Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Targets TV Advertising

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the welcome-to-the-googleverse dept.

156

mytrip writes to tell us that Google may have television advertising in the cross-hairs. CEO Eric Schmidt recently stated that viewers shouldn't have to stand for tv commercials that are a "waste of your time" and says Google is planning to deliver "targeted measurable television ads." I just hope I can still skip them with my TiVO in a couple years.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fristy Pr0st (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944552)

Oh My God! First Post! Ahhhhh.

First twofo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944598)

http://www.twofo.co.uk/ [twofo.co.uk]

dchub://hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

Zeus sucks dick!

TV? Television? (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944553)

Google is so ubiquitous it seems going to TV advertising is going backward.

I know I've heard of those somewhere. I'll have to Google it and find out what it is.

Re:TV? Television? (4, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944655)

It's the thing the Sci-Fi channel is on! And you call yourself a slashdotter...

Re:TV? Television? (3, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944694)

It's the thing the Sci-Fi channel is on! And you call yourself a slashdotter...

I don't watch TV, other than down the pub for a footy match now and then (which will probably be considerably less frequent with the new EPL distribution of matches.) I do, however listen to old radio X-1 and Dimension-X plays on classic sci-fi from the 1940's and 50's. Follow this link. [archive.org]

Re:TV? Television? (0, Offtopic)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945127)

...down the pub for a footy match now and then

What is this apparent British predilection with cutesy-sounding words?

Re:TV? Television? (2, Funny)

Ack_OZ (64662) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945085)

It's the thing the Sci-Fi channel is on! And you call yourself a slashdotter...

Ooooh... They're going to start advertising on Bittorrent?

Ack_OZ

My solution: Ad Insertion (3, Interesting)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944959)

Imagine watching Seinfeld and Jerry pulls a Coke from his refrigerator. Only, in some households he might be seen pulling a Pepsi. Developing the technology to dynamically insert products into the programming is the next logical step in advertising. We see it already, statically, with companies paying gobs of money for product insertion. Imagine instead shooting movies and programming with "generic" green-board like products, and then replacing them with images of the desired product, on a case-by-case basis. You already see some of this in baseball games. There is an ad billboard behind home plate in Fenway park. Nominally it is "green", but it gets replaced in the video stream (at the broadcaster end) with ads. It's not a huge step to move this insertion down to the DVR/cable box. This is where companies like TIVO have the inside track. Their boxes could do the insertion, under command from 'central control'. And they already know our viewing habits (not just what we watch, but when we watch it, and for how long), and our "clicking" habits...postownage

Re:My solution: Ad Insertion (1)

Heembo (916647) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945183)

*cheers to surfing at -1* Dude, this is a rather impressive idea. USA is all about IP (intellectual propoerty) now go run out and patent this idea! It will surface in the next decade as a necessity.

Google the next Enron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944960)

What I was reminded of was the Enron fiasco... They wanted to make a market for "bandwidth" that could be "traded". How they were going to "trade" broadband, though didn't make any sense.

It looks like Google is chasing the stock price just like Enron was, as TV is structured to deliver bandwidth en-mass, not targeted. They'd have to target "by station", and that's already well-targetted by corporations already by looking at basic demographics when they purchase timeslots.

Unless of course this is tv targetting by using independent broadband connections, with a hybrid multicast network topology, in which case, this is no big deal.

Re:TV? Television? (2, Funny)

omarques (685690) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945008)

Are you this guy? [theonion.com]

I love Geico ads. (5, Insightful)

QuantumFTL (197300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944573)

Whenever I'm skipping through ads, I always rewind if I catch a Geico ad, or an Apple ad. These ads are often more entertaining than whatever I'm watching, and I hope that google helps advertisers to create content, rather than the awful propaganda that most ads are today.

Of course, I find myself scared that, while I've never purchased car insurance myself, the first place I will look will be Geico when I turn 25 - not because I have any reason to believe they are actually a better company, but their ads have caused me to think very highly of them on a subjective level. Even knowing this, I cannot undo this manipulation.

It's so absorbant! (5, Funny)

QuantumFTL (197300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944586)

If this means I don't have to see any more feminine hygene product ads, go Google, go!

Re:It's so absorbant! (2, Funny)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944865)

Except you'll be getting lots of ads about male hygiene products...

Re:It's so absorbant! (1)

QuantumFTL (197300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944902)

Except you'll be getting lots of ads about male hygiene products...

As long as they are so absorbant!

