Have you seen how much content you get with a fairly cheap package from Sky or Virgin Media? (Other providers are also available.;)) How on Earth do you think £19-per-month is supposed to pay the running costs of dozens of channels?
Would you be willing to pay £100-per-month (or more) for an ad-free version of the same content?
Someone can post the total amount sky get paid per month.
They can afford enough to throw billions at PL rights so they arent short of money.
Let me guess, you love ads at the start of films when you go to the cinema too. After all, they couldnt possibly afford to show films charging £10 per person and £5 per drink, could they?
Same goes for Ads on a DVD that you just paid £10 for.
Success is obviously down to whether or not the advertised company gains a greater increase in revenue than the cost of the advertising campaign. But I don't see the relevance of that point?
Its just that some people on this thread seem to be happy that other posters remember the Go Compare ad. But surely thats pointless until the credit card gets charged? Thats the relevance I would have thought.
Someone can post the total amount sky get paid per month.
They can afford enough to throw billions at PL rights so they arent short of money.
Let me guess, you love ads at the start of films when you go to the cinema too. After all, they couldnt possibly afford to show films charging £10 per person and £5 per drink, could they?
Same goes for Ads on a DVD that you just paid £10 for.
So what you're really asking for is a reduction in profits for the content-providers?
I think the point would be that people weren't tuning in to the BBC as much because these "annoyances" actually help keep people on the other channels (which is what they were designed to do).
Not me, I avoid watching anything that was advertised during a show as it ruins the last scene in a show which is usually a dramatic climax.
Ive seen even more annoying things including a countdown timer and a dog for the following program that was shown 100% of the time on the current programming.
The more you push people, the more they will run away from ads. The net proves that, people were willing to accept unobstructed ads, then we got loud, annoying flash ads, then pop ups, then pop, unders and finally layer ads which ruins the net experience.
Because of this, I havent seen an ad online for 5+ years. I never used to mind the ads too much when they were like the meerkat one, but now they are the equivalent of the flashing noisy ads online.
Its just that some people on this thread seem to be happy that other posters remember the Go Compare ad. But surely thats pointless until the credit card gets charged? Thats the relevance I would have thought.
Yes, but as bemorepacific pointed out, it's a fair assumption that the campaign is having a positive effect on their revenue as it continues to run.
And with that type of business in particular, ad recall is a particularly important thing. It's a service that consumers can use as a tool to save money, and nothing more than that. People deride it as a crap advert, but the only purpose of the ad is to increase awareness of the website - they don't need to make it seem cool, or of high quality, because it's just a tool for finding the cheapest product offered by other companies. So if people remember it, then it is likely to be having the desired effect.
If, for example, Mercedes were to do an ad campaign like that, it probably wouldn't be having the desired effect, as people don't buy a car based on a kitsch, memorable advert, but they would probably go to a price comparison website based on the same.
Not me, I avoid watching anything that was advertised during a show as it ruins the last scene in a show which is usually a dramatic climax.
Ive seen even more annoying things including a countdown timer and a dog for the following program that was shown 100% of the time on the current programming.
The more you push people, the more they will run away from ads. The net proves that, people were willing to accept unobstructed ads, then we got loud, annoying flash ads, then pop ups, then pop, unders and finally layer ads which ruins the net experience.
Because of this, I havent seen an ad online for 5+ years. I never used to mind the ads too much when they were like the meerkat one, but now they are the equivalent of the flashing noisy ads online.
The Net only proves that technology can be used to filter certain unwanted content. The ads can only be filtered because individual parts of a webpage load separately.
If a pop-up is "burnt-into" the TV programme, however, there's nothing an end user can do except re-encode the content on a computer with an ugly blur obscuring the ad. If all the channels show pop-ups, there's nowhere else to go.
So its not about them not being to bring us TV, its about increasing the fat profit margin then?
I'm asking you what your point is. Obviously, people make content in order to make money. You're saying that ads are pointless, and I'm saying that a reduction in ad revenue will lead to an increase in other charges to the consumer - content-providers would clearly prefer to sacrifice quality than profit.
And with that type of business in particular, ad recall is a particularly important thing. It's a service that consumers can use as a tool to save money, and nothing more than that. People deride it as a crap advert, but the only purpose of the ad is to increase awareness of the website
OK so actually not where you say:
"Success is obviously down to whether or not the advertised company gains a greater increase in revenue than the cost of the advertising campaign. But I don't see the relevance of that point? "
in that case?
