At their best, these branded movie shorts are entertaining, engaging, and great sales tools. At their worst, they’re just overly long ads
When BMW launched its first batch of Internet films centered around its cars in 2001, a new advertising genre was born. The short movies, directed by big-time Hollywood directors such as Tony Scott and John Woo, featured edgy actors, including Mickey Rourke and Gary Oldham. The films, known now as “branded entertainment,” shattered expectations for viewership and were even reviewed as “cinema” by Time and The New York Times.
Cars are particularly well-showcased in these ad-entertainment hybrids, which are themselves advertised through traditional media as well as online links, banner ads, or on-site promotion. But other companies are getting in on the act. Dr. Martens and Amazon.com (AMZN ) recently launched Net films of their own. While not all of the new short films match up to BMW’s, there’s no denying that the form is here to stay. When done right, the Net short is a medium that can draw in an audience rather than beating it over the head — and afford the marketer a more effective tool for extended communication than 30-second TV advertising.
COOKING WITH JESPER. Take the series of Internet films sponsored by Ford’s (F) Mercury brand. Arguably, nothing remotely hip or interesting has graced this brand since Lyndon Johnson was President — until now. Last month, its Web site launched a series of Net films that will stretch over five weeks. Called Meet the Lucky Ones, the series is built around 10 characters with intertwining stories. The films feel a little bit Twin Peaks and a little Royal Tenenbaums.
The Lucky Ones pass the test that any film should: They draw in the viewer. And that’s the point of Net films compared to mind-numbing, forgettable TV ads. I find myself not only watching the new Mercury films as they unravel each week, but rewatching the ones from previous weeks — and not just for the purposes of this review. These are cool characters, and there’s an interesting tangle of life unfolding. Alan, a laundromat manager is ensnaring the lonely and somewhat older Alice in some web of his own design. But what? And how about young Jesper, who has already cooked a frog and just picked up a dead bird for his next dish?
What does any of this have to do with selling cars and SUVs? Tied into the site is a sweepstakes offer giving away a Mercury Mariner, a new SUV that’s aimed younger than any other Mercury in the showrooms, part of Ford’s attempt to reposition the brand. It’s also about attracting eyeballs that would otherwise avoid or ignore Mercury’s TV and magazine ads. There’s no rebate message, no talk of rack-and-pinion steering.
In the first two weeks, Mercury’s site got 825,000 unique visitors, with almost 300,000 clicking over to the Net films. That compares with about 200,000 unique visitors in a normal week. Mercury’s numbers should grow as those who get sucked into the story talk to their friends about it.
NOT YOUR FATHER’S ADS. That’s what happened to BMW. Within three months of launching the films, BMW had some 9 million unique visitors viewing and downloading its films, with 214,000 hitting the site in the first week. Eventually, the films were distributed on DVD and even run on a DirectTV channel.
Net films, if they do nothing else, should never look like advertising. If they do, the question is, “Why didn’t you just run ads on TV?” Jaguar — also owned by Ford — is promoting its X-Type sedan via a series of short films that combine live action with anime, the Japanese style of animation that has become popular the world over. Available at www.x-ingover.com, the Jaguar ads, unlike those of Mercury, never manage to look like anything but ads — slick ads, granted, but ads nonetheless.
For its new series of Net films, Amazon.com wisely went to Fallon Worldwide, the ad agency behind the BMW series. For Amazon, David Slade directed a film starring actor Blair Underwood, titled Do Geese See God?, which follows Underwood’s “Dr. Awkward” through a beat-the-clock chase through a city. Tony Scott directed another Amazon short, titled Agent Orange, a no-dialogue piece in which a carrot-topped young man seeks to connect with the orange-haired diva he saw but didn’t speak to on the subway.
FREE SPIRITS. The product tie-ins come in the end credits. Like that Panasonic plasma TV Blair Underwood is looking at? Click on the end credit and you’re taken to Amazon, where you can check it out — or better yet, buy it. It’s a straightforward approach to merchandising that isn’t annoying. The Amazon movies aren’t as good as the Mercury ones, but at least they don’t look like advertising.
Shoemaker Dr. Martens posted a series of six films on its Web site last month, produced with documentary filmmaker Doug Pray. Between Lanes is a profile of a London courier named Whylee, a man so seemingly unfit for an office that one can’t imagine him slaving away in a cubicle. “Good for him,” we can’t help saying. Another, titled John — Corner Office, profiles a bridge worker who spends his days rappelling and roping all over a suspension bridge despite the wind, cold, and rain.
