TiVo introducing “product purchase” feature with Amazon

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by mtchamp, Jul 21, 2008.

  1. ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004

    Advertisements

    have you paid for a newspaper lately? Did you pay the 10$ it probably costs to put that newspaper in your hand?

    Yes, right now TiVo does not even seperate out advertising revenue to its own line. This feature in itself may not be the one to break it out to its own line either but clearly it adds a new category to the internal spreadsheets of commision on sales generated. Clearly increasing the subscription numbers will increase advertising revenue.

    PS TiVoStephen always makes sure his posts are factual and clear. He never intends to mislead and I greatly value his posts here. To me he clearly did not provide information on thumbs up during show content and I am sure TiVo is still debating back and forth on that one anyhow.
     
  2. rodalpho

    rodalpho New Member

    486
    0
    Sep 12, 2006
    Hah, that would be a straw man. I never said that advertising subsidization doesn't occur elsewhere, just that adding advertising to a service doesn't drop prices. For examples, look at cable TV and videogames.
     
  3. yunlin12

    yunlin12 Tivonation Citizen

    1,223
    0
    Mar 14, 2003
    San Jose, CA
    :thumbsdown:

    so now we are mad and going after TivoStephen?
     
  4. RoyK

    RoyK New Member

    2,935
    1
    Oct 22, 2004
    SW VA
    No.
     
  5. gonzotek

    gonzotek tivo_xml developer

    2,538
    59
    Sep 24, 2004
    Outside...

    Advertisements

    Err, let's all take a breath and, you know, actually get a bit of experience with the thing it is we're trying to discuss, before anyone gets any more personal about anything.
     
  6. CuriousMark

    CuriousMark Forum Denizen

    2,620
    3
    Jan 13, 2005
    SoCal
    Good idea. Hop on out to swivel search and take a look for yourselves.
     
  7. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    They aren't free, period. If they were, then there might be a bit more of an excuse for how utterly lousy the programming is.

    Who cares? Advertising is not a right, or even a privilege. Neither is staying in business, especially at the expense (literally) of a captive public. If they cannot make a profit from consumers who want their product, then they should be bankrupt. (Of course in reality this is much of the problem. They coinsider their product to be advertising, not the TV programs and their customers are vendors, not consumers. The television programs themselves are to them nothing but a cost of doing business - to be minimized by any means possible. The TV viewer is nothing at all other than a Nielsen rating.)

    Entitled? No. Revolted? Yes. Even if there were any significant amount of content worthy of the public's time - looking at the TV Guide that's a really huge "if" - it still doesn't entitle the networks to force the public to pay for their product whether they make use of the product or not, whether they want to make use of the product or not, and whether they consider the content for which they are forced to pay worth the amount they are paying. I for one am absolutely incensed at the fact I have to pay upwards of $10,000 a year for someone to produce Gray's Anatomy, Survivor, Days of Our Lives, and all the other drek. Let the people who actually do want to watch these things pay for them directly. Let the rest of us watch nothing we don't want and pay for nothing other than what we want.

    I don't watch first run (or second run) TV shows, and I am thoroughly sick and tired of paying for that luxury for other people - and at highly exhorbitant rates.

    I would rather see the commercial networks shut down, period. Legalized larceny is still larceny, no matter how ubiquitous it might be.

    That's a different matter, and a whole other discussion of great extent.

    But it is worth shelling out nearly 1/3 of one's non-discretionary income? To quote the judge played by Spencer Tracy in Judgement at Nuremberg, "You are going to have to explain that to me very, very carefuly".

    Most people might consider my philosophy to be nearly rabidly Capitalist, and I think free commerce is a terrific thing, but commercial advertising is much more nearly Communist than Capitalist. Indeed, to most intents and purposes the main thing which prevents commercail advertising from being Communistic is the media are not elements of the state government. Or at least hypothetically they are not supposed to be. The reality is somewhat less than the ideal in that respect. In any case, free commerce absolutely requires that the consumer be able to choose for which goods and services
    they wish to pay, and to be able to refuse entirely to pay for goods and services they consider for whatever reason to be not worth the cash. Commercial advertising forces the consumer to pay no matter what.

    By that statement, I take it there are indeed shows you do not watch (a supercillious statement, I know, since no one can physically watch every program), so why are you content to pay for all those which you do not watch?
     
  8. pomerlp

    pomerlp New Member

    205
    0
    Apr 21, 2008
    He posted as I was writing. I didn't see it until I came back in.

    Thanks TiVoStephen for clearing things up. Its unfortunate that there seems to be one individual who has nothing else better to do then complain. We appreciate the fact that you took the time and trouble to clear this matter up.

