by: Ilya Vedrashko
At Clickz Experts, Dave Evans writes that the ad-zapping stopper patented by Philips is actually a good thing: "TV programmers ought to be able to force viewers to watch commercials.
And as the patent makes clear, consumers ought to be able to pay for the option to watch without commercial interruption." His argument is that TV should adopt the web model - you can either pay for ad-free content or watch the content for free but with ads.
Ain't gonna work for many reasons, one of them being the fact that TV and web have different interaction models. Blocking ad-skipping and channel switching on TV would be like freezing someone's browser, disabling the back button and showering the window with pop-ups. Besides, making people watch your ads is like nagging that cute girl to go out with you; she might give in but what's the point? Give them a reason to want it and you will live happily ever after.
Original Post: http://adverlab.blogspot.com/2006/04/commentary-philipss-ad-skipping.html
I absolutely agree with your assessment. If advertisers want consumers to watch their ads they darn well better make them relevant and memorable (and many do), not foist something like this on us. Lock in all the ads you want, you can't stop me from leaving the couch for a bathroom break or flipping channels...yet.