dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Fox Fails Yet Again to Kill Dish's Ad-Skipping DVR
by Karl Bode 02:47PM Tuesday Jul 15 2014
If at first you don't succeed, try again. And again. And then again for good measure. Feeling bolstered by the Supreme Court ruling against Aereo, Fox recently took another legal shot at trying to argue that Dish's "Hopper" ad-skipping DVR violates copyright, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals isn't having it. The court this week ruled that a district court didn't abuse discretion by denying Fox's motion for a preliminary injunction. The full opinion notes there was no legal error by previous courts in "characterizing the irreparable harm forecasts of Fox’s executive as speculative."

view:
topics flat nest 

BimmerE38FN

join:2002-09-15
Boise, ID
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CableOne

1 recommendation

Good for DISH!!!

Good. I'm glad they struck them down the the dogs they are. Anyone watching TV now days would notice there seems to be more unwanted advertisement rather than actual desired content. I finally used this feature of the DVR the other night. Amazing!!!. I see the beginning of the first few seconds of the ad, then the last few seconds of the last ad before the desired content continues. So nice. Even though if DISH didn't have this feature, I don't see why FOX is wasting time, there is this thing call the PAUSE and FF buttons on the remotes that we been using for years to skip passed ads. Glad the controls are still available for the customers, not FOX or marketing companies!!!
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Good for DISH!!!

What I find funny about the Hopper is that I had a proscan VCR that did automatic ad marking and ad skipping in the late 1990s... Last I checked the networks did not sue RCA/Proscan. Hopper feels a lot like this only with much newer technology.
--
Filan - Aurin Spellslinger - Pago - Team Legacy

Morac
Cat god

join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Good for DISH!!!

Yet the ReplayTV DVR which also automatically skipped commercials was sued out of existence by the networks back in 2001.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayTV#Legal_battle
masterbinky

join:2011-01-06
Carlsbad, NM
If I remember right, they changed the ads to make identification less reliable. I think it was the black screen before commercials kicked in.

BimmerE38FN

join:2002-09-15
Boise, ID
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CableOne
The only think I can think of is that the networks saw the writing on the wall in regards to the longevity of home VCRs and may have not wanted to go after RCA for that. VCR usage was coming to a close as cable and SAT companies started developing DVRs. Just a thought though.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
They tried to kill VCRs but lost. Besides, VCRs were notoriously difficult for average folks to program. Even when VCR+ debuted, which reduced the difficulty considerably, content companies probably felt little had changed from when they lost.

Tivo probably ruffled feathers but it was a consumer product with no direct connection to them.

I suspect Dish's DVR capabilities hit them just a bit too close to home. Dish, a direct partner, was enabling content customers to marginalize ad revenue. They probably thought it was like biting the hand that feeds you.

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

Re: Good for DISH!!!

said by rradina:

I suspect Dish's DVR capabilities hit them just a bit too close to home. Dish, a direct partner, was enabling content customers to marginalize ad revenue. They probably thought it was like biting the hand that feeds you.

How does it minimize ad revenue? The revenue from running an ad only buys displaying the ad for the viewer to see - NOT making sure the ad is actually watched. This is not MAX HEADROOM or CLOCKWORK ORANGE where the viewer is tied down with their eyes held open. When an ad airs and I am watching in real time, I can go to the bathroom or go to the kitchen for some food. Also, unless I have the wrong impression of how the Hopper works, the ad IS recorded (and thus the ad company has gotten what they paid for since the Hopper is watching and recording the ad). The automatic skip capability, it is my impression, is only is available once the recording is 24 hours old. IOW: Any attempt to watch a newer recording requires the manual skipping as with a VCR or normal DVR recording. Thus since the recording INCLUDES the ad even if when later viewed there are ways to bypass or suppress its display the Ad company has gotten EXACTLY what they have paid for - A recording that includes the ad as it was broadcast.

How are they losing ad revenue from my skipping past the ad when I time-shift view the recording or when I am watching in real time and leave the room as an ad displays?

jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

Re: Good for DISH!!!

said by RARPSL:

said by rradina:

I suspect Dish's DVR capabilities hit them just a bit too close to home. Dish, a direct partner, was enabling content customers to marginalize ad revenue. They probably thought it was like biting the hand that feeds you.

How does it minimize ad revenue? The revenue from running an ad only buys displaying the ad for the viewer to see - NOT making sure the ad is actually watched.

For the prospective advertiser to be willing to pay the advertising rate, they have to feel some degree of assurance that their adverts will actually be seen. This is the problem the major broadcasters, in particular, are facing. In short: People are turning the adverts off. Whether they're simply "turning off" when the commercial breaks start (my wife is very successful at that), hitting mute (what we often do when watching in real time) or skipping them when watching prerecorded content (which we usually do). This is one reason, for example, broadcasters are slowly increasing the amount and types of "pop up" adverts.

