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!

IBM Predicts Massive Shifts In Advertising

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the adapt-or-die dept.

Businesses 135

Tech.Luver writes with news from IBM Global Business Services about its new report, The End of Advertising as We Know It (report PDF, summary PDF). It forecasts greater disruption for the advertising industry in the next five years than has occurred over the previous 50. Among the conclusions: broadcasters will have to change their mass audience mind-set to cater to niche consumer segments. Distributors will need to deliver targeted, interactive advertising for a range of multimedia devices. Advertising agencies must become brokers of consumer insights and guide allocation of advertising dollars amid exploding choices. All players must adapt to a world where advertising inventory is increasingly bought and sold in open exchanges vs. traditional channels.

cancel ×

135 comments

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

GNAA still rulez (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21309401)

When I think of dirty old men, I think of Ike Thomas and when I think about Ike I get a hard-on that won't quit.

Sixty years ago, I worked in what was once my grandfather's greenhouses. Gramps had died a year earlier and Grandma, now in her seventies had been forced to sell to the competition. I got a job with the new owners and mostly worked the range by myself. That summer, they hired a man to help me get the benches ready for the fall planting.

Ike always looked like he was three days from a shave and his whiskers were dirty white, shaded by the brim of his battered felt fedora.

He did not chew tobacco but the corners of his mouth turned down in a way that, at any moment, I expected a trickle of thin, brown juice to creep down his chin. His bushy, brown eyebrows shaded pale, gray eyes.

The old-timer extended his hand, lifted his leg like a dog about to mark a bush and let go the loudest fart I ever heard. The old fellow then winked at me, "Ike Thomas is the name and playing pecker's my game."

I thought he said, "Checkers." I was nineteen, green as grass. I said, "I was never much good at that game."

"Now me," said Ike, "I just love jumping men ..."

"I'll bet you do."

"... and grabbing on to their peckers," said Ike.

"I thought we were talking about ..."

"You like jumping old men's peckers?"

I shook my head.

"I reckon we'll have to remedy that." Ike lifted his right leg and let go another tremendous fart. "He said, "We best be getting to work."

That summer of 1941 was a more innocent time. I learned most of the sex I knew from those little eight pager cartoon booklets of comic-page characters going at it. Young men read them in the privacy of an outside john, played with themselves, by themselves and didn't brag about it. Sometimes, we got off with a trusted friend and helped each other out.

Under the greenhouse glass, the temperature some times climbed over the hundred degree mark. I had worked stripped to the waist since April and was as brown as a berry. On only his second day on the job and in the middle of August, Ike wore old fashioned overalls. Those and socks in his high-top work shoes was every stitch he wore. When he bent forward, the bib front billowed out and I could see the white curly hairs on his chest and belly.

"Me? I just love to eat pussy!" Ike licked his lips from corner to corner then sticking his tongue out far enough that the tip could touch the end of his nose. He said, A man's not a man till he knows first hand, the flavor of a lady's pussy."

"People do that?"

He winked. "Of course the taste of a hard cock ain't to be sneezed at neither. Now you answer me, yes or no. Does a man's cock taste salty or not?"

"I never ..."

"Well, old Ike's willing to let you find out."

"No way."

"Just teasing," said Ike. "But don't give me no sass or I'll show you my ass." He winked. "Might show it to you anyway, if you was to ask."

"Why would I do that?"

"Curiosity, maybe. I'm guessing you never had a good piece of man ass."

"I'm no queer."

"Now don't be getting judgmental. Enjoying what's at hand ain't being queer. It's taking pleasure where you find it with anybody willing." Ike slipped a hand into the side slit of his overalls and I could tell he was fondling and straightening out his cock. "Now I admit I got me a hole that satisfied a few guys."

I swallowed, hard.

Ike winked. "Care to be asshole buddies?"

---

We worked steadily until noon. Ike drew a worn pocket watch from the bib pocket of his loose overalls and croaked, "Bean time. But first its time to reel out our limber hoses and make with the golden arches before lunch."

I followed Ike to the end of the greenhouse where he stopped at the outside wall of the potting shed. He opened his fly, fished inside, and finger-hooked a soft white penis with a pouting foreskin puckered half an inch past the hidden head.

"Yes sir," breathed Ike, "this old peter needs some draining." He exhaled a sigh as a strong, yellow stream splattered against the boards and ran down to soak into the earthen floor.

He caught me looking down at him. He winked. "Like what you're viewing, Boy?"

I looked away.

"You taking a serious interest in old Ike's pecker?"

I shook my head.

"Well you just haul out yourn and let old Ike return the compliment."

Feeling trapped and really having to go, I fumbled at my fly, turned away slightly, withdrew my penis and strained to start.

"Take your time boy. Let it all hang out. Old Ike's the first to admit that he likes looking at another man's pecker." He flicked away the last drop of urine and shook his limp penis vigorously.

I tried not to look interested.

"Yes sir, this old peepee feels so good out, I just might leave it out." He turned to give me a better view.

"What if somebody walks in?"

Ike shrugged. He looked at my strong yellow stream beating against the boards and moved a step closer. "You got a nice one,boy."

I glanced over at him. His cock was definitely larger and beginning to stick straight out. I nodded toward his crotch. "Don't you think you should put that away?"

"I got me strictly a parlor prick," said Ike. "Barely measures six inches." He grinned. "Of course it's big enough around to make a mouthful." He ran a thumb and forefinger along its length and drawing his foreskin back enough to expose the tip of the pink head. "Yersiree." He grinned, revealing nicotine stained teeth. "It sure feels good, letting the old boy breathe."

I knew I should button up and move away. I watched his fingers moving up and down the thickening column.

"You like checking out this old man's cock?"

I nodded. In spite of myself, my cock began to swell.

"Maybe we should have ourselves a little pecker pulling party." Ike slid his fingers back and forth on his expanding shaft and winked. "I may be old but I'm not against doing some little pud pulling with a friend."

I shook my head.

"Maybe I'll give my balls some air. Would you like a viewing of old Ike's hairy balls?"

I swallowed hard and moistened my dry lips.

He opened another button on his fly and pulled out his scrotum. "Good God, It feels good to set 'em free. Now let's see yours."

"Why?"

"Just to show you're neighborly," said Ike.

"I don't think so." I buttoned up and moved into the potting shed.

Ike followed, his cock and balls protruding from the front of his overalls. "Overlook my informality." Ike grinned. "As you can see I ain't bashful."

I nodded and took my sandwich from the brown paper bag.

"Yessir," said Ike. "I just might have to have myself an old fashioned peter pulling all by my lonesome. He unhooked a shoulder strap and let his overalls drop around his ankles.

I took a bite of my sandwich but my eyes remained on Ike.

"Yessiree," said Ike, "I got a good one if I do say so myself. Gets nearly as hard as when I was eighteen. You know why?"

I shook my head.

"Cause I keep exercising him. When I was younger I was pulling on it three time a day. Still like to do him every day I can."

"Some say you'll go blind if you do that too much."

"Bull-loney!" Don't you believe that shit. I been pulling my pud for close to fifty years and I didn't start till I was fifteen."

I laughed.

"You laughing at my little peter, boy?"

"Your hat." I pointed to the soiled, brown fedora cocked on his head. That and his overalls draped about his ankles were his only items of apparel. In between was a chest full of gray curly hair, two hairy legs. Smack between them stood an erect, pale white cock with a tip of foreskin still hiding the head.

"I am one hairy S.O.B.," said Ike.

"I laughed at you wearing nothing but a hat."

"Covers up my bald spot," said Ike. "I got more hair on my ass than I got on my head. Want to see?"

"Your head?"

"No, Boy, my hairy ass and around my tight, brown asshole." He turned, reached back with both hands and parted his ass cheeks to reveal the small, puckered opening. "There it is, Boy, the entrance lots of good feelings. Tell me, Boy, how would you like to put it up old Ike's ass?"

"I don't think so."

"That'd be the best damned piece you ever got."

"We shouldn't be talking like this."

"C'mon now, confess, don't this make your cock perk up a little bit?"

