Who can think of a new paradigm to replace television commercials?

Cafe Society
1

Statistically, Americans spend roughly one third of their time sleeping. Of the remaining time, we spend one third (5 hours daily) watching television. And of that television time, one third is commercials. That’s an hour and forty minutes of watching straight-up commercials every day!

Nobody wants to watch more than an hour and a half of the most annoying content possible, in exchange for three hours and twenty minutes of mixed-bag content. We sleep through one third of our 24-hour days. We work through at least another third of our 24-hour days at our jobs. We pay through the nose for the “privilege” of watching cable TV. And then we have to give up a third of that time too, in order to pay for our content a second time by obligingly watching the ads, interrupting content we’re already paying for once?

No wonder people are deserting the commercial-infested cable providers for commercial-free streaming content. Advertising executives and cable company owners don’t want to go home at night and watch a bunch of stupid commercials either.

Okay, now that we’re agreed on this (anyone who tries to say they actually enjoy commercial interruptions: too bad. I don’t believe you.) – can anyone come up with a paradigm to replace the “little bit of content in between your commercials” model that is failing now?

For instance, we could go to a Superbowl airtime model, where commercial airtime is far more scarce, but far more expensive. Or we could do like public television (and SciShow!) do, and just mention the name of the sponsor at the top of the show. I’m sure there are people more clever than I who can think of creative ways to stop us being clubbed over the head with the nauseating repitition of tired worn-out old-fashioned blah blah blah.

I haven’t watched cable TV or listened to corporate radio in years because I loathe advertizing. Now my small morning pleasure, my daily word games that I play while I have my coffee, have all (three different sites) gone to suddenly requiring that I watch another frickin commercial before I can play them, too. And not just once, when I arrive at the site. No, that’s EACH TIME I play them. So I will have to abandon my morning routine as well.

Well, surely these website owners have to make their money, you say. How were they making their money until now?

There must be a better way.

2

Product Placement

If viewers are going to skip past the ‘between scenes’ advertisements, then just put them into the scene, where they have no choice but to watch.

3

We could go back to the old radio and, therefore, 1950s TV* model of having the sponsors fully sponsor a given show so we can have the actual characters on the show hawk that sponsor’s product. If a show can’t find a sponsor, the network can carry it for a while, called a “sustaining program”; the point is, since we don’t have to swap commercials in and out based on who’s bought ad time most recently, we can work the commercials into the product directly, seamlessly, so there’s nothing to skip.

Product placement works like this, but what I’m talking about is even more in-your-face. It’s also more enjoyable, if the sponsors know what’s good for them.

*(The big radio networks transitioned seamlessly into becoming the big TV networks, such that their business practices hardly changed at all. A lot of the time, their shows hardly changed, either.)

The tip-jar method works about as well as anything else if you don’t have a network to fund you. A Patreon is for people to agree to give you recurring support (like, a certain amount every month), a Kickstarter is for one-time funding for specific projects, and both can be used by scammers. If it works, you’re insulated from having to seek other sponsorship; if it doesn’t, what makes you think other sponsors would be interested in you to begin with?

4

Considering the trend is to find ways to show more commercials, no one in the business is interested in cutting back. They’ll look for *additional * sources of Income, but won’t cut back ads.

BTW, sposorship of a show is not coming back. The networks make far more money. If they sell ad time to individual sponsors,and it’s unlikely sponsors will be willing to pay the amount to run one show, especially since the money would be better spent scattered across the networks.

5

I remember seeing a video a while back advocating the use of chyrons as advertising instead of the regular commercials. One of the main arguments was that it places the advertising in the show in a way that it will not be removed if/when pirated and will increase the number of eyes that view it getting the advertising out of the local area and out to a much larger world wide audience.

I’m not sure if I buy (hehehe) that argument as I can see it being of limited use for more local businesses that use TV advertising such as Bernie and Phyl’s Furniture (although I do get ads for them on stations broadcasting to New Brunswick so…) but it could be an additional source of ad revenue sold to more global companies and brands.

