3 ms·

"Millions? Really? I don't think so." 106.5 million people in the US viewed the last Superbowl. According to Nielsen (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consu

"Millions? Really? I don't think so." 106.5 million people in the US viewed the last Superbowl. According to Nielsen (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/survey-most-super-bowl-viewers-tune-in-for-the-commercials/ http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/survey-most-sup...) 51% enjoy the commercials more than the game. Of the ~54 million viewers who enjoy the commercials more than the game, how many have no interest in the game at all? I'd wager it's a number rightly measured in "millions". Going back to the original point: the claim was made that people don't want to see ads. Yet ~54 million U.S. Superbowl viewers wanted to see the ads more than the game. The problem isn't with "ads" per se, but with the way advertising is conducted on the internet (which is the point the original article made.)

Semiapies 17y ago
"Of the ~54 million viewers who enjoy the commercials more than the game, how many have no interest in the game at all? I'd wager it's a number rightly measured in "millions"" That's an awful lot to sit through with no interest; not buying it. "The problem isn't with "ads" per se, but with the way advertising is conducted on the internet (which is the point the original article made.)" And would the phenomenon of Superbowl commercials even exist if people didn't have to sit through commercials in live TV? The answer is obviously not. You're talking about a side-effect of a technological limitation. If commercials aired on a side-channel that could be blocked without losing the show, we'd never have seen the development of high-priced, hyped Superbowl commercials. These media are fundamentally different.
- lotharbot 17y ago
  My experience at superbowl parties is that there are usually a few people who sit through the game without displaying any interest in it (usually opting for an alternate activity like chatting, reading a book, or ogling the nearest baby), but perk up every time a commercial comes on. Based on how common that behavior has been, I'd estimate the number to be "in the millions", and I would parse the behavior as "no interest, watched for commercials". YMMV. "would the phenomenon of Superbowl commercials even exist" Unlikely. But the fact that the phenomenon does exist demonstrates that people ARE interested in advertising under certain circumstances. The internet is fundamentally different, but people are fundamentally the same. The problem here is not "people hate ads", it's "people hate ads of the sort that are common on the internet, they hate them enough to seek technological solutions to block them, and the technological solutions are often applied in such a way as to block all ads indiscriminately." The problem isn't with "advertising" as a whole. It's with advertising as it's currently done on the internet.
  - rue 17y ago
    > Unlikely. But the fact that the phenomenon does exist demonstrates that people ARE interested in advertising under certain circumstances. I think it demonstrates that people are desperate for a common experience (usually to make small-talk about.) Superbowl ads are convenient since it is a safe subject to bring up for both people who watched the game as well as those who do not care or or do not understand the game. This is also why we have celebrities.

Semiapies 17y ago

"Of the ~54 million viewers who enjoy the commercials more than the game, how many have no interest in the game at all? I'd wager it's a number rightly measured in "millions"" That's an awful lot to sit through with no interest; not buying it. "The problem isn't with "ads" per se, but with the way advertising is conducted on the internet (which is the point the original article made.)" And would the phenomenon of Superbowl commercials even exist if people didn't have to sit through commercials in live TV? The answer is obviously not. You're talking about a side-effect of a technological limitation. If commercials aired on a side-channel that could be blocked without losing the show, we'd never have seen the development of high-priced, hyped Superbowl commercials. These media are fundamentally different.

lotharbot 17y ago
My experience at superbowl parties is that there are usually a few people who sit through the game without displaying any interest in it (usually opting for an alternate activity like chatting, reading a book, or ogling the nearest baby), but perk up every time a commercial comes on. Based on how common that behavior has been, I'd estimate the number to be "in the millions", and I would parse the behavior as "no interest, watched for commercials". YMMV. "would the phenomenon of Superbowl commercials even exist" Unlikely. But the fact that the phenomenon does exist demonstrates that people ARE interested in advertising under certain circumstances. The internet is fundamentally different, but people are fundamentally the same. The problem here is not "people hate ads", it's "people hate ads of the sort that are common on the internet, they hate them enough to seek technological solutions to block them, and the technological solutions are often applied in such a way as to block all ads indiscriminately." The problem isn't with "advertising" as a whole. It's with advertising as it's currently done on the internet.
- rue 17y ago
  > Unlikely. But the fact that the phenomenon does exist demonstrates that people ARE interested in advertising under certain circumstances. I think it demonstrates that people are desperate for a common experience (usually to make small-talk about.) Superbowl ads are convenient since it is a safe subject to bring up for both people who watched the game as well as those who do not care or or do not understand the game. This is also why we have celebrities.