[mythtv-users] Congress to Make Commercial Skipping Illegal
George Galt george.galt at gmail.com
Tue Nov 16 14:53:06 UTC 2004
* Previous message: [mythtv-users] DVB Nexus-s Card: TV-Out/MPEG Decoder usable?
* Next message: [mythtv-users] Congress to Make Commercial Skipping Illegal
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
All:
The House has passed HR 2391, which is being considered by the Senate
today (11/16). Successful passage by the Senate will put this bill on
the President's desk late this year or early next.
This bill makes it a violation of the Copyright Act to skip
commercials using a technological means (hardware or software) -- and
it makes it a violation to make the computer program that allows
people to skip commercials. You can get information on the bill here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.02391:
and you can read the Wired story on the bill here:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html
My suggestion is call your Senators and Representatives and let them
know that it is ridiculous to make it illegal for you to skip
commercials (assuming you agree that it is).
You can reach your Senators and Representatives through the Capitol
switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or (202) 225-3121. Or you can email
them by going to their web sites, which you can find through
www.senate.gov or www.house.gov.
George
Thursday, December 14, 2006
$8 billion?!
Commercial skipping to cost $8 billion in TV ads this year?
Posted May 5th 2006 8:30PM by Paul Miller
Filed under: Home Entertainment
We can't vouch for the number -- that's their job -- but JupiterResearch has a recently published report that gets a lot right when it comes to DVR use. They claim that 53 percent of DVR subscribers use their DVRs to skip commercials, and that if all of those households skip commercials 100 percent of the time (unlikely) cable and broadcast TV advertisers would be at risk of losing around $8 billion of the $74 billion they spend on ads in 2006. Sounds rather doom and gloom, and JupiterResearch also contradicts the idea that DVR users watch a whole lot more TV to make up for those missed ads. But luckily they manage to reach a much more reasonable solution than most: networks and advertisers should rethink programming and ad strategies to cope with the way consumers are using DVRs. Not rocket science, we know, but JupiterResearch sees some of the current efforts by the networks not only as ineffective, but as a penalty to users -- which doesn't really do anybody a lot of good.
Posted May 5th 2006 8:30PM by Paul Miller
Filed under: Home Entertainment
We can't vouch for the number -- that's their job -- but JupiterResearch has a recently published report that gets a lot right when it comes to DVR use. They claim that 53 percent of DVR subscribers use their DVRs to skip commercials, and that if all of those households skip commercials 100 percent of the time (unlikely) cable and broadcast TV advertisers would be at risk of losing around $8 billion of the $74 billion they spend on ads in 2006. Sounds rather doom and gloom, and JupiterResearch also contradicts the idea that DVR users watch a whole lot more TV to make up for those missed ads. But luckily they manage to reach a much more reasonable solution than most: networks and advertisers should rethink programming and ad strategies to cope with the way consumers are using DVRs. Not rocket science, we know, but JupiterResearch sees some of the current efforts by the networks not only as ineffective, but as a penalty to users -- which doesn't really do anybody a lot of good.
Is commercial skipping theft?
Here is an article I found that appears to be from a law-based website.
ARE PERSONAL VIDEO RECORDERS, SUCH AS REPLAYTV AND TIVO, COPYRIGHT-INFRINGEMENT DEVICES?:
A Lawsuit Raising The Question May Force Sonicblue To Spy On PVR Users
By CHRIS SPRIGMAN
----
Thursday, May. 09, 2002
In a recent interview, Jamie Kellner, Chairman and CEO of the Turner Broadcasting division of AOL-TimeWarner, had some harsh words for those PVR users who skip commercials:
"[Skipping commercials is] theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial . . . you're actually stealing the programming."
To be completely fair, Mr. Kellner did admit that "there's a certain amount of tolerance for bathroom breaks." He added, however, that "if you formalize it and you create a device that skips [30]-second increments, you've got that only for one reason, unless you go to the bathroom for 30 seconds. They've done that just to make it easy for someone to skip a commercial."
From a legal perspective, are Mr. Kellner's arguments correct? To decide that, let's look at the lawsuit currently pending against one prominent PVR producer.
Empowering Couch Potatoes Gets SonicBlue Sued
The particular device that has provoked Mr. Kellner's ire is SonicBlue's ReplayTV 4000, a nifty new PVR that is able to sense the beginning and end of commercials in digitally-recorded TV programs.
The device is thus able to automatically jump forward in order either to allow viewers to take precisely-timed bathroom breaks or - more realistically for most people - to skip commercials. Other PVRs also allow viewers to skip commercials, by fast-forwarding through them, but ReplayTV 4000 does the same job slightly quicker.
In a separate feature, ReplayTV also allows users to record TV shows and then send a digital copy over a broadband connection to as many as 15 other ReplayTV users. This file-sharing feature inevitably opened the PVR up to comparisons with Napster, the online file-sharing system that was for so long mired in litigation. (As I will argue below, such comparisons are, however, inapt.)
Late last year, a group of plaintiffs including Disney, Paramount Pictures, ABC, NBC and CBS, sued SonicBlue. They claimed that the company's inclusion of commercial skipping and file sharing technologies in ReplayTV amounted to contributory and vicarious infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights. (Contributory infringement because it allegedly aided viewers' claimed infringement; vicarious infringement because the company itself allegedly infringed via the viewers.)
Column continues below ↓ As a copyright infringement case, Paramount Pictures v. SonicBlue is far from a sure bet for the plaintiffs. In particular, plaintiffs' claim that ReplayTV's commercial skipping technology contributes to infringement of their copyrights should be a complete loser.
Skipping Commercials is Not Copyright Infringement
SonicBlue cannot be liable for contributory or vicarious copyright infringement unless ad skipping also creates direct infringement liability for ReplayTV users. As noted above, the whole theory of contributory and vicarious infringement is that viewers are infringing, and the company is either helping them to, or infringing itself through their actions.
