No one watches TV, Nielsen, and you know it Even in the modern world where there is more pay TV, there are few, if any, sources of professional video where consumers can know that they will encounter little or no advertising. Pay TV networks such as Comcast, DirecTV and Time Warner Cable in the US – and Sky and Liberty Global in Europe – all carry the advertising which …
"We know of nobody who watches linear TV if it can be avoided"?
You are aware, right, that there are an awful lot of people who pretty much raise their children on the surrogate tit of TV, and who have the TV on all day? But none of them are rich media professionals - media professionals know better than to turn the idiot box on - which I guess explains why media professionals don't pay any attention to them.
But if I see a good one I will stop and watch, which would be very rarely.
My wife was skipping them (ITV or C4) so I grabbed the remote and went back and had a look, well worth it - found the Uncharted 3 advert, reminded of this because during an episode of The Tube there were advertisements for UC3 in the background. I find FF easier than skipping a few seconds of 32x then stop on end of programme sponsor rubbish.
Well made ads are good to watch most are total rubbish.
Also there are anti adverts, too loud, annoying opera singers cause boycots. Whereas my boss was sent a toy Meerkat (real ones stink!).
There used to be some clever ads - the aforementioned Guiness add (I don't like the drink but tried it), the Ridley Scott bread advert, the beer selling ice cream van.
For terrible ads watch some of the 40n Freesat channels, there are some right stinkers even at 64x, but the ones on the other programme I watch are targeted and not as bad. OK so I don't mind adverts from where we got our caravan from but those horrid CD collections or stupid pillows WHY? I just want to see new games not horrid CD collections.
I forgot where I read it at but years ago I read the technical info behind some Internet Explorer addons that come with windows and the RESEARCH add is really for and by the Neilson rating system.
When you disable the research addon then Nielson ratings do not get any data from your browsing.
I'm of the opinion that Television programming providers here in the US are actually on a downward slide that will, at some point in the future, take a sharp dive. Most of my family's older members spend a lot of time watching television but it seems the younger views, prefer to watch shows online. I'm rather in the middle on this trend.
I think television providers like Dish Network, Direct TV, Comcast, etc. have forgotten that viewers pay for Value not for programming. As I've gotten older I've formed the unwavering opinion that the rampant commercialization of today's television content has complete drained the value from that content. So much so that I refuse to pay for cable television. There are channels available that are commercial free, HBO / Showtime / Cinemax, but none of the content providers will sell you access to just a paid channel by itself without some for of basic or extended package also present on the account. This destroys the value completely. And so I refuse to give them any of my money, opting instead to wait until the show hits blu-ray (if I really like it) or netflix which is commercial free. I'd love it if say Dish Network would sell me access to just one premium channel by itself, HBO for example. That would provide genuine value for my money.
I've found it to be an insurmountable challenge to make television providers understand that I am an All or Nothing type of viewer. Either I am paying for the content and it had better be 100% commercial free, or it cost me nothing at all to view the content and I would expect it to be ad supported. Under no circumstances will I watch a show that I have to pay for AND has commercials in it. I've voted with my wallet by not purchasing cable television but my small contribution to this cause is like a fly trying to stop a freight train. I wish more people would stand up and make this opinion known to them.
Anyway. I think that older people are just so used to paying for commercial-infected content that they continue to pay blindly for material that should be totally free to them. I also think that as the older generations pass on and the more tech savvy generations are left that TV providers may suddenly find themselves without any customers.
"Either I am paying for the content and it had better be 100% commercial free, or it cost me nothing at all to view the content and I would expect it to be ad supported."
You are aware, are you not, that it is theoretically possible for ads to cover N% of the production cost and for subscriptions to cover 100-N%?
I mean, I have a subscription to the Economist. I pay for it. But there are also ads in the magazine. I don't see this as some kind of egregious violation of morality; the ads pull down the subscription price somewhat - which increases circulation, and thus increases the value of the ads. Presumably there's some sweet spot somewhere.
