If TV Companies Released Authorized Torrents With Ads, Would People Download Them?
from the it's-all-about-choices... dept
More than seven years ago, we first wrote about Ernest Miller's concept of Bitcatching -- a name that never caught on -- which was the combination of RSS + BitTorrent, allowing the ability to "subscribe" to certain video programs. Miller envisioned that as a legal and useful way for TV broadcasters to embrace the internet with shows that had ads on them, and to avoid the fate of the recording industry. Of course, that was in the days before YouTube and Hulu existed. The industry decided to focus on those streaming platforms (with a bit of iTunes on the side). However, those all have some annoying limitations, which means that many people still just go to BitTorrent to get the shows they want.A few different people pointed us to this interesting recent Reddit thread, in which someone asked if people would download official TV programs via BitTorrent if they were high quality... with ads:
If major broadcasting companies released high quality TV show torrents WITH commercials in them, would you download those instead of commercial-free pirated ones?The responses are mixed. There are, certainly, a lot of people who insist they would never do that because they hate all advertising. I still think those people really just hate bad advertising, and don't realize that they actually like good advertising (for example, the TV shows they download? They're just "advertising" for other episodes of that TV show). But there are two types of answers that stand out and are seen throughout the comments. The first are that some people would agree to do this, having no problem supporting the TV folks. The second are people who say they hate commercials and wouldn't do this, but that they would pay for a similar thing without commercials.
I definitely would. Right now I find I'm constantly defending myself when people ask why I download all my shows. I personally do it for the convenience of being able to watch them at my leisure.
As a consumer, I would happily download a torrent straight from the broadcasting company's site since I know it would be coming from a good source, that it would be high quality and would be helping them pay their bills.
Advertisements make the entertainment industry go round, I'm not oblivious to that. I'll happily be pitched to if the companies are willing to meet me and my lifestyle halfway. Chances are, if I'm vegged out on a couch watching a show, most of the time I'm not even going to fastforward through the commercials either. They simply just aren't a big deal to me.
It seems that the TV industry is missing a big opportunity in not offering both of those options, and letting people decide.
Some may claim that shows are being put up on Hulu or iTunes, but again, the problem people have there are the restrictions associated with that content, along with the pointless delays. And, no, not everyone would agree to download the official versions or to pay. Some would still get unauthorized versions. And, as the Spotify experiment has shown, if you offer people good and convenient offerings, they're happy to pay, either with cash or with their attention.
So it really seems like the TV guys are leaving money on the table by not embracing those who prefer to use BitTorrent to get shows. Obviously, some would ignore those official offerings, but it seems likely that plenty would jump at the opportunity to use the official channels and to support one of the "options" for a business model: free with ads, or at a cheap price without. But, of course, that would require that folks in the industry be forward thinking and not have a brain spasm every time they hear the word infringement.
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, authorized torrents, business models
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
BitTorrent, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BitTorrent, etc.
You never know, they might get lucky, there just might be customers out there who might buy a low-res file and a high-res file for the one show. Fancy that, selling the same show twice! Isn't that the content provider's idea of heaven?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BitTorrent, etc.
I think that is a great idea for a market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BitTorrent, etc.
I jest... seriously, I would much rather see this happen, I think that a lot of parents are buying the direct to dvd and iTunes episodes of shows for this reason alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BitTorrent, etc.
I'd be glad to pay for ad-free shows, if they're cheap, and watch ad supported shows, if the ads are focused on being as entertaining as the shows they finance. I know they can make entertaining ads. I've seen them. For example the Angel Soft commercial where the husband asks for more TP and it shaves the side of his head as a roll whizzes by. Funny stuff. Or, the one where the wife tries to hoist a huge turkey into the sink, but ends up whipping it out the window, knocking out her husband outside in the yard.
You can't just blast ads at me and expect that I will watch them because it's how you pay for the shows; I have to have compelling reason that I want to watch them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All i ever want is a high quality file of an episode i missed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm, no, you can't, not if they require a proprietary player that doesn't allow that. And if you hack around that then you're committing a serious criminal offense, so you'd be better off just downloading the unauthorized (and unlocked) version of the show instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This means any proprietary player, as suggested below, is out.
I've always felt TV studio's are missing out on huge chunks of cash by not offering a legal, convenient, [etc.] service to ALL REGIONS!
I'm torrenting over a dozen of the most popular current shows from the USA every week, I'm sure thousands of my countrymen do the same, yet this is the only way we can watch e.g. Breaking Bad.
I pay for Spotify Premium to stream music in my car, give me the same thing for TV and charge a premium for all I care; just bloody serve me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably would not work for me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably would not work for me...
But that's the model that would likely work.
The production company can beat even the fastest uploaders to the *actual* market. The ad-less version (a boon to remixers) would be made available later, so you still have some kind of 'windowing.' Really, it's been obvious for a long while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Probably would not work for me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably would not work for me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably would not work for me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Probably would not work for me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Probably would not work for me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXvPeuc-wRw
And in Gimp it is called Adaptive Clone Tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Probably would not work for me...
For most things I don't. The practical effect of logos is that I know little of what has been on TV for the last decade. I either have to wait for it to be broadcast in a civilized country or wait until it hits DVD, and then I have to have heard enough good things about it to make it worth anything other than ignoring.
I can't watch regular TV because of the blasted things, and convincing me to buy discs of something I haven't seen is not the easiest sell you can attempt.
For some things, the blur filter in Mplayer suffices, but then I have to be motivated to go to the effort to specify the parameters of the bug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nor do I care about tv shows. I couldn't tell you what shows are on the air nor what they are about, much less who stars in them.
I guess you could call me a drop out. I've dropped out of all tv. Simply I don't watch them.
I had not realized just how intrusive ads and commercials were until I got totally away from them.
Since commercial tv as all about the commercial, there's not much show except to serve as an excuse to give you more ads. I can do without that. They can keep their commercials and I will keep my peace of mind.