Of course: That will simply annoy viewers even more, causing some number to simply stop watching entirely. Just like increasing length and frequency did. Just like every other measure they've taken to improve advert revenue has done. Again, using us as an example: We never watch feature movies on commercial TV. We either rent them from the local video store, buy them outright or watch them on Netflix. (I remember clearly the last movie I watched on commercial television. It was probably over 25 years ago. The movie was The Final Countdown. They interrupted it right in the middle of a tense scene. That did it. I turned it off, went down to the local video rental place, and rented it.)

We no longer subscribe to a local print newspaper. One of the reasons is because, eventually, the papers have become more adverts than non-advert content. Or so it seems. Why would I want to pay somebody to deliver adverts to me?

If the content creators and deliverers could get fast forward outlawed they'd do it in a heartbeat, and no mistake.

Jim
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
You are right. There is no guarantee that anyone watches an ad. I don't know how a specific ad's price is set and when the revenue from an ad is realized. If they are prepaid and the price formula is static (i.e. not based on feedback after the ad airs), skipping a particular ad isn't going to reduce the revenue from that particular ad.

Television advertising is expensive. We live in the age of "big data". When companies spend millions on advertising revenue, they have their own science that gauges the effectiveness of their campaigns. A company will continue a long as the cost doesn't outweigh the benefit. If skipping ads lowers advertising effectiveness, demand and/or prices will drop.
thedragonmas

join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA
kudos:1

Re: Good for DISH!!!

said by rradina:

You are right. There is no guarantee that anyone watches an ad. I don't know how a specific ad's price is set and when the revenue from an ad is realized. If they are prepaid and the price formula is static (i.e. not based on feedback after the ad airs), skipping a particular ad isn't going to reduce the revenue from that particular ad.

Television advertising is expensive. We live in the age of "big data". When companies spend millions on advertising revenue, they have their own science that gauges the effectiveness of their campaigns. A company will continue a long as the cost doesn't outweigh the benefit. If skipping ads lowers advertising effectiveness, demand and/or prices will drop.

ever hear of neilson ratings? usually youl get a family that gets a diary and they fill it out for a week saying what they watched, and giving feedback, however, if that family happens to say they have a landline, they get a "data recorder" every member of the family gets a "pager" like device to wear, this listens to the tv and radio they watch, listening out for comercials etc.

i know, because we where a "home scan family" we scanned barcodes for every thing we baught, we wore those pagers, and yes, answerd online surveys about advertisements we saw and if we liked them or not.

and that is how they figure out a formula to tell the tv networks how many people watched a given show, or seen a certain comercial, or if a recent comercial influenced a households buying habbits.

of course, the family is paid for it, its not a lot mind you, but i did get a very (large) microwave out of a years worth of doing that (it was about a $300 nuker at the time retail, i actually miss doing it. but we dont have a landline any more and they havent updated the data collector to use home networking, even though it technically uses power line networking for the pagers to talk through their chargers to the collector...)
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: Good for DISH!!!

That's good but it's still not results focused and often observation changes behavior. Although big data predictions are part alchemy, after-the-fact big data statistics are facts. If the facts don't support the advertising costs, demand will fall.
mikesco8

join:2006-02-17
Ludlow, MA
I suspect if enough people keep skipping ads, we will see more product placement advertising and possibly banner ads during the programming or eventually more pay per view for sports programming. It seems both sides want it all... the consumer wants ad free programming without having to pay for broadcast retransmission, while the Broadcasters want higher retransmission fees, and to force ad watching for even higher revenue.

BimmerE38FN

join:2002-09-15
Boise, ID
kudos:1

Re: Good for DISH!!!

If that happens then I presume that those users will avoid that kind of content and move to streaming content and look else where. I can see this becoming a whack a mole game if it hasn't already. Will see how long this lasts.

buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20
Limestone, ME

Good For Consumer Choice

But again, ad skipping is a cat and mouse game as well.

Best bet it to only support AD FREE entertainment.

fiosultimate

join:2014-06-09
San Antonio, TX
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit

Re: Good For Consumer Choice

Then u have to stop coming to dsl reports, dont u see those banner ads on top?lol..... and dont start with using linux and add blocking software 99% of the us dont use that, so then just like banner adds are not going anywhere so are commercials here to stay

djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: Good For Consumer Choice

Actually, I don't see banners because I'm a premium member. It's nice to have ad-free options.
78036364

join:2014-05-06
USA

Re: Good For Consumer Choice

said by djrobx:

Actually, I don't see banners because I'm a premium member. It's nice to have ad-free options.

and that's $10. Most people want 100% free. No money and no ads because they feel like being alive entitles them to shit in life.

aw3dhg

join:2001-09-05
Bloomingburg, NY
Reviews:
·EarthLink
Use Chrome and adblock plus ... no banners to be found .. free
--

78036364

join:2014-05-06
USA

2 recommendations

Re: Good For Consumer Choice

said by aw3dhg:

Use Chrome and adblock plus ... no banners to be found .. free

And if I walk out of store without paying everything is free. doesn't make it right. DSLReports should ban you.

aw3dhg

join:2001-09-05
Bloomingburg, NY
Reviews:
·EarthLink

Re: Good For Consumer Choice

well let's see I never click on ads or banners anyway so the point is moot

I have to assume you side with Fox et al in this matter , that is the hopper robs Fox etc of some form of revenue stream .. since I would guess most people get their content over cable and Sat.. the consumer is already paying for the content through their subscription to the provider
--


CosmicDebri
Still looking for intelligent life

join:2001-09-01
Port Saint Lucie, FL
I'm just a free member, and I see no ads either...... viva la ad free options!

Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY
I wouldn't mind ads on FREE websites or TV channels, but when I am paying $30/mo for "package", it better be ad free. /wishful-thinking
--
Semper Fi
Zoe

join:2014-06-07
US
said by fiosultimate:

and dont start with using linux and add blocking software 99% of the us dont use that

Yea for the 1%.

This is coming to you from a free account using Linux with ad blocking.

Is it really only 1%?

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
30 second skip and 5 min skip

hour long shows or movies 5min skip is useful

30min shows 30 second skip
--
Live Free or Die Hard...

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

Just Saving Time

US companies work us to death compared to other places around the world. I'm just skipping commercials so I can watch some TV in the short amount of time I have to myself when I'm juggling everything else going on in my life.

I'm ok with skipping 30 seconds ahead with a button press or the wonderful scan-ahead feature that the newer Tivo devices use. Hulu Plus and On Demand with Comcast are practically worthless for most of the content unless it is from a premium channel or the History Channel that still allows me to fast forward whenever I want. I record nearly everything before watching, sometimes even live sports when it is feasible.

aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

Re: Just Saving Time

said by jmn1207:

US companies work us to death compared to other places around the world. I'm just skipping commercials so I can watch some TV in the short amount of time I have to myself when I'm juggling everything else going on in my life.

I'm ok with skipping 30 seconds ahead with a button press or the wonderful scan-ahead feature that the newer Tivo devices use. Hulu Plus and On Demand with Comcast are practically worthless for most of the content unless it is from a premium channel or the History Channel that still allows me to fast forward whenever I want. I record nearly everything before watching, sometimes even live sports when it is feasible.

To me sports is thing thing that makes the most sense to time shift. Since there are more advertisements during a sports broadcast than during scripted shows.

Flyonthewall

@206.248.154.x

Earth to advertisers.

Given a choice, viewers will not watch your advertising. This is a fact. Whether by tech magic or by simple expedience of mute or going to the bathroom/kitchen, viewers are not making themselves watch your ads. Give it up already. Didn't the fact that people routinely toss inserts into the trash/recycling receptacle clue you all in?

If people want something, THEN they go looking for it. You will NOT get people to impulse shop on television, regardless of what data shopping networks may generate. If anything, forcing people to watch commercials actually pisses them off and makes them want to avoid your product. I know it does with me. I'm tired of watching Scotia bank ads at the theater so will NEVER enter that bank. EVER.

Snuffbox
nice irl
Premium
join:2011-04-15
Milwaukee, WI
kudos:4

Re: Earth to advertisers.

Unfortunately you're absolutely wrong.

All of the above may be true for you and I, but there is statistical evidence that advertising works.

Obviously some products yield higher returns per dollar of advertising, and different types of advertising have varying performance. But in the end, advertising is crucial and effective.

Flyonthewall

@206.248.154.x

Re: Earth to advertisers.

If I juggle the numbers properly I can prove almost anything, I know how statistics works. And if I were a tv ad exec I'd make damn sure I had a ton of 'evidence' to back up exactly what you say. It still doesn't mean they aren't all lying through their teeth to generate a revenue flow....I have yet to meet anyone who says they actually enjoy commercials or become interested in products because of them, or perhaps more true, I have yet to meet anyone that would actually admit to it.

Snuffbox
nice irl
Premium
join:2011-04-15
Milwaukee, WI
kudos:4

Re: Earth to advertisers.

Again, I understand where you're coming from but you're thinking too black and white. Products don't relate to everyone, therefore advertisements won't relate to everyone. Impulse buys are only part of advertising.

Lets say today you need to buy a ****. You go to the store and find two products costing the same amount. One **** is made by X the other **** is made by Y.

You've seen a commercial for Y, but never in your life heard of X. Which **** are you more likely to buy? Be honest, the shear fact that you've never heard of X will mean you're more likely to purchase Y.
mikesco8

join:2006-02-17
Ludlow, MA
As snuffbox said you don't realize how you subconsciously react to those ads, if you see an ad for coke everywhere you go on billboards, magazine pages, and tv commercials, when you ask for a cola, you are going to say I want a coke. One ad will not do it but a constant barrage of ads giving you a brand recognition will.