"I reckon," I confessed.

"You ever seen an old man's hard cock before," asked Ike.

"My grandpa's when I was twelve or thirteen."

"How'd that come about?"

He was out in the barn and didn't know I was around. He dropped his pants. It was real big he did things to it. He saw me and he turned around real fast but I saw it."

"What did your grandpa do?"

"He said I shouldn't be watching him doing that. He said something like grandma wouldn't give him some,' that morning and that I should get out of there and leave a poor man in peace to do what he had to do."

"Did you want to join him."

"I might have if he'd asked. He didn't."

"I like showing off my cock," said Ike. "A hard-on is something I always been proud of. A hard-on proves a man's a man. Makes me feel like a man that can do things." He looked up at me and winked. "You getting a hard-on from all this talk, son?"

I nodded and looked away.

"Then maybe you should pull it out and show old Ike what you got."

"We shouldn't."

"Hey. A man's not a man till he jacked off with a buddy."

I wanted to but I was as nervous as hell.

Ike grinned and fingered his pecker. "C'mon, Boy, between friends, a little cock showing is perfectly fine. Lets see what you got in the cock and balls department."

In spite of my reluctance, I felt the stirring in my crotch. I had curiosity that needed satisfying. It had been a long, long time since I had walked in on my grandfather.

"C'mon let's see it all."

I shook my head.

"You can join the party anytime, said Ike. "Just drop your pants and pump away."

I had the urge. There was a tingling in my crotch. My cock was definitely willing and I had a terrible need to adjust myself down there. But my timidity and the strangeness of it all held me back.

Hope you don't mind if I play out this hand." Ike grinned. "It feels like I got a winner."

I stared at his gnarled hand sliding up and down that pale, white column and I could not look away. I wet my lips and shook my head.

Old Ike's about to spout a geyser." Ike breathed harder as he winked. "Now if I just had a long finger up my ass. You interested, boy?"

I shook my head.

The first, translucent, white glob crested the top of his cock and and arced to the dirt floor. Ike held his cock at the base with thumb and forefinger and tightened noticeably with each throb of ejaculation until he was finished.

I could not believe any man could do what he had done in front of another human being.

Ike sighed with pleasure and licked his fingers. "A man ain't a man till he's tasted his own juices."

He squatted, turned on the faucet and picked up the connected hose. He directed the water between his legs and on to his still dripping prick and milked the few remaining drops of white, sticky stuff into the puddle forming at his feet. "Cool water sure feels good on a cock that just shot its wad," said Ike.

---

"Cock-tale telling time," said Old Ike. It was the next day and he rubbed the front of his dirty,worn overalls where his bulge made the fly expand as his fingers smoothed the denim around the outline of his expanding cock.

I wasn't sure what he had in mind but I knew it wasn't something my straight-laced Grandma would approve of.

"Don't you like taking your cock out and jacking it?" Ike licked his lips.

I shook my head in denial.

"Sure you do. A young man in his prime has got to be pulling his pud."

I stared at his calloused hand moving over the growing bulge at his crotch.

"Like I said," continued Ike, "I got me barely six inches when he's standing up." He winked at me. "How much you got, son?"

"Almost seven inches ..." I stuttered. "Last time I measured."

"And I'm betting it feels real good with your fist wrapped around it."

"I don't do ..."

"Everybody does it." He scratched his balls and said, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Then, looking me in the eye, he lifted his leg like a dog at a tree and let out a long, noisy fart.

Denying that I jacked off, I said, "I saw yours yesterday."

"A man has got to take out his pecker every once in a while." He winked and his fingers played with a button on his fly. Care to join me today?"

"I don't think so."

"What's the matter, boy? You ashamed of what's hanging 'tween your skinny legs?"

"It's not for showing off."

"That would be so with a crowd of strangers but with a friend, in a friendly showdown, where's the harm?"

"It shouldn't be shown to other people. My Grandma said that a long time ago when I went to the bathroom against a tree when I was seven."

"There's nothing like a joint pulling among friends to seal a friendship," said Ike.

I don't think so." I felt very much, ill at ease.

"Then what the fuck is it for," demanded the old man. "A good man shares his cock with his friends. How old are you boy?"

"Fifteen almost sixteen."

You ever fucked a woman?"

"No."

"Ever fucked a man?"

"Of course not."

"Son, you ain't never lived till you've fired your load up a man's tight ass."

"I didn't know men did that to each other."

"Men shove it up men's asses men all the time. They just don't talk about it like they do pussy."

"You've done that?"

"I admit this old pecker's been up a few manholes. More than a few hard cocks have shagged this old ass over the years." He shook his head, wistfully, "I still have a hankering for a hard one up the old dirt chute."

"I think that would hurt."

"First time, it usually does," agreed Ike. He took a bite from his sandwich.

I looked at my watch. Ten minutes of our lunch hour had already passed.

"We got time for a quickie," said Ike. "There's no one around to say, stop, if were enjoying ourselves."

He unhooked the slide off the button of one shoulder-strap, pushed the bib of his overalls down to let them fall to his feet.

"Showtime," said Ike. Between his legs, white and hairy, his semi-hard cock emerged from a tangled mass of brown and gray pubic hair. The foreskin, still puckered beyond the head of the cock, extended downward forty-five degrees from the horizontal but was definitely on the rise.

I could only stare at the man. Until the day before, I had never seen an older man with an erection besides my grandpa.

Ike moved his fingers along the stalk of his manhood until the head partially emerged, purplish and broad. He removed his hand for a moment and it bobbled obscenely in the subdued light of the potting shed. Ike leaned back against a bin of clay pots like a model on display. "Like I said, boy, it gets the job done."

I found it difficult not to watch. "You shouldn't ..."

"C'mon, boy. Show Ike your pecker. I'm betting it's nice and hard."

I grasped my belt and tugged on the open end. I slipped the waistband button and two more before pushing down my blue jeans and shorts down in one move. My cock bounced and slapped my belly as I straightened."

"That's a beaut." Ike stroked his pale, white cock with the purplish-pink head shining. "I'm betting it'll grow some more if you stroke it."

"We really shouldn't ..."

"Now don't tell me you never stroked your hard peter with a buddy."

"I've done that," I finally admitted,. "But he was the same age as me and it was a long time ago." I though back to the last time Chuck and me jerked each other off in the loft of our old barn. Chuck wanted more as a going away present and we had sucked each other's dicks a little bit.

"Jackin's always better when you do it with somebody," said Ike. "Then you can lend each other a helping hand."

"I don't know about that," I said.

Ike's hand continued moving on his old cock as he leaned over to inspect mine. "God Damn! Boy. That cock looks good enough to eat." Ike licked his lips. "You ever had that baby sucked?"

I shook my head as I watched the old man stroke his hard, pale cock.

"Well boy, I'd say you're packing a real mouthful for some lucky gal or guy." He grinned. "Well c'mon. Let's see you get down to some serious jacking. Old Ike's way ahead of you."

I wrapped my fist around my stiff cock and moved the foreskin up and over the head on the up stroke. On the down stroke the expanded corona of the angry, purple head stared obscenely at the naked old man.

Ike toyed with his modest six inches. "What do you think of this old man's cock?" His fist rode down to his balls and a cockhead smaller than the barrel stared back at mine.

"I guess I'm thinking this is like doing it with my grandpa."

"You ever wish you could a done this with your grandpa?"

"I thought about it a lot."

"Ever see him with a hard-on."

"I told you about that!"

"Ever think about him doing your grandma?"

"I can't imagine her ever doing anything with a man."

"Take my word for it, sonny, we know she did it or you wouldn't be here." Begrudgingly I nodded in agreement.

"Everybody fucks," said old Ike. "They fuck or they jack off."

"If you say so."

"Say sonny, your cocks getting real juicy with slickum. Want old Ike tolick some of it away?"

"You wouldn't."

Ike licked his lips as he kept his hand pistoning up and down his hard cock. "You might be surprised what old Ike might do if he was in the mood for a taste of what comes out of a hard cock."

And that is what he proceeded to do. He sucked me dry.

Then he erupted in half-a-dozen spurts shooting out and onto the dirt floor of the potting shed. He gave his cock a flip and shucked t back into his overalls. He unwrapped a sandwich from its wax paper and proceed to eat without washing his hands. He took a bite and chewed. "Nothing like it boy, a good jacking clears the cobwebs from your crotch and gives a man an appetite."

---

The following day, We skipped the preliminaries. We dropped our pants. Ike got down on his knees and sucked me until I was hard and good and wet before he stood and turned.

"C'mon boy, Shove that pretty cock up old Ike's tight, brown hole and massage old Ike's prostate.

Ike bent forward and gripped the edge of the potting bench. The lean, white cheeked buttocks parted slightly and exposed the dark brown, crinkly, puckered star of his asshole. "Now you go slow and ease it along until you've got it all the way in," he cautioned. "This old ass craves your young cock but it don't want too much too soon. You've got to let this old hole stretch to accommodate you."

"Are you sure you want to do this?"

"Easy boy, easy," he cautioned. "You feel a lot bigger than you look. Put a little more spit in your cock."

"It's awfully tight. I don't know if it's going to go or not."

"It'll go," said Ike. "There's been bigger boys than you up the old shit chute."

I slipped in the the last few inches.. "It's all in."

"I can tell," said Ike. "Your cock hairs are tickling my ass."

"Are you ready," I asked.

"How are you liking old Ike's hairy asshole so far?"

"It's real tight."

"Tighter than your fist?"

"Might be."

"Ready to throw a fuck into a man that reminds you of your grandpa."

"I reckon."

"I want you should do old Ike one more favor."

"What?"

While you're pumpin' my ass, would you reach around and play with my dick like you would your own? Would you do that for an old man?"

I reached around and took hold of his hard cock sticking out straight in front of him. I pilled the skin back and then pulled it up and over the expanded glans. I felt my own cock expand inside him as I manipulated his staff in my fingers. I imagined that my cock extended through him and I was playing with what came out the other side of him.

"C'mon, boy, ram that big cock up the old shitter and make me know it. God Damn! tickle that old prostate and make old Ike come!"

I came. And I came. Ike's tightened up on my cock and I throbbed Roman Candle bursts into that brown hole as I pressed into him. His hairy, scrawny ass flattened against my crotch and we were joined as tightly as two humans can be.

"A man's not a man till he's come in another man." said old Ike. "You made it, boy. But still, a man's not a man till he's had a hard cock poked up his ass at least once."

Every time I think of that scene, I get another hard-on. Then I remember the next day when old Ike returned the favor.

I never have managed to come that hard again. If only Ike were here.

I predict a poop upon this article (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21309439)

I am pooping on this article because ibm. You have been informed!!!

Re:I predict a poop upon this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21309987)

Actually, are you familiar with the Gooch strategy? [wikimedia.org]

Agreed (3, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309441)

With the advent of PVR's and increasingly sofisticated adblocking software as well as do not call lists, there is a growing trend that people are sick to death of all the advertising in their lives.

the world is fucking saturated in the stuff, and something has to give.

I know i'm personally sick to death of mobile phone dating scams and panty liner ads being marketed to me on TV.

IBM helped the Nazis (-1, Troll)

jihadist (1088389) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309451)

So now they're helping Google. Has anyone else figured out that "business trends" are almost always death for the environment, the few smart humans left and anything else that requires more than a 2.5sec attention span to appreciate?

Norman Mailer is dead (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21309453)

I just heard some sad news on the radio - Norman Mailer is dead. There were not any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you did not enjoy his work, there is no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

I piss on his grave (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21309489)

I piss on his grave.

Re:Norman Mailer is dead (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21309995)

Has netcraft confirmed it?

Norman Mailer & feminism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21310185)

I wonder whether the obituarists will recall Mailer's dissent from the first wave of feminism in the early 1970's. Given his own notorious marital relationships, it was hard to take him seriously as a sexual philosopher. I nevertheless read and enjoyed The Prisoner of Sex, though too long ago to vouch for it now. But among the recollections of Mailer worth bringing to mind is one that reader Bob Day sent us a while back regarding a Mailer lecture at the Unversity of Colorado dating from that era:


        After an overlong and fawning introduction, Mr. Mailer waited offstage (obviously prolonging the applause), then strutted out, his shoulders pulled back, dressed all in black. At the time he was quite well known for antagonizing women's libbers, so there was quite a contingent of sign waving female protestors, and some males as well.

        As he began to speak in his rapid fire and theatrical style, he was often heckled from the large audience. Most of this had to do with his supposedly misogynistic leanings. After 10 minutes or so, he decided to respond, telling the audience he would be happy to deal with the shouters directly. He then challenged them to "hiss me resoundingly," which they did with some gusto. He then derided their effort and commitment, telling them how puny was their voice, and implored them to do better. The response was much bigger the next time, with lots of profanity and vile name calling. Mailer stood there stoically receiving their rage.

        When the din had mostly died down and people were waiting for his response, Mailer simply looked out over the audience and said, "Thank you, obedient bitches."

        The tension had gotten just high enough, and the anticipation was certainly high enough, so that this perfect piece of theatrical verbal judo caused the room to explode with screams, hoots, laughter and sustained applause. I have never seen before or since such a wonderful performance.

        Of course, though the protesters were afraid to open their mouths thereafter, that didn't stop one of them from going back to their dorm room and calling in a bomb threat. It was the perfect end piece to a perfect evening.

heh... and it's all going to get more annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21309461)

get ready to update your adblock extensions!

Advertisers will become more devious (4, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309485)

The technology already exists to almost completely avoid adverts. PVRs, downloading, adblock plugins, spam filters etc. I never recognise any of the ads when forced to watch them at a friends house.

The solution advertisers will come up with is to be more devious. More ads in more annoying places, that are harder to avoid. Mass astroturfing, product placement, adware etc. It's no wonder Microsoft are filing patents for ad delivery at the OS level - they could become the only people capable of delivering ads at all.

Re:Advertisers will become more devious (1)

N-icMa (1149777) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309679)

The alternative is of course to make advertising that isn't annoying. That way there would be no need of blocking it. Google Adsense and beer commercials come to mind as examples of non-annoying ads.

Not that I say that that the 'I, Robot' approach wouldn't also be taken, but ads on the OS level would be just one more reason not to use Windows.

Re:Advertisers will become more devious (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309899)

"Google Adsense and beer commercials come to mind as examples of non-annoying ads."

FTFS (From the F*** Summary: "Distributors will need to deliver targeted, interactive advertising for a range of multimedia devices."

I do NOT want beer ads (or even text ads) on my cell phone under ANY conditions. SMS spam was bad enough!

Advertising that lies (and a lot of it lies) is one of the reasons consumers are so dumb nowadays - so-called "fruit drinks made with natural flavors" is a good example of this sort of crap.

Re:Advertisers will become more devious (3, Interesting)

pokerdad (1124121) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309729)

The technology already exists to almost completely avoid adverts.

As you point out yourself, its all about being devious, though I wonder from your choice of words if you recognize how much this is already going on. Obviously many of these deals are made away from the public eye, so you can only guess as to their existence, but if you watch closely there are clues; on a couple of my favourite shows I have noticed that anytime a character is using a computer it is a Dell, and since noticing this I have come to realise that a good clean shot of the Dell logo occurs at least once per episode.

Your point about the MS patent makes me wonder if the difference between home and business versions of the next MS OS will be ads vs no-ads.

Re:Advertisers will become more devious (0)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310403)

if you watch closely there are clues; on a couple of my favourite shows I have noticed that anytime a character is using a computer it is a ****, and since noticing this I have come to realise that a good clean shot of the **** logo occurs at least once per episode.
Ok, so you only recently noticed the common practice of product placement.
But please, don't be their bitch, stop giving them free advertising by spreading the trademarked brand name.

Unless you're willfully giving them free advertising to reward their sponsorship of the show you enjoy, in which case you'd have a legitimate reason to act this way.
Most people, however, just unwittingly participate in viral marketing for no good reason whatsoever.

