2 ms·

I agree - I was staying in a hotel a few weeks ago, and flicked the TV on. I never really thought about it, but it's probably the first time I've watched TV in

I agree - I was staying in a hotel a few weeks ago, and flicked the TV on. I never really thought about it, but it's probably the first time I've watched TV in about 5-8 years - and the number and frequency of ads was just painful. I couldn't understand who the heck would put up with that!

fao_ 9y ago
I'm pretty sure that this is (or should be) a classic example of boiled frog effect. Your brain is used to the ads so it tunes them out, the advert makers figure out (using the metric of "how many users complain about advert frequency") how to increase them so that users don't notice. Eventually you end up with a fifteen minute advert block every ten minutes, and you're wondering how it got to that level, but you're still invested in this-one-show-that-nobody-else-has, so you put up with it -- your brain tunes it out the rest of the time so you don't really notice it unless you've had a break from TV long enough. I think that the UK does the right thing. In legislature they mandate that you can have no more than 12 minutes of adverts per hour of television[1]. Apparently in 1980s America a similar agreement was ruled illegal[2]. Sometimes I wonder how the Americans can put up with American courts, given how obviously biased towards corporate interests they are. [1]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8341764/TV-films-to-be-interrupted-by-12-minutes-of-adverts.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8341764/TV-fi... [2]: ""Many countries regulate the amount of advertising per hour, but a similar industry agreement in the U.S. was ruled illegal in the 1980s."", from: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-06/opinion/ct-perspec-0206-things-20110206_1_tv-commercials-tv-ad-10-second-spot http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-06/opinion/ct-per...

2 ms·

I agree - I was staying in a hotel a few weeks ago, and flicked the TV on. I never really thought about it, but it's probably the first time I've watched TV in

by malux85 9y ago

fao_ 9y ago
I'm pretty sure that this is (or should be) a classic example of boiled frog effect. Your brain is used to the ads so it tunes them out, the advert makers figure out (using the metric of "how many users complain about advert frequency") how to increase them so that users don't notice. Eventually you end up with a fifteen minute advert block every ten minutes, and you're wondering how it got to that level, but you're still invested in this-one-show-that-nobody-else-has, so you put up with it -- your brain tunes it out the rest of the time so you don't really notice it unless you've had a break from TV long enough. I think that the UK does the right thing. In legislature they mandate that you can have no more than 12 minutes of adverts per hour of television[1]. Apparently in 1980s America a similar agreement was ruled illegal[2]. Sometimes I wonder how the Americans can put up with American courts, given how obviously biased towards corporate interests they are. [1]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8341764/TV-films-to-be-interrupted-by-12-minutes-of-adverts.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8341764/TV-fi... [2]: ""Many countries regulate the amount of advertising per hour, but a similar industry agreement in the U.S. was ruled illegal in the 1980s."", from: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-06/opinion/ct-perspec-0206-things-20110206_1_tv-commercials-tv-ad-10-second-spot http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-06/opinion/ct-per...