In movies, maybe 2 a year are worth watching. I don't care for the remake, already know what that is about and how it will end. Hollydud seems brain dead lately for new sources, or maybe I just got away from the couch potato culture. Either way comes out the same; no thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Badger car salesman
Or the one with De Niro being a mob guy trying to sell a car?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BYhERBS5Rs
C'mon, I never saw those on TV, but I did watch them on Youtube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To be sure, some films (I’m thinking of you, WarGames: The Dead Code) can just never live up to the originals. But some most certainly do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is exclusive contract regions.
It has to be global and TV producers just don't have the global reach to do it, they are not Google and so they would try to limit the regions.
Also there is a problem with contracts to other distributors like cable that are their real customers so I don't see them interested in doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They repeatedly say you only buy a very limited license to it, so really if you want to "buy" it, it is cheaper to get a rental and rip it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately, that's a tough cookie to crack unless we let Murdock dip his grubby paws into every country's media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About the ads, when I disable blocking I almost always regret it, because it keeps showing underwear ads with semi-naked women which gets me embarrassed in front of others, so I learned to never ever unblock ads without reviewing being able to review what will be shown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And so is Rapidshare.
Who wants to keep waiting 30, 60, 90 seconds? and have to change proxies so you can get the next part that will end when you download the whole 60 parts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even Torrent freak ran the story, but Mike, well, I think it hurts his pride when the courts actually agree with the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It was a ruling on discovery, which was neither surprising nor that big of a deal. The ruling itself certainly doesn't blow the locker business out of the water. It merely was a ruling on discovery.
I read the ruling, didn't see anything too surprising about it. Didn't have much to say about it, so didn't see any reason to cover it.
I think it hurts his pride when the courts actually agree with the MPAA.
Yeah, that's why I've never covered any of the cases where they won. Are you mad? When the actual ruling on Hotfile comes down, I'll almost certainly cover it. A minor ruling on discovery? I've got more important things to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you not think it a huge deal that the MPAA will have the user information for every uploader, for everyone that HotFile was paying via their affiliate program, etc?
It isn't a minor ruling, they were order to turn over everything in their business except the source code for their site. That isn't minor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't bode well for the free file locker business, particularly those who make their living by selling advertising or more importantly selling access to the materials.
These are cases that will redefine the safe harbors for hosting companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're playing a losing game, which can quite easily be addressed by serving your customers and letting them pay for the content they desire, when and where they wish to pay for it for a reasonable price. Until that happens, the Canute act will continue, and it makes you loom ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the content industry, the word would be "f--ked". Actually, more like "dead". Quite simply, they cannot compete with free, they don't have upsell products that they can promote with free, and there aren't enough suckers willing to pay for the freeloaders to make it work out.
Nobody is going to pay $100 for a movie theater ticket (as they might stupidly do now for a concert ticket).
So you may say it's a losing game, but my feeling is the tide has turned already, and as more "business models" that depend on piracy get busted, the money goes out of it and they tend to disappear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you were right, then they really would be dead. And I mean already out of business. They've been competing with free since about 2003 or something right? People have been downloading TV shows for a long time now, and the studios are still around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More services provided to fulfill customer needs instead of the legal arm of the law stifling newer businesses?
"Quite simply, they cannot compete with free, they don't have upsell products that they can promote with free, and there aren't enough suckers willing to pay for the freeloaders to make it work out."
They can. They've had the ability. They're just lazy in suing everyone first. If someone can make a business out of cyber lockers, online storage, and music delivery systems, what's stopping the music industry and the entertainment industry from hopping in with both feet and figuring it out for themselves? Old thinking?
Thought so.
"Nobody is going to pay $100 for a movie theater ticket (as they might stupidly do now for a concert ticket). "
No shit, but they will pay $100 in the course of a year if they had a place to put their movies that they legally owned through Bittorrent downloads, streaming suggestions, and DVD rips. Hmmmm...
"...and as more "business models" that depend on piracy get busted, the money goes out of it and they tend to disappear"
No, it just doesn't go to the industry or it goes to the lawyers for all of these frivolous lawsuits. Or it goes to other entertainment endeavors such as gaming or music. Money never disappears. If the entertainment industry can't figure out what it wants to do, the customers will find something else to do with their time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Network TV, example, is pretty much surviving on either people over 40, or a younger demographic tuning in for Jersey Shore. The only things pulling good ratings (and unable to be easily pirated) at the American Idol style live shows. Otherwise, the ratings are light, yet the shows are still enjoyed.
Why? People downloading, sharing, and distributing "commercial stripped" copies online.
It isn't a question of a business model that depend on piracy getting busted. It's a business model that requires some control over how the product is consumed, in a manner that allows for commercial sponsorship. Without it, it is pretty much impossible to make the very product that you all so happily pirate.
Call it enlightened self interest for the view. Piracy in the end lowers the value of the commercial messages, which in turn lowers the amount of money available to produce the shows, which in turn means lower quality shows, which is turn means less viewers... and so on.
I can understand the "free" mentality, but it is literally killing the golden goose to have a great feast for a night. It's self defeating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Isn't that exactly what this post was discussing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Network TV, example, is pretty much surviving on either people over 40, or a younger demographic tuning in for Jersey Shore. The only things pulling good ratings (and unable to be easily pirated) at the American Idol style live shows. Otherwise, the ratings are light, yet the shows are still enjoyed."
Please note: There are a lot of people cutting the cable cords because they don't want to watch Jersey Shore, Bad Girls, horrid reality shows, or American Idol. The viewership is fragmented and the huge profit margins of the cable companies are going to go the way of the dodo. This is a given. The push for more internet is upon us as the cable guys clamor for eyeballs. People are still going to watch some series. But they may watch it through torrents authorized by the producer or they may watch it through a pirate site. It's a choice. They might not even have cable in the future. So why not offer that choice to the people instead of the usual "but... but... piracy" response?
"Why? People downloading, sharing, and distributing "commercial stripped" copies online."
Did I not say that they can offer an official torrent, track it, then offer incentives for people to donate either their time or money? Why is it that the *only* way to watch a show is through TV? In the digital age, that does not make sense to be tied down to your TV if you want your content in another manner.
"It's a business model that requires some control over how the product is consumed, in a manner that allows for commercial sponsorship. Without it, it is pretty much impossible to make the very product that you all so happily pirate."
