I think the defenses against ads depend mostly upon how annoying they get. Until they are overdone people will put up with them and not do much about it. But past a certain threshold it starts to demand action. That will likely be true of Internet pop-ups, telephone ads, and regular TV commercials. I sometimes wonder if the fate of the broadcasters somewhat now is going downhill not just because of cable & sat but because they have crossed the annoyance threshold of how many minutes / hour of commercials people will put up with. I see Yahoo going through the same process, at least on my own annoyance meter. Look what happened to the OpenDTV list recently. - Tom Manfredi, Albert E wrote: > Craig Birkmaier wrote: > > >>Now imagine a digital broadcast system that is able to deliver >>customized & personalized advertising messages to specific >>neighborhoods (zoning), specific demographic targets, even specific >>IP addresses. > > > ----------------------------------------- > http://news.com.com/2009-1025-5201803.html?part=3Ddtx&tag=3Dntop > > [ ... ] > Industry research tends to support that prediction. An estimated 75 > percent of national advertisers plan to cut spending on TV > commercials by at least 20 percent in the next five years, when > advertisers believe that ad-skipping devices like TiVo will be > widespread, according to Forrester Research. > [ ... ] > ------------------------------------------ > > Ads targetted to IP addresses already exist. The public tends to > reject these much more intensely than the more benign ads you > get on TV, on public buses, or on billboards. Devices like proxy > servers, firewalls, and the more recent spam filters are aimed > *specifically* at this type of ad, and Congress too wants to get > in on the act. > > It's astonishing to me that any ad research would conclude that > in the future, that's where all the ad money will go. I would > instead predict that this form of ad distribution will quickly > peak and drop off, as defenses against it improve. > > Telephone ads were the prime example of backlash against > targetted ads. People object to being interrupted or annoyed > more intrusively as opposed to less intrusively, as this sort > of targetted ad tends to do. Last time I heard the figures, at > least half of US households had subscribed to the do-not-call > list. And that was a short time after the list was enabled. > > On the other hand, replacing TV ads with a new technique for > distributing *TV ads* could well work out, but that money > would still go to TV businesses. One such technique is product > placement right in the program. But inserting ads more > intelligently in programs might work too. Of course, the > more surgically targetted, the less a broadcast infrastructure > is economically viable. I think this is *even* true for those > "great ideas" like filling up people's PVRs with ads trickled > in over long periods of time. All you're doing is compensating > for an inefficient (for this targetted ad purpose) distribution > protocol by camping out on people's private property -- i.e. > their disk space. I would bet good money that defenses against > this will soon appear, if they don't already exist. > > Bert > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > > - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at > FreeLists.org > > - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word > unsubscribe in the subject line. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.