I think a lot of people in the advertising industry like to trumpet "successful recall" as justification for their fees to the client, but it is all academic unless that credit card is charged.
The Net only proves that technology can be used to filter certain unwanted content. The ads can only be filtered because individual parts of a webpage load separately.
If a pop-up is "burnt-into" the TV programme, however, there's nothing an end user can do except re-encode the content on a computer with an ugly blur obscuring the ad. If all the channels show pop-ups, there's nowhere else to go.
The TV industry would die if they did that, clearly reduced profits with a better user experience is preferable to that.
Shows would be seen via other media or not at all.
I'm asking you what your point is. Obviously, people make content in order to make money. You're saying that ads are pointless, and I'm saying that a reduction in ad revenue will lead to an increase in other charges to the consumer - content-providers would clearly prefer to sacrifice quality than profit.
No it wouldnt, if Sky double their prices overnight and showed no ads, most people would stop subscribing.
If they kept the same price, subscribers would increase making up some of the shortfall in ad revenue.
As it is, they charge a lot and show more ads than anyone because sky subscribers are being walked over.
The TV industry would die if they did that, clearly reduced profits with a better user experience is preferable to that.
Shows would be seen via other media or not at all.
Yet the nation tolerates a lot of on-screen clutter which would have been unthinkable a few years ago. The idea that most of the viewing audience would boycott television altogether seems more than a little naive.
Yet the nation tolerates a lot of on-screen clutter which would have been unthinkable a few years ago. The idea that most of the viewing audience would boycott television altogether seems more than a little naive.
A dog and maybe a 5 second popup near the end of the program which I have only seen on 5? Its nowhere near as bad as the US or as bad as what youre suggesting which is something that would ruin every program.
A dog and maybe a 5 second popup near the end of the program which I have only seen on 5? Its nowhere near as bad as the US or as bad as what youre suggesting which is something that would ruin every program.
I take it you don't watch much of Five if you haven't seen the existing pop-up ads for other programmes with little men dancing around the bottom of the frame?
I knew the company existed well before that stupid TV advert. Knowing the company exists has not made me use it and I am not likely to use it in the future.
A company that has the audacity to expect their future customers to have the mentality of a 4-year-old are not companies I would be encouraged to do business with.
They could bring back cigarette advertising and show two adverts at every TV advert break and have them fill four pages in every newspaper but it would not make be buy them if they had a two for one offer. I know the names of many tobacco companies but I do not buy them.
The only time an agency does its job successfully is when they persuade someone to actually buy the product and in my case with their GoCompare advert they have failed miserably.
No-one - not even the most aggressive agency - would suggest that advertising can make you buy anything. The most they can hope for is product awareness.
And you are so aware of it that you can replicate the product's capitalisation.
You may believe that you are immune but others - presumably less strong than you - will not be.
But you will never forget the company and its (admittedly annoying, admittedly childish but ultimately successful) advertising.
No it wouldnt, if Sky double their prices overnight and showed no ads, most people would stop subscribing.
If they kept the same price, subscribers would increase making up some of the shortfall in ad revenue.
As it is, they charge a lot and show more ads than anyone because sky subscribers are being walked over.
Well, first of all, they obviously won't double their prices overnight - it will be a gradual process.
Second of all, if they drop all their ads, I don't think the increase in subscribers would be very large at all. I don't think advertising is the main barrier to pay TV subscription - it's much more likely that it's subscription cost and difficulty to set up are the things that stop people from getting Sky.
I take it you don't watch much of Five if you haven't seen the existing pop-up ads for other programmes with little men dancing around the bottom of the frame?
Ive seen it a couple of times but I dont remember seeing any dancing men,
I dont sit in front of the TV all evening, I PVR everything, skip all ads and delete the file before it gets to the credits.
I can only remember seeing a popup once and it ruined the program because it was when someone was dying.
Ive seen it a couple of times but I dont remember seeing any dancing men,
I dont sit in front of the TV all evening, I PVR everything, skip all ads and delete the file before it gets to the credits.
I can only remember seeing a popup once and it ruined the program because it was when someone was dying.
I downloaded the program instead from then on.
By "dancing men" I mean the little figures such as Ian Wright who appear in the pop-ups and make exaggerated gestures. These promos are fairly common at various points during Five's programmes. Seeing as fewer people watch ad breaks now, this sort of advertising will be the next logical step. Particularly for brands which can't easily be promoted using diegetic product placement.
Bear in mind that you may not be able to find a 'clean' download of every programme. In these circumstances, you may simply choose to give up on the programme altogether. You will, however, be in the minority.