Re:It's so absorbant! (1)

hmccabe (465882) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944975)

Conversely, I occasionally like to see an ad that has no chance of affecting my current or future purchasing decisions, as it is an interesting chance to think about how the advertising industry works. For example, I like to think that there was a director who had to say something like, "Remember, don't dance too enthusiastically; your side to side motion is supposed to represent the inferior tampon design." Of course, I only really see ads when I can' find the Tivo's remote, but that happens often enough I know the more common tampon ads on tv.

Re:I love Geico ads. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944590)

Geico is very expensive. They need to pay for all that advertising. Going with a local agent which can "shop around" various insurance places for you is almost always the cheapest way to go.

Most people aren't as smart as you. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944685)

Having quite a bit of marketing background, I can assure you that it's completely intentional when an ad isn't like the Geico or Apple ads you mention. The main problem with such ads is that they don't explicitly show the product enough. They work fine for an insurance ad, as insurance really isn't a tangible thing (like a bottle of beer or a particular restaurant are). When it comes to something like insurance, you're trying to get the viewer to remember the name or the logo. It's rare that one can successfully associate something memorable with the name of a firm, as in the case of a gecko with the name "Geico".

Most ads are there to appeal to the ignorant, unwashed masses. And what often works best is to show them your product over and over and over and over and over and over. Like in Gatorade commercials, which are often just a montage of many clips of sweathy athletes drinking Gatorade. The same goes for shampoo. That way the consumer will remember the appearance of the item the next time they're in a store that sells it.

Re:Most people aren't as smart as you. (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945014)

The main problem with such ads is that they don't explicitly show the product enough. They work fine for an insurance ad, as insurance really isn't a tangible thing (like a bottle of beer or a particular restaurant are). When it comes to something like insurance, you're trying to get the viewer to remember the name or the logo. It's rare that one can successfully associate something memorable with the name of a firm, as in the case of a gecko with the name "Geico".
No! Not at all true. False...

Want proof? Among many possible examples. Two words. "Budweiser" and "frog".

Good advertising is entertaining advertising is good advertising. Period. It's just that simple.

Re:Most people aren't as smart as you. (4, Funny)

John Nowak (872479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945034)

Perhaps you didn't catch his first sentence, but he has a *marketing background*. Don't argue with him -- He's beyond all comprehension.

Re:Most people aren't as smart as you. (2, Insightful)

955301 (209856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945193)

What you just described is a throwback to the pre-40's public relations mentality. Ever since Sigmond Freuds nephew Edward Bernays and a few other choice wackos came into the picture, pr and advertising has moved to propoganda instead. Go behind your audiences back and to their leaders and convince those people to endorse your product instead. That's the reasons for the sweaty athletes, or bacon entering our diet for breakfast or a myriad of things.

It's not repetition as you suggest, it's propoganda.

Re:I love Geico ads. (1)

bblboy54 (926265) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944760)

Actually, Geico is one of the few companies that their ads meet the company. I have actually never found a company with greater customer service -- not to mention they are the cheapest (at least in my case).

When it comes to ads I really wish there was some kind of law that kept the ads equal to the product and service a company offers -- or better yet, why dont companies just spend their money on customer service and skip advertising all together. To me, word of mouth is so much better than any ad I have ever seen. Throw a TV commercial at me and if its good, maybe I'll enjoy it but its not going to get me to buy that product unless I ask someone else about it first.

Re:I love Geico ads. (1)

edward2020 (985450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944770)

I've heard some horror stories from folks wherein Geico refused to pay their probably legitimate claims.

Re:I love Geico ads. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944808)

I would like to publicly thank Geico for getting that movie trailer voice dude (something French) for their "sprucing up the commoner series". Hearing him say "In a world..." for that ad, even though I've only seen it once, is very memorable.

While I shan't budge from USAA, I would like to beg them to collect all of their ads on a DVD, as I'd happily buy a copy.

The soap opera spoof: "I saved. I thought that meant something to you!" was also intense.

Re:I love Geico ads. (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944841)

... and I hope that google helps advertisers to create content, rather than the awful propaganda that most ads are today.

I can't really see how Google helping to create ad contect would equal the success of the Geico ads, but...

In any case, what you're suggesting is that Google be come an ad agency, and I somehow don't think the shareholders would go for that.

Then again, all they really have to do is create one killer ad that gets everyone talking and that could change people's minds.

Re:I love Geico ads. (3, Insightful)

QuantumFTL (197300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944893)

I can't really see how Google helping to create ad contect would equal the success of the Geico ads, but...

