# ABC Wants DVR's to Disable FF During Commercials



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

ABC HAS HELD DISCUSSIONS ON the use of technology that would disable the fast-forward button on DVRs, according to ABC President of Advertising Sales Mike Shaw, with the primary goal to allow TV commercials to run as intended.

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=45264


----------



## jrbdmb (Sep 5, 2002)

Let's see: Mr. Shaw (ABC President of Advertising Sales) wants advertisers to pay extra for those viewers who watch ABC shows via DVR, then turns around and says the FF function of DVRs must be disabled because all of the DVR users are skipping the commercials. :icon_stup


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Piss off, Mr. Shaw - there isn't THAT much I watch on ABC anyways....


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

disable ff on abc only bye bye abc hey I will now boycott abc


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Hmmmm.....right now during the regular tv season I watch more on abc than any other network, but if they do this i'll be joining the rest of you in boycotting them. That way they can go from my eyes actually seeing some of their commercials from time to time to being absolutely sure they won't see any of them. Someone needs to remind the grand poo-bahs at abc that we have many, many other choices for our entertainment these days and it's not wise to pi$$-off your audience.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

They would have to have the cooperation of the DVR makers. Not likely.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

This Shaw guy is smokin crack! :smoking: He actually said with a straight face that consumers would not mind if they could no longer FF through commercials. :lol:


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

Hey, did they ever try that on vcr's?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

You know... if they did disable the FF, then I would just go back to the "old days" and use the commercial break to get a drink or a bathroom break... it is virtually impossible for the network to force anyone to actually watch the commercial even if they prevent you from skipping it.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

I'm just glad I don't have to work in an organization that reports to this guy. Sounds like another loudmouth clueless upper management type.  

(Fortunately there are also many good intelligent upper management types, he's not one of them.)


----------



## jfalkingham (Dec 6, 2005)

"I'm not sure that the driving reason to get a DVR in the first place is just to skip commercials. I don't fundamentally believe that."

umm Mr. Shaw, yes this is one of the driving reasons for me. Pause live TV so I don't miss something and to be able to skip over those damn network plugs.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

He'll have to pry the TIVO from my cold, dead hands.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

IF the major networks would sell there progamming like Hbo and Showtime or any other national cable channel for a monthly price ,the whole reason for advertisiers would go away. This is where they are headed anyway by selling their shows over the internet for a price. It would totally do away with the whole local affilates structure but who cares. 

I would gladly pay a good price for the national networks programming in HD either video on demand or without commercials. The whole concept of commercials is outdated. Product placement without over obvious use could be the way to go. 

I see a day when internet televison will surpace the current model that cable/satellite and ota stations use. Everything will be available on video on demand or a subcription price . Then you can watch it when you want to without commercials.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Product placement without over obvious use could be the way to go.


Yup, that was the model for oldtime radio and early TV. Many of the product placements were very creative and actually added to the program. My favorites were the Johnson Wax guy on Fibber Mcghee and the Maxwell House coffee guy on Burns & Allen. Their little scenes were often the funniest in the show.


----------



## MikeSoltis (Aug 1, 2003)

> People can understand in order to have convenience and on-demand (options), that you can't skip commercials.


And the people who supply the DVRs will understand that a model that lets you continue to skip commercials will be more popular with consumers.

When I first got my Tivo long ago in the dark ages, I used to use it pretty much just to skip commercials: I would pause a show that started at 10 PM and start watching it at 10:20 or so, so that I could skip the commercials.
I bet I was not the only one doing so.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

If this Shaw jerk actually pulls this of with the co-operation of TIVO et al, I'm going to send him a nice Xerox of my *** and tell him to take ABC and pound sand.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Don't get your panties in a wad, this irrelevant bit of news is analogous to an
urban legend -- interesting to talk about, but highly unlikely in the real world.


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

Has anyone noticed that it is almost impossible to get the exact moment that the program returns - that you need to fiddle with the skip forward and back buttons. It is almost as if commercials are no longer in increments of 30 seconds any more so viewers using commercial zaps will get a least part of the commercial.


----------



## zmark (Apr 18, 2005)

There is precendent for the networks dictating how PVRs work. Just look at the history of ReplayTV. They were sued almost out of business for offering features the networks didn't like.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

Precedent or not, I think if this were to happen, there would be an uproar they would never have believed from the customer base. If the customer base got fed up enough to stop watching the networks altogether, that would be ideal. If not, they would permanently lose some of us anyway to other enterainment venues, just out of spite.


