Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JimH]

[I'm moving this comment Rhino made over here because it's what's coming soon, I imagine -- JimH]

[RHINO'S WORDS FOLLOW]

"...And don't get me started on the Tivo/Sky+ (the UK's major satellite suppliers' PVR [Personal Video Recorder] using NDS software) ability to play targetted adverts when you pause.   It's there ... just not activated ... yet.   I love the concept but that issue really gets up my nose.   Big brother is not watching ... honest."

[KingSparta]

I would not mind it as long as there was a way to deactivate it.

Like Today:

Sears Called, this is the 3rd time i picked up the phone and told them to take me off there call list or put me on there do not call list.

this is like the 100th call they made to my phone this week (per my Caller ID) i do not pick up un-less i have full info in my caller id and i know who is calling.

As i told the lady 2 days ago they need to pay me $500 since they violated sate and federal law.

I think the guy got the point when i just keep repeating my self "This Is the 3rd time I told You People To Take Me Off Your Call List" i think i said it 30 times before he said OK and hung up the phone.

I hate spam and when i am sent spam it is auto deleted by my e-mail program (I Love JRiver Spam).


'Take on Me' Charted At 01 in 1985 (Trance Version)

Listening to: 'Take on Me' from 'The Best of A-ha' by 'A-ha' on Media Jukebox

[JimH]

> I hate spam and when i am sent spam it is auto deleted by my e-mail program (I Love JRiver Spam).

Very funny.  I received your "thank you note" for the Spam about an hour ago.  My filters almost ate it.

[JimH]

Here's why I think this one is interesting.

On the one hand, TiVo lets you fast forward through commercials.  This is a problem for the providers because their ability to deliver a message is weakened.

This also gives TiVo (or any other Personal Video Recorder provider) an opportunity to insert their own message.

So what happens is that the Networks and the PVR providers have to negotiate what you will see.  Should you see the Chevy commercial that the Network runs?  Or should you see the Toyota commercial your PVR provider believes you would be more interested in.

This sounds like Big Brother.  It is a little.  But you may get messages that better fit how you view the world.  

For example, if "they" know from demographic studies that people who watch "Baywatch" also drink more beer than wine, would it be a bad thing if you saw commercials about beer instead of wine when you tuned it in?  

If this happens, you will see commercials that better fit your tastes.

Is this a good thing?

[nila]

If all the data was fully encrypted and no one could find out about what you personally did or liked except the box itself which would then on its own work out what you liked and display it then this would be fine as you would still have full privacy.

This isn't how it's done though and so it sucks because they will know exactly what you like, what you do, everything about you.
The goverment sticks their noses in our lives enough already without them being able to find out what we do in the privacy of our own home and what our personal preferances are.
I like my freedom

[KingSparta]

>> Should you see the Chevy commercial that the
>>  Network runs?  Or should you see the Toyota
Toyota Because Chevy, Ford And Dodge Trucks fall apart

[skidoo]

If all the data was fully encrypted and no one could find out about what you personally did or liked except the box itself which would then on its own work out what you liked and display it then this would be fine as you would still have full privacy.

This isn't how it's done though and so it sucks because they will know exactly what you like, what you do, everything about you.

Then don't purchase or subscribe to the PVR. There's a big HUGE difference between targeted marketing and secret policing. Privacy rights people too often fail to make the distinction between consentual conveyence and spying. Again, HUGE difference. As long as the collector is up front about its activity, and as long as the collection isn't imposed on people as a matter of mandate, who cares?

The goverment sticks their noses in our lives enough already without them being able to find out what we do in the privacy of our own home and what our personal preferances are.
I like my freedom

We're not talking about the government. Big difference. Your credit card company already knows more about you than most of your relatives. And they sell that information as a commodity on an open market. Unless you choose not to use their services. So what?

[PhatPhreddy]

A relation of mine was on contact to Motorola in AMsterdam fitting the digital head end (brain) of a digital TV network as I was living in NL he and I hung out a lot and I was really interested in the tech....

The system as it stands does not do this now but has the ability to monitor the channel and program you are watching and then feed you ads during the commercail break that fits your demographic profile... EG if you watch the gardening programms you will see ads for mowers shovels and lawn feed... Watch the sport channels you see ads for fit drinks or whatever advertiser targets your demographic... Watch the rolex channel and I guess they all want to advertise to you...

Is this any more or less insidious than an advertiser buying print space in FHM v gardeners world ?? As this advertising is foxed times anyway I dont see it as too bad a thing but the monitoring and catalogueing of what I watch copuld be contrued as a privacy issue...

Once you figure the system has lots of video on demand possibilities (with no advertising) also they must look at maximising $$ revenue to keep the costs of subscription down.. If there is 0 advertising revenue then TV costs more to watch... Do you want a $300 per month 0 advert system ??  

