Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Live Commercials Will Save TV? 157

Posted by Zonk from the that's-different dept.
Vitaly Friedman writes "Entrepreneur Mark Cuban doesn't believe that traditional television advertising is dead, it simply needs to be more interesting. And what's more interesting than being live? From the article: 'It's no secret that the traditional 30-second spot has been losing much of its luster with advertisers. With the rise of other media options (videogames, home theater systems, Web surfing) on the one hand and the recent growth of DVRs like TiVo on the other, traditional television advertising has been feeling the squeeze. Broadcasting executives are struggling to figure out the economics of the new digital landscape, and have been willing to try just about any creative idea, such as TiVo's plan to replace old commercials with new ones when watching recorded shows.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Live Commercials Will Save TV? More

Live Commercials Will Save TV?

Comments Filter:

  • oh yes... (Score:4, Funny)

    by joeldg ( 518249 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @06:24PM (#15224402) Homepage
    This is perfect, some GREAT opportunities for wardrobe malfunctions and haircombing shots... :)

    • They aren't live as in live.

      They're live as in not Superbowl ads in April.

      $20 says you won't be able to ff thru them much longer if they're going to all this work.

    • Re:oh yes... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lbrandy ( 923907 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @06:43PM (#15224511)
      My idea for an ad is a 4 second clip of someone paying with a Visa card, slowed down 8x. That way people fast-forwarding on their TiVo get to see it in real time.
      • My idea for an ad is a 4 second clip of someone paying with a Visa card, slowed down 8x. That way people fast-forwarding on their TiVo get to see it in real time.

        I'm writing your name down...if I end up seeing this on my Tivo, I'll know who to blame.

    • It'd seem it could be really interesting if they could have commercials generated based on real-time factors or even from live interaction with viewers. It could even be a canned commercial with a transparent background that shows something like people posing in the background of live cams (hi mom!), showing online games going on, etc. I think the key is to not just be live but to interact.

  • Sounds expensive... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brian0918 ( 638904 ) <brian0918@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday April 28, 2006 @06:25PM (#15224408)
    Unless these commercials consist of little more than someone scrolling through a powerpoint, how could this not get expensive fast? Most commercials are recycled for months or years, not minutes...
  • So Matt Lauer will take a break from reporting the news of the morning to tell us about Quaker Oats now?
  • No more talking gecko!
    • But I like the talking gecko...

      It's pie...and chips...fa free...

      What's not to like?

      Dave
    • That talking gecko was probably the most imaginative thing they came up with in the last five years.

      (Well, something had to supplant Taco Bell's cute little dog. )

    • Geico ads are the only good ones on TV, you insensitive clod! I am a little unsure when s/h/it picked up the English accent, though.

  • Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HunterZ ( 20035 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @06:29PM (#15224428) Journal
    One of the most annoying things to me about TV ads is seeing the same ones repeated 3 or 4 (or more) times during a one hour show. Even if the ad itself isn't particularly annoying, it becomes so after I've seen it enough times over a short enough period of time.

    What I'm driving at is that I think live TV commercials *would* be interesting, at least at first. No doubt they would become just as normal and familiar as everything else shown on TV in the past 50+ years, but at least we wouldn't have to see the same thing over and over and over again.

    On the other hand, considering how much money is currently spent on pre-recorded commercials, I somehow doubt that we'd see more than a few live ones, only during prime-time, and only on major networks.
    • I second that. Nothing like the same four commercials during an hour long show to make you glad you pvr'ed it and are fast fowarding through them.

      I don't see why they do that, some brainer probably sat there and said "if they see our ad 23 times this hour they gotta buy our anal leakage cream for sure!".

      Tom

      • Not buying it ... yet. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by khasim ( 1285 )

        I don't see why they do that, some brainer probably sat there and said "if they see our ad 23 times this hour they gotta buy our anal leakage cream for sure!".

        Seeing it 23 times won't make you go out and buy it ... if you don't need it.

        But when you need it ... you'll remember the brand. Which usually results in more purchases of that brand over other brands.

        So repetition is what the advertisers want.

        The trick is to make the repetition less boring so people don't fast forward through the commercial and you

        • I could go for honest ads for a change. That'd be "all new" and shock the audience.

          "Drink Pepsi! It's full of neato chemicals and corn syrup! Yum!"

          or

          "Drive our Ford Monstrocity F-200 Manly Man Series! 8MPG is our new personal best!"

          or even

          "This Dell XPS170000K series with some random assortment of parts assembled by mexicans in Texas is just what you need! Honest!"

          Frankly, I buy what I want, not what the TV tells me to. The fact they assume I have the IQ of some sort of retarded 4 year old child thoug
    • One of the most annoying things to me about TV ads is seeing the same ones repeated 3 or 4 (or more) times during a one hour show.

      Even more annoying is when they repeat the same ad twice in the ad break - just in case you missed it. Throw in a scrolling banner or pop-up ad in the program too: they might have forgotten since the last ad break three minutes ago... They probably gave the fucker who thought of this a medal - bastards!
    • Who else finds that the stupid 15 second full screen web ads many companies have are plain useless and annoying. Most don't even show the company logo or product until the end of the ad, and all of the ads are just plain boring. That's why I always click "skip this ad". Surely they should try to get the main message across in the first second or two because I'm out before the ad ends usually.

    • What I'm driving at is that I think live TV commercials *would* be interesting, at least at first.

      It wouldn't ever really be interesting ot me. I literally record every show that I'm interested in and watch it later. Live commercials would do absolutely no good in my case.

      Let me reiterate - I don't watch live TV. Until they build a device that prevents me from viewing commercials, I'll skip them. Always.

      Seriously, the best hope anyone has of advertising to me is product placement within the show

  • network exec's are sitting around a table trying to remake 'friends' As long as these asshats have control (clearchannel) don't plan on seeing anything good - may I suggest Adult Swim on the cartoon network?

  • Clue (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Eggplant62 ( 120514 )
    Broadcasters, your captive audience is escaping. We no longer will sit back and be bombarded by obnoxious ads that insult our intelligence. Live advertising won't do the job. I know I'll simply ignore live ads like I do most advertising already. The mute button still performs its said task, removing most of the annoyance factor during ads, and I can always change the channel and right back again to avoid ads.

    Forget ads on TV. Come up with a better way to get the sponsors' messages out to the public. A
  • I haven't watched commercials for a while. MythTV [mythtv.org] has auto commercial skip, and "skip ahead 30 seconds" as standard features. Watching live TV is so...low tech.

  • just make decent commercials (Score:3, Insightful)

    by buddyglass ( 925859 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @06:38PM (#15224477)
    Most commercials make me want to jab something sharp into my eyesockets. Some, however, are actually funny. Or, if not outright funny, at least visually interesting. Make more of those and I might be persuaded not to switch channels.
    • I could not agree with you more.

      I was fortunate enough to live through the "Alka-Seltzer" era, when people would actually go out of their way to watch their commercial.

      There have even been shows where the whole show is a collection of foreign commercials, and most were hilarious.

      Most of the crap thought up here in America is just about as dull and boring as being forced to hear the details of Uncle Jessie's church wedding every five minutes while trying to enjoy a meal.

      As a group of consumers, we have b

      • In Ireland anyway:

        5. Time life products- especially the country music compilations

        4. Hair products; at least the models are usually hot
        3. Personal injury claims- bloody ambulance chasers. At least no-win no-fee is banned in Ireland
        2. Personal finance & insurance - please, just make it stop... I'll give you money
        1. Mobile phone ringtones; kill me now.

        • Re:The worst offenders (Score:4, Insightful)

          by BakaHoushi ( 786009 ) <Goss.Sean@gma i l .com> on Friday April 28, 2006 @09:10PM (#15225217) Homepage
          I'd say that's about right for here in America, too. Though, personally, I'd swap the country music albums, as much as I hate them, for car commercials. Usually they look like they're designed by someone who spent too much of their time in college studying post modern art that they forgot they're selling a car, not a 3-D modelling program.

