Readers' Comments

Reader Comments on Aardvark Daily 1 May 2003
Note: the comments below are the unabridged submissions of readers and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher.
From: Alastair Johnson
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Watermark Advertising

Not related to FTA, but have you seen the Sky watermark on
Sky Movies and MovieMax (I think) that periodically spins
and advertises Philips TVs?

Very irritating, as ones eyes get drawn to it....




From: Dave
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Paying for FTA channels

So you ask if we'd be willing to pay $5 a month to get FTA
channels without adverts, watermarks and other such
intrusions.  Given the cost current of advertising and the
cost of purchasing/making material, I don't think $5 a
month would cover their costs in the slighest.

In addition, if the modified version was broadcast at the
same time as the normal channel, but on digital, what would
fill the gaps where the adverts would normally sit?

Maybe they could be like SkyNews and just have a picture of
the world and the theme song for 2 minutes.   Or perhaps be
like the Discovery channel and compress the program, and
then have 10-15 minutes of promotional material at the end
of the show, until the next program is ready to start.




From: Joe
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: They can't be serious

With a website like this http://www.impactv.co.nz/ you can
tell that these guys:
1/ Have tiny or even no budgets
2/ Don't understand the web
3/ Won't be a threat to Sky

Response from Craig



From: Don Mackie
For : Right Of Reply (for publication)
Subj: TV3 watermark

I was wondering if the watermark could be used in a tivo
like system to identify programming vs advertising (it
disappears during ads execept TV2 promo stuff). Or are ther
already easy ways to distinguish?




From: Ian Orchard
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Demise of FTA?

Quoting Aardvark:
> If this online discussion is representative of wider public opinion, the
> use of such intrusive strategies might well backfire badly,  driving
> viewers to channels (probably via Pay-TV) that offer freedom from such
> distractions.

The word that comes to mind is...CRAP!   PayTV, at least as we know it,
i.e. Sky is riddled with distractions, to the point I'm just about ready
to toss the bloody thing in and return my dish. I couldn't give a snot if
station promos are not "paid advertising", anything that interrupts the
narrative of any program is intrusive and not what I am paying a (just
increased) monthly fee for.

I wonder if they could be shafted for false advertising, claiming their
product to be free of advertising, when it is seething with their own
advertising?

The more I watch TV the more I appreciate Print advertising and now
that Safari kills pop-ups, even Web advertising is tolerable.




From: Paul Whitham
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Subscription Television

Even on pay TV you have the ads. Admittedly they are not
as bad as FTA, but they are still there.




From: Peter
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Pay TV

I have just experienced Sky, I have gone digital to get a
decent reception. But after the first month of mostly
rubbish, plenty of advertising, and watermarks on movies,
as planned I have dropped back to free to air only. I
wasn't tempted at all, even before the just increased rates.

I may have considered it if I could have selected the
channels I wanted but to get decent ones you have to pay
for heaps of crap as well.

My new home theatre system will be utilised mostly via
DVDs, with a bit of FTA TV with copious doses of channel
change and mute.

I would be prepared to pay for a small amount of selected
quality, but not the way it is.




From: craig
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Joes Comments

RE: Impactv website yes its a bare bones effort it was only
put up to cover some of the many requests for information
that they were receiving. A profesional website for the
services they will offer is still being assembled.

You may like to remember that they have not publicly
launched yet and are keeping to a low key approach.




From: Brodie Davis
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: ImpactTV's Website

Have to say I disagree with Joe,  The website gets the job
done with a minimal of fuss and excess crap.  Thats what I
consider a good design.

Just from looking at the discussions in the nz.comp
newsgroup from ages ago, I have pretty much decided i will
subscribe to their service once it comes online (pending
channel selection and price).

I would much rather a company spent its money on delivering
a quality service than having a pretty website.  Sky seems
unable to do either.
Hit Reload For Latest Comments
Now Have Your Say