Re:Advertisers will become more devious (1)

ardle (523599) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310901)

anytime a character is using a computer it is a Dell
What's more, that Dell runs an Apple OS! And the program delivers relevant messages - if only real life were like that...

Re:Advertisers will become more devious (1)

ardle (523599) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310981)

Yes, advertising is devious: it has been so for at least a century [google.com] . We are becoming cynical and I'm sure that most readers assumed that a company that announces future trends intends to benefit from those trends, i.e. this "report" is somewhere between a product launch (aimed an media companies) and FUD.
I'm sure that IBM has learnt from Microsoft's DRM experience that they can sell a technology to another company in the full knowledge that it cannot do what they say it does and that they are largely free from liability for this failure because the "point of failure" is human.
It's like selling faulty weapons to criminals :-)

The solution is simple (0, Troll)

NoMaster (142776) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309951)

The solution advertisers will come up with is to be more devious. More ads in more annoying places, that are harder to avoid. Mass astroturfing, product placement, adware etc.
Really, the solution is simple and it's in our very hands. If you can put on a pair of gloves, or wear a watch without it falling onto the ground as you walk, you have the tools to stop this sort of crap.

Put simply, it is this: If you know or meet someone in advertising or marketing, punch them in the face as hard as you can.

No, this isn't some Bill Hicks-like rant. Just think about how all-pervasive advertising and marketing is - it's everywhere, it's inescapable, and it serves no purpose other than to separate you from your money. On top of that, in every waking moment - from the minute you get up and put on your clothes or make your breakfast, to the second you turn out the light at night - in a million different little ways, it impinges on your mental environment. In itself 99% of it is of no benefit to you, it's existence is detrimental to society as a whole, and there's a whole industry devoted to finding ways of force-feeding you more of it. In modern society, about the only thing you encounter more often than advertising is air molecules.

The only way they'll stop hurting you is if you hurt them first. Remember that next time you find yourself idly whistling a jingle...

Re:The solution is simple (2, Insightful)

dnixon112 (663069) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309999)

I guess you owe CowboyNeal a punch in the face for having the audacity to run an advertising driven website.

Re:The solution is simple (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310183)

I'd line up to give him a punch in the face for putting flash based ads on /. for sure.

The thing is, advertising doesn't HAVE to be painful. I understand you have to get the word out some how, but do websites need to run a 400x400 flash ad with music right over the top of what i'm trying to read? I know i refuse to purchase anything from the companys these kinds of advert represent.

does /. have advertising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21310563)

Who knew?

hosts
0 pixel.quantserve.com
et al

Re:The solution is simple (1)

spaglia2 (1187227) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310505)

But it IS a proven fact that 87.5% of all "going postal" incidents are a direct result of advertising overload!

Re:The solution is simple (4, Funny)

pyrrhonist (701154) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310547)

Really, the solution is simple and it's in our very hands. If you can put on a pair of gloves,

I agree with you completely. Also, if you can put on a pair of gloves, why not Isotoner gloves to Ease pain and swelling (tm)?

or wear a watch without it falling onto the ground as you walk, you have the tools to stop this sort of crap.

Not to worry! If you buy a Timex, you can rest assured that it takes a licking and keeps on ticking (tm)!

Put simply, it is this: If you know or meet someone in advertising or marketing, punch them in the face as hard as you can.

How about a nice Hawaiian Punch? (tm)

No, this isn't some Bill Hicks-like rant. Just think about how all-pervasive advertising and marketing is - it's everywhere, it's inescapable, and it serves no purpose other than to separate you from your money.

That's why I always choose to carry the American Express Card. If someone takes it, I have the peace of mind that any unauthorized purchases are completely refundable. Membership has its privileges (tm).

On top of that, in every waking moment - from the minute you get up and put on your clothes or make your breakfast

And what makes a breakfast complete? Kellogs Raisin Bran, of course! There's two scoops in every box (tm). Delicious!

to the second you turn out the light at night - in a million different little ways, it impinges on your mental environment.

I hate it when too much light impinges on me when it's time to go to bed. That's why I use The Clapper to turn out the lights. Clap On, Clap Off, The Clapper (tm)!

In itself 99% of it is of no benefit to you, it's existence is detrimental to society as a whole, and there's a whole industry devoted to finding ways of force-feeding you more of it. In modern society, about the only thing you encounter more often than advertising is air molecules.

And what better way to cool those air molecules than with an award winning air conditioner from Trane? It's hard to stop a Trane (tm).

The only way they'll stop hurting you is if you hurt them first. Remember that next time you find yourself idly whistling a jingle...

Need to stop hurting fast? Extra Strength Excedrin's combination of acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine starts working in just 15 minutes! The pain stops. You don't (tm).

You've been reading Slashdot.
Slashdot is supported by grants from these corporations and from viewers like you.

Re:The solution is simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21310575)

Whatchdog journalism comes out of ad-supported media. Decades of television shows (you know, the ones you watch) come out of ad-supported media. The Web sites you want to read (at least the ones that get the most traffic) are possible because of ad-supported media.

Get TiVo and skip the commercials.

Re:The solution is simple (1)

transcendent.monkey (1187365) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310577)

I agree absolutely, punch us in the face. I'm a student in a digital arts program; digital arts is a nice way of saying graphic design, which is a nice way of saying advertising. I've opted to shun the marketting end of it and just absorb the photoshop knowledge from here on. The outlook for your mental health is pretty bleak, and its expecially obvious if you have an education in it. If you are especially pissed off about advertising, a site you may like is adbusters.org [adbusters.org]

Re:Advertisers will become more devious (1)

wicka (985217) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310693)

I think a lot of people would switch to Linux or OS X if the choice was between ads (Windows) and no ads. Of course, Apple would probably just add in 3D transparent ads and people would love them.

Re:Advertisers will become more devious (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310885)

More ads in more annoying places, that are harder to avoid. Mass astroturfing, product placement, adware etc.


Actually, product placement isn't that new. It's quite old, dating back to plain old radio itself. Except then, they tended to be a bit more blatant... "This radio show is brought to you buy XXXX soap - cleans better and faster!". They would actually do it during the show itself. When TV came about, the same things occurred - you'd have the actors/actresses/newsanchors/etc suddenly place the product in their hand and do an in-show ad. I don't know exactly when the explicit commercial breaks started happening, though, but it's probably a fairly recent (past 50-60 years) thing. About the closest you get to the old ads would be to watch The Price is Right these days.

As for noticing it, well, take some TV shows and watch the extremes they go to covering up product logos and what not. Most of the time, you can easily identify the product in question, but the logo is covered up with black tape or something. Sometimes, they did a nice job and cut the tape to the logo's border, so you can make out the logo still. Is this any better than just showing it's a Dell laptop, or a Sony laptop, or an Apple laptop? Could it also be seen as insulting the audience when you see a metallic grey laptop with the Apple logo on the back covered by some black circle? Many products aren't very generic looking these days, and often have unique styling that makes it easily recognizable what it really is.

I suppose everyone could just go and use those cardboard mockups like they have in furniture stores...

Re:Advertisers will become more devious (1)

Beefpatrol (1080553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311215)

It is fairly obvious to me at this point that advertisers are going to have to totally change how they do things. First of all, most of the people I know *cannot stand* advertisements that can't easily be ignored. The last thing I want is more distractions. Getting anything done is hard enough as it is. Reading websites that have obnoxious flashing ads on them arouses in me nothing but a desire to wage war on the asshats that are trying to prevent me from doing what I intended to do, which almost certainly had nothing to do with the advertiser or whatever they are touting. I don't think people will be willing to pay more for TV -- the good content occupies a very small percentage of channel hours. Between PVRs and growing intolerance of distraction, I don't see any future for the traditional advertising businesses. Then again, I am also strange in that I just don't care about a lot of popular culture. My wife, on the other hand, seems to just totally ignore commercials that aren't entertaining. When I have casually complained about TV and all the commercials, she has mentioned that she has seen a growing trend in commercials that attempt to amuse viewers instead of pathetically trying to ram things into people's heads. I have to admit, some of the Geico commercials are pretty humorous the first couple of times you see them. I suppose in the case of the "Mr. Jiggy Fly" Geico commercial, among other Geico commercials, the ad must have worked in my case -- I did end up changing car insurance companies, which I probably wouldn't have done had the commercials been just another patronizing attempt to get me to believe that product X is far superior than all other options and will probably improve my sex life.

press release (3, Informative)

statemachine (840641) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309495)

And submitted by tech.luver, who is racing with ponca down the the bottom of the pit where roland lives.

