or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › iPad news advertisements command 5 times more than Web ads
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPad news advertisements command 5 times more than Web ads

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 
Advertising on print publications repurposed for Apple's iPad draws a fee up to five times more than buying placement on the same content provider's website.

While the news doesn't quite mean the iPad will "save" print publishing, as online advertising is a fraction of what publications receive in print, it is a sign that the iPad could become a major factor in revenue for those in the news business, according to the Associated Press.

The report from Andrew Vanacore said it's likely that news organizations will hold back free content from their websites in the future, opting instead to provide news to users who subscribe on tablet-style devices like the iPad. And although Apple has already sold 2 million iPads, the market will have to become much larger for it to have a major effect on a news organization's bottom line.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., which was the exclusive advertiser of the New York Times application for the first 60 days, also revealed that the click-through rate for iPad advertisements is a remarkably high 15 percent. The report noted that the online average for people viewing an advertisement is about one-tenth of a percent.

iPad readers also spend a great deal more time with content. Publisher Conde Nast revealed that the average reader spends 60 minutes with a monthly issue on Apple's device, compared with the average website visit length of less than 5 minutes per month.

One of the biggest problems with online advertising is the unlimited amount of space available. In a newspaper or magazine, space is finite based on the number of printed pages, adding more value. Online, limitless space makes advertising less valuable. The AP also noted that online ad networks allow advertisers to get placement at discounted rates. But the supply-and-demand issues haven't yet appeared in the iPad, which has been on the market for just over two months.

"In iPad applications such as USA Today's, there is a finite amount of space and no ad networks are in the mix," the report said. "And the app gives advertisers new possibilities. A reader can click on Courtyard by Marriott's USA Today ad and then with a flick of a finger scroll through images of the hotels' updated lobby design. Another tap and a high-definition video appears, full of happy hotel guests."

Jason Fulmines, director of products for USA Today owner Gannett, said the publication charges Mariott about $50 for every thousand ad impressions, while the going rate on the newspaper's website is less than $10.

But while the numbers are better on the iPad, they're still not as strong as they are in the newspaper. The cost per thousand in the print product, which is distributed nationally, runs $103 -- more than twice that of the iPad and ten times that of the website.

More evidence of the premium nature of the iPad, with respect to advertisers, will come with Apple's own iAd mobile advertising network. Early reports have suggested that Apple intends to charge as much as $10 million for companies to have initial placement in the iAd network. After the launch, Apple reportedly aims to charge close to $1 million for ads on its mobile devices -- much higher than the $100,000 to $200,000 companies pay with existing mobile deals.

Publishers, too, have made great investments in bringing their content to the iPad, and so far it's been a positive. The AP noted that The New York Times had more than 300,000 downloads of its free newspaper application by mid-May. A few weeks earlier, Apple had announced iPad sales had topped 1 million, suggesting a very high number of iPad owners downloaded the Times application.

The recently released $4.99 iPad edition of Wired, a Conde Nast publication, quickly jumped to the top of the App Store sales chart. The magazine utilizes new digital publishing technology developed by Adobe, which allows the print publication to work on an iPad edition at the same time, and add in interactive content such as video and animated graphics.
post #2 of 37
In the UK the Times newspaper app has sold 5000 copies in the last 7 days, they charge £10 (around $15) a month for access, that's damn good money already and will only increase as more ipads are brought into the UK!
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #3 of 37
I know that advertising is a great source of revenue (look at Google)...
And I understand that if content providers can command high add prices it bodes well for content on the iPad...

...But I still can't get excited about it.
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #4 of 37
Quote:
Advertising on print publications repurposed for Apple's iPad draws a fee up to five times more than buying placement on the same content provider's website.


Yea, because the users of iPads can't install software or browser plugins to block the ads.

Kinda sucks losing control over one's hardware huh?
post #5 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

One of the biggest problems with online advertising is the unlimited amount of space available. In a newspaper or magazine, space is finite based on the number of printed pages, adding more value. Online, limitless space makes advertising less valuable.

"In iPad applications such as USA Today's, there is a finite amount of space


Damn. Some people will believe anything.

Magazines have different numbers of pages. They can include unlimited numbers of ads. Remember Byte? Remember how thick it was? Ever seen the special yearly issues of Vogue?

Apps can expand and contract. Who knows, maybe the next issue of WiReD will contain a few more ads? Or maybe less?

And web pages do not have unlimited space. They need an appealing ratio of advertising to content, or else they lose readers.

The reasoning parroted in this story is all total bullshit.
post #6 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Yea, because the users of iPads can't install software or browser plugins to block the ads.

Kinda sucks losing control over one's hardware huh?

I don't see the ads?! Oh... that's because I don't visit print publications repurposed for Apple's iPad!

Guess I do have some control after all!

Just like I don't by Nike's extortion priced shoes so they can pay royalties to an already rich athlete for a product that does what? Cover feet... FEET! New Balance works fine for me! Still lov'in that control!

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #7 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

I don't see the ads?! Oh... that's because I don't visit print publications repurposed for Apple's iPad!

No one said you had to see those magazines... it's really for those that are interested in the content of those magazines.
post #8 of 37
Fives times as much for a fraction of the number of eyeballs?

P.T. Barnum was right.

I suspect this bubble will correct itself within six months as the novelty of the new device wears off....
post #9 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie View Post

damn. Some people will believe anything.

Magazines have different numbers of pages. They can include unlimited numbers of ads. Remember byte? Remember how thick it was? Ever seen the special yearly issues of vogue?

Apps can expand and contract. Who knows, maybe the next issue of wired will contain a few more ads? Or maybe less?

And web pages do not have unlimited space. They need an appealing ratio of advertising to content, or else they lose readers.

The reasoning parroted in this story is all total bullshit.

+1 .
post #10 of 37
Sadly, I agree with SpotOn.

The reason the click-through rate is so high is because people accidentally hit it because the interaction mode with the device is touch. I know all it did for me was piss me off and remove the NYT App when I accidentally clicked on a Chase ad.

Here's to a jailbreak or a ad-blocking proxy. Not sure which route I want to pursue so far.
post #11 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Yea, because the users of iPads can't install software or browser plugins to block the ads.

Kinda sucks losing control over one's hardware huh?

Ad-blocking is as close to stealing as you can get these days and still be considered socially acceptable. Seriously, if you like a site don't ad-block it! If the ads (ie. cost) isn't worth it to you, go somewhere else instead of taking it for free.
post #12 of 37
The headline is mildly confusing.. "command 5 times more" what? Attention? Clicks?
post #13 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

Ad-blocking is as close to stealing as you can get these days and still be considered socially acceptable. Seriously, if you like a site don't ad-block it! If the ads (ie. cost) isn't worth it to you, go somewhere else instead of taking it for free.


When ad makers get together and develop standards acceptable to the consumer perhaps I will.
post #14 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

I don't see the ads?! Oh... that's because I don't visit print publications repurposed for Apple's iPad!

Guess I do have some control after all!

Just like I don't by Nike's extortion priced shoes so they can pay royalties to an already rich athlete for a product that does what? Cover feet... FEET! New Balance works fine for me! Still lov'in that control!


Then you would LOVE Joes NewBalance
post #15 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by eh270 View Post

The headline is mildly confusing.. "command 5 times more" what? Attention? Clicks?

Money, a$$wipe, sorry that was a lil too easy.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Yea, because the users of iPads can't install software or browser plugins to block the ads.

Kinda sucks losing control over one's hardware huh?

Apparently that's only the beginning of Apple's plans:

Quote:
Apple Prepares to Rock the Market with Hardware Subsidizing Program

The US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple today that reveals various concepts behind a newly advanced service in development that entails subsidizing an incredible array of hardware from Apple. The hardware ranges from their sizzling hot iPhone to Apple TV - the set top box - to an actual television, notebook, iPod touch and more. The subsidization could also cover software from Apple or third party developers. What's the catch? You'll have to endure a very complicated and savvy advertising scheme that makes sure that you're paying attention. If not, the system can freeze the user out until compliance is met. This isn't for everyone, especially if ads in your face are something you want to avoid at all costs. But for the mass market, this is a whole new ballgame!
...
In other words, Apple is going to ensure advertisers that there'll be no way for users to get around playing their ads. In addition, Apple can further determine whether a user pays attention to the advertisement. The determination can include performing, while the advertisement is presented, an operation that urges the user to respond; and detecting whether the user responds to the performed operation. If the response is inappropriate or nonexistent, the system will go into lock down mode in some form or other until the user complies. In the case of an iPod, the sound could be disconnected rendering it useless until compliance is met. For the iPhone, no calls will be able to be made or received.

In the case of a desktop or notebook, the UI and its components (e.g., menu bars, icons, etc.) may be faded, darkened, brightened, blurred, distorted or otherwise visually modified during the initial state (or while the advertisement is being presented) so as to emphasize that the desktop UI is temporarily inactive.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...g-program.html
post #17 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

Sadly, I agree with SpotOn.

The reason the click-through rate is so high is because people accidentally hit it because the interaction mode with the device is touch. I know all it did for me was piss me off and remove the NYT App when I accidentally clicked on a Chase ad.

Here's to a jailbreak or a ad-blocking proxy. Not sure which route I want to pursue so far.


I hear it's possible to block the ad servers through your router.


Also if one uses the iPad Safari agent in Mac Safari and has the LittleSnitch outgoing firewall installed, visiting the NYT site shows a hidden connection to Akamai servers.

Likely nothing harmful, but if one uses the iPad/Safari to visit Adult oriented websites there is nothing to warn one of these hidden browser connections because Apple won't even mention LittleSnitch on their website, much alone allow it to be on the App Store.

Oh, but we are not supposed to view porn. *smacks head*


Amazing facts about internet porn

http://www.businessinsider.com/14-am...n-porn-sites-1
post #18 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

Ad-blocking is as close to stealing as you can get these days and still be considered socially acceptable. Seriously, if you like a site don't ad-block it! If the ads (ie. cost) isn't worth it to you, go somewhere else instead of taking it for free.

I'm with you on this. One problem with the internet is that people have come to believe they are entitled to everything for free, then when a way is found to allow content providers to give you the product for free, people chose to block that.

I don't want to start a debate as to what constitutes "quality", but I believe it's worth having quality journalism (i.e. edited by a professional), and if ads allow that to happen, I'm in favour. I'd actually go further and say people should be allowed to pick and chose, so if I want an ad free version of something, I can just pay my share, if I want it free, I get the ads.

Now, there needs to be some responsibility on the behalf of the content creators, to not have the ads be too intrusive, but the market should correct problems where ads are too intrusive (i.e. people will stop using the product). But, if there is to be responsibility on behalf of the content providers, there has to be responsibility on the consumer side, and to me, that is accepting ads as a way of life, if you want things for free.
post #19 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Oh, but we are not supposed to view porn. *smacks head*

That was just more random competitor FUD, apparently nothing Apple actually takes seriously:

Parents' organisation catalogs iPhone porn
http://www.tgdaily.com/unbalanced/49...gs-iphone-porn

More:
http://www.google.com/search?q=porn+on+iphone
post #20 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

I'm with you on this. One problem with the internet is that people have come to believe they are entitled to everything for free, then when a way is found to allow content providers to give you the product for free, people chose to block that.

One reason for blocking ads, especially Flash ads, and Google ad placements (and analytics) is for privacy reasons. If companies weren't constantly violating people's privacy on the internet, there would be less motivation to block ads, scripts, etc.

It is an unfortunate circumstance that this is not entirely possible on mobile Safari versions, about the most one can do is clear cookies once set, although, the lack of Flash support does contribute to suppressing that privacy violation. I think it's very important that Apple provide mobile Safari users a way to protect their privacy, or, maybe someone will (or have they already?) create a WebKit based iPhone/iPad browser that includes privacy protections.
post #21 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

Now, there needs to be some responsibility on the behalf of the content creators, to not have the ads be too intrusive, but the market should correct problems where ads are too intrusive (i.e. people will stop using the product). But, if there is to be responsibility on behalf of the content providers, there has to be responsibility on the consumer side, and to me, that is accepting ads as a way of life, if you want things for free.


