April Fool's came late this yearâ¦and by the looks of it, Philips Electronics is the prize fool.
Tim from Germany alerted me to a patent filed by Philips for â get this â a set top box that prevents consumers from changing the channel during an ad break. According to a spokesperson from the company, this was done because âtoo many people skip adsâ
Hereâs the abstract:
An apparatus (270) and method is disclosed for preventing a viewer from switching from a channel when an advertisement is being displayed on the channel. The apparatus (270) and method comprises an advertisement controller (270) in a video playback device (150) that (1) prevents a viewer of a direct (non-recorded) broadcast from switching channels when an advertisement is displayed, and (2) prevents a viewer of a recorded program from fast forwarding the recorded program in order to skip past advertisements that were recorded with the program. A viewer may either watch the advertisements or pay a fee in order to be able to change channels or fast forward when the advertisements are being displayed.
Could this be true? How could a TV manufacturer influence programming (content or commercials) above the networks themselves or the cable or satellite provider? Why would they even care?
And in the alternative of âpaying a feeâ, are we not talking about plain and simple extortion? Iâm no legal eagle, but Iâd be curious to get your thoughts on the verbiage/description in the patent filing record.
In Timâs e-mail to me, he states that just finding out about this has soured his entire outlook and impression of the brand â so much so that he was in the market to purchases a flat-screen TV and was looking at Philips, but now no longer is interested.
I wonder whether a consumer-wide mutiny would be the product if such a Big Brother meets Matrix scenario would ever come to pass. Would consumers fold like a house of cards or call the bluff of the bullies who have dominated and monopolized our leisure time for too long?
Update: I originally wrote this post on the plane to Atlanta and it sat on my computer for 2 days. Now it seems that Philips has attempted a damage control 180.
"We developed a system where the viewer can choose, at the beginning of a movie, to either watch the movie without ads, or watch the movie with ads. It is up to the viewer to take this decision, and up to the broadcaster to offer the various services," the company said.
What is unclear is how the story broke...which would no doubt dictate the extent and tone of Philipspin (mash-up synonym) That said, the statement above does give some interesting insights into where this could be heading...and it's not as ominous as it once seemed.
It's kind of like the Ultramercial model. Or like ABC choosing to sell Lost for $2 ad free on iTunes or for free...but with ads...and NO SKIPPING ALLOWED!
I wrote in my book that consumers will elect to pay with their time or money for value. What remains to be seen is how much time and how much money they'll pay for how much value. Where's eBay when you need them?
...and there's also the little niggly thing about forcing consumers to watch ads.
Recent Comments