Google to Transform Television Advertising? 221
Brad Zink writes "According to Robert X. Cringely, Google is poised to enter into the world of television advertising. This would usher in a new era for the venerable medium, creating a tidal wave of revenue for the networks, while solidifying Google's position in the advertising industry. Cringely develops this prediction based on his belief that Google is developing a network of data centers to be placed around the globe, which would be used to serve television commercials in addition to its current online content."
Google takes over everything? (Score:5, Interesting)
My thought was to take television's closed captioning text and IMDB show data and run it through Google's "I'm feeling lucky" API in real time. Eventually you could have really cool "pop up" information program running that can give you pop up information correlated to what is happening on screen. Software running on a Media Center PC (or a Tivo?) could give you real time information on actors and what they're talking about. Imagine watching ER, wondering about a disease or illness they're talking about, and instantly having that information pop up without anything but a button click (if even that). Remember VH1's Pop Up Video?
As the conversation moved forward, we realized the real power of bringing Google to TV is advertising -- bringing ads to the web (more than just a GIF or SWF) and bringing web ads to the television -- contextual of course. Hours passed and the ideas that moved through the conversation seemed revolutionary (until we realized that Brin is a billionaire and we, well, aren't). Google certainly has the most powerful contextual algorithms in the market (although Yahoo is quickly catching up). Google's use of gmail and possibly AOL e-mails and IMs to aggregate even MORE user data (not just contextually but also within a physical region) will definitely give them more specific insight into a user's needs based on more than just what they browse.
The number one complaint I hear on why people use Tivo (or ThePirateBay as it seems to be lately) is that advertising sucks -- it is unimportant, too generalized and the same thing over and over. During our conversation half a year ago I made mention of how I'd love to see old commercials for current products -- the old Coke commercials are priceless (and comical) and there is NO reason why Google couldn't offer to bring back this and more. Instead of the same 40 ads in rotation, they have over 60 years or so of advertising they could bring back (some pre-TV movie theatre advertising) and stick in rotation, especially if the company is more logo-centric than actual product-minded.
I just signed on to Akimbo [akimbo.com] (need to set it up on my MCE box) and wonder how long it will be before these guys connect with Google. Tivo, Akimbo and MCE are programmable set top boxes just waiting to be utilized by Google. As even video game systems become more of a set-top programming station rather than a specific use peripheral, Google has an opportunity to really jump on everyone's hardware rather than design and sell their own. "Designed for Google!" could be the new sticker on every consumer device.
The conversation finished up (as far as I remember, I wish I recorded these nights of single malt drinking!) with us discussing things that Google might not even have put much weight in at the time -- SMS, VoIP, WAP searches and other data to be aggregated and utilized. If Google offers free VoIP, what prevents them from anonymously and generically aggregating your phone call keywords? If you're using Google SMS searches from your GPS-enabled phone, what prevents them from offering advertising to a local business (other than the one you're searching for). Taking all that information into their data centers and using their complex heuristic analysis gives them an awesome amount of information that advertisers could only have dreamed of 10 years ago. Being able to match price to need is also a big deal -- imagine what car dealers would offer Google for a local car buyer searching for a deal or how Google could knock around the realty market? Not exactly topical in terms of television advertising, maybe, but Google + Advertising can change how we define "on demand programming" nonetheless. Tomorrow's TV could just be today's BitTorrent with the Go
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:2)
PLEASE GOD LET THESE BE BLACK AND WHITE, STATIC, TEXT ONLY ADS.
I've often thought a novel marketing strategy for product packaging might be something no one else would dare do: a sober, low-key, neat portrayal of the product. The broccoli that didn't s
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say you watch 2 hours of TV each night. During that time, you will view at least 32 minutes of ads. Do you honestly think relevance has anything to do with why many people are disgusted with ads?
In theory, personalized ads could fix this. If each ad slot cost more because it was targetted, you could get away with fewer ads. However, do you honestly see the TV execs reducing the number of ads to stay at the same revenue point? No, they will keep the number of ads the same in the hope of earning more. Thus, with "Advertising 2.0", we're in the exact same spot we are now, except our privacy has been sold to whoever wants to pay.
- Tony
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:3, Interesting)
I completely agree with the beginning, and disagree with the end result. In time, I believe we'll see a combination of cable+tivo+akimbo+itunes offering for everyone in every situation: TV at home, cell phone, laptop on the go, etc.
