Tivo causing ad changes!?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

So, I caught the latest episode of Monk and right at the very beginning
(the setup, if you will), they are describing the contents of a box of
groceries to be delivered. Obviously small details are important in
Detective shows, but it seemed beyond odd that one of the items
described (both shown prominently and described by voice) was very
specifically "Glad Forceflex trash bags". Sure enough, during the show,
I noticed that there were numerous regular ads for Forceflex bags (just
before I skipped over them).

So is this the new advertising model? It was pretty blatent, and really
took away from the story because they emphasized it so much. They're
not going to win any converts advertising this way, all it did was make
me resent the intrusion. If they could've worked it into the plot or
didn't actually bring the episode to a halt during the placement it
might have been more palatable!

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:dbdp7o$gm8$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
> So, I caught the latest episode of Monk and right at the very beginning
> (the setup, if you will), they are describing the contents of a box of
> groceries to be delivered. Obviously small details are important in
> Detective shows, but it seemed beyond odd that one of the items described
> (both shown prominently and described by voice) was very specifically
> "Glad Forceflex trash bags". Sure enough, during the show, I noticed that
> there were numerous regular ads for Forceflex bags (just before I skipped
> over them).
>
> So is this the new advertising model? It was pretty blatent, and really
> took away from the story because they emphasized it so much. They're not
> going to win any converts advertising this way, all it did was make me
> resent the intrusion. If they could've worked it into the plot or didn't
> actually bring the episode to a halt during the placement it might have
> been more palatable!
>
> Randy S.

It is called product placement, and it is a multi-million dollar industry.
Did you think it was a coincidence that ET liked those particular peanut
butter candies?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <dbdp7o$gm8$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, Randy S.
<rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

> So, I caught the latest episode of Monk and right at the very beginning
> (the setup, if you will), they are describing the contents of a box of
> groceries to be delivered. Obviously small details are important in
> Detective shows, but it seemed beyond odd that one of the items
> described (both shown prominently and described by voice) was very
> specifically "Glad Forceflex trash bags". Sure enough, during the show,
> I noticed that there were numerous regular ads for Forceflex bags (just
> before I skipped over them).

I didn't notice the commercials (so there, Man from Glad!) but the plug
at the beginning of the show was so utterly blatant that even I (a
notorious clod when it comes to this sort of thing) noticed it.

> So is this the new advertising model? It was pretty blatent, and really
> took away from the story because they emphasized it so much. They're
> not going to win any converts advertising this way, all it did was make
> me resent the intrusion. If they could've worked it into the plot or
> didn't actually bring the episode to a halt during the placement it
> might have been more palatable!

People noticed a few years ago when Mrs. Soprano kept coming home from
the grocery store with her stuff in a Gateway Computers shopping bag.
Product placement is a big deal these days. Advertisers see it as an
anti-skip tactic, which I suppose it is, but a better one would be to
make commercials that get our attention even as we skip past them, and
inveigle us into watching them.

The Glad bag thing didn't ruin the show for me. Lt. Disher's stupid
idiocy about Kiefer Sutherland did that -- oh, and them running a
Halloween show in July. That didn't work for me at all, even though I
realize why they had to set it then.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:dbdp7o$gm8$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
> So, I caught the latest episode of Monk and right at the very beginning
> (the setup, if you will), they are describing the contents of a box of
> groceries to be delivered. Obviously small details are important in
> Detective shows, but it seemed beyond odd that one of the items described
> (both shown prominently and described by voice) was very specifically
> "Glad Forceflex trash bags". Sure enough, during the show, I noticed that
> there were numerous regular ads for Forceflex bags (just before I skipped
> over them).
>
> So is this the new advertising model? It was pretty blatent, and really
> took away from the story because they emphasized it so much. They're not
> going to win any converts advertising this way, all it did was make me
> resent the intrusion. If they could've worked it into the plot or didn't
> actually bring the episode to a halt during the placement it might have
> been more palatable!
>
> Randy S.


The average American consumer is much less intelligent than you believe.
They are prone to want what they are told they need and what they see
celebrities using, especially when it's claimed to be from Europe.

If the product placement had been for Tivo rather than trash bags you'd be
all 'school girl giddy' about it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:16:23 -0400, "Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

> So is this the new advertising model?

Everything old is new again. This is a decades-old advertising model being
revived, updated for the times, over the last five years or so.

