The New York Times (reg. req.) has a short article describing the slow decline in effectiveness of television advertising as a political campaign tool (Politicians Turn to Alternatives to TV Advertising). What I found most interesting about this article was that some people in the political realm actually get it:
Several campaign strategists said the effectiveness of TV spots had been blunted by the ability of voters to fast-forward past annoying hard-edged attacks. They said they were worried that this would become only more problematic with the advent of a new digital recording technology that lets viewers filter out all advertising with a stroke on a keypad.
These anonymous strategists recognize the tremendous effects disruptive technology like the Digital Media Recorder can have on society as a whole and politics in particular (too bad their clients don't seem to have the same degree of understanding). Of course, I don't know and I don't think anyone really knows how this technological shift will play out in the campaign arena, but if it makes fund raising less necessary and reduces the weight of money in campaigns, then I am all for it.
This shift also raises a number of related regulatory issues. What sort of campaign regulations might occur when companies like TiVo control the electronic programming guide? Will TiVo be required to record campaign advertisements or debates (for a fee or not)? TiVo certainly has the capability. My thought is that this is another good reason that PMRs should not be so dependent on centralized programming guide services like TiVo's. Open access to programming guide information, I say.
Read a related LawMeme article on TV Advertising in the age of TiVo (Study: PVRs Not Necessarily the Death of TV Advertising).