    DNFTT
     
  9. ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    cable TV providers can only get some local advertising revenue and have a large infrastructure to support. I am sure if they got the millions of dollars in revenue from the ads the shows get directly then they would lower prices enough to get the DBS users. once they had all the viewers then maximizing revenue would not be about lowering costs to get more viewers.

    Videogames? the only ad I have seen in a videogame is the flyer for more videogames. Also on the consle there is advertising but that is to sell more videogames as well. The revenue from those ads is generating by selling the games not by running the ad and counting viewers of it.
     
  10. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    I make no use of any site which has advertising unless it is a retail vendor website - which is a very different thing. I have no problem at all with Newegg, Sears, Brake Check, Joe's Bait shop and Food emporium, etc having their own website whose entire purpose is to sell goods and services.

    I have seen no improvement in content of websites in general, and mostly only superficial improvements in presentation. There are some exceptions, of course, but frankly off the top of my head I can't think of any at the moment.

    Free discussion fora long predate the prevalence of the internet, or indeed even its existence.

    'Completely untrue. Other than for business purposes, my principal use of the internet is retail vendor sites which of course consist of nothing but 100% advertising. In case you hadn't noticed, television channels like QVC are quite popular. So are infomercials. You act as if you've never heard of Amazon.com or e-bay.

    Uh-huh. So why have television seasons gone from 26 episodes to 22? Why has the content switched in significant measure from more expensive scripted
    drama and comedy employing professional actors and writers to far less expensive non-scripted shows employing few or no actors at all?

    What good stuff? I'm very hard pressed to think of very much at all.

    Nonsense! Ads do not generate the revenue for the programs. Vendor sales do. Ads only generate revenue for the ads. To put it another way, the networks don't sell TV programs. They sell ads. The consumer doesn't pay for TV programs, they pay for the vendor to buy ads.

    The problem is, if Tivo switches to getting most of their revenue from ads rather than subscriptions and hardware sales, then that action has almost no effect whatsoever on how much he has to pay for TiVo service. Even worse is the fact it doesn't reduce TiVo's revenue very much, so it has a much more muted incentive to imbue that servive with quality.

    Theft has always been the most profitable business model, and always will be. That in no way means the public is required to or should tolerate it.
     
  11. pomerlp

    pomerlp New Member

    205
    0
    Apr 21, 2008
    Here here! So we should also stop watching sports because there is advertising all over the place. Why I even see on the beach volleyball some of the girls have tattoos like NIKE on their shoulders.

    Hey, you know they even have advertisements here in the TiVo Forum! Of course for a nominal fee you won't get those.:rolleyes:
     
  12. ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    WTF?
    why do you even own a TV or a TiVo?
    umm - I pay 45$ for cable. at 1.99 a show my family likes to watch then that is 23 shows a month. CAble in itself is a much better deal for me than paying per show. Heck I will not even pay individually to rent a movie but use NetFlix. Sure you say that cost is just born out elsewhere in other products I buy that do the advertising, but if they did not advertise then they would have to raise the price anyhow in order to make up for lower volume of sales.
    Plus if a product is from such a poorly run company that ads amount to any truly significnat % of the cost to me - I am most likely buying a lower priced item from someone else. I have very little brand loyalty and look instead at value of the purchase.

    anyhow, ads are not going away and shows will depend on advertising for quite some time to come. Even some indie show on the web, watch it make the jump to a broad audience and watch it start making money from sponsors or selling ads.
     
  13. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    You might consider scaling back on the superlatives a bit. "Never" is a very long time, and "certainly" doesn't leave much room for deviation. I'll agree it's not very likely, but stanger things have happened.

    The main point, however, is that it is far LESS desirable to have lower up front costs offset by higher costs in the back end than to just pay up front. I avoid getting anyhing in my back end. :)
     
  14. RoyK

    RoyK New Member

    2,935
    1
    Oct 22, 2004
    SW VA
    It will be cleared up when I get the answer to the simple question I asked. Will there or will there not be any prompt/icon/sound displayed over programming?
     
  15. Einselen

    Einselen ɹǝsn pǝɹǝʇsıƃǝɹ

    14,608
    188
    Apr 25, 2006
    If you provide your TSN(s) I am sure we can setup your TiVos to make sure that you will get a huge banner over programming :D
     
  16. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    No, you should PAY for it and stop abetting the theft from me to subsidize your desires. I'm sorry if that offends you, but you have no right to force me to pay for your viewing habits. I'll gladly pay for mine - indeed I already do - and you can pay for yours.

    I am not responsible for the actions of idiots, whether at the beach or otherwise. In this case, however, it is not a paid advertisement - or at leat I seriously doubt it - so it does not qualify. I have no problem with free advertising. I do have a problem when the car I purchase costs an extra $8000 because you want to watch some people playng a game. If you want to fork up the $10,000 to $20,000 I have to pay a year for commercial advertising, then I'll happily drop the subject and call it even.