So on one hand, there's consumers and how they want to control their entertainment. On the other hand are the distributors who are believing that entertainment has to be controlled. Who do you think is going to win this battle?
"Piracy in the end lowers the value of the commercial messages, which in turn lowers the amount of money available to produce the shows, which in turn means lower quality shows, which is turn means less viewers... and so on."
Ok... Name four shows that were canceled because of piracy.
"I can understand the "free" mentality, but it is literally killing the golden goose to have a great feast for a night."
No, I don't think you understand what's going on. You look at piracy as a scapegoat for everything. There's no "free" mentality. People could pay for ancillary products and don't want to pay for individual shows with either their time or money. DVDs are an ancillary product. If someone likes a show on TV (free), they might buy the DVD and show it around. Same thing occurs online. I've shown other scarcities in the above post.
If the industry wants to make money, it's high time they stop acting as if their entitled to money, lower some prices and learn to compete with what everyone is offering.
What's sad is that no matter how many examples otherwise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Piracy still seems to be a scapegoat instead of looking for better solutions to this economic problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could I destroy the entire Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus if I traveled back in time with a modern U.S. Marine infantry battalion or MEU?
They probably are reading Rome Sweet Rome, that started as a simple question and some crazy dude popped up with an epic story about marines fighting in ancient rome.
http://thumbs.reddit.com/t5_2stb9_3.png?v=ur6il7bzumn1jvfds228hwjdehh800brt7a3
Now everybody is jumping in to produce music, 3D models, artwork.
Fock me, that sounds more entertaining than watching Glee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.wreckamovie.com/snowblind
Budget: €28.000
Awesomeness: ✩✩✩✩
That doesn't seem much to me.
Also the tools are getting cheaper, Blender is free did you know that?
Look what it can do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAx5jJoK9S4
And as Sanctuary proved you don't need more than that if you can get a good story going.
"More than 3 million viewers tuned in to the premiere of Sanctuary on October 3, 2008 making it the highest rated original series premiere since Eureka debuted in July 2006."
http://enewsi.com/news.php?itemid=14221
So chicken little can you explain again why those people need all that control that by the way they never had before when costs of productions are going down?
People since the VCR could copy those shows for free and they distribute it too, they also skipped the commercials.
Still today more people want that crap because they have access to it which probably raises the tertiary market for that incredible crap that in 20 years everybody will look back and say "how did I watch that crap?".
Just fock it, close the doors, put some ridiculous intrusive DRM in there, I want to see what happens and I'm betting it won't be pretty for the numskulls in the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where do you think you are right now?
You are in the past of something, because all I see is free movies and TV shows for anyone wanting to watch it.
Please point out any film not available for free right now if you can.
Why are the industry not dead yet?
They should have died by your own words and here we are still discussing about the dead moving corpse of an industry that has nothing but contempt for their own customers, and don't try to say that the industry doesn't need the pirates if they didn't they wouldn't be trying so hard to make them pay, which will not happen in your lifetime until we go back to medieval times where electronics didn't exist.
Also there is no commercial piracy business in place, the people pirating stuff are not in for the money you crazy person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.soku.com/search_video?q=bones&searchdomain=&searchType=video
They have all episodes in there. That is just unbelievable, everybody worried about Youtube while the copycats are doing better.
The only concession they made was blocking foreign IP's which one can easily bypass using a proxy in China.
I see how table turned.
Instead of having a friendly government and a friendly business that dominated the landscape you idiots passed the tourch to people who don't care and will be hostile to your interests at every turn.
Ha ha ha ha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With RIAA and MPAA clients making a lot more money, that's where we'd be.
The Napster ruling has no effect whatsoever on piracy rates. Zilch. On the other hand, if the content industry chose to work with them, they'd still be profitable.
Oh, well. I'm no fan of the current content industries, so I don't particularly regret their bad decisions. It just opens up the playing field for everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If these companies had instead worked on bringing their businesses in line with what customers demanded? A far, far better place.
"Quite simply, they cannot compete with free"
Funny, I thought this was a discussion about TV companies, who were themselves based on "free" before the advent of cable, and many still are.
"Nobody is going to pay $100 for a movie theater ticket"
Ah, I see. Not only are you trying to shoehorn your already debunked idiocy from another thread, you don't have the imagination to compete in industry based on anything other than price. You are a poor businessman, and if you are unable to compete on product value then your businesses deserve to die, and good riddance. Smarter businessmen will prevail.
"my feeling is the tide has turned already"
Delusional as well, I see. So long as fools like you try to pretend that piracy is your major problem, you are still going down the tubes. Address the demand part of the equation instead of tilting at the supply windmills, and piracy will no longer be a problem even if it's still around at current levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fox does not. Time Warner does not. SonyBMG does not.
Can you spot the difference between the above? If not, then you may need a rewiring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did that once. The rug I wove was the silliest looking thing you can imagine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
P.S: shhh, don't anybody tell him nobody gives a shit about MPAA ruling anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Certainly not any pirate I know, that is for sure LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where do you find proxies that actually work for downloading from such sites? Every single "surf anonymously" web site has been useless for downloading because the scripts on the sites don't work properly and finding actual proxy servers (where you enter the IP and port # into the browser) that work is like looking for a needle in a haystack. By the time I find one that works, the wait time has expired anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The list was scrapped from proxies websites that announced them automatically.
But you are right it is a lot of work there are easier ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torrents require that you download them in advance, while streaming is on-demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NOTE: Two key elements.
1) The ads: said ads must be "good advertising" (granted it is subjective) but if your ads are annoying, stupid, or excessive then I will go somewhere else.
2) Pricing: "reasonably priced" does not mean what the TV broadcasters think it is worth, it means what the CONSUMERS think it is worth. Again this is somewhat subjective, but I think the economics here have been covered enough already.
*For myself, I would happily watch some (good) ads if it meant that I could help support the shows I enjoy, while getting them when I want & how I want them.*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Having the file stored locally also removes the risk of service provider or internet connection glitch getting in the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: redwall_hp on Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 9:52pm
Jon Stewart is doing the same with his show.
I don't own a TV, and don't plan to waste money on one ever.