All these people want to do is promote their blogs. If /. would not directly link these people's names to any other website than /. these people will go away.

Re:press release (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309569)

I hear of lot of this complaining, and yet nobody starts their own site instead. If you REALLY think this is the way to go, go start your own site and feel free to link it back here with 'stories' that link to your blog. Everyone else does.

Re:press release (1)

statemachine (840641) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309621)

So the solution to the problem is to become part of the problem? Did you drink your coffee today?

Re:press release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21310033)

Granted, it is a press release, there is still a formidable amount of research being presented in the two pdfs. And in tech.luver's defense, the only link to their site is at their own name; everything else goes to IBM material. Roland, on the other hand, would send you to his blog which would then send you to another blog which maybe then you'd get a link to an actual summary of the presented material.

And IBM finally noticed the obvious. (3, Insightful)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309501)

This is not new. The upheaval in the advertising industry has been causing a change for the past five years. Even the largest ad agencies have made broad changes to their operating structure and moved to a much more dynamic and multi-media format.

Media giants (NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, CBC, ITV, etc., etc.) have embraced this change months and/or years ago and are moving their sales to much more targetted audiences, with the exception of prime time mega-shows.

Media buying agencies have stopped looking only at Nielsen data and circulation data (reach and frequency figures) and are using far more types of information to make their choices. The 10,000 digital cable channels and the explosive growth of on-line advertising forced that a long time ago.

All of these groups (perhaps except IBM, who just woke up) have been looking at how people watch and segmenting them by attitude, life stage and much more than age and income. Especially when the advertisers are using a combination of TV, Radio, Internet and maybe even print (there still is printed stuff out there, right? It's not all just bits, now?). The amount of information used to make decisions is growing.

I, for one, welcome our Google media overlords.

Re:And IBM finally noticed the obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21310037)

I, for one, welcome our Google media overlords

you went from 5 to 4 with that last pathetic line

Re:And IBM finally noticed the obvious. (1)

Reaperducer (871695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310099)

Exactly. Computer and internet companies are like 14-year-old girls. They like to pretend that only they can invent new things and anything older than them is obsolete.

Media companies change. Even the giants. It's the part that IBM, Google, et.al. don't see or won't admit. Both Google and IBM use newspapers to advertise. What does that tell you?

150 years ago newspaper was going to drive the spoken word out of business. It didn't.
70 years ago radio was going to drive newspapers out of business. It didn't.
50 years ago TV was going to drive radio out of business. It didn't.
30 years ago CompuServe was going to drive wire companies out of business. It didn't.
10 years ago AOL was going to drive TV out of business. It didn't.

Ten years from now there will be some new technology that someone will declare is going to drive the internet out of business. It won't. Technology changes. It rarely just ends.

Re:And IBM finally noticed the obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21310737)

Ten years from now there will be some new technology that someone will declare is going to drive the internet out of business. It won't. Technology changes. It rarely just ends.

Er, I'm having a hard time imagining "some new technology" that's fundamentally different enough from the Internet that it can claim to "drive the internet out of business". I mean, sure, we may not use computers to access the Internet any more (such as mobile devices like smart phones), but it's still the Internet. We may build new infrastructure that'll support faster networks, like Internet 2, but it's still the same model as the Internet. Even P2P (which is quite different from the usual server-client model) works inside of, not outside of, the Internet.

To draw a poor analogy, the world governments have gone from: local participatory democracy (word of mouth) => despotism/monarchy (newspapers) => feudalism (radios) => representative democracy (TVs), and perhaps soon, participatory democracy that can finally be scaled all the way up to national or global scale (Internet). Where do you go from here but down?

Re:And IBM finally noticed the obvious. (1)

jthill (303417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310809)

When it comes to computers, anything older than IBM is obsolete.

Somehow I don't think the company that decided to invest a billion dollars in GPL'd Linux is suffering an excess of NIH.

Re:And IBM finally noticed the obvious. (2, Interesting)

Ox0065 (1085977) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310171)

Google are among a very few groups who consistently manage to place well targeted adds in front of me.
Sometimes the degree to which they are successfully targeted gets a little scary...

One of the others is IBM. They really are very good at it. They suddenly made a MASSIVE improvement from my perspective about six months after Steve Jobs declared PowerPC dead. IBM went from silent antiquated zero to cutting edge reliable voice of reason. Would anyone care to compare dates?

I think what this is saying is more like:
"This has really been working for us. If you aren't selling us advertising like this, you can stop wasting everyone's time"

and now you know.

Re:And IBM finally noticed the obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21310449)

Personally, I advocate that advertisers should concentrate on DRM stuff (commercial, proprietary, all that stuff marketing types just love). Since I avoid anything DRM related, I won't be bothered by all that crap. Go MS! Go DRM! Sell that crap to the ignorant masses, and leave the intelligent, non-DRM, noncommercial, linux people types in peace.

Re:And IBM finally noticed the obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21310517)

Umm...printed stuff is out there, bigtime. For lcoal sources of news, newspapers outrank thier online competitors by huge margins. More than half of adults read newspapers (in their printed form) alone. Add in magazines and other niche pubs and the differece is truly stricking and completly counter to mainstream thinking. The IBM report speaks to growth. Online is getting the growth, but it is still big percentage gains over reletaviely smaller numbers.

Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21309505)

Allow me to summarize the summary:

"In the future, advertising will still be >95% buzzwords, such that entire paragraphs of text have no content whatsoever."

"predicts"? (1)

mincognito (839071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309541)

IBM is "forecasting" what has already happened and what everyone in the industry already knows. Their study is simply an assessment of the present moment. They are "predicting" -- or rather, strongly encouraging by way of statistical evidence -- that the big corporate laggards in their customer base will/should get with the program, preferably IBM's, as soon as possible.

Re:"predicts"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21309791)

IBM predicted that world demand would be satisfied with five computers. They also thought there would be no harm in outsourcing operating systems. No profit there after all. Right?


If IBM told me the sun was going to rise tomorrow, I'd get a tarot reading just to be sure.

Re:"predicts"? (2, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311221)

IBM predicted that world demand would be satisfied with five computers. They also thought there would be no harm in outsourcing operating systems. No profit there after all. Right?


If IBM told me the sun was going to rise tomorrow, I'd get a tarot reading just to be sure.

Two points. First it is Thomas J. Watson who it is claimed said that the world would never need more than five computers. The best evidence is that he never said it. It appears that this is a mis attribution of a misquote of a different computer experthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson [wikipedia.org] . Second, the reason that IBM outsourced the operating system for the first PC is because they were in the middle of a protracted and difficult antitrust lawsuit by the Justice Department. If they had developed the OS in house as an IBM proprietary product, it would have led to significant further complications of a court case where there was reason to believe that the Justice Department was going to do to them what it had done to AT&T only a couple years previously--break them up into multiple companies.

This is like predicting (1)

10e6Steve (545457) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309557)

rain when the creek has already flooded.

The only interaction I want with advertising... (2, Informative)

analog_line (465182) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309567)

...is stopping it dead in its tracks. And as far as targetted ads go, I prefer targetting ads before they can target me.

Re:The only interaction I want with advertising... (1)

Sergeant Pepper (1098225) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309627)

The only interaction I want with advertising is stopping it dead in its tracks
I hate advertising as much as the next guy, but isn't it a necessary evil? Without advertising, so many things that are free would now would have to be paid for. Yes, places make a lot of profits on advertisements, so they could settle for less. But they would still need to make more money.