However, if skipping an ad with Replay is infringement, then skipping one with a VCR is too. For an even more direct parallel, note also that there are VCRs on the market today that, like Replay TV, include an automatic commercial skip feature. Moreover, virtually all VCRs allow either one-touch 30-second skipping or conventional fast-forwarding - both of which are perfectly serviceable methods for skipping through ads.
Plaintiffs argue that they did not "authorize" Replay users (or VCR users, for that matter) to make copies of programs and then skip the ads when viewing those copies. But home recording of television programs for the purpose of "time-shifting" - that is, recording a program for viewing at a more convenient time - has already been considered and pronounced upon by the Supreme Court.
In Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the Court held this practice to be permissible when it was challenged in the context of VCRs. Time-shifting, the Court ruled, was acceptable under the fair use doctrine - despite the obvious possibility that viewers might fast-forward through ads while watching time-shifted programs on their VCRs. (The "fair use" doctrine creates a number of exceptions to the copyright law; if a use fits into an exception, an infringement suit cannot succeed.)
The fact that ReplayTV's commercial skip feature operates automatically - rather than requiring a user to press one button, or to press a button and hold it for a few seconds - is a meaningless distinction from the facts before the Court in Sony. The devices are the same in their purpose and effect, and thus should be treated the same under the law. Sony's precedent is thus directly applicable in the ReplayTV case.
As a result, as a copyright infringement claim, plaintiffs' complaint about ad-skipping falls flat. The claim is not really about protecting copyrighted works at all. Rather, it's about protecting the plaintiffs' particular business model - feeding ads to passive viewers. That is not a proper role for copyright.
SonicBlue Should Not be Liable for Allowing Limited File Sharing
To support their claim, plaintiffs invoke the example of the Napster file-sharing service. They claim that Replay will enable the same kind of wide-scale "viral" sharing that led to the court-ordered shut-down of the Napster service.
But the analogy to Napster is not apt: ReplayTV is not a Napster-style "infringement machine".
One obvious difference is that ReplayTV, unlike Napster, does not allow unlimited dissemination of copies to unknown recipients. Rather, Replay users are limited to 15 copies, which may only be sent to owners of Replay machines who are known to the sending user.
Accordingly, file-sharing on ReplayTV is more closely akin to the sharing of old-fashioned videotapes among friends - a limited form of file-sharing that has never been shown to harm content owners - than the wide-scale and anonymous distribution of copyrighted works on Napster.
Additionally, under the Supreme Court's holding in Sony, the sale of copying equipment - like a VCR or a PVR - does not create contributory infringement liability as long as the product is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses." (Perhaps this language should have saved Napster, as well, but in any event, it should certainly save ReplayTV, a device closely analogous to the VCRs the Supreme Court was discussing when it made this pronouncement.)
ReplayTV's file-sharing function is obviously capable of substantial noninfringing uses. For example, if home recording for the purpose of time-shifting is fair use, then sending a recorded program to a friend who wanted to time-shift the program but missed the opportunity to record it himself is also fair use. The use of ReplayTV's file-sharing function to send a copy of a program to which the recipient had legitimate access is no different than lending a friend the program on videotape.
Plaintiffs May Lose the Lawsuit, but Win the War, Due To A Discovery Order
Plaintiffs' copyright claims against SonicBlue will likely fail, but plaintiffs' lawsuit may yet succeed in undermining the commercial viability of ReplayTV.
On April 26, Magistrate Judge Charles Eick ordered SonicBlue to begin spying on its users to collect "all available information" regarding every TV program they record, every commercial they skip, and every program they send to a friend. SonicBlue does not currently collect such information. As a result, compliance with the magistrate's order will require the company to write and download to customers' machines customized "spyware" that will log the relevant information and forward it back to SonicBlue.
Within a few days after the report was issued, members of Congress called for a Federal Trade Commission investigation into TiVo's data collection practices. "The simple fact," read a letter sent by Congressional Democrats to then-FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky, "is that most consumers are not comfortable with having someone or something watch them while they watch television."
If they succeed in forcing SonicBlue to collect the kind of data that got TiVo in trouble, the Paramount Pictures plaintiffs will have gone a long way toward undermining the relationship between SonicBlue and its customers. Although SonicBlue will be able to point to the court order and say "The judge made me do it," customers will still be understandably perturbed. And plaintiffs, who filed the lawsuit to try to shut down ReplayTV, will enjoy at least a partial victory even before the suit is decided on the merits.
Why the Magistrate Judge's Order Should Be Overturned
Fortunately, the magistrate judge's order is subject to review by the federal district judge presiding in the case. Moreover, if the district judge agrees with the magistrate judge, the order - because of its First Amendment implications for viewers who want to keep private the list of shows they watch - could even be considered by the court of appeals, which might issue a rare grant of interlocutory review (that is, review while a case is still ongoing).
The order should be overturned, whether by the district court or the court of appeals. Even if this information must be collected, there are other ways to do so - through survey evidence, for example, which is routinely presented in similar court cases - which are far less invasive of viewers' privacy. Moreover, it is the plaintiffs, not the PVR company defendant, who should bear the onus to collect this evidence, for it is they who have the burden to prove their case.
Meanwhile, once this discovery dispute has been resolved, plaintiffs' copyright claims should be disposed of in short order. Their claim based on time-shifting has already been rejected by the Supreme Court, and their claim based on file-sharing is unpersuasive.
In the end, this case should be seen as what it is: an attempt to write an advertising-based model of television business into law. Rather than enshrine their fixed business model, networks should think of other ways to promote products - perhaps, most simply, by offering more entertaining advertising, or through product placement, as in Survivor, or by granting paying customers discounts if they do watch advertisements and answer questionnaires about their reactions. ReplayTV won't bankrupt TV; it will only force it to become more creative.
ARE PERSONAL VIDEO RECORDERS, SUCH AS REPLAYTV AND TIVO, COPYRIGHT-INFRINGEMENT DEVICES?:
A Lawsuit Raising The Question May Force Sonicblue To Spy On PVR Users
By CHRIS SPRIGMAN
----
Thursday, May. 09, 2002
In a recent interview, Jamie Kellner, Chairman and CEO of the Turner Broadcasting division of AOL-TimeWarner, had some harsh words for those PVR users who skip commercials:
"[Skipping commercials is] theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial . . . you're actually stealing the programming."
