Paying More For Much Less: The New TV Commercial Strategy

from the 30-seconds-ain't-worth-what-it-used-to-be dept

Tue, Nov 28th 2006 4:36am — Mike Masnick

As TV and ad execs fret about the fact that TV commercials aren't particular effective these days thanks, in part, to things like TiVo and YouTube, it seems that some are discovering there may be more value in giving consumers less. That is, advertisers are recognizing they can get a lot more bang for the buck by giving consumers more of what they want (the actual content) and less of what they don't (the intrusive ads). Philips is experimenting with sponsoring a few different shows, where part of the sponsorship means much more airtime for the shows, and fewer commercials (all from Philips, of course). Effectively, they're buying up the commercial airtime, and using a large portion of it to give back to the show. It's a strategy that makes some sense -- recognizing that giving people more of what they actually want makes sense. It also works well for the early adopters like Philips who get an extra bump from stories like this one about the experiment. However, what will be more interesting is whether or not it still works for them long term. It's certainly possible. By limiting an entire show's advertisers to a single company, that company is much more likely to get its branding message across, even with much less time. That, in turn, should be valuable to both the advertiser and the network (who should also end up with happier viewers not forced to skip around as much).

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

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hermenauta, 28 Nov 2006 @ 4:53am

Not a surprise. At the beginning, commercial TV was vastly proppeled by programs entirely sponsored by just one company. Here in Brazil there were a lot of news programs sponsored by companies, including foreign ones. But there were also incursions in teledramaturgy, programs to children, etc. I think the same thing happened in the USA, since our commercial TV business model was imported from there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 28 Nov 2006 @ 5:03am

Sounds a lot like the old days...
If you listen to old-time radio, i.e., from the '30s and '40s, that was more of the model. There would be a single sponsor for the the show, and the only ads during the show were from that sponsor. Some shows, like the comedy Fibber McGee and Molly, would incorporate the ads into the show itself...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dosquatch, 28 Nov 2006 @ 5:17am

Re: Sounds a lot like the old days...
I know, I know! We can take a round, rolly sort of thing, and attach it to this big, flat, sled sort of thing, and it'll let us move stuff around a lot more easily! We can call them "Rollies". Or "Easy rollers".

Wheee, this is kinda fun! Maybe we can incorporate "Whee" into the name... "rollwhee", or "rwheeolls".... "WHEELS!" Hey, I like that!

*sigh* What's that saying about everything old being new again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haywood, 28 Nov 2006 @ 5:29am

If all the comercials were like Target's
I really don't mind Target's commercials, they are fun and still get the point across, + they don't run them into the ground.
On the other hand Nissan's Mark Horowitz should be permanently entombed in his damned Sentra.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2006 @ 5:32am

While I like the idea of fewer and more 'enjoyable' commercials, hasn't Hallmark been doing this type of thing for years with their Hallmark Specials?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron, 28 Nov 2006 @ 5:32am

While I like the idea of fewer and more 'enjoyable' commercials, hasn't Hallmark been doing this type of thing for years with their Hallmark Specials?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2006 @ 6:02am

Re: If all the comercials were like Target's
Agreed ... some commercials are just annoying and insulting. I pay for Time Warner Cable and get an endless barrage of ads for VoIP, Cable TV and Internet - 2 of 3 services to which I already a subscribe ! The commercials are stupid, repetitive and condescending ... and there's at least one during every break.

I'm considering switching to satellite if they can guarantee I won't see more than 1 TW commercial in 2 hours of viewing. Time Warner tells me I'll pay more, enjoy less and have problems with support - but I might consider that a blessing if I just don't have to have my brain turned to mush by their damned commercials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick, 28 Nov 2006 @ 6:21am

Someone sponsor LOST for #%^& sake!
That show seems to carry more commercial air time than content!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crucial, 28 Nov 2006 @ 6:40am

Online Episodes
This seems to be the way a lot of the networks present their online episodes of shows. I've watched a few full length epsisodes on ABC and NBC and both had a single 15 second ad for the same company about 3 times through the "hour" long television show.

Personally, I think it was a much more effective way of advertising. Not to mention I also noticed a few commercials inside the show as well. But I like being able to watch a television show rather than have to sift through 2-3 minutes of commercials for every 5-7 minutes of actual content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ConceptJunkie (profile), 28 Nov 2006 @ 6:51am

Blinding Flash of the obvious...
Commercial breaks are pretty predictable in length and I would always change the channel or mute the TV and go do something secure in the knowledge that I had about 2 minutes or so before I needed to even check back, but if commercial breaks are suddenly (gasp!) reasonably short, and the commercials themselves are geared more towards being entertaining and informative rather than annoying and repetitious, then by golly, people are much more likely to watch.

Raise your hand if this wasn't obvious to you...

Everyone's hand is up? I thought so.

p.s. It's even worse on radio where the commercial breaks are substantially longer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 28 Nov 2006 @ 6:51am

Present day commercials are good for bathroom and snack breaks.

BTW...Considering that advertisers actually purchase time to advertise on Dancing with the Stars, Deal or No Deal and Mom Swap is a good indication that we are far from an ideal solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greg, 28 Nov 2006 @ 6:53am

On the other hand Nissan's Mark Horowitz should be permanently entombed in his damned Sentra.

Agreed. The car should be encased in concrete, with Horowitz inside. I hate those ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ebrke, 28 Nov 2006 @ 7:19am

Short Commercials
I have been interested to note that the OnDemand rebroadcasts of popular CBS network shows (Numbers, CSI, etc.) via Comcast Cable have very limited commercial interruptions in addition to the fact that they are free, as opposed to the NBC offerings that cost $.99. There seem to be only 2 short commercial breaks per broadcast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Long, 28 Nov 2006 @ 7:38am

Flip side again
One potential drawback to a single advertiser is that it can give that company too much control over the show's content, in effect giving them the power to censor anything they, their president, or their board might find objectionable.

To pick an extreme example: If WalMart was the sole corporate sponsor of 20/20, what do you think the chances would be of 20/20 taking a serious look into WalMart's hiring practices, suppliers, health care policies, and so on?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boris Jacobsen, 28 Nov 2006 @ 7:43am

Thank goodness for the BBC
Thank goodness for the BBC....

4 main TV channels (+ 2 kids channels, news channel, politics channel)

5 main radio stations (+ several digital only specialist channels + dozens of local stations around the UK)

NO ADVERTISING

Granted, it costs a couple of hundred of your UK dollars per household per year but just think about it....

NO ADVERTISING AT ALL

And quality programmes and relatively unbiased news.
Well worth it, I say.
It has been this way for more than 50 years but the end is nigh as commercial interests lobby against this arrangement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris (profile), 28 Nov 2006 @ 7:57am

i hate those popup things during the shows
comedy central, spike and FX all do these popup things to promote their shows and they take up like a quarter of the screen. i hate that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Casimir Couvillion, 28 Nov 2006 @ 7:58am

Re: Thank goodness for the BBC
I would gladly pay for a "Television Licence" to get the BBC as broadcast in the UK on my US cable provider. We get BBC America, but the programs are often edited to provide room for commercials. They also play some of the most annoying commercials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unknowledgeable Geek, 28 Nov 2006 @ 8:04am

We have PBS too. SUCKS just like BBC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve, 28 Nov 2006 @ 8:26am

Re: Sounds a lot like the old days...
I was going to say the same thing -- we've finally come full circle, since the days of old time radio when a single show was sponsored by one company. It was always interesting and unique how they would work the product into show, as well. Great stuff, very creative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Claudia, 28 Nov 2006 @ 8:31am

Re: Blinding Flash of the obvious...
I actually time what I'm cooking with the commercials. If TV is on in background and I need 2 minutes to let toast toast or a sauce sauce, I use the ads as my timer.

Re the other stuff -- Aside from the obvious 'harking back to Hallmark days' to solve advertisers issues -- can't we all just agree that advertising is a normal everyday part of our very capitalist lives? What would you do if you were running NBC? Not run ads?

If people want PURE entertainment - go to a play, or a movie or a concert. (Come to think of it Broadway is running live skits - ads - before shows now.) I know -- read a *book* by candlelight.

-claudy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwreid, 28 Nov 2006 @ 8:40am

More of less
Seems like a good idea. IBM and Xerox used to do this with special programming in the 70s and 80s. Christmas specials had only a couple of commercials but there were always IBM. Specials like The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman earned a lot of kudos for it's single sponser, Xerox. I'm forced to wonder, however, if this means that we'll be seeing more or less of those intrusive pop-up ads that run across the bottom of the screen pushing other programming on the same channel. Those alone make me stop watching.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gaseous clay, 28 Nov 2006 @ 9:32am

pure entertainment
If people want PURE entertainment - go to a play, or a movie or a concert.
Are you kidding me? I can't go to the movies anymore without being bombarded for 15 minutes with ads! THat's not including the ads they flash on the screen while the lights are still on and everyone's filing into the theater. Then there's the previews after that! You'd think with the 10 dollar ticket i bought they could afford to not annoy that crap out of us with more ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 28 Nov 2006 @ 9:40am

Comcercials Arn't So Bad
I don't mind commercials too much, except when theres tons of them. Little things placed properly give you time to get something else done during an enticing show, and for people without tivo or dvr's (most people for right now) the commercials help. Now I do think the quality of commercials should also be controlled, and less repetitive. What I also like is the channel to seem more live and interactive, like little updates with news or whatever, G4 has little game/gadet/tech news, blurbs in some programs, MTV does the mtv news breaks, Food Network does some helpful cooking tips and such, Little things like that help me stay on a channel longer, especially if the show is a re-run, which most are now days. The other thing is if I'm paying for watching these shows, I want it cheaper the more commercials I see, commercials are suppose to pay for this stuff, so the more commercials I watch then the lower my cable bill should be! Or better yet stop showing re-runs with all the fricken commercials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick, 28 Nov 2006 @ 10:58am

WOW - this would be great if it goes mainstream.

As far as news programs, the sponsorships should be based on a show by show basis, not a long term contract. A single longterm sponsor could and would influence the bias of the news broadcast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dave, 28 Nov 2006 @ 12:36pm

Re: Thank goodness for the BBC
Im a Brit, now living in the USA. Honestly, people back in the UK don't realize how good they have it. Regular TV in the US is unwatchable

dave
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2006 @ 1:08pm

Anybody get TBS? Are there are a LOT of commercials on it!!

I started muting them a long time ago. (From a marketing standpoint I should still know what it's about without hearing it... not always.) I started timing them not too long ago so that I'd know when to turn the sound back on (because they're doing all kinds of things to fool you into thinking the show is going to start again like station i.d.'s) and it's approx 6 mins of commercials and 7 to 9 mins of show. And that's not just TBS.

"We interrupt these commercials for a program break."

You guys that are getting 2 mins of commercials? Way to go. Count yourself lucky. We don't just get your titilating crap, we get a load of ours, too.

If I give up any favorites they will wind up on DVD in a "whole season" pack. But... they're loaded with crap at the beginning and the DVD programmers are stopping our ability to skip over them. I guess I resent being forced to watch them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mousepaw, 29 Nov 2006 @ 9:33am

Re: by Anonymous Coward
I wrote this. I don't know how your name got on it. I would never presume to use anyone else's "handle."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chad Wildey, 29 Dec 2006 @ 8:03pm

So there is hope?
What I don't understand is A. How these white collar execs think that by beating someone over the head with the exact same message and jingle every 7 to 9 minutes is going to make me spend my hard earned cash on something I know I don't want and B. How a station can say 'yes, we approve torturous amounts of the exact same commercials every commercial break because we want more people to watch our station.' IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE! If I want you to buy my car the last thing I'm going to do is drive it back and forth in front of your house screaming Zoom! Zoom! Zoom! until you give in. But your not going to give in! Your going to call the cops or take a shot at me yourself! How much more enjoyable would TV be if these 'educated' white collar morons realized how painful it is to watch thier stations. While this article sounds great, there isn't really any hope. In the time it took me to type this FX's Dirt promo'd the exact same promo 3 times. Kia's 'So long... farewell... al-freed-a-stain... goodbye...' aired twice. Current boycotts: Comedy Central (Saving Silverman Central?), FX, TBS, and more to come.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JUnnie, 21 Jan 2007 @ 7:00pm

see text
Because they all air the commercials at the same time..are they guilty of "collusion?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]