The point of my post is really that Google's ad targeting approach may lead to less ads that are better focussed, and have strong incentives to have higher qualtiy content.

Re:I love Geico ads. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944870)

"while I've never purchased car insurance myself, the first place I will look will be Geico when I turn 25 "

you aren't purchasing your own car insurance until you turn 25?

Re:I love Geico ads. (1)

sponga (739683) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944979)

Ok so who has heard the sav-on commercials where they try and say the product name and what it does as many times as you can in 10 seconds.

"Hemroid Removal!"
"Get the best treatment!"
"Hemroid Removal"
"Cream"
"Hemroid Removal"

Re:I love Geico ads. (1)

psymastr (684406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944994)

You're gonna buy insurance from some company because they have a nice ad? And this is "Insightful"? WTF?

Re:I love Geico ads. (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945145)

There must be huge profit margins for personal care products (especially female-related; shampoo, skin goo and creams, body washes, etc.) given the amount of TV advertising for them.

Re:I love Geico ads. (1)

Baloo Ursidae (29355) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945170)

Eeh, Geico wasn't cheaper for me, I saved about $300 by switching to Country Companies [countryfinancial.com] . Kind of a surprise was getting a membership in the Oregon Farm Bureau for Christmas from my insurance guy. I guess it's the thought that counts, I woulda rather had a membership to the local model railroad club...

Well (3, Interesting)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944599)

The overall concept is great. If commercials were 'targetted' to the particular viewer, they would be more effective and hence could either raise more revenue for television networks or allow for shorter commercial breaks.

The catch is this : I don't see what role google can have in this. They might be able to develop the technology for delivering the video cheaply and reliably using google OS and commodity PC hardware, like the rest of their systems work. This would make the back end at the cable and telecom tv providers cheaper. They could also develop the mechanism for choosing commercials ('searches' based on a users demographics) and evaluating success.

However, the profit is still in owning the pipes. How can google make money when the ownership of the network is in the hands of other : the telephone and cable companies.

Re:Well (4, Insightful)

ctr2sprt (574731) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944705)

Remember that for broadcast TV (in the US at least), you're not the customer, you're the product. Advertisers are the customers. Google can make money off TV advertising the same way they do everywhere else: by making ads more successful and therefore more profitable for advertisers. That lets networks charge more for advertising space and time, and Google takes a cut of that. The profit isn't in owning the pipes, it's in owning the eyeballs.

There's also the synergy angle, i.e. Google can tightly couple TV advertising with Web advertising. "Joe just saw an ad on TV for X and started Googling for information on it five minutes later, so let's show him ads for stores in the area which sell X." Going back to what I said before, with regards to Web advertising, Google pretty much owns all the eyeballs, so this has the potential to be really profitable for them.

Re:Well (3, Insightful)

dehvokahn (996677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945290)

Lets look at things from this angle. Google currently logs things like what people search for, when, for how long, what they click on, etc etc etc ... But they only use this information to serve ads that are more closely relevent to the person searching.

It sounds to me like Google is going to try to put their Database and Search technology to use in a similar capacity only with TV. Anyone who has digital cable and/or sattelite television programming in their home, or even TiVo for that matter, can have their viewings logged. So Google may enter these programming companies and start logging what we watch, how often we watch it, and even what commercials we actually stop to watch instead of continueing the programming with our TiVo remote control. Then, they can serve more comercials about beer to those who stop to watch the beer commercials, etc ...

Of course this would go further if they can successfully match the web surfing to the TV watching. The hard part here is that how can they know that The Mother who is watching In-Home-Living is not the same person as the teenager who is searching on the internet for their cooking class in High School.

Google's pretty genious though, I'm sure they'll find a way to do that. Maybe family members will be able to "login" to their personal TiVo home and have their showtimes listed when they login, and Google can do things that way ... who knows?

Obligatory (2, Funny)

sacbhale (216624) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944780)

Its all a bunch of tubes i tell you.