At any rate, the idea that something needs to be either completely ad supported or completely subscription supported is a false choice, no different than saying that a band (hypothetically let's say they're independent and sell albums themselves) has to make its money from concerts, or from album sales, but not *both*, because then when you buy an album without going to a concert you're being ripped off.
Get pissed off if ads support 100% of the program cost and the subscription fee is gravy. But even then, there's presumably some amount allowed for profit (businesses do need this) and it would be just as easy to rip off by 140% with more ads gaining an extra bunch of income, as it would be from paying 100% with ads and stacking another 40% on with subscription costs.
You're essentially complaining about *pricing*, and since you have no particular way of knowing what the company's actual costs are, all you can do is decide whether the money you spend plus the aggravation of the ads is justified by the content.
Also, it may come as a shock, but running the infrastructure for a cable company is not, in fact, free. I know, I know - this is difficult to believe - but running cable, doing maintenance, keeping and upgrading back-end hardware, doing marketing, handling support, administering staff, handling subscription issues, etc, does require actual money. That money, as it turns out, at least partially comes from the person who is getting a signal from the aforementioned cable. The fact that there are commercials on some of the data that cable spits out is neither here nor there as far as the cable operator is concerned.
When the guy shows up at my place to debug our cable connection, he doesn't think, "Well - there are commercials on TLC, so I don't need to buy gas or tires for this truck, and I certainly don't need to be paid for my time."
You can hate on big-ass cable companies (mine happens to be a small-ass cable company, which I can call and ask to talk to Mr. CableCompanyName and get him) but there are still real costs involved with the system.
Acting like the TV programs should be free because you pay for the cable run to your house is nonsense - like bitching that World Of Warcraft should be free because you already pay for internet. OK, cable companies are cozier with TV content providers (at least, when they're not engaged in running court battles) than they are with Blizzard. But on a basic level the point remains: Your paying for a cable TV connection is (or at least could easily be) largely unrelated to the cost of content itself (I'm fairly sure that the guys who make Top Gear don't get any money from my NobodyCable, Inc subscription) - and thus the commercials accompanying it.
Further, as I wrote above, even if they *are* connected, it's not relevant. Many products have multiple funding sources, and that in itself is neither good nor bad. If you don't like one of them, it's up to you whether it overrides the value of the content as a whole - but sputtering that split funding is intrinsically immoral just makes no sense.
who knew it could go that much lower?? This article is batshit crazy, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin comes to mind.
"Adverts are not only here to stay, but they are proliferating"
I gave up on cable tv a year ago, been running adblock ever since I first heard of it. I'm sure I'm not in a shrinking demographic.
"Surely measuring the volume of comments relative to comments about other shows tells us more than trying to work out who likes the show versus who doesn‘t."
Sure ok, I have no public Facebook comments anyway so what do I care, fill your boots. Now quit while you're ahead.
"The 20 rule is that every person under the age of 20 in any particular US house leaves a TV on, when they leave a room. It is also the N+1 principle. In any given US home, however many people there are in the home at a given point, this many TVs are left turned on, plus one."
Nope, and nope. You're welcome.
"But beyond that, even if a comment on an actor is a poor one, it might be because he is a very well-acted villain, and surely that means a high level of engagement with the programme, not a low one?"
I think I just puked in my mouth a little. You want me to pay for cable TV, plus you want to fill some ridiculous portion of it with advertising, plus you want to hook me up to some kind of mind scanner to see if I'm "engaged"? And not just yes or no, but like really get to know me and individually interpret every utterance I make and put it on a scale of 1 to 1,000? Like fuck.
"Kids think: "I‘d better watch and or catch up with this programmeme, or else I won‘t have anything to say to everyone else and they will all tell me the plot.""
