Increased use of
DVR will cut into television advertising time as much as our ability to throw
away mailbox junk mail cuts into direct mail advertising… nominally! The amount of advertising dollars a company
decides to spend, and how it spends them, is strictly up to its board of
directors. If dwindling advertising
efficiency is a direct result of the market’s increased DVR use, then the board
of directors will flow those advertising dollars into other advertising means, such
as: direct mail, billboards, airplane banners, etc.
Ted Harbert may
be displeased with the impending direction that advertising’s “joint investment
in programming” is heading, but the consumer has been displeased with the
alternative direction for decades. Yes,
we understand that in order for programming entities to make a profit and to
stay on the air, they must rely on advertising income and succumb to the
consumer’s burden of having their programs interrupted by advertising. However, as a result of that advertising, consumers
have been brainwashed into buying things they don’t really need. Additionally, behavior and mannerisms have
been changed to favor advertising companies’ bottom line.
Technology
redefines not only the advertising companies, but also the world in
general. Think of how much our world has
changed since the advent of the internet; favoring advertising companies, if
anything. Even think as far back as the
wheel: we went from dragging rocks, slumped over as Neanderthals to using
wheeled apparatuses and walking upright. (don’t quote me on that) The bottom line is that consumers welcome the
demise of television advertising. No
longer will we have to suffer through obnoxiously loud commercials that
interrupt our television programming.
The decision should be left in the board of directors’ hands in figuring
out where to re-allocate those advertising dollars in order to balance the loss
of income from the increased use of the DVR.