Re:Well (1)

Overfiend1976 (979710) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944880)

It's because Google is being smart. They know they need ownership to make the real money, but instead of attempting to beat the telco's when they don't yet have the backing and finances, they are biding their time. Trust me, as soon as Google has their hands in enough, they will launch their attack against the telco's and bury them swiftly. Even though I understand some people apprehension with Google being 'in cohorts' with the NSA, I'd rather have them providing me with services than say, Time-Warner, AOL, Verizon, Sprint, Comcast or others. Give it time, and you'll wake up one day, log in to your extremely overpriced ISP and you'll get a letter from Google saying, "Hey, we've decided to give you an amazing broadband connection. But there's one condition, you have to pay nothing for it. Have a nice day." You may think that is unfeasable, but keep in mind, Google is a multi-billion dollar corporation right now. And what do you as the consumer get charged for the services they already provide? Nil or next to it. Save for google checkout and google earth (the top edition) everything is free. And even those two services are much less than comperable services provided from other corp's. So yes, google pwns the net as far as making their money solely from advertising, and here they are, yet again absorbing more money from advertising. It's a brilliant move, so let's hold our breath and hope that google can indeed pull something positive out of their backsides for the general consumer.

Re:Well (2, Insightful)

payndz (589033) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944999)

The catch is this : I don't see what role google can have in this.

Because Google has your search results, whereas the best any TV network can find out is the shows you like to watch. The latter gives them a vague idea of your preferences when you sit back to watch things that are passively pushed at you, whereas the former reveals a lot about what you're actively looking for. Just think about the recent AOL search leak, which revealed more about the users than anyone thought (or feared) was possible.

Re:Well (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945144)

Just think about the recent AOL search leak, which revealed more about the users than anyone thought (or feared) was possible.

Yes. Unfortunately, it revealed that many people out there are even dumber than i thought was humanly possible...

Re:Well (1)

daftcyborg (996672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945427)

maybe google can give up the whole net neutrality thing, and work with the baby bells :-)

pretty obvious (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944604)

Google may have television advertising in the cross-hairs.

In the cross-hairs? Why? Do they want to kill tv advertising? I suppose it's a big competitor for advertising bucks,but that's just overkill...

Re:pretty obvious (0, Flamebait)

celardore (844933) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945129)

It's also pretty obvious that was a metaphor.

Popups (4, Interesting)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944609)

If Google can reverse the trend on some channels to move towards LARGE popups that move around and make noise on the bottom have of the screen DURING the actual show, completely ruining and interrupting it, than GREAT! Go for it!. I really hate trying to read something on the screen like a subtitle or place&time text only to have a big race car drive across it, obscuring my view and making loud tire screeching noises over a quiet/dark/moody intro scene to some show.

Quiet, text-only, to-the-point, factual advertisement is a lot more tolerable.

Re:Popups (3, Insightful)

Durrok (912509) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944666)

It's also far too easily ignored. Those flashy annoying ads get your attention everytime though.

Re:Popups (2, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944834)

Ahhhh but they get my attention in the wrong way.

I have a mental blacklist of companies who no matter how tempting the offer they will never ever get a sale from me again.

Re:Popups (2, Interesting)

evilneko (799129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944894)

What channels do you watch where they advertise actual products like that? I've only ever seen networks "promoting" their own shows that way. No comments about how shows are products too, please.

Re:Popups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15945132)

and it's somewhere around then that I make a mental note to never buy their products again.

Re:Popups (3, Interesting)

magictiger (952241) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944692)

I agree. Advertisements have gotten far too obtrusive. If you want to advertise something, put it in the breaks that are built into every show. Don't put something across the sides or bottom of the screen to distract me in the middle of the show. That's just going to make me want to find a copy of the show without the ads.

If people are pushed toward downloading ad-free copies of a show, then nobody watches the ads, the advertisers stop advertising, and the ad revenue for the cable co goes to crap. It's in their best interests to make the advertisements interesting and unobtrusive. They make money, they keep us happy, and we keep watching.

Re:Popups (2, Insightful)

jthill (303417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944729)

Quiet, text-only, to-the-point, factual advertisement is a lot more tolerable.
The companies that market to couch potatoes (e.g. the ones that treat TV, and want to treat the Internet, as a spam-delivery method) hate the notion. Anything that might distract their prey from its fascination with their bait provokes tactics that would make Ebling Mis proud. And the notion that they could be out-competed for eyeball-minutes by relevant and at least marginally interesting ads? It's a no-brainer: they'll buy laws.

s/ebling mis/ellsworth toohey (1)

jthill (303417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944914)

So of course I space on the name. Must... have... coffee.

Re:Popups (1)

widesan (952292) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944943)

If Google can reverse the trend on some channels to move towards LARGE popups that move around and make noise on the bottom have of the screen DURING the actual show, completely ruining and interrupting it, than GREAT!

Those "popups" are called "swipes" and the little logo in the corner is called a "bug." Personally, I dislike both. If I were ever in a Stanley Kubrick* [imdb.com] style complete control situation, I would forbid any additional content. That goes for bugs, swipes, and any alteration of the credits. (Everybody deserves that their name be legible.)

