TiVo Community Forums Archives

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

cable blasts PVR
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: ttb

saw this and thought it would be worth a look,cable co hate pvr because losing $$$

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/12/0...5.shtml?tid=129

Posted by: JimSpence

Interesting. Cable companies hate PVR's because they lose money. Ah Gee! That's called competition. And, isn't ATT cable and TWC coming out with PVR's for their cable systems? Just another case of blasting satellite but leaving out some facts.

Posted by: robertchinneck

After reading Gary Lauder's speech quoted, then his reasons below listing what he was mis-quoted on and his reasons why a headend should provision the PVR functionality, I must say I like the idea that your 'PVR' could record multiple concurrent shows! I know that's greedy but no clash would be too much is what that implies...

I'm not sure I like his idea about paying to skip commercials though!

Rob.

Posted by: Dancar

This reminds me of the debates in the IT field on whether aps and data belong on client machines or network servers.

He's complaining because PVRs offer features that PPV might offer at some point in the future, but can't offer now.

Perhaps when PPV can offer those features at a cost that makes more financial sense than PVRs, then we'll switch to PPV. But don't complain that PVRs are stealing market share from vaporware!

Posted by: CPTPez

so if i leave the room to go to the bathroom duing commercials I owe someone 1 cent for each commercial i missed

what about all the commercials i miss by choosing not to watch tv at all. Boy, having a social life will get quite expensive

Posted by: ttb

what if you decide to kiss your girl/boyfriend during the commercial break,?

a kissing tax?

Posted by: jmace57

Gee....perhaps the cable companies could raise their rates or something...that'd be a novel approach for them.:p

Posted by: DJRobX

quote:
"I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable. I also suggested that targeted advertising could be a win-win for all involved by delivering ads in areas that are of greater interest to the viewer so that there would be less incentive to skip and fewer ads would have to be delivered due to the higher prices paid for the targeted group. I also predicted that this dynamic combined with competition between satellite and cable would ultimately make both services free."

Let's charge you for the advertising revenue that you're skipping over. THEN we'll use your PVR's unique ability to specifically target you for ads that you're more liikely to be interested in, and well, we'll keep all that profit to ourselves. Oh, and we'll probably continue to count you as a viewer, regardless of whether you skip the commercial or not, so we're getting paid the same anyway. Excellent. :rolleyes: :down:

Posted by: stormsweeper

He has an interesting view of what a PVR should be.

The Napster analogy is really poor, too.

Posted by: VegasVic

How about a tax for every billboard you don't read as you drive by?

Posted by: dan_isaacs

quote:
Originally posted by VegasVic
How about a tax for every billboard you don't read as you drive by?

If billboards paid for the roads, then your analogy may be valid. Networks have a serious problem with their business model, in that they depend on advertising revenues to make money. If advertisers aren't getting what they pay for (eyeballs), then they stop paying.

What some people are doing is trying to find some middle ground with the broadcasters. Lest they use those politicians they paid for to quell the Tivolution.

Posted by: Otto

Screw that. I'm firmly against any middle ground. Broadcasters can adapt or die AFAIC. If they can't make money off their old methods any more, tough s***, find new methods. Change, or don't. Make money, or don't. I really don't give a damn.

If every channel goes to a pay model, then that's fine, that means I won't have to pay for all these crap channels that I pay for now.

You can have my PVR when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Posted by: Atomic Buffalo

Gary Lauder's proposals are quite reasonable, and a net improvement on the PVR besides.

I look forward to a future with individually-targeted advertisements which I can choose to receive or skip. I'll be happy when I can press a button and never be angered by another insipid network promo for The Agency or Robbery Homicide Division or Becker again -- and even happier when my TV is smart enough not to show it to me in the first place.

::

Posted by: dan_isaacs

While I do not in the least disagree with the sentiment that the broadcasters should adapt or die, there are facts that make that an unlikely occurance.

The most important one is that they have a lot of money. More than you or I can conceive of. And they control important things, like the media. They also control via campaign contributions a great many legislators. Those things can be used to manipulate the market.

Now, I know their business model was flawed from the start. They will, and have, adapted the type of adverstising that can survive a DVR planet. Product placements. Ads in the bottom corner of the screen. They will become less dependant on commercials per se as time goes on. Think "pop-ups". But even as they evolve, they will use their substantial resources to prevent that evolution from being needed.

I point you to the RIAA as a prime example of what happens when a very wealthy cartel is threatened by a new technology. Reason and principles mean little to nothing when faced with such a formidable foe.

Posted by: Katalyst

I hate commercials, and even having to fast forward over them with TiVo is a bit of a pain. It would almost be worth paying to not have commercials at all. That is, the broadcasters would include a signal to mark the beginning and end of commercial blocks, and TiVo wouldn't even record during that time -- no more fast forwarding, and no hard drive space taken up by commercials.

He suggests $10/thousand commercials skipped. If you watch about two hours a night, with an average of 12 commercials an hour, that would be about $7.20/month... not totally inconceivable, I think.

Posted by: Polcamilla

quote:
Originally posted by DJRobX
Let's charge you for the advertising revenue that you're skipping over. THEN we'll use your PVR's unique ability to specifically target you for ads that you're more liikely to be interested in, and well, we'll keep all that profit to ourselves. Oh, and we'll probably continue to count you as a viewer, regardless of whether you skip the commercial or not, so we're getting paid the same anyway. Excellent. :rolleyes: :down:

Here's another point he's glossing over. The broadcasters get paid $$ to air the ads. The cable company gets $$ for those same ads to be skipped. Essentially, they're getting TWICE the money for that airtime if we opt to skip it. I'd be MUCH more amenable to the idea that I pay a cent for each commercial-sized broadcast of dead air or, far better, a cent for each commercial-sized increment of content to be added to the program I'm watching (add up enough of these and you're back to paying a premium for your television, but having no ads at all).

I'm all for other revenue models, but I really don't think this is it. Personally, I keep hoping for product placement (I absolutely noticed when Tivos started showing up in the apartments on Friends, but I noticed them using Knudsen's milk as well) and a shift toward *good* advertising. If an ad looks intriguing, I'll happily go back and watch it. If it really entertains me, I'll even watch it repeatedly. It doesn't matter much what the product is (although a good ad makes the product memorable). My husband and I agree that one of the best ads we've ever seen was a *tampon* ad---and curiously enough, it was considered too controversial to air, so we saw it on a TV special that was made of 'The Best Commercials You've Never Seen'. Another great ad we saw once was a cough drop ad. What made that ad great? A character in it had the audacity to offer a cough drop to Darth Vader. If the advertisers can make great commercials, I think they'll find that PVRs won't cause them to lose any viewership.

Oh, wait...making good commercials is harder than charging people extra to avoid mediocrity.

Posted by: Breacagan

Kellner says the cable companies would have to charge about $200 more a year, or $17 a month. Although that is a bit more than twice as much, I still can't believe our eyeballs are sold for so little. It's incredible to me that the average American watches something like an hour of commercials a night, and that this time is valued at less than fifty cents. No wonder they spew such garbage at us.