          This is why I refuse to buy almost anything I haven't researched and/or sampled beforehand. I'll be damned if I'm going to be persuaded by some lying ads. (I've known some awesome products to have horrendous ads, and some horrendous products that have had [though rarely] good ads. Better to look into reviews first)

          And I'd like to make a special mention for drug ads. Let me say this: If you have to ask your doctor if you need a drug, you don't need it. If you're so sick that you need medication, your doctor should (in an indeal world) be the one to tell you. I'd like to see pharmaceutical ads off advertisements altogether, before they make this already paranoid generation into hypochondriacs.
  • I think it's pretty obvious that television is undergoing a major shift. As the article pointed out, more and more people are Tivo-ing their programs and skipping commericals, IPTV is coming up. Live commercials are really just a way of having new commercials more often, but I don't think that that will help anything. With all the new ways people are watching TV, there needs to be a new way of delivering ads. I don't know what it will be, but my money is on Google to come up with it. They already have a pre

  • Hmmm (Score:2)

    by GmAz ( 916505 )
    You know, I have a DVR so I can skip the commercials. Will this new 'replacing recorded commercials with new ones' screw up my skipping of said commericals? If so, then TIVO is gonna get pissed when everyone returns them because they can't skip the commercials anymore.

  • Pay for shows with DVD sales (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sycomonkey ( 666153 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @06:41PM (#15224495) Homepage
    Just get rid of advertising, Pay for the show with DVD sales. Why isn't it allready like this?
    • What are the profits in advertising vs the profits from DVD sales?

      This might be a usable idea but there might be a point where they decide not to run TV shows at all and make everything straight for DVD. Or worse, the first few episodes in a season will be broadcast, but then to see the end of the season, you'll be force to buy the DVD.

    • Because right now they make money on ads and DVD sales. In your scenario, they'd only make money off of DVD sales--a clear drop in revenue.
    • My wife and I probably watch about 10 hours of tv a week between us. Cable costs us about $10/month or roughly 25c/hr and tivo costs another $7 iirc.

      If we could download those shows (even if it were 50c/hr) then we'd probably do that instead. It will obviously hurt the local affliates, but it could make financial sense for those producing the programs.
    • Because they already make money on DVD sales. Getting rid of advertising would just mean less revenue.

      -matthew

  • What about no commercials? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by puregen1us ( 648116 ) <alex@alexwasser m a n . com> on Friday April 28, 2006 @06:42PM (#15224500)
    How about no commercials would save TV? It's the commercials that people hate, so remove them.

    TV needs people to watch it, and more and more people don't want to because of the ads.

    If 24 is actually 18 hours long, that says something awful about how much advertising is on tv.

    Ok, no ads, means no money for tv, so:

    Why not reduce ads to a level at which they stop being so intrusive? Have a couple at fewer times and charge more. Make better TV to get more viewers and spots can become more expensive. Revenue could stay the same, and TV would actually improve.
    • 1. Reduce time for advertising.
      2. Charge more for said reduced time.
      3. ???
      4. Profit!
      • "1. Reduce time for advertising.
        2. Charge more for said reduced time.
        3. ???
        4. Profit!"

        There wouldn't need to be a step 3. That has the potential to work. The main reason it isn't likely to happen, though, is that you'd be turning away dudes carrying bags of money.
    • If 24 is actually 18 hours long, that says something awful about how much advertising is on tv.
      You moron ! It's called 24 because there are 24 episodes in a season, as opposed to the regular 22. What do you think Jack Bauer does during the commercial break. Just like you, he takes a leak or heads to the fridge.

    • How about no commercials would save TV? It's the commercials that people hate, so remove them.

      Sure, there are public networks like the BBC [bbc.co.uk]. They get their money from the government, though radio and television license fees. No ads, except for their own promos between programs. I'd be happy to pay extra for BBC Canada [bbccanada.ca] if they'd ditch their ads.