* Stanley Kubrick [imdb.com] is known for maintaining total control over his later films including marketing and advertising

I have no problem watching ads that entertain (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944630)

People watch television to be entertained.

Therefore, when ads are entertaining, people watch them, and are less likely to ignore it by whatever means is convenient, be it by flipping channels, pressing mute, fast forwarding if it's prerecorded, etc...

Well, actually... (1)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944683)

You would need ALL ads to be entertaining for that to work. If the program you were watching switched to ads and they were entertaining, you wouldn't think of switching, but then if one lame ad came on, you'd think "wtf, why am I watching this?" and flip the channel. So, one guy will have ruined it for the rest of them (the ads after that one might have been great too).

Re:Well, actually... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944737)

Yes... it would require that all ads be at LEAST as entertaining as the show it is interrupting.

A tremendously hard thing to do.

Probably as difficult as coming up with an idea for a hit TV series in the first place.

Re:Well, actually... (1)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944785)

Not really better that the show it's interrupting, otherwise you'd switch channels looking for more ads when the show interrupted them. You just need them to not be annoying.

Re:Well, actually... (1)

LindseyJ (983603) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944861)

Yes... it would require that all ads be at LEAST as entertaining as the show it is interrupting.

A tremendously hard thing to do.

Not really, considering the mindless drivel that's on most of the time nowadays.

I can say with some certainty that Geico's commercial spoofing Reality-TV shows is more interesting by far than any realty show that has ever or will ever be made.

Can anybody say "Dodge Hemi"??? (4, Funny)

lottameez (816335) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944635)

viewers shouldn't have to stand for tv commercials that are a "waste of your time"

<vent>
For example, all automobile ads. Huge waste of money and my time. They show the cars out in the wild instead of sitting in traffic like most of us - they highlight features that only car-guys know what the heck it means (er, dodge hemisphere?), and the local dealer ads are headlined by guys/girls that have no shame and sound like idiots. I'm hard pressed to think of any car commercial that even has an entertainment value.

I think what really irritates me is that every 6-10 years when I buy a new car I know that a significant part of the cost is those stupid commercials.
</vent>

Re:Can anybody say "Dodge Hemi"??? (1)

Fungii (153063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944665)

I can think of one - the citroen dancing car (C5 I think).

That was a cool ad.

Re:Can anybody say "Dodge Hemi"??? (2, Interesting)

kanonole (723641) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944884)

I like the one where the Toyota Yaris eats the vacuum cleaner spider: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skhaeXwfh3s [youtube.com]

Re:Can anybody say "Dodge Hemi"??? (1)

fredklein (532096) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945311)

vacuum cleaner spider

You mean Gas Pump Nozzle Spider.

Re:Can anybody say "Dodge Hemi"??? (1)

mspohr (589790) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944712)

I hate this... I just bought a new car and they had the nerve to tack on a $300.00 "Advertising Fee".

So I have to pay to be irritated by the ads? Please, stop advertising cars. I know what's available and where to find it.

Re:Can anybody say "Dodge Hemi"??? (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945002)

Cross out the $300 fee in the sale agreement, initial it and have the car dealer initial it. If he doesn't, then why not just walk away?

Re:Can anybody say "Dodge Hemi"??? (2, Insightful)

thr4k4 (996657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944736)

You seem to have missed the whole idea of "branding". Companies aren't trying to sell the car, but the idea of stuff like being able to "go beyond" (e.g. range rover campaign). This is something advertisement companies have been doing now for more than 10 years.

You are obviously not in their target demographic. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944738)

I guess you're just not one of the typical 18-35 year old males who lives on top of a mountain cliff and parachutes down to his sweet Hemi and drives to work on a magical mountain road that appears out of nowhere while navigating hairpin S-turns in the mountains, and then makes it into the city where every other vehicle turns to dust and the buildings all come crumbling down into the country mountain road. I bet you don't even park your vehicle in the path of high tide at the rocky beach so it can get thrown around without taking any damage. You, sir, are a coward.

But seriously, what is it with car commercials and mountains? There also seems to be a lot of time spent in dry lake beds in the desert. What the fuck?

Re:You are obviously not in their target demograph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944815)

Because most guys want to be able to do that, though we never will. It's a good reason to learn to fly. So you can go balls out and see just how hard you can turn, without Barney and his gun.

