(TV) The Future of Networks? ("remote" DVR allowed)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

But why haven't companies come up with a new form of ad I'll call a "DVR Billboard Ad"? Basically the commercial consists of 30 seconds of a single (eye-catching and relevant) still image with audio advertising accompanying the image.

You do know this is already being experimented with by a few advertisers, right? Not to the extent that you're talking about but for the past couple of years some of the more forward edge advertisers have been reviewing their new creative to see how it looks when viewed in FF and making adjustments to the layout & images to try to at least manage some impression with the viewer, however faint.

Problem is that what amount to a mention (as opposed to a message) is worth roughly 1/5th to 1/6th (unless you're getting robbed by the seller or there's an substantially higher than normal link between the program you're in & the consumer loyalty, such as NASCAR has) what the :30 spot is costing.

The potential effectiveness really comes down to what you're trying to accomplish with the ad. If your primary goal is to increase identity and/or awareness, then there's some usefulness there. If the goal is to directly drive sales, to inform (i.e. we've got a new widget), or to explain benefits (i.e. our widget is better because X, Y, and Z) then these are virtually worthless. It's extremely difficult to do those things effectively with what amounts to a logo slide.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

television is just one more medium for advertisers. if tv ad revenue begins to drop, they will take advantage of other technologies to market to us. i think we'll see more kiosks, trucks driving around with digital billboards, and the like. they will find a way to get their message out, even if they have to program robots to come to your door with free samples.

I think I know what you meant, but didn't you say it sort of backwards? If the effectiveness of TV drops, we'll move elsewhere, and that in turn will cause ad revenue to drop.

Problem so far is that no one has really found "the" replacement medium. Nearly all of the alternatives have a few good stories they can tell, none really have anything like the consistent success that television has provided. The situation is complicated by (my perception, YMMV) the talent drain in the marketing side over the past 2-3 decades. Seems there's a lot more drones than there used to be and a lot less people who actually understand how to make the connection between the product & the consumer.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

SteveMax -- I don't really agree with what you're saying. Nielsen, etc don't matter in Wade's example. You go based on subscriptions. You have CONCRETE data as to how many of your customers want a copy of your show. You record what shows they want to see, and not the ones they don't want to see.

You don't technically 'subscribe' to a N-DVR channel, though. I'm not saying it is impossible to store a single file based on 1 person's DVR request...everything is technically possible...it just isn't worth the hassle to implement business logic rules that may technically change the nature of the service being offered.

If I can carve out storage for each subscriber of "N-DVR Service", I have an easy model to scale capacity and service costs to (believe me, execs like easy models). Then I can assign business logic related to the "asset"...this is how it exists today.

Believe me when I tell you...it isn't the storage that needs high efficiency...it's the transport to you that causes the inefficiency as this is the resource that is most constrained.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

You do have a lot of commercial skippers in DVR households, but it's probably not too much more if you compare it to the non-DVR population that leaves the room or starts channel surfing when commercials come on.

Last set of number I saw had the numbers about equal.

edit to add: Which really presents one of those 10,000 pound elephants in the room that nobody on the marketing side really likes to talk about: Is everything that everybody thinks they know about the thresholds of reach & frequency completely wrong?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Last set of number I saw had the numbers about equal.

Then if that's the case, then it really is up to the broadcasters and planning agencies to push back on skittish advertisers. The evidence is there to say that skippers are not really killing the overall effectiveness of TV advertising. If anything, DVR households tend to be more engaged and more reliably targeted than non DVR households.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Then if that's the case, then it really is up to the broadcasters and planning agencies to push back on skittish advertisers. The evidence is there to say that skippers are not really killing the overall effectiveness of TV advertising. If anything, DVR households tend to be more engaged and more reliably targeted than non DVR households.

Well that's if the research is reliable. And that's a legitimate question even in my mind & I'm a guy who tends to believe that the rate of skippage via DVR (which most studies have shown to be considerably lower than what we tend to think) vs skippage from bathroom & kitchen breaks + channel surfing (higher than we like to imagine) are actually fairly close.

Thing is, there's some hard data available on the DVR's by tracking their actual use. For the other stuff, it tends to be self-reported & could be reporting higher than reality, plus you have the potential of passive exposure; i.e. you went to the bathroom during the break but actually heard the first spot in the break, saw part of the next to last spot & all of the last spot even if you weren't glued to the couch for the entire break.

Short of installing eyeball cameras in households & watching how people watch, I'm not sure how that can be quantified tightly enough to overcome the predisposed notions of buyers/advertisers. It's a maybe whereas the skippers with DVR's are relatively easy to put a number on.

