5 ms·

Excessive advertising. In the NHL, they used to have nice white boards around the rinks, now they're all plastered with ads. More and more commercial breaks dur

Excessive advertising. In the NHL, they used to have nice white boards around the rinks, now they're all plastered with ads. More and more commercial breaks during games. Heck, now there are even 'mini-ads' that aren't full commercial breaks but just show up for 30 seconds then it returns to the action. Let's not get started with picture-in-picture ads like F1 has. They've even started digitally projecting ads behind the goalie nets on the glass. It's just becoming ridiculous. Are they not making enough money already? If it weren't for old people set in their ways and sports, I think cable would basically die. It looks like that may be happening soon anyway, as younger generations would rather just watch shows commercial free and find alternative sports to watch (such as esports). I'm not old enough to have seen it, but I've heard some people say half the point of paying for cable way back in the day was so you _didn't_ get ads. That seems to be the case for newer, streaming services.

Shivetya 10y ago
Broadcasters have been overwriting stadium ads for awhile now. Digital insertion was fine when it was used to enhance games, showing down lines in American football, following a puck in Hockey, and more. However the ethics around insertion of ads apparently escaped the industry, it would have been fine but I am awaiting the day where you don't know where the scene is real or not. They probably could put everyone in a Coca-Cola shirt in the stands with the tech available. More fun, they could digitally ad fans to stadiums.
- criddell 10y ago
  I never liked when they "enhanced" the puck in hockey, but I think drawing the 10 yard mark on the football field is fantastic. It's remarkable to me how well that works. In baseball, the ad behind home plate is often a digital one and when they show a replay, you can usually see the green rectangle. I'm also a fan of the pitch trackers in baseball (the box that shows where a pitch was relative to the strike zone rectangle). I've always wondered if the size of the pitch tracker box is different for each player? The on-screen ads are annoying, but all the ads delivered by the announcers is getting a little much too. Every replay, highlight, and inning/period/quarter seems to be sponsored.
  - tunap 10y ago
    Everything is sponsored and the rest is badly-written/executed script. "Show your support, send in your twits/texts to get something<worthless> free". Or, "Be the first to see this or that thinly-associated xyz on our site!" The worst is the elementary level, leading interviews, aka fandering to the lowest deninator: "You just blew it! Tell the fans at home how bad it feels."
  - groovy2shoes 10y ago
    In today's era of high definition picture, puck "enhancement" doesn't make any sense, but back in the day when we were stuck with 17" standard definition broadcasts (which was also slightly warped by the curvature of the CRT screen and perhaps a bit fuzzy if your signal wasn't great), puck "enhancement" was practically a necessity.
- dx034 10y ago
  Always wondering where that's done. I often hear about it, but it doesn't seem to happen in the UK. E.g. football cup this summer, the ads would target people from the participating countries, if England wasn't playing you often wouldn't see a product you could buy.
pwg 10y ago
> but I've heard some people say half the point of paying for cable way back in the day was so you _didn't_ get ads. There were at least three reasons. 1) In most markets, there were a grand total of 3-4 major stations. If one lived in one of the larger market then there might have been one or two extra PBS stations. Cable marketed 25 or 35 or 40 channels to the existing 3-6. 2) In a lot of locations, analog reception was terrible (ghosting, static, etc.). Cable marketed a crystal clear picture as an alternative to the ghosts and static. 3) Fewer commercials. Yes, in the early beginning, they did indeed have fewer commercial breaks. Some channels had none, or only had a 4-5 minute break between programs. Those days from cable's start are long gone today. While cable did market itself early on as 'less commercial breaks', #1 and #2 above were likely the larger draw, and with the costs then (mid 1970's) of $20-30/month appearing smaller than today's $150+/month cost, it was a somewhat easy sale.
- freehunter 10y ago
  >2) In a lot of locations, analog reception was terrible (ghosting, static, etc.). Cable marketed a crystal clear picture as an alternative to the ghosts and static. Which, funny enough, my area cable providers won't show local channels because we're close enough to the city to pick them up on an OTA antenna. Even though my antenna only picks up one channel.
usrusr 10y ago
> I'm not old enough to have seen it, but I've heard some people say half the point of paying for cable way back in the day was so you _didn't_ get ads. That seems to be the case for newer, streaming services. And just yesterday I discovered my first "supported by product placement" disclaimer overlay in a Netflix show. Not a big deal, probably just them getting in line with local regulations, but it might be a harbinger of things to come. Not cutting up the goose that lays golden eggs might just happen to be something that high stakes capitalism is not particularly good at.
- colinbartlett 10y ago
  Oh wow, they actually labeled the product placement? I often wish I was aware of all the product placement I'm seeing unwittingly. In what locale are you and what show were you watching?
  - lhopki01 10y ago
    In the UK all product placement needs to be declared at the beginning. Lots of Youtube stars get in trouble for this in the UK.
    - usrusr 10y ago
      Do they require individually mentioning all the products/brands (which would greatly increase recall metrics, making the placement more valuable to the buyer) or is it just a blanket "supported by product placement"? The latter is what we have here in Germany and I find it rather unfortunate that it covers such a wide range of advertising influence: from lower rates for all that IKEA stuff one would need to create realistic backdrops, to full blown product praise like you would see on a shopping channel.
- bendykstra 10y ago
  The disclaimer might be new, but not the product placement. The first season of Netflix's House of Cards, which aired in 2013, had an obnoxious amount. It even made its way into the dialogue, turning one scene into a 10 second ad. "Is that a PS Vita. What games does he have?" "All of them." "I have a console at home that I play to relax. I could use one of these for the car!" http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/dsbaldwin32/clips/house-of-cards-sony-ps-vita-product-placement http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/dsbaldwin32/clips/hou...
blinddev 10y ago
There was also a push to put ads on the player's jerseys. This is already common in sports like football/soccer. It is just visual noise at this point.
- gumby 10y ago
  I am fascinated that kids like to wear copies of soccer jerseys and prefer them to have the ads because that way they feel more "authentic". I laugh when I see similar bike jerseys.