If you want free content, you'll have to give up your privacy -- that is how you pay for it. You don't have the time to tell advertisers who you are s
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if the cost of distributing your advertisement only to the people who would potentially buy it, like only advertising "feminin products" to women, only advertising new cars to people with a record of buying new cars every so often, and o
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:2)
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:2)
With information being as available as it is today I think the modern marketer needs to realize that their new role will be to understand what it is certain p
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:2)
Actually Cringly oversteps his intelligence when he says "imagine if everyone watching "American Idol" only saw ads for things they might really buy?"
Television advertising is about creating a market for a new product
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:2)
While I agree with keeping the "feminin products" ads for the women, I disagree with your other two examples. There's really two parts to successful advertising -- the firs
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:2)
Even if you value your wake freetime at only say $5/hour, that's still over 1500$ a year saved, assuming only a single person uses and watches the mythbox. For a couple, like me and my wife, the thing is
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:2)
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:2, Insightful)
Personalized ads could stand to change the max point on the revenue curve - if you can make the same amount of money with less ads, and attract more consumers to your content *because* there are less ads, there's a net gain for the content provider. It's possible that you'd drive away more consumers by having more than two or three ads than you could hope to make up for by charging f
Competition (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Except when, you know, companies join forces to form price-fixing schemes and don't get caught for years on end (*mumble CDs mumble*) perhaps because regulatory agencies aren't controlled by free markets as well. (Bounty hunters on the other hand...)
All hail free markets with no cojones whatsoever!
"everyone's a libertarian until a crack house moves in next door"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:2)
Google is attempting to position themselves as a credible information broker. First they created a search engine that many people regard as being the best available for general purpose use. This gives them a userbase that will most likely accept them when they slowly change their role of information provider to broker.
The people who might not go along are kept happy with the unending flow of free services Google keeps releasing.
Now, as a service providi
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:2)
To be honest, the reason why we got an HDPVR this Christmas (and we don't have an HD TV!) was largely based on being able to set a show to record, and then watching the show 15 minutes late and still finishing on time. I'm not sure where I'm even going to notice Google's ads - the remote control has a convenient "skip" button that instantly skips 30 seconds. A few hits to the skip button, and I'm watching my show again.
I can see where Google will make money on this. But I'm hoping not to see any of it.
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:3, Funny)
Surely you mean the old MasterCard commercials?
Re:Google takes over everything? (Score:2)
And you are a subscriber?!? (Score:2)
Am I the only one wondering how a subscriber such as yourself could not know this?
Google's Advertising (Score:4, Insightful)
I think when it comes to advertising, Google can somehow pull it off.
Re:Google's Advertising (Score:2)
Re:Google's Advertising (Score:2)
Until the little pop-up ads start showing up in the DVDs.
Re:Google's Advertising (Score:2)
Oh yes this will be the replacement (Score:2)
Invasion of privacy rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you really want that Viagra/Valtrex/Cialis/Levitra ad to always be showing up when your new girlfriend is watching TV with you?
I would think not.
Re:Invasion of privacy rights? (Score:2, Funny)
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, it can't be as simple as the article suggests - when you have someone going to Google.com, you can be fairly sure there is one person (usually) behind the monitor. Many many more in front of the TV. How do you weight your targeting?
I just can't see how this would practically work.
As a man (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:2, Insightful)
1984 is NOT 22 years ago. Its 2 years from now.
Re:But... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is why they are google and you are not.
It's very simple (Score:2)
Plus consider closed captioning already exists for local commercials. If they were to use that for keywords some ads could certainly be location-based.
Re:But... (Score:2)
Re:But... (Score:2)
What Id' like to know is... (Score:2, Funny)
AdSenseTV, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, it's just a "what if," but if Google hasn't thought of this already, they should. It's a nearly perfect extrapolation from AdSense: contextual advertising for television.
If they could also get in bed with the media metrics folks, like Nielsen, they'll be able to tie in the demographic information and, like Cringely supposes, only show Alzheimers drug ads to seniors and their children, and only show beer ads to people over 21.
If Google does go in this direction, I can only hope that ads will be rotated in the manner of AdWords ads. I.E: Only the ads that interest people will be shown, or shown more often. I love to watch well-done commercials, and most of them are so poorly scripted that they A) don't convince me to buy and B) are just plain boring.
I don't know that this is going to happen, or if it's even feasible, but it sure is fun to think about.
Neilsen? Come on, they'd be yesterday's news. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they could also get in bed with the media metrics folks, like Nielsen, they'll be able to tie in the demographic information
If Google went into this space, they would almost instantly put Neilsen out of business.
Neilsen familys need to volenterr, and be paid. Google can give *actual real* dmeographic infromatio, because they already know where you live (from the cable company), and what you are interested in (from Google searches), and who you talk to (from GTalk/GMail).
Neilsen can only dream of the kind of demographics Google could extrapolate. Google would mak ethe Neilsen ratings obsolete, because after all, it doesn't necessarily matter if a TV show is being viewed by a lot of people, what matters is if the ads being shown in it key into the demographic enough that the show is profitable. Google can *ensure* that, all Neilsen can do is make educated guesses based on the surveys it sends it families.
Re:Neilsen? Come on, they'd be yesterday's news. (Score:2)
All good points. However, Neilsen already has sort of an "in" with TV demographics, and almost everyone knows of "Neilsen ratings," so you've got a brand awareness there. People who make TV have been conditioned to take Neilsen ratings as gospel. Pe
Re:Neilsen? Come on, they'd be yesterday's news. (Score:2)
This opens up interesting possibilities for indie TV show development. That alone might make this whole and distasteful notion of targted marketing tolerable.
Re:Neilsen? Come on, they'd be yesterday's news. (Score:2)
Google can give *actual real* dmeographic infromatio, because
Google would mak ethe Neilsen ratings obsolete
Dude, did you type this on a blackberry while skiing?
This just in.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This just in.... (Score:2)
It's TV on demand, silly (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a look at the top downloads on a site like Piratebay and you'll see that they are all TV episodes.
What Google is probably lining up to do is to compete against Apple, who are moving into the same market.
Google are betting that they can deliver TV episodes for free, with advertising. Apple are betting they can sell TV episodes with no advertising. Microsoft are trying to make it all happen through the XBox.
This is why Google's been buying dark fibre. This is why Google is buying into AOL, for access to TW shows. This is what will drive the next generation of portable gadgets.
Yes, the Internet and P2P is finally going to transform TV into something that actually produces good entertainment, and will one day turn around and redefine the movie industry as well.
Re:It's TV on demand, silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem: We can already get them for free, with no advertising...
Number One, set a course of Pirate Bay. Maximum warp.
Re:It's TV on demand, silly (Score:3, Informative)
- Start of campaigns against unlicensed distribution of TV shows.
- Such campaigns will not be of the jackboot 3-am-knock-on-the-door RIAA variety.
Piratebay can cock a snoot at lawyer's letters because of the current Swedish law. However, there are concerted efforts to criminalise the abetting of 'piracy', which would make them vulnerable. Further, each person downloading a copyrighted TV show and also sharing it via Bittorrernt is violating the co
Re:It's TV on demand, silly (Score:2)
Re:It's TV on demand, silly (Score:2)
I just shake my head every time someone says "Just use ThePirateBay, d00d! Free stuff!". I don't want one of those letters showing up in my mailbox.
Re:It's TV on demand, silly (Score:3, Funny)
Huh? There must be some mistake. From reading Slashdot I know that bittorrent is just used for Linux distributions and self-produced rock albums.
Re:Oh, If Only... (Score:2)
Yes, the Internet and P2P is finally going to transform TV into something that actually produces good entertainment, and will one day turn around and redefine the movie industry as well.
I can distinctly remember this arguement being made when cable TV was coming to my neighborhood and I'm POSITIVE it was said when OTA TV started.
What do we have on what's generically described as TV now that's so special and good? We all have a couple of things we like, but the rest is trash.
W
Really? (Score:2)
How, exactly, is a change in delivery method going to improve content? You've said it yourselve, that the top torrent downloads may be TV episodes... today's TV episodes. The content is the same, just the delivery is different. Did cable transform television into drastically better entertainment? Not really. Has satelli
Re:It's TV on demand, silly (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, what Google bought was a 5% share in AOL, not Time Warner. AOL is a (formerly) wholly owned subsidiary of the company formerly known as AOL Time Warner. So what Google bought wouldn't get them access to those shows anyway.
