?....


Conversation between a man and a woman:

Man: "Would you make love to me for ten million dollars?"

Woman: "Sure!!!"

Man: "How about for twenty-five cents?"

Woman: "Who do you think I am?!!!!!"

Man: "We've already determined that, now we're haggling price."


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

haansgruber said:


> Greed = It's never enough No matter how much you give them. It will never be enough. They have no conscience, they have no morals. The corporation "mantra" is profits!


Dude, greed is what drives capitalism. We are a capitalistic nation. While that may sound bad on the surface, think of where we'd be if were were like the old Soviet Union. No capitalism - no greed. Also, no TiVos or anything like that.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

I've been meaning to dump cable for a while now due to lack of decent HD. 

I've been considering DirecTV. These ads may just make me make the switch when my TiVo sub runs out early next year.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Let me know when you want to actually debate the real issue.


Let me know when you want to acknowledge that, contrary to what you stated, we do pay for *some* content that we record, with or without ads.


----------



## bmgoodman (Dec 20, 2000)

Raj said:


> I've been meaning to dump cable for a while now due to lack of decent HD.
> 
> I've been considering DirecTV. These ads may just make me make the switch when my TiVo sub runs out early next year.


When I guy with nearly 24,000 posts here makes such a statement, I can only hope that Tivo will weigh his words carefully.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> Let me know when you want to acknowledge that, contrary to what you stated, we do pay for *some* content that we record, with or without ads.


the *some* is small and not relevant to the point made at all.

This is pretty typical for these "I hate ads" threads however. A bunch of irrelevant junk that constantly avoids the main point of how a free market economy works.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

bmgoodman said:


> When I guy with nearly 24,000 posts here makes such a statement, I can only hope that Tivo will weigh his words carefully.


Point. And if TiVo is weighing this thread, those complaining about the ads are outnumbered about 4 to 1. With a total of 30,103 combined posts between those who are complaining and a total combined post count of 53,365 of those who don't really seem to care.

Looking at the total post counts, it is close to 2 to 1 against those who dislike the ads.

Examining these numbers, you could easily suppose that those who are against the ads have a tendency to just post more often than those who do not care and/ or have been members of the forum for a longer time.

You could also assume they are just more vocal about things than those that do not care so much and are posting at a lower rate... Of course you know what happens when you assume...

And what does all this really mean? Depends on how you use the numbers... 

Maybe the only thing we can say for sure is that those complaining about the ads post more than average on this forum and may also be older members.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

zalusky said:


> How about having two service tiers: one subsidized and one NOT.
> 
> Software often works that way. TV works that way HBO vs and Ad supported network.
> That way it would become apparent how many people prefer which service.
> ...


I do not think we will see this anytime soon. I think if TiVo offered a free ad-based service, the vast majority of their subs would take it. I also think it would cheapen their 'brand' (though I understand how some of you think the ads do the same thing).

The ad revenue currently generated probably would not replace the sub revenue lost if a free service tier was available (I would suspect most subs would jump at a chance for 'free' service). When there is suitable revenue to replace the estimated loss from subs choosing an ad-supported service - then maybe we will see it.

And then what to do about the lifetimers?

I, for one, would jump at a 'free' sub.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 1, 2007)

Raj said:


> I've been meaning to dump cable for a while now due to lack of decent HD.
> 
> I've been considering DirecTV.


you might want to take a close look at the picture quality before you switch.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

daveak said:


> I do not think we will see this anytime soon. I think if TiVo offered a free ad-based service, the vast majority of their subs would take it. I also think it would cheapen their 'brand' (though I understand how some of you think the ads do the same thing).
> 
> The ad revenue currently generated probably would not replace the sub revenue lost if a free service tier was available (I would suspect most subs would jump at a chance for 'free' service). When there is suitable revenue to replace the estimated loss from subs choosing an ad-supported service - then maybe we will see it.
> 
> ...


The assumption is either you think can use technology to beat the ads (which is one of the original DVR premises) or you don't mind watching the ads.

However what if in the free sub model you could setup season passes and use the guide but you were prevented from fast forwarding. Would you still go for the free sub model?

I prefer reasonable pay to play. Netflix, HBO, ... I would even pay to some extent for the main networks. Ofcourse the big problem is cable/sat makes me pay for channels I don't want.

However as more and more stuff is now streamed, we might reach a point where the DVR is only a buffering device. Who needs a guide.

Tivo needs to step up to a super guide that is customizable, faster and works with direct streaming or even pay add free network streaming services (not just movies).


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

zalusky said:


> The assumption is either you think can use technology to beat the ads (which is one of the original DVR premises) or you don't mind watching the ads.
> 
> However what if in the free sub model you could setup season passes and use the guide but you were prevented from fast forwarding. Would you still go for the free sub model?