If annoying ads wasn't a problem then there wouldn't be a need for ad blocking mechanisms, it wouldn't bother people enough to do something about it.

I don't think people like denying their favorite sites a means of support, but many have little choice in the matter.

Advertisers feel some need to create energy in the viewers of their ads to get them respond, annoying or distracting them with blinking, animation, sound and popups/unders that demand a response.

The viewers respond alright, by using Firefox and the Ad Block Plus plug-in, which by the way can whitelist certain sites like this one.
post #22 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Yea, because the users of iPads can't install software or browser plugins to block the ads.

Kinda sucks losing control over one's hardware huh?

Don't be ridiculous about always being able to control what you own. I've owned a number of TVs for the last 50 years and I was never able to block TV commercials. Nor was it possible for me to block radio commercials. I still had a choice as to whether I'd watch/listen or not.
post #23 of 37
Whatever the case, this sounds like great news for Apple.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
post #24 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


The report from Andrew Vanacore said it's likely that news organizations will hold back free content from their websites in the future, opting instead to provide news to users who subscribe on tablet-style devices like the iPad. And although Apple has already sold 2 million iPads, the market will have to become much larger for it to have a major effect on a news organization's bottom line.

Anticipate agonized howls from the "why would I get an iPad, when I can just view news websites for free on my netbook" crowd.
post #25 of 37
Apple to advertisers: Bend over.


In response, traditional media outlets(tv, newspapers, magazines, billboards...) should raise their prices for Apple ads.

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply
post #26 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

iPad readers also spend a great deal more time with content. Publisher Conde Nast revealed that the average reader spends 60 minutes with a monthly issue on Apple's device, compared with the average website visit length of less than 5 minutes per month.

How does Condé Nast know this?

Do they run a survey?

If so, How do they determine who bought their iPad apps?

If no survey, Does the iPad app spy on the user and monitor the time the user spends in the app, and then report back to Condé Nast?

If so, is the user made aware of this?



It is my understanding that:

-- Apple does not provide the names, emails etc. of individuals who buy an app to the Developer (Condé Nast, in this case).

-- If the Developer chooses, it can have app ask the user register with the developer, or require that information as part of an in-app purchase.


I bought the Wired app, and I did not see a survey, request for information, online registration, in-app purchase, or a request for approval to monitor my activity within the app.


So, again, the question is: How does Condé Nast know this?


There are privacy issues involved!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #27 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

If annoying ads wasn't a problem then there wouldn't be a need for ad blocking mechanisms, it wouldn't bother people enough to do something about it.

I don't think people like denying their favorite sites a means of support, but many have little choice in the matter.

Advertisers feel some need to create energy in the viewers of their ads to get them respond, annoying or distracting them with blinking, animation, sound and popups/unders that demand a response.

The viewers respond alright, by using Firefox and the Ad Block Plus plug-in, which by the way can whitelist certain sites like this one.

I agree with what you are saying, but I actually think the solution is to avoid using the website. I used to look at the San Jose Sharks website often, but they added an add for a crappy little Smart car which has to run before you can view the site, so I've gone elsewhere for my hockey news.

I think if the sites start seeing a reduction in traffic when they put on an annoying ad, they will do something about it. The problem with ad blockers is that the advertisers will see a reduction in click-through and (advertising people being as they are) will probably crank up the annoyance factor, thus irritating the people who don't use ad blockers even more!

Personally I hope things like iAd work and demonstrates the value of quality advertising, which would then hopefully spill over onto the web.
post #28 of 37
Apple should buy a substantial interest in Omnicom next and "help" them to repurpose their digital advertising. Put those idle billions to work, Apple!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #29 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Don't be ridiculous about always being able to control what you own. I've owned a number of TVs for the last 50 years and I was never able to block TV commercials. Nor was it possible for me to block radio commercials. I still had a choice as to whether I'd watch/listen or not.

