Why Don't We Call Them ADDvertisements?
from the short-attention-span-advertisements dept
It's no secret that the days of the "30-second spot" are increasingly a thing of the past. Plenty of advertisers have tried to figure out ways around it from product placement to actually making commercials worth paying attention to. It appears Clear Channel is now trying its own experiment. Figuring that the 30 second radio spot is simply too long in this attention deficient world, they want to try offering one-second spots (found via Threadwatch). Yes, one second spots. Just long enough for... well, no, actually not long enough for anything, other than maybe to get some attention for doing something pointless.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That will work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bigger is not always better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bigger is not always better
Last night I was watching Discovery and I was first told "This program is brought to you by.."
This was followed by nine commercials...
Do they really think we are going to pay attention to that many commercials and to remember the content of each and be impressed enough to buy the product?
i don't think so.
Most ads are so stupid,irritating and obnoxious I simply hit mute and find something else to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Juuuust long enough...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Juuuust long enough...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Juuuust long enough...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
be afraid....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes the most effective commercials...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and that's how many superbowl ads???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertisers are Stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do i get a cookie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Future Is Now
"We have enough for approximately three words."
"Hmm... I've got it! BUY A FORD!"
"Two point oh one seconds. We could squish another word in there."
"BUY A FORD NOW!"
"Perfect."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patently stupid
What portion of a 1-second ad campaign would be considered "fair use" in another ad campaign or other medium?
How long would it take to sue the bajeebus off a kid who took a bunch of 1-second ad campaigns and used them as "samples" in his new R&B song? I'm assuming the kid's MySpace video of the song would also include a montage of split-second video images collected from ad campaigns as well.
EVERYBODYCO. V. JOHNNY LITTLE JR.
Comes now the plaintiff, EVERYBODYCO., hereafter referred to as EVERYBODY, bearing complaint against JOHNNY LITTLE JR. hereafter referred to as JOHNNY. EVERYBODY alleges JOHNNY did violate EVERYBODY's copyrights by including an audio sample of a half-second scream dubbed over a half-second piano chord, which is copyrighted by EVERYBODY as The Everybody Sound. Further, in the duration of JOHNNY's song, EVERYBODY alleges that The Everybody Sound was repeated no less than 200 times. EVERYBODY also alleges that JOHNNY's song was made available to approximately 2 billion people on the Internet. EVERYBODY has licensed The Everybody Sound to film studios at a rate of $1 per incident. Therefore EVERYBODY humbly asks the court that JOHNNY immediately surrender $400 billion in licensing fees to EVERYBODY for his usage of The Everybody Sound, plus punitive damages, damages for EVERYBODY's emotional suffering and distress as well as legal fees and court costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool Lets see those
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]