I skip at least 90% of all ads. Sometimes something will actually catch my eye and I want to see it. The banner ads do not seem obtrusive to me. On the current ad model, I would take a free service. If I lost the ability to 30 sec skip - well then I would reconsider (the 30 sec skip feature is probably one of the best features). I actually like to see some of the banner ads 'targeted' at me (though where do they get the idea I need a belly band and vibrating mascara?).

As you suggest, it is all a matter of what you are willing to pay for vs what you are willing to put up with. Though I must say, I probably would have been a TiVo user sooner - if not for the subscription (something for nothing...), but now that I have TiVo and really like the service - I do not mind that it cost me money. And I am a new enough user that I really do not know a time without some sort of ad.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Maybe TiVo should always make the first year service free?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

daveak said:


> I skip at least 90% of all ads. Sometimes something will actually catch my eye and I want to see it. The banner ads do not seem obtrusive to me. On the current ad model, I would take a free service. If I lost the ability to 30 sec skip - well then I would reconsider (the 30 sec skip feature is probably one of the best features). I actually like to see some of the banner ads 'targeted' at me (though where do they get the idea I need a belly band and vibrating mascara?).
> 
> As you suggest, it is all a matter of what you are willing to pay for vs what you are willing to put up with. Though I must say, I probably would have been a TiVo user sooner - if not for the subscription (something for nothing...), but now that I have TiVo and really like the service - I do not mind that it cost me money. And I am a new enough user that I really do not know a time without some sort of ad.


What I think Tivo should do is get into smart ads. IE work with the networks and use their suggestion skills to develop knowledge of the kinds of ads you actually watch and target you in that direction. I have to believe the ad companies would prefer to not blast out their ads to people who are not interested as well. Google basically does that by watching what you search for and presenting related ad content.

The networks really work with Tivo and experiment in this space.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> you might want to take a close look at the picture quality before you switch.


On the MPEG4? I heard that the MPEG4 feeds were fine.

3 per QAM on cable, lots of blocky pixellation during high motion scenes... I think DirecTV is a bit better.

I should clarify here - my beef is half with TiVo and half with the cable company.

About the cable company - The cable company has around 50 HD channels, but has the ones I watch the most. However, the quality on some are awful.

About TiVo - I think that TiVo is a pretty decent product.

Let me start with the positives. I like the idea of netflix, podcasts, HME apps and all the other little extras. I like the DVR mechanism in that my recordings don't get missed. I like the look and feel of the S3. I like the ability to download via TiVo desktop and other HME apps.

What I don't like - abandonment/orphaning of the higher end series 3 in favor of the "for the masses" TiVo HD, the pause ads, no PiP in the guide window, and the whole switcheroo with lifetime subs they did a few years ago (where they stopped offering them only to offer them later on.)

I do think though that big, intrusive pause ads will kill it for me. At that point I have to wonder why I'm paying monthly for a unit that bombards me with ads every time I pause.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Raj said:


> On the MPEG4? I heard that the MPEG4 feeds were fine.
> 
> 3 per QAM on cable, lots of blocky pixellation during high motion scenes... I think DirecTV is a bit better.
> 
> ...


Hi Raj,
About PQ on DirecTV. It is excellent on my 65 inch LCD. If you like PPV, you can get it in 1080P and I can't tell the difference between HD PPV on DirecTV and Blue-ray. DirecTV has now what they call "on-demand". You can watch about 4500 titles downloaded from internet and (in public beta, but ready to be released very soon) streaming MRV that allows you to watch your recordings on any DVR or non-DVR receiver in a house. Of course $6/month subscription fee for as many DVRs as you want is a big plus. Free HD DVR and installation with 2 year commitment for the new users is just the icing on the cake.
If your cable company sucks, DirecTV is a way to go for HD programming.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

zalusky said:


> What I think Tivo should do is get into smart ads. IE work with the networks and use their suggestion skills to develop knowledge of the kinds of ads you actually watch and target you in that direction. I have to believe the ad companies would prefer to not blast out their ads to people who are not interested as well. Google basically does that by watching what you search for and presenting related ad content.
> 
> The networks really work with Tivo and experiment in this space.


This would be very welcome. One reason I resent the pause ads is they are so irrelevant to my interests. If they could at least tailor them to the program being watched, that would be so much better. E.g. if I pause an F1 race, have the ad be for a BMW or some similar car. If I pause Poker After Dark, then make the ad something to do with poker! That makes much more sense than the inane ads they now have.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> This would be very welcome. One reason I resent the pause ads is they are so irrelevant to my interests. If they could at least tailor them to the program being watched, that would be so much better. E.g. if I pause an F1 race, have the ad be for a BMW or some similar car. If I pause Poker After Dark, then make the ad something to do with poker! That makes much more sense than the inane ads they now have.