      It's a business model that works, though folks in the U.K. grumble about it. It can produce excellent television. But it's also a model the U.S.A. rejected abou

    • Why not reduce ads to a level at which they stop being so intrusive?


      Because people like me (bastards) would STILL block/skip them. It would just be less work if there was less. I block any and all advertising out of my life that I lawfully can. Totally indiscriminately. I don't care if it is targeted, relevent, and unintrusive.

      -matthew

  • Live Commercials? I remember those. (Score:4, Funny)

    by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @06:42PM (#15224507) Journal
    "Hello friends. I'm your Vitameatavegamin girl. Are you tired, run-down, listless? Do you poop out at parties? Are you unpopular? The answer to all your problems is in this little bottle. Vitameatavegamin. Yes, Vitameatavegamin contains Vitamins Meat Vegetables and Minerals. Yes, with Vitameatavegamin, you can spoon your way to health. All you do is take a great big tablespoonful after every meal. Mmmmmmm..... It's so tasty, too! Tastes just like candy! So why don't you join all the thousands of happy peppy people and get a great big bottle of Vitameatavegamin tomorrow! That's Vita-meata-vegamin! (wink)"

  • Product Placement (Score:3, Interesting)

    by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Friday April 28, 2006 @06:44PM (#15224516) Journal
    Really, while the idea of live and/or more interesting commercials does have some appeal, in the end I think advertisers will simply resort to more and more product placement. Which could lead to some interesting convolutions of plotlines for shows that don't take place in modern society. I can see sci fi shows placing products with the rationalization that they are so damn good that the companies that make them today are still around in the future. But what about historical shows?

    I predict more time travel and dream sequences.

  • This industry is dying, and thank God! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ponga ( 934481 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @06:45PM (#15224524)
    If you want a road map of whats going to happen to TV, take a look at radio.
    Sirius and XM are becoming more popular and from what I've seen, public radio is gaining an audience. People are abandoning commercial radio because now there are alternatives! The same will happen to TV, take note!

    -Ponga
  • It's no secret that the traditional 30-second spot has been losing much of its luster with advertisers.

    The traditional 30-second spot lost its luster with audiences about sixty seconds after the first one was broadcast.

  • I foresee a patent war. (Score:4, Funny)

    by ettlz ( 639203 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @06:53PM (#15224572) Journal
    Won't QVC be up in arms over this "live advertising" idea?
  • I would venture a guess that people are just sick of all the advertising and are doing other things than pay attention to it. You can't surf the web, listen to the radio, take a nice drive, or watch tv without someone trying to brainwash you into buying their product with a jingle, ad or billboard. The superbowl commercials are pretty popular, but as creative as they are, if they were the same marketing drivel dayin-dayout, they would suck too.

  • Live isn't interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:02PM (#15224605)

    Really, it isn't. You just get screwed up lines, and pay a hell of a lot extra for it.

    What's interesting is relevance. The average bachelor isn't going to run out and buy tampons because an actress told him how fun it was to go rollerskating on your period, but he might go out and buy exercise equipment because Chuck Norris told him it would improve his roundhouse kicks.

    The problem is getting the information necessary to tailor ads to individual preferences without it being a hassle for the viewer or infringe on privacy. Rather than try and obtain their preferences through positive reinforcement, I suggest there should be a huge red button on every remote that says I never want to see this advert again!

    This way, viewers can get rid of the really annoying adverts and the ones that don't interest them at all, and advertisers can build up an idea of what they do like by seeing what they don't block.

    Obviously, there has to be some safeguard against simply blocking every advert, but that shouldn't be too difficult. For example, only let viweers block x number of adverts, and when they block more than that, start unblocking the least recently blocked ones.

    • only let viweers block x number of adverts, and when they block more than that, start unblocking the least recently blocked ones.

      Okay, so if they know how many you are allowed to block, what will stop them from just making enough really annoying ones (ie typical ones) to fill your block list and keep your watching the rest?

      • what will stop them from just making enough really annoying ones (ie typical ones) to fill your block list and keep your watching the rest?