Busted... (Score:5, Funny)
Cringely is the proverbial stopped clock. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to say he's a bad source of information, mind you, just that he's a source of information no better than, say, a magic 8 ball.
The thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
The big New York ad firms will be scrambling to figure out how to beat Google at this new game. No if Google opened Google Studios, where they could produce the content of the ads, they would be richer than God
Google Studios not good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Were they to engage in that, the stock price would take a serious hit.
Re:Google Studios not good idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, this could be the catalyst for an explosion of amateur video content. Imagine: I make a video, doesn't matter what. Some sort of short clip, independent movie, even a regular TV show. I upload it to Google Video. Google dynamically inserts the ads every time someone watches
Re:The thing... (Score:2)
Just wanted to clarify.
Hmmm (Score:3, Funny)
oh no.... (Score:2, Funny)
"The Apprentice"
Re:oh yes.... (Score:2)
Hopefully with a trip to the "Boardroom" where you will be "fired."
Why is it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why aren't poor search results being reported? For example, in the city of Vallejo, CA we are the only facilities based
Re:Why is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Most people know how overrated google has become. Why then do we keep writting about only the good things?"
Maybe it's because (less a certain section of the Slashdot audience where it's trendy to bash Google), "most people" (you know, the 90% of people on the internet who barely know which way round a mouse goes) find Google works perfectly well for them. And from personal subjective experience, it's a lot better than the majority of other search engines out there, and vastly better than the state the search industry was in before Google came along.
And, to be fair, they are extremely innovative as a company - look at the sheer number of products launched (even if they are beta)... can you name many other companies who even beta-release quite such a number of products with quite such regularity? Google also have a good track record of entering a moribund field (search, webmail, etc) and kicking the already-entrenched players up the arse.
They've mastered the Richard Branson/Virgin technique of analyzing an industry, working out what's wrong with every offering out there, and offering something which fixes it. It's not always disruptive tech, but can sometimes merely be disruptive feature-offerings.
"I don't read Cringely very often, but I've never seen even him have anything really negative to say about google. What's up with this? Is it just because they put out some nifty tools that raise large amounts of privacy concerns? Is it because it was ONCE a killer search engine?"
Well, Cringely's a bit of a fanboy, but I've seen him post a few less-than-glowing things about Google before.
"Why aren't poor search results being reported? For example, in the city of Vallejo, CA we are the only facilities based DSL provider and we even own vallejodsl.com, but up until today (which is the first time I've done this search in 2 months) we weren't even on the first 5 pages."
So what? Did you ever think that the website of a single local DSL operator in rural america might not be especially interesting to an audience spread across the entire globe?
You also don't say what search terms you were chasing, which makes this entire statement non-operative in terms of judging Google's performance.
By giving this example you also raise the possibility of the usual scenario - someone who's pissed off with Google because they can't get good rankings for their own pet site, not because it's generally poor at search.
"I've been given huge amounts of excuses for why that could be, but when 80% of the results were blackhat SEO tactics that shoved us back I could care less about them."
Well, you very obviously haven't got good advice. Might I suggest you start by updating the site to XHTML 1.0 (ideally Strict, Transitional will do), and make sure the code validates [w3.org] . If you haven't done this you haven't even taken the first steps you should have taken.
You should also take a lot of that text on the site out of images and put it in lovely plain (but styled) HTML. Google can't index text in images - this is pretty much SEO Baby-Steps lesson #2.
"We are a well established company (15 years in business) and there should be no reason why we should have been so low on the results. We have plenty of backlinks but google only lists like 36 while others list as many 3000. We stood in that "state" for well over 2 years regardless of what we did on our end."
Yes, there is a good reason: your website is crap and hasn't been SEOed at all. Apologies for being harsh, but you need to realise there's a buttload of things you could (and should) be doing, rather than just sitting there blaming the seearch engines.
The age of your business is immaterial
Speaking of bad advice... (Score:2)
Search engines do not give a rats ass if your site is xhtml or not. Its really annoying seeing people constantly giving ridiculous reasons to move to xhtml that are complete nonsense.
"You should also take a lot of that text on the site ou
Re:Why is it? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't read Cringely very often, but I've never seen even him have anything really negative to say about google.
Actually, he has said some negative things (or least not positive) about Google. In particular he wrote some articles on how AdSense may be squeezing as much money out of advertisers as they are willing to pay [pbs.org]. Also followups here [pbs.org] and here [pbs.org].
Re:Why is it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Try:
1) Putting some actual RELEVANT CONTENT on your site.
2) Having titles and content that correspond to your website URL.
Your site looks like an incompetent cybersquatter site. That's why.
These days, thanks in large part to google's aggressive attempts to break SEO tactics, most SEO advice consists of stu
Re:Why is it? (Score:2)
I'm a little unclear on your statement -- do you mean that your company didn't show up on Google until recently or that it still doesn't? When I searched for "vallejo dsl" just now, one of your sites was the 4th down on the 1st page. What changed?
Re:Why is it? (Score:2)
Re:Why is it? (Score:2)
Self serve advertising (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems that integration with Google would be invaluable for something like this, and it would really change the landscape of advertising content. We would begin to choose what ads we want to see based on our personal interest in a certain item. Since DVRs are striking a blow to the standard 30 second spot, and product placement is growing in leaps and bounds this really seems like the new stage for advertisement in general, but best of all it might allow us to finally have seamless programming.
Sorry I don't have a link to info about this device, he doesn't have a product site built up yet since it's still in development.
Re:Self serve advertising (Score:2)
Re:Self serve advertising (Score:2)
MIT Media Lab's HyperSoap uses hyperlinks to mix shopping, entertainment
November 9, 1998
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- The TV soap opera you watch may soon be a home shopping program, thanks to researchers at the MIT Media Laboratory. The Lab recently produced a soap opera which lets viewers select clothing and furnishings with a special remote control, and see an item's price and purchase information on a pop-up screen display. The program, called HyperSoap, offers
Re:Self serve advertising (Score:2)
Patent "mapping the picture coming accross the broadband cable to your television set, and with a joystick-like remote control you can navagate around the screen and click on products that you are interested in."
I guess that's been the missing ??? step.
One small problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is going to film the ads? Who is going to edit the ads? Who is going to appear in the ads and do voice-overs?
With text ads, just about anybody can make one quickly and easily. With picture ads, you don't even really need to be an artist as long as you can paste a picture of your product next to some text in Photoshop. Flash ads are a bit more work, but even then, it's little more than animating and scripting a bunch of pictures and text.
But with narrowcast video ads, how are they going to look when they are filmed by amateurs? Think about stereotypical used car dealer ads from movies and go down from there. Way down. It's a brave new world, and we're going to run out of pancake makeup pretty quick.
Re:One small problem... (Score:2)
When the dotcom boom started, the average starting salary of a fine arts graduate went from whatever they were paying at McDonalds to more than the average starting salary of a Comp Sci graduate. Why? Because suddenly thousands of companies needed thousands of artists to produce hundreds of thousands of web page design elements. This was a consequence of supply and demand. As the production of pe
satellite TV? (Score:3, Insightful)
But how will they KNOW what I want? (Score:2, Interesting)
Watch Google (Score:2)
Now, will all the ads and all the things Google do remain discret and small? I doubt it.
As it will become a bigger company, and go more and more into the traditional advertising business, it will probably behave like others in part. Depending on the medi
Google pushing $100 laptop (Score:2)
Weather Channel is already doing this (Score:5, Insightful)
In the last two years the Weather Channel has been making a big push in this direction. They have been a technological innovator in the cable world especially in the way they push the local forecast to every individual head end that carries TWC. Leveraging that technology they have begun regional targeting and weather specific targeting.
An example of this is a tire company. On any other network when they buy national time one commercial for one tire is aired. With regional targeting rain tires can been served to the northeast and good weather tires to the south - in the same :30 seconds two spots run simultaneously in different parts of the country. Take that a step further and you really begin to see the value in the premium price TWC gets for these spots.
TWC links it's ad serving to it's local forecasts at each head end. If it's raining in your county you'll see a rain tire commercial, while your buddy up north on another cable system where it's snowing will see a spot for snow tires. An hour later when the snow turns to rain he's see a spot for rain tires.
While conceptually the idea of Google leveraging these trailers is conceivable Cringely's prediction is flawed. Google will not be able to sell targeting to the networks. National network commercials are still carried over the air. Cable operators simply retransmit them. The minute or two of local time is sold by the local affiliate, also over the air and then retransmitted. Neither the nets nor the affiliates would let a cable operator insert commercials over the ones they've sold and no technology exists to legally insert them over the air interrupting the original signal. There may be some room in the cable only universe for cable MSO's to sell national advertisers more targeted spots in the 2 minutes an hour then get but the idea of Joe's Restaurant down the block spending money on production of a TV ad and then paying extra to target me seems a little far fetched.
I think the prediction in today's NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/technology/06onl ine.html [nytimes.com] makes more sense. Downloads an convergence of the TV and PC are where it's going to be at.
Or we could just wait and see what the announcement is. What is the point of specualting anyway besides driving traffic to /. everyday? :)
Sorry to break the bad news but TV Land ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Firefox (Score:2, Funny)
I want more variety (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I want more variety (Score:2)
Let me give each advert a thumbs up or down and over time I get more of the same kind of advertising that I give an "up" to and less of the adverts that I give a "down" to.
I am sure some genius can come up with a scheme to make sure you cannot give every advert a thumbs down. In fact that is already built into my scheme. If you thumbs down everything then you are simply back at square one.
Re:I want more variety (Score:2)
"THEY'RE DOWN HERE!!"
"WHAT??"
"THEY'RE DOWN HERE!!"
"DON'T YOU FREEZE ON ME!!"
"DIG!!"
"WE FOUND THEM!!!!!"
*cheers*
"Who put this music on?"
Any fellow Canucks will want to kill me for reminding them. Personally, I'm now going to work mostly to burn the memory of this commercial out of my brain from last night's game.
I don't need any advertising thanks (Score:2)
I quite frankly couldn't give a rats ass for any of the items I see advertised on TV. In fact, I'll go further and say that if I see an advert for something that I might actually be in the market for, I'll make damn sure I don't buy it from the company running the TV ad.
All these companies have bought into the idea that if they don't advertise more than their competitors, then they lose market share. Well I think that's
Here's the template... (Score:2, Funny)
"According to {INSERT BLOGGER}, Google is poised to enter into the world of {INSERT FIELD/INDUSTRY}. This would usher in a new era for the venerable medium, creating a tidal wave of revenue for {INSERT BENEFACTORS}, while solidifying Google's position in {INSERT FIELD/INDUSTRY}. {INSERT BLOGGER} develops this prediction based on his belief that Google is developing a network of data centers to be placed around the globe, which would be used to {INSERT FIELD/INDUSTRY}
Re:Here's the template... (Score:2)
According to Robert X. Cringely.... (Score:2)
Seriously, this guy must be making a killing in advertising with all these whacked out theories on what google's gonna do next. Two weeks ago, he claimed google was poised to build an independant internet, powered by cargo-container supercomputers with 8,000 AMD processors.
Have any of his ridiculous claims ever been backed up? Why do
TV doesn't use the tools they have now (Score:3, Interesting)
"The system" isn't set up to narrowcast its ads to those who are the likelies customers. If they don't use what they could do now, they are unlikely to use this type of thing from Google.
Sure, they could wake up and smell the money. It's a pretty hide bound industry though.
Let me guess (Score:2, Funny)
Boring alternative (Score:2, Insightful)
Google stretching itself too thin? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No tv here but ... (Score:2, Funny)
But only if google employs Vulcans do the the probes.
Re:I have proof now! (Score:3, Interesting)
Rampant consumerism is the champion of the "have" culture. it's tool of choice is advertising.
Google say they're comitted to doing no evil
Re:I have proof now! (Score:2)
marketing follows from this principle: the first thing a marketer must do is make the prospective buyer feel inadequate. Then the marketer must insinuate that the product at hand will solve one's inadequacy. In other words, create the problem and propose the solution.
If one considers marketing an evil, then google became an evil company as soon as they got into advertising.
Evil schmevil (Score:2)
Advertising, like murder among predators or rape among fish, is mostly amora
Re:Evil schmevil (Score:2)
humans learn and adapt through repetition. I can imagine that even the most "evolved" of us is affected in one way or another by advertising by virtue of its insistent ubiquity.
I agree
If we had some cheese... (Score:2)
IP-TV needs to have ads delivered over the internet. That much seems clear, but were is this IP-TV?
I happen to be familiar with the servers that were there for the initial dutch Big Brother (Yeah, our contribution to the world, your welcome) and it was a fairly impressive rack. I only drooled over them, we had 1 rack next to them but it seemed like a lot just to service a website for 1 tv program in a very small country.
Imagi
Re:if I were google (Score:2)