Napster has been awarded the title of Super Bore ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/08/napster_ad_flop/ ) by viewers ranking the advertisements from last night's football championship. ( http://dyn.ifilm.com/superbowlads/ )

Napster's ad - which claimed it costs $10,000 to fill Apple's iPod with music and just $14.95 a month to rent as much music as possible via Napster's new To Go service - placed last in a survey taken by USA Today. Companies paid close to $2.4m for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Napster's commercial trailed all 54 other spots, according to the people surveyed by the newspaper.
-----------------------
Consumers are apparently a bit smarter than Napster imagined. They didn't fall for the $10,000 fill-your-iPod claim. Most people fill their digital music players with tracks taken from their existing CD collection and from MP3s already on their computer. An iPod can be filled for less than $5, if you have the right friends. (from the register)

Can I take it from the blurb here that most consumers didn't take the bait? That music-for-rent might not have the appeal that Napster wishes for the buying public to believe? Still can't see what he thinks is so handy with this service but apparently he fooled someone into buying into it, they financed the commercials.

I saw their point.

If you used I-tunes to fill up your I-Pod at a dollar per lossy DRM encoded MP3, it would cost you around $3,000 to $5,000.

That's if you are a dumb ass enough to do such a stupid thing.

Why do that when you can get your DRM encoded lossy MP3's from Napster at $14.99 a month?

Why give Napster $14.99 a month just to RENT DRM encoded lossy MP3's?? Why not boycott them like every other RIAA-backed organization to get the message through that we DON'T WANT DRM infested lossy MP3's?? And that we don't want the RIAA suing 12-year-old girls for listening to music???

It might be dumb ass enough to fill your iPod at 99cents per track, but it's just as dumb to think Napster's service is really any better.

I think renting a large music collection might not be a bad deal, in theory. It is the $14.95/month that is a bad deal. Horrible deal. That is a little less than $180/year!

Hmmmm. Are people smart enough to figure out that they could compress their own CDs, and their friends', or take a trip to the local library for source material?

Sometimes I wonder. Anyway, not having seen the ad, I wonder if people are rating the Napster ad or the Napster message. Maybe they get the message but didn't think the ad was very clever.

"Anyway, not having seen the ad, I wonder if people are rating the Napster ad or the Napster message. "

...aw, don't spoil our fun autodidact. We are trying to gloat a little here!

the kicker in all this is that napster sells WMA files...

the ipod does not support wma(with good reason)

but it does support DRM

I saw the commercial and get the point...both services are bad for the consumer.

we also don't want the RIAA suing dead people for listening to music...

They can sue dead people all they want...

...I just wish they would leave the 12 yr old Brianna's alone.

Hmm.

Let's get this straight.

First Choice - Fill your Ipod for $10,000

Second Choice - Fill your Napster Player for $14.95 a month

Gee. That sounds great, but I think I'll stick with my option

My Option - F--- the RIAA, Screw Itunes, Screw Napster (which, by the way, is dead), go to Imesh and fill my hard drive, my MuVo, and whatever else I feel like with non-DRM mp3's.

Not even a dumbass can pass that up.

Let the idots pay, let our music play.

Hail Mp3!!!

Stop posting this! I can not breath of laughting!