Well I'm not as old as you, but certainly had the pleasure of device that could block TV commercials using signals in shows that a break was coming and for how long.
post #30 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartfat View Post

No one said you had to see those magazines... it's really for those that are interested in the content of those magazines.

It's also true that ads in glossy print magazines are all part of the enjoyment of the magazine. Who hasn't perused a magazine in the dentist's waiting room reading mainly the ads? The point is, and I think that was SJ's whole point about iAd, the ads in web pages and apps suck and all we want to do is get them out of the way. I hope what Apple will do with iAd is make the ads so appealing people will even browse them to kill time as they do with a magazine. SJ also promised there will always be a cancel button so this, if true, would be an improvement over being forced to watch some 30 second Flash video before something you want to see.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #31 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Well I'm not as old as you, but certainly had the pleasure of device that could block TV commercials using signals in shows that a break was coming and for how long.

I'm not aiming this comment at you SpotOn it was just a convenient point to enter the anti ad conversation. I get sick of ads on TV just like the next guy but at some point you have to consider if the wish for no ads were to come true just how we'd get the content? I love listening to NPR and watching PBS now and then and do contribute but I can't see CBS, ABC or NBC stopping programming for a week to ask for donations!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #32 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Well I'm not as old as you, but certainly had the pleasure of device that could block TV commercials using signals in shows that a break was coming and for how long.

I am not doubting you for a second but can you send me links on such a device (even historical info) I would love to read about them. I have heard of them before but never seen one. My company used to make TV shows and send them off to ESPN, ESPN2 all finished but I never came across any such system and we certainly never added any such signal to the shows we made. I assume the station sent it out in parallel somehow as all shows are redistributed and obviously the Networks couldn't encode this. But which stations, all of them? Were they all using the same system nationally? I look forward to being educated on something I always wanted to get to the bottom of. What fascinates me is why this was never an option in Tivo et al, wow that would have been useful! You used it with what other equipment and in what way? Was this to pause a recording device ... if so how? Sorry so many questions but I am really interested to learn more.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #33 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Well I'm not as old as you, but certainly had the pleasure of device that could block TV commercials using signals in shows that a break was coming and for how long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I am not doubting you for a second but can you send me links on such a device (even historical info) I would love to read about them. I have heard of them before but never seen one. My company used to make TV shows and send them off to ESPN, ESPN2 all finished but I never came across any such system and we certainly never added any such signal to the shows we made. I assume the station sent it out in parallel somehow as all shows are redistributed and obviously the Networks couldn't encode this. But which stations, all of them? Were they all using the same system nationally? I look forward to being educated on something I always wanted to get to the bottom of. What fascinates me is why this was never an option in Tivo et al, wow that would have been useful! You used it with what other equipment and in what way? Was this to pause a recording device ... if so how? Sorry so many questions but I am really interested to learn more.

I can't provide links, but I can point you in the right direction to begin a search.

Muzac was a early attempt to provide commercial-free radio (elevator music) before cassette recorders, transistor radios, etc. The way it was explained to me was this:

The Muzac company contracted with local Music-only radio stations to add special, inaudible signals before and after each commercial. Then they rented Muzac radio receivers to business to supply background music. These were special radios tuned to the contracted frequency (channel). These receivers would detect the inaudible signals, and lower the volume before a commercial and then raise it again after the commercial.

In essence, the circuitry in the special radio would use the signals to squelch the commercials-- so it was called a squelch circuit, .

A couple of things:

-- the term "squelch circuit" was loosley applied to this and other purposes, such as eliminating background noise..
-- the time the commercials were playing (with the volume off) was simulated "dead air" time when nothing was heard
-- the inaudible signals were not entirely inaudible... you could recognize a certain length pause, a certain-length tone, and a certain-length pause.

Enterprising radio techies (my Dad was one) could design their own squelch circuit and play commercial-free radio at no cost except their own inventiveness.

