Perhaps the suits will listen to the Borg?

dahamsta

Wired:

The Internet will never be an important medium for advertising until high-speed broadband service is easily obtainable, Bill Gates told a bunch of marketing types Thursday. Microsoft's chairman said that making broadband widely available should be a top political and corporate priority.

CNET:

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said on Thursday that the Internet's role as an important mass medium for advertisers has been hobbled by the slow rollout of high-speed broadband service and is still years away.

adam

Boston

well he like owns 49% of ntl, maybe he should do what he says

davros

The Internet will never be an important medium for advertising until high-speed broadband service is easily obtainable

Would that not be an argument against broadband then?

The sad thing is, the prospect of yet another advertising channel (one which knows way too much about personal habits and preferences) is probably the very reason that broadband will get rolled out in the end.

dahamsta

Would that not be an argument against broadband then? The sad thing is, the prospect of yet another advertising channel (one which knows way too much about personal habits and preferences) is probably the very reason that broadband will get rolled out in the end.

Possibly, even probably, but I don't believe that will be the right reason. I think we're going to see a drastic change in the whole advertising marketplace over the next few years, right across the board. Much like the dip in the Nasdaq about a year before the tech collapse, we're seeing advertising wobble at the moment, have been for a couple of months now.

I think there's a fair chance that the whole model of (currently) advertising-supported industries will change in the next few years. Electronic solutions always have an electronic Achilles Heel, and that makes me think that these industries are going to look very much like the ongoing war between cryptographers (codemakers) and cryptologists (codebreakers).

Look at the TV industry in the U.S. for a start. They've got hardware like TiVo and ReplayTV, which can timeshift in realtime. (For the uninitiated, that means you can start watching what you're recording pretty much as soon as you hit the record button.) You can skip the ads completely, and if you time it right, you can have uninterrupted viewing 24 hours a day. (You have to stop for, you know, work and stuff, right?)

On the web, we have ad blockers, which I have to be honest I use myself (no broadband you see), and they really are effective. They catch nearly everything, and if they don't catch something, you can add it to custom lists to catch it the next time. In email, you can use procmail and other types of filters to block out what you don't want to receive, and if you're any good (and have the time!) you'll get nearly everything.

The only way around this type of stuff it to legislate against it, and that will means years and years of costly legal battles. There's already court cases against TiVo (or is it ReplayTV?), filed by the TV and production companies, because they see it as an enormous threat to them. And rightly so. But ultimately, unless they succeed, that's where we're going to go, and that means a radical change in the industries in question.

It means the cost of all these types products and services is going to be transferred onto us, the consumers. And that brings me back to where we started, because in the market you're talking about, that's already starting to happen. NTL have started charging £5 a month for their flat-rate Internet access service in the UK, where previously it was free. Ad supported free dialup providers are dropping like flies worldwide. And to a degree, it's happening in the broadband market in America, although as I've said before, corporate stupidity is more to blame there.

It's going to be an odd decade, I'll tell you that much. And fun too, I reckon. And prosperous for some.

adam

Fergus

Bill is being a bit wishful. As somebody said on /. ..

The telcos don't want to open the loops to broadband cos VOIP will kill their voice business.

The cable companies don't want to open up cable to (proper) broadband cos it will hit their television content business.

Bah.

dahamsta

Hi Fergus,

Bill is being a bit wishful.

Better believe it.

As somebody said on /. ..

Ah, the fountain of knowledge.

The telcos don't want to open the loops to broadband cos VOIP will kill their voice business.

I'd rephrase that to "the telco's don't want to open the loops to broadband until they've got a headstart on VOIP and VOD". Any telco that wants to be a PSTN voice supplier now has got their head up their butt, and I doubt even Eircom are that stupid. What Eircom are doing though, is being Irish and taking things too slow. They're slowly but surely (and unwittingly) manouevering the Irish government into an embarassing position. The Irish government is just so thick they're embarassed over the wrong thing.

The cable companies don't want to open up cable to (proper) broadband cos it will hit their television content business.

The US would seem to refute that completely Fergus...

adam

davros

... TiVo and ReplayTV...., You can skip the ads completely...

The ads can be skipped automatically, I believe. I've been wondering how the box distinguishes ad from program.

