Here comes my rant! Why don't the commercial channels wise up to the fact that they have really shot themselves in the foot with long advert breaks, voice overs and what's coming up next.
I don't know of anybody in my circle that actually sits through and watches live the interminable advert breaks. Like me they record and then skip through them all.
I don't understand how advertisers continue to pay exorbitant fees to broadcasters/channels when the majority of people try to avoid adverts like the plague.
Reading all the replies here I would like to amend one part of my comments.
I don't blame the commercial channels themselves but the advertisers. They are only interested in the income generated. I still cannot get my head round the fact that companies pay a fortune to advertise and as a result that must add to the ticket price of the goods.
When will they wise up that the majority of people fast forward or totally ignore the adverts on TV.
Never really see any ads because watch BBC or record.
But missed 6 o'clock BBC news the other days so watched ITN live and was very surprised at the type of adverts eg. Lawers4you to claim accident compensation and a money lending company (not a bank).
This is the stuff of daytime TV and very surprised it was mixed in with a mainstream evening news program. Suspect they are finding it hard these days to find big company adverts because we all now have technology to avoid them.
Reading all the replies here I would like to amend one part of my comments.
I don't blame the commercial channels themselves but the advertisers. They are only interested in the income generated. I still cannot get my head round the fact that companies pay a fortune to advertise and as a result that must add to the ticket price of the goods.
When will they wise up that the majority of people fast forward or totally ignore the adverts on TV.
The problem with that is that
a) most people don't fast forward - people think they do, because they remember doing it, but most TV is watched passively, and the vast majority is still watched live.
b) people don't ignore the adverts on TV. In fact, TV advertising is still the most effective way of marketing products.
Personally, I don't mind watching a few adverts in exchange for free entertainment.
Do you work in advertising or marketing? I know the genius creatives at agencies think we are all bar stewards for not taking your point of view and mindlessly consuming the crap that is fed to us. One problem is that it isn't a 'few' adverts, nor is it 'free'. It wastes our valuable leisure time. The amount of adverts Sky viewers are expected to watch after paying their subscription is shocking. Thank God for PVRs. You talk as if Sky made most of the content themselves, and the ad money kept their drama department afloat, rather than simply added to fat profits and premiership players' salaries.
They can't have been, unless you're counting promos as adverts. And I think that's unfair, because promos/trailers really aren't adverts at all - they're not trying to get you to buy anything, they're just telling you what else is on the channel.
Promos definitely are adverts. They are trying to 'buy' the attention of your eyeballs to watch some other show on the channel (and the adverts therein). There is just no need for time-consuming repeated promos in these days of digital TV and onscreen listings.
I can't think of a single product I have bought because I saw it on an advert for many years. It always seems like a huge waste of money to me, and they can be so puerile they're unwatchable. If I do see an advert, when I see it again I can never remember what it's advertising anyway.
I know the genius creatives at agencies think we are all bar stewards for not taking your point of view and mindlessly consuming the crap that is fed to us. One problem is that it isn't a 'few' adverts, nor is it 'free'. It wastes our valuable leisure time.
Right, but that's the cost. You're getting very expensive to make entertainment delivered to your home, and the only cost is that you have to watch adverts. That doesn't seem like a big ask to me.
The amount of adverts Sky viewers are expected to watch after paying their subscription is shocking. Thank God for PVRs. You talk as if Sky made most of the content themselves, and the ad money kept their drama department afloat, rather than simply added to fat profits and premiership players' salaries.
The average Sky subscriber pays around £500 a year. That is nowhere near enough to pay for all of the programmes that are on all 200 or so channels on Sky. It's not even enough to pay for all of the new programmes on the big channels. The rest of the money has to come from somewhere.
Promos definitely are adverts. They are trying to 'buy' the attention of your eyeballs to watch some other show on the channel (and the adverts therein). There is just no need for time-consuming repeated promos in these days of digital TV and onscreen listings.
That's like saying the contents page in a magazine is an advert.
It drives me mad. TV nowadays is more like advertising with programmes in between. I hardly ever watch anything live on the commercial channels if I can help it.
