Broadcasters Tell Flying J To Quit Changing The Trucking Channel
from the sue-first,-explore-technology-later dept
We've been critical of the approach TV networks have taken to dealing with technologies such as the DVR. Instead of acknowledging that they improve the TV experience, and then looking for a creative solution, they've usually let their legal teams guide their strategy. But now the networks have a new complaint, which is a little more interesting. They allege that Flying J truck stops block out commercials on their TVs, and then replace them with their own ads, which are more targeted to truckers. This isn't a matter of simply blocking commercials, but of repurposing broadcast content for their own profit. Though Flying J is a pretty small player, it could be become a bigger issue for the networks if hotels, for example, started using the same technology. What's interesting though is that it makes sense to serve ads about trucking to truckers. Allowing establishments to sell their own ads based on their clientele could improve the efficiency of the overall ad market. Though previous attempts at customized advertising have been dissapointments, the idea isn't necessarily flawed -- one only needs to look at the difference between ads served on Spike TV and the Oxygen Network. If the networks were smart (don't laugh), they'll look to exploit this regardless of how the legal events unfold. Otherwise, the broadcast model will continue to crumble in the face of disruptive technologies.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pulled this from the WIRED Website. It is exactly what I was thinking. How is this any different from channel surfing during commerical breaks? We all know we are guilty of it. If corporations can start suing for not watching commercials what is going to stop Networks from suing because people arent watching the programs that THEY want people to watch? Ridiculious, just let the public watch what they want when they want and how they want, and quit your GD whining.
Or better yet, stop watching TV all together and see how they fare. (which will never happen, cause american society as a whole is lazy, myself included =)
/end rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (Ranter)
/end rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Cares
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PITTSBURGH - Joel Mikita, a Steelers fan and extremely loyal follower of professional football, seeks out the NFL's explicit permission before engaging in any sort of activity or conversation he thinks they may not approve of, the commissioner's office of the National Football League reported Wednesday. "When we first received a letter from Mr. Mikita in January 1995 requesting permission to record the AFC Championship game because he had to work that Sunday, we thought it was a considerate gesture and of course granted him approval," said NFL Standards And Practices chairman Mark Helowitz. "But since then, it's gotten a little out of hand. We have a team of lawyers working around the clock inventing forms and drawing up new regulations for him, informing him if it's okay to tell his buddy the final score of last night's game, or if he's allowed to say bad things about the Eagles coaching staff, or if he can tape a game with his TiVo, and if so, whether or not we care if he fast-forwards through the commercials." Helowitz added that amidst all the requests, there was one "really sweet one" seven years ago in which Mikita asked for written permission to ask his longtime girlfriend Michelle to marry him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
frames...
--------
|X| |
--------
| | |
--------
Or if they cut to a 3/4 frame and had banners, etc.
---------------------
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
------------------ |
----------------------
The latter method would allow them to provide their own commercials during the entire broadcast whereas the former method would require there to be switching when the ("original")commercials start/stop. Either way, both would technically allow the original commercials to be passed while still allowing the truckstop to do the advertising they are rightfully allowed to do for providing the "service" of the tv's. As I see it(and others do too obviously), there's no difference between what they are doing and mere channel surfing...so they have their own channel that they happen to switch to during commercials..doesn't seem like an issue to me. Of course my question is why the content providers aren't offering Flying J money to pass on the ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: frames...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Commercials
Personally, I see commercials as a waste of my life. That is why I surf, cook, clean, and toilet time the commercials.
A thought just occured to me. Place ads on disposable products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
continued
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It all depends on the licensing...
I have seen some of these contracts, which every sports bar typically have, there is nothing in them that says anything about requiring to show the commericals.
In fact, one specific college's sports bar I use to manage would switch from commericals over to highlights from past football/basketball games, small video clips about the university or some commericals for university sponsors.
The reason this works (for bars) is because they don't pay 44.95 a month to Time Warner for cable, they pay hundreds, if not thousands a month to broadcast to the public.
This sounds to me like the content people getting more greedy (suprise suprise) and trying to benefit from both ends, sort of the like they want to do with net netruality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazing Kreskin
This method can keep shows like Firefly on the air, if fans are devoted enough to pay more for lack of numbers. Take a look at fireflyfans.com to see how people are voting on that one. $1-5 per channel would cover everything I watch, and still come in cheaper than my cable package (which is everything, cause I'm a glutton apparently). Ala Carte will rule, although it will be slow coming out of the chute. So many people require simplicity still, in everything. I look back at technology and how people embrace it, and the early telephone sticks out. You picked it up, told the lady who you needed to talk to, and then you talk to them. We have to make a TV system that easy, while keeping interactivity via the web. Say channels run $1-5/mo, but you want to watch a show on a channel you don't pay for. Say $.50 per show, or if you're paying for 5 channels, you get 5 free shows a month. I like this model, because it forces the content providers to be more real, and down to earth. I don't care if the stars of Friends want $1m per episode, in this model, they'd have to be reeeeaaalll popular. I've got more on the subject, but you guys all get the idea. Not that it's really new anyway. Many people suggested it when cable was rolling out.
GDog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cable company
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cable company
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cable company
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
contracts...
frankly unless its automatic i really can't see people surfing during ad breaks unless the breaks are huge anyway, its 'manual effort' which tends not to be bothered with.
of course the alternative is make ads that are worth watching, which given the ad typically has more spent on it per minute of 'ontent' than the programs do may not be that hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accidentally turning on your TV and getting all premium channels is different from owning a 'hot box' to obtain them.
Maybe, the TV companies should be marketing these boxes so that companies such as Flying J's can advertise the local companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they want to, Flying-J (or a hotel, bar, etc) can produce their own channel containing all the commercials they want. But, most likely, someone would simply walk over and change the channel. So, they are using someone else's content to hold the viewer's interest, then substituting their own spot for the one of the advertiser who paid to create the more- interesting content.
That's what makes it wrong, and illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about hearing impaired can't watch commerical
yet, but I tired of sick about that without closed-captioning!
That is discriminate to me because they don't providing CC
on commercials, but 50% commercials are captioned without FCC
requirement at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]