US advertisers and networks really invited this trouble on themselves. Have you seen how many ads they force on viewers? It was definitely time for the pendulum to swing the other direction.

The only way around this type of stuff it to legislate against it

Or the ads can be inserted into the programming in the form of product placement or even into the storyline. This would not be a welcome development at all.

It means the cost of all these types products and services is going to be transferred onto us, the consumers.

That's the downside, of course. But some good things come out of subscription fees - the BBC, National Public Radio in the US (no ads in either of those), print magazines (subsidized by ads).

NTL have started charging £5 a month for their flat-rate Internet access service in the UK, where previously it was free.

It's probably desirable if it means more control over whether personal details are sold to advertisers.

It's going to be an odd decade, I'll tell you that much. And fun too, I reckon.

Yep, it's always good to shake things up, see what happens.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by davros
Or the ads can be inserted into the programming in the form of product placement or even into the storyline. This would not be a welcome development at all.

I just had a major Wayne's World flashback...

I wonder how that strategy would work with Lord of the Rings?

Fergus

Originally posted by dahamsta
I'd rephrase that to "the telco's don't want to open the loops to broadband until they've got a headstart on VOIP and VOD".

But they'd keep everyone on good old switches forever if they could. Valentia might not be too far off that.

The US would seem to refute that completely Fergus...

Well, as long as broadband isn't broad enough to match normal broadcast TV quality, it pretty much holds. But in any case, in the US I spose you've got AOL TW rigging things best they can so they provide content and everyone else doesn't.

dahamsta

The ads can be skipped automatically, I believe.

Isn't that what I said?

I've been wondering how the box distinguishes ad from program.

I did too, but not enough to look into it. I'm guessing that it doesn't though - TV is very tightly scheduled, so it probably used the widely available electronic programme guides somehow.

US advertisers and networks really invited this trouble on themselves. Have you seen how many ads they force on viewers?

I've heard about American TV, and you can see it from the talk show imports, but luckily I've never really had to deal with it. It must be maddening. The TV companies over here are always chasing them though, always trying to shove more and more in. And they get worse and more repetitive by the day. That "cold as ice" macleans ad at the moment is so annoying I sent an email to GlaxoSmithkline about it today. It's driving me spare. And it's doing the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do - I'll never buy a Macleans product again. What a waste of time, energy and money.

It was definitely time for the pendulum to swing the other direction.

Oh it'll swing in the other direction alright, but I'm not sure that's right either.

Or the ads can be inserted into the programming in the form of product placement or even into the storyline. This would not be a welcome development at all.

And this isn't happening already? The best (worst) example I've seen of this recently was the "hacker" movie with John Travolta. Apparently - you couldn't drag me to this film kicking and screaming after I heard this - RSA, a cryptography/security company made famous by the algorithm of the same name, paid a hefty wedge to have their brand pop up on screen in a scene where the hacker is cracking summat or other. The hacker has a gun to his head and his noodle where it shouldn't be, yet he cracks the security in a matter of minutes (or is it seconds?). Now think about that for a second. Is that the best marketing for RSA? Well, duh!

That's the downside, of course. But some good things come out of subscription fees - the BBC, National Public Radio in the US (no ads in either of those), print magazines (subsidized by ads).

I don't know anything about US National Radio, but the Beeb is a bad example. The Beeb is subsidised by the licence fee, sure, but it's also subsidised by government, and that isn't going to happen for the million and six other TV channels out there. Or the radio stations, or website, or blah-de-blah. Think about this from a wider perspective - think about ALL those radio and TV channels suddenly finding their ad revenues dropping through the floor, with absolutely no Plan B. They'll have to come up with a Plan B fairly rapidly, and I can guarantee you that we won't like it.

It's probably desirable if it means more control over whether personal details are sold to advertisers.

I wouldn't sign up for any free service with my real details, so this doesn't bother me in the least. Demographic information they can do what they want with, I don't care, as long as it isn't linked with my personal information. This is why I think the whole EU/cookies thing is a howl, and so does anybody who actually understands cookies. They haven't a clue what a cookie is or does.

Sorry for straying even further off-topic, but this stuff interests me.

adam

sceptre

I've been wondering how the box distinguishes ad from program.

Wondered about this myself. ITV still has that little box that appears in the top corner of the screen just before the ad breaks. This may just be for the affiliate stations to get ready with their own adverts though.

I've heard about American TV, and you can see it from the talk show imports, but luckily I've never really had to deal with it.

Bill Bryson tokk umbrage at the time he watched 100-odd minutes of The Fugitive and was forced to sit through 40 minutes of commmercials. He's also pointed out the amount of "creams and wonder cures for old fogies offered during the commercials of CNN

Sky are doing their best to catch up with US TV - they do after all take the same hour as US TV to show a 43 minute Star Trek episode.

The best (worst) example I've seen of this recently was the "hacker" movie with John Travolta.

Or anything featuring Bond. Let's not stop with BMW. Nokia phones seem to pop up in an inordinate amount of movies for no reason. I've actually forgiven Apple completely over the years. Rarely do you see a brand-name PC (HP are the main contenders here but Compaq laptops pop up in quite a few TV shows). I did like the way the truman Show poked fun at it (though Waynes World is obviously king - outweighs Austin Powers' Heiney)


I wouldn't sign up for any free service with my real details, so this doesn't bother me in the least.

Too right. Jack Spratt has signed up for a lot of things on my behalf. And if anyone looks for an email address for a download, assuming they don't accept a@a.com, I usually pop in jackspratt@eastsnofat.com. You never know - they might just get the message (I do tick all the "send me a whole load of crap I'll regret signing up for" box)

ekehoe

Originally posted by dahamsta

I've heard about American TV, and you can see it from the talk show imports, but luckily I've never really had to deal with it. It must be maddening.

You have no idea. We were so happy when we showed up here and saw tv with almost no commercials. Watching a movie on BBC is like a relevation. The only movie I can think of that I have seen in the states with no commercials was Schindler's List, sponsored by Ford.

The timing of commercials is quite simple. Most networks have a schedule for them. I remember that the first commercial for the last show I worked on started a 8 minutes into the show, then 8 again, then...you get the picture. For a half hour show, you get 22 minutes of program; for an hour, it's 44.


I don't know anything about US National Radio...

NPR/Public TV in the US is paid for by donations and some subsidies from the National Endowment for the Arts. It doesn't get much government money. There are pledge drives about 2-3 times a year where people call in and donate money. They do well, but not always well enough. Those BBC miniseries and BallyK are quite expensive :-)


Sorry for straying even further off-topic, but this stuff interests me.

Feel free to email me with questions....

E

dahamsta

Too right. Jack Spratt has signed up for a lot of things on my behalf. And if anyone looks for an email address for a download, assuming they don't accept a@a.com, I usually pop in jackspratt@eastsnofat.com. You never know - they might just get the message (I do tick all the "send me a whole load of crap I'll regret signing up for" box)

What message do you want them to get? That people don't want to register for services? They don't know that already? Nah, a lot of this goes back to the dotcom boom, when demographics were king of the castle and everyone was happy to give stuff away from free. (It's still happening right now, with "Piggy Points", but no-one ever said there was a limit to investors idiocy.) Anyway, the reason I quoted this particular paragraph is because of this: I do tick all the "send me a whole load of crap I'll regret signing up for" box. Why? What is that supposed to prove? Don't you realise that when you do that you're adding to the network congestion spammers create every day?

You have no idea. We were so happy when we showed up here and saw tv with almost no commercials. Watching a movie on BBC is like a relevation.

See, this is the thing. I for one would be quite happy to pay for the TV channels I want, when I want them, with no advertising. Give me the stuff I want - CNN, Paramount, etc - and cut out the stuff I don't - foreign language, kids, TV3. And with the technology available today, and becoming more available, that's possible. However that doesn't suit everyone, some people can't afford to do it that way. And on top of that, we're actually paying two "fees" now, one to the channels and the producers (throught advertising) and one for delivery (Sky). The lines are beginning to blur, but in a bad way.

adam

davros

That "cold as ice" macleans ad at the moment is so annoying I sent an email to GlaxoSmithkline about it today.

The one that gets me is "The tree (sic) bakers" on radio. I suggest a boycott of Johnson, Mooney & O'Brien.