--
"It is more uplifting to find the beauty, wonder, spirituality, and
reverence in what we can see, than to imagine they only exist in what we
can't see." - hawthorn@sover.net http/www.sover.net/~hawthorn/

 

[Howard]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dr. Personality" <affable@no.com.invalid> wrote in
news:170720051244357672%affable@no.com.invalid:

> People noticed a few years ago when Mrs. Soprano kept coming home from
> the grocery store with her stuff in a Gateway Computers shopping bag.
> Product placement is a big deal these days. Advertisers see it as an
> anti-skip tactic, which I suppose it is, but a better one would be to
> make commercials that get our attention even as we skip past them, and
> inveigle us into watching them.

There are ways to get even us TiVo users to watch commercials. The problem
is, the advertisers DO NOT CARE. They see their job not to inform you of
their product, but to shove it down your throat, forcefully, with a stick.

There is a commercial in my local area that has a very loud annoying sound
repeated several times during the commercial. What effect was the
advertiser looking for? Well, presumably to get your attention, of course.
What effect does it really have? People scramble to, if not change the
channel, then at least mute the tv. Several people have written letters to
various places...newspaper editor, tv gossip column, etc...to express their
opinion of these commercials and that they would never even consider
thinking about purchasing from these idiots. It would appear obvious that
this commercial must immediately be cancelled and never shown again, before
further damage is done to their reputation.

However, much like the retarded spammer that thinks that, even though you
are not interested in viagra, you might be interested in v.iagra, or
v1agra, or if none of those, then maybe v i a g r a, these commercials not
only continue, but another advertiser has adopted the tactic. Plainly,
these people do not care about 'advertising' at all, their only intent is
to attempt to disrupt you in some way...even if it means pissing you off
and losing you as a possible customer FOREVER.

Frankly, I don't give a damn if <insert TV character here> drinks Coke or
Pepsi, so that type of marketing isn't going to work anymore either. In
the 50's, smoking Camels because John Wayne did was cool, now people aren't
quite that stupid. Their only hope is to make commercials people want to
watch, but they've no idea how to do that and refuse to learn.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.

 

[bunny]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

TIVO and its ilk are the future of TV and advertisers are sh*.*ting
their pants. Viewers get free (broadcast) or VERY cheap (standard
cable) TV because it's subsidized by advertising.

The only way to (almost) guarantee that your product is "eyeballed" by
viewers is to put it in the show itself. Annoying, yes, but less so
than paying $10.50 to see a movie prefaced by lame TV-quality ads.

Maybe someday the costs of television will shift somewhat to viewers
willing to pay for quality and away from mass-marketed products
overpriced by marketing costs. (And maybe someday we'll get a flat
income or consumption-only tax.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> The average American consumer is much less intelligent than you believe.
> They are prone to want what they are told they need and what they see
> celebrities using, especially when it's claimed to be from Europe.
>
> If the product placement had been for Tivo rather than trash bags you'd be
> all 'school girl giddy' about it.

No, I wouldn't, and I fully understand the place of ads in subsidizing
broadcast and non-pay cable TV content. I can even understand and
tolerate in-show product placement. I just wish they weren't as
obnoxious about it. ET's Reeses Pieces were minimally intrusive, they
had to use some type of food, and Reeses Pieces were as good as
anything. They didn't stop and discuss for 30 seconds how it was *so*
much better to use Reeses Pieces because 3 out of 4 candy lovers prefer
them!

I'm also not going to try to rationalize banning obnoxious ads because
they supposedly don't work. Other people in this thread claim that
annoying ads don't work and just piss people off, but the advertisers
use them anyway. What sense does that make? Product manufacturers pay
ad firms to boost sales. If they don't see a sales boost, said ad firm
is fired. The unfortunate truth is that annoying ads work!
Subconciously they stick with you, and you remember that product later,
even if you don't remember why. Forceflex is now stuck in my head. As
long as I remember why, I won't purchase them, but perhaps at some point
I'll forget where I heard about them. At that point, as much as I hate
to admit it could happen, that ad may still influence my purchasing
decision.

There are things I hate worse. I accept that the ad is enabling me to
see a production for free. What I hate is paying for something and then
*still* having ads forced on me. I don't know how the Movie theaters
these days are getting away with it. And the forced commercials on
DVD's are just as bad.

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <Xns96968BB2FB3D3stile@129.250.170.82>, Howard
<stile99@email..com> wrote:

> There is a commercial in my local area that has a very loud annoying sound
> repeated several times during the commercial. What effect was the
> advertiser looking for? Well, presumably to get your attention, of course.
> What effect does it really have? People scramble to, if not change the
> channel, then at least mute the tv. Several people have written letters to
> various places...newspaper editor, tv gossip column, etc...to express their
> opinion of these commercials and that they would never even consider
> thinking about purchasing from these idiots. It would appear obvious that
> this commercial must immediately be cancelled and never shown again, before
> further damage is done to their reputation.