The idea behind these six films is reinforcing the edgy, rebellious independent-spirit brand mood for Dr. Martens. To see the films you have to go to the company Web site, full of the usual product information. Each one is shot in black and white and has a documentary feel. Fans of Dr. Martens shoes and boots will see the films as consistent with the brand’s personality. The theme could go on endlessly, as there are, after all, interesting renegades all over the globe.
SPENDING SHIFT. Internet films turn the TV advertising paradigm on its head. Instead of spending a few hundred thousand dollars producing a slick TV ad, and then tens of millions on airtime, advertisers are spending the big bucks — in some cases millions — to produce the short films and peanuts to distribute them on the Internet. When the films are good, consumers will seek them out.
The only danger is that Net films will become as ubiquitous as TV ads. If that happens, the sheer volume would mean that not even the good ones will stand out. For now though, most Net films beat the heck out of 99% of the ads we have to endure on TV — and even stand up pretty well as short-form cinema. That’s infotainment!
]]>At their best, these branded movie shorts are entertaining, engaging, and great sales tools. At their worst, they’re just overly long ads
When BMW launched its first batch of Internet films centered around its cars in 2001, a new advertising genre was born. The short movies, directed by big-time Hollywood directors such as Tony Scott and John Woo, featured edgy actors, including Mickey Rourke and Gary Oldham. The films, known now as “branded entertainment,” shattered expectations for viewership and were even reviewed as “cinema” by Time and The New York Times.
Cars are particularly well-showcased in these ad-entertainment hybrids, which are themselves advertised through traditional media as well as online links, banner ads, or on-site promotion. But other companies are getting in on the act. Dr. Martens and Amazon.com (AMZN ) recently launched Net films of their own. While not all of the new short films match up to BMW’s, there’s no denying that the form is here to stay. When done right, the Net short is a medium that can draw in an audience rather than beating it over the head — and afford the marketer a more effective tool for extended communication than 30-second TV advertising.
COOKING WITH JESPER. Take the series of Internet films sponsored by Ford’s (F) Mercury brand. Arguably, nothing remotely hip or interesting has graced this brand since Lyndon Johnson was President — until now. Last month, its Web site launched a series of Net films that will stretch over five weeks. Called Meet the Lucky Ones, the series is built around 10 characters with intertwining stories. The films feel a little bit Twin Peaks and a little Royal Tenenbaums.
The Lucky Ones pass the test that any film should: They draw in the viewer. And that’s the point of Net films compared to mind-numbing, forgettable TV ads. I find myself not only watching the new Mercury films as they unravel each week, but rewatching the ones from previous weeks — and not just for the purposes of this review. These are cool characters, and there’s an interesting tangle of life unfolding. Alan, a laundromat manager is ensnaring the lonely and somewhat older Alice in some web of his own design. But what? And how about young Jesper, who has already cooked a frog and just picked up a dead bird for his next dish?
What does any of this have to do with selling cars and SUVs? Tied into the site is a sweepstakes offer giving away a Mercury Mariner, a new SUV that’s aimed younger than any other Mercury in the showrooms, part of Ford’s attempt to reposition the brand. It’s also about attracting eyeballs that would otherwise avoid or ignore Mercury’s TV and magazine ads. There’s no rebate message, no talk of rack-and-pinion steering.
In the first two weeks, Mercury’s site got 825,000 unique visitors, with almost 300,000 clicking over to the Net films. That compares with about 200,000 unique visitors in a normal week. Mercury’s numbers should grow as those who get sucked into the story talk to their friends about it.
NOT YOUR FATHER’S ADS. That’s what happened to BMW. Within three months of launching the films, BMW had some 9 million unique visitors viewing and downloading its films, with 214,000 hitting the site in the first week. Eventually, the films were distributed on DVD and even run on a DirectTV channel.
Net films, if they do nothing else, should never look like advertising. If they do, the question is, “Why didn’t you just run ads on TV?” Jaguar — also owned by Ford — is promoting its X-Type sedan via a series of short films that combine live action with anime, the Japanese style of animation that has become popular the world over. Available at www.x-ingover.com, the Jaguar ads, unlike those of Mercury, never manage to look like anything but ads — slick ads, granted, but ads nonetheless.
