In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 31 Dec 2020 10:12:15 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

Micky,

Assuming that became a problem, they could not charge
for ads that were played more than twice in a row, or keep
anyone from playing an ad more than twice.

Why going for that kind of complex solutions when a way easier one (to
maintain) is available ?

Not so complex., Just takes a counter, an incrementer, a comparison,
and a resetter.

But what would the "way easier one" be?

Would they charge extra if one could pause a commercial?

Time viewed ?

Also, they already had to block pretty-much everything else (restart, skip,
fast fore/backwards). Blocking the all the controls would be easier, and
also more secure (no chance of forgetting anything).

Secure? Secure against what. People viewing the commercial more than
once?

However the guy who wants to pause the commercial
seems likely to be a serious possible customer.

On the other hand, not being able to stop the ad might 1) make a much more
lasting impression

I doubt that. I'm barely paying attention until I hear an important
phrase, and if I can't go back and the rest doesn't explain, I just
forget it altogether.

because of 2) force him to search for the product,

Half the time I don't even know what the product is, and more than half
the time, he'll search for his problem/need/desire, not for a particular
product.

strengthening #1 as well as exposing him to other products by the same
company.

Searching for what he wants will expose to other brands that do the same
thing.

I don't think people work that way. People hear loads of commercials and
they try to ignore them.

Though I have to say that this subject has got very little to
do with this newsgroup ...

Horrors!

Really ? You don't care ? Are you and Arlen than not as different as I
thought ? :-(

He's supposed to send in a DNA sample so we can have our genomes
compared. I'll let you know then.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser