NY State Demands Email Addresses/Usernames Of Sex Offenders

ABC Still Excited About DVRs That Disable Fast Forward

from the bad,-bad-ideas dept

Mon, May 19th 2008 10:17am — Mike Masnick

A few months ago, we wrote about how ABC was excitedly testing a new DVR technology that would prevent people from fast forwarding through commercials on their DVR. If this seems dumb and destined to fail, that's because it's dumb and destined to fail. You don't compete with things like a fully functional DVR that has features people want by creating a crappy DVR that doesn't have the features people want. That story got plenty of attention -- which should have made its way back to ABC. But, if it did, the company is ignoring it. As reader Joey writes in to let us know, at ABC's recent "upfronts" where it pitches its latest efforts to advertisers, it's still excitedly pushing the idea of the fast-forward-disabled DVR (in the update at 4:34). The NY Times reporter claimed it was "a fancy way to combat DVR use." Except, that it's not. It's a dumb way to combat DVR use because all it will do is anger a bunch of people and get them to go out and buy a DVR that doesn't do that sort of thing.

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

Filed Under: commercials, dvrs, fast forward
Companies: abc, disney

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2008 @ 10:42am

Not that I am liking ABC's idea but you are misreading the NY Times article. It only refers to DVRs in the context of combatting them and clearly states that they are wanting to disable fast-forward for "VOD" which is notthe same thing as VOD (Video on demand) does not require a DVR.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2008 @ 10:44am

meant to say:

Not that I am liking ABC's idea but you are misreading the NY Times article. It only refers to DVRs in the context of combatting them and clearly states that they are wanting to disable fast-forward for "VOD" which is not the same thing as a DVR. VOD does not require a DVR.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WDS, 19 May 2008 @ 10:52am

Of course ABC will probably push to make it a requirement, similar to the movie industries insistance that all move rentals time out in 24 hours if they are recorded on a DVR.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 19 May 2008 @ 10:56am

Combat DVR use?

I'll fix it for them on my end, I'll add ABC to the 'skipped' channels. That way they won't have to worry about it at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
claire rand, 19 May 2008 @ 11:07am

it will work just fine
make it a requirement?

they will just do what sky does in the uk.. some channels will only be available using this crippled dvr, encrypt the signal in some reasonably basic way and DMCA anyone who 'hacks' it.

ok will only work with some channels initially, but make this the standard box for abc on some premium service (make the box part of the sub like cable/sat do) and its in place. seriously hold back on the 'no skip' for a few months, maybe a year..

job done

some people will find a way to hack it, but most won't, make the encryption updatable on the fly.

point being the coding doesn't have to be good, just good enough to deal with 95% of the population, the other 5% are busy grabbing shows via torrents, forget them
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nate, 19 May 2008 @ 11:10am

Ha!
If they think people will by an inferior product that does less than others, they are stupid. Why would you get an "ABC" DVR when you can get a Tivo or whatever is offered by your cable/dish provider. I see what they want, as more and more people use DVRs, less people watch commercials, and they can't charge as much for advertising. Well, I think they need to find a new approach to advertising, because taking your viewers a step backward in their viewing experiences is not going to go over well. If they actually try to pull this off, I will do as the other poster said and add them to my skipped channels. http://www.custompcmax.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James, 19 May 2008 @ 11:11am

Hmmmm...
Why not just make the entire show one LONG commercial if you love advertisers so much? Hmm.. come to think of it that new Knight Rider remake was pretty close... ironically it would've been a laugh-riot if they had shown it with, "limited commerical interruption".. LMAO
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Flemming, 19 May 2008 @ 11:12am

there are plenty of people who like watching the commercials and trailers. They should be content with that. I wonder if they are planning a way to keep the sound from being turned down also?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish, 19 May 2008 @ 11:13am

I've had a PC based DVR connected to my living room TV until recently. I don't really see the need to have recording capabilities anymore. Any show I watch I can get from bittorrent the next morning in at least 720p resolution with the commercials edited out. I can get my movies from Netflix in DVD or Blu-ray in a day or two. Once again, no interruptions and no distracting ads being flashed on the bottom. Plus, my wife can watch her shows such as Desperate Housewives directly from the broadcaster. I guess the only reason I'd want a DVR is to pause and fast-forward through live shows such as sporting events. Luckily, I don't watch sports.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Griffon, 19 May 2008 @ 11:19am

until..
Until they all have some sort of MS OS which will cheerfully obey whatever flag he broadcasters want regardless of what the consumers want or even think they have purchased in their box.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dwayne, 19 May 2008 @ 11:22am

VOD not DVR
A lot of the Video on Demand channels are free!! You do not have to buy a DVR or 'rent/subscribe' channel listings. I have built my own using gbpvr and still check out the free Video on Demand offerings every once in a while just to see whats there. I like to skip commercials but more than willing to watch a few if content free and playable when I want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anony, 19 May 2008 @ 11:24am

Re: Hmmmm...
A lot of the newer shows have plenty of product placements in them. Some shows are getting less and less subtle about it, but I think this is a much better model since it is unobtrusive and you won't have to worry about people skipping them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
busy hands, 19 May 2008 @ 11:27am

Long live DVD decrypter & its ability to "remove" the fast forward block :)

I want a discount for having to sit thro Advert crap. Thank god we humans need to use the toilet, etc or i`d have slashed my wrists by now.