<shudder>
"other ways to measure engagement which may soon become available to us ... if both the TV and the companion device ... comment on it simultaneously on a social media site ... apps which listen to your screen ... search and recommendation elements ... metrics on how many programmes are watched all the way through ... underlying demographics on the household ... will have a high level of engagement, due to the high levels of calculated interest"
STOP! Just stop, for the love of all that's holy! The day when it is possible to have all that wired together, for the brain dead useless purpose of marketing no less, let alone for spooks who can at least pay lip service to national security, is the day I say so long suckers and head off to the woods to build me a survivalist bunker.
"Of course the reach of tablets needs to become almost universal, something we cannot count on until at least a five-year time frame."
Eh? You mean like shortly after everyone is wearing one of these?
http://www.google.ca/search?q=calculator+watch&hl=en&tbm=isch
"While Facebook does not play in this market, it actually has the edge, in that it could peep inside of every Facebook message even the private ones"
Shouldn't uttering that sentence, or even forming that thought be a capital offence??
"Actually if Facebook could simply leverage aggregated social media commentary in all walks of life..."
... then it could give us flying cars and robot butlers as well. I'm sure (ok hopeful) that regulatory bodies might have something to say about that.
"No-one is content to stay purely with eyeball counts any longer, so there is progress."
Did you really just say progress?!?!
"Putting adverts into programmes in real time, to the right people who are known to have an interest in a subject, who have the wherewithal to afford the advertised product and who are watching TV now, and perhaps even watching a programme on a similar subject, leverages advertising appeal by multiple dimensions."
Leverages advertising appeal from fuck right off (0) through to you did what to me OK now you and I have a serious problem (-1,000,000).
"Advertising appeal"
Like, military intelligence? Business ethics? Accurate estimate? Clean coal?
There is no kind of ad you can come up with, or delivery system for it, where the experience will make me think "gee that was a pleasant and useful way to spend my time, I'll have to do that again as soon as I can". Maybe you can make me chuckle, but even still all it really makes me think is "look there's another company with too much money to toss around, I sure would have to be dumb to give them even more". Noticeable/memorable ads are the same as big charitable donations or obscene management compensation, a bloody big blinking neon sign saying avoid this brand wherever possible it's obviously way overpriced.
I must say, I'm not even sure why you still own a computer.
Also, given your general attitude, it seems highly likely that at some point ten years ago, you violently predicted your imminent departure to the forest should a certain set of circumstances arrive. Given the generally under-predicted pace of technological change, those circumstances have almost certainly already arrived - therefore, I suggest that you evaluate the situation and begin ordering supplies for your survivalist bunker.
Just make sure you don't order them from a company that does marketing. That'd be hypocritical, after all - though expecting consistency from a guy who suggests that you should 'avoid the brand' of a charity that receives large donations is... well, I'm not sure what it is, but it makes about as much sense as fleeing to the forest because someone you don't have a relationship with asked permission to read the tweets you undoubtedly don't make to help them sell things you don't buy.
In the end, you're not angry with the marketers (though you convince yourself you are, since the reality is hard to handle if you want to be consistent ). You're angry with people in general. You're angry that people *want* any of this to happen, angry that there are people who *don't* use adblock, and angry that there are people who - worst of worst - *buy products and do things you don't want to buy or do yourself*. It's in the same vein as people who are angry that there are people who don't use linux, or people who are angry that people watch reality TV and buy John Grisham novels.
Sorry, guys, I hate to break this to you - but you're not the only people in the world. You're not even very many people in the world.
And the world isn't obliged to reshape itself to match your Inspiration-For-Sheldon-From-Big-Bang-Theory philosophies. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean other people don't, and it's not your righteous moral obligation to condemn them or save them. They honestly don't care.
Sorry. You're going to have to deal with it. Maybe read some more of El Reg, the web site that's paid for with the ads you block and bankrolled by the people you detest most in the world. Come to think of it, shouldn't you be somewhere else? Maybe there are still some Gopher servers around. I don't think they've sold out to the man yet.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