To be completely fair, Mr. Kellner did admit that "there's a certain amount of tolerance for bathroom breaks." He added, however, that "if you formalize it and you create a device that skips [30]-second increments, you've got that only for one reason, unless you go to the bathroom for 30 seconds. They've done that just to make it easy for someone to skip a commercial."
From a legal perspective, are Mr. Kellner's arguments correct? To decide that, let's look at the lawsuit currently pending against one prominent PVR producer.
Empowering Couch Potatoes Gets SonicBlue Sued
The particular device that has provoked Mr. Kellner's ire is SonicBlue's ReplayTV 4000, a nifty new PVR that is able to sense the beginning and end of commercials in digitally-recorded TV programs.
The device is thus able to automatically jump forward in order either to allow viewers to take precisely-timed bathroom breaks or - more realistically for most people - to skip commercials. Other PVRs also allow viewers to skip commercials, by fast-forwarding through them, but ReplayTV 4000 does the same job slightly quicker.
In a separate feature, ReplayTV also allows users to record TV shows and then send a digital copy over a broadband connection to as many as 15 other ReplayTV users. This file-sharing feature inevitably opened the PVR up to comparisons with Napster, the online file-sharing system that was for so long mired in litigation. (As I will argue below, such comparisons are, however, inapt.)
Late last year, a group of plaintiffs including Disney, Paramount Pictures, ABC, NBC and CBS, sued SonicBlue. They claimed that the company's inclusion of commercial skipping and file sharing technologies in ReplayTV amounted to contributory and vicarious infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights. (Contributory infringement because it allegedly aided viewers' claimed infringement; vicarious infringement because the company itself allegedly infringed via the viewers.)
Column continues below ↓ As a copyright infringement case, Paramount Pictures v. SonicBlue is far from a sure bet for the plaintiffs. In particular, plaintiffs' claim that ReplayTV's commercial skipping technology contributes to infringement of their copyrights should be a complete loser.
Skipping Commercials is Not Copyright Infringement
SonicBlue cannot be liable for contributory or vicarious copyright infringement unless ad skipping also creates direct infringement liability for ReplayTV users. As noted above, the whole theory of contributory and vicarious infringement is that viewers are infringing, and the company is either helping them to, or infringing itself through their actions.
However, if skipping an ad with Replay is infringement, then skipping one with a VCR is too. For an even more direct parallel, note also that there are VCRs on the market today that, like Replay TV, include an automatic commercial skip feature. Moreover, virtually all VCRs allow either one-touch 30-second skipping or conventional fast-forwarding - both of which are perfectly serviceable methods for skipping through ads.
Plaintiffs argue that they did not "authorize" Replay users (or VCR users, for that matter) to make copies of programs and then skip the ads when viewing those copies. But home recording of television programs for the purpose of "time-shifting" - that is, recording a program for viewing at a more convenient time - has already been considered and pronounced upon by the Supreme Court.
In Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the Court held this practice to be permissible when it was challenged in the context of VCRs. Time-shifting, the Court ruled, was acceptable under the fair use doctrine - despite the obvious possibility that viewers might fast-forward through ads while watching time-shifted programs on their VCRs. (The "fair use" doctrine creates a number of exceptions to the copyright law; if a use fits into an exception, an infringement suit cannot succeed.)
The fact that ReplayTV's commercial skip feature operates automatically - rather than requiring a user to press one button, or to press a button and hold it for a few seconds - is a meaningless distinction from the facts before the Court in Sony. The devices are the same in their purpose and effect, and thus should be treated the same under the law. Sony's precedent is thus directly applicable in the ReplayTV case.
As a result, as a copyright infringement claim, plaintiffs' complaint about ad-skipping falls flat. The claim is not really about protecting copyrighted works at all. Rather, it's about protecting the plaintiffs' particular business model - feeding ads to passive viewers. That is not a proper role for copyright.
SonicBlue Should Not be Liable for Allowing Limited File Sharing
To support their claim, plaintiffs invoke the example of the Napster file-sharing service. They claim that Replay will enable the same kind of wide-scale "viral" sharing that led to the court-ordered shut-down of the Napster service.
But the analogy to Napster is not apt: ReplayTV is not a Napster-style "infringement machine".
One obvious difference is that ReplayTV, unlike Napster, does not allow unlimited dissemination of copies to unknown recipients. Rather, Replay users are limited to 15 copies, which may only be sent to owners of Replay machines who are known to the sending user.
Accordingly, file-sharing on ReplayTV is more closely akin to the sharing of old-fashioned videotapes among friends - a limited form of file-sharing that has never been shown to harm content owners - than the wide-scale and anonymous distribution of copyrighted works on Napster.
Additionally, under the Supreme Court's holding in Sony, the sale of copying equipment - like a VCR or a PVR - does not create contributory infringement liability as long as the product is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses." (Perhaps this language should have saved Napster, as well, but in any event, it should certainly save ReplayTV, a device closely analogous to the VCRs the Supreme Court was discussing when it made this pronouncement.)
ReplayTV's file-sharing function is obviously capable of substantial noninfringing uses. For example, if home recording for the purpose of time-shifting is fair use, then sending a recorded program to a friend who wanted to time-shift the program but missed the opportunity to record it himself is also fair use. The use of ReplayTV's file-sharing function to send a copy of a program to which the recipient had legitimate access is no different than lending a friend the program on videotape.
Plaintiffs May Lose the Lawsuit, but Win the War, Due To A Discovery Order
Plaintiffs' copyright claims against SonicBlue will likely fail, but plaintiffs' lawsuit may yet succeed in undermining the commercial viability of ReplayTV.