I didnt PAY for ADVERTS , i paid for the main film. Slysoft will see these muppets right :) Ripp away i say
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony, 19 May 2008 @ 11:29am

Re: Ha!
"If they think people will by an inferior product that does less than others, they are stupid."

Then how do you explain the success of companies like Bank of America?

For some reason, people buy "inferior products" all the time. They're not stupid for expecting people to buy this - they're being realistic, unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2008 @ 11:31am

Re:
Next, they will not allow you to look away, walk away, or close your eyes during commercials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
inc, 19 May 2008 @ 11:31am

Instead of trying to figure out way to fuck their consumers they should be figuring out ways to get more value to them. If people are fast forwarding through commercials it's because no one wants to watch them. Why not put them on at the end of the show let those that actually want to watch them do so. How about making it more interactive where if you watched an ad you answer some question with the DVR and get a prize or a free sample of that product. Even if everyone gets a free product you know that your ad hit it's mark.

They should also do away with raising the volume on commercials and lowering it during the show. It's so annoying when a show goes to commercial and your ears start bleeding because the dude is screaming about some new medication we can't live without.

(p.s. I patented that idea)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nate, 19 May 2008 @ 11:38am

Re: Re: Ha!
Yes, they may be banking on a select market that won't realize that they are getting a piece of junk. But, once most of them get it home and realize that you can't do the most basic DVR function... fast forward, they will bring it right back to the store. If someone kept it, it is already the same people that were probably watching the commercials... so no gain in viewers. Overall, it isn't going to take off. Now, if they wanted to improve their ad revenues, they could try a different route. Like: Offer a free DVR, with no subscription fees. The DVR allows you to pause, fast forward, rewind, whatever. But, when you pause, it shows an ad, when you FF, you get a still image add banner on the top or bottom of the screen, etc... you see where I am going? But, to just remove functions that are available else where, you are not going to be successful in the long run.

Now, this is assuming that all it does is disable FF. If it is some special DVR that is needed to view certain "encoded" channels or shows/movies, then they could be more successful, as they will force people into it. But, it won't be with out a struggle. You can't have an nice feature that everyone is used to now, and then take it away and expect no one to care. http://www.custompcmax.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Iron Chef, 19 May 2008 @ 11:40am

ABC Missed the memo
Can someone please send a subscription of Broadcasting & Cable over to the ABC offices?

It appears they missed a lot over the past few months.

Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nate, 19 May 2008 @ 11:40am

Re:
BUT YOU CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT IT!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Me, 19 May 2008 @ 11:52am

Re:
You're exactly right. The article stated that they want to disable fast-forwarding on VOD programming, which is (supposedly) different from normal DVR operation. I'm not entirely sure how that's supposed to "combat" DVR usage though, unless there's commercials in the VOD content that are currently being fast-forwarded through. I didn't think VOD had commercials though, since you have to pay for it. If you're paying for it, and still get commercials, you are getting seriously ripped off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicholas Iler, 19 May 2008 @ 11:52am

Too little too late...
This is a great example of how some companies just don't get it. They seem to be hiring morons as in the Monster Cable blog post.
If they had tested this DVR before the fully functional DVR exisited then of course it would be great. Like I have said before the Entertainment and Music industry need to wake up and smell the coffee. It is like convincing people to walk miles when they already know about buses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 19 May 2008 @ 11:54am

24-hour rule
>all move rentals time out in 24 hours if they are recorded on a DVR

Yeah, and the last PPV I bought was...let me see...oh, yeah, before that rule went into effect. I would never buy one now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nate Nead, 19 May 2008 @ 12:04pm

Mad People
That's going to make a bunch of people angry, including me. However, it's great the DVR capability is coming in. I guess the advertisers are finally fighting back against the DVR>
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 19 May 2008 @ 12:10pm

Product Placement
When you guys mentioned product placement being not so subtle it makes me think of the movie The Truman Show with Jim Carrey.
That was pretty funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2008 @ 12:13pm

Is there anything on ABC worht recording?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2008 @ 12:27pm

Re: until..
Then buy a Mac
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nitro, 19 May 2008 @ 12:28pm