6

Commercials on TV serve a valid purpose, especially now that commercial breaks are so much longer than they used to be. I have time to run to the bathroom, let the dog out to pee, and get myself a drink before the program resumes. It’s a workable paradigm for me.

7

I think first you have to come to terms with what TV ads represent. Assuming they exist only to generate revenue for broadcasters is too narrow.

I think that even if a channel were to be adequately funded by other means (subscription, donation, subsidy, spinning old* Full House *episodes to gold) the pressure for audience access would still drive the presence of marketing on TV, whether it was embedded, separate or (as it is now for most commercial streams) integral.

8

That’s what ‘pause’ is for. :stuck_out_tongue:

9

It does still happen occasionally, usually with season premieres, where one company will sponsor a “limited commercial” broadcast of the show. I think Ford did it a few times with 24, where they had an extra long commercial at the start, fewer commercials during (all Ford commercials), and of course every car they drove was a Ford in the show.

10

We don’t all have TIVO or whatever else allows you to pause… Some of us still wallow in the olden days. :stuck_out_tongue:

11

Pretty much everything is on streaming, which is inherently on-demand/pauseable. Just sayin’.

12

But if you can afford to get one, the fast forward function will become a good friend, and is the main reason I own one. I cannot concieve of getting by without one, now. Sometimes I’ll get distracted, and an ad comes on, and then all of a sudden I’d be like - omg get this fucking garbage off my screen! Now!

13

So have you noticed that TV ads have largely been redesigned to carry the whole message in any 1-2 second segment, and be fully watchable at high speed?

14

I pay for commercial free Hulu now. But before that, Hulu had “interactive” commercials.

It would give you the option to watch a two minute trailer, and in return, you could watch your show commercial free. They also had trivia games you could play for commercial free shows.

I enjoyed the trivia game angle. Problem was though, it was always the exact same trivia game. So after you play it a couple of times, you already know all of the answers.

15

The main fast forward function I use (on my dvr - me being a Canuck) is not the multi-arrow type, but the 30-seconds-ahead button, so if you press it six times, you’re right back to the show you were watching in less than five seconds.

Still, though, I get the impression that advertisers are tailoring their ads to such a feature. Each time I press the button, a screen image of the ad very briefly shows before I jump 30 seconds ahead to the next screen image. Sometimes these images will be quite strong, like a dude on a horse under a waterfall (Old Spice), or an attractive woman, or something confrontational (Vice), and I’ll be like, hmmmm - what exactly was in that ad? Hm maybe I might just rewind to check it out, possibly. lol.

At least the element of choice comes into play here, which makes all the difference.

16

Well, no, not really. The message is still getting across. And it’s not without the collusion of the DVR player makers/programmers. The marketing imperatives are just too strong to brush aside, no matter what technology is brought into play.

If hitting the button six quick times, like some kind of couch-potato video game, makes you feel like you scored… it’s probably because it was all designed to work exactly that way, clear interim images included.

17

When I lived in Indonesia and Singapore, I found that their TV had one half-hour chunk in prime time for commercials. And it was usually the highest viewed time slot.

The advertisers would kill themselves trying to outdo everyone else so that their product would stand out in the mix. As a result, the commercials were quite often far better than the TV shows themselves.

We should switch to this.

18

Despite the message getting across I still certainly have the choice of zipping ahead over the ads, as opposed to being a captive audience if I didn’t have a dvr to begin with. That’s all the difference that matters to me. I’m sure most folks, with the choice, would take pressing a button six times, over the alternative.

19

As long as you understand the ad is still doing its job; still just as effective - and maybe even more so because you’re actively engaged with the process instead of wandering out of the room or picking up a magazine. Reducing the period you’re a captive is a bit of a Pyrrhic victory.

20

I’m aware that an ad is doing its job in so far as - once in a blue moon I’ll see an image that’ll catch my eye and make me rewind to check it out, but other than that - it’s not really all that Pyrrhic to choose the button pressing over getting up or reading something. I’ll take ad-less continuity - replete with all that pesky button-pressing - over looking for diversions (as the ads roll).