For its new series of Net films, Amazon.com wisely went to Fallon Worldwide, the ad agency behind the BMW series. For Amazon, David Slade directed a film starring actor Blair Underwood, titled Do Geese See God?, which follows Underwood’s “Dr. Awkward” through a beat-the-clock chase through a city. Tony Scott directed another Amazon short, titled Agent Orange, a no-dialogue piece in which a carrot-topped young man seeks to connect with the orange-haired diva he saw but didn’t speak to on the subway.
FREE SPIRITS. The product tie-ins come in the end credits. Like that Panasonic plasma TV Blair Underwood is looking at? Click on the end credit and you’re taken to Amazon, where you can check it out — or better yet, buy it. It’s a straightforward approach to merchandising that isn’t annoying. The Amazon movies aren’t as good as the Mercury ones, but at least they don’t look like advertising.
Shoemaker Dr. Martens posted a series of six films on its Web site last month, produced with documentary filmmaker Doug Pray. Between Lanes is a profile of a London courier named Whylee, a man so seemingly unfit for an office that one can’t imagine him slaving away in a cubicle. “Good for him,” we can’t help saying. Another, titled John — Corner Office, profiles a bridge worker who spends his days rappelling and roping all over a suspension bridge despite the wind, cold, and rain.
The idea behind these six films is reinforcing the edgy, rebellious independent-spirit brand mood for Dr. Martens. To see the films you have to go to the company Web site, full of the usual product information. Each one is shot in black and white and has a documentary feel. Fans of Dr. Martens shoes and boots will see the films as consistent with the brand’s personality. The theme could go on endlessly, as there are, after all, interesting renegades all over the globe.
SPENDING SHIFT. Internet films turn the TV advertising paradigm on its head. Instead of spending a few hundred thousand dollars producing a slick TV ad, and then tens of millions on airtime, advertisers are spending the big bucks — in some cases millions — to produce the short films and peanuts to distribute them on the Internet. When the films are good, consumers will seek them out.
The only danger is that Net films will become as ubiquitous as TV ads. If that happens, the sheer volume would mean that not even the good ones will stand out. For now though, most Net films beat the heck out of 99% of the ads we have to endure on TV — and even stand up pretty well as short-form cinema. That’s infotainment!
]]>When it debuted in 1999, TiVo revolutionized the TV experience by wresting control of screen time from advertisers, allowing viewers to record shows and skip commercials. TiVo’s slogan said it all: “TV your way.”
Behind the scenes, though, TiVo was courting advertisers, selling inroads to a universe most customers saw as commercial-free. The result is a groundbreaking new business strategy, developed with more than 30 of the nation’s largest advertisers, that in key ways circumvents the very technology that made TiVo famous.
By March, TiVo viewers will see “billboards,” or small logos, popping up over TV commercials as they fast-forward through them, offering contest entries, giveaways or links to other ads. If a viewer “opts in” to the ad, their contact information will be downloaded to that advertiser — exclusively and by permission only — so even more direct marketing can take place.
By late 2005, TiVo expects to roll out “couch commerce,” a system that enables viewers to purchase products and participate in surveys using their remote controls.
Perhaps even more significant is TiVo’s new role in market research. As viewers watch, TiVo records their collective habits — second by second — and sells that information to advertisers and networks. (It was TiVo that quantified the effect of Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl “wardrobe malfunction,” reporting a 180% increase in the number of replays reported by viewers.)
For advertisers it’s an extraordinary boon, a quicker and more effective way than they’ve ever had of measuring the effects of their TV commercials.
For viewers, TiVo’s new strategy means the technology famously christened “God’s machine” by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael K. Powell is rapidly becoming a marketer’s best friend, proving that try as they might, consumers cannot hide from marketing.
“TiVo looked like it was going to be the weapon of mass destruction of Madison Avenue,” says Robert Thompson, Syracuse University professor of television and pop culture. “However, we knew that the [TV] spot ad would not go gently into the night, and this is the next battle strategy.”
The shift underscores what industry observers have been saying since TiVo started — that TV advertising and programming must change dramatically to survive.
These are anxious times for marketers, who are faced with commercial-busting technology that’s evolving faster than they can keep up. Broadcast-ready cellphones, hyper-real video games, interactive DVDs and the Internet give consumers the on-demand, often commercial-free entertainment they crave.
Traditional network television viewing, by comparison, can seem antiquated. The number of American households with a TiVo or TiVo-like recording system is expected to increase from 5% to 41% in five years, according to Forrester Research, which studies technology’s effect on business.
For this reason, ad agency executives who initially ignored TiVo and its digital video recorder technology, or DVR, are now praising it as an industry savior.
