Laptops Desktops Monitors & LCDs Graphics Cards Handhelds Phones Software Networks Printers More »
search
AnchorDesk

David Coursey
Skip the ads, go to jail? Yeah, right!

David Coursey
Executive Editor, AnchorDesk
Tuesday, May 7, 2002
TalkBack!Add your opinion

Today I want to continue a theme I introduced yesterday, in my story about ReplayTV and other technologies that let you skip past TV ads.

Over the weekend, Dan Gillmor, poet laureate of the San Jose Mercury News,  blasted the Dallas Morning News  for the sort of lunacy I've come to expect from my old hometown newspaper.

First, let me give you a concrete example of that lunacy. If you click here, you'll go directly to Mr. Gillmor's column. Pretty convenient, huh?

NOW, I COULD HAVE sent you to the Merc News  home page. But if I'd done that, you would have had to scroll way down the page, skipping Dan's Weblog, to find the column. And if I sent you to that home page in a couple of days, after Dan's column had migrated into the archives, you would have had to use the search tool to find it.

Far better to "deep link" directly to the content in question, bypassing the site's home page. Most of the links I provide in this column are "deep:" They take you straight to the stories I want you to see, and stay live longer.

But the good folks at the Dallas Morning News  consider deep linking a problem. They've even sent BarkingDogs.org, a small-time community newsletter, a cease-and-desist letter (see, I'm doing it again!), telling the site's Webmasters to stop linking directly to individual DMN stories and to link only to the newspaper's home page.

WHY? BECAUSE the newspaper is apparently concerned that BarkingDogs readers will miss all the advertising on their home page. Of course, a ban on deep linking is tantamount to a ban on ALL linking, something the Morning Snooze people probably didn't consider. Would they rather have deep links or no links at all?

Seems like a pretty obvious choice to me. But having grown up in Dallas (and having worked for a subsidiary of the Morning News  early in my career), the wrongness of the DMN's approach doesn't really surprise me. This is, after all, the same company that sank a bundle into the ill-fated CueCat scanner. Remember CueCat? It was a device you were supposed to keep next to you as you read newspapers and magazines. Advertisers would include bar codes in their ads. When you saw an ad you liked, you'd scan the bar code with your CueCat, and the associated Web page would pop-up on your computer.

What a loser that was.

BUT THE MORNING NEWS  isn't alone. The same basic argument--that by accepting free content you agree to look at ads--is being made by others in the entertainment and media industries. As Dan Gillmor notes, the head of Turner Broadcasting says it's "theft" when viewers decide not to watch his stations' ads. (He will, he says, make allowances for the occasional potty break.)

Go back to the AnchorDesk home page (not a deep link) and take a really good look at all the ads, scrolling down if you have to, then come back to this column. Then scroll down this page and read all the ads before you come back to this paragraph. Go ahead. I'll wait while you're gone.

I will not, however, hold my breath. Nobody is going to do that, just as nobody is going to sit transfixed in their La-Z-Boy when the ads come on and it's time to wander into the kitchen or hit the bathroom. I think this is nuts. You, dear reader, are going to do whatever the heck you like. It's up to us in the media business to present ads in a way that's so compelling, you'll actually want to look at them. But we can't force you to look.

You could use an ad blocker to remove the ads from AnchorDesk. If people don't look at the ads, we're out of business, and how would that benefit readers? But while I may not like that technology and don't know how to fight it, I'm not going to take anybody to court over it.

LIKEWISE WITH TELEVISION: If viewers want to use digital video recorders to fast-forward through commercials--or avoid them entirely--how can anyone really stop them? Hollywood and New York want the commercial skip feature outlawed. I think they'll fail, but they'll keep trying. Doing so lets advertisers avoid the real issue: Technology now allows people to avoid advertising content they don't want.

That technology has created what amounts to asymmetrical warfare between information/entertainment providers and consumers. Previously, providers assumed consumers would be exposed to most of the advertising along with the content. They built their businesses around this exchange: We give you The West Wing  (or AnchorDesk), and you view our ads.

Now consumers have the tools to remove the commercial content while keeping the information and entertainment. This new equation works only if consumers are willing to pay for content directly or do something else that replaces lost advertising revenue.

If I were smart enough to work this out, I'd be collecting zillions from the big media companies for solving their most pressing problem. But it's not an easy problem to solve, and the effect of solving it--or not--could have a serious impact on everyone who has become accustomed to being entertained and informed (almost) for free.

What do you think? Should deep linking be outlawed? Should ad-skipping on personal video recorders be illegal? If not, how should media companies make a buck? TalkBack to me and take my QuickPolls below!

Would you pay for information and entertainment without ads?
Yes
No
Not sure

Are you currently using any ad-blocking technology, such as software or a digital video recorder (or simply fast-forwarding through them on your VCR)?
Yes
No

Previous Story  Next Story 

Special sponsor stores
advertisement
Click Here