While doing my daily scan of seemingly the endless amount of news on the Internet, I came across an article on USA Today's stating that Tivo, the digital video recorder used by millions to zip past commercials, will begin a new "service" in March that will pop-up an ad of its own when you try to skip through the commercials on a program. So, the people who pay $12.95/month (or in my case $300 for a lifetime contract) to use the service are now going to be subjected to advertising on top of it? Just like how premium services such as HBO and Showtime do not air ads in their programming, neither should a service like Tivo.
Already on Tivo, their "Showcases" option often downloads ads to be viewed if a user chooses. Sometimes, these can be cool such as a movie trailer or a preview of a network's new programs, but usually they're shameless self promotion to upgrade to a new Tivo model or to buy a recorder as a gift. The key is that you can view it if you want to! It's not forced upon you when you're using one of the features of the service that you're already paying for.
And what does this say to the television network execs? That while viewers watch programming that they produce but they opt to forgo the commercials, they're going to be subjected to a commercial from a totally unaffiliated third party that has contributed nothing to the process? Yeah, that's going to go over well with them.
Now, I'm not totally against advertising in all spaces that have recently popped up. Movie theaters showing ads prior to a feature, while I think is dumb, I don't find intrusive since it doesn't interfere with the feature itself (could you imagine movies going into a commercial break after a critical scene). Product placement, if done within the scope of the show, can be OK. Heck, on the now apparently defunct show Father of the Pride, half of one episode was shameless placement for 7-Eleven and was done so well that it turned out to be the funniest part of the short-lived series (Siegfried and Roy, after seeing a 7-Eleven commercial for a Big Gulp, end up taking over their local store and try to make it more "magical"). The WB's summer music special Pepsi Smash at least had some awesome live performances intertwined with the nauseating self-promotion (which I used my Tivo to skip over).
But, what I find the most troubling thing in the article is that currently there is a bill in the Senate that's nearing a vote that would make technology such as this A CRIME!!! The Intellectual Property Protection bill, according to the article, would ban any technology that allows a viewer to skip over the commercials on a DVD or televised movie. While not specifically mentioned, it can be assumed that if this law is passed for the film industry, the television industry will follow suit for a similar bill of their own. What does this mean to you? Instead of having the "freedom" that Tivo and other devices proclaim in their literature to watch what you want when you want, you instead would become a slave to it. If you're watching a recording that you made on your Tivo, you'll have to sit there and watch the whole thing, commercials included. At least if you're watching live television, you can flip the channel and watch something else, but if you're watching a recording you're going to be stuck. Yes people, that's what our government needs to be worrying about, making a person who doesn't want to be subjected to some lame commercial a criminal.
The Sad MNF Controversy Continues
Wow, this whole dumb controversy has already run on nearly 72 hours too long. The best observation on the issue was brought up by Tony Kornheiser on ESPN's Pardon the Interruption yesterday, when he said that all this has done is everytime a news report mentions the uproar, what do they do... They show clips from the skit!!! Heck yesterday, on the 6 PM SportsCenter, ESPN pretty much showed the whole thing in its entirety as they were discussing the controversy of "indecent" material being broadcast during sporting events. So you have the ABC unit of the Disney company apologizing for airing it, while the ESPN unit of Disney is showing it on the SportCenter airing that's most likely to have kids watching.
Then, we have Tony Dungy, who I loved when he was coaching the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, dropping the race card implying that they only chose Owens to further the racial stereotype of the promiscuous African American athlete. Of course, I don't believe he could be further off-base. In Monday night's game, who was probably the only player involved that's a household name. Hmm... I would have to say that it would be Terrell Owens. If ABC had decided to do this skit next week, in a game between the Patriots and Chiefs, I doubt they would have Nicollette Sheridan posing in the Chiefs locker room with Priest Holmes... They would have been over with the Patriots have her woo Tom Brady (just as if it were your Colts, Tony, they would have wanted Peyton Manning). He also said that the scene was "insensitive" following Kobe Bryant's legal issues. I guess I missed the portion where Terrell bent her over a chair and fucked her up the ass.
Many sports and news websites out their have the little "Quick Polls" which ask if ABC went overboard in the Monday Night Football skit. Most of them are between the 70/30 and 60/40 range saying that they didn't feel the sketch was inappropriate. So really, enough!
No comments:
Post a Comment