I remember a TV ad in NYC about twenty-five years ago. It was for
jeans -- I think the brand name was Bonjour. It began with a loud
reproduction of a telephone off-the-hook alert. It got your attention,
and not in a good way. (The rest of the ad consisted of video of a
skinny girl walking back and forth wearing the jeans, and a guy
shouting "Bonjour!" over and over again, more and more rapidly, as if
he were approaching orgasm. I think the brand is dead now.)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Alphageek (no_email_please@uhdelfeeyuh.net) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> It is called product placement, and it is a multi-million dollar industry.
> Did you think it was a coincidence that ET liked those particular peanut
> butter candies?

Well, yeah, it was, in a sense:

http/www.snopes.com/business/market/mandms.asp

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Macarena.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> There are things I hate worse. I accept that the ad is enabling me to see
> a production for free. What I hate is paying for something and then
> *still* having ads forced on me. I don't know how the Movie theaters
> these days are getting away with it. And the forced commercials on DVD's
> are just as bad.
>
> Randy S.

I know. I hated paying for Starz and having them show upcoming Saturday
premieres during a movie's credits so I couldn't listen to the soundtrack. I
paid extra on my provider to see these movies uncut and commercial free and
not butchered like they are on basic cable. They may have cut back on their
logos and credit squeezes now, but doing it just once has left a bad taste
in my mouth that can never ever be washed away.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Howard <stile99@email..com> wrote:

>There is a commercial in my local area that has a very loud annoying sound
>repeated several times during the commercial. What effect was the
>advertiser looking for? Well, presumably to get your attention, of course.
>What effect does it really have? People scramble to, if not change the
>channel, then at least mute the tv. Several people have written letters to

A while back, there were some ads where prople drank stuff accompanied
by loud glugging sounds. I always jumped for the remote when this
happened, or, even before the noise started, to skip if possible, or
change channels.

Also, noisy, moving superimposed ads along the bottom of the screen
(G4/TechTV) means an instant channel change, or stop play and delete
when they happen. I can only hope these stations are buying Tivo's
detailed stats, and learning that they're losing viewers.


To reply, please remove one letter from each side of "@"
Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.

 

[Howard]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Dr. Personality" <affable@no.com.invalid> wrote in
news:170720051918224925%affable@no.com.invalid:

> I remember a TV ad in NYC about twenty-five years ago. It was for
> jeans -- I think the brand name was Bonjour. It began with a loud
> reproduction of a telephone off-the-hook alert. It got your attention,
> and not in a good way. (The rest of the ad consisted of video of a
> skinny girl walking back and forth wearing the jeans, and a guy
> shouting "Bonjour!" over and over again, more and more rapidly, as if
> he were approaching orgasm. I think the brand is dead now.)

Despite the attempts of others in this thread to deny it, I believe these
two facts are related.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Once upon a time, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> said:
>Alphageek (no_email_please@uhdelfeeyuh.net) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>> It is called product placement, and it is a multi-million dollar industry.
>> Did you think it was a coincidence that ET liked those particular peanut
>> butter candies?
>
>Well, yeah, it was, in a sense:
>
> http/www.snopes.com/business/market/mandms.asp

In no sense of the word was it a coincidence; it was straight up product
placement (as the previous poster said), and that's exactly what the
Snopes page you referenced said.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

 

[Howard]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

cmadams@hiwaay.net (Chris Adams) wrote in
news:11dm6ag6k069d1f@corp.supernews.com:

> Once upon a time, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> said:
>>Alphageek (no_email_please@uhdelfeeyuh.net) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>>> It is called product placement, and it is a multi-million dollar
>>> industry. Did you think it was a coincidence that ET liked those
>>> particular peanut butter candies?
>>
>>Well, yeah, it was, in a sense:
>>
>> http/www.snopes.com/business/market/mandms.asp
>
> In no sense of the word was it a coincidence; it was straight up product
> placement (as the previous poster said), and that's exactly what the
> Snopes page you referenced said.

Please read a little more carefully. The key word here is 'particular'.

Jeff is entirely correct. In a sense, yes, it IS a coincidence that that
'particular' candy was ET's favorite. The intent (and, as you noted, this
is very clearly explained at snopes.com) was for product placement, and for
that product to be M&Ms. They said no. Again, as that page points out, is
IS that way in the book.

