The now of advertising

Contrast that with the oft-repeated idea that the savior of television revenues against the scourage of Internet sharing (which always occurs with the ads removed; the files are big enough without the 27% ad content) will be inextricable integration of advertising with the entertainment product:

Normally I would give that a nice thought: yeah, that could work, product placements and sponsorship. Did Ford's sponsoring of the season premieres of 24 work for them? He calls ad skipping "the most prominent feature" of DVR, which disinclines me to agree--that's time-shifting, pure and simple--but it's a reasonable thought.

Except it isn't. People are using DVR because it turns airwave shit into diamonds, and are downloading online because there's DVR convenience, no ad content, and often wider selection (like fansubbed anime and US-UK region busting). Embedding the ad content will make these people stop sharing your content through the simple expedient of making them not care to watch it at all, and is your job?

No. The problem is your job as a creator of television shows is to entertain viewers, not sell viewers to advertisers. The addiction to that revenue model is what's causing this natural adjustment in the market, and no amount of waving the magic technology wand, or flailing against the general purpose computer (which is the only way "Verified Viewing" could possibly work for P2P) will help.

Wow, it's pretty fun to pretend you know what you're talking about!

joshpaul 2:39 PM 26 Jan 2004

I agree that as a Producer, it is my job to produce entertainment. However, if what I produce doesn't generate enough eyeballs, I'm unemployed. If the network can't sell advertising, they can't pay me. Plain and simple. I have one foot in both worlds. I work as a Producer and I write software. I know the "ins-and-outs" of both well enough to make an honest living. If we don't have advertising, how do we pay our staff and crew? Subscription services, like HBO, obviously work. What are our other options? "Verified Viewing" is my proposal. I'm excited to see more. So, Mark Paschal, if you're willing to fire across my bow (by stating that I don't know what I'm talking about), why don't you propose a solution of your own?

joshpaul 2:49 PM 26 Jan 2004

One last thought... I think you missed the point about 24. The vast majority of the cars/trucks driven in the show are Ford's. That is the type of advertising I want to see in the future. Subtle and not in the way of the entertainment value. The Verified Viewing model would allow a show like 24 to exist in a P2P network. I think all parties win... 1) the viewers get content that's still entertaining. 2) the advertisers get eyeballs. 3) the production staff and crew can be paid.

Mark 3:39 PM 26 Jan 2004

Yes, 24's Ford sponsorship is a good example of nontraditional advertising. I'd love to see more creative solutions to that, because I feel that traditional advertising is broken. That's the main thrust of my reaction, I think: traditional advertising (as described in this article) increasingly doesn't work as "viewers" take over more production thanks to the Internet and cheaper technologies. Verified Viewing is a great idea; at the time I just happened to think we can't have it without destroying the general purpose computer, for the same reasons media enforcement folks are looking forward to Microsoft Trustworthy Computing. I'm still not sure how such a system would handle a concerted effort by bright minds to stuff the ballot box, as it were; as far as I know that's an unsolved problem in the same places P2P platforms exist. In general it sounds like I agree with you more than not, but was too quick to rant against my small objections. Sorry for that, and thanks for the comments.