February 03, 2004
if there are no commercials...
In an attempt to pretend that I'm paying more attention to television and recording shows than I actually am, I'll mention that I was intrigued with Josh Paul's idea of "Verified Viewing." He suggests that the most notable function of a digital video recorder is that it allows viewers to skip commercials. This skipping of commercials leads to a loss in advertising revenue. His proposal is that a line of digital information registering the viewing of a scene (along with frequency) should be encoded into a program during product placement points, then collected in a central hub where payments to advertisers can be processed.
Product placement certainly seems to be on the way up and it’s not something I’m actively campaigning against. Dan and I had a conversation about the subject the other day and agreed that if it’s done well and in a subtle manner, we’re okay with it. I like that it adds a bit of reality. One of the downsides is that I’m fairly conscious of it (or, maybe that’s an upside?).
There are lots of issues to get into with the idea and Josh and Mark Paschal begin discussing and debating them. I’ve probably got a few more thoughts about the topic but I’ve got to track down an old episode of Young Americans.
"Dan and I had a conversation about the subject the other day and agreed that if it’s done well and in a subtle manner, we’re okay with it."
so basically what you're saying is that you're OK with advertising manipulating your subconscious without you being aware of it and without your consent. or am i misinterpreting? even if you consciously note the product placements as you claim, you're still affected by them in ways that you're not equipped to combat. the line between advertising and entertainment is already blurred enough (witness those who watch the superbowl "for the commercials") and consumer culture far too rampant. TiVo finally gives people the right to "opt out" of the barrage of unwanted sales pitches. i say fuck the advertisers and let all of TV become subscription based a la HBO or some modified version of the basic tiers that cable and satellite offer. then lets really fulfill the promise of OnDemand technology and give people the simple and direct power to choose what they want without interruption. why should TV be a slave to the ad industry?
to quote D Boon "let the products sell themselves!"
Posted by: jamie at February 4, 2004 03:19 PMi'm still unsure how i feel about the whole thing. one thing i fear about paying for television channels based on a subscription model is the sheer cost. am i ready for an itunes-like menu coming from my cable box? not quite. am i ready for all my demographic information to be transmitted to coca-cola and yum brands? not really. somewhere there is a happy medium between sampling shows for free and paying a small subscription fee. if exchanging a small part of demographic info for that is the cost, i'm ready to explore that option. how many newspapers already have some form of demographic information about me? how many fake log-in names do i have? what does it take just to read a story in the la times? it's a pain in the ass.
i am rambling and this is a conversation better had over a drink or two because it's so depressing.
Posted by: marc at February 4, 2004 03:52 PMI agreed that product placement was okay? I don't remember saying that.
Posted by: dan at February 4, 2004 04:41 PMi swear we had a conversation about the topic. am i making this up? did i talk with someone else about it?
Posted by: marc at February 4, 2004 04:57 PMWe talked about it, but I don't remember saying that product placement was okay. I was just trying to stress that all of our lives we use corporate products so it would be very hard to not have products shown in films and t.v. What is the alternative? Generic labeling of things when most of us just use the corporate products anyway? It would be like when you see an ad with an athlete with a blank uniform and hat on because they don't have the right to wear their real uniform since the team they play for owns the logo.
Posted by: Dan at February 5, 2004 06:22 PMNice site...
Posted by: Bill Solinas at June 5, 2004 10:41 PM