Re:You are obviously not in their target demograph (1)

owenreading (948158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944997)

I had mod points the other day. I wish I still had them. You would have got some. This is bang on. Not only are they all like that, but they are identical all over the world. I mean, here in Britain it is unlikely that I will be rolling across the prairies or the Rockies or sliding around some Italian coastline in my new car. Why can't ad agencies think of some new ideas for generic car ads?

truth in advertising (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945422)

You mean an ad where you are stuck in stinky rush hour traffic and the AC goes on the fritz so you roll the window down, except it's electric so you can't because it's broken? Then the one chance a year you get to wind 'er out, the bigbro camera catches you and you get a ticket?

That ad? Ya, I'd like to see it too. I also think they should make all the "closed track, professional driver" scenes illegal to use with advertising street cars. They should just stick to leggy girls in miniskirts getting in and out of the car and be done with it ;)

Re:Can anybody say "Dodge Hemi"??? (1)

NFNNMIDATA (449069) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945015)

On the one hand, without the influx of money from car commercials it would not be possible to have television as we know it (certainly rather than scale back profits they would scale back any semblance of quality or competence). On the other hand, without the car $$ it would also not be possible for major league baseball to continue to be a viable business (every major sport has TV revenue but only baseball has the empty stadiums). So I have mixed feelings as per usual.

sure (2, Interesting)

zogger (617870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945257)

You have 6-10 years to save up for a new engine. Don't buy a new car! Do the maintenance as required, then put in a new engine, possibly a rebuilt transaxle or transmission, etc, whatever you need. You'll come out loads cheaper that way (in most instances, not all of course, YMMV) if you really are buying brand new and you haven't totally beat the old ride to death in the meanwhile.

With that said, hemi refers to the shape of the combustion chamber, hemispherical.

Aren't TV ads already targetted? (5, Funny)

phatvw (996438) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944656)

When I watch car shows, I see ads for cars and other car shows. When I watch Law and Order I see ads for Preparation H. When I watch Matlock, I see ads for adult diapers.

I don't like it. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944661)

I want to like Google, and I do love most of their products, but the power and reaches of their information gathering and processing does have me a little concerned. Not to mention their infinite data retention policies. I don't think Google would necessarily do anything "bad" with that data, but that's not the point. All it takes is one incident to affect potentially millions of people.

Cringely (1)

Fungii (153063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944689)

Cringely has been predicting this [pbs.org] for quite a while now.

I can see this being both good and bad - we'll only get ads served to us based on subjects that we are interested in, but on the other hand we'll only get ads served to us based on subjects that we are interested in. The marketing people will be able to play on peoples insecurities a lot more efficiently.

I can also see embarassing times ahead for people who look up a lot of porn too...

Tv commercials a "waste of your time" ? (4, Informative)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944699)

Pah! Any true geek would know that TV ITSELF is a waste of our time :)

Re:Tv commercials a "waste of your time" ? (1)

also-rr (980579) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944807)

The tagline on my website has been "because even this is better than television" since I threw my TV away during the second year of college, 5 years ago. I don't miss it.

Re:Tv commercials a "waste of your time" ? (1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944856)

Are you this guy? [theonion.com]

three letters prove you wrong: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944889)

BSG

YES!!!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944717)

Finally, years of logging into Google and training my profile to search for porn will pay!!!

I wan't that NOW... NOW!!!! I say!!!!!

see cringely, january 2006, for details (2, Interesting)

avi33 (116048) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944718)

This would be a clever bit of insight on ZDnet's part if it hadn't been exhaustively explored by Robert Cringely seven months ago [pbs.org] .

Basically, by buying up bandwidth and data center capabilities everywhere, google could insert context-driven advertising into any video stream on its way to the consumer, and do it far more efficiently and effectively than the networks are capable of.

The future of ads is product insertion ... (5, Interesting)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944731)

Imagine watching Seinfeld and Jerry pulls a Coke from his refrigerator. Only, in some households he might be seen pulling a Pepsi. Developing the technology to dynamically insert products into the programming is the next logical step in advertising. We see it already, statically, with companies paying gobs of money for product insertion. Imagine instead shooting movies and programming with "generic" green-board like products, and then replacing them with images of the desired product, on a case-by-case basis. You already see some of this in baseball games. There is an ad billboard behind home plate in Fenway park. Nominally it is "green", but it gets replaced in the video stream (at the broadcaster end) with ads. It's not a huge step to move this insertion down to the DVR/cable box. This is where companies like TIVO have the inside track. Their boxes could do the insertion, under command from 'central control'. And they already know our viewing habits (not just what we watch, but when we watch it, and for how long), and our "clicking" habits.