It drives me mad. TV nowadays is more like advertising with programmes in between. I hardly ever watch anything live on the commercial channels if I can help it.
As do many I'm sure. I know that commercial channels need the ad revenue to survive, but nine minutes is a shot in the foot. Also, out of the companies that repeat their ads ad nauseam, the only one I can think of that gets any business is Wonga. The technology to get around adverts is so advanced nowadays, that one person I know say that they haven't watched a 'real-time' ad for over three years.
Right, but that's the cost. You're getting very expensive to make entertainment delivered to your home, and the only cost is that you have to watch adverts. That doesn't seem like a big ask to me.
Because you don't mind adverts! Reread the thread. Others object to the repetitiveness of ads, the sheer numbers of them, how time-consuming they are, their creeping intrusiveness, and not being the target market in any case for whatever goods and services they are shouting about. Also, you are still avoiding the point that you are wrong - even without adverts, TV is not free to the viewer.
What're your views on reducing the audio level of ads to match the TV programmes?
Do you think that f-forwarding through ads should be prevented?
The average Sky subscriber pays around £500 a year. That is nowhere near enough to pay for all of the programmes that are on all 200 or so channels on Sky. It's not even enough to pay for all of the new programmes on the big channels. The rest of the money has to come from somewhere.
Many channels on Sky exist only to turn a profit on ads - the programmes just being any old tat to stick between the adverts. Perhaps ads could be shared out according to the programme cost - Premiership football matches having ad breaks every five minutes (even when live).
You are also mixing sources of funding. The big channels all have their own sources - adverts or the licence fee. How does it work out that Sky viewers have to watch more ads than people who watch only the terrestrial commercial channels, when they make more original programming?
That's like saying the contents page in a magazine is an advert.
Ridiculous analogy. Intrusive upcoming programme promos are obviously ads, and clearly nothing like contents pages of a magazine you might be reading. With onscreen listings there is a simple way of checking upcoming programmes rather than damned repeated promos for shows you don't like, that extend ad breaks, eat into viewing time, reduce actual programme times, obscure the screen edges etc.
Like many others, I rarely watch 'live' TV on any channel that carries commercial adverts. I record and fast forward the ads and have found that I've become quite good at judging the length of time I need to fast forward.
TV adverts may be the most effective form of advertising but how effective is effective? Advertisers seem to like internet advertising but I rarely see any ads as I use ad blockers. I suspect advertisers are becoming increasingly more aware of the 'elephant in the room'.
Because you don't mind adverts! Reread the thread. Others object to the repetitiveness of ads, the sheer numbers of them, how time-consuming they are, their creeping intrusiveness, and not being the target market in any case for whatever goods and services they are shouting about. Also, you are still avoiding the point that you are wrong - even without adverts, TV is not free to the viewer.
In what sense is TV not free without the adverts?
Either you're talking about the license fee, which doesn't have any relevance towards adverts, or you're talking about subscription fees, which - as I pointed out - aren't high enough to pay for all the programmes.
I don't mind adverts that much, it's true. But nobody actively likes them. My point is that without them, you'd have to pay more money for every channel.
And as people continue to use technology to avoid them, advertisers are going to make the ads more intrusive.
What're your views on reducing the audio level of ads to match the TV programmes?
Do you think that f-forwarding through ads should be prevented?
I think audio levels should remain constant between programmes and ads, and I don't think that fast-forwarding should be prevented. But again, my point is that if people don't watch ads, then either the quality would go down or subscription fees will go up.
Many channels on Sky exist only to turn a profit on ads - the programmes just being any old tat to stick between the adverts. Perhaps ads could be shared out according to the programme cost - Premiership football matches having ad breaks every five minutes (even when live).
You are also mixing sources of funding. The big channels all have their own sources - adverts or the licence fee. How does it work out that Sky viewers have to watch more ads than people who watch only the terrestrial commercial channels, when they make more original programming?
Because many, many fewer people watch the Sky channels. Yes, most pay TV channels make a profit (though a lot only just break even), but without adverts almost all would make a loss, as there are so many of them that the subscription fee has to be divided between.
