TV Networks Realizing That The Traditional 30 Second Spot Needs To Change
from the about-time dept
Well, it's about time. For years, it's been obvious that the traditional 30-second TV commercial was an endangered species. With so many competing entertainment options competing for anyone's attention, combined with technology like TiVo, the 30-second spot had a pretty short-life span if TV and advertising execs didn't figure out a way to adapt. The New York Times is noting that for next fall's schedule, nearly all the networks are playing around with some form of more entertaining commercial break. They're all finally recognizing the simple fact that ads are content too, and if you want people to watch them, they actually need to be good content. Of course, we've heard this before. After all, it was four years ago that NBC claimed it had come to the same conclusion and was going to make its commercial breaks more entertaining -- but it doesn't seem like that plan went very far. Though, one good thing in the article, is that it appears that ABC learned its lesson from last year. You may recall last summer that an ABC TV exec claimed that people didn't want to skip commercials and suggested that people wouldn't mind if ABC came up with a technology that stopped people from skipping commercials on their TiVo. However, in this article, a different ABC exec notes: "[Viewers] have control, and we're not going to fight that. We want to make it easy for them to get what they want, where they want, when they want." Of course, it only took them a decade or so of kicking and screaming to recognize that.
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
Too many...
Want to make networks viewers happier? Want to help decrease the mass exodus? Want to make advertisers happier by increasing retention? Simple. Cut the number of spots by at least half. Fans get more of the content they want to see, and avertisers don't have their spots lost and ignored in a sea of competing ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, more and more commercials are becoming as big of a production as a television show or even movie. Some take months to make, just for 15-30 seconds.
I think the fact that companies are starting to recognize the importance of viral marketting is an important thing to note. Rather than spending money on advertizing, they bring their demo to them with viral videos or similar things. I really think that VM will be the future of marketing, rather than TV spots, seeing as they're quickly going out of style and becoming shorter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how in the hell are you supposed to tell an ongoing and involved story in 22 minutes?
alternatively if we were forced to endure the same amount of suplurflous crap in a book while sitting around the house house reading in the same ratio, we'd only get to read 65% of our book and 35% of the thing would be huge neon emblazoned pop up super voluminated adds for cars we don't need, food we don't eat, and places we don't want to go
tv needs to learn that if they want to get us to watch their shows, they should add a missing 6 minutes back to them like they had in the 50s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same Commercials
A lot of people complain that they see the same commercials 20 times each. Those people sit in front of the TV for 8 hours a day.
Commercial saturation is based to target people that only watch a half hour or an hour, not all day long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Avoiding Commercials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Avoiding Commercials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Avoiding US commercials
Also, I came across this ad when at PCWORLD earlier today. Whoever Apple has doing their targeted advertising needs to get a raise. It doesn't get any more targeted than this!
http://speed.pointroll.com/PointRoll/Media/panels/Apple/205545/Apple_MacVsPC9_336x280_TURF_ PCWORLD_CLICK_050907_r01.swf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative?
The second issue is the people who I've heard called "creatives". The ideas folk in your friendly, local corporate propaganda shops aren't really very creative. This is why you'll see celebrities (often comedians) drafted in to lend a little hand with the writing and add a little ad-hominem credibility to the project. I assume this works well (as reflected in sales) for the most part or they wouldn't bother, right?
An example: A series of adverts for Compaq featuring John Cleese appeared on Youtube a few months back. While the odd one is worth seeing, for the most part they fail to capture the essence of what makes Cleese funny. Cleese in old Python can have me on the floor within seconds but combine this with the need to hawk a computer and it's not as... abstract, perhaps, as what I've enjoyed. The constraints of what the advertiser needs (safe, talk about the product a lot and so on...) suck the comedy right out. By the way, the one I found funny above failed the safe test and was never actually aired... but then, comedy's not really the point.
Or maybe it is... Adverts people find funny are duplicated all over the web. People willingly watch them. I've seen one or two myself. Can't say I remember the products but that doesn't matter - advertising is about creating a subconscious association between the product name and the release of endorphins. You don't go shopping with all these names in year head but something makes you pull them off the shelves. Watch an ad break with the sound off to observe some of the techniques - washing powder ads are best.
I had a point... ah, yes... more entertaining ad breaks? I have my doubts.
As an aside, Adam Curtis made a pretty damn fine documentary called The Century of the Self a few years back. It's a great look at Eddie Barnays' (father of PR, nephew of Sigmund Freud) use of Freud's work to just plain manipulate opinion. His techniques are still in use today and with a little awareness aren't entirely difficult to see through. You can catch all four parts on archive.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are, how can I say this nicely, rather annoying. Especially when they take up a full 25% of the screen (one whole corner), and ever have sounds play. It can be remarkably confusing when you are watching a show and a small fire engine zooms across the bottom sirens blaring to advertise the network's latest drama.
I'll take sitting through commercial breaks over this kind of inconveniant, in-your-face advertising any day.
I hope that we soon see a major paradigm shift in television advertising, but I doubt it. There is simply no way to make all those stupid commercials more entertaining (which costs money for writers who don't suck).
What I would gladly do, is pay far more for television service that was delivered without or with minimal ads (wasn't this what cable was supposed to be?).
Right now, with the amount of TV I watch, the option that makes the most sense is probably to purchase single downloads of the shows I want, rather than watching them any other way. Of course, not many networks actually have this sort of thing going, so I'm stuck recording my own shows and skipping through commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vote No on advertisements
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Commercials?
Ads can have a negative impact on advertisers. Two years ago I bought an HDTV and home theater for Christmas. At the time, Best Buy was repeatedly airing the same ad for some rapper or another and I grew angry at them. I had planned on getting my stuff there but those ads put an end to that. They lost out on $6,000 of purchases, and I haven't been in a Best Buy since then. I frequently visited their stores prior to that ad. I buy a lot of electronics and I'm sure they can't sell enough CDs to make up for chasing me away. Does anyone actually buy CDs anymore?
I thought I would miss TV but I don't and I'm glad I got rid of my dish. These days I rent movies, read books, play video games and download shows I like sans ads. I can stream online content to my TV in HD and without any ads. I can also purchase shows through my gaming console, in HD and sans ads. I would much rather pay for shows I like without ads, than pay for shows and ads I don't like.
I will never watch broadcast TV again, no matter how clever marketers become or what changes they make to ads. I used to watch a lot of TV every day and if they can chase me away, then they have a serious problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Commercials?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jarring Product Placement
Smallville has done with so so many products that it's almost becoming ridiculous. Yes, I know the producers try to make the stories set in the real-world (as much as stories about Superman can be), but it's jarring when Clark Kent or Lois Lane says, "Let's drive to Metropolis in my Yaris. Wait, I'm getting a call on my Sprint-powered mobile phone provided by Motorola. But, Clark, Sprint is the new AT&T."
I can understand the cast of "Friends" going to Starbucks (or such), but Clark Kent and Lois Lane shouldn't be using Sprint phones and driving Yarises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pop-ups on my tv screen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]