Google the next MS? (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944739)

Is it just me or is Google the next MS? It seems instead of sitting in their own little pond (Online technology) they're slowing worming their way into everything else. Maybe it is just me.. but I sure as hell don't like it and "do no evil" does not imply the next guy along the line doesn't want to be evil.

Re:Google the next MS? (2, Interesting)

bblboy54 (926265) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944774)

Until Google does something to betray my trust, I would much rather have Google getting into these other markets than MS beating them to it. Sure, it's a concern that Google is infiltrating everything but I have this simple thought: If Google doesnt do it, someone else will and right now, I trust Google more than any other company.

Re:Google the next MS? (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944802)

What, exactly, does 'sitting in their own little pond' mean? What's your own little pond? What's mine? Why do I have to stay in it?

What would you say to blacksmith's when Henry Ford was getting started? Were horseshoes their pond? Would you make them stay in it?

Re:Google the next MS? (1)

assassinator42 (844848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944845)

Google is an advertising company. It's not a horribly big jump to move from internet ads to television ads.

Re:Google the next MS? (1)

UltimApe (991552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945261)

yeah, but unlike MS, they don't suck. Google's ideas of the "right thing", in my opinion, is better. Google focuses on making a good product, which sells itself, where MS goes and makes a mediocre product, then advertises the crap out of it.

Same thing over the Internet (2, Interesting)

widesan (952292) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944787)

Disclaimer: I created WideSAN [widesan.com]

I've been working on a similar idea, except that the video is delivered over the Internet. With the WideSAN [widesan.com] system, I can already deliver video with individually customized advertising inserted effortlessly by the server. Either as a standard AVI or in browser flash video. When delivering as flash video, tracking actual commercial views is possible. The problem has been getting licensed content to distribute.

Re:Same thing over the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15945533)

Your system seems stupid, and the fact that u have no decent available documentation about it makes it look even more stupid. You should go back to fixing fridges instead of wasting ur time and ours. Btw it was very pathetic of u asking a friend to vote ur crappy post interesting ...

Looks great but (1)

BeoCluster (995566) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944796)

Can I make a Beowulf Cluster of Google's TV ads ?

Good idea (1)

sam991 (995040) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944805)

It's certainly a very good idea if they can pull it off well. Say i'm watching The Simpsons or something with dinner - 5 tech adverts (say IBM, Dell, Intel, 1&1 and Microsoft) would be a hell of a lot more useful to me and likely most /.'ers than 5 generic adverts (Tampons, toilet paper, Audi, Budweiser, M&S). My only real concern is whether they'll be implemented in a Tivo-like manner - where if i watch one episode of Will & Grace, it assumes i'm gay and records Queer eye for the Straight Guy for me.

Re:Good idea (1)

bjprice (863197) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944916)

it assumes i'm gay and records Queer eye for the Straight Guy for me.
Some mistake, shirley?

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15944958)

You watch will and grace.
I assume your gay.

Re:Good idea (1)

Dagowolf (646208) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945192)

Before I continue let me say I have worked for television sales and am still active in the industry.

Television advertising is never going to go the way you state. The advertisements are a fairly common breakdown of network (or syndicated) and local commercials. In a half hour of Simpsons the local station will get approximately 4:30 depending on agreements with the network or syndicators. The first break of most shows is reserved for network or syndicated spots that come down off the satellite and *must* be aired. Many of the subsequent breaks have at least a portion of their time devoted to the same kind of commercials. The only way Google can target advertisements is by working at the local level. However, it is still up to the Account Executive to sell the time in the program before the commercial can be placed. You are not going to get the kind of targeting of advertisements for many years, if ever.

When Google talks about targeting they are refering to demographic targeting. They target "you" by analyzing the demographics that most heavily watch a particular channel and show and then route ads that are designed for those demographics into those shows. The exact same thing, by the way, that a good national or regional account executive does. This is just a computer crunching the numbers without a human's intervention, it's not as revolutionary as it seems.

Anyone remember AdExact Corp? (2, Informative)

atlacatl (161963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944826)

I don't think anyone would remember, let alone know about, this company.

AdExact [archive.org] was a small company located in Waterloo, Ontario, and was founded by Stephen Basco (of the PixStream fortune [cisco.com] ). The company had a product that was similar to what google is starting to talk about: targeted TV advertising.

The company eventually ran out of money and had to close down the shop.