        The purpose of adverts is to sell, not to annoy. Why would they make multiple deliberately annoying adverts to bypass your block when they can make single non-annoying adverts for less money and not get blocked in the first place?

        • The purpose of adverts is to sell, not to annoy. Why would they make multiple deliberately annoying adverts to bypass your block when they can make single non-annoying adverts for less money and not get blocked in the first place?

          The purpose of advers is to get a brand/product into your head so that you think and talk about it. Fact is, annoying works. Probably isn't a good idea to go overboard with it, but it works.

          An annoying ad can be pretty cheap to make. And if they know it is going to be blocked by mo
    • Obviously, there has to be some safeguard against simply blocking every advert, but that shouldn't be too difficult. For example, only let viweers block x number of adverts, and when they block more than that, start unblocking the least recently blocked ones.

      How could that possibly compete with systems that allows you to block ALL ads? Hmm, I could buy this service that only lets me block the most annoying ads and eventually the ads start popping back up anyway... or I could get a system that not only block
      • I think it would work if we didn't buy it... if it was just part of the normal cable setup. Then you could buy one that let you block all the commercials (I'm talking Cable/Sat DVRs, not Tivo/Myth obviously).

        I do think it's a cool idea, 'cause there are plenty of times I've seen a commercial and thought "OH HAILLLL NOO, Not this Sh!t again!" and I've muted it and walked away. Which if you think of it from the commerical maker's perspective is terrible. Say there were 5 commercials in that block. (I wish t
  • Most ads I fast forward through on my PVR, but some I rewind a watch a few times. For example, the "we're for dogs" ads from Pedigree, or Victoria's Secret ads, although I neither a dog nor a girlfriend and the latter vendor never has anything in my size. A good interesting ad has people asking their friends if they saw them. On the other hand, the spectacularly annoying ad is toast in the PVR era.

    Keep in mind that Music Videos are essentially ads.

    One of my friends who lived in Germany in the 80's told me t
    • Definitely.

      Interesting, or actually funny. Or both! As an example, I find nearly all Geico commercials hilariously funny, and I watch them every time. Even if I've seen them, they just have that hook. I also love the Volkswagon commercials with Peter Stormare [imdb.com]. What I can't stand? Jingles. I especially hate jingles when they rip off another song. They're vile, evil commercials. Sex doesn't really sell anymore in my opinion, either... sex is just a click away on the internet now, nobody cares to see it unless
    • Most ads I fast forward through on my PVR, but some I rewind a watch a few times. For example, the "we're for dogs" ads from Pedigree, or Victoria's Secret ads, although I neither a dog nor a girlfriend and the latter vendor never has anything in my size. A good interesting ad has people asking their friends if they saw them.

      These are so rare than I think people are starting to simply block ads altogether.

      On the other hand, the spectacularly annoying ad is toast in the PVR era.

      No, they just won't get aired

  • I don't think advertisers are going to go for live spots. For one thing, all it takes is one on-air screw-up to blow an entire ad campaign and wreck an advertiser's credibility. Giant corporations don't advertise because they want to entertain people; they advertise because they think it generates revenue. TV advertisers are for the most part extremely risk-averse organizations, and they want control over the message they broadcast.

    As others have noted, product placement is the wave of the future. I would

  • That's usually when I give up and turn the TV off for a week. -CF
  • One of the more interesting aspects of the internet is that if you make an interesting ad and use viral marketing, people will come to you. Carlton United's Big Ad [bigad.com.au] was a huge success, in that people learned about it by being told by friends, and were therefore much more receptive to the message than just having it spewed at them. After its success on the internet, they tried showing it on TV, but they got such a lacklustre response compared to the online version that they pulled it after only a couple of we

    • Carlton United's Big Ad was a huge success, in that people learned about it by being told by friends

      As a middle-income, single, Australian, male, technical/internet tradesman in his 30's, I should be smack-bang in the middle of the target demographic for those ads. But from the first time I saw the first one, I found them really annoying. And I don't think I was alone - I can't recall a single instance of my workmates ever mentioning those ads.