On April 26, Magistrate Judge Charles Eick ordered SonicBlue to begin spying on its users to collect "all available information" regarding every TV program they record, every commercial they skip, and every program they send to a friend. SonicBlue does not currently collect such information. As a result, compliance with the magistrate's order will require the company to write and download to customers' machines customized "spyware" that will log the relevant information and forward it back to SonicBlue.
Within a few days after the report was issued, members of Congress called for a Federal Trade Commission investigation into TiVo's data collection practices. "The simple fact," read a letter sent by Congressional Democrats to then-FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky, "is that most consumers are not comfortable with having someone or something watch them while they watch television."
If they succeed in forcing SonicBlue to collect the kind of data that got TiVo in trouble, the Paramount Pictures plaintiffs will have gone a long way toward undermining the relationship between SonicBlue and its customers. Although SonicBlue will be able to point to the court order and say "The judge made me do it," customers will still be understandably perturbed. And plaintiffs, who filed the lawsuit to try to shut down ReplayTV, will enjoy at least a partial victory even before the suit is decided on the merits.
Why the Magistrate Judge's Order Should Be Overturned
Fortunately, the magistrate judge's order is subject to review by the federal district judge presiding in the case. Moreover, if the district judge agrees with the magistrate judge, the order - because of its First Amendment implications for viewers who want to keep private the list of shows they watch - could even be considered by the court of appeals, which might issue a rare grant of interlocutory review (that is, review while a case is still ongoing).
The order should be overturned, whether by the district court or the court of appeals. Even if this information must be collected, there are other ways to do so - through survey evidence, for example, which is routinely presented in similar court cases - which are far less invasive of viewers' privacy. Moreover, it is the plaintiffs, not the PVR company defendant, who should bear the onus to collect this evidence, for it is they who have the burden to prove their case.
Meanwhile, once this discovery dispute has been resolved, plaintiffs' copyright claims should be disposed of in short order. Their claim based on time-shifting has already been rejected by the Supreme Court, and their claim based on file-sharing is unpersuasive.
In the end, this case should be seen as what it is: an attempt to write an advertising-based model of television business into law. Rather than enshrine their fixed business model, networks should think of other ways to promote products - perhaps, most simply, by offering more entertaining advertising, or through product placement, as in Survivor, or by granting paying customers discounts if they do watch advertisements and answer questionnaires about their reactions. ReplayTV won't bankrupt TV; it will only force it to become more creative.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Behind the KFC ad...
Updated: 4:51 p.m. ET Feb 23, 2006
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Psstt. KFC wants to share a secret. No, not that secret.
Colonel Sanders’ herbs-and-spices recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken is still safely locked away, but the chain unveiled a new TV ad Thursday that allows viewers to crack a hidden message if they play the spot back slowly on a digital video recorder or VCR.
The gimmick is aimed at countering the rise of technology that enables television viewers to skip past commercials faster than ever before.
“This is taking the exact opposition approach — rewarding viewers for taking the time to engage and be interactive with television,” said Tom O’Keefe, an executive at Foote Cone & Belding, the advertising agency that created the spot for KFC Corp.
For those savvy enough to solve the secret, the prize is a coupon for KFC’s new, sauce-drenched Buffalo Snacker chicken sandwich. The 99-cent Snacker debuted a year ago and is credited in KFC’s earnings rebound.
“We’re trying to create a little fun,” said Scott Bergren, chief marketing officer at KFC, a unit of Louisville-based Yum! Brands Inc.
The ads will air on NBC’s Winter Olympic telecasts as well as on several other networks. The secret message explaining how to redeem the free sandwich offer is planted in just a few of the spot’s frames and revealed when replayed in slow motion.
“To the naked eye, it’s a typical KFC television commercial,” he said.
Technology that allows viewers to fast-forward past commercials — particularly DVRs that zip through ads in a flash — has been a headache for the television industry and advertisers. But analysts say KFC may be on to something.
“Any strategy that gets a message to rise above the clutter is terrific from the advertiser’s perspective,” said Josh Bernoff, an analyst with Forrester Research, a Cambridge, Mass., company that analyzes technology trends. “Even if it’s not much of a secret, it’s still a pretty good marketing idea.”
O’Keefe, whose agency also handles advertising for Taco Bell, another Yum! Brands unit, said he expects the KFC commercial to get the advertising industry’s attention.
Advertising executive Jamie King said the KFC ad seemed to be a unique response to the rise of DVRs — which she called “remote control on steroids” — and she predicted more advertising innovations that use of the same technology.
“It’s really going to allow you to do more and to become more interactive,” said King, senior vice president at Publicis & Hal Riney, based in San Francisco,
KFC, with more than 13,000 restaurants worldwide, said the ads featuring the secret message will run nationally until March 3.
© 2006 The Associated Press.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Psstt. KFC wants to share a secret. No, not that secret.
Colonel Sanders’ herbs-and-spices recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken is still safely locked away, but the chain unveiled a new TV ad Thursday that allows viewers to crack a hidden message if they play the spot back slowly on a digital video recorder or VCR.
The gimmick is aimed at countering the rise of technology that enables television viewers to skip past commercials faster than ever before.
“This is taking the exact opposition approach — rewarding viewers for taking the time to engage and be interactive with television,” said Tom O’Keefe, an executive at Foote Cone & Belding, the advertising agency that created the spot for KFC Corp.
For those savvy enough to solve the secret, the prize is a coupon for KFC’s new, sauce-drenched Buffalo Snacker chicken sandwich. The 99-cent Snacker debuted a year ago and is credited in KFC’s earnings rebound.
“We’re trying to create a little fun,” said Scott Bergren, chief marketing officer at KFC, a unit of Louisville-based Yum! Brands Inc.
The ads will air on NBC’s Winter Olympic telecasts as well as on several other networks. The secret message explaining how to redeem the free sandwich offer is planted in just a few of the spot’s frames and revealed when replayed in slow motion.
“To the naked eye, it’s a typical KFC television commercial,” he said.
Technology that allows viewers to fast-forward past commercials — particularly DVRs that zip through ads in a flash — has been a headache for the television industry and advertisers. But analysts say KFC may be on to something.
“Any strategy that gets a message to rise above the clutter is terrific from the advertiser’s perspective,” said Josh Bernoff, an analyst with Forrester Research, a Cambridge, Mass., company that analyzes technology trends. “Even if it’s not much of a secret, it’s still a pretty good marketing idea.”
O’Keefe, whose agency also handles advertising for Taco Bell, another Yum! Brands unit, said he expects the KFC commercial to get the advertising industry’s attention.
Advertising executive Jamie King said the KFC ad seemed to be a unique response to the rise of DVRs — which she called “remote control on steroids” — and she predicted more advertising innovations that use of the same technology.
“It’s really going to allow you to do more and to become more interactive,” said King, senior vice president at Publicis & Hal Riney, based in San Francisco,
KFC, with more than 13,000 restaurants worldwide, said the ads featuring the secret message will run nationally until March 3.
© 2006 The Associated Press.
What is DVR technology?
Digital video recorder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A digital video recorder (DVR) (or personal video recorder (PVR)) is a device that records video without videotape to a hard drive-based digital storage medium. The term includes stand-alone set-top boxes and software for personal computers which enables video capture and playback to and from disk.
The first DVR was tested on July 8, 1965, when CBS explored the possibilities of instant freeze-frame and rewind for sporting event broadcasts. Ampex released the first commercial hard disk video recorder in 1967. The HS-100 recorded composite analog video onto a 14" diameter hard disk using FM modulation. It could store a maximum of only 30 seconds, but could record continuously, and play back 2x normal speed down to still frame. http://www.cedmagic.com/history/instant-replay-hs-100-deck.html http://www.sssm.com/editing/museum/ampex/hs100.html
In 1985, an employee of Honeywell’s Physical Sciences Center, David Rafner, first described a drive-based DVR designed for home TV recording, time-slipping, and commercial skipping. US Patent 4,972,396 [1] focused on a multi-channel design to allow simultaneous independent recording and playback. Broadly anticipating future DVR developments, it describes possible applications such as streaming compression, editing, captioning, multi-channel security monitoring, military sensor platforms, and remotely piloted vehicles.
[edit] Hard disk-based DVRs
The two early consumer DVRs, ReplayTV and TiVo, were launched at the 1999 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Although ReplayTV won the "Best of Show" award in the video category, it was TiVo that went on to much greater commercial success. The devices have steadily developed complementary abilities, such as recording onto DVDs, commercial skip, sharing of recordings over the Internet, and programming and remote control facilities using PDAs, networked PCs, or Web browsers.
This makes the "time shifting" feature (traditionally done by a VCR) much more convenient, and also allows for "trick modes" such as pausing live TV, instant replay of interesting scenes, chasing playback where a recording can be viewed before it has been completed and skipping advertising. Most DVRs use the MPEG format for encoding analog video signals.
The two consumer DVR brands in the United States are the TiVo and DNNA's ReplayTV. In the UK TiVo has a small presence; Thomson, Topfield, Fusion, Pace and Humax also supply digital terrestrial (DTT) DVRs. BSkyB markets a popular combined EPG and DVR as Sky+. South African based Africa Satellite TV beamer Multichoice recently launched their PVR which is available on their Dstv platform.
Many satellite and cable companies are incorporating DVR functions into their set-top box, such as with DirecTiVo, DishPlayer/DishDVR, Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8xxx from Time Warner, Motorola 6xxx from Comcast, Moxi Media Center by Digeo (available through Charter, Adelphia, Sunflower, Bend Broadband, and soon Comcast and other cable companies), or Sky+. In this case there is no encoding necessary in the DVR, as the satellite signal is already a digitally encoded MPEG stream. The DVR simply stores the digital stream directly to disk. Having the broadcaster involved with (subsidizing) the design of the DVR—and directly recording encrypted digital streams—can lead to features such as the ability to use interactive TV on recorded shows, pre-loading of programs. It can, however, also force the manufacturer to implement non-skippable advertisements and automatically-expiring recordings.
[edit] Introduction of dual-tuners
In 2003 many Satellite and Cable providers introduced dual-tuner DVRs. These machines have two tuners within the same receiver to operate independently of one another. The main use for this feature is the capability to record a live program while watching another live program simultaneously or to record two programs at the same time while watching a previously recorded one. Some dual-tuner DVRs also have the ability to operate two separate television sets at the same time.
[edit] PCs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A digital video recorder (DVR) (or personal video recorder (PVR)) is a device that records video without videotape to a hard drive-based digital storage medium. The term includes stand-alone set-top boxes and software for personal computers which enables video capture and playback to and from disk.
The first DVR was tested on July 8, 1965, when CBS explored the possibilities of instant freeze-frame and rewind for sporting event broadcasts. Ampex released the first commercial hard disk video recorder in 1967. The HS-100 recorded composite analog video onto a 14" diameter hard disk using FM modulation. It could store a maximum of only 30 seconds, but could record continuously, and play back 2x normal speed down to still frame. http://www.cedmagic.com/history/instant-replay-hs-100-deck.html http://www.sssm.com/editing/museum/ampex/hs100.html
In 1985, an employee of Honeywell’s Physical Sciences Center, David Rafner, first described a drive-based DVR designed for home TV recording, time-slipping, and commercial skipping. US Patent 4,972,396 [1] focused on a multi-channel design to allow simultaneous independent recording and playback. Broadly anticipating future DVR developments, it describes possible applications such as streaming compression, editing, captioning, multi-channel security monitoring, military sensor platforms, and remotely piloted vehicles.
[edit] Hard disk-based DVRs
The two early consumer DVRs, ReplayTV and TiVo, were launched at the 1999 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Although ReplayTV won the "Best of Show" award in the video category, it was TiVo that went on to much greater commercial success. The devices have steadily developed complementary abilities, such as recording onto DVDs, commercial skip, sharing of recordings over the Internet, and programming and remote control facilities using PDAs, networked PCs, or Web browsers.