Bottom line: Is it coincidence that ET liked candy? Nope. That was
planned. Is it coincidence the candy ET liked was Reeses Pieces? Once
again, in a sense...yes, it WAS coincidence for the candy to be THAT
particular candy. If you still believe that it was 'in no sense of the
word' a coincidence, perhaps you need to look the word up or still do not
fully understand what transpired.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Once upon a time, Howard <stile99@email..com> said:
>Jeff is entirely correct. In a sense, yes, it IS a coincidence that that
>'particular' candy was ET's favorite. The intent (and, as you noted, this
>is very clearly explained at snopes.com) was for product placement, and for
>that product to be M&Ms. They said no. Again, as that page points out, is
>IS that way in the book.

If you go to a restaurant and order Coke but they bring you Pepsi, do
you consider it a "coincidence" that you are drinking Pepsi?

coincidence: A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have
been planned or arranged.

The movie producers wanted to have a product placement for the candy (no
accident). One choice rejected the placement but a second choice agreed
(no accident).
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <h8GCe.121498$du.76463@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Michael
Walker <mike1977@despammed.com> wrote:

> > There are things I hate worse. I accept that the ad is enabling me to see
> > a production for free. What I hate is paying for something and then
> > *still* having ads forced on me. I don't know how the Movie theaters
> > these days are getting away with it. And the forced commercials on DVD's
> > are just as bad.
> >
> > Randy S.
>
> I know. I hated paying for Starz and having them show upcoming Saturday
> premieres during a movie's credits so I couldn't listen to the soundtrack. I
> paid extra on my provider to see these movies uncut and commercial free and
> not butchered like they are on basic cable. They may have cut back on their
> logos and credit squeezes now, but doing it just once has left a bad taste
> in my mouth that can never ever be washed away.


I absolutely agree with this. When I'm paying for a premium channel, I
want the movies intact, and that includes the end credits and the
soundtrack under them. I enjoy soundtracks, and some of the best work
in them is in the end credits.

I understand Starz! is hanging on by its fingernails. Pissing off
loyal subscribers isn't going to help any. I don't quite trust them
anymore.

 

[Howard]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

cmadams@hiwaay.net (Chris Adams) wrote in
news:11dmd5haitt9059@corp.supernews.com:

> Once upon a time, Howard <stile99@email..com> said:
>>Jeff is entirely correct. In a sense, yes, it IS a coincidence that
>>that 'particular' candy was ET's favorite. The intent (and, as you
>>noted, this is very clearly explained at snopes.com) was for product
>>placement, and for that product to be M&Ms. They said no. Again, as
>>that page points out, is IS that way in the book.
>
> If you go to a restaurant and order Coke but they bring you Pepsi, do
> you consider it a "coincidence" that you are drinking Pepsi?

What do YOU consider it? Malice?

To answer the question, no, I personally do not consider it a coincidence,
because it never happens. I look at what drinks the restaurant has and
order accordingly. However, there are huge areas of the south that DO, in
fact, order a Coke regardless of what they want. This is usually followed
by "what kind?". Even in areas where this ISN'T the norm, if no Coke is to
be had at this establishment, they will ask if Pepsi is OK.

> coincidence: A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have
> been planned or arranged.

Ok, so you DO know the word, you just don't understand it.

> The movie producers wanted to have a product placement for the candy (no
> accident). One choice rejected the placement but a second choice agreed
> (no accident).

This wasn't at question. You're being particularly dense, and personally,
I think it has been sufficiently explained to you and doing so again won't
get it to sink in. You even quote the definition of the word coincidence,
then explain that Reese's Pieces being the candy was accidental, but seems
to have been planned...while admitting that it was NOT the candy planned.

We can only give you the water, we can't drink it for you.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> You even quote the definition of the word coincidence,
> then explain that Reese's Pieces being the candy was accidental, but seems
> to have been planned...while admitting that it was NOT the candy planned.
>
> We can only give you the water, we can't drink it for you.
>

To be honest, I'm not sure it qualifies. Putting Reeses Pieces in the
movie *was* planned, it was not an accident. It was just their second
choice rather than their first. Now if Hershey had *asked* (without any
prior knowledge) to be placed in the movie as Mars was declining it,
*that* would be coincidence, or if they ran out of M&M's and just
*happened* to have a bunch of Reeses Pieces on hand, *that* would be
coincidence. But I think the actual story is more an example of irony
then coincidence.

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Randy S. (rswitt@nospam.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> To be honest, I'm not sure it qualifies. Putting Reeses Pieces in the
> movie *was* planned, it was not an accident. It was just their second
> choice rather than their first.

The coincidence is that there was another candy that fit the "specs" for
the story.

Despite the fact that it did turn into product placement, M&Ms would have
been used anyway if Reese's Pieces didn't exist (or also turned down
the producers), because the style of the candy was somewhat important
to the plot. But, they would have gotten "normal" screen time, instead
of getting shots that made sure you could read the bag, etc.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/AngryTVGod.gif