Ridiculous analogy. Intrusive upcoming programme promos are obviously ads, and clearly nothing like contents pages of a magazine you might be reading. With onscreen listings there is a simple way of checking upcoming programmes rather than damned repeated promos for shows you don't like, that extend ad breaks, eat into viewing time, reduce actual programme times, obscure the screen edges etc.
You buy a magazine for the articles and images. Even so, some of the pages have advertisements for commercial products. And some of the pages don't contain articles but show what else is in the magazine. What I'm saying is that neither is what you bought the magazine for, but to say that they're basically the same thing is disingenuous. As I pointed out earlier, the reason TV channels have to use promos so much is to fill space, and the reason for that is that most 'hour long' programmes aren't long enough to fill an hour slot with 12 minutes of commercials, and the reason for that is that programmes are made for multiple markets.
I too wouldn't mind watching a few adverts - not the constant amount we get now.
And the entertainment ISN'T free, we all pay for it in the value of the goods we buy....
That is true, but if we didn't we wouldn't have TV shows.
And TV could get a lot worse. We still have a situation where our FTA commercial channels make expensive, high-quality scripted programmes, like Broadchurch or The Mill or Peep Show. Imagine you didn't have any of those, and you just had cheap docusoaps and the like.
Either you're talking about the license fee, which doesn't have any relevance towards adverts, or you're talking about subscription fees, which - as I pointed out - aren't high enough to pay for all the programmes.
That license fee and subscription fees are not sufficient to support programme-making is not the point, TV without adverts is not free in the UK. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, the cost of TV adverts is not only their tediousness and time-wasting, but the financial costs of production are passed onto the consumer. so we pay for adverts to be made, whether we like it or not, and now you insist that we must watch them, in case TV collapses!
Because many, many fewer people watch the Sky channels. Yes, most pay TV channels make a profit (though a lot only just break even), but without adverts almost all would make a loss, as there are so many of them that the subscription fee has to be divided between.
Your logic appears to be that the fewer viewers a channel has, the more adverts it must show? What do you think of my idea that the most expensive channels (e.g. Premiership football, current movies), should, show the most adverts?
You buy a magazine for the articles and images. Even so, some of the pages have advertisements for commercial products. And some of the pages don't contain articles but show what else is in the magazine. What I'm saying is that neither is what you bought the magazine for, but to say that they're basically the same thing is disingenuous.
I agree, to say that they are basically the same thing is disingenuous. Magazines are a very different media from television, and it is easy to read an entire magazine without taking note of a single advertisement. I don't think you will find many takers in the thread for your assertion that 'program promos are similar to the contents page of a magazine'. They are in no way similar, the contents page is more like the digital onscreen programme listings.
You seem to also have the idea that an advert must be for purchased goods. Rubbish. Free or community services and information are just as much adverts as a cornflakes ad. When people complain of too many 'programme ads on the BBC' everybody knows that they are referring to the BBCs' own programme promos.
As I pointed out earlier, the reason TV channels have to use promos so much is to fill space, and the reason for that is that most 'hour long' programmes aren't long enough to fill an hour slot with 12 minutes of commercials, and the reason for that is that programmes are made for multiple markets.
I don't believe that programme promos are mainly used so much to fill space to the end of an hour slot. Many programme promos now intrude into actual programmes, as well as credits. If that were the truth, they could always 'save up' the odd loose minutes instead, and fit in a short programme. Or even re-edit the programmes for different markets.
There can always be exceptions, but most people are influenced by TV ads. According to research, people see more ads than they think they do. TV ads still do their job of making viewers aware of the products advertised. People don't rush out and buy each product immediately, but eventually, if they are in the market for it, the advertised product (service, brand) is in the front of their mind.
Even the stubborn person who conciously refuses to buy advertised products still pays for the ads - the marketing cost is often spread across the whole brand.
The crisis in TV advertising is not that they have stopped working, it's that there is now too much competition for people's eyeballs - too many TV channels, the internet, smartphones.
They are getting longer, more annoying and less understandable about the product they are supposed to describe.