TiVo can do that - it is the very technology they developed and are looking to sell to others, like they have to Comcast already. The problem for TiVo is they do not have quite the number of users that Google does so they do not have thousands of various advertisers to hand to do any actual directed advertising.


----------



## islander (Sep 15, 2002)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I really hate the pause ads, because I constantly pause programs, often to see what's on the screen. That's what has me upset. They're much worse than the previous ads. TiVo is way down the "slippery slope".


Just do what I did and get in the habit of hitting "PAUSE" followed immediately by "CLEAR."

It'll become second nature for you pretty soon, and you'll never see the ads.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Or program a universal remote to send pause/clear. Much better, I never liked seeing the progress bar on pause anyway.


----------



## awesomeness (Jul 28, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Then they should be prepared to pay a fair price for it.
> 
> But that's not what we have. When TiVo try to increase their revenue stream without raising end-user prices all we hear is endless whining about the fact. The alternative, of course, would be TiVo raising their subscription prices. Do you really think that would be a more popular solution? It's been bad enough with all the complaints about TiVo not transferring lifetime service from units over four years old; I can't even imagine what it would be like if TiVo raised monthly rates enough to break even without alternative income sources.


Is TiVo bloated?

There are alternative HD DVR's that are profitable without a monthly fee.

If TiVo can not make a profit after charging $400 more than a DTV PAL HD DVR, then TiVo may be doomed. If TiVo needs to change the terms of service and force new advertising on customers just so TiVo can survive, then TiVo is in worse condition than anyone thinks.

I see a greedy company that is selling a crippled product.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

I see a bitter troll.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Kablemodem said:


> I see a bitter troll.


Wow! What a snappy retort! How long did it take you to think of that one?

Since you insist on a "medieval" comment, here's one for you. You remind me of Smeagol: "I'm not listening... I'm not listening..."

I'm really getting tired of the "troll" responses from the brainwashed TiVo fanboys whenever anyone dares to suggest how TiVo could change/improve.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Wow! What a snappy retort! How long did it take you to think of that one?
> 
> Since you insist on a "medieval" comment, here's one for you. You remind me of Smeagol: "I'm not listening... I'm not listening..."
> 
> I'm really getting tired of the "troll" responses from the brainwashed TiVo fanboys whenever anyone dares to suggest how TiVo could change/improve.


In what way did "awesomeness" make a suggestion that could make Tivo change/improve?



awesomeness said:


> I will go with the DTV PAL DVR. Should be just as good at recording what I want.
> 
> If anyone from TiVo reads this, you really messed up. You drove a customer away.


"awesomeness" doesn't have a Tivo. Being a "Tivo Community Forum", I believe "awesomeness" fits the role of a troll to a T.

Definition of community


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

orangeboy said:


> In what way did "awesomeness" make a suggestion that could make Tivo change/improve?


I don't want to pick his post apart sentence by sentence. But let's look at something he said early on:



awesomeness said:


> There are alternative HD DVR's that are profitable without a monthly fee.


I'm willing to pay monthly (or lifetime). But there are a lot of people who have made the same point as "awesomeness". They don't like paying monthly fees. I think that's a legitimate suggestion. He's goes on to suggest that TiVo's box isn't worth $400 more than a DTV PAL. I think that's also a reasonable observation (and in a roundabout way a suggestion for lower prices).

Also, since you didn't ask, I'll make a suggestion as to how to fix TiVo: *Where the f*** does all the money go?* IMO it's very important for a small company to spend money carefully, but TiVo doesn't seem to. TiVo's awful marketing comes to mind, but they must be wasting the money elsewhere as well.

This is not a simple issue, but it must be solved. IMO the only reason TiVo is still "alive" today is they won their lawsuit with Dish. But recent PTO developments have cast some questions on how much more money there is to be had from patents.

I think TiVo's business model is fundamentally broken, and it's not going to be fixed by selling irrelevant PAUSE ads for $20,000. IMO that just alienates a lot of people without bringing in much money. Which is why I made the original post.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

I'd imagine a lot of the revenue goes to finance debt, but I don't follow the stock so I don't really know.


----------



## TrueTurbo (Feb 19, 2008)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I think TiVo's business model is fundamentally broken, and it's not going to be fixed by selling irrelevant PAUSE ads for $20,000. IMO that just alienates a lot of people without bringing in much money. Which is why I made the original post.


I'm pretty sure I speak for thousands of TiVo customers when I say that adds DON'T alienate me! Get over it. Learn to ignore the adds. They don't detract in any way from the core TiVo experience. If you find a 'pause' add blocking your view, just hit the damned 'clear' button. It's not hard.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

I don't get the outrage over the pause ads. If you pause a show, isn't it usually because you have to do something else and don't want to miss any of the show? If that's the case then you aren't even looking at the tv. If you paused to focus on a particular item on screen and the ad is blocking your view, press the Down or Clear button. The ads aren't even that prevalent. If I understand correctly, there is only one ad being run at a time and it only shows up on 15 specific programs. There are thousands of shows on tv. You do the math.



awesomeness said:


> There are alternative HD DVR's that are profitable without a monthly fee.