----------



## darkomega (Jul 8, 2006)

get a fta reciver and pick up the programs


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

BillyT2002 said:


> Precedent or not, I think if this were to happen, there would be an uproar they would never have believed from the customer base. If the customer base got fed up enough to stop watching the networks altogether, that would be ideal. If not, they would permanently lose some of us anyway to other enterainment venues, just out of spite.


Nice thought, Billy, but in reality, the "customer base" as you call it are a bunch of wussies. 

Think about it -- there will never, _ever_ be a successful boycott by couch potatoes.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> They would have to have the cooperation of the DVR makers. Not likely.


What if they paid off the DVR makers or gave them free ads on TV? It could happen IMHO. All they'd need to do is figure out a way to work together and/or get congress to rubber stamp the idea and its done. Just remember, ads promote a healthy economy, ensures the survival of "free TV", and keeps the voting public informed on the candidates during election season. Politicians want you to watch their ads too. We're the product, not the customer.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

What if North Korea turned over all of it's nuclear weapons, fired it's dictator and opened it's borders to unrestricted travel? If we're going to fantasize we might as well make it good.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> What if North Korea turned over all of it's nuclear weapons, fired it's dictator and opened it's borders to unrestricted travel? If we're going to fantasize we might as well make it good.


LOL!

I'm just saying its possible especially considering all the multi-channel providers have thier own interests in you watching their avails and can control to a large extent the equipment you have in your home.

Question: Would you or most people you know pay $200.00 for a DVR that let you skip past ads or take a free one that forced you to watch the ads?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I believe people would pay $300-$400 for some 'uncontrolled' solution - perhaps a hack that would allow commercials to be skipped or homebrew DVRs that don't have corporate control of how the features are used.

Whichever DVR provider is the first to say they will honor ABC's "don't skip the commercials" flag will be the one that will lose. They would NEED a payoff from ABC to survive! I don't believe ABC has that much cash.

One thought --- If ABC broadcast a flag that told viewer's equipment when they were airing commercials it would be a great tool for those that don't want to record commercials. Only record when the "it is a commercial" flag is off.  (The retaliation would be occasionally flipping the "do not skip" switch during program segments messing up any recorder so equiped.)

The best solution for ABC is to make their commercials better. I have a DVR and every once in a while I'll see a frame of a commercial on my 30 second skip forwards that is compelling enough that I'll go back to see what I missed. THAT is advertising!


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Great points. 

I'm thinking over the long term we see attempts at:

1. forcing must see commercials technology by federal law
2. more embedded ads
3. pay-per-view network programs commercial free with a delay
3. scrolling commercials ticker during programs
4. This annoyance (#3) will force the networks to migrate popular programs to FX, USA, ABC Family, etc.

The big losers will be the local stations. The only solution that I see that might work for them over the long term is abandoning the current model and getting congress to work out a BBC type TV license deal. That and offer embedding in their own local programs: The Home Depot 6 O'Clock News, etc.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Embedding works well on radio and could work on a TV newscast (although objectivity of the newscast could become an issue). Stock market reports brought to you by a broker. Farm reports brought to you by the co-op. But the majority of radioplay is ONCE. 

Especially now in the age of TV reruns on DVD, embedded ads would be 'forever'. I'm not sure that program producers want to allow that, and TV likes to be able to resell programs to cable where they would insert DIFFERENT commercials.

I don't believe we're ready to go to socialized TV. BTW: The British TV licenses only pay for public TV ... there are still ads (and some really good ones) on the independent TV channels and satellite. It is like having a required license for PBS whether you watch it or not and STILL getting comercials on networks.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> Especially now in the age of TV reruns on DVD, embedded ads would be 'forever'. I'm not sure that program producers want to allow that, and TV likes to be able to resell programs to cable where they would insert DIFFERENT commercials.


Another good point. Plus the shows are sold internationally where they might not be a Sears store.



> The British TV licenses only pay for public TV ... there are still ads (and some really good ones) on the independent TV channels and satellite. It is like having a required license for PBS whether you watch it or not and STILL getting comercials on networks.


I think a big difference is people in the UK actually watch the BBC unlike PBS here.

The DVR does pose a problem unless the industry changes. I just wonder what that change will be.


----------