In early TV broadcasts, the networks broadcast through local affiliates. Most of the commercials were broadcast from "network central". However, a system was in place (similar to the squelch circuit) to notify the affiliate to electronically switch "local ads".

Here again, the TV techies could detect the signals and eliminate the "local commercials". Some went even further, and would anticipate many "normal" 30-second and 6o-second commercial breaks at fixed times (the top and bottom of the hour). Some of these are required bt the FCC-- to identify the station "over the air" every hour (or so).

The broadcasters caught on to what the Techies were doing to bypass commercials and started a cat and mouse game of moving the commercials around (similar to the cat and mouse game that Apple plays with JailBreakers).

The cable companies added another level, replacing the affiliate with the local cable rebroadcaster.

There is [at least] one other way that the broadcast (cable or over-the-air) signals can be switched, That is the Federal and Local EWS (early Warning System) where the government involved interrupts broadcasts to deliver disaster instructions such as tornado warnings, evacuation instructions, etc.

Somewhere, there is this big broadcast server in the sky, that sorts out who sees what commercials and when.


...And, someone, somewhere has the content! Where's the content? Who's got the content? Did you take the content?


HTH

Dick
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #34 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I can't provide links, but I can point you in the right direction to begin a search.

Muzac was a early attempt to provide commercial-free radio (elevator music) before cassette recorders, transistor radios, etc. The way it was explained to me was this:

The Muzac company contracted with local Music-only radio stations to add special, inaudible signals before and after each commercial. Then they rented Muzac radio receivers to business to supply background music. These were special radios tuned to the contracted frequency (channel). These receivers would detect the inaudible signals, and lower the volume before a commercial and then raise it again after the commercial.

In essence, the circuitry in the special radio would use the signals to squelch the commercials-- so it was called a squelch circuit, .

A couple of things:

-- the term "squelch circuit" was loosley applied to this and other purposes, such as eliminating background noise..
-- the time the commercials were playing (with the volume off) was simulated "dead air" time when nothing was heard
-- the inaudible signals were not entirely inaudible... you could recognize a certain length pause, a certain-length tone, and a certain-length pause.

Enterprising radio techies (my Dad was one) could design their own squelch circuit and play commercial-free radio at no cost except their own inventiveness.

In early TV broadcasts, the networks broadcast through local affiliates. Most of the commercials were broadcast from "network central". However, a system was in place (similar to the squelch circuit) to notify the affiliate to electronically switch "local ads".

Here again, the TV techies could detect the signals and eliminate the "local commercials". Some went even further, and would anticipate many "normal" 30-second and 6o-second commercial breaks at fixed times (the top and bottom of the hour). Some of these are required bt the FCC-- to identify the station "over the air" every hour (or so).

The broadcasters caught on to what the Techies were doing to bypass commercials and started a cat and mouse game of moving the commercials around (similar to the cat and mouse game that Apple plays with JailBreakers).

The cable companies added another level, replacing the affiliate with the local cable rebroadcaster.

There is [at least] one other way that the broadcast (cable or over-the-air) signals can be switched, That is the Federal and Local EWS (early Warning System) where the government involved interrupts broadcasts to deliver disaster instructions such as tornado warnings, evacuation instructions, etc.

Somewhere, there is this big broadcast server in the sky, that sorts out who sees what commercials and when.


...And, someone, somewhere has the content! Where's the content? Who's got the content? Did you take the content?


HTH

Dick

Thanks so much for all the info ... analog and all its limitations is so hard to imagine now isn't it!

So I think I see this now. Our shows which had several two minute black sections left in for ads on the tapes were probably pre marked with a count down by a techy at the Network when they first received the tapes. This would trigger the automated drop in of four thirty second ads at the affiliate or cable station rebroadcasting. The light bulb comes on... This amateur equipment simply detected these signals. As to what end though ... were amateurs using these signals to pause their VHS decks? Or was it they just had a light bulb light up saying pee break in ten seconds?