[stevew]

I don't mind advertisements in general, but those "Meet Bob" enzyte commercials make me want to open fire on those responsible.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

:P Steve knows more about the nuts and bolts then me. I understand how the thing works but he's much more an engineer then I'll ever be!

Check has been sent...

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You do know this is already being experimented with by a few advertisers, right? Not to the extent that you're talking about but for the past couple of years some of the more forward edge advertisers have been reviewing their new creative to see how it looks when viewed in FF and making adjustments to the layout & images to try to at least manage some impression with the viewer, however faint.

Problem is that what amount to a mention (as opposed to a message) is worth roughly 1/5th to 1/6th (unless you're getting robbed by the seller or there's an substantially higher than normal link between the program you're in & the consumer loyalty, such as NASCAR has) what the :30 spot is costing.

The potential effectiveness really comes down to what you're trying to accomplish with the ad. If your primary goal is to increase identity and/or awareness, then there's some usefulness there. If the goal is to directly drive sales, to inform (i.e. we've got a new widget), or to explain benefits (i.e. our widget is better because X, Y, and Z) then these are virtually worthless. It's extremely difficult to do those things effectively with what amounts to a logo slide.

Thanks for the info. I see the goal as being the first to do it during a major telecast and then getting the publicity from that. Alternatively, keep it in your back pocket until advertising costs really do go down because of the DVR era.

Or I just thought of maybe a constant image (logo or otherwise) at the top/bottom/side of the screen that will serve the same function during a fast forward. Accompanied by a "normal" commercial in the majority of the screen space.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

I don't mind advertisements in general, but those "Meet Bob" enzyte commercials make me want to open fire on those responsible.

On the other hand, before the founder was sentenced to 25 years in prison for fraud last August those ads had netted the Enzyte manufacturer over $500 million dollars in revenue.

Hard to argue with the success of the ads, no matter how incredibly annoying they might be

One of the great legends about the Enzyte ads is a story that's attributed to the founder. I've got no idea whether it's true but allegedly his advice for the ads was for those working on them to drink 3-4 bottles of wine & then start making shit up ... but be sure somebody writes it all down or else you'll lose your best material.

edit to add: Best I can tell from some Googling, the actor who played Smilin' Bob may (or may not) have died in a boating accident off the coast of Martinique back in 2008. Hell, it's not 100% whether the name associated most frequently with the character on the internet is even the right guy, nor whether it's the same guy who may have died, or whether he's actually dead (body was never recovered). But I thought the possibility made the ads even more creepy.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hard to argue with the success of the ads, no matter how incredibly annoying they might be

Where are the diminishing returns though? My kids don't watch a whole lot of live TV anymore because outside of Disney and Nick we have to be watching the commercials like a hawk to switch channels if an ad for CSI or something comes on. Plus you've got the ads that like to blast the volume. Half my use of a DVR is for time-shifting, the other half is to avoid all the annoying commercials.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Where are the diminishing returns though? My kids don't watch a whole lot of live TV anymore because outside of Disney and Nick we have to be watching the commercials like a hawk to switch channels if an ad for CSI or something comes on. Plus you've got the ads that like to blast the volume. Half my use of a DVR is for time-shifting, the other half is to avoid all the annoying commercials.

Like with most things to do with TV, you always have to remember that your own habits aren't necessarily the norm (the number one thing a buyer should remember, so I don't feel bad at all if I occasional remind someone else )

I've never seen anything to suggest that virtually anyone bothers to do the switch due to commercial content (a few people grousing about it on the internet seems to be as far as that actually goes) and nearly every study to date shows less than half of DVR users report any commercial skipping at all and only a small percentage are consistently heavy skippers.

On the other hand, you'd make a tremendous example of why advertisers would like to discount any time-shifted viewing completely when computing rates. They haven't successfully done that (in part) because there's nothing concrete to show that you're habits are the norm.

At this point, I have to say that I think I probably misread your post the first time around. I now think you're asking something different than I first thought, something actually like "don't the annoying ads ultimately drive away viewers". Truth is, they don't seem to any more than any other ad and in cases like this they're actually highly effective.

[cuervo72]

One interesting thing about the DVR age...I'm now much less inclined to switch channels during commercials, because I'll lose what's cached in the DVR. Even if I won't use it, it's a mental road-block.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

One interesting thing about the DVR age...I'm now much less inclined to switch channels during commercials, because I'll lose what's cached in the DVR. Even if I won't use it, it's a mental road-block.

good point!

[SirFozzie]

Well, I notice that if I'm recording both, I'll swap to the 2nd channel, because otherwise I have to stop recording.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

One interesting thing about the DVR age...I'm now much less inclined to switch channels during commercials, because I'll lose what's cached in the DVR. Even if I won't use it, it's a mental road-block.