      So why do Australians keep bringing these ads up as an example

  • Its in the shorts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:19PM (#15224702) Journal
    The Tivo/DVR changes the whole dynamic of television. It used to be mandatory to watch the commercials, or at least wait them out. Now, the DVR makes it trivial to skip them over.

    Ever watch American Idol? Notice the TVs behind Ryan Seacrest displaying Coca Cola logos and bubbles? The ads are becoming part of the show.

    But, along these same lines, ads are starting to get better. Every day, I get video files forwarded to me by E-mail that are frequently... ADS. And they're funny as hell.

    Here's an example: It's funny as hell, and I sure don't mind forwarding this to my friends. [nyud.net] So, this leather company not only gets people to look at their ad, they don't even pay the costs of distribution!

    The world is changing. Guess what? It's been doing that since it was created...
  • Making them interesting and correctly targetted will get people to watch them. Making them live won't accomplish this, it's just another gimmick that people will ignore.
    • Making them interesting and correctly targetted will get people to watch them.

      Not if the people can help it. Given the choice between watching more "interesting" ads and no ads (a good PVR or renting shows on DVD/online), I think the obvious choice is no ads. Perhaps you can SLOW the adoption of ad skipping technology, but it is here to stay. There is also the disruption factor of current advertising. People are discovering how much better TV is without contant interruptions. I don't care how interesting an
      • I think you have a different definition of interesting than I am.

        I subscibe to Circuit Cellar magazine. It's a very technical magazine on embedding systems. It's very finely targetted, and the ads are almost as valuable as the articles.

        Advertsing can be done well and be a useful resource. It just isn't.
        • I subscibe to Circuit Cellar magazine. It's a very technical magazine on embedding systems. It's very finely targetted, and the ads are almost as valuable as the articles.

          Oh, I understand that. I sometimes like to look at the ads in a Linux Journal to see what the latest rack mount x64 server is or whatever. The difference is not just the relevence, but the timing and placement. When you are reading an article, you aren't interrupted every 5 minutes to be shown an ad. You can read articles and browse ads a
  • This isn't exactly a new idea... Anyone who's watched old TV shows like Jack Benny have seen 'live commercials'. Like when the star of the show comes out and talks for a minute about their sponsor's product, then they return to the next act of the show.

  • why don't we see more integrating of commercials into the regular programming?

    Masked figure draws back curtain--raises hand to strike.
    "I stab at thee with TrueSharp(tm) cutlery. Remember, nothing stabs quite like a TrueSharp(tm)."

    I realize there are some logistical issues to work, but it will make skipping the commercial impossible.
  • I frequently see commercials better than the actual program content.

    The economics of commercial creation are different from the economics of creating general TV content, it's cost-effective to spend megabucks on creating a 30 second commercial if one is going to spend a lot more megabucks on commercial time and one is hoping to sell enough products based on it to make this profitable. What I think he's really saying is... punch up the entertainment content and spend only a bit more money per commercial.

  • Personally, I'm of the opinion that the problem isn't the medium or the execution, but more that society (or at least, a subset of it) has become entirely numb to advertisements.

    Don't get me wrong, I laugh at adverts if they're legitimately funny, but that doesn't mean I'm going to buy the product.

    We've been bombarded by them so much that we simply don't take in the relevance of the product. My own mother, who is perhaps the biggest couch potato I know, has been using the ad breaks to make a cup of tea for

  • Silly networks...the answer is "Charge us". (Score:4, Interesting)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @08:40PM (#15225107) Homepage

    Every time I read an article on this subject, someone is hypothesizing that in the next release TiVo may kill the ability to skip commercials altogether. I can't think of anything to be less afraid of. If TiVo did that, TiVo would vanish overnight and we'd all be watching Myth TV or any number of other PC based solutions.

    So what's the solution for the TV networks?