[Swordfish] ...you couldn't drag me to this film kicking and screaming

You missed the best damn explosion scene in a film ever.

think about ALL those radio and TV channels suddenly finding their ad revenues dropping through the floor, with absolutely no Plan B. They'll have to come up with a Plan B fairly rapidly

As ekehoe said, US NPR (and its member stations) gets almost no funding from government sources. People like it, so they donate to it. I wouldn't believe it if they weren't already doing it. And, having heard NPR, I'd even cough up myself.

I wouldn't sign up for any free service with my real details, so this doesn't bother me in the least.

What bothers me is data consolidation. There are companies in the US that hoover up all those little pieces of info that we give out in daily life. They put them together and bingo - a complete dossier on you. You might not give out your name but other info can give you away. How about ip address for example? (I presume always-on connections have dedicated ip addresses?) We have decent data protection laws at the moment but the government seems way too willing to erode those.

Sorry for straying even further off-topic, but this stuff interests me.

My apologies also. To make up for it, I'll post something on-topic shortly. I need to read back over the group to see if it has been raised before.

davros

The timing of commercials is quite simple. Most networks have a schedule for them.

Aha. Wouldn't work here then. I recently noticed that RTE had stopped timing programs completely. In the old days there was a clock before the 9 O'Clock news and the news started right on the dot. Not anymore. I guess they fired the guy with the watch.

billy the squid

is it me or did this thread go off topic a little

as for the tivo it skips the ads by watching out for the black segments between the ads this would not work on say TV3 or Sky

and as wishful as bill gates is he happens to be right the internet is only going to achieve its full potential when everyone on it can go as fast as they can on it.

failing that their going to get sick of it if it goes to slow for them

dahamsta

As ekehoe said, US NPR (and its member stations) gets almost no funding from government sources. People like it, so they donate to it. I wouldn't believe it if they weren't already doing it. And, having heard NPR, I'd even cough up myself.

Oh, I'm not saying that the advertising industry won't eventually settle down again, but I still reckon it's going to be in turmoil in the coming years. The instability has pretty much been tied into the web/net sector until recently, but it's already starting to make the other sectors look a bit wobbly.

What bothers me is data consolidation. There are companies in the US that hoover up all those little pieces of info that we give out in daily life. They put them together and bingo - a complete dossier on you. You might not give out your name but other info can give you away.

Well, that's really down to keeping yourself informed and secure, and protecting your own privacy. It's not that hard when you put your mind to it, even if you're someone who doesn't understand technology very well. Unfortunately though, there's a lot of mis- and disinformation out there, such as the guff propogated about cookies. Cookies aren't evil in and of themselves, in fact they're quite cool and transform an ordinarily useless stateless medium like the web into something that can be used as a tool. Of course what you're talking about, consolidation, is why DoubleClick hit the news so hard last year, because they wanted to associate the demographics they had created using cookies, with hard data on real people, and that's bad. But that's not /cookies'/ fault, it's Doubleclick's fault. And they weren't allowed do it, thank the gods.

How about ip address for example? (I presume always-on connections have dedicated ip addresses?)

Not at the moment; and 'no'. Always-on connecttions /can/ mean dedicated IP addresses, but it's actually quite rare with cable or DSL connections. Most of the time they're assigned via DHCP (Dynamic Host Control Protocol) or connections are twiddled using NAT (Network Address Translation). If you want a static IP address, you usually have to request one specifically, and they cost more, etc etc. So most people are on dynamic IP's that can't be relied upon. Of course, it's only a matter of time before ISP's start trying to sell the IP/User relationship data to advertising companies, but at the moment in Ireland that's unrealistic, since most people are on "free" services; and there'll be uproar if anyone gets wind of it. But it's only a matter of time before that changes of course.

We have decent data protection laws at the moment but the government seems way too willing to erode those.

True, they're always trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and it's pure lobbying and (possibly even legal) backhanders from organisations like the Direct Marketing Associations that are responsible for it. Whatever about offline DM (I have a natural and very powerful dislike of ALL DM companies and organisations) the governments are absolutely wrong to listen to DM orgs lobbying on online DM issues, because the DM orgs have proven themselves to be irresponsible with /what they're lobbying for/. Opt-out when the cost of receipt is the responsibility of the user is bad, period, there's no two ways about that. Of course, on top of all of that, there's another aspect, in that people aren't /aware/ that we have decent data protection laws, and they don't know how to use them to protect themselves.

adam