“I look at TiVo being first generation of the TV advertising of the future,” says Tim Hanlon, a vice president at Starcom MediaVest Group, one of the world’s largest media-buying companies, with clients including General Motors Corp., Procter & Gamble Co. and Best Buy Co. “There’s a whole witch’s brew of change coming to the linear television form.”
But what about TiVo’s devotees, those folks who send the company fan mail and photos of their pets posed with TiVo boxes, and act as missionaries, converting their friends to the technology?
Some say they don’t mind a little pop-up advertising — just so long as they can fast-forward through it — because it could help keep TiVo in business. (A September report from Forrester shows that DVR owners typically fast-forward through 92% of commercials.)
Others are wary of the changes and concerned the company’s priorities may be shifting away from the consumer.
“A company can get too big for its britches, you know?” says Bill Calogero, a Chicago computer business analyst and TiVo subscriber since 1999. “I just don’t want them to interfere with the experience. If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Yet from its inception, TiVo engineered its system with advertisers and networks in mind. While competitor ReplayTV had allowed its subscribers to skip commercials entirely — TiVo restricted its fast-forward capabilities so viewers could still see the commercial, albeit eight times faster than intended. (ReplayTV last year was forced by litigious studios and networks to adopt a more TiVo-like system.)
TiVo also sold space on its main menu to advertisers as a venue for commercials that ran longer than the usual 30- or 60-second spots. And the company developed “tagging” technology as a way for networks to advertise TV shows by embedding a green thumbs-up sign in the corner of the screen during a show’s promo, reminding the viewer to record it. Advertisers saw tagging as an opportunity and jumped at it.
By 2002, TiVo was selling “tag” time to Lexus and Best Buy. The thumbs-up icons appeared during live commercials, inviting the viewer to “click here” for a chance to enter a contest, receive a DVD or brochure or watch a glossy, long-form commercial.
Over time, General Motors, Nissan Motor Co., Coca-Cola Co., Walt Disney World and Royal Caribbean International cruise line paid their way into the program. And all the while, TiVo recorded viewer response.
The tags proved so lucrative for TiVo, and so popular with viewers, that the Alviso, Calif.-based company expanded their capabilities significantly. They created “billboards,” more robust tags that are larger and promote greater brand awareness with logos and text.
Until now, the new technology has been relatively subtle and not widely seen; by spring, it will be hard for TiVo users to miss. (The technology is part of the software provided to all TiVo users.)
“The message we really want to get across,” says Davina Kent, TiVo’s advertising and research sales manager, “is that we now have a dedicated road map for advertising.”
There are TiVo users who say that as long as the new technology doesn’t interfere with their ability to fast-forward through a commercial, they’re happy to ignore it. It’s the timesaving apparatus they say they cherish most.
“To be able to see things when I want to see them is the real advantage,” says L.A. radio promotion executive Jennifer Sperandeo.
Other TiVo users say they hope the new partnerships prove lucrative enough to keep the company afloat. Five years after its launch, TiVo still hasn’t turned a profit and doesn’t expect to until January 2006. (Kent says the advertising revenue will probably bring down the cost of TiVo to its 2 million subscribers — currently $12.95 a month.)
And in the year since Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. took control of satellite operator DirecTV Group Inc., TiVo’s largest source of customers, the future of that relationship has grown increasingly uncertain.
“I want them to be successful,” says Gary Beck of Long Beach, who bought his first TiVo in 1999 and now has three. “They have clawed their way up. As long as they’re not giving out personal data, I don’t mind.”
Some observers, however, interpret TiVo’s new ad campaign as a profound change in its ideology that won’t sit well with devotees.
Matt Haughey, whose Portland, Ore.-based PVRblog.com gets 10,000 hits a day (PVR is short for personal video recorder), says he wasn’t surprised by the shift. After last year’s lawsuit against ReplayTV and TiVo’s hiring of NBC executive Martin Yudkovitz as president, he figured the glorious “David versus Goliath” days, when TiVo was the best defense against corporate tyranny, were numbered.
“My first impulse is, this is going to start the slippery slope,” Haughey says.
“TiVo is dependent on a psychology,” says Neal Gabler, a senior fellow at the Norman Lear Center at USC Annenberg and author of “Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality.” “It is not just a technology. You don’t want people to intrude in your life. That’s the whole point of it — to give you control of that mechanism…. I think they’re going to find themselves losing customers. I say this as a TiVo subscriber.”
To Syracuse University’s Thompson, the concept of interactive advertising interrupts the most relaxing aspect of watching TV. “People seem to forget that what we’ve loved about television so dearly is its abject passivity,” he says. “That’s why they call it couch potato. TV was so great because it wasn’t interactive.”
But TiVo research suggests that notion is out-of-date. Between 5% and 20% of TiVo viewers given the opportunity to “participate” in an ad — either by clicking on a tag or by selecting a long-form commercial from a main menu — take it.
That’s because TiVo has done its homework and knows its customer, Kent says. The new ads intrigue viewers instead of annoy them. They pop up and disappear in a matter of seconds if the viewer isn’t interested. “You’ll never see TiVo roll out any kind of intrusive advertising,” Kent says. “It’s very core to our mission.”
What remains to be seen is whether consumers will embrace this culture shift at TiVo.
“Watching [an ad] is one thing,” TiVo loyalist Calogero says. “Interacting with it is something that the consumer is going to need a little more reassurance that their information isn’t being sold. I mean, TiVo knows how many times I rewinded to see Janet Jackson’s breast come up. How much more do they know about me?”
]]>When it debuted in 1999, TiVo revolutionized the TV experience by wresting control of screen time from advertisers, allowing viewers to record shows and skip commercials. TiVo’s slogan said it all: “TV your way.”
Behind the scenes, though, TiVo was courting advertisers, selling inroads to a universe most customers saw as commercial-free. The result is a groundbreaking new business strategy, developed with more than 30 of the nation’s largest advertisers, that in key ways circumvents the very technology that made TiVo famous.
By March, TiVo viewers will see “billboards,” or small logos, popping up over TV commercials as they fast-forward through them, offering contest entries, giveaways or links to other ads. If a viewer “opts in” to the ad, their contact information will be downloaded to that advertiser — exclusively and by permission only — so even more direct marketing can take place.
By late 2005, TiVo expects to roll out “couch commerce,” a system that enables viewers to purchase products and participate in surveys using their remote controls.
Perhaps even more significant is TiVo’s new role in market research. As viewers watch, TiVo records their collective habits — second by second — and sells that information to advertisers and networks. (It was TiVo that quantified the effect of Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl “wardrobe malfunction,” reporting a 180% increase in the number of replays reported by viewers.)
For advertisers it’s an extraordinary boon, a quicker and more effective way than they’ve ever had of measuring the effects of their TV commercials.
For viewers, TiVo’s new strategy means the technology famously christened “God’s machine” by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael K. Powell is rapidly becoming a marketer’s best friend, proving that try as they might, consumers cannot hide from marketing.
“TiVo looked like it was going to be the weapon of mass destruction of Madison Avenue,” says Robert Thompson, Syracuse University professor of television and pop culture. “However, we knew that the [TV] spot ad would not go gently into the night, and this is the next battle strategy.”
The shift underscores what industry observers have been saying since TiVo started — that TV advertising and programming must change dramatically to survive.
These are anxious times for marketers, who are faced with commercial-busting technology that’s evolving faster than they can keep up. Broadcast-ready cellphones, hyper-real video games, interactive DVDs and the Internet give consumers the on-demand, often commercial-free entertainment they crave.
Traditional network television viewing, by comparison, can seem antiquated. The number of American households with a TiVo or TiVo-like recording system is expected to increase from 5% to 41% in five years, according to Forrester Research, which studies technology’s effect on business.
For this reason, ad agency executives who initially ignored TiVo and its digital video recorder technology, or DVR, are now praising it as an industry savior.
“I look at TiVo being first generation of the TV advertising of the future,” says Tim Hanlon, a vice president at Starcom MediaVest Group, one of the world’s largest media-buying companies, with clients including General Motors Corp., Procter & Gamble Co. and Best Buy Co. “There’s a whole witch’s brew of change coming to the linear television form.”
But what about TiVo’s devotees, those folks who send the company fan mail and photos of their pets posed with TiVo boxes, and act as missionaries, converting their friends to the technology?
Some say they don’t mind a little pop-up advertising — just so long as they can fast-forward through it — because it could help keep TiVo in business. (A September report from Forrester shows that DVR owners typically fast-forward through 92% of commercials.)
Others are wary of the changes and concerned the company’s priorities may be shifting away from the consumer.
“A company can get too big for its britches, you know?” says Bill Calogero, a Chicago computer business analyst and TiVo subscriber since 1999. “I just don’t want them to interfere with the experience. If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Yet from its inception, TiVo engineered its system with advertisers and networks in mind. While competitor ReplayTV had allowed its subscribers to skip commercials entirely — TiVo restricted its fast-forward capabilities so viewers could still see the commercial, albeit eight times faster than intended. (ReplayTV last year was forced by litigious studios and networks to adopt a more TiVo-like system.)