I believe Jon Stewart does the same with his show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streaming really isn't better
A DRM free download is also much more portable and is something that you can transform into a format that can be used with any playback device.
Streaming services involve quite a lot of BS and artificial limitations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are really, really wrong.
- We don't want advertising. Even the "good" advertising (what the fuck does that even mean?) Advertising is for weak-minded individuals that can't apparently make a decision without being pushed the idea beforehand.
- We don't want third party or second party unaffiliated content with our primary content. This includes buttons all over your webpage, third party tracking. I'm on your site or your show or playing your game because I have a sole interest in that media. Just because you made product X does not mean product Y is a good fit for me: That is my decision to make, not yours to push upon me.
As for this particular idea, I would just go with my normal, reliable Torrent feeds that already are RSS'd and have been for many years. They are reliable and they are out at most a few hours after East Coast air-dates.
I do buy Steam games. Steam is less hassle than piracy, its cost is affordable, its service is fantastic and adds value versus piracy.
Media however like movies and shows I'm a lost cause, I've already found my alternative source and I'm quite happy with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You read this site. This site is advertising for me.
That's what I mean by good advertising. All content is advertising something. Good content is good advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are wrong, of course, its Good advertising creates good content.
Like TD without the advertising you would not have the content, and with more advertising you could afford to provide more content.
Or if your content was better you would get more money from advertising, and make money (profit).
So you will make statements based on your perception of how many people will read your statements as opposed to writing the truth and not make as much money.
This is called concensus driven news, or the tail wagging the dog.
You dont bother saying what is correct or the truth, but you base your statements on how much money you will make, facts are secondary to you.. as long as you get the page hits to pay for your lifestyle.
And at a absolute minimum cost of 'content' creation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like TD without the advertising you would not have the content, and with more advertising you could afford to provide more content.
O rly? Maybe we'd see less articles due to the fact that Mike would have to split his focus with another job but no content? Because no art was ever produced without proper remuneration, right? Because all science was ever done was for the profit only, right?
If Mike gets enough page views to pay for his needs it's because he puts effort in what he does and thus ppl keep coming and generating ad revenue with their eyeballs. So uh, you fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a waste of my time...
For broadcast/cable, the amount of ads is considerable and in the aggregate means a lot of my time being completely wasted.
I would rather have more content.
Then again I've owned a PVR since the 90s and have a big DVD collection. I won't tolerate unskippable commercials. They are like an unforgivable curse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a waste of my time...
Since when does Hulu insert ads at random points during the show?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why comment?
Thank you so much! You are just the most enlightened freakin' sons-of-guns I've ever heard of!
This is revolutionary. I have now canceled my FiOS. Thank you for saving me! Look, out the window, there's people and trees and stuff out there. Who knew!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I actually blogged this very idea years ago...
Oh, and I invented the DVR in 1992, too. I'm just that ahead of the times. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ads
The biggest problem I have with legitimate streaming sites like Hulu, is that they (at the behest of the content producers) do not stream shows in a useful way. There are always regional restrictions, windowing, etc.
It would be a LOT better if shows allowed free streams, as users want them, even if we have to put up with ads. Those ads will almost certainly be better than the idiotic bullshit people have to put up with merely to view e.g. The Pirate Bay's front page. (Has anyone visited them recently? I did out of curiousity, and it's a total horrorshow. It's totally worth paying a couple of bucks per download just to avoid them.)
Furthermore, the public is used to dealing with this sort of inconvenience. Everyone who grew up on TV (which is pretty much everyone over 25) knows what's up and why. It's not even perceived as an inconvenience.
So, yeah, if this is what it costs to get rid of idiotic windowing, or the ridiculous amounts the studios give to Congress to stifle all our rights, then I'm all for it. Bring on the ads!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ads
There's been a lot of talk lately about the show Wilfred. I was totally on the fence about it. But then I realized that all the first season was on Hulu, so I would be able to watch it, make up my own mind, and subscribe if I wanted to.
Well, I did, I liked it, and I'm now subscribed. That wouldn't have happened if they didn't stream it - or if only a couple of episodes could be streamed. (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, take note - even though you've always been very good to us fans.)
So, Hulu and FX are getting ad money from me that they wouldn't get if they'd locked it up or put it behind a paywall. And good for them - despite the fact that I'm watching ads that I wouldn't have to if I pirated the show, I do not feel like I'm being taken advantage of in any way. They made the right choice, and I'm glad that show is getting a bit of money in exchange for my viewing pleasure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Use Firefox with adblock plus
These days there is no reason for you NOT to have control over advertising. White list the sites you trust, if you want to support them, but stop letting the websites decide for you.
And for the love of all that's good in the world, don't use Internet Explorer...ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Use Firefox with adblock plus
I habitually use Chrome with AdBlock and Better Pop-up Blocker. Even with these in place, TPB is fucking annoying. I only visit that site whenever I want to debate trolls on here.
Perhaps there are "better" pirate sites, but to be frank, I'm not really interested. The stuff I like isn't available on pirate sites anyway (because nobody else likes it enough to upload it).
Still, even your comment proves my general point. The pirate sites are annoying as hell, and generally unfriendly to users. The fact that users would rather get content from them, instead of official channels, speaks volumes about the horribleness of the official channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Use Firefox with adblock plus
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The fact that you even need pop-up blockers and other defenses against annoyances, proves my general point. If the pirate sites truly were "user-friendly," this wouldn't even be necessary.
The fact is, people flock to these sites because even with those annoyances, the product they're getting is better than the official product.
And: If users are willing to go through the trouble of installing software just to get content, they will certainly be willing to put up with ads in the content, especially if they're "intelligent" ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:Use Firefox with adblock plus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No..
I would however pay up to 5-10 dollars for a site with _all_ TV content on streamed, ad free. And every anual Quarter, the companys share the subscription fee based on unique IP adresses watching episode X of show X.. Pure % based..
Oh and it is WORLD WIDE.. not this region shit that everyone hates..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Releasing a straight DivX rip with commercials embedded every 10mins would make it easy work for pirates. They would just strip out the commercials and republish the episodes hours if not minute later.