That bit about adverts being less understandable about the product being advertised is spot on. I don't know when adverts stopped being simple and to the point and turned into artsy farty bollocks but it's crazy how those in the industry think making adverts "complex" and "mysterious" is a good idea. Let's not also forget the disgusting and rampant sexism where men are always stupid and women are smug, controlling bitches. Gross.
The people making these adverts can't have any knowledge of the real world.
Try watching a US 60 minute show online - I watched Who do you think you are with Jim Parsons, the ad breaks were removed and it ran for 42 minutes, , the average American sitcom only runs for 21 minutes and they often have ads running along the bottom of the screen as well..
Years ago I remember watching Star Wars on ITV, it was on a Sunday scheduled from 7.45pm-10.00pm and had three ad breaks. These days you get four ad breaks in a two hour movie, an example being last nights C4 showing of Paul which had four breaks in a film scheduled from 9.00pm-11.05pm
Before I got a PVR, I would never watch films or long dramas such as Midsommer Murders live. I always recorded them so that I could skip the adverts.
This only happened after they increased the number of permissible breaks and added sponsor's messages and trailers.
Up until that time I'd been quite happy to sit through or make use of the breaks, even enjoying a few of the ad's.
Nowadays I never watch commercial channels live. I'd be quite happy to pay a small fee to watch the commercial channels I do watch without the adverts.
Comments
Reading all the replies here I would like to amend one part of my comments.
I don't blame the commercial channels themselves but the advertisers. They are only interested in the income generated. I still cannot get my head round the fact that companies pay a fortune to advertise and as a result that must add to the ticket price of the goods.
When will they wise up that the majority of people fast forward or totally ignore the adverts on TV.
But missed 6 o'clock BBC news the other days so watched ITN live and was very surprised at the type of adverts eg. Lawers4you to claim accident compensation and a money lending company (not a bank).
This is the stuff of daytime TV and very surprised it was mixed in with a mainstream evening news program. Suspect they are finding it hard these days to find big company adverts because we all now have technology to avoid them.
The problem with that is that
a) most people don't fast forward - people think they do, because they remember doing it, but most TV is watched passively, and the vast majority is still watched live.
b) people don't ignore the adverts on TV. In fact, TV advertising is still the most effective way of marketing products.
Promos definitely are adverts. They are trying to 'buy' the attention of your eyeballs to watch some other show on the channel (and the adverts therein). There is just no need for time-consuming repeated promos in these days of digital TV and onscreen listings.
Right, but that's the cost. You're getting very expensive to make entertainment delivered to your home, and the only cost is that you have to watch adverts. That doesn't seem like a big ask to me.
The average Sky subscriber pays around £500 a year. That is nowhere near enough to pay for all of the programmes that are on all 200 or so channels on Sky. It's not even enough to pay for all of the new programmes on the big channels. The rest of the money has to come from somewhere.
That's like saying the contents page in a magazine is an advert.
As do many I'm sure. I know that commercial channels need the ad revenue to survive, but nine minutes is a shot in the foot. Also, out of the companies that repeat their ads ad nauseam, the only one I can think of that gets any business is Wonga. The technology to get around adverts is so advanced nowadays, that one person I know say that they haven't watched a 'real-time' ad for over three years.
What're your views on reducing the audio level of ads to match the TV programmes?
Do you think that f-forwarding through ads should be prevented?
Many channels on Sky exist only to turn a profit on ads - the programmes just being any old tat to stick between the adverts. Perhaps ads could be shared out according to the programme cost - Premiership football matches having ad breaks every five minutes (even when live).
You are also mixing sources of funding. The big channels all have their own sources - adverts or the licence fee. How does it work out that Sky viewers have to watch more ads than people who watch only the terrestrial commercial channels, when they make more original programming?
Ridiculous analogy. Intrusive upcoming programme promos are obviously ads, and clearly nothing like contents pages of a magazine you might be reading. With onscreen listings there is a simple way of checking upcoming programmes rather than damned repeated promos for shows you don't like, that extend ad breaks, eat into viewing time, reduce actual programme times, obscure the screen edges etc.
Can programming get more worse? :eek:
I too wouldn't mind watching a few adverts - not the constant amount we get now.
And the entertainment ISN'T free, we all pay for it in the value of the goods we buy....
