| |||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSUpon reflection I might have been too hasty in my judgment. After all, why shouldn't media companies (content and distribution) train their customers in the proper utilization of their services? Consumers are lucky to have so many choices at such affordable prices. Given this line of thinking, it is only natural for us to tackle the commercial skipping phenomenon next -- one, that if not rectified, can bring financial ruin and devastation to the lucrative ad-supported TV business: $70 billion in traditional commercial TV and nearly $1 billion via combined broadband and wireless video consumption.
Why not have the TV set self-destruct whenever someone attempts to fast-forward through a commercial? The mission, should we decide to accept it, has some potential impediments, though in my opinion surmountable:
" Consumer electronic warranties: I think at first the manufacturers might be resistant to the idea of replacing myriads of television sets; however, it will afford them the opportunity to upsell the consumer, who might be resistant to acquiring a new HDTV, as an example, because their 50-inch analog still looks good. Now they have a reason - particularly, if a financial incentive is offered.
" Panel samples: if too many TV sets that explode are part of the DVR usage panel, then that could impede the accurate collection of the C3 data, skew the reportage and impact on reported ratings delivery, which could cause the broadcast and cable networks to owe the advertisers even more make-good weight than previously announced. Of course, if the media community was reliant on click-stream data and not panels, this might not be an issue.
" Engagement: when I first shared this idea with a friend he thought that it might be shocking for a TV viewer to experience a blow out. Thought he had a point. So why not only have TV sets self destruct when a commercial is being skipped that is located in the first pod position of a program that supports violence or focuses on violent news. "Brought to you by" could have much more resonance with the consumer and connection with an advertiser.
" Child protection: the FCC requires broadcasters and cablers to provide, theoretically, educational programming and community service. The risk of the exploding TV syndrome could motivate the parents of toddlers to utilize the V-chip - to date, a failed initiative - to exercise parental controls and disable the fast forwarding functionality of the remote devices; thereby, implanting the "no fast forwarding" seeds for future generations that will not know of their forebear's freedom of manipulation of video.
" Accident coverage: some people sit too close to the TV. Doctors have pointed out repeatedly that is not good for the eyes and possibly hearing - depending on volume and efficacy of surround sound. Also, one needs a certain distance from the screen to enjoy the delights of widescreen viewing. With that said, the exploding TV phenomenon could present an opportunity for self-reflection and re-evaluation of the viewer's proximity to the set as well as audibles. In the event that viewers are caught by debris jettisoned by the exploding TV, I am sure that presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has included a contingency coverage plan as part of her health-care proposal.
" Propaganda concerns: if the exploding TV solution is implemented I must voice a warning that the broadband community may attempt to exploit what appears to be the diminution of TV viewing. However, in this case, appearances will be deceiving. The media community is cognizant of the fact that there is more TV viewing than ever before - even with extended viewing of video options on broadband and wireless. Depending on the number of exploding TVs, the amount of time it takes them to get replaced - under warranty or up sold, the number of those that explode within the panelist's households for audience measurement, there could be what appears to be a significant dip in TV viewing that is not reflective of actual viewing but rather reflective of the difficulty in dealing with getting a service repair person to visit one's home or negotiating your best buy with the manufacturer - particularly when trying to ascertain whether one has the capability to receive HD programming and at what cost.
Ultimately, the question will become: Can Americans be trained to change their behavior after thousands of years of conditioning? A question that we demand answered by other cultures when we forcibly insinuate our ideological and technological concepts into their lives.
RSS FEEDS
This whole programming-venture-in-search-of-a-revenue-model is scarily like pre-bust Internet ideas in the late 90s. I understand the whole "give the people what they want when they want it where they want it" thing, but I haven't seen many (any?) potential solutions that look like a sustainable business. And don't tell me that ads need to be more "relevant". In a 4-minute commercial pod, anyone with reasonable reflexes running the TiVo fast forward at 15x simply doesn't SEE ads in position 2-7, no matter how relevant they are.
Finally, if viewers are too stupid to program their TiVos and instead rely on VOD, then what's wrong with making them "pay" for the privilege? Of course, one of your respondents last week had the same idea I did when I first heard about this story--DVR the On Demand show, THEN play it back without commercials.