TiVo also sold space on its main menu to advertisers as a venue for commercials that ran longer than the usual 30- or 60-second spots. And the company developed “tagging” technology as a way for networks to advertise TV shows by embedding a green thumbs-up sign in the corner of the screen during a show’s promo, reminding the viewer to record it. Advertisers saw tagging as an opportunity and jumped at it.
By 2002, TiVo was selling “tag” time to Lexus and Best Buy. The thumbs-up icons appeared during live commercials, inviting the viewer to “click here” for a chance to enter a contest, receive a DVD or brochure or watch a glossy, long-form commercial.
Over time, General Motors, Nissan Motor Co., Coca-Cola Co., Walt Disney World and Royal Caribbean International cruise line paid their way into the program. And all the while, TiVo recorded viewer response.
The tags proved so lucrative for TiVo, and so popular with viewers, that the Alviso, Calif.-based company expanded their capabilities significantly. They created “billboards,” more robust tags that are larger and promote greater brand awareness with logos and text.
Until now, the new technology has been relatively subtle and not widely seen; by spring, it will be hard for TiVo users to miss. (The technology is part of the software provided to all TiVo users.)
“The message we really want to get across,” says Davina Kent, TiVo’s advertising and research sales manager, “is that we now have a dedicated road map for advertising.”
There are TiVo users who say that as long as the new technology doesn’t interfere with their ability to fast-forward through a commercial, they’re happy to ignore it. It’s the timesaving apparatus they say they cherish most.
“To be able to see things when I want to see them is the real advantage,” says L.A. radio promotion executive Jennifer Sperandeo.
Other TiVo users say they hope the new partnerships prove lucrative enough to keep the company afloat. Five years after its launch, TiVo still hasn’t turned a profit and doesn’t expect to until January 2006. (Kent says the advertising revenue will probably bring down the cost of TiVo to its 2 million subscribers — currently $12.95 a month.)
And in the year since Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. took control of satellite operator DirecTV Group Inc., TiVo’s largest source of customers, the future of that relationship has grown increasingly uncertain.
“I want them to be successful,” says Gary Beck of Long Beach, who bought his first TiVo in 1999 and now has three. “They have clawed their way up. As long as they’re not giving out personal data, I don’t mind.”
Some observers, however, interpret TiVo’s new ad campaign as a profound change in its ideology that won’t sit well with devotees.
Matt Haughey, whose Portland, Ore.-based PVRblog.com gets 10,000 hits a day (PVR is short for personal video recorder), says he wasn’t surprised by the shift. After last year’s lawsuit against ReplayTV and TiVo’s hiring of NBC executive Martin Yudkovitz as president, he figured the glorious “David versus Goliath” days, when TiVo was the best defense against corporate tyranny, were numbered.
“My first impulse is, this is going to start the slippery slope,” Haughey says.
“TiVo is dependent on a psychology,” says Neal Gabler, a senior fellow at the Norman Lear Center at USC Annenberg and author of “Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality.” “It is not just a technology. You don’t want people to intrude in your life. That’s the whole point of it — to give you control of that mechanism…. I think they’re going to find themselves losing customers. I say this as a TiVo subscriber.”
To Syracuse University’s Thompson, the concept of interactive advertising interrupts the most relaxing aspect of watching TV. “People seem to forget that what we’ve loved about television so dearly is its abject passivity,” he says. “That’s why they call it couch potato. TV was so great because it wasn’t interactive.”
But TiVo research suggests that notion is out-of-date. Between 5% and 20% of TiVo viewers given the opportunity to “participate” in an ad — either by clicking on a tag or by selecting a long-form commercial from a main menu — take it.
That’s because TiVo has done its homework and knows its customer, Kent says. The new ads intrigue viewers instead of annoy them. They pop up and disappear in a matter of seconds if the viewer isn’t interested. “You’ll never see TiVo roll out any kind of intrusive advertising,” Kent says. “It’s very core to our mission.”
What remains to be seen is whether consumers will embrace this culture shift at TiVo.
“Watching [an ad] is one thing,” TiVo loyalist Calogero says. “Interacting with it is something that the consumer is going to need a little more reassurance that their information isn’t being sold. I mean, TiVo knows how many times I rewinded to see Janet Jackson’s breast come up. How much more do they know about me?”
]]>