By "dancing men" I mean the little figures such as Ian Wright who appear in the pop-ups and make exaggerated gestures. These promos are fairly common at various points during Five's programmes. Seeing as fewer people watch ad breaks now, this sort of advertising will be the next logical step. Particularly for brands which can't easily be promoted using diegetic product placement.
Bear in mind that you may not be able to find a 'clean' download of every programme. In these circumstances, you may simply choose to give up on the programme altogether. You will, however, be in the minority.
The worse it gets, the more people will switch off. Fives decline suggests thats whats happening and it will only get worse.
seeing most people try to "hold it in" if something's good on the telly then dash to the loo as soon ads come on. Or even make a cup of tea during the ad break or make a sandwich.etc.
Do most people miss (not see) the adverts then? So the TV comanies charge companies for adverts which people don't watch? :rolleyes:
That's probably the long and the short of it. People either do as you say about putting the kettle on or visit the bathroom during the ad breaks, or record what they want to watch and fast-forward thru the ads when they watch what they've recorded. :cool:
The worse it gets, the more people will switch off. Fives decline suggests thats whats happening and it will only get worse.
How so? Wasn't Five the only terrestrial channel to have held its share y-o-y in 2009? Doesn't that fairly basic piece of information contradict your point?
That's probably the long and the short of it. People either do as you say about putting the kettle on or visit the bathroom during the ad breaks, or record what they want to watch and fast-forward thru the ads when they watch what they've recorded. :cool:
Well,fast-forwarded ads aren't counted as being watched. Ads on when someone leaves the room technically shouldn't be counted, but that requires the respondent pushing a button to say that they've left the room, so probably doesn't happen as much.
Have you seen how much content you get with a fairly cheap package from Sky or Virgin Media? (Other providers are also available.;)) How on Earth do you think £19-per-month is supposed to pay the running costs of dozens of channels?
Would you be willing to pay £100-per-month (or more) for an ad-free version of the same content?
Yes I have seen how much content you can get with a fairly cheap package or expensive package as I have the full Sky package, however, what I'm saying is it is not the content it is the principle those channels should be funded by either adverts or subscriptions not both.
Don't forget that it is not just you and me but 10 millions of us are paying monthly sub, so it is much more than £19pm
There are hundreds of channels that don't require any subscription but still survive on advert revenue so it can be done.
It is just the fact that TV companies & Sky want to have their cake and eat it too. If I didn't have the ability to record and fast forward the ads I would cancel my Sky sub today.
It is comical to pay for TV package and get bombarded by ads. I pay BBC much less than I pay to Sky yet I get bombarded with rubbish ads and interruptions by pay-tv channels.
I have the ability on my Humax to connect it to a PC to archive recordings to DVD too - suitably edited without the ads of course.
I only ever watch TV live very rarely, and never the commercial channels, as not just being able to skip the ads, there is so much fluff and dumbed down filler in programmes these days I always tend to skip thru the crap bits to find the 'content'.
Life is too short to watch what some director or advertiser wants you to. PVRs give you control.
Comments
So as customers we end up having cheaper products than if there was no advertising.
So instead of us paying for it, advertising actually ends up saving us money.
Someone can post the total amount sky get paid per month.
They can afford enough to throw billions at PL rights so they arent short of money.
Let me guess, you love ads at the start of films when you go to the cinema too. After all, they couldnt possibly afford to show films charging £10 per person and £5 per drink, could they?
Same goes for Ads on a DVD that you just paid £10 for.
Its just that some people on this thread seem to be happy that other posters remember the Go Compare ad. But surely thats pointless until the credit card gets charged? Thats the relevance I would have thought.
So what you're really asking for is a reduction in profits for the content-providers?
Not me, I avoid watching anything that was advertised during a show as it ruins the last scene in a show which is usually a dramatic climax.
Ive seen even more annoying things including a countdown timer and a dog for the following program that was shown 100% of the time on the current programming.
The more you push people, the more they will run away from ads. The net proves that, people were willing to accept unobstructed ads, then we got loud, annoying flash ads, then pop ups, then pop, unders and finally layer ads which ruins the net experience.
Because of this, I havent seen an ad online for 5+ years. I never used to mind the ads too much when they were like the meerkat one, but now they are the equivalent of the flashing noisy ads online.
So its not about them not being to bring us TV, its about increasing the fat profit margin then?
Yes, but as bemorepacific pointed out, it's a fair assumption that the campaign is having a positive effect on their revenue as it continues to run.