I wonder what would have happened if they had managed to stay afloat for a few years? I also wonder what did happen to all that technology and know-how?

Ads make me blacklist companies (1)

straponego (521991) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944878)

Almost the only time advertisements influence me are when they convince me NOT to buy from a company. If an ad is offensively loud, shrill, intrusive, or stupid, I make a note of that company. For example, when Quizno's decided that their product was best represented by a retarded mutant singing rodent, which carried the implication that you're eating... retarded mutant mice... I stopped eating there until about half a year after the last time I saw one.

Even a funny, clever ad will not make me buy something I don't want or need.

About the best an advertiser can hope for from me is to not offend me too much. It's very rare that an ad informs me of something I'm not already aware of. The only exceptions are Google's text ads, which I only see when I'm specifically looking to buy, and occasionally trailers for movies (and yet, I rarely go to see movies anymore, because of the 20 minutes of ads before the film, the shrieking babies, etc.) As far as TV goes, movie trailers make sense, but I don't see the purpose of most others. Is there anybody out there who hasn't made up their mind on Coke vs. Pepsi? Am I that unique in only reacting negatively to ads? Is the average consumer really that stupid? Oh... back to that again. Never mind.

Google TV Advertising (1)

adbloggers (996663) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944898)

This is interesting, Google criticizing tv advertisers. Web advertising is how they have made all their money and I am sure people do not like google web ads. http://www.adbloggers.com/ [adbloggers.com]

I can see it now... (3, Funny)

wbren (682133) | more than 8 years ago | (#15944924)

I'll be watching a "Lost in Space" rerun and I'll see a Google "targetted" commercial saying "Lost? Need directions? Try MapQuest.com! Ads by Goooooooogle."

Seriously, at least with the text ads you don't notice how absurd they are sometimes, but with TV ads people will just shake their heads at Google.

Commoditisation of targeted marketing. (3, Insightful)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945016)

It's us and them time.

Some posters are groping towards what I think this is, in fact, all about. Television is currently a mass medium. It's mainly used to pump out lowest common denominator ads for LCD products. At the other end of the scale you have the hugely up-market direct mail companies that will, say, identify all the male, 30-45 bankers who just got really big annual bonuses in your catchment area, and send them your beautifully printed coffee table hardback of Ferrari pictures along with the offer of a test drive. It all derives from Lord Lever's (think Unilever)dictum "Half of what I spend on advertising is wasted, but I don't know which half." In fact, a 50% failure rate would be incredibly good in mass marketing. Google wants to commoditise targeted marketing wherever it happens, and to make targetable the marketing that is currently not targetable.

The thing is, at what point does this tip up into evil? I think there is a fairly fine line between sending me unsolicited information about something which profiling says I will be interested in, and psychological manipulation. Even paid for information - say motoring magazines - in which one would hope to find a measure of objectivity, in practice seem to say anything that will keep the advertisers happy. I am beginning to think that the downside to the Internet and mass media is that while, in theory more information is available about everything, in practice it is harder and harder to find objective information. The signal to noise ratio is actually growing smaller.

I'm particularly conscious of this because I have been trying to do something of an engineering nature recently. I won't bore you with the details, but as I have done my research I have gradually discovered that all the most readily available sources of information are, basically, lying for commercial reasons. In the end I got down to two sources of reasonably objective information.(I was eventually able to verify this by applying the actual engineering formulae to what they told me, which was how I know.) Neither publishes information (other than a contact address) on the net.

I can see that very soon we are going to need a subnet - some way of basing a network on socially arranged groups of trusted people - to provide reliable information about things. We used to have one (it was called universities) but they seem now to be overly subject to commercial forces.

Re:Commoditisation of targeted marketing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15945161)

I can see that very soon we are going to need a subnet - some way of basing a network on socially arranged groups of trusted people - to provide reliable information about things.


See Darknet [wikipedia.org]

That's backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15945125)

So Eric Schmidt is going to "fucking kill" tv advertising?

GOOGLE SEARCH! (1)

ozric99 (162412) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945263)

Put your search terms directly into the search box! Put your search terms directly into the search box! Put your search terms directly into the search box!

TV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15945319)

People still watch television? I shut off the cable a couple years ago and I've never looked back. What I want to watch, I download-for free, and without ANY commercials.

Google mentioned in ads (1)

D H NG (779318) | more than 8 years ago | (#15945505)

Remember the days when ads used to mention their "America Online keywords"? Now a Pontiac commercial is telling the audience to "google Pontiac [searchenginewatch.com] ".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?