Posted at Mar 13, 2008 1:13:43 PM by Enid Glasgow | Share
New York Times' Brian Stelter begins his latest editorial with a list of demands; "Pick up the remote." Simple enough. "Turn on the television." Again, nothing too strenuous. "and watch YouTube." Busted! Not Stelter or even the New York Times, but Google.
In my last blog, I mulled over Google's latest targeted advertising campaign in which video is their delivery boy. I wasn't a fan of the whole concept then, and they have yet to sell me on it. At least now, however, I understand how they're planning to drive me further from my television.
I'll admit I'm being overdramatic. I love Google and occasionally I'll watch something on my TV that isn't a DVD, but I believe that with all of this new functionality and "the future of television" talk comes a paradox of sorts. Sure, this may be the future of our TV-experience, but at what cost?
Like some bizarro polygamist sect, so many companies and services can be traced back or linked to one another. Google fathers Adsense. Google and YouTube's progeny is targeted video advertising. YouTube becomes bored and partners with TiVo; but now, I have two new questions that need answering.
Does Google exist vicariously through TiVo's YouTube service and, more importantly, will Google's targeted video ads penetrate my TiVo?
Originally, I cited DVR as what the rest of us use to combat monotonous blocks of commercials, but if what I've suggested is fact and Google's video Adsense extends to the realm of TiVo, then DVR is essentially compromised.
Let's say all of that hypothetical becomes reality; will we be able to skip over our YouTube adverts, or will there be exceptions? Smart-money suggests just such a scenario.