There would have to be SOME sort of DRM like a standalone media player or other enforcement safeguards in place.
Yet I HATE getting into a show just to be interrupted by commercials.
IDEALLY I would rather go uninterrupted by watch a pre-show 3 minute commercial.
Unfortunately people would use this time for a restroom break and get back without ever seeing a minute of the commercial. So some level of enforcement such as a questionnaire, etc. would have to precede the commercial(s).
In the end this would best benefit both the industry as well as the consumer. The benefit to the industry would be to have a more focused consumer whose eyes are glued to the ads in order to gain information needed for the preceding questionnaire, while giving the consumer a zero interruption experience.
DRM sucks, cable bills suck, Ads that ruin the users experience suck, etc. but their needs to be some sort of common ground here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How is that any different?
You never encoded a TV stream did you?
It is automatic there is no problem with that, the majority of time spent on a pirate copy is to rip off the ads and that is today.
All the encoding is done on the fly in realtime.
So I doubt it would make more easier for the pirates, it is already dead simple unless you have a better way to rip off the ads.
Subtitles?
A group of 10 translators working on 5 min parts can finish translating and checking in under 30 min for a 45 min TV show.
Naive are the people that believe DRM is going to stop anything, it will aggravate paying customers that is all it serves.
TV doesn't have DRM it is free why should it be any different in the internet?
That is just crazy talk, put the ads in it and put it out without restrictions and people will watch it.
Start creating barriers and people will just flock to the alternatives and you will lose money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In truth, people are really lazy.
If the most convenient and easiest option is the one with the commercials, then that is the one they will choose. They will not go out of their way. They won't go out of the way to avoid commercials because they already aren't for the most part. The lack of adoption of Tivo was a nice demonstration of this. People are spoon fed a PVR from their cable provider and they still don't really take full advantage of it.
Most people just want to sit and vegetate.
The industry is fixating on the wrong 10% of the market while ignoring the other 90.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps Mike is right, and I only hate bad advertising, but in that case I've never seen any good advertising. I just mention it to give context for this reply.
Why can't I simply pay and forgo the commercials? If the show is good, I am fully willing to pay real cash. And I do so through Netflix and DVD rentals.
If this is not economical, then I don't care as I'm not watching the shows anyway.
This is an even bigger deal-killer than advertising. Special media players universally suck. If I can't watch it in my preferred media player, I don't watch it.
The common ground is easy: charge me. If the price is too high, I won't buy it. In fact, that's what advertising is -- it's just that for me, personally, the cost of putting up with ads is higher than the value I get out of the product, so I don't buy using that currency.
Beyond that, there certainly doesn't have to be any sort of common ground at all. Why should I have to compromise with the media companies? That makes no sense. It's their job to accommodate me, not the other way around. I owe them nothing.
If the current crop of companies can't do that, then let them go out of business. It's not like they're making anything of actual importance to myself or society at large, and they'll certainly be replaced by new companies that can actually give me what I want at a price I'm willing to pay anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing is going to stop it...
If you want to capture something and share it with a million of your closest friends, the tech is already out there. You simply don't need any "help". The only question now is what are the "little people" going to do. Are they going to be serviced by Big Content or are they going to be ignored long enough that they will catch onto what it takes to pirate.
The longer Big Content waits, the more likely they won't have any customers left by the time they get their act together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
advertisements in downloadable shows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: advertisements in downloadable shows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now somebody can explain to me why in the tubes should be any different?
People can already copy and distribute that crap, it is not like anybody bought a TV with DRM in it that would stop recording, besides a TV capture card or USB plug starts at $25, it makes you wonder what is so expensive about TV sets when you can put a TV receiver/recorder on a device the size of a lighter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also research 'Broadcast Flag' and 'Replay TV.' They tried to get the FCC to issue a mandate that all technology that can record HDTV must abide by the rules. 'COPY NEVER' would be good for Presidential speeches.....
Anyways, the broadcast flag is probably embedded in tv tech by threat of lawsuit rather than law. There have already been several documented glitches, which means that somebody is getting ready to flip a switch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBDTPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Flag
Replay TV is the ReplayTV sued or the offerings from the crazy people under the brandname Catch-Up-TV?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayTV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_up_TV
Any ways if they could do it, they would have done it already, the fact that they didn't, tells me that it is a pipe dream that will never come true, the technology to do that was there for at least 20 years, serious pushes have been made in the last ten and nothing came out of it, which is a shame I would love to see people not being able to record TV or radio and their reactions.
I have already moved on, if it is not CC commons and I can hear it globally from anywhere it doesn't exist for me, how many others would fallow that path?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This push to protect things may be just the thing that the world needs to get a nudge in the direction of crowdsourcing production of hardware, which like the Pirate Bay will be resilient against monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I currently torrent all the tv shows I want to watch, but I'd be willing to choose ad supported downloads for the following reasons:
- the same high quality every time, guaranteed, so I never get poor quality
- no chance (as opposed to almost no chance) of falling afoul of the law, so I run no risk
- available for download at exactly the same time as the first broadcast anywhere in the world, so I don't have to wait
- bundled with script-perfect subtitles, so I don't have to find them myself
- torrent files available on a url I can bookmark, so I never have to search
- seeded by the production company, so I always get a fast download
Yes, I'd put up with some ads for those guaranteed benefits (they're all also possible with illegal torrents, but never certain).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People would complain at first, but they would have literally no alternative (unless someone actually thought covering the ads with black rectangles was enough of an improvement over a logo to go to the trouble of doing it).
All copies, pirated or not, would be ad supported. Studios get revenue, consumers get fast, free, high quality, convenient tv online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually it is, it stop the logo from the channel getting burned in on the expensive flat TV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_burn-in
A lot of people complain about screen-burn-ins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever hear of product placement? Ads are already in the content.
Advertising in the actual content is already there! The rest of the advertising is to maximize ad revenue and profits beyond the stealth near-subliminal program-the-viewers type advertising woven into the story itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bit of this and that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the companies that want the ads make horrible ads
However, guess who consistently has horrible ads? all of the network tv channels. I have yet to see good ads outside of adult swim's entertaining ones or during the superbowl. I'm exaggerating a little but not much. We're not just talking lack of relevance, we're talking boring ads.
