Odd That TV Networks Would Block Their Own Ads From Being Shown To Users Who Want To Watch
from the this-makes-very-little-sense dept
There have been all these stories lately about how the various TV networks are "blocking Google TV." But, that's getting the story backwards. What the networks are doing is not blocking Google TV -- which is basically just a browser -- but they're blocking their own, freely available content and advertisements from being accessible via a particular browser. It's difficult to see how this makes any sense at all. It's really a move from an industry that appears to (a) not fully understand Google TV (which could be Google's fault in how it was presented) and (b) be so hell-bent on "protecting" a part of its business, that it refuses to recognize the opportunities for embracing the internet (i.e., getting more people to see its advertisements). Of course, part of the "problem" is that the networks have been getting fat, happy and stupid on retransmission dollars, but that's a temporary blip, only possible due to the technology which hasn't totally broken down the walls yet. But that technology is coming one way or another (and it's not just Google). The networks would be smart to notice what happened to the music industry when it refused to work with the "legitimate" players early on: driving traffic and interest to underground players who had no interest whatsoever in working with them. It's a shame that the TV networks now appear to want to do the same exact 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: advertising, blocking, google tv, tv
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These television networks. They confuse me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They want the ad dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But yes, there are many who don't know about these.
Still not the point though, you need the page hits first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Goog = The Borg. TV networks don't want to be absorbed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Goog = The Borg. TV networks don't want to be absorbed.
The studios are dinosaurs who think they can survive the inevitable extinction level event by trying to step on all the previously insignificant species. The giant asteroid that's going to kill the studios has been coming for some time and squashing the other species' that are more likely to adapt to the inevitable cataclysm and survive doesn't ensure the survival of the giant, obtuse, stubborn studios. Their inevitable demise is not going to be brought on by competition, but by a paradigm shift that is already happening.
Google isn't causing the obsolescence of the studios, it's just the ape learning to use tools while the dinosaurs are strutting about like kings, unaware that they're standing on what will become a very deep impact crater shortly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Goog = The Borg. TV networks don't want to be absorbed.
My point, and answer to your analogy is that the reptiles *know* Google is the up and coming new monster, and at best, they aren't inclined to help it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Goog = The Borg. TV networks don't want to be absorbed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boggles my mind.
This is just a ridiculous extension of that. I mean, I want to see these shows. And, glad you asked, I happen to have better things to do at the time when these shows air. So I turn to Hulu, and watch whatever is in there. And I may turn to other sources for the shows I don't find in Hulu. If I got GoogleTV, that would mean _all_ my shows. I am _voluntarily_ agreeing to watch your commercials, but you don't want to show them to me? That's fine.
They figure they will eventually prevail in squashing all those "other sources" via legal means but they won't. a) because illegal sources keep showing up faster than they can kill them. b) because my "other sources" aren't even illegal: a tv-tuner turns an old computer into a dvr. I don't watch commercials in that case, since I just skip them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW Google even made it more difficult to find anything on Youtube, they took down the browse capability that have some sort out channels and made it confusing. You no longer can find movies with easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streaming video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think so...
TV, journalism, music, movies; they all face changes that will reshape the way their business is conducted, but the large companies that control them now will evolve over time.
The good thing about all this is that while the big guys are evolving there is a lot of room for the little guys to enter previously closed markets and begin competing. Personally Im looking forward to innovation in all the places where it was previously blocked by gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These old media execs wouldn't be able to grasp a profitable future if it was being dangled in front of them.
I can't wait till they go extinct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes no sense
The basic idea of owning a TV station is that your customers aren't the people watching, they're the people paying by buying advertising. It should be the job of the TV execs to make their station the most desirable to their advertisers by capturing the most viewers.
That should mean each station delivering their content in every conceivable way that people would want to watch, maximizing traffic to your advertisers.
But everything they do makes it seem like they want less people to watch ads. Removing content essentially only removes your ability to deliver advertising because if its not easy to watch legally on the internet it will be easy to download illegally which does limit the TV station's' revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes no sense...unless you consider Revenue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're both greedy AND stupid.
They also need to figure out that targeted ads are exponentially more valuable than blanket ads. I would have no problem allowing them access to my Google or Facebook data, so they could better target ads for me. I'd much rather sit through computer ads than, say, tampon ads, and they should be able to figure out which one to serve up to me based on my Facebook profile. Even without the Facebook integration, just the data Hulu collects should be enough to more accurately target ads at me, just based on all the videos I watch. They're missing a huge opportunity to actually make *more* from advertising, but they're missing it because they're just too stupid & stuck in their old ways to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As Jonny5k points out, the solution for a content distributor blocking content is to use a service that provides some kind of aggregation. Be that a torrent website / streaming service / whatever. All they do is drive the users away from their content distribution network, which inevitably means we don't watch their adverts.
These companies need to embrace googletv / youview / any other similar service if they want to win back people like me, that are pissed off with the locking down of content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Network users will be able to block ads themselves!
If the TV networks go down the path you want, won't be long before they can't at all guarantee anyone actually sees ads, consequently revenue falls, and the crap "content" gets yet worse. For instance, between Noscript and a hosts file, I almost never see ads, and if they're from a separable site and annoy me, I just add them into hosts file. -- That *cannot* be *allowed* with "content" supported by ads! The whole deal falls apart! -- RIght, it's fine for *me*, because *I* don't mind if it does fall apart! -- But you guys who want your televised sports and other crap do *not* have anything viable to replace advertising support, and you're *not* willing to pay for "content" on the web either.
I've never been fond of advertising support -- because of the disconnect between what I want to view and how it's paid for -- but you guys seem to think that you can completely sever the connection yet still get the "content".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They never will see that they are following the same path as the record labels did. It is against their nature. Short term profits rule. In the future shows will be viewed or sold individually (not bundles, channels), that the high amount they charge for access to their shows will disappear, etc. They will live by the financial quarter ... a neat phrase occured to me ...
Live by the quarter, die by the quarter ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]