At 4:46 PM -0400 4/25/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote: >Not sure what you're describing here. Are you saying >increased frequency of ads? If yes, then I'll go back >to the old Laffer curve comparison: > >http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp > >There comes a point where increased frequency of ads, >like increasing taxes rates, reduces revenues rather >than increasing them. I don't see any medium that >increases the ads per hour compared with OTA as being >at an advantage. No Bert. This is not about more ads per hour. It is about more impressions per dollar spent. People who buy ads talk in terms of frequency as it relates to advertising impressions. One example of this is a technique tht is often used in both cable and broadcast where there are several ads for the same product or service in the same ad block/break. These double impressions are said to increase retention and awareness of the product. If you are a small local advertiser, you are interested in reaching as many people as possible with your ad budget. You can spend a lot of money with local broadcasters, who have a high cost per thousand viewers, and you will have limited frequency - i.e. the number of times that a viewer may see the ad in a given period of time (day/week/month). Cable offers a much lower CPM, and the ability to spread your ads out over a variety of demographically targeted networks, to increase the likelihood that you will make multiple impressions on your target audience. So cable has a very food story to tell with respect to the frequency of ad impressions, which is the major reason that they are growing market share at the expense of broadcasters. > >> Cable systems typically insert ads into 30 or more >> channels today - they offer access and demographic >> targeting that broadcasters cannot match. > >Some amount of demographic differentiation could be >done with DTT, possibly, as Kon and I discussed >briefly some months ago. "ANYTHING" is possible with DTT. But the reality is that it is NOT a differentiated service at this time. It still relies on the same old dying broadcast model. > >Seems to me that people will rebel against increased >spam, as has happened on telephone systems and on >ISP Internet connections. When you list the many >more effective spamming methods cable, DBS (and TiVo) >might offer, I can't help but wonder why they >wouldn't just turn off consumers even more than they >already are. We'll start seeing legislation passed >to control the overload of spam, just as we got with >telephone and just as we're starting to see for >Internet spam. More effective spamming methods always >seems to result in MORE SPAM, not just better targeted >spam. Ads for feminine hygiene products are spam to me. That's the problem with broadcast TV - it is not highly targeted. Increasing the relevance of ads is what is important, and this is where cable is winning. As they move to more refined techniques to match up advertisers with viewers, their advantage will increase. >Consider what you wrote there. If the telcos open "the >edges" of the network for anyone to provide content >streams, which to a degree they do already, those same >telcos have to provision the core of their network to >carry all these streams. Ditto the cable companies and >any ISP, for that matter. Correct. The only difference is if they are playing gatekeeper (the walled garden model) or common carrier (the Internet broadband model). The growing demand for open broadband services is both a blessing and a curse. As a new revenue stream for cable and the Telcos it is a blessing. But it provides a leaky bypass to their walled gardens, and those leaks are going to become gushers, until the dam finally breaks. >If these are fast TV-quality streams, someone has to >pay for the upgrading of the network core. The way you >keep the network core up to date, and prevent it from >overloading, is by charging different amounts for use, >depending on the amount of traffic each subscriber is >going to inject. And you apply mechanisms in the >network that prevent subscribers from exceeding their >allocated quota. Yup. You can pay based on packaging (walled gardens) or you can pay based on usage, with a portion of the money going to the bandwidth provider and the rest going to the content provider. My belief is that consumers will favor ala carte services and that the public Internet will be the stimulus to drive this. But I agree that someone has to provision the network to deliver these bits, no matter the business model. > >This will continue to be the case. And it also applies >to how a DTT broadcaster would rent out room on his >multiplex. The same problem applies generically to any >medium. > Yes, it is a matter of business models. Regards Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.