    As with so many people, you seem to be missing the point entirely. The principal problem is not where the advertising exists, but the fact it exists at all. Although computers are becoming nearly ubiquitous, there are still several million people in America who do not own computers. Yet the fact the ads have been purchased by vendors means those millions of people are paying for us to use this forum, and that is neither fair nor acceptable. I don't know if you watch soap operas, but do you really want somewhere in the vacinity of $100 - $300 a year of your salary to go toward making soap operas? It does. If you have young children, then your household probably takes advantage of children's programming, but if not are you really happy spending a couple of C's a year for it, whether you want to or not?
     
  17. ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    first off - I did not say the thing about beach volleyball.
    Second you said you would use no web site with advertising yet here you are.

    You are getting confused in your discussions and saying things that are outright contradicted by your actions.

    No point in even continuing the discussion.

    PS - I highly doubt ads tack $8,000 onto each car unless it is Ferrari that is already priced WAY beyond what it costs to make anyhow and image is just as much a part of the product as an engine and wheels.
     
  18. ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    wow, it is a wonder I have any money left to actually buy anything :rolleyes:

    seriously, get some data to back up these ridiculous numbers.
     
  19. pomerlp

    pomerlp New Member

    205
    0
    Apr 21, 2008

    Irhore, if your going to quote somebody quote the correct person. I'm the one who said volleyball. And as Zeo and I both pointed out they have advertisements here.

    And I hate to tell you this but not only is it on sports but when you go to the movies, that can of Coke you can see so plainly is that way for a reason. So is that Mercedes you can so clearly identify. All more ads. And all at your expense.

    So therefore IMHO you should not watch movies, television, or sports. You shouldn't go into forums because most have advertisements. So just use the internet for email.

    Wait. Don't do that either. You will get junk email from people who will sell you all kinds of interesting products.:D

    I'd say read a book but sometimes they put a chapter of the next book in there and you may end up reading that. That's another enticement to get you to buy something!

    Magazines? Nope, ads there as well. Go for a drive? Billboards everywhere!

    Maybe you can find an open cave somewhere in the middle of nowheres. Be a hermit. Then you can avoid all this awful "theft" of your money.:D
     
  20. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    I beg your pardon? Do you for some reason think advertising is a right? Please show me in the U.S. Constitution where it says "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of corporations to advertise".

    To watch what I want, mostly movies, but also PBS and a very small handful of non-network channels. A couple even have advertising, but my choice has very little to do with the presence or absence of advertising. The fact you are asking the question strongly suggests you fail to see the point, however. My watching or not watching add-ridden content has absolutely no impact on the cost of that content to me. Indeed, even if I didn't own a TV at all, I still am forced to pay for all those ads, and that is unacceptable.


    No, depending on the size of your family and your spending habits, you probably pay between $500 and $3000 a month for all the shows with advertising, whether you watch any of them or not, or in fact even if your CATV company doesn't carry them. People need to wake up. They are picking our pockets, and we are watching them do it and smiling when they do it.

    Pay-per-view is only 1 alternative to commmercial advertising. Indee, I myself never purchase pay-per-view. This not due to any philpsophical objection, as I think it's a great idea for those who like it.

    Which is another alternative. So are movie channels, non-profit organization of the breoadcast corporation (PBS), pay channels, etc.

    This is what Madison Avenue would have people believe, but in most cases it is false. It's true there are some items which would never sell at all without media based advertisements, but these items are in the minority. It is of course true that any single company can increase their sales by advertising. In most cases this merely reflects the fact the ad increases the company's market share. It does not increase the overall size of the market, at least not in proportion to the amount spent on advertising. If one vendor loses their ad vectors, then their revenue will decline over time. If every vendor loses their ad vectors, then the revenues willl remain fairly fixed, certainly in comparison to the advertisign spend, and in fact all profits will more than likely increase due to lower advertising spend for nearly the same revenue.

    It is a simple fact that approximately 1/3 of the retail cost of the average consumer item is advertising. Note this cost is not just from a single company, either. The engineering firm advertises. The manufacturing firm advertises. The packaging firm advertises. The brokerage firm advertises. The shipping firm advertises. The gasoline producer advertisers. The retail outlet advertises. Heck, even the ad firm advertises. Switching to another brand only switches a portion of the advertising dollar.

    Things cetainly will not change as long as people are content (actually, mostly unaware more than content) to be ripped off continuously.

    No one said it wasn't an effective ploy to increase revenue throug legalized theft. As I already poited out, theft always has and always will be the most effective means of generating revenue. When the means of theft is protexcted against legal action, the reasons for not stealing are almost non-existent. The increasingly widespread use of commercial advertising in the last 50 years is one example of this fact.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements