Live Commercials Work Because They're Entertaining
from the advertising-is-content dept
One of the points we've been making for years is that advertising is content. That is, as people have more and more media options, advertisers can no longer assume they have a captive audience who will watch ads because they have nothing better to do. Rather, advertisers have to make their ads entertaining, so that people will want to watch them. The latest example of this is a New York Times article about how TV networks are bringing back the live commercial. For example, Jimmy Kimmel has been doing amusing live pitches for Nikon, Pontiac, and Quiznos on his late night show, and Jay Leno hosted a silly American Gladiators segment on his show to sell Klondike bars. Hollywood executives have a bad habit of viewing commercials as the spinach viewers have to eat in order to get the content they're actually interested in. But these examples illustrate that commercials don't have to be boring. With a little ingenuity, and funny pitchmen like Kimmel and Leno, commercials can be made interesting enough that consumers are actually interested in watching them. Part of the reason people hate commercials is that they're so repetitive, but live pitches can help break up the monotony by performing the pitch differently every time. And once commercials are actually interesting, the TiVo "problem" goes away, because even most consumers who have PVRs with commercial-skipping functions won't use them because they're actually interested in watching the commercials.
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
Filed Under: ads, advertising is content, commercials, entertainment, live commercials, television
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
TWiT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colbert Report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Colbert Report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nothing new (yawn)
Point is, live commercials, with a little or a lot of sponsor mockery, are not really new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nothing new (yawn)
It's not new, but it's also not common, and it's better than the standard fare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nothing new (yawn)
A book I read about 10 years ago (sorry I can't remember the title) said that no advertiser wants to sponsor a program vastly more arresting than its own advertisements. If the show is more interesting than the commercials, viewers are guaranteed to tune out the commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Live ads,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YsNGv9aPcw
If it's done properly, and if the pitchman is willing to push things, it works well. Mind you anyone who has watched the shopping channel can tell you that there are times where it doesn't work too well at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colbert Report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd almost rather them lump the commercials together like they do now so that I can ignore them completely and all together (which I realize is not conducive to effectiveness of the ad industry). However, that doesn't mean I don't think the idea presented in the article wouldn't work well if it was pulled off right. I do see a couple potential issues, though.
First, companies tend to like to manage their own brands. In order to maintain fluidity through a TV show, advertisers would have to give up some, if not most of their content management rights. I'm sure there's a happy medium, but I doubt most companies will be able to find it. Brands will also likely have to find "partners" in shows who fit them well, too. This will limit choices.
Second is cost. Advertisers still have to pay for time on air, but now both production teams (ad and TV show) have to work together in finding a way to constructively display an ad. No matter how I think of this, I can't imagine it being a quick and easy process.
Anyway, before I write another essay, I'll close. I think this idea could become worthwhile, but it would personally piss me off. I also think advertisers would have to ingrain the idea into the next generation's brains. Make them think it's business as usual.
-Brian, not involved in any aspect of entertainment, so go easy if you're some freaky obnoxious guru.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow!
Add on top my PST view of broadcast TV, and one can see why I take this a bad joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Live ads existed pre 1950s
I must say though, they are very effective. They are somewhat of the viral marketing nature and fit in well with how people do and do not like to view advertisements today.
Check out this blog that expands on how live ads are being used more fully:
http://textrapolate.com/2008/05/get-digital-get-noticed/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please, Just Charge Me
But no, people value their time and free thought so little that they'd rather be told to go to Subway by Jared 4 times a night and save their 20 cents.
I wish there were a business model where people who actually valued their time could simply pay for content the simple way...using money instead of eyeballs. Oh, wait. There is. The Internet has enabled it.
Finally, we have things like Amazon Unbox, the Apple content stores, DVDs. The price is a little high, but I'm happy to pay to avoid ads.
I've got a Tivo Series 3, which means I already skip commercials. I see how that fails to support the content. But the solution of slipping crap into the 'art' scares me (this sentence brought to you by Carl's Jr.) Instead, my Tivo 3 also connects to Amazon Unbox. I missed a couple of episodes of "House", so I bought them on Amazon Unbox using my laptop and "patented one-click technology". 5 minutes later, they were available on my Tivo -- all 40 minutes of them, with no ads!!
In ongoing praise of this service, let me add: no ads, no previews, no trailers, no coming attractions, no FBI warnings. Just the content. Take a second to think of how rare that user experience is.
Heck, it was worth the $2 per episode, and was a better experience than having to "drive" with my Tivo remote in order to skip ads.
Sadly, I am the minority, and the pay-for-content business model will not fully replace the lost revenue of PVR ad skipping. The "ad as content" effort will grow. I will have to sit through crap, because that's what Americans will vote for with their wallets.
On the other hand, it won't be the worst thing I've had to endure because the majority of Americans voted for it...twice. And TV is substantially less important than the other thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
newest jordan shoes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]