On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 10:16, Neil Houghton wrote: > If it's as effective as it claims, advertisers will start looking for better > ways to spend their advertising dollars so what might that mean? > > € TV companies with less advertising revenue buying cheaper programs to > maintain profits - wouldn't bode well for program quality (there again > program quality & ratings don't seem to be necessarily related).
I find it hard to imagine TV quality getting any worse. Note that I realised I hadn't bothered turning on my TV in 9 months and got rid of it a while ago - even the TV news was becoming too awful to watch. > € Advertisers concentrating more on product placement within the actual > programs - hate to think how far that might go. Or perhaps producing higher-quality advertising material that some viewers might not wince in pain and skip? Part of the problem is the incredible drivel that agencies here seem to call advertising, and TV studio's willingness to go for cheap, volume sales over good quality, premium priced services. I'm hoping these technologies might actually force studios and agencies to look at long term, effective ways of doing product advertisement without alienating viewers. Indications so far are that they're reacting the same way that the music industry has to digital music - sticking their head in the sand or screaming about how this stuff should all be banned. *sigh*. Stupid. -- Craig Ringer