Hell, TV show ads sometimes are ads for shows on the same channel. Really, is that needed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the companies that want the ads make horrible ads
It was blissfully commercial free for the entire show, however. Ta, BBC!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the companies that want the ads make horrible ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why not just allow streaming?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, conditionally
So, the first condition would be that I should be able to skip the commercials on the free offering. In a similar vane, the video should be in a community supported format, the current de facto standard for 720p video being a Matroska video (.mkv) container, and should be DRM free so I can choose the video player to use.
The next thing that my DVR allows me to do is watch a show while it's still recording, so my next condition is that the torrents be available for downloading when the show actually airs, or at the very latest, the next day. None of this 8 days later crap.
Do I think these conditions are very onerous? No. Will the lack of DRM allow pirates to take those videos and cut out the commercials? Yes, but by the time they get their torrent uploaded, it's basically too late, as everyone else who doesn't care about the commercials has gotten the official version already. I think this just makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video On Demand: My Favourite Topic
I've posted about this at a few places. I'm starting to feel like a parrot who talks to deaf owners. Why? Because nobody who is in a position to do anything about it listens to me! If I had the money, I'd attempt this myself.
Look at this video here at YouTube:
It starts with a commercial, as some videos do now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1sy_8rQksA
Did you see what happened at the one minute mark? A commercial break! A loaded-separately commercial break! Now, if YouTube is able to do that, I think they have the perfect streaming-video-on-demand service.
There could easily be multiple levels of video like this available, not just from YouTube, but from everywhere. The cheapest level is "free" - video on demand, streaming or download, with advertisements built in. Yes, I hate ads as well, but not all ads are bad. However, with the ability to locate you via your IP address, they can select appropriate advertising for your area. A sign-up option could allow a user to select advertisements they may find interesting through optional user settings.
And then for the paid options, there could be the "cheap" version, with a small amount of advertising (say an ad or two before each show) in the download or stream, then the "expensive" version with no advertising.
There needs to be no digital rights management other than no ability to skip advertisements (is that possible in a download?) - maybe offer an "upgrade" version? Get it for free with ads and if the user likes it, paying for it will strip all advertising and related DRM from the file.
The files will need full portability: it will work on a PC, a tablet, an iPod, etc, with no additional payment needed. Pirate versions already offer this, why should a legitimate paid for copy remove a vital feature?
The tricky part is a combination of making the full catalogue of existing TV shows available to go with new shows. And, of course, music rights, the stumbling block that has made "The Wonder Years" not available on DVD. Quite frankly, in my opinion, the right to use a song in a TV show or movie should automatically mean the right to include it on a DVD or in a download or stream of a show.
As we move closer to computer based television viewing, the old television systems (PAL, NTSC and SECAM) can disappear. No more PAL speedup of 24 frames per second material. No more 2:3 pulldown. And why not have the original aspect ratio as well? A TV show made in 4:3 can be viewed on a 16:9 screen with either black bars down the side or the viewer's graphics display can stratch it out however they see fit.
Of course, this will mean a new business model for the television industry. Make a show, play a show, sell it through syndication, yes (not everybody wants to cut their cable) but also be prepared to sell it to consumers via video on demand as well as on DVD, straight away. No delays. Some people don't want to wait for three months past the current season for the DVD. This isn't about shrinking markets. This is about expanding the current market. Network TV, syndication TV and DVD/BluRay sales will still exist. Video on demand is an additional market, not a market replacement. This is the point many people miss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video On Demand: My Favourite Topic
So sadly things are only going to get worse in this area, not better.
I say good riddance and fuck them. The sooner they die off the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video On Demand: My Favourite Topic
You've accidentally hit on one of the major points here. At present, the industry is built around regional distribution. This made perfect sense when different formats meant that, say, a British VHS could not play on a US VCR and vice versa. Now that virtually all TV are capable of playing both formats, and PCs don't care about the TV format, it should be possible to consolidate distribution and at least stream everything internationally if not sell DVD/Blu on top. The fact that the industry still clings to 1980s market realities speaks volumes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God that douche is so annoying!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising
> would never do that because they hate all advertising.
> I still think those people really just hate bad advertising,
> and don't realize that they actually like good advertising
> (for example, the TV shows they download? They're just
> "advertising" for other episodes of that TV show).
I guess if you define 'advertising' that broadly, then everything is advertising and the term kind of becomes meaningless. But even so, people will still hate whatever interrupts or takes them out of the story they're currently enjoying.
So yes, maybe the episode I'm watching can technically be deemed 'advertising' for next week's episode, but it's also a dramatic story in its own right and the entire reason I'm spending time in front of the TV. To have that interrupted every five to eight minutes with blocks of video advertising *other* stuff is distracting and annoying because it interrupts the dramatic through-line of the show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advertising
And they know it. It's a selling point. Ever hear a voice-over exclaiming "...with limited interruption..."?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Price it right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price it right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Price it right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Advertising Example
OK, if that's "advertising" then how about this: The meals your mother made for you? They were just "advertising" for other meals in the future.
Yeah, I guess EVERYTHING is advertising if you want to redefine it like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People are tired of the channel bug in the corner. They know what station they are watching, they managed to find it do they need to be reminded again?
People really don't a rats behind about whats coming up next, and really don't need the bottom of the screen rolling up so we can see something promoting your new offering while detracting from what we are trying to watch.
Don't try to find more ad chances in the show.
The 90 minute glee special is a great example.
The show ran 56-57 minutes.
The rest was ad space.
And you wonder why people download when you offer them "more" but give them alot less.
I bet you could even get some of those "brought to you ad free" deals for the shows. I'd put up with a 1 min commercial block for random unneeded product in my life front loaded or back loaded onto the show.
Then you could get a premium from the advertiser as they are the only ad impression in that show.
No DRM, no special players, no trying to kill this so then I have to buy the 14 different versions of DVD offering coming out.
