Google DVRs and TV Advertising 254
Ray writes "Google may be creating their own branded digital television DVR / satellite service. A DVR that lets you "Log In" with your Google Account before you begin your television watching would allow Google to serve up relevant ads based on: the program you are watching, your search history, the type of emails you have received in the past 24 hours (excluding spam hopefully), or anything else Google can track. Imagine the possibilities... You are watching Google Satellite TV through your "internet ready" Google DVR."
I'm sorry (Score:1, Insightful)
Google Media Device (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would I want that? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a solution in search of a problem, surely?
DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Satellite? Yeah Right, It'll be Broadband (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want this thing to be cost effective for HD, they should use Swarmstreaming [swarmcast.net].
"May be" creating? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article even mentions "GBrowser," which as we all know is Google's Master Plan to unseat the most popular web browser in the world, bar none [zdnet.co.uk].
Google also owns googleporn.com. Can we have an article about how they're about to put every porn site out of business?
Imagine the possibilities... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am, and I'm not terribly thrilled with them.
Is the typical Slashdotter concerned with the sheer volume of information that is being collected about people by a single corporation? I'm afraid I'm not going to shed my skepticism just because Google claims to "do no evil".
apoplectic content creators (Score:4, Insightful)
I sure some content creators will sign deals with Google, but many content distributors will have a knee-jerk anti-Google reaction because this makes Google a direct competitor (e.g., another company distributing ad-supported content).
Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Trust (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If this were ANYONE other than Google... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm sorry (Score:3, Insightful)
If I didn't have a DirecTivo I wouldn't have my Tivo anymore either. I told them repeatedly that I would drop them like a rock if they started showing me ads on top of the ads I was skipping while I was paying $14/mo to eliminate ads.
YMMV.
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
No, to most people DVR is about time-shifting shows, not removing ads. Removing ads is a bonus, but most people are going to have DVR straight from their cable company, and the only "ad removal" feature is the VCR-style fast-forward.
DVR is about removing the old problem of "Oh, I'd like to watch that, but it's not on now."
The next step is removing the problem of "Oh, I'd like to watch that, but I didn't record it."
Whether that's pay-per-show or "free" with ads, people aren't going to care much. It's going to depend on the choice of the channel (or content provider).
Oh, and you're going to pay for the intermediary pipe that delivers the content, too.
The future is the same as the present: pay the provider for their cost in producing the content (via ads or direct purchase/subscription), plus pay the distributor for the cost of delivering the content to you. The fundamentals will not change, though the procedures and details involved may shift to the internet.
Re:Why would I want that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who pays for the programming when everyone uses a dvr?
This could be a solution for "free" TV over the long term.
You clown (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't sound like Google (Score:5, Insightful)
And then people wouldn't be so mad about ads, since the idea would be time-shifting. "wait, I get to watch pretty much any tv show whenever I want? Ads, meh, I'll browse in another window when ads are on"
What's the current signal to noise ratio on GMB's? (Score:4, Insightful)
DVR, OS, nationwide WiFi, Office, Wallet, Auctions, AOL, satellite, and the list goes on.
Search habits, interests, and advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does something have to be "abuse" before we have the right to complain about it, or refuse it? A society doesn't function well if too many people go out of the way to piss people off and their entire defense is "I'm not touching you, I'm just waving my finger 1/4 inch from your face"
You can object to annoying as well as abusive.
> They'll show ads to me based on my interests
No, they won't show -anyone- ads based on their interests. They'll show people ads based on their advertiser's needs, adjusted for their perception of your interests.
- If you're interested in something that no one pays google to advertise, you won't see an ad for it.
- If you're not interested in something someone pays google a -lot- to advertise, you'll probably see it anyway.
- If google incorrectly estimates your interest in things, they'll show you things you aren't interested in.
This is tricky; just because you ask a question about something, or someone emails you about something, there is no reason to believe that this is an interest of yours. I work on a lot of things that require me to search on subjects I have -zero- personal interest in. I shudder to think about the kind of ads that would get served up to me.
All of this assumes a direct relationship between what I search on and what I'm interested in possibly purchasing. That assumption is untested and I feel it's largely invalid.
Suppose I search for information about Wimbley cars so I can show my sister what a piece of crap the 2006 Wimbley is. Suddenly I'm inundated with ads for the new Wimbley.
> Wal-mart decides to stock shelves with things that are
> relevant to my area's purchase history - so if I go
> into a Wal-mart, it's more likely to carry something
> I intend to buy.
Assuming you are typical of the people in your area. If you aren't, Wal-Mart loses your business, and due to the fact that they are looking at a limited and inherently biased subset of data *, they don't correct for error.
* using purchasing habits requires them to have the product first in order to detect that people have an interest. If everyone wants the new Whizmo Cranfraz, but Wal-Mart doesn't carry it, Wal-Mart doesn't see that everyone wants it. In brick-and-mortar, this is detected by examining other vendor's sales or asking questions. In the net arena, this often goes undetected.
Also, vendors tend to make assumptions based on close matches. They assume that if you buy a John Doe brand Doohickey for $N, you'll be fine with them dropping the John Doe brand in favor of the Richard Roe, for $N-10 dollars, or for the Jane Doe brand Thingamajig, because the Thingamajig does -almost- the same thing as the Doohickey.
All you have to do is look at the remaindered Personal Organizers, MP3 players, and copies of Lotus Ami Pro in the $3 junk bin to see the fallacy with that. Not everything is an interchangable commodity item.
I've worked in retail and wholesale, and I've seen just how -badly- this kind of thing is normally done. Most businesses can get a 2000% improvement in identifying customer needs by scrapping the crap customer tracking technology and having sales people talk to the customers. For every one person you identify as being interested in product A, you have 25 people come in, look for product B, and leave without talking to the manager or a salesperson when they couldn't find product B or a salesperson to help them.
Sorry for the heat; as you can see, this is an area that bugs me; better advertising is no substitute for customer service.
> It's smart business - a hell of a lot smarter than
> blindly throwing ads out there hoping they'll be used.
It's smarter; it's only "a hell of a lot smarter" if they do it "a hell of a lot better" than most people who try this kind of thing.
> In fact, I'd argue that the Internet is more relevant
> because businesses can see the value in it. Many of
> us wouldn't have jobs if there weren't such potential.
Just don't forget that many folks here -don't- have jobs, in part because of half-planned attempts by businesses to leverage the net's potential value.
Re:I'm sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
No kidding... (Score:4, Insightful)
And make no mistake....doubleclick's tracking cookies are definitely evil. Along with hitbox, valueclick, linkexchange, adsmart, adbureau, adtech, linksynergy, focalink, avenuea, mediaplex,
How can targetted advertising from these companies be evil, while targetted advertising from Google results in the phrase: "Imagine the possibilities..."?