    There's only one "killer" solution for the TV business, and its been around for a long time: Its called "Pay Channels". (Or paid digital downloads as the case may be). And its the future, whether you like it or not.

    The advertising model as we know it will cease to exist.

    Product placement is a fantasy. It will never carry the same level of messaging, or command the same revenues. The networks will try to push it, but the advertisers don't think they're getting their money's worth, and the viewers will just be increasingly disgusted.

    The answer is "Pay for it" and its already here [apple.com]

  • Make the commercials NOT SUCK!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @08:57PM (#15225174)
    For the last few years, my roommates and I, we've had a Superbowl party. None of us really care for football though. What do we do? Use it as an excuse to get together and socialize with friends. And after it's been on long enough, we Tivo through the game, and watch the commercials.

    Yes, marketing types, we watch the Superbowl commercials ON PURPOSE!!!

    I can't remember who won, or even who played in, the Superbowl for the past several years. But I remember the E-Trade monkey, Terry Tate the office linebacker, the pets.com sock puppet, Autobytel, and those Budwiser frogs. Hell, I know the dialogue to the 1984 Macintosh commercial by heart!

    What's the difference? During the Superbowl is about the only time the advertisers put out commercials that DON'T FUCKING SUCK!!! Get that you pinheaded marketing drones?!?!? Make your commercials NOT SUCK... make them entertaining... and I WON'T Tivo past them! No tricks, no stunts, no blipverts, no need to try and rig broadcasts so I CAN'T fast-forward; and don't accuse me of being a thief for getting up to go to the bathroom; just stop making your commercials suck ass!

    cya,
    john
    • Absolutely spot on. I'll give you another example - I saw an ad late last year that I enjoyed so much that I specifically went out and bought the product. Normally I would say 'heh, nice ad' but this time - for the first time ever - I decided that I would buy a product specifically because of a good ad. It was an ad for beer; I bought a six-pack, decided I liked the beer and I have bought more since.

      Much like you, I enjoy watching a good ad.

      (For the Aussies - it was Carlton Draught: "it's a big ad, very

  • "More Interesting" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by oGMo ( 379 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @09:11PM (#15225218)
    Japan has way more interesting commercials than us [itsartmag.com].

    The problem is hollywood has no idea what "interesting" means.

  • I have a DVR and I watch commercials. Typically, when I'm skipping through them, if it looks interesting I'll watch a second or two.

    The problem is that advertisers aren't being very scientific about this. When you read a newspaper, no one forces you to read the ads, yet they are very effective! No one has proven that skipping ads makes them less effective.

    I think advertisers would be surprised if they tried to determine how much of their message "sticks" when viewers can skip through them. Specifically, when someone is skipping through an ad, that person is paying close attention. Likewise, even when people have the ability to skip an ad, they will still let them play while they walk to the kitchen for a [insert heavily advertised snack or beverage].

    A company like Tivo might want to consider investing in experiments that demonstrate how a Tivo can make traditional television advertising more effective.

  • I just got a Tivo, and the one thing I notcied is I actually pay MORE attention to the commercials as I fast forward through them, than when I watch live TV.

    Like now I am totally ignoring the tv during a commercial as I post to slashdot. However, when I use the TIVO I have to concentrate on the tv, and thus the commercial to effectively skip it and resume my show.

    I glean more than enough information in the 3-5 seconds of commercials than I care to. This is obvisously because all commercials are the same,
  • Adult Swim has it down, being the only (segment?) on T.V where I do not skip the commercials. Not only do I respect the programming, but the messages in between the commercials are almost as entertaining as the shows themselves. It feels more interactive (I've seen my rants being poked at), and the commercials they show are
    A.) Are not repetitive,
    B.) Feels like they are actually aimed at myself as a consumer.

    I feel that if networks do not start mimicing this brilliance soon, and make the audience engage
  • For a while, I've though that what tv needs is to have something like google that listens for the words that are said (via transcript or voice recognition) and posts a link to relevant ads. For instance if your watching a news report and the reporter discusses housing starts, there could be a link to a local real estate agent and so on.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close