Naughty step
I know this is wrong of me. Crooks are crooks and all that. But the idea that these companies paid all that money without their advertising crap infesting people's TV's does give me a small sensation of pleasure.
Oracle on Thursday said it has uncovered the largest fraud campaign yet targeting businesses booking advertising in video streams showing on so-called "smart" televisions. The campaign, dubbed StreamScam by Oracle, supposedly exploited Server-Side Ad Insertion (SSAI) technology, used to inject ads into video streams, by …
Spending large amounts of cash to advertise their product or service means there is less money that goes into the product or service, which implies that the return to the consumer for their cash is less than a comparable product or service. Basically fancy way of saying paying a premium for the highly advertised.
I don't mind television advertising in most cases. There are some quality programs which really benefit from advertisement-free viewing, but I'm willing to pay a premium to watch those (not that I watch much in either case, to be honest).
But SSAI is fricking horrible. My wife was watching some CBS programming over one of the streaming services the other day, and advertisement scheduling was completely random. It would interrupt scenes in the middle of dialog - often in the middle of a word.
Traditional television advertising was scheduled deliberately so it fit into the cadence of the programming. And while that might be considered manipulative - the use of cliffhangers and the like to try to keep the audience engaged during the ad break - it wasn't nearly as obnoxious as the random insertions I've seen with SSAI.
YouTube has the same problem, I've noticed. I was watching a Doug DeMuro video the other day and the YT ads interrupted him in mid-sentence. This is a problem that could trivially be solved algorithmically - I could throw something together with Praat in half an hour that would have a decent probability of avoiding it. It's an utter failure by Google's YT team.
I'm in favor of anything that reduces the incentive to use SSAI.
"This is a problem that could trivially be solved algorithmically "
Could be? It was solved years ago. There are many s/w applications capable of detecting silences in audio, with adjustable levels. The early ones I saw were primarily used for digitising vinyl albums to split the tracks. Newer ones can differentiate between speech and other sounds. One I've used recently is mp3splt which has a 17 year pedigree.
I will add that this is not just a problem with streaming services though. Many cable channels are run on a shoestring budget and are mainly automated. Ads are placed at certain times, irrespective of the content being show at the time. Even CNN do the same. The "ads" come at specific times, not "breaking" the shows, but often flash ads intended for some other region before cutting the intended ones.
I get astounded / annoyed / intrigued by the recent experience of the auto-inserted adverts in youtube videos, pushing for a Youtube subscription - "Enjoy your favourite videos free from interruptions..."
It's barely a sidestep away from "Nice video you're watching here, be a terrible shame if something were to happen to it..."
This post has been deleted by its author
Same problem with a "dumb" (i.e. for smart consumers) TV set connected to a set-top box, if you view content from many of the streaming services.
Which, of course, you may choose to avoid. I personally wouldn't miss much if we got rid of our various streaming services. For those occasions when I want to watch television (mostly when I'm eating, because I find it less convenient to eat and read at the same time), there are DVDs, and the occasional YouTube video on my laptop. I could live without Prime and Hulu and Netflix and the rest.
And, of course, a set-top box can be disconnected and powered off while still using the TV set itself. And it can be replaced without replacing the TV set. Those are both advantages over "smart" TVs.
The last time I bought a TV, though, there was only one non-smart set available between the two stores I checked.
Mother-in-law just bought a new QLED Samsung TV. Took a few internet searches and too much menu navigation to finally stop ads showing up in the menu system. It also tried to coerce me into setting up a Samsung IoT account before completing the initial setup.
Great picture but I would not buy one.
Just a cautionary note for those applauding ads not actually inflicted on viewers. Think a moment about from whence that money ultimately comes.
Companies pay for advertising. The only way they can have an advertising budget is by using a fraction of the revenue generated by the goods & services they provide or money from investors, the latter needing to be recouped for dividend payments etc.
That money has to come from somewhere. That only source is by taking a proportion of the profit from what people pay for said goods & services.
That profit might come from consumers' pickets directly, in the case of companies' products selling directly to consumers. It might equally be through a chain if business to business transactions until the final transaction is again with a company selling consumer products.
Yup. It's us consumers - the public - who are still being fkeeced.
It's actually worse than that as we all pay whether or not we watch the TV channels in question, or even if we gave a TV at all.
Aerial or Bold? The adverts for each were so awful that they convinced people to buy the other one instead of "Store's Own Brand". All three washing powers were made by Unilever but Unilever made more profit from their branded products.
Perhaps supermarkets will inflict some terrible adverts for branded products on us so they can put up the price of Store's Own Brand. Judging by a couple of adverts I saw recently, this is already happening.
"Perhaps supermarkets will inflict some terrible adverts for branded products on us so they can put up the price of Store's Own Brand. Judging by a couple of adverts I saw recently, this is already happening.""
That's the entire premise of the Aldi and Lidl TV ads :-)
Oracle are claiming that they can prove advertisers were charged for impressions that did not appear, but they can not say who did the charging? That does not add up.
Either Oracle are making stuff up (lying) to advertise their analytics engines, which comes under the heading of false advertising, or they are saying that advertisers are doing business with unregistered entities and paying bills without verifying that contracted services were delivered, which is financial malfeasance.
What they appear to be saying is that they're seeing a pattern of fraud. For example they talk about random IP addresses and device serial numbers. It may be that they have a reasonable idea from their tracking activities of what IP address a tablet (and especially smart TV) lives at - from seeing the two repeatedly paired when downloading content. If you then see random patterns involving those ID's being separated - you might think the identifiers are being spoofed.
Indeed. Every time I say that there's no evidence all this targetted advertising actually works, the inevitable response is that everyone wouldn't keep spending money on it if that were true. Here we see yet another case where not only did no-one know if their advertising was working, they didn't even notice that it was being shown to anyone at all. And the article claims 10% of the entire market is fraudulent. Asking whether advertising works is really a bit premature at this point, they have yet to show any evidence they can tell if it's even happening.
"And the article claims 10% of the entire market is fraudulent."
50% or advertising budget is wasted money, but no one knows which 50%. So, only 10% of it being fraud only accounts for 1/5th of the waste. They still don't know which 40% is the rest of the waste :-)
My sister-in-law complained while watching the Superbowl in the UK (on the BBC) that she wasn't seeing the adverts. And so was missing out on the jokes with her mates back home in the US. To be fair the quality of advertising you see on NFL games in particular is quite high - there are plenty of boring ones of course but also quite a lot that are actually funny.
I think it's all part of the experience. Of course in her case missing any of the experience from being abroad is bound to generate home sickness. Just in the sense that you miss the familiar. In the same way as I found myself craving Curly Wurly's while living in Brussels. Two minute's walk from one of the finest chocolate shops in the world. And having not eaten one of the bloody things for about ten years before moving there. Anyway this resulted in me buying a 4 pack on a trip back to Blighty and eating the whole lot within about an hour of getting home. For shame!
@I’m not Spartacus
Off-topic, but I am sure that Curly-Wurlys used to have biscuit in them back in the early-ish 1970’s.
I also think that Bob Carolgees and Spit the Dog advertised the removal of the biscuit layer (with the dog upset due to the lack or crumbs with the new version).
Did I imagine this (which is worryingly specific), or is my recollection correct?
I bow to your superior Curly Wurly expertise. Although I remember them always being caramel only. But then I don't remember the early 70s. I'm a clearly a little less advantaged with wisdom than yourself, having only been born in the early 70s - hence my Curly Wurly habit was only instituted in the late 70s.
Advertising needs to go back to 20 years ago.
If you want to target your advertising, contact me directly - the owner of a targeted website that deals with a very clear business area, and negotiate with me to put your banner on my site, not unlike a street billboards that tells my very relevant audience about your business.
I'll charge you £500 for a year.
Fuck, those were good, easy times.
Just being curious, is this saying that modern TVs do the YouTube minus uBO thing of showing ad inserts in the middle of the broadcast and stuff like that?
(I'm not much of a TV person. Last time I saw a TV set was at a friend's a couple of weeks ago, and it was switched off)