Readers react to DVR dilemma

Last week's column on the digital video recorder dilemma stirred more reader reaction than normal, so I thought I'd share some of your thoughts.

Renee H. chimed in early and said she agreed completely with me that there's no going back from today's world of using a DVR to skip commercials. "Oh, please don't tell me my company is thinking about siding with Time Warner on this. I think folks would give up watching TV rather than endure the commercials. That's it--do more watching on the computer. I already get almost all my news from there."

Alan R. pointed out that "pay TV"--the early cable--started out substituting subscriptions fees for ads, but today's cable includes both. "Can you say 'revenue both ways?' I think you can." He thinks subscription fees should offset commercials, so that fast-forwarding through ads is still possible if you are paying a little more.

"I, like you, am a DVR devotee," he writes. "But, I always stop for the Apple ads, or any other well-produced ad of interest anyway. I'm not suggesting that the ads be removed; I'm suggesting my subscription fee entitle me to watch only the ads of my choice."

That means ads need to be "more meaningful and better produced to succeed, and I can't see that as a bad thing," Me, neither, Alan.

David H. thinks technology should come to the rescue and offer advertising that is more targeted.

"In the last few days there has been a mini brouhaha over the New York Times collecting data on its Internet subscribers (I am one)," he writes. David is willing to fill out customer surveys on his demographics and interests in exchange for getting a free email and being able to read several articles daily. "Part of the problem with current television is not one or two commercials but two-, three- and four-minute blocks of commercials that, with remote in hand, like most people, I ignore," he said. "Let programmers tailor ads to the individual tastes and need of consumers and reduce the number of commercials."

Tying downloads to ads allows the viewer make his own decisions about how much advertising he or she is willing to watch to get the programming they want.

Stephen L. thinks Time-Warner Cable's Glenn Britt is wrong when he says consumers will watch ads to time-shift programs.

"We pay a premium for services we never asked for (have you ever known anyone who bought 'cable TV' just to get the Home Shopping Network?). We can gain religion and see news from the most remote parts of the earth. We can learn about the past, the present and the future," he wrote. "Now we have someone, Glenn Britt, who makes millions a year, [say] that we must suffer through the mortgage re-fi or male enhancements barraging us multiple times in every half hour. What consumers did he ask? I think he found some of the old thigh masters who linger for more squeeze between their legs."

Larry H. says I'm wrong about cable companies not doing multi-room DVRs, but agrees that it's easy to get spoiled by DVR usage. "Research has shown that consumers still watch and remember a large percentage of commercials on recorded programs," he wrote. "One of the true benefits of both network and in-home DVRs is the ability to time shift programs, not necessarily to fast forward through commercials. My current cable company-provided DVR allows me to transfer a recorded program to VHS if I choose, and I would then still be able to fast forward through commercials (what a hassle that would be to do several times a week!)."

Jerry F. got right to the point -- "If they delete the fast forward, I'm switching to another provider."

I think a lot of people would follow suit.

E-mail me at cwilson3@telephonyonline.com.