[RhinoBanga]

Then don't purchase or subscribe to the PVR.

We have to be carefull or soon we will have no choice.

I don't know where you live but here in the UK everything is going digital (analogue is scheduled to be switched off in the next 5/10 years).

Currently Tivo/Sky Digital require a phone line connection to work (cable has it automatically) ... so how soon will it before even state sponsered digital boxes "require" this to provide you with a "better viewing eXperience"?

There's a big HUGE difference between targeted marketing and secret policing. Privacy rights people too often fail to make the distinction between consentual conveyence and spying.

Personally I shiver at the thought of someone intruding on my civil liberties and "analysing" what I watch.

But also how can it consentual when you have no choice?

Again, HUGE difference. As long as the collector is up front about its activity, and as long as the collection isn't imposed on people as a matter of mandate, who cares?

If it isn't imposed as a mandate then all well and good ... but why would they implement this type of system if it wasn't going to be used?

We're not talking about the government. Big difference.

No it isn't ... no matter which way you look at it it's an invasion of privacy.

Your credit card company already knows more about you than most of your relatives. And they sell that information as a commodity on an open market. Unless you choose not to use their services. So what?

Again the key point ... choice.

If you haven't seen Minority Report ... go and see it as it has a perfect example of targetted advertising (and big brother).   As Tom Cruise was walking thru a shopping mall retina scanners picked him out and the holographic adverts were talking to him about their products.

Now that is a slipperly slope which I for one don't want to go down.

[PhatPhreddy]

The thing is Rhino advertising pays for a substantial part of your media consumtion... If consumers demand it we could go for a totally pay per view 0 advertising system but then consumers need to vote with thier $$ and pony up the dough... Ask Joe Blow if he will prefer to have advertising and cheap TV or 0 adverts and expensive TV and I can guarantee the outcome (also when I say expensive It would be)....

ITV digital going under in the UK has seriously waylayed plans for a fully digital TV system in the UK... The UK was the furthest ahead in this in the world (though why HDTV specs are not being put through god only knows.... Idiots) and as such this does not encourage providers to push this model... ITV digital was a serious blow....

As a side note the system that was put in in NL has hemoragged cash from day 1... And even now that the infrastructure is complete no one is signing up to it... people dont seem keen to pay premium money for simply more channels in the Netherlands (they have 30 or so anyway) and more does not equal better... it is looking very likely that the system that has had billions of NLG put into it will need either a government float or a complete debt restructuring... Signs like that make broadcasters very reluctant to invest...

My feeling is that unless they offer value added like true video on demand / HD resolution / improved content they dont have the ability to ask for 3 or 4 times what the standard TV was costing...

Add to that that the UK has the best TV in the world IMHO the combo of the BBC and CH4 for established content done well and interesting programming makes for a powerful baseline (even when you only had 5 or 4 channels)....  

[RhinoBanga]

The thing is Rhino advertising pays for a substantial part of your media consumtion... If consumers demand it we could go for a totally pay per view 0 advertising system but then consumers need to vote with thier $$ and pony up the dough... Ask Joe Blow if he will prefer to have advertising and cheap TV or 0 adverts and expensive TV and I can guarantee the outcome (also when I say expensive It would be)....

But TV companies are surviving on the existing marketing model.

Do you really think that a) directed advertising will be cheaper than normal advertising and that b) it will result in a lower subscription model for consumers?   I think a resounding no to both.

ITV digital going under in the UK has seriously waylayed plans for a fully digital TV system in the UK...

PPV digital television yes ... state TV no.   There are already FTA boxes available under the new name.

The UK was the furthest ahead in this in the world (though why HDTV specs are not being put through god only knows.... Idiots)

Absolutely ... I was fuming when I heard about this.   We want better picture/sound quality ... instead they cram as many channels as possible into a multiplex

As a side note the system that was put in in NL has hemoragged cash from day 1... And even now that the infrastructure is complete no one is signing up to it... people dont seem keen to pay premium money for simply more channels in the Netherlands (they have 30 or so anyway) and more does not equal better... it is looking very likely that the system that has had billions of NLG put into it will need either a government float or a complete debt restructuring... Signs like that make broadcasters very reluctant to invest...

Sounds like 3G.

My feeling is that unless they offer value added like true video on demand / HD resolution / improved content they dont have the ability to ask for 3 or 4 times what the standard TV was costing...

Add to that that the UK has the best TV in the world IMHO the combo of the BBC and CH4 for established content done well and interesting programming makes for a powerful baseline (even when you only had 5 or 4 channels)....  

I very rarely watch BBC1/2/ITV/CH4 now.   Since getting Sky Digital and my motorised sat system I watch specialised channels, e.g. the Paramount comedy channel.