WARNING: NUMBERS ARE COMPLETELY MADE UP

Say right now cable companies get $200 per person per month, with the amount you pay plus the amount they receive for ads. Say that 50% of that is pure profit, or $100 dollars. So, even if they made $0 in profits, you would still need to pay $100 per month. Would you rather that your bill is increased to that or that you need to tune out 10 minutes of ads for every 30 minutes of TV you watch? Personally, I am willing to put up with 20 minutes of ads every hour for saving that much money.

Re:The only interaction I want with advertising... (1)

Wildclaw (15718) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309915)

But the ads aren't free. For every dollar an ad costs it redirects more than one dollar of your spendings to another product, or it wouldn't be worth spending the money on the ad in the first place. (This is statistically speaking over the whole population of course)

And where does the money that the advertisers pay the cable company come from. It is added to the cost of the products you buy of course.

Re:The only interaction I want with advertising... (1)

Sergeant Pepper (1098225) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309925)

But all the cost is not being pushed back to you. It's similar to how insurance works. They know that even if one individual gets in a ton of car accidents or something, they may lose money on that specific individual. But if there's one thousand other people who never get hurt, they're going to make money in the long run. It's similar to ads, only the opposite. If there's one thousand people that never buy something, they're losing money there. But if even a few people do buy something, they're still making money.

Re:The only interaction I want with advertising... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310011)

"Say right now cable companies get $200 per person per month, with the amount you pay plus the amount they receive for ads."

Cable companies don't get the ad revenue for ads, except for shows they own, and they would get that anyway.

Digital recorders are now under $100.00, so you can just record your shows to a dvd-rw and skip over all the ads. Separate "ads" are "sooo lasssst cennnntuuury!"

Re:The only interaction I want with advertising... (1)

Sergeant Pepper (1098225) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310067)

Cable companies don't get the ad revenue for ads, except for shows they own, and they would get that anyway.
Doesn't make my point any less valid, it just changes where the money goes to.

Digital recorders are now under $100.00, so you can just record your shows to a dvd-rw and skip over all the ads.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. I said it would be unfeasible to remove ads altogether.

Re:The only interaction I want with advertising... (1)

Reaperducer (871695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310117)

Cable companies don't get the ad revenue for ads, except for shows they own, and they would get that anyway.
Depends on your cable company. On most cable TV shows on popular channels, the last couple of ads of the break are inserted by the cable company which gets the money. The technology for doing so has become so cheap over the years that even small cable companies can do it. Most people don't notice until they change to satellite or move to a place with a different cable company.

How much would you pay for TV? (5, Interesting)

yotto (590067) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309585)

When Coke realizes that nobody's watching their commercials, it may get expensive to watch Heroes.

I don't know how much advertising (that I don't watch, thanks to my DVR) subsidizes my TV watching, but I do know that I wouldn't pay that much more than I currently pay for TV. Does that mean the end of TV? I like a small number of shows. If they're too expensive for me to pay for (or worse, too expensive for enough people, but not me, so the shows go bankrupt even though I'd happily pay) will I lament the good old days when the corporations helped fund them?

Is that worse than it is now?

I don't know. But this post is brought to you by Gatorade, with the electrolytes that plants love.

Re:How much would you pay for TV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21309787)

Mod this redundant, if you must... But awesome reference with the Gatorade... Awesome movie :)

Re:How much would you pay for TV? (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309857)

Things will shift, but there is too much potential money in mass entertainment for it to disappear. Even if the monetary return per eyeball watching drops, anything that can convince several million people to tune in, or whatever the future equivalent, will be worth cash to someone.

My guess? Direct downloads supported by 'channels' that serve up the first few episodes of random series to get people interested. Different series will aim at very niche markets. You really don't need a very large percentage of the population to support a TV series. Roughly 200,000 people (which is nothing when your potential audience is everyone worldwide) paying up $2-$3 (aka pocket change) per episode and you have a reliable budget of a half million per. You can make some damn fine television for $500,000 an episode.

Already been tried with other products ... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310045)

>"My guess? Direct downloads supported by 'channels' that serve up the first few episodes of random series to get people interested. Different series will aim at very niche markets. You really don't need a very large percentage of the population to support a TV series. Roughly 200,000 people (which is nothing when your potential audience is everyone worldwide) paying up $2-$3 (aka pocket change) per episode and you have a reliable budget of a half million per. You can make some damn fine television for $500,000 an episode."

What you just described is known as trial-ware (aka crippleware, adware, etc). Remember all those shareware and demo programs that "if only a small percentage of potential buyers pay for it, we'll be rich"? All those game demos - so many, that nobody ever paid for anything, because there were too many demos around. Play one for an hour, get bored, play another for 15 minutes, get bored, ...

Re:Already been tried with other products ... (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310147)

Well, as of January, Apple claims to have sold over 50 million episodes of various series through iTunes. The framework is there, and so is the proof of concept. Give it a couple years.

Besides, as far as I can tell, the demo model for games seems to work. At the very least, someone thinks it does. Many new games release a demo before launch. WoW has frequent 14 day trial periods. One of the most popular features on XBox live are demo downloads. So, the people with the money seem to think it works.

Re:How much would you pay for TV? (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311175)

Interesting idea, except it cuts out the 70-80% of the people without an Internet connection fast enough to watch video. Download it? It would only take a whole evening to do so with a slow DSL or dial-up connection. Unless you think the show is watchable at 176x120.

Yeah, someday television might be replaced by the Internet. Not anytime soon, though with your average TV running $100 or less and your cheapest computer at $500 or so. And the really low-end computers aren't going to be great for video.

Re:How much would you pay for TV? (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311301)

By the time the technology is in place to seriously compromise the add revenues of traditional broadcast, the same technology will be in place to (potentially) replace it. For every house with a TiVo or Media Centre in place to skip commercials there is one more house to sell direct downloads to. Right now? No. Soon? Sooner than many expect.

Re:How much would you pay for TV? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309993)

I don't know how much advertising (that I don't watch, thanks to my DVR) subsidizes my TV watching, but I do know that I wouldn't pay that much more than I currently pay for TV.

Most TV shows are available on DVD. These generally come with no commercials. I've been watching Heroes on HD-DVD.

Maybe they wouldn't exist if not for the advertising, but I somehow doubt that. After all, where do summer blockbuster movies get their money? Generally not advertising, at least, not much.

Re:How much would you pay for TV? (1)

Reaperducer (871695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310141)

The production companies LOVE when people watch TV shows on DVD -- it's another big revenue stream with virtually no overhead.

Unfortunately, as long as people are happy paying through the nose for what they used to record for free the TV production companies won't see any reason to offer shows at a reasonable price on iTunes or another service.

Sometimes I wonder if all the schedule changing isn't just a ploy to keep people from regularly recording the shows they like, so they end up getting them on DVD beacuse it's easier.

Re:How much would you pay for TV? (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310871)

Maybe they wouldn't exist if not for the advertising, but I somehow doubt that. After all, where do summer blockbuster movies get their money? Generally not advertising, at least, not much.
Product placement. When the product placement that is bundled with advertising is allocated to part of the spending, PDMedia estimates that product placement is closer to $7B in value, rising to $10B by 2010. [wikipedia.org]

Re:How much would you pay for TV? (1)

gertam (1019200) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310081)

Comin' up next on The Violence Channel: An all-new "Ow, My Balls!"

Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Carl's Jr..."Fuck You, I'm Eating."

Re:How much would you pay for TV? (1)

baomike (143457) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310133)

>
Wont cost anymore than it does now. What is "Heroes"?

Seriously; SPIKE has already passed the limit.

I would pay less. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21310279)

Considering the subsidies I am paying to Comcast for 100+ channels I never ever watch, I am willing to pay much, much less to watch TV with no commercials. I long for a world where every channel is a 'premium' channel so I can pay only for the ones I actually want to watch. Much better for the TV channels to be answerable to the consumer and not the advertisers.

Re:How much would you pay for TV? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310321)

I don't think it will be a problem. I can't imagine that a single episode of Heroes actually needs to cost more than say, I don't know, $5 million to produce. Even if only 10 million people like it enough to pay $0.50, that's enough. Look at what shows cost on iTunes and note that people actually go ahead and pay for them.