Seriously a squelch circuit on the audio during ads would be pretty nice! Even now ... I hate the fact ads are twice as loud as the shows a nasty habit I am also hearing with web ads now too. Macs and ATV should come with automatic audio leveling to prevent this (reading this SJ?)
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #35 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Thanks so much for all the info ... analog and all its limitations is so hard to imagine now isn't it!

So I think I see this now. Our shows which had several two minute black sections left in for ads on the tapes were probably pre marked with a count down by a techy at the Network when they first received the tapes. This would trigger the automated drop in of four thirty second ads at the affiliate or cable station rebroadcasting. The light bulb comes on... This amateur equipment simply detected these signals. As to what end though ... were amateurs using these signals to pause their VHS decks? Or was it they just had a light bulb light up saying pee break in ten seconds?

Seriously a squelch circuit on the audio during ads would be pretty nice! Even now ... I hate the fact ads are twice as loud as the shows a nasty habit I am also hearing with web ads now too. Macs and ATV should come with automatic audio leveling to prevent this (reading this SJ?)

Ha!

There was a TV set, a few decades back, that did this! I think it was a Magnavoz, Zenith or Motorola (when they still made TVs). The trouble is, you had to buy a new TV to get the feature (a major purchase at that time)

I did some googling and found this: under TV automatic volume control:

Quote:
Loud annoying TV commercials
by Michael D. Grissom on Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:04 pm

After thousands of complaints to the FCC about this problem, a battle was fought and the end results were that TV commercials could no longer be INCREASED in volume. Unfortunately, the ruling did NOT say that the TV show (program) could not be REDUCED in volume so, the problem continues. Also, they have added audio compression to TV commercials to make them SOUND louder without increasing the volume so much. This is info obtained from the FCC web site.

I have patented such a device and it became a Senior Engineering project at NCSU this semester. It is working almost perfectly and the preproduction proto will be complete in May. If and when it goes into production, I'll send you one for free -- just for fun.

If you must have one NOW you can find three types available on the net (keywords: "ZAPPER" & "TV commercials") and several more types built into VCR's and cable boxes like TIVO. Unfortunately, the built in ones require that you record everything, then rewind, then send it all the way through the tape again so that it can "mark" (not erase) all the commercials and rewind again before you can watch commercial free. When a commercial is encountered, your screen will go black for about 15 to 30 seconds while it Fast Forwards through all the commercials. BTW, I have Smart Sound and its effects are barely detectable which is why the search for a better solution is still viable.

Hope this brightens your day a tad. You had a great idea that our marketing research shows 35 million US residence would buy today for under $35.

http://www.creativitypool.com/viewtopic.php?t=535

But your idea, let's call it a "Billy May" filter is excellent-- something in between the cable and the TV that moderates volume.! If people would pay $35 for a "Billy MAy" filter, would they pay $100 for one that included AppleTV?

As a side note, iPhone OS 4.0 has added a ton of sophisticated math APIs, especially for DSP (Digital Signal Processing). So, an AppleTV (or even a headless iPod) running iPhone OS...

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #36 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I am not doubting you for a second but can you send me links on such a device (even historical info) I would love to read about them. I have heard of them before but never seen one. My company used to make TV shows and send them off to ESPN, ESPN2 all finished but I never came across any such system and we certainly never added any such signal to the shows we made. I assume the station sent it out in parallel somehow as all shows are redistributed and obviously the Networks couldn't encode this. But which stations, all of them? Were they all using the same system nationally? I look forward to being educated on something I always wanted to get to the bottom of. What fascinates me is why this was never an option in Tivo et al, wow that would have been useful! You used it with what other equipment and in what way? Was this to pause a recording device ... if so how? Sorry so many questions but I am really interested to learn more.


My old man was in the TV business from the early days, before solid state TV's came along and wiped out the TV repair guys. So he and his coworkers knew all the secrets.

Guess one can find out a lot with a degree in electronics, a oscilloscope and some hardware hacking.

Sadly I was just a user and a abuser, so I can't help you.
post #37 of 37
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › iPad news advertisements command 5 times more than Web ads