The FOX owned FX channel in the UK, a sister site to the American FX Network, is planning to release a new type of commercial in the hopes of still reaching those time-shifting users that are using various technologies to skip ads. The new spot for the show Brotherhood will begin airing September 22. The idea is a rather simple one. To get around people skipping through commercials the entire 30 seconds of airtime will be one static image. So even if you are skipping you see the same thing as those watching live, just a little less of it.I get the idea, but I don't see it as being the answer. If networks are going to stay with the classic commercial break approach for their advertising, a better answer would be to come up with some kind of advertising that is worth seeing. The Lost team was onto something with their Hanso commercials last season. While they weren't selling an actual product, they did get people talking about a commercial spot. The same sort of creative thing needs to be done with trucks, beer, and feminine hygiene products.
That is a slippery slope though. There does need to be a definite line drawn between the show and the ads. Things like Alias whoring themselves out to Ford to the point of actually changing shots to feature the product can backfire and piss off those fans/consumers you are courting.
[ via Reuters.com ]
Five other TV shows where Sarah Palin should appear
Brought To You By ... - VIDEOS
Giveaway Monday: How I Met Your Mother season three DVD
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-16-2006 @ 11:04AM
SenorWeird said...
I think recent season premieres of 24 had the right idea. Run the ep commercial free, but offer some sort of short commercial about how Jack is Ford Tough that has nothing to do with the show. In a sense, we need to go back to the old format of commercials, where the characters and show would break and do the commercial independant of the show. Maybe it'd be corny if done exactly like that, but it would cut down on the fast forwarding.
What ever happened to the static ad on the top half of the screen while the regular ad played beneath? I thought that was a smart balance.
Reply
9-16-2006 @ 1:24PM
Chris W said...
I think the root of the problem is that viewers often think that advertisers are being sneaky and trying to shove things they don't need down their throats. Whether that's actually the case or not, people have shown that given the option they WILL skip commercials. There is this general contempt for ads unless they are simple, funny, cool, or telling a neat little story.
The current TV advertising model, as a whole, is failing and the networks and advertisers are realizing it and getting desperate. This desperation is also crystal clear to viewers, and they often feel "violated" by the advertisers.
I contend that product placement can be the future of TV advertising, but it has to be done right. If it's obvious and cheesy, the viewers will be annoyed. But if it's done gracefully (which I'm sure can be done), advertisers will definitely see the benefits. Another way to win back the audience is to be honest with them.
They can also do what SenorWeird suggests and have someone the viewer trusts (like a cast member) basically say (not literally): "Look, we know you hate commercials, but this is how the network gets the money to keep us on the air. If you like the show, please check out [brand], they make it all possible."
Of course, this problem is made dramatically more difficult as the networks roll out SO MANY shows that suck. There are also so many channels (cable included) that want people to tune in to original programming. The market share is so divided that advertisers have to pull out ALL the stops to make sure they're getting their money's worth.
Something has to change in the current advertising model; the more desperate the networks get, the more frustrated the viewer gets. And when viewers tune out, great shows get canceled. The ratings system also needs to be tweaked, because it's no longer realistic to expect a show to hold even 20% of the market share.
Reply
9-17-2006 @ 3:29AM
erroneous_nick said...
A large part of the problem, I think, is the overabundance of ads in a television show. In the sixties, I believe you got around 52 minutes of actual program with the other 8 being the advertisements. Now, the numbers are more like 42/18 show to ads. I think subtle product placement, like Chris W said, would be less offensive, and I agree with SenorWeird about the breaking of the 4th wall form of commercials which harkens back to the earliest days of television.
Even if nothing else is changed in the format of the commercial advertisement, if those ads were made entertaining they'd be looked at and remembered rather than skipped and despised.
Perhaps another reason advertisements are hated so much is the constantly rising costs of cable television service. People feel like they're already paying too much for the luxury of having all those channels to watch and the added burden of commercial advertisements adds insult to injury. I know broadcast television doesn't require cable service, but a large part of what's out there is only available via pay-for service like cable or satellite.
Reply
9-19-2006 @ 4:32PM
Hoqenishy said...
erroneous_nick is right - I don't pay $50 a month to watch commercials. Even if they went down to 8 minutes an hour, I'd STILL skip them, because I'm paying for content that I want to see, not for content that advertisers want me to see. My cable rates go up frequently, and yet my satisfaction with TV as a whole goes down.
"Less is More" is definitely a concept that networks need to examine, and not simply "less interrupting commercials and more intrusive product placements", but less actual advertising. Until it stops becoming worth my while to pay a $12 subscription fee to reclaim the programming that I'm paying for, I'm going to continue skipping every single commercial, even if it's something I could potentially be interested in (which is probably a little less than 1% of TV commercial content anyway), just for the principle of it.
Reply