If the ads are that offensive, people need to stop crying about it and take action. Find one of those alternative DVR's and enjoy it. Or do this many people just enjoy being angry and miserable.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I don't want to pick his post apart sentence by sentence. But let's look at something he said early on:
> 
> I'm willing to pay monthly (or lifetime). But there are a lot of people who have made the same point as "awesomeness". They don't like paying monthly fees. I think that's a legitimate suggestion. He's goes on to suggest that TiVo's box isn't worth $400 more than a DTV PAL. I think that's also a reasonable observation (and in a roundabout way a suggestion for lower prices).
> 
> ...


You obviously did not read and understand the definition of community I provided.

None of this makes sense. The "suggestion" of not paying monthly fees is ludicrous. Will you be trying that with the electric company, phone company, and gas company next? If so, good luck with that. 

And I'm not sure what suggestion to Tivo this is: "*Where the f*** does all the money go?*" How does that improve Tivo? Do you understand what a suggestion is? You've expressed your opinions with statements and questions, but made absolutely no suggestions.

I regret participating in this thread that was obviously started to incite controversy, with "news" that Tivo is doing, and has been doing, what they said they would do in their Service Agreement. With that being said, I will not continue to feed this proven troll.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

orangeboy said:


> You obviously did not read and understand the definition of community I provided.
> 
> None of this makes sense. The "suggestion" of not paying monthly fees is ludicrous. Will you be trying that with the electric company, phone company, and gas company next? If so, good luck with that.
> 
> ...


:up:


----------



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

I don't get the outrage about the pause ads; either.

Go get a cable DVR for $16 - $20 a month and see what terrible REALLY looks like.

TiVo is like a beam of light from the sky compared to the Comcast DVR I had for almost four years.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

orangeboy said:


> I regret participating in this thread that was obviously started to incite controversy, with "news" that Tivo is doing, and has been doing, what they said they would do in their Service Agreement. With that being said, I will not continue to feed this proven troll.


Seriously, stick around. People that start these threads intend to shout down anyone that disagrees by calling them Tivo fanboys instead of actually debating the facts and the idea that such ads aren't as bothersome to most as they are to them.

It's a simple Pro's & Con's situation. If the benefits of a Tivo do not outweigh the Con's of the ad's, then simply move on to something that better suits your needs. As mentioned there are other options out there. If you would rather deal with the ads in exchange for the, IMO, superior functionality of a Tivo then that is your choice too. This is getting really similar to people arguing about TV or radio content that they don't like. If you don't like it change the channel, or in this case, DVR maker.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Huh. Another thread about this.

These weekly threads are starting to get more annoying than the pause ads...


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Seriously, stick around. People that start these threads intend to shout down anyone that disagrees by calling them Tivo fanboys instead of actually debating the facts and the idea that such ads aren't as bothersome to most as they are to them.
> 
> ....


And TiVo fanboys shout down anyone that disagrees by calling them trolls.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

RoyK said:


> And TiVo fanboys shout down anyone that disagrees by calling them trolls.


A troll by any other name is still a troll!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

orangeboy said:


> I regret participating in this thread that was obviously started to incite controversy, with "news" that Tivo is doing, and has been doing, what they said they would do in their Service Agreement. With that being said, I will not continue to feed this proven troll.


pretty much, save that Phantom Gremlin is not a troll but just an ad hater who can not get that reasonable people, or anyone else for that matter, may feel otherwise about ads.

BTW - RoyK trying to disparage by calling people fanboys just reflects badly on you, not them.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

ZeoTiVo said:


> pretty much, save that Phantom Gremlin is not a troll but just an ad hater who can not get that reasonable people, or anyone else for that matter, may feel otherwise about ads.


I think orangeboy was actually referring to awesomeness... who from my understanding does not even own a TiVo and just 'considering' maybe getting one - but won't because ads and the price structure.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

daveak said:


> I think orangeboy was actually referring to awesomeness... who from my understanding does not even own a TiVo and just 'considering' maybe getting one - but won't because ads and the price structure.


oh right, I had been ignoring awesomeness all together as just plain ridiculous in his posts.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

daveak said:


> ZeoTiVo said:
> 
> 
> > pretty much, save that Phantom Gremlin is not a troll but just an ad hater who can not get that reasonable people, or anyone else for that matter, may feel otherwise about ads.
> ...


I actually did have both awesomeness and Phantom Gremlin in mind.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

orangeboy said:


> I actually did have both awesomeness and Phantom Gremlin in mind.


He may be a Phantom and a Gremlin, but I would not say he was a Troll by the common definition. However, as far as awesomeness is concerned...


----------