Try adding behind the scenes and other cool things to the DVD offering rather than trying to release 2 episodes a disc to get as much as possible out of the show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
57 minutes isn't out of line, typical including credits and all is 22 minutes per half hour, 44 minutes per hour. 90 minutes would hit at 66, so they adding in 8 more ad spaces in 90 minutes (or about 1 per break).
If you (and everyone else) aren't willing to pay for the content (by "watching" the ads), there is no money to pay for the programming. Every scheme and every system you find to get around the ads just shoots yourself in the foot. You keep making it harder and harder to make the content, and then bitch about the content. Amazing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People would just take it?
God knows I just turn the TV off, it has been years since the last time a turn it on, today I tried using the "free" legal streams from Fox, CBS, PBS and others just to have a go at it, when it was "Not Available in your country", I couldn't watch it, and when I could watch it it had the same focking ad over and over and over again it gets old pretty quick and turned me off to the whole experience.
Instead I was watching Annoying Orange 51. Jalapeño -starring James Caan the actor that is also Chairman of an Internet company called Openfilm and surprise I can watch that crap for free from anywhere in the world, where do you think my eyeballs are going to go?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87UVT_jhUPE
The super over protected crap from TV stations that apparently don't want me to watch their shows and content or to places where I can have a good time and don't have to worry about that copyright crap you are so fond of?
Fock the TV studios, fock the movie studios, fock the labels, fockt he people who believe they need to protect that crap, they can all go to hell, I am going to watch more Annoying Oranges, The Guild, Spellfury, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, Red State Update and others.
Webseries are just as fun as the other crap on TV these days and the great part, it is available everywhere, there are no DRM crapoula, region limitations crapoula or any other crapoula that those numskulls can imagine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have no problems with ads, I have problems with the shows being jumpy messes with the ads. I have problems with the self promotion of other shows in the middle of the action. I have problems with lots of screen bugs doing dances and drawing attention to themselves.
There is a way to offer a stream for a price, and that will reach that many more viewers.
The automatic response for the content providers will be to try and squeeze more out of it by stuffing more ads in, and this will just make people continue to find other sources.
As I pointed out I didn't say no ads, I said better ads. Trying to use the "presented with minimal interruption" model they have used in the past.
There is a balance, but no one has the answer yet. Alot of that has to do with the content producers thinking the world is the same as it always was and nothing has changed. They are about to debut a tv at an electronics show that downloads torrents. I think the time to get ahead of this has passed, and rather than kicking and screaming they need to start moving forward to catch up with the reality of people want to watch content where, when and how they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You gotta be kidding me...
Apologists such as yourself will only ensure that this nonsense gets worse as your corporate overlords simply have no reason to treat the audience in a civilized manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You gotta be kidding me...
There will probably not be a DVD because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got nothing against commercials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no
1) I don't watch many shows, so having cable tv would be a waste of money.
2) If I do watch something, I like it enough to keep it.
3) I despise commercials. If I'm even watching a YouTube video and they start with a commercial, I immediately turn it off.
Nothing is worth wasting your life on watching a commercial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That will only somewhat work, as
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Urrrrm...
'for example, the TV shows they download? They're just "advertising" for other episodes of that TV show'
Makes me think that you are working from a profoundly incorrect perspective and drowns out much of the otherwise fruitful notions that you've put forth here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't mind downloading the legit version, ads or not, but I wouldn't exactly go out of my way to do it, if others were same quality, speed, etc.
Just being honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At the start of satellite reception, when everyone had those big dishes in the yards, there were no ads. At best there was a space there for an ad but it was blank space. After that delay to allow local stations to insert their own commercials it would go back to regular broadcast.
Then came the cable broadcasters who got you to pay for the viewing. For a while they didn't have ads either.
Then they went to double dipping with getting paid for running commercials and getting the viewer to pay for the broadcast. Triple dip came with the insertion of placed products in the show.
Like everyone else I got fed up with the commercial. I hate one with a passion. I didn't realize just how bad I hated them till I started doing without the tv.
I'm not telling you run go cut your cable. If that don't work for you, that's alright with me. I don't foot your bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If only you could tell this to the people that keep thinking Mike's a pirate, all pirates are freeloading, and the movie industry can't get a clue about how to make things work in the digital era...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So I netflix all my needs, that suits me fine. I would love legal torrents with/without ads. My schedule is weird and with other issues, some months I watch no TV some months I have lots of hours open. With STARZ bailing out of Netflix though that has me bummed. Either way I am not getting back on cable, I do not need 400 hours of QVC crap for every hour offered of actual show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Commercials are Local
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Commercials are Local
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, Yes
- No DRM
- ADS in the regular TV format, skippable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ad rates not enough
Perhaps creating some sort of media container format where a proof of viewing allows the network to distribute some sort of personalized key to decode the next part of the video in exchange for an ad. Still, the real value here would result form personalized viewing of ads. Ad buyer's attitudes need to shift away from this imbalance. If TV rates fall and Internet video rates rise to near equal, perhaps even plus some premium to account for fees the networks get from cable providers, then a viable system may exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then there's the whole region coding debate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I _hate_ ads. I truly hate them (also, I hate torrents; but that's not the point here).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adverts? In torrents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't even have to illegally download stuff anymore to watch for free. There are streaming sites all over the world where one can find unauthorized content (and you don't even have to look that hard to find what you want to watch). Sure, sometimes the quality suffers - but it's the content I'm interested in. It's the same reason why microcinema has become so popular. There were many who said microcinema would never catch on because viewers wouldn't put up with the crappy quality, but clearly they were proven wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at this thread. The majority will either 'put up with ads' or will do without them, no matter how the industry thinks it can control viewership.
The industry is already at the losing end of the battle when it's viewers revolt. That's exactly what's going on.
Those that see the 'but piracy' as the only answer will lose this one. It's not about willingness to view ads, it's about a viewership fed up with the BS. Double and triple dipping incomes for the commercial end is great until the viewership has had enough.
It appears the majority here as a random sampling of responce has had enough of it. The industry will never be able to force the viewership to accept that.
Now back to post 118. He states in this that everyone is going to producing their own music, 3D models, and artwork. For my part, it's what I do with some of that time I've gained from not having tv. I learned something of value to me, at the cost of giving something up of little value to me.
