Google DVRs and TV Advertising

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 can't help but wonder...

[Mayhem178]

...if the broadcast flag will affect this Google digital signal. Seems like kinda poor timing on Google's part with the whole broadcast flag issue still up in the air. Maybe they know something we don't.

Re:I'm sorry

[LiquidCoooled]

Your viewing habits are minor compared to what you search for.
you can leave a tv screen on while you go out and not be actively watching, but google knows every click you already make.

I would rather have no advertising in whatever I watch, but since thats not an option, wouldn't it be tonnes better to have relivent adverts displayed during the programs?

Oh, great

[jalefkowit]

Imagine the possibilities... You are watching Google Satellite TV through your "internet ready" Google DVR."

Hooray! First the Web, then TV... I can hardly wait until all media are subsumed into the maw of a single corporation. What could possibly go wrong?!?

Re:I'm sorry

[lukewarmfusion]

I see no reason to complain. Google, Wal-mart, etc. can track my viewing/purchase/search habits all they like. How is this going to be abused? Now I'm a security and privacy nut - but this seems excessive. They'll show ads to me based on my interests? Great! I'd rather see ads for things I'd purchase than crap I don't want. 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.

It's smart business - a hell of a lot smarter than blindly throwing ads out there hoping they'll be used. 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.

It comes down to money.

[Holmwood]

It costs money and time to create good content. Even brilliant stuff like IMPS took years of volunteer work to produce. In the network age, the question becomes, how do we pay for this content? People will still develop free content for the joy of creativity, but if they can't feed their families, they'll have to do it part time in addition to a day job. Suppose the revenues from google's targetted ads were so good that google could afford to provide the consumer with a free (basic) TV, a free digital media device, and a free basic video stream (with ads) of popular programs. Would there be people who'd gladly go for this? You bet. Would this be a huge benefit for the very poor (as long as they gave and were able to give informed consent and the tracking was no worse -- no more evil -- than the automated tracking of google mail)? I think yes. Would there be people who'd rightly be outraged at the violation of their privacy that this would entail? Yep. They'd obviously not be members of such a service.

Well, of course

[Red Flayer]

No surprises here. Google has been slowly but surely horizontally expanding into other types of directed advertising. Print (magazines). Radio. And soon, video content.

Print media is the only place I see this not fitting in with Google's business plan, unless it's used as just a way to offer its advertisers a complete advertising package.

What I see:

If any content can be delivered via the internet, Google will find a way to place targeted ads alongside that content. Whether Google uses existing content delivery systems (e.g., banner ads), or develops their own (e.g., GoogleDRV), they will continue to horizontally expand in targeted advertising.

Not a bad thing, IMO, since it provides revenues for publishers, who will (hopefully) keep their product free or low-price (well, to the consumer, anyway).

So what areas are still relatively untapped by Google? Internet radio? DRV, for now? How about regular television -- can't targeted advertising be delivered via Cable?

Google will continue to offer new services, innovative or not, that have the potential of increasing both ad-views and responses.

Re:I'm sorry

[networkBoy]

If I can get free sat/cable TV with a DVR and all I have to put up with is a _reasonable_ ammount of targeted ads that I can not skip with the DVR, I'll sign up. I can not afford cable or sat tv seing as I have two kids and a wife in grad school, so I would welcome this.
-nB

Agreed

[Dukael_Mikakis]

I think Google is overreaching at this point. I guess Google's now trying to float off of their cachet to move into other industries.

Parent has a good point in asking why we would want to use Google's DVR when there are ad-free versions already available. Indeed, isn't the *point* of a DVR to get rid of ads? Am I missing something?

On top of that, the example of Tivo indicates that there are evidently some issues with the technology/market as it is (the DRM "forced delete", for example), and I'm not sure if Google's DVR system will resolve any of those, though I wouldn't put it past Google to figure out a way to get it working.

But I'm not sure if I'm buying this "total integration" thing Google's pushing. What are they going to get from my email? I send an email to my friends saying, "Wow, did you catch the latest 'Lost'?" and Google knows to record 'Lost'? I think in the end, some separation of the different aspects of my life is a good thing and I'm not eager to plug my whole life into Google just yet.

Re:I'm sorry

[dslauson]

I know that right now I use a DVR service so that I can SKIP commercials. I am not going to pay somebody money and switch services so that they can give me the same functionality, plus serve me advertisements. Seriously!!! Even targeted ads! I refuse to pay to be a captive audience for advertisements, no matter how well they fit my profile.

This would be a smart business model if Google were competing against DVR services that forced random advertisements on their customers, but that's not the case at all.

Re:"May be" creating?

[Anonymous Coward]

googletv.com is owned by google

Great...

[Dzimas]

Strange. Google is assuming that you'll be watching television alone (or at least with like-minded souls). Since my wife is a crystal-loving hemp-wearing nature lover and I'm a technodroid, it'll be interesting to see what sort of targeting goes on as we watch shows together on the Googletube.

Re:I'm sorry

[Kaa]

Google, Wal-mart, etc. can track my viewing/purchase/search habits all they like.... Now I'm a security and privacy nut

No, you're not :-)

In any case, the issue is not what kind of ads you'll be shown. The issue is that information is power.

I recommend reading up on the failed confirmation of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court of the United States...

Re:you're not thinking of the big picture

[j_snare]

Quick question, off the topic of the main story.

You have a theory, and I don't agree with it. That's fine, of course, we're both entitled to our opinions of what happened. However, why is it that you bring up the theory in the middle of discussions when it has nothing to do with it?

Editing out the Pentagon theory, your post was excellent, and had a point directly within the boundaries of the article and the following discussion. It really made me rethink some of my ideas about letting my TV security go to the dogs. But the mention of the Pentagon theory sorta made me wonder what the hell was going on.

For instance, if I'm talking about internet security, and how people should pay more attention to their computer settings, get the latest patches, etc., and I bring up the opinion that the Kansas school system is really sort of silly sometimes, I've brought no more value into the discussion about internet security. I've actually made myself look a little more like an obsessed crackpot, regardless of what I'm arguing about, even if the idea I inserted is completely true. Is that the impression you're wanting to make, or are you trading off some of the topical value of your post in order to bring up an issue that you feel needs to be raised?

Just trying to ask an honest question about your motives, no offense intended (seriously). I'm just curious about that kind of stuff.

Re:Google Media Device

[Nuskrad]

It's all coming true! [robinsloan.com]

Re:You clown

[bigpat]

And a few years after you pick, you will lose at least one.

Life isn't about the choice you made yesterday, it is about the choice you make today.

Centralized DVR With tons of channels

[saikou]

Now imagine Google Video getting subscription to every cable/satellite channel it can get (probably also from Canada, Japan and some other countries), recording it all in HDTV resolution and Dolby Digital sounds, and serving it up through the internet for a small fee (well.. compared to full cable that is). Content is distributed via Akamai and Partners, so it's always fast. For a few extra ads before show starts you get extra $10 off a month.
And those are nice and relevant ads (I am ok with that, in fact I ofter rewind cool ads and watch them again). And you don't need to buy a box. No need to have a clear view of the southern skies. No need for $75 a month cable package just because the channel you love doesn't come in Basic cable. No need to think whether you pre-programmed all shows you want to be recorded. No need to think about recording conflicts (each TV channel thinks it's the pinnacle of human artistic creativity and tries to push shows at the same time "competitors" do). No need to worry about missing interesting stuff -- because your preference block is finely tuned and known to Google via your watching browsing and emailing habits.

How about that?
Would you sign up for this service? I am waiting...