[JimH]

Do you really think that a) directed advertising will be cheaper than normal advertising ....?  

It could play out differently, but the number of ads could be reduced.  It's possible.  Here's why.

If I advertise MJ to the world, I get an unqualified audience.  Some don't have PC's.  Some have Mac's.  Some don't care a lot about music.

If I advertise MJ to Windows developers, I get a very targeted audience.  They are far enough along the PC curve to try music on a PC.  They don't use Macs at work.  Maybe they care about music.

The second is a good example of targeted advertising.  If somehow I could reach the portion who cared about music, it would be the perfect target.

Right now, the second type of advertising costs a lot more on a "cost per thousand" basis.  The same is true for buying mailing lists.  A targeted audience is worth more to me, so I will pay more.

You also eliminate some of the clutter.  You won't see ads for cars so often if you live in London as you will if you live in Chicago.

I'm not saying "let's plunge ahead".  I agree with some of the concerns about privacy.  It may not be good.

But I think it's a very interesting question.

[sekim]

Here's why I think this one is interesting.

This also gives TiVo (or any other Personal Video Recorder provider) an opportunity to insert their own message.

MJ is getting Tivo like functionality in 9, do you have partners lined up that could take advantage of this same thing?

This sounds like Big Brother.  It is a little.

 
This is worse. They don't play by the same rules. And they probably know more about you then most governments. Wouldn't surprise me if they sold info to Uncle Sam. Saves the big guy from doing all the footwork.

But you may get messages that better fit how you view the world.

How I view the world? Usually with much cynicism and a large grain of salt. The fact that the ad-people might think they know what I like isn't always true. If that statement were true, they would know that I don't want to see all the garbage in the first place. So it doesn't fit with their view of my world. Hence, conflict of interests'.

[skidoo]

We have to be carefull or soon we will have no choice.

Doomsayer alert!

I don't know where you live but here in the UK everything is going digital (analogue is scheduled to be switched off in the next 5/10 years).

Hmmm. So?

Currently Tivo/Sky Digital require a phone line connection to work (cable has it automatically) ... so how soon will it before even state sponsered digital boxes "require" this to provide you with a "better viewing eXperience"?

Ahh. I see what you're getting at. If the government requires you to put a box in your home that monitors your activity to some unacceptable level, well, that would be a problem. That sounds like a pill socialist Brits and Continentals would willingly swallow [GRIN]. But that would never fly here in the US.

Personally I shiver at the thought of someone intruding on my civil liberties and "analysing" what I watch.

Again, don't buy the service.

But also how can it consentual when you have no choice?

No choice about where you'll get your MTV or your Nick JR? Come on.

If it isn't imposed as a mandate then all well and good ... but why would they implement this type of system if it wasn't going to be used?

Huh? So what if they use it? As long as they don't force you to participate, who cares?

If you haven't seen Minority Report ... go and see it as it has a perfect example of targetted advertising (and big brother).   As Tom Cruise was walking thru a shopping mall retina scanners picked him out and the holographic adverts were talking to him about their products.

Seen it. Lame movie. But some interesting exposition of futuristic ideas. Yeah, that example you mention goes WELL beyond mere targeted advertising. A random bllboard being able to tell exacty who you are, just because you walked past---that's WAY over the top. And in no way relevant to the discussion at hand. That's logically a completely different animal, not the bottom of the same slope.

[nila]

You said would customers be willing to pay more to not have adverts.
Well it would obviously depend person by person.
Once they can start offering adverts on demand I think they should also start providing the option of 'no adverts on demand' for an extra fee.
If I lived in the states I would pay this in an instant.

I couldn't believe it on my vists there. You guys have more adverts than show practically speaking. Between shows you had a set of ad's come on just before the final credits, then the credits, then an add, then credits for the next show, then an add after the credits.
To me this isn't TV, that's advertising with breaks for the tv show.
LUCKILY england isn't that bad. We just have the show ends, the credits, an add, then the next credits for the next show then the show itself without all the add's in between.
The BBC in england isn't subsidised by adverts, it's purely from our licences and people LOVE the fact there are no add's in it. If a film is on two channels it's definitely the better channel to watch it on.

I dont mind adverts based on what I'm watching because this isn't recording or knowing what I'm specifically watching, it's just saying ok - this is a gardenning show, lets put adds to do with gardenning in with it. It's generalised advertising data.

And Jim - you say we have a choice, but realistically we dont. Our choice is basically watch cable or dont. It's a choice, but it's like giving someone a choice of breaking a finger or would they rather a toe. Neither are things they want so they just choose the least evil.  If they had a choice of cable with or without whatever they would choose without but they dont get that choice.
They get either cable with the changes they hate or 4 channels to watch, not really a choice.