This makes the "time shifting" feature (traditionally done by a VCR) much more convenient, and also allows for "trick modes" such as pausing live TV, instant replay of interesting scenes, chasing playback where a recording can be viewed before it has been completed and skipping advertising. Most DVRs use the MPEG format for encoding analog video signals.
The two consumer DVR brands in the United States are the TiVo and DNNA's ReplayTV. In the UK TiVo has a small presence; Thomson, Topfield, Fusion, Pace and Humax also supply digital terrestrial (DTT) DVRs. BSkyB markets a popular combined EPG and DVR as Sky+. South African based Africa Satellite TV beamer Multichoice recently launched their PVR which is available on their Dstv platform.
Many satellite and cable companies are incorporating DVR functions into their set-top box, such as with DirecTiVo, DishPlayer/DishDVR, Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8xxx from Time Warner, Motorola 6xxx from Comcast, Moxi Media Center by Digeo (available through Charter, Adelphia, Sunflower, Bend Broadband, and soon Comcast and other cable companies), or Sky+. In this case there is no encoding necessary in the DVR, as the satellite signal is already a digitally encoded MPEG stream. The DVR simply stores the digital stream directly to disk. Having the broadcaster involved with (subsidizing) the design of the DVR—and directly recording encrypted digital streams—can lead to features such as the ability to use interactive TV on recorded shows, pre-loading of programs. It can, however, also force the manufacturer to implement non-skippable advertisements and automatically-expiring recordings.
[edit] Introduction of dual-tuners
In 2003 many Satellite and Cable providers introduced dual-tuner DVRs. These machines have two tuners within the same receiver to operate independently of one another. The main use for this feature is the capability to record a live program while watching another live program simultaneously or to record two programs at the same time while watching a previously recorded one. Some dual-tuner DVRs also have the ability to operate two separate television sets at the same time.
[edit] PCs
Finding the message...
In most cases, it is easy to recognize that there is something more going on. The GE and Sony commercials make the hidden content just visible enough you that you can recognize that something is there, but you can't actually see what it is, forcing you to back up and watch again frame-by-frame.
The Sprite commercials used several different ways of drawing attention to their hidden content. They also made sure that their content was visible just long enough to recognize something was there. The beginning of their commercials also contained the tagline "DVR Ready" at the bottom of the screen for the first few second of the commercial. The voice over also says "Welcome to sublymonal advertising. For best results, do not blink."
The KFC commercial was unique in that their content was so subliminal, it could not be seen by just watching the commercial normally. The KFC corporation actually leaked the information about the hidden content to the media itself to get people talking about it.
The Sprite commercials used several different ways of drawing attention to their hidden content. They also made sure that their content was visible just long enough to recognize something was there. The beginning of their commercials also contained the tagline "DVR Ready" at the bottom of the screen for the first few second of the commercial. The voice over also says "Welcome to sublymonal advertising. For best results, do not blink."
The KFC commercial was unique in that their content was so subliminal, it could not be seen by just watching the commercial normally. The KFC corporation actually leaked the information about the hidden content to the media itself to get people talking about it.
So what's the point?
After going through these commercials frame-by-frame I found a common thread through all of them: a special website. The addresses provided either linked back to a special section of the company's already established website, or linked to a completely seperate site created especially for the ad. Each site held "secret information" for the tech-savvy consumers.
A KFC commercial contained a few frames hidden in an ordinary-looking commercial that contained a code. If you went to the special link on the internet and entered the code, you would receive a coupon for a free sandwhich.
The GE commercial contained fun content to find and watch. The site also provided extra content.
The Sprite commericals all contained a hidden code. After accessing the Sublymonal website, you could enter the codes to access fun content to play with.
The Sony commercials linked to a special section of their regular site that contained extra content that was the second half of their "To be continued..." commercials.
A KFC commercial contained a few frames hidden in an ordinary-looking commercial that contained a code. If you went to the special link on the internet and entered the code, you would receive a coupon for a free sandwhich.
The GE commercial contained fun content to find and watch. The site also provided extra content.
The Sprite commericals all contained a hidden code. After accessing the Sublymonal website, you could enter the codes to access fun content to play with.
The Sony commercials linked to a special section of their regular site that contained extra content that was the second half of their "To be continued..." commercials.
The KFC commercial...
Here is an article from The Seattle Times:
Advertisers face TiVo challenge
By Michelle Quinn
Tech-savvy couch potatoes have given TV commercials the cold shoulder for the past few years, ever since TiVo and its ilk unleashed the power to skip ahead and get back to the show.
Now advertisers are scrambling to figure out new TV advertising models in this age of complete viewer control.
Some advertisers are hoping a new breed of commercials will actually strike a chord with users of digital video recorders by tempting them to use the pause, fast-forward and rewind technology to see the latest creative twists in advertising.
Take, for example, a recent KFC commercial for its new Buffalo KFC Snacker sandwich, which contained a subliminal message and secret code that only could be cracked if played back slowly, frame by frame, with a digital video recorder.
Viewers could then enter the code (buffalo) on KFC's Web site to get a coupon for the sandwich. The company gave away 75,000 coupons.
Never mind that such ad campaigns have to practically become news stories to work.
The ad's secrets were so hidden that viewers wouldn't have known about them if KFC hadn't leaked the story to the media.
Still, it's clear that advertisers are going to make more of these so-called "DVR-ready" ads. What isn't clear is if these efforts will be successful enough to convince advertisers that television is still a good place to hawk Cadillacs and Dial soap. The challenge is how to appeal to the growing number of viewers with DVRs who are enjoying their TV commercial-free.
KFC is not alone in trying new approaches. In the past couple of months, Coca-Cola and General Electric have aired TV ads that contained hidden messages or scrambled entertainment.
And TiVo itself has launched several features to coax TiVo users to watch commercials about products and services in which viewers have expressed an interest.
advertising
"We think about consumers and respect the fact that they are in control of television viewing," said Davina Kent, TiVo's vice president of national advertising sales. "We only choose things that are opt-in, meaning that they can choose to view on their own time."
For example, in a deal that blurs the line between commercials and programming, TiVo users watching an episode about the BMW M series on the show "Test Drive" will be able to stop the program at any moment to request and watch an ad about the BMW M series.
In its news release, TiVo said the ability to place ads with products in the show, which appears on the Speed channel this summer, "opens up more opportunities for advertisers to extend their in-program product integration."
Yes, those products that appear like silent supporting actors in sitcoms and TV dramas may soon come with ads a click away.
Subscriptions growing
Founded in 1997, TiVo popularized technology that allowed viewers to download TV programs to a hard drive and decide when they watch a television show. They can also zip past advertisements.
Now, more than 4.4 million households have TiVo subscriptions. Together with cable companies that also sell digital video recorders, 13 percent of households have the technology, according to Forrester Research. By 2008, Forrester predicts, 20 percent of households will have it.
It's always been a battle for advertisers to get viewers to actually watch TV ads. The remote control and the VCR both made it easy to jump around TV channels and duck the product hawking.
But DVR technology has taken ad skipping to a whole new level. One industry observer calls it "remote controls on steroids."
It's so easy and quick to skip ads that some studies show more than 50 percent of DVR users do it (which makes one wonder about the 50 percent who don't do it).
This has made it tricky for networks and advertisers to figure out how to price ads without reliable statistics to tell them how many people actually are watching programming vs. the advertising.
Nielsen and TiVo, which can measure second by second what people are watching, including advertisements, are working together to provide a more detailed picture. But so far, advertisers have balked at paying advertising rates that include the DVR audience.
"I'm not aware of anything that is particularly effective," said Allen Banks, executive vice president and director of media at the advertising firm Saatchi & Saatchi.
"Advertisers are trying a number of different things to utilize the technology. The reality is that if an advertiser is buying advertising on television, there's no win-win here," he said.
Banks pointed out that DVR technology works better for some products than others. "There are a lot of products that don't have a lot of pizzazz. It's just the stuff people consume. To suggest there are ways to use the technology is naïve," he said.
But others are cautiously optimistic. "There hasn't been a technology invented that can't be leveraged for a marketing tool," said Don King, group director for Sprite, Coca-Cola, North America.
Model will be obsolete
As more households have DVRs, TV commercials as we know them, will become obsolete, say analysts. TV ad models might become more like Internet ads, where advertisers pay per clicks.
TiVo, too, has a strong incentive to become more advertiser-friendly. Growing competition from cable and satellite companies has put pressure on TiVo to cut the price of its device.
Far from seeing itself as an enemy of advertisers, TiVo has pitched itself as an advertiser ally.
Since TiVo receives information about its users' viewing and clicking habits, it can offer advertisers detailed research about how their ad campaigns are working — and the advertising also opens up new sources of revenue for the company, though TiVo won't say how much.
TiVo has introduced several ways people can watch ads beyond the ones squeezed between TV programs.
Viewers can visit its "Showcase" and see ads. And when people fast-forward through ads, a banner ad appears asking the viewer to click for more information.
Interacting with users
In May, TiVo launched "Product Watch," which allows TiVo users to subscribe to brands or categories. For example, viewers can ask to receive travel and leisure information to be downloaded to their TiVo hard drive.
They might receive four two-minute-long vignettes about recreation vehicles and travel from Go RVing, a coalition of RV makers and enthusiasts.
The viewer can also ask to be sent more information or to be contacted by an RV dealer. The service is available to people with TiVos with broadband capability, about 400,000 households.
"What's interesting about TiVo is that they are certainly trying to interact and engage with their users," said Jim O'Rourke, who works in brand media for The Richards Group, a branding agency based in Dallas. He helped create the Go RVing TiVo campaign. "It's something we can't afford to ignore."
When TiVo announced some of its advertising initiatives, Dave Zatz, who writes a TiVo blog called Zatznotfunny, predicted dark days ahead.
But so far, the 34-year-old network engineer from Maryland has been pleasantly surprised.
"I'd rather have less advertising," Zatz said. "But if we have to have it, I'd like to see advertisers get more creative and trade us for our time."
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
Advertisers face TiVo challenge
By Michelle Quinn
Tech-savvy couch potatoes have given TV commercials the cold shoulder for the past few years, ever since TiVo and its ilk unleashed the power to skip ahead and get back to the show.
Now advertisers are scrambling to figure out new TV advertising models in this age of complete viewer control.
Some advertisers are hoping a new breed of commercials will actually strike a chord with users of digital video recorders by tempting them to use the pause, fast-forward and rewind technology to see the latest creative twists in advertising.
Take, for example, a recent KFC commercial for its new Buffalo KFC Snacker sandwich, which contained a subliminal message and secret code that only could be cracked if played back slowly, frame by frame, with a digital video recorder.
Viewers could then enter the code (buffalo) on KFC's Web site to get a coupon for the sandwich. The company gave away 75,000 coupons.
Never mind that such ad campaigns have to practically become news stories to work.
The ad's secrets were so hidden that viewers wouldn't have known about them if KFC hadn't leaked the story to the media.
Still, it's clear that advertisers are going to make more of these so-called "DVR-ready" ads. What isn't clear is if these efforts will be successful enough to convince advertisers that television is still a good place to hawk Cadillacs and Dial soap. The challenge is how to appeal to the growing number of viewers with DVRs who are enjoying their TV commercial-free.
KFC is not alone in trying new approaches. In the past couple of months, Coca-Cola and General Electric have aired TV ads that contained hidden messages or scrambled entertainment.
And TiVo itself has launched several features to coax TiVo users to watch commercials about products and services in which viewers have expressed an interest.
advertising
"We think about consumers and respect the fact that they are in control of television viewing," said Davina Kent, TiVo's vice president of national advertising sales. "We only choose things that are opt-in, meaning that they can choose to view on their own time."
For example, in a deal that blurs the line between commercials and programming, TiVo users watching an episode about the BMW M series on the show "Test Drive" will be able to stop the program at any moment to request and watch an ad about the BMW M series.
In its news release, TiVo said the ability to place ads with products in the show, which appears on the Speed channel this summer, "opens up more opportunities for advertisers to extend their in-program product integration."
Yes, those products that appear like silent supporting actors in sitcoms and TV dramas may soon come with ads a click away.
Subscriptions growing
Founded in 1997, TiVo popularized technology that allowed viewers to download TV programs to a hard drive and decide when they watch a television show. They can also zip past advertisements.
Now, more than 4.4 million households have TiVo subscriptions. Together with cable companies that also sell digital video recorders, 13 percent of households have the technology, according to Forrester Research. By 2008, Forrester predicts, 20 percent of households will have it.
It's always been a battle for advertisers to get viewers to actually watch TV ads. The remote control and the VCR both made it easy to jump around TV channels and duck the product hawking.
But DVR technology has taken ad skipping to a whole new level. One industry observer calls it "remote controls on steroids."
It's so easy and quick to skip ads that some studies show more than 50 percent of DVR users do it (which makes one wonder about the 50 percent who don't do it).
This has made it tricky for networks and advertisers to figure out how to price ads without reliable statistics to tell them how many people actually are watching programming vs. the advertising.
Nielsen and TiVo, which can measure second by second what people are watching, including advertisements, are working together to provide a more detailed picture. But so far, advertisers have balked at paying advertising rates that include the DVR audience.
"I'm not aware of anything that is particularly effective," said Allen Banks, executive vice president and director of media at the advertising firm Saatchi & Saatchi.
"Advertisers are trying a number of different things to utilize the technology. The reality is that if an advertiser is buying advertising on television, there's no win-win here," he said.
Banks pointed out that DVR technology works better for some products than others. "There are a lot of products that don't have a lot of pizzazz. It's just the stuff people consume. To suggest there are ways to use the technology is naïve," he said.
But others are cautiously optimistic. "There hasn't been a technology invented that can't be leveraged for a marketing tool," said Don King, group director for Sprite, Coca-Cola, North America.
Model will be obsolete
As more households have DVRs, TV commercials as we know them, will become obsolete, say analysts. TV ad models might become more like Internet ads, where advertisers pay per clicks.
TiVo, too, has a strong incentive to become more advertiser-friendly. Growing competition from cable and satellite companies has put pressure on TiVo to cut the price of its device.
Far from seeing itself as an enemy of advertisers, TiVo has pitched itself as an advertiser ally.
Since TiVo receives information about its users' viewing and clicking habits, it can offer advertisers detailed research about how their ad campaigns are working — and the advertising also opens up new sources of revenue for the company, though TiVo won't say how much.
TiVo has introduced several ways people can watch ads beyond the ones squeezed between TV programs.
Viewers can visit its "Showcase" and see ads. And when people fast-forward through ads, a banner ad appears asking the viewer to click for more information.
Interacting with users
In May, TiVo launched "Product Watch," which allows TiVo users to subscribe to brands or categories. For example, viewers can ask to receive travel and leisure information to be downloaded to their TiVo hard drive.
They might receive four two-minute-long vignettes about recreation vehicles and travel from Go RVing, a coalition of RV makers and enthusiasts.
The viewer can also ask to be sent more information or to be contacted by an RV dealer. The service is available to people with TiVos with broadband capability, about 400,000 households.
"What's interesting about TiVo is that they are certainly trying to interact and engage with their users," said Jim O'Rourke, who works in brand media for The Richards Group, a branding agency based in Dallas. He helped create the Go RVing TiVo campaign. "It's something we can't afford to ignore."
When TiVo announced some of its advertising initiatives, Dave Zatz, who writes a TiVo blog called Zatznotfunny, predicted dark days ahead.
But so far, the 34-year-old network engineer from Maryland has been pleasantly surprised.
"I'd rather have less advertising," Zatz said. "But if we have to have it, I'd like to see advertisers get more creative and trade us for our time."
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
For men and women....
Next, I found this commerical for the new Sony Bravia:
www.sony.com/isawthat
These things were just popping up everywhere!
www.sony.com/isawthat
These things were just popping up everywhere!
The One Second Theater...
I also happened to catch a few "normal" commercials here and there over the past few months, and got a giggle from one of the new GE "Ecomagination commercials:"
A few weeks later, I had another encounter with this commercial, but that time I noticed something completely different. Tacked on at the end of the commercial was a a quick flash of something - it was way too fast for me to catch. So I broke out the DVR remote again and found the "One Second Theater." Unfortunately I could not find a copy of the commercial with the extra ending, to play; however I did find a website run by GE that had the content of the "One Second Theater:"
http://www.ge.com/onesecondtheater/indexFlash.html
A few weeks later, I had another encounter with this commercial, but that time I noticed something completely different. Tacked on at the end of the commercial was a a quick flash of something - it was way too fast for me to catch. So I broke out the DVR remote again and found the "One Second Theater." Unfortunately I could not find a copy of the commercial with the extra ending, to play; however I did find a website run by GE that had the content of the "One Second Theater:"
http://www.ge.com/onesecondtheater/indexFlash.html
It's sublymonal...
I soon found another Sprite commercial:
I went through with the pause button and found all of the "sublymonal" things in this ad too.
I went through with the pause button and found all of the "sublymonal" things in this ad too.
The message gets through...
So this topic, TV commercials, is one I didn't really think I would have much to talk about anymore after the arrival of our DVR. I thought the DVR would mean the end of commericals. A few taps of a button and I could resume my show, whenever I wanted, hardly inconvenienced at all. I thought life would continue blissfully this way forever, with the notable exceptions of Super Bowl commercials, and the rare instance I would be forced to watch live TV.
It was during one of the rare instances (which turned out to be not so rare, by the way) of live TV viewing that a Sprite commerical caught my eye.
It was during one of the rare instances (which turned out to be not so rare, by the way) of live TV viewing that a Sprite commerical caught my eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