Dual-tuner FTW!

I miss my DirecTIVO...

[SirFozzie]

Agreed. Dual-Tuner for the MFW!

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Dual-tuner FTW!

I miss my DirecTIVO...

Yeah...I loved that about the DirecTIVO. We still have a couple in the basement (well, and a third in the bedroom, but the second tuner input doesn't work), but they're not HD and I don't really watch TV down there. I've gotten used to the new HD-DVR, but it's not the same.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well that's if the research is reliable. And that's a legitimate question even in my mind & I'm a guy who tends to believe that the rate of skippage via DVR (which most studies have shown to be considerably lower than what we tend to think) vs skippage from bathroom & kitchen breaks + channel surfing (higher than we like to imagine) are actually fairly close.

Thing is, there's some hard data available on the DVR's by tracking their actual use. For the other stuff, it tends to be self-reported & could be reporting higher than reality, plus you have the potential of passive exposure; i.e. you went to the bathroom during the break but actually heard the first spot in the break, saw part of the next to last spot & all of the last spot even if you weren't glued to the couch for the entire break.

Short of installing eyeball cameras in households & watching how people watch, I'm not sure how that can be quantified tightly enough to overcome the predisposed notions of buyers/advertisers. It's a maybe whereas the skippers with DVR's are relatively easy to put a number on.

Like I mentioned before, I also think that the research is incomplete. But, to be slightly facetious, since when do advertisers or buyers make decisions based on iron-clad evidence?

As to your final point, I agree that the measurement technology is not here yet. But, the major audience measurement provider wants to break away from metering tied to household and houses and hopes to move towards portable metering tied to individuals. As that technology is developed, some of the measurement problems you mention should be better addressed...

[gstelmack]

It's a sad commentary on tech, and especialy CATV tech, when the best DVR / digital box yet produced is about 6 years old and no longer supported anywhere (the HD-TIVO from DirecTV).

I'm not including any current gen TIVOs because I have not used them and they aren't directly supported (how is Comcast's venture going?), but everyone is still trying to catch that pinnacle of development.

I remember like 6 years ago when DirecTV was pushing their whole-house setup with the MediaCenter PC that had four tuners and could push shows back out to any box in the house. SD at the time, HD to come. Nothing saw the light of day. Sigh.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Like I mentioned before, I also think that the research is incomplete. But, to be slightly facetious, since when do advertisers or buyers make decisions based on iron-clad evidence?

Facetious or not, that's a fair point. But it sort of ties in to something I was trying to get at. The default position among buyers & advertisers is tilted toward DVR = major ad view loss vs traditional viewing. In order to combat or even change that predisposition, it seems that hard evidence would be the most effective way to do it (short of simply waiting for the conventional wisdom to change over, oh, say twenty years time).

But, the major audience measurement provider wants to break away from metering tied to household and houses and hopes to move towards portable metering tied to individuals. As that technology is developed, some of the measurement problems you mention should be better addressed...

Oddly enough, I think it'll be less accurate than any system ever devised to date but it'll be accepted because it will allow both the broadcasters & the buyers to continue the fiction they need in order to survive.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's a sad commentary on tech, and especialy CATV tech, when the best DVR / digital box yet produced is about 6 years old and no longer supported anywhere (the HD-TIVO from DirecTV).

I'm not including any current gen TIVOs because I have not used them and they aren't directly supported (how is Comcast's venture going?), but everyone is still trying to catch that pinnacle of development.

I remember like 6 years ago when DirecTV was pushing their whole-house setup with the MediaCenter PC that had four tuners and could push shows back out to any box in the house. SD at the time, HD to come. Nothing saw the light of day. Sigh.

Recent news I've read says that TWC is looking to sign a deal with Tivo... Terms of Service

What that means right now is anyone's guess.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's a sad commentary on tech, and especialy CATV tech, when the best DVR / digital box yet produced is about 6 years old and no longer supported anywhere (the HD-TIVO from DirecTV).

I'm not including any current gen TIVOs because I have not used them and they aren't directly supported (how is Comcast's venture going?), but everyone is still trying to catch that pinnacle of development.

I remember like 6 years ago when DirecTV was pushing their whole-house setup with the MediaCenter PC that had four tuners and could push shows back out to any box in the house. SD at the time, HD to come. Nothing saw the light of day. Sigh.

The current generation TiVO's are far superioer to the DirecTIVO. It's a lot of little things, really, but to my recollection the DirecTV version didn't even have folders (GASP!). I love mine. Having said that, though, I don't think there has been anything significant (except streaming Netflix) in the 4 years I have had it. DirecTV switching from TIVO to their current box is one of the reasons I decided to drop satelite/cable altogether. If I couldn't have my Tivo + DirecTV I didn't want any service.

[cuervo72]

Dunno about HD DirecTIVO, but our regular DirecTIVOs do have folders. They didn't originally, but they came in a software upgrade a while ago.

[gstelmack]

Yeah, my HD-TIVO was upgraded with the 6.x software that supported folders. DirecTV was always like a year or two behind on the TIVO software itself, but that DirecTIVO was MILES ahead of my current SA-8300HD and HDC boxes that are running Navigator, both from a software and a hardware standpoint.

[JonInMiddleGA]

YMMV but for anyone who had trouble following the logic of the complaint about this particular service, I thought this summary made more sense than anything I'd read.

[lordscarlet]

Everyone should just accept Tivo's superiority, integrate their software, and fund R&D for new and better things.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Everyone should just accept Tivo's superiority, integrate their software, and fund R&D for new and better things.

ftw

I've found the Cox software to be "adequate" but if the large HD Tivo gets to a price point that I can swallow, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think I know what you meant, but didn't you say it sort of backwards? If the effectiveness of TV drops, we'll move elsewhere, and that in turn will cause ad revenue to drop.

Problem so far is that no one has really found "the" replacement medium. Nearly all of the alternatives have a few good stories they can tell, none really have anything like the consistent success that television has provided. The situation is complicated by (my perception, YMMV) the talent drain in the marketing side over the past 2-3 decades. Seems there's a lot more drones than there used to be and a lot less people who actually understand how to make the connection between the product & the consumer.

sure, that's a good way to say it. if TV ad dollars don't go as far, the ad buys will follow. Whatever the new technology is, it will have to be part of everyday life. if we watch less network tv, it will move to where the action is. IMO, that will be media sites, but we also may see some of the slack picked up by other mediums, such as more active advertising in public places and billboards.

The ads will still get to us.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

The ads will still get to us.

But whether it's to the same degree we've gotten accustomed to may be a point for some reasonable doubt. Lord knows, I don't expect anybody here to be disappointed by that but it actually isn't great news for the economy.

I believe we're approaching a point where the cost of reaching X consumers (where X is the number marketers are accustomed to reaching) may exceed the ROI by such a margin that's even the most foolhardy advertisers will pull back even further. Okay, nasty truth is that we've long since passed that point for some products that have continued to pour money down holes that are drier than is fiscally responsible but I think the negative sum game will become more difficult to deny/ignore.

Generally speaking, the smaller audience you reach per spot or per medium, the less cost efficient it becomes and the cost associated with providing the opportunity -- whether it's a website, a billboard, a kiosk, a tv network or station -- establishes a floor at some point. For now, newspapers & magazines are probably the best contemporary example (Vibe Magazine ceased operations today btw, joining R&R and Spin in the dustbin of history) where the revenue generated by the ads at prices attractive enough to sell couldn't begin to match the hard costs associated with printing them.

And before anyone says "well, that's just a materials cost, other mediums don't have it that bad", consider something like the Athens-Clarke County bus service has just added advertising opportunities this week. You know, those standard advert panels on the buses as they roll around. The rates start at $30 a month up to $400 a month (and that's not per bus/board, those are packages), which makes it questionable whether they'll even generate enough revenue to pay someone to administer the program, install & maintain the boards, etc. Those are priced to sell IMO but given the history of local government, I doubt there's any realistic expectation of doing more than breaking even on them and even that seems optimistic to me.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't expect anybody here to be disappointed by that but it actually isn't great news for the economy.

This is actually one of those "careful what you wish for" things. As the perception of value in advertising via the standard broadcast commercial erodes...so too does the income to these networks. Hence why we see companies like Viacom, HDNet, etc. all trying to get more money in subscriber costs. This subscriber cost gets passed directly onto the consumers...because irregardless of whether you think cable profit margins are justified...cable co's believe they are and will not be inclined to eat such increases in costs unless completely unavoidable.

This goes hand in hand why I think a-la-carte is not as desirable as people believe it is.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

This goes hand in hand why I think a-la-carte is not as desirable as people believe it is.

Completely agree with you on this. I think a-la-carte would be utterly disasterous to quality programming.

[DaddyTorgo]

if a-la-carte became the norm then 95% of programming would be reality-tv

[SteveMax58]

Thought some of you might find this article interesting about Cablevision's new interactive advertising rollout

Cable Clicks on Interactive Ads Again - WSJ.com