4 ms·

I wish America would group TV ads together, it would make them much easier to skip and would remove the need for forced cutoffs (you really notice them when wat

by archy_ 7y ago

I wish America would group TV ads together, it would make them much easier to skip and would remove the need for forced cutoffs (you really notice them when watching on non-cable sources)

magduf 7y ago
Why would American advertisers want to do such a thing?
widget1321 7y ago
The "easier to skip" is why it likely won't happen. Easier to skip ads mean you get less money for the same ads.
pwg 7y ago
> it would make them much easier to skip Which is why the networks will never group them, given that their revenue is arising from those advertisements. Making them "easier to skip" also reduces the prices the network can extract from the advertisers (because the advertisers would see "easier to skip" as "less effective").
yellowapple 7y ago
I'd go the other direction: don't group them (a lot of shows already account for / include commercial breaks, so it ain't like they're that disruptive) but make them shorter. The shorter the commercial, the less likely a viewer is to skip them or change the channel, which means more engagement. The ad's subject wins (more engagement), the viewer wins (less ads), the channel wins (more engagement + less supply = more leverage to charge higher prices for ad slots). Win-win-win. ---- If I had the resources and know-how, I'd start a radio station on this premise. I've noticed that most radio stations feel like they play more commercials than actual music, with the sole exception of one station in Reno (96.1 Bob FM) that does hour-long non-stop music split up by very short (1-2 minutes at most) commercial breaks. I've also noticed that I never feel the need to switch from Bob FM to some other station because I know that the music will come back soon. Unsurprisingly, those commercials are way more impactful than the ones on other stations specifically because I'm actually listening to them instead of skipping them. I'd like to take that to a greater extreme with 29-minute music blocks separated by single 30-second commercials (with 15-second station identification blurbs on either side of it, or perhaps combining them into a 30-second news update for e.g. traffic and weather). Companies probably wouldn't pay a premium for these ads at first, but I suspect once they see the upticks in customer engagement they'll be more willing to bid higher for those slots.
- magduf 7y ago
  >If I had the resources and know-how, I'd start a radio station on this premise. I've noticed that most radio stations feel like they play more commercials than actual music Of course. They're all owned by ClearChannel these days, so why should they play more music than ads? What are people going to do, switch to another (ClearChannel) radio station? You might also notice the ads are usually playing at the same time if you switch between stations. Non-NPR radio is basically just like landlines and cable TV these days. The only people who still use/listen to/watch these things are dinosaurs who haven't moved on to streaming radio (or just buying your own music), cellphones, and streaming movies, so these companies are milking these people for all they're worth.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    > The only people who still use/listen to/watch these things are dinosaurs who haven't moved on to streaming radio (or just buying your own music), cellphones, and streaming movies Or people like me who drive cars that predate the widespread availability of AUX jacks (which I've worked around by using one of those cassette adapters, but I know of at least some people who drive cars in that awkward phase where cars had neither.
    - magduf 7y ago
      If you can't afford a newer car, that's understandable. If you have the means, though, cars that old are downright dangerous in a crash, and if you spend much time in your car it makes sense to upgrade to something newer that won't get you killed. People walk away from crashes in newer cars now that would have killed or severely maimed them in cars made 20 years ago.
      - yellowapple 7y ago
        > If you have the means, though I don't, at least not comfortably (I probably could swing buying a newer car, but it'd definitely be painful). There are millions of Americans out there for whom that's probably out of the question entirely. And then there's the people who can't afford streaming radio (and/or a device + data plan to actually stream it) or buying music outright, or otherwise don't want to pay for those things, and at the same time don't feel like sailing the high seas for it (if your sails catch my drift).

by archy_ 7y ago

I wish America would group TV ads together, it would make them much easier to skip and would remove the need for forced cutoffs (you really notice them when watching on non-cable sources)

magduf 7y ago

Why would American advertisers want to do such a thing?

widget1321 7y ago

The "easier to skip" is why it likely won't happen. Easier to skip ads mean you get less money for the same ads.

pwg 7y ago

> it would make them much easier to skip Which is why the networks will never group them, given that their revenue is arising from those advertisements. Making them "easier to skip" also reduces the prices the network can extract from the advertisers (because the advertisers would see "easier to skip" as "less effective").

yellowapple 7y ago

I'd go the other direction: don't group them (a lot of shows already account for / include commercial breaks, so it ain't like they're that disruptive) but make them shorter. The shorter the commercial, the less likely a viewer is to skip them or change the channel, which means more engagement. The ad's subject wins (more engagement), the viewer wins (less ads), the channel wins (more engagement + less supply = more leverage to charge higher prices for ad slots). Win-win-win. ---- If I had the resources and know-how, I'd start a radio station on this premise. I've noticed that most radio stations feel like they play more commercials than actual music, with the sole exception of one station in Reno (96.1 Bob FM) that does hour-long non-stop music split up by very short (1-2 minutes at most) commercial breaks. I've also noticed that I never feel the need to switch from Bob FM to some other station because I know that the music will come back soon. Unsurprisingly, those commercials are way more impactful than the ones on other stations specifically because I'm actually listening to them instead of skipping them. I'd like to take that to a greater extreme with 29-minute music blocks separated by single 30-second commercials (with 15-second station identification blurbs on either side of it, or perhaps combining them into a 30-second news update for e.g. traffic and weather). Companies probably wouldn't pay a premium for these ads at first, but I suspect once they see the upticks in customer engagement they'll be more willing to bid higher for those slots.

magduf 7y ago
>If I had the resources and know-how, I'd start a radio station on this premise. I've noticed that most radio stations feel like they play more commercials than actual music Of course. They're all owned by ClearChannel these days, so why should they play more music than ads? What are people going to do, switch to another (ClearChannel) radio station? You might also notice the ads are usually playing at the same time if you switch between stations. Non-NPR radio is basically just like landlines and cable TV these days. The only people who still use/listen to/watch these things are dinosaurs who haven't moved on to streaming radio (or just buying your own music), cellphones, and streaming movies, so these companies are milking these people for all they're worth.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  > The only people who still use/listen to/watch these things are dinosaurs who haven't moved on to streaming radio (or just buying your own music), cellphones, and streaming movies Or people like me who drive cars that predate the widespread availability of AUX jacks (which I've worked around by using one of those cassette adapters, but I know of at least some people who drive cars in that awkward phase where cars had neither.
  - magduf 7y ago
    If you can't afford a newer car, that's understandable. If you have the means, though, cars that old are downright dangerous in a crash, and if you spend much time in your car it makes sense to upgrade to something newer that won't get you killed. People walk away from crashes in newer cars now that would have killed or severely maimed them in cars made 20 years ago.
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      > If you have the means, though I don't, at least not comfortably (I probably could swing buying a newer car, but it'd definitely be painful). There are millions of Americans out there for whom that's probably out of the question entirely. And then there's the people who can't afford streaming radio (and/or a device + data plan to actually stream it) or buying music outright, or otherwise don't want to pay for those things, and at the same time don't feel like sailing the high seas for it (if your sails catch my drift).