I don't think programming can get any worse than it is now.
I agree with your other comments.
TV adverts may be the most effective form of advertising but how effective is effective? Advertisers seem to like internet advertising but I rarely see any ads as I use ad blockers. I suspect advertisers are becoming increasingly more aware of the 'elephant in the room'.
In what sense is TV not free without the adverts?
Either you're talking about the license fee, which doesn't have any relevance towards adverts, or you're talking about subscription fees, which - as I pointed out - aren't high enough to pay for all the programmes.
I don't mind adverts that much, it's true. But nobody actively likes them. My point is that without them, you'd have to pay more money for every channel.
And as people continue to use technology to avoid them, advertisers are going to make the ads more intrusive.
I think audio levels should remain constant between programmes and ads, and I don't think that fast-forwarding should be prevented. But again, my point is that if people don't watch ads, then either the quality would go down or subscription fees will go up.
Because many, many fewer people watch the Sky channels. Yes, most pay TV channels make a profit (though a lot only just break even), but without adverts almost all would make a loss, as there are so many of them that the subscription fee has to be divided between.
You buy a magazine for the articles and images. Even so, some of the pages have advertisements for commercial products. And some of the pages don't contain articles but show what else is in the magazine. What I'm saying is that neither is what you bought the magazine for, but to say that they're basically the same thing is disingenuous. As I pointed out earlier, the reason TV channels have to use promos so much is to fill space, and the reason for that is that most 'hour long' programmes aren't long enough to fill an hour slot with 12 minutes of commercials, and the reason for that is that programmes are made for multiple markets.
That is true, but if we didn't we wouldn't have TV shows.
And TV could get a lot worse. We still have a situation where our FTA commercial channels make expensive, high-quality scripted programmes, like Broadchurch or The Mill or Peep Show. Imagine you didn't have any of those, and you just had cheap docusoaps and the like.
.....bigsnip...
Your logic appears to be that the fewer viewers a channel has, the more adverts it must show? What do you think of my idea that the most expensive channels (e.g. Premiership football, current movies), should, show the most adverts?
I agree, to say that they are basically the same thing is disingenuous. Magazines are a very different media from television, and it is easy to read an entire magazine without taking note of a single advertisement. I don't think you will find many takers in the thread for your assertion that 'program promos are similar to the contents page of a magazine'. They are in no way similar, the contents page is more like the digital onscreen programme listings.
You seem to also have the idea that an advert must be for purchased goods. Rubbish. Free or community services and information are just as much adverts as a cornflakes ad. When people complain of too many 'programme ads on the BBC' everybody knows that they are referring to the BBCs' own programme promos. I don't believe that programme promos are mainly used so much to fill space to the end of an hour slot. Many programme promos now intrude into actual programmes, as well as credits. If that were the truth, they could always 'save up' the odd loose minutes instead, and fit in a short programme. Or even re-edit the programmes for different markets.
Even the stubborn person who conciously refuses to buy advertised products still pays for the ads - the marketing cost is often spread across the whole brand.
The crisis in TV advertising is not that they have stopped working, it's that there is now too much competition for people's eyeballs - too many TV channels, the internet, smartphones.
If you're not careful, a percentage of your salary ends up in the pocket of Rupert Murdoch. For the pleasure of watching more ads.
That bit about adverts being less understandable about the product being advertised is spot on. I don't know when adverts stopped being simple and to the point and turned into artsy farty bollocks but it's crazy how those in the industry think making adverts "complex" and "mysterious" is a good idea. Let's not also forget the disgusting and rampant sexism where men are always stupid and women are smug, controlling bitches. Gross.
The people making these adverts can't have any knowledge of the real world.
Before I got a PVR, I would never watch films or long dramas such as Midsommer Murders live. I always recorded them so that I could skip the adverts.
This only happened after they increased the number of permissible breaks and added sponsor's messages and trailers.
Up until that time I'd been quite happy to sit through or make use of the breaks, even enjoying a few of the ad's.
Nowadays I never watch commercial channels live. I'd be quite happy to pay a small fee to watch the commercial channels I do watch without the adverts.