Here is an example of that type of art that really has my attention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atz_xkGnWPo
I can't get that sort of material on tv. I can get it on the net.
Here's an example of my work where I've modeled some stuff to add into the image.
http://imgur.com/V2yCx
While it isn't what I would consider up to par for professional work, still I enjoyed the time it took to create this image.
I got that time because I no longer put up with TV as the industry wants it consumed. I can't stand TV as it is today. I'd rather be doing something like the above than playing couch potato.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good quality yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it was available at the same time as it aired
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But notice, for the ad-free experience it'd have to be an all-you-can-eat solution. Much like Netflix for movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However what I do always have a problem with, and this is a small but constant annoyance, is volume levelling. Sick of having to turn the volume down every ad break because they think it's going to grab my attention more if the commercial's three times the volume of the show it's cutting in to. No advertisers, that just makes me hit mute and go make coffee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is one of those business models that content providers need to try out. The ultimate test is whether people actually end up watching the ads.
Not saying it's a bad idea... I'm saying it's an idea that needs to be tried out.
Pity that content producers likely won't allow this sort of business model to exist. Nobody knows for sure, but it could've been a good one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No
such as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btViXvIDsi0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We all pay for ALL advertising anyway !!
You get advertising with TV content.
You get advertising with Techdirt content.
You constantly get advertising that you did not "pay for" or get "paid for" all the time.
But you most certainly PAY FOR that advertising regardless of whether you use the advertised product or not.
I see at the bottom of this very page and advertisment
Pay TV from AUSTAR
AUSTAR would have had to pay google some money for google to post that add, that money means that AUSTAR product is more expensive. So if I used AUSTAR but did not do so because of the add at the bottom of this page. Then some of my AUSTAR bill goes to advertising.
Or my milkman might use AUSTAR and he is charged more, so he has to change me more for my milk.
Why do you think a TV station would broadcast programs if there was no advertising ?
Just because they felt like it ? or because it is a 'nice' thing to do ?
Who then pays the electricity, and the wages and for the production of the shows ?
They put on the best shows possible to gain the highest ratings, that means they get a large number of viewers watching and therefore they can charge the companies who want to advertise more money for a better service.
Without that money, there is no revinue stream for them to continue, that revinue stream is derived from advertising.
That advertising is paid for by the consumers of the products advertised, and therefore the entire community.
You pay for those adds on TV regardless of if you watch that add or not and regardless of if you use that product or not. The cost of ALL products are inflated by advertising.
But that advertising goes back to the production of shows and movies that will get the most people watching it.
So the benifit of advertising is higher quality content, and content that would not exist without advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We all pay for ALL advertising anyway !!
I know how to stream it, I just don't know how to activate the web interface so I can control what I'm streaming.
I can be my own cable now, isn't that gr8t?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We all pay for ALL advertising anyway !!
Information is gr8t isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell No
I refuse to waste precious life watching corporate propaganda lying to me to induce me to spend money I don't have on things I don't need.
Advertising is cultural effluent. Bin it. Use AdBlock and refuse to view media with advertising. When nobody responds to the lies and the junk then it will go away, and we will all be better off because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV commercial breaks? pass
When I cut the cord and started watching everything on Hulu, my TV viewing actually went up! Because they weren't padding out 45 minutes of show into an hour time slot my viewing went up by a third. I could watch four episodes in the time it used to take to watch just three.
So, again, streaming free with ads from an official source that doesn't waste my time? Please, the sooner the better, more, more, more. Try to return to the glory days of broadcast? I've got better things to do, like watch your show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tv needs a reboot of it's ad model.
Advertising proved a useful tool for giving the mind/body a bit of a rest from programing. In today's world, the pause button does that for you. The effectiveness of that model is broken as it is no longer necessary to take a break on the programs schedule instead of yours.
A step backwards in time to when programs were commonly sponsor by a single advertiser might be the best approach.
Single sponsor on-demand viewing with frequently mentioned product placement could achieve a measure of targeted marketing efficiency necessary to make transition from TV to on-demand viewing while the genre is still in the growth stage.
Once this starts to take root the marketing departments could start to make a whole new web of connections and crossover marketing based on how on-demand viewing grows naturally. Not by force feeding a new technology into an old revenue model.
Sometimes it takes a step back to make 2 steps forward. The media overlords seem to refuse to even acknowledge this in regards to it's licensed properties. Let alone figure out how to make this all work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If TV Companies Released Authorized Torrents With Ads, Would People Download Them?
For me, I use to set my VCR to record and walk away and watch the show when I have the time. Yes, I fast forward through 99% of the commercials. If the show itself is a form of advertising, then let it be the main source. If I can't see a show without commercials, then I won't watch it at all. And the number of viewers drops. Commercials kill it. People remove the commercials for a reason. No one wants to be constantly interrupted while trying to watch something that keeps their interest. I'd admit, like "Steam", it wouldn't be that bad if the commercials were targeted towards me or even shorter or less of them.-then I wouldn't mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply put hell no this is exactly why we stopped supporting on demand shows and movies and as long as there are ads we can't skip over for free we will not support it in any manner! The tv and film people need to get their greedy capitalistic ideals outta here we the people don't want this crap and will never feed this as long as ads exist in it most of us will stick to free torrent sharing sites and wont support the greed at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO I hate Commercials, are reason I torrent or stream!
Honestly no truth is commercials being forced on us on demand with cable is one the main reasons I have watched majority of my shows via torrents for past few years. I have zero patience or tolerance for all the stupid annoying commercials they straight up annoy me and i find it quite depressing humans are stupid enough to fall for such antics. So No i support torrents because they are commercial free. The only way I will support is commercial free availability period. I pay for disney+ cause I get no commercials for example. I will never watch any shows with annoying commercial bullshit i have a zero tolerance for them. Now will i pay for a streaming service shows to watch with no commercials yes I do so for Disney+ and plan to do so for dc universe and CW as well and possibly CBS once all the star treks are up and life goes back to normal and can afford to again lol. But the key for me is that there are zero commercials or I won't pay nor support them period end of story I hate commercialization with a passion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]