DVR
I love my DVR. It is a DVD recorder with a hard drive. Does all the same crap as any other DVR except I don't pay a monthly fee for it. Even has an edit option that allows you to delete commercials, I mean scenes, before burning them to DVD. The only thing it lacks is a second tuner, but all I have to do to defeat that is switch to the TV. It allows you to watch movies while something is recording to the hard drive or even watch a recording from the hard drive while something is in the process of recording to the hard drive. Pretty much what those monthly fee DVR's do. It even has a digital tuner, of course it only display standard definition, but it does upconvert DVD's to 1080p. Don't matter much as I don't have an HD TV yet. Anyways... I have gotten partially off subject, so I with this now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob, 19 May 2008 @ 1:05pm

Railing against this comment from ABC is silly and immature. ABC is not suggesting, from what I read in the link, that their regularly scheduled programming slots be fast-forward disabled for DVR. They are proposing a "premium service" for free. You would be able to watch a show out of schedule anytime you want without recording it to your DVR. The only payment you give is that you don't fast-forward through the commercials.

I see a lot of lip-service given around here to "changing business models" This seems like a good change. How do you expect broadcast companies to make any money if they are not allowed to sell advertising?

If the argument is that all the shows on broadcast TV suck, then just don't watch, fast-forward or not.

I rarely watch commercials because I only watch DVR'd shows. If I had to watch a show with this proposed service, I would consider it a fair trade-off for not recording it in the first place.

I have noticed lately that the commercials are getting more entertaining. Not quite destination entertainment, but I will occasionally stop and watch a commercial if I see an interesting blip while FF.

I just wish when this type of conversation happens here that the "TV sucks" and "Gimme Free or Gimme Death" camps could think before they type. There are worse things then Broadcast Television and Watching Commercials. Also paying for cable doesn't mean you paid for broadcast TV. It is still free over rabbit ears.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John (profile), 19 May 2008 @ 1:14pm

Sarcasm...
Sarcasm alert:

I hear that ABC is going to create a new "jeans glue" system where people are *forced* to remain seated when commercials come on. As soon a commercial comes on, the glue is activated and the person is unable to stand up.
After all, advertisers have long known that people get up and go to the bathroom or get a snack when the commercials come on.
Now, people can't get up: they'll be forced to watch commercials! hahahahahaha!

(sarcasm off)

As an aside, why is there such a push to "force" people to do something? Why do so many companies take the "stick" approach instead of the "carrot" approach? Instead of forcing people to watch commercials, how about making commercials that people willing *want* to watch?

And don't tell me that advertisers aren't creative enough to do this. (Personally, I think they're too lazy to come up with anything better than "Beer, please drink it".)

A show of hands: how many people love the "World's Best Commercials" or "World's Sexiest Commercials" TV shows? We're spending an entire hour watching commercials! Doesn't that tell the network (and advertisers) than people WILL watch commercials, as long as the commercial is worth watching?

Then again, like so many things in life, it's easier to fix the symptom ("people aren't watching commercials so let's disable the fast forward control") than it is to fix the underlying reasons ("let's look at WHY aren't people watching commercials").
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alice Bachini-Smith, 19 May 2008 @ 1:54pm

Haha! The whole point of DVRs is bleeping over the adverts! This is like trying to sell people a car that only goes 5 miles a day in order to save the planet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Corman, 19 May 2008 @ 2:15pm

Re: it will work just fine
Yeah, thats probably the best way to actually make viewers watch commercials, but what are they gonna do when no-one feels like playing their game and chooses to just stop watching that channel. I'd bet Dollars to donuts that if they try this, they will be seriously hurting for viewers. I don't think they will ever make it stick on multiple channels. I'll go dig out my damn VCR before I buy one of those boxes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim Treacher, 19 May 2008 @ 2:35pm

Remember back in the '50s?
When ABC put out a TV that could only pick up ABC?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Earl McCarthy, 19 May 2008 @ 3:12pm

They must be kidding! some commercials are longer than the shows!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 20 May 2008 @ 4:58am

do some marketing
What these pinheads with marketing degrees don't get? It is not about your piece of the pie, it is about making the pie bigger. Maybe if they got out of the office and did a little number based research they would find out WHAT COMMERCIALS STOP THAT FAST FORWARD IN ITS TRACKS? I find myself stopping and rewinding to watch some commercials because I caught something in the FF that was interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ferin, 20 May 2008 @ 5:08am

You don't compete with fully functional product by making a crappy one
Agreed. You compete with a fully functional product by lobbying for legislation that makes only your crappy half functional product legal in the name of protecting the free market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2008 @ 7:34pm

Re: Ha!
If they think people will by an inferior product that does less than others, they are stupid.
They buy Microsoft Windows Media Center (that obeys the "broadcast flag") don't they?
[ link to this | view in thread ]