And with that type of business in particular, ad recall is a particularly important thing. It's a service that consumers can use as a tool to save money, and nothing more than that. People deride it as a crap advert, but the only purpose of the ad is to increase awareness of the website - they don't need to make it seem cool, or of high quality, because it's just a tool for finding the cheapest product offered by other companies. So if people remember it, then it is likely to be having the desired effect.
If, for example, Mercedes were to do an ad campaign like that, it probably wouldn't be having the desired effect, as people don't buy a car based on a kitsch, memorable advert, but they would probably go to a price comparison website based on the same.
If a pop-up is "burnt-into" the TV programme, however, there's nothing an end user can do except re-encode the content on a computer with an ugly blur obscuring the ad. If all the channels show pop-ups, there's nowhere else to go.
I'm asking you what your point is. Obviously, people make content in order to make money. You're saying that ads are pointless, and I'm saying that a reduction in ad revenue will lead to an increase in other charges to the consumer - content-providers would clearly prefer to sacrifice quality than profit.
OK so actually not where you say:
"Success is obviously down to whether or not the advertised company gains a greater increase in revenue than the cost of the advertising campaign. But I don't see the relevance of that point? "
in that case?
I think a lot of people in the advertising industry like to trumpet "successful recall" as justification for their fees to the client, but it is all academic unless that credit card is charged.
The TV industry would die if they did that, clearly reduced profits with a better user experience is preferable to that.
Shows would be seen via other media or not at all.
No it wouldnt, if Sky double their prices overnight and showed no ads, most people would stop subscribing.
If they kept the same price, subscribers would increase making up some of the shortfall in ad revenue.
As it is, they charge a lot and show more ads than anyone because sky subscribers are being walked over.
A dog and maybe a 5 second popup near the end of the program which I have only seen on 5? Its nowhere near as bad as the US or as bad as what youre suggesting which is something that would ruin every program.
No-one - not even the most aggressive agency - would suggest that advertising can make you buy anything. The most they can hope for is product awareness.
And you are so aware of it that you can replicate the product's capitalisation.
You may believe that you are immune but others - presumably less strong than you - will not be.
But you will never forget the company and its (admittedly annoying, admittedly childish but ultimately successful) advertising.
Well, first of all, they obviously won't double their prices overnight - it will be a gradual process.
Second of all, if they drop all their ads, I don't think the increase in subscribers would be very large at all. I don't think advertising is the main barrier to pay TV subscription - it's much more likely that it's subscription cost and difficulty to set up are the things that stop people from getting Sky.
Ive seen it a couple of times but I dont remember seeing any dancing men,
I dont sit in front of the TV all evening, I PVR everything, skip all ads and delete the file before it gets to the credits.
I can only remember seeing a popup once and it ruined the program because it was when someone was dying.
I downloaded the program instead from then on.
Bear in mind that you may not be able to find a 'clean' download of every programme. In these circumstances, you may simply choose to give up on the programme altogether. You will, however, be in the minority.
The worse it gets, the more people will switch off. Fives decline suggests thats whats happening and it will only get worse.
How so? Wasn't Five the only terrestrial channel to have held its share y-o-y in 2009? Doesn't that fairly basic piece of information contradict your point?
Well,fast-forwarded ads aren't counted as being watched. Ads on when someone leaves the room technically shouldn't be counted, but that requires the respondent pushing a button to say that they've left the room, so probably doesn't happen as much.
Yes I have seen how much content you can get with a fairly cheap package or expensive package as I have the full Sky package, however, what I'm saying is it is not the content it is the principle those channels should be funded by either adverts or subscriptions not both.
Don't forget that it is not just you and me but 10 millions of us are paying monthly sub, so it is much more than £19pm
There are hundreds of channels that don't require any subscription but still survive on advert revenue so it can be done.
It is just the fact that TV companies & Sky want to have their cake and eat it too. If I didn't have the ability to record and fast forward the ads I would cancel my Sky sub today.
It is comical to pay for TV package and get bombarded by ads. I pay BBC much less than I pay to Sky yet I get bombarded with rubbish ads and interruptions by pay-tv channels.
PVR's are the best thing since sliced bread
I have the ability on my Humax to connect it to a PC to archive recordings to DVD too - suitably edited without the ads of course.
I only ever watch TV live very rarely, and never the commercial channels, as not just being able to skip the ads, there is so much fluff and dumbed down filler in programmes these days I always tend to skip thru the crap bits to find the 'content'.
Life is too short to watch what some director or advertiser wants you to. PVRs give you control.