Shivetya 10y ago

Broadcasters have been overwriting stadium ads for awhile now. Digital insertion was fine when it was used to enhance games, showing down lines in American football, following a puck in Hockey, and more. However the ethics around insertion of ads apparently escaped the industry, it would have been fine but I am awaiting the day where you don't know where the scene is real or not. They probably could put everyone in a Coca-Cola shirt in the stands with the tech available. More fun, they could digitally ad fans to stadiums.

criddell 10y ago
I never liked when they "enhanced" the puck in hockey, but I think drawing the 10 yard mark on the football field is fantastic. It's remarkable to me how well that works. In baseball, the ad behind home plate is often a digital one and when they show a replay, you can usually see the green rectangle. I'm also a fan of the pitch trackers in baseball (the box that shows where a pitch was relative to the strike zone rectangle). I've always wondered if the size of the pitch tracker box is different for each player? The on-screen ads are annoying, but all the ads delivered by the announcers is getting a little much too. Every replay, highlight, and inning/period/quarter seems to be sponsored.
- tunap 10y ago
  Everything is sponsored and the rest is badly-written/executed script. "Show your support, send in your twits/texts to get something<worthless> free". Or, "Be the first to see this or that thinly-associated xyz on our site!" The worst is the elementary level, leading interviews, aka fandering to the lowest deninator: "You just blew it! Tell the fans at home how bad it feels."
- groovy2shoes 10y ago
  In today's era of high definition picture, puck "enhancement" doesn't make any sense, but back in the day when we were stuck with 17" standard definition broadcasts (which was also slightly warped by the curvature of the CRT screen and perhaps a bit fuzzy if your signal wasn't great), puck "enhancement" was practically a necessity.
dx034 10y ago
Always wondering where that's done. I often hear about it, but it doesn't seem to happen in the UK. E.g. football cup this summer, the ads would target people from the participating countries, if England wasn't playing you often wouldn't see a product you could buy.

pwg 10y ago

> but I've heard some people say half the point of paying for cable way back in the day was so you _didn't_ get ads. There were at least three reasons. 1) In most markets, there were a grand total of 3-4 major stations. If one lived in one of the larger market then there might have been one or two extra PBS stations. Cable marketed 25 or 35 or 40 channels to the existing 3-6. 2) In a lot of locations, analog reception was terrible (ghosting, static, etc.). Cable marketed a crystal clear picture as an alternative to the ghosts and static. 3) Fewer commercials. Yes, in the early beginning, they did indeed have fewer commercial breaks. Some channels had none, or only had a 4-5 minute break between programs. Those days from cable's start are long gone today. While cable did market itself early on as 'less commercial breaks', #1 and #2 above were likely the larger draw, and with the costs then (mid 1970's) of $20-30/month appearing smaller than today's $150+/month cost, it was a somewhat easy sale.

freehunter 10y ago
>2) In a lot of locations, analog reception was terrible (ghosting, static, etc.). Cable marketed a crystal clear picture as an alternative to the ghosts and static. Which, funny enough, my area cable providers won't show local channels because we're close enough to the city to pick them up on an OTA antenna. Even though my antenna only picks up one channel.

usrusr 10y ago

> I'm not old enough to have seen it, but I've heard some people say half the point of paying for cable way back in the day was so you _didn't_ get ads. That seems to be the case for newer, streaming services. And just yesterday I discovered my first "supported by product placement" disclaimer overlay in a Netflix show. Not a big deal, probably just them getting in line with local regulations, but it might be a harbinger of things to come. Not cutting up the goose that lays golden eggs might just happen to be something that high stakes capitalism is not particularly good at.

colinbartlett 10y ago
Oh wow, they actually labeled the product placement? I often wish I was aware of all the product placement I'm seeing unwittingly. In what locale are you and what show were you watching?
- lhopki01 10y ago
  In the UK all product placement needs to be declared at the beginning. Lots of Youtube stars get in trouble for this in the UK.
  - usrusr 10y ago
    Do they require individually mentioning all the products/brands (which would greatly increase recall metrics, making the placement more valuable to the buyer) or is it just a blanket "supported by product placement"? The latter is what we have here in Germany and I find it rather unfortunate that it covers such a wide range of advertising influence: from lower rates for all that IKEA stuff one would need to create realistic backdrops, to full blown product praise like you would see on a shopping channel.
bendykstra 10y ago
The disclaimer might be new, but not the product placement. The first season of Netflix's House of Cards, which aired in 2013, had an obnoxious amount. It even made its way into the dialogue, turning one scene into a 10 second ad. "Is that a PS Vita. What games does he have?" "All of them." "I have a console at home that I play to relax. I could use one of these for the car!" http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/dsbaldwin32/clips/house-of-cards-sony-ps-vita-product-placement http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/dsbaldwin32/clips/hou...

blinddev 10y ago

There was also a push to put ads on the player's jerseys. This is already common in sports like football/soccer. It is just visual noise at this point.

gumby 10y ago
I am fascinated that kids like to wear copies of soccer jerseys and prefer them to have the ads because that way they feel more "authentic". I laugh when I see similar bike jerseys.