Re:How much would you pay for TV? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310429)

When Coke realizes that nobody's watching their commercials, it may get expensive to watch Heroes.
The heroes will simply start drinking more coke, talk standing in front of more coke machines and coke billboards, buy more new cars, shop in particular stores because of their low prices and good quality, etc.

I want to eat dog (-1, Troll)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309619)

but don't live anywhere near Korea. What are my options? Maybe a targeted ad could help....

As users get more choice, advrters must get bolder (2, Informative)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309675)

As users get more choice, advertisers must get bolder. Why? Because people are unaware of products and services.

So expect advertisers to pull more and more stunts (for the sake of the economy and with the blessing of govt. of course).

For example the forced sitting through a boring 20 second ad that doesnt even mention the product until the very end. Full screen web ads should get to the point within 1 or 2 seconds MAX.

If people only par for and download online the tv shows they like .. people would no longer watch ads on TV. So the only thing advertisers can do is put intrusive advertising on webpages .. but eventually users will reject and move on from that.

And so they will resort to buy mailing lists and sending spam.

That's why I am going to have to resort to using a different email for every thing I sign up for.

I mean the service provided by mailinator is good .. but it's easier just having a domain name and being able to block emails getting sent to a particular adress.

So for example lets say slashdot was my domain .. if I sign on using backslashdot@slashdot.org for a company's mailing list .. and I find out they have been selling that email address I can just block that particular email address. All other @slashdot emails sent to me would work.

Note, I am not against advertising .. I click on web ads if they inform me of inventive stuff I could really use.

Re:As users get more choice, advrters must get bol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21309843)

or.................use *1* address for anything you think is going to spam you?

Or make people WANT to watch them. (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310079)

I could point to lots of examples -- the most recent is likely the Mac/PC ads, which I went out of my way to watch. Another would have to be the Chuck Norris / Mountain Dew ads.

Most ads are utterly forgettable, except for the conditioning they do -- or they're just really annoying, like "punch the monkey". Some ads, particularly Google text ads, can be helpful without being in the way.

But the best ads are the ones that are entertaining enough that you actively seek them out. (That, and complete grassroots -- NOT astroturf -- I drink Mountain Dew mostly because of The Whiteboard [the-whiteboard.com] .

Re:As users get more choice, advrters must get bol (1)

Reaperducer (871695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310191)

Note, I am not against advertising .. I click on web ads if they inform me of inventive stuff I could really use.
I do the same thing, but it's all problematic, isn't it?

Advertising wouldn't be so annoying if it didn't show me ads I don't care about. If I could watch the Discovery Channel without ads for car insurance (don't have a car), mortgage refinancing (don't have a mortgage), or intimate feminine products (don't have girly bits) I would be happier.

If the shows had ads for things I actually cared about I might watch through the commercial break. But in order for that to happen, I'd have to give up a lot of personal information, which we're all reluctant to do. Properly targeted ads will get watched. But there's no way to generate targeting without raising privacy concerns.

Internet ads are slightly better because they can at least geo-target me and have an idea what kind of page I'm already looking at. But when it comes to TV, radio(!), and other media I'm not sure what the solution is.

Re:As users get more choice, advrters must get bol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21310651)

In fact, being able to selectively read advertising is the foundation of newspapers. This is an ideal situation for the 50 percent of U.S. adults that read newspapers. I get my Best Buy, Circuit City and Fry's ad every Sunday and can then buy based on that. These ads support the content that I want to read and are there for when I want them.

Some insight for the advertisers (4, Interesting)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309681)

Personally, I HATE any website that has animated advertising of any type. When I'm trying to read an article, whether its somebodies personal blog or a major news corporation, I find animation of any type highly distracting. The animation always distracts my eyes from reading the article that I'm actually interested in. Rather than put up with distracting advertisements I make use of various tools to block Flash, animated gifs, etc. If those don't work for a particular website then I simply stop visiting those sites. For example, I used to visit the ABC news website (abcnews.com) on a regular basis but ever since their last couple of "upgrades" to their website I've avoided them like the plague. I find their use animation on their front page extremely annoying. Back when they had a more static home page I would visit their site on a daily basis, but they've effectively driven me away from all the "glitz" they've added. I now go elsewhere for the news and won't got back to ABC news any time soon. They need to realize that animated makeovers that do nothing more than demonstrate that their designers know all about "Web 2.0", CSS, etc. has a huge potential for turning away potential visitors.

Re:Some insight for the advertisers (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309985)

In the bad old days of programming, we called the gratuitous use of color the "Christmas Tree Effect".

Subtlety is the key to elegance, and in that regard most commercial sites have a loooong way to go.

Re:Some insight for the advertisers (2, Funny)

daddyrief (910385) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310031)

Great ad placement, ABC shill ;)

Re:Some insight for the advertisers (1)

Reaperducer (871695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310201)

Personally, I HATE any website that has animated advertising of any type. When I'm trying to read an article, whether its somebodies personal blog or a major news corporation, I find animation of any type highly distracting. The animation always distracts my eyes from reading the article that I'm actually interested in.
You can fix that with a pill now, you know [wikipedia.org] .

Audio Advertisements are THE WORST (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310543)

There's nothing worse than going to a web site, and all of a sudden, some jingle pops out.

Re:Some insight for the advertisers (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310611)

I visit Google news often because I find that it's a good place to find a lot of news aggregated into one place. However, I find that a lot of the stories they link to are on terrible site, with tons of popups, and tooltips on every single word. I often wonder if google has any plans to try to get rid of links to sites with this crap. Google news would really be an amazing service, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the sites it links to are complete tripe.

Re:Some insight for the advertisers (1)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310741)

If you happen to use Firefox, a little trick I learned the other day (but which has probably been there for ages) is to tap the escape key once the page has loaded. It stops animated GIF's dead in their tracks.

- Fellow animated ad hater

Re:Some insight for the advertisers (1)

Mattsson (105422) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311103)

The distracting function of something that moves is exactly what the advertisers want to exploit.
Personally, I've disabled animated gif's and installed Adblock [mozdev.org] and NoScript [mozilla.org] .
This helps me avoid almost all web-advertisement and has the added benefit of getting me rid of annoying flash-intros/interfaces and such crap.

This is great news! (1)

mlawrence (1094477) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309699)

Let's face it - user fees would skyrocket if there was no advertising. I'd rather watch advertisements that cater to my interests, rather than tampon commercials!

Re:This is great news! (1)

JoeInnes (1025257) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309863)

Yeah, I agree. I don't mind advertising, as long as it's subtle. The problem is though, most advertising isn't subtle. This leads me to do my best to turn off adverts, with adblockers, flicking channels in the breaks, etc. So, it's going to take a lot of hard work for the advertising industry to convince me that they're not really evil, and to become subtle. For example, I don't mind a tasteful, relevant banner ad on a website. I do mind flashing animated gifs telling me that I've won because I'm the twenty-twelfth visitor to the site. I don't mind billboards while I'm driving, but I do mind having to turn my T.V. down every fifteen minutes because the adverts are louder than the programme I'm trying to watch.

Just my thoughts.

Re:This is great news! (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309917)

I'd rather watch no ads, and ask the web site to compete for my money with their materials. But as it stands now, with NoScript and AdBlock Plus I see no ads whatsoever, and pages load very fast. I'd sooner avoid a site than watch an ad.

Re:This is great news! (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310213)

Without advertising though, the cost of everything we buy would be less. So, instead of a mass of TV you don't like but pay for anyway buy buying anything but fresh produce at a local farmer's market, you'd only pay for the TV you like. This would save people who have taste money. Those who don't care what they watch, they'll pay more.

Re:This is great news! (1)

Mattsson (105422) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311141)

I'd even settle for paying for channels I like.
At the moment I only have what is included for "free" in my rent. That is 10 channels, of which I watch 2, so I pay for 8 useless channels in my rent.
If I want more channels, I have to subscribe to a packages of channels. The three channels I want are in three different packs, so I would have to pay for about 30 channels to get them!
I'd gladly pay a little more per channel if I could get the 5 channels I want without also getting the other 35 crap channels.

Translation (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 6 years ago | (#21309785)

"Distributors will need to deliver targeted, interactive advertising for a range of multimedia devices."

Dancing aliens for everyone!

What advertising is (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310019)

Lest we forget the purpose of advertising, it's simply a way to make a service/product known to others. It should be obvious that advertising is simply not needed as much now as before. The very existence of my personal website with a few projects is automatically advertised on several web search engines in the form of search results. Like many industries, advertising companies will becomre more of a parasite in the future, attempting to justify its existence (via more advertising, of course!).

Re:What advertising is (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310953)

Yes, but we don't need to be beaten over the head with the same stupid dumb-arsed ad 10 times in one hour.

trO7l (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21310157)

needs OS. Now BSDI

Anybody surprised? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310333)

Sounds more like Google after-effect...

Massive change coming... (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310345)

I can believe that this might happen, but remember that most of what the Internet is today is supported by broadcast advertising. Television is supported by broadcast advertising, on both OTA broadcast and cable channels.

If the bottom were to drop out of broadcast advertising on the Internet, on television, in print publications, we would see a massive contraction in the economy and in all things familiar since the latter half of the 20th century. Most of this growth has been financed and nutured by advertising in one way or another. I believe we could see a contraction back to the 1800's with a far more niche-oriented advertising.

Away from advertising (1)

Kooshman (248753) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310515)

What few people seem to talk about is a complete shift away from advertising. The whole point of ads is to raise awareness of a product, generally with the aim of aggrandizing it or simply perking up desire.

With the internet, it's getting pretty hard to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
With the internet and high-density media, it's no longer necessary to subsidize every kind of content distribution channel with advertising.

Take TV shows. Let's say we're working on a fairly big show with a season budget of $10 million. A DVD box set costs, say, $5 per to produce, and you can sell them for $45. We want to make 15% profit, so our target earnings are $11.5M. If we ship 400k sets, you get $1.6M gross. That leaves $5.5M for advertising, mastering the discs, etc.

Note how this is all *before* you throw a single episode on TV or the 'net. You could sell direct to DVD, and promise not to put them on air before everyone got their shot at the DVD. Then airing becomes the icing on the cake.

I don't know the industry averages, but I know this is a perfectly workable system for at least some shows. Babylon 5 was produced for $10M or less each season, and the DVD sales alone made more than $500M in revenue by 2006. For its 5 seasons, that means there has already been a 1,000%(!) profit margin, since they weren't losing too much money on the original broadcast. And for anybody who's counting the score for copyright lengths, that's before the first season would have left a 14 year protection.

So yes, there will always be advertising. Search engines are showing a great new form, and as news outlets move to digital they may capture something similar. But the idea that every piece of entertainment media has to be paid for by advertisers is a qaint idea of a bygone era.

My life as a target (1)

lingoman (793455) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310873)

I remember clearly the day I started to reject Google cookies

That was a day I was sick to my stomach while traveling for work. You know, flu sick, feverish, throwing-up sick in a hotel room. I was not happy.

I was using my gmail account to complain to my girlfriend. She was sympathetic, but Google ... that's another story.

Being sick, I didn't dwell on the fact that Google reads my mail, and then targets me with what their very intelligent software thinks I want.

Google thought I needed to lose weight, and filled up the right hand column with diet ads. You know, stomach -> (no) appetite -> fat -> diet.

So now I live without Gmail, Google maps, and this and that other thing, but I'm happier.

And I don't care what IBM says.

Loyalty marketing (1)

John3 (85454) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310907)

I own an independent True Value hardware store and for the past three years we've been building a customer loyalty program [wikipedia.org] (True Value Rewards, developed by True Value and Insight Out of Chaos [iooc.com] ). This allows us to avoid the expense and waste of mass media (newspapers, radio, and direct mail flyers) and instead directly mail targeted pieces to our top customers. Some of the big retailers have started to adopt loyalty programs (Tesco is a prime example [loyalty.vg] ) and it will be interesting to see if Target, Home Depot, Wal*Mart and the other big box stores try their hand at loyalty marketing. The trick for them is they are product and price driven...mass purchase of product drives down cost so they can sell for lower prices and still have decent margins. Smaller retailers (like myself) offer local shopping, personal service, and now a "personal" touch via our loyalty program.

Not a New Concept... (1)

minorproblem (891991) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310909)

What bugs me is that his is not a new concept; my father has worked in the radio industry for more than 40 years, he use to be an announcer but these days' works in marketing for one of the big stations down under. I remember him telling me even when i was little how when the salesmen sold ads they targeted the specific ad to a certain audience and income level. As the station was part of a larger network the salesman would go out sell a $50K advertising package and give the customer some broad details. And then come back and then tailor it to the right stations during the right programs etc so that the customer got what would maximise the effectiveness of the ads. Hell the big stations would deny advertisers because they didn't want there station too look tacky and instead run there ads on one of there FM music stations.

Re:Not a New Concept... (1)

minorproblem (891991) | more than 6 years ago | (#21310923)

An interesting story i remember is a small pottery company booking only 10K in advertising during the morning segment just for a week when a lot of home owners are driving to work, one of those ads were the announcer makes it sound like he actually uses the product. Two days later they rang up and booked 80K in advertising as they had been so inundated with people they had apparently made much more in profit than the cost of the advertising in just those two days due to all the customers!

How about the end of advertising? (3, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311285)

A boy can dream, can't he? Yeah, all ads ain't going away but we're a lot closer to doing away with many of them than we were before. I hate commercial radio due to the static playlists and advertising. Online radio lets me get varied content for free with minimal ads; if I pay, I can skip all ads. That's wonderful. Time was when you had to take the ads with the show if you wanted to watch it. The VCR let you skip the ads and now the DVD lets you buy the show directly and is making the possibility of direct-to-DVD distribution of quality first-run shows a real possibility.

Mass media as we know it is so last century -- it had to be big, bulky, and lowest common denominator because that's where the economies of scale lay. "Narrowcasting" was a buzzword that came about during speculation concerning internet video back during the original bubble but it's a buzzword that still means something. If your overhead is low enough, you can turn a reasonable profit catering to a niche, and probably with better margins than trying to broadcast to a larger audience, incurring greater overhead in the process. All of this ad shit we see is just a byproducy of the bygone age. The very first broadcasters realized that they needed something to pay the freight. Advertising became the be-all and end-all of public broadcasting and shows were little more than something to keep you tuned in between commercials. Some really fine art managed to be made in the process but the guys in the suits didn't give a shit, the ads were what captured their fancy.

Well, we can finally say "fuck the networks. Fuck the advertising-supported distribution medium." We've got the internet now and we have proven business models that allow for electronic distribution for a profit. People can directly support the shows they want to watch/listen to and there's no Neilsen ratings crap to deal with. It's clean, honest, and will put a lot of ad-men out of work. I couldn't be happier.

I Predict... (1)

mac1235 (962716) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311491)

Flying cars! And a pony.

Advertising taken the wrong way (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 6 years ago | (#21311639)

Advertising works because you pay attention to something you already know and it continue make you remembering the brand, or it show you something new and you memorize it. But if you are literally drowned in an advertising world, there is so much you can memorize, and either you will memorize only a few good one, or you will memorize negatively the worst one (some of the worst 80th ad showing women in general as dumbwitt blondy made me swear I will never buy from their brand, and yes it was a brand directed at my segment). What I mean is that with an overdosis of ad as we have today, they will be ineffective, and making more ad to appear on more place (OS, fridge, t shirt animated ad, aniamted ad in the U bahn etc...) will make it worse.

Now , for the last 3 years I had no tv, and for the last years I had flashblock, scriptblock, popunder/popover block. I also automatically skip any ad in the middle, not even paying attention of the content of the ad. I am in other word ad-starved. When I go to my friends & family and get a sample of ad from their tv, those have bigger effect on me because I never see ads.

That is food for thought for the marketing and advertiser : maybe a return to minimalism would mean a return to effectiveness....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?