Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Google Ad Revenue To Top UK Broadcaster's 136

Posted by kdawson from the thrashing-dinosaurs dept.
GoingTurbo writes, "By the end of the year advertisers in the UK will have spent more money advertising on Google than they did on the UK's Channel Four TV station. The article suggests we will see the slow erosion of traditional television broadcasting, and with it, the death of the great TV ads of the past. The article offers an alternative possibility for the future of television." From the article: "The US has been forced to contend with heinously patronizing and crude TV advertising for decades, but the UK's advertising industry has managed to create art out of the dirty act of selling. Some of the best short films of the last century have been television advertisements... Even if some of these make the transition... online, they'll lack the spectacle of their TV equivalent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Ad Revenue To Top UK Broadcaster's More

Google Ad Revenue To Top UK Broadcaster's

Comments Filter:
  • I want to know, did they factor in the advertisement spending on the BBC?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by user24 ( 854467 )
      you do know there is no paid advertising on the BBC, right?
      • I think the GP was going for funny... However, I can understand your confusion given it really was not funny.

    • Re:Who cares about channel four ads? (Score:4, Informative)

      by thelost ( 808451 ) on Thursday November 02, 2006 @10:46AM (#16688349) Journal
      Is that supposed to funny? Could I direct you here [bbc.co.uk] to the BBC's policy on advertising. to quote:

      The BBC is not permitted to carry advertising or sponsorship on its public services. This keeps them independent of commercial interests and ensures they can be run instead to serve the general public interest.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by user24 ( 854467 )
        (offtopic)
        in actual fact though, the BBC do advertise, but only for their own services and products. I direct your attention to the 'radio times' adverts, 'gardeners world' adverts, adverts for new shows coming soon etc etc. I'd rather have adverts and not pay the license; the time between programs would stay about the same.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by h2g2bob ( 948006 )
          (even more offtopic)
          The BBC are probably bringing in advertising on bbcnews.com quite shortly for non-UK people. At the moment, most of the bill is funded by the propaganda, I mean, foreign office.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by TommyMc ( 949670 )
          I'd rather have adverts and not pay the license; the time between programs would stay about the same.

          How d'you figure that? Every channel advertises it's own programs either side of the adverts, and none of them less so than the bbc. Buy a dvd with a bbc produced show on it and see how long the half hour shows are (usually around 28 minutes), and then look at the ones that run at half an hour on channel 4 (the simpsons on the bbc was a twenty or twenty five minute show if memory serves).

          Go to the USA

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Alioth ( 221270 )
            The most telling thing: In the US, the Simpson's takes a half hour slot. When the Simpsons was on BBC2, they fit two episodes in a half hour slot.

            Typical US advertising for a half hour program goes:

            Ads
            Intro credits
            Ads
            Programme first half
            Ads
            Programme second half
            Ads
            Ending credits
            Ads

            Typical UK advertising on a half hour slot:

            Ads
            Intro credits
            Programme first half
            Ads
            Programme second half
            Ending credits
            Ads

            Generally, the ad breaks are shorter, too. When I lived in the US, I practically gave up watching TV because th

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by Chacham ( 981 )
              When the Simpsons was on BBC2, they fit two episodes in a half hour slot.

              In the words of Raplh Wiggum, "That's unpossible!".

              US shows of late take about 22 minutes (down from 25 some years back). Two 22 minutes episodes do not fit into a half-hour. So, either they snipped parts of the show (e.g. 1 min of intro, 2 min of credits, and 4 minutes randomly) or it wasn't in a half-hour.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Kijori ( 897770 )
                It was about 35 minutes, and they skipped the opening sequences and ran the entire credits in about 5 seconds, with no gap between the episodes - I assume they aren't allowed to skip the credits. The double-bills were also neither current nor consecutive episodes, so I would guess they chose the shortest they could.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bri2000 ( 931484 )
        Despite the theory and the public service broadcasting rhetoric, not only does the BBC carry a huge amount of advertising for it's own products and services (every other song on the BBC radio stations will be broken by a 30 second trail for another radio/TV program, just as annoying over time as the ads on commercial radio - I swear if I hear the trail for Russell Brand's stand-up gig tonight one more time it's going through the window) but it also has a very lax attitiude towards product placement. A recen
  • "The article suggests we will see the slow erosion of traditional television broadcasting, and with it, the death of the great TV ads of the past"


    "the death of the great TV ads of the past"


    My god!

    How will we ever survive without the "great" TV ads of the past?!??!?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Epeeist ( 2682 )
      Right title - think of "Creature Comforts"

      • Right title - think of "Creature Comforts"

        I'm pretty sure the original short [imdb.com] predated the gas adverts - although its probably the gas adverts that enabled most people to see them. I'm sure advertising work does a lot to support outfits like Aardman.

        Maybe the web will kill off all the crass adverts that everybody ignores (so that people can ignore them on the web instead) and just leave the nicely made subtle and ironic ones (+5 wishful thinking).

        • Which is a bit of a problem - although the creature comfort ads were very popular and won awards, they were a failure for a simple reason.

          Everyone thought the electricity ads were for British Gas!

          • Which is a bit of a problem - although the creature comfort ads were very popular and won awards, they were a failure for a simple reason. Everyone thought the electricity ads were for British Gas!

            Well, back in those days when you got gas from the gas board and electricity from the electricity board (Ok, they'd been de-nationalised but it was a while before there was any real choice) - I never did see the point for ads for gas and electricity. Were you expected to think "Oh, nice parrot - I think I'll t

        • I'm sure that will be the case, because the web has shown time and time again that it is all about nicely made subtlety and irony.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mooreBS ( 796555 )
      I'll give a big AMEN to that! I'm so sick of television advertising in the US. There's just no substance to it. The commercials we're forced to suffer through (no tivo here) do little to convince me to try new products or services.

      The worst, however, are the cheesy locally made or made by the cable company commercials. Good grief people, if you're going to make your own ads find someone who knows what they're doing to help you. If there was a way to pick up my TV and wring it out every time I see one of
    • The problem is those terrible ads help pay for shows like Stargate: Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica. Will these shows be able to get made without television ads? Who knows. Although I do have my doubts on the ability to have them shown on television. Unless they do so for free (or close enough) as a form of advertisement.
      • HBO have funded some highly regarded programmes, albeit somewhat not to everyone's taste. I'm sure that the science fiction fans would be a group who was willing to pay a subscription for their TV shows.

      • The problem is those terrible ads help pay for shows like Stargate: Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica. Will these shows be able to get made without television ads? Who knows.

        Well I was happy when I discovered the current season of SG-1 was available from iTunes. Put aside any DRM opinions, I paid $40 to have have the season automatically downloaded to my computer as episodes come out. I also did the same for Atlantis. (I did not buy Galactica because I personally think it sucks, but that's my opinion.

        • Next step - getting the bloody things available in the UK. I don't mind paying $20 for a season of SG-1.
    • The article suggests we will see the slow erosion of traditional television broadcasting, and with it, the death of the great TV ads of the past

      That's crumbelievable!

    • I submit that the "great TV ads" were the ones that are a pleasure to watch, not the ones that cost a lot of money.

      Here's to advertisers who have a sense of humour!
    • the Trunk Monkey

      The Honda ads where the people looked like their cars

      (YouTube 'em. I don't have access at work)
  • The greatness of Google's advertising program is that they are good for any budget.
    Just as the PC meant a computer for everyone, Google means everyone can advertise.
    So the interesting question is not whether people are spending more on Internet advertising, but whether businesses are spending less on TV.

    I, for my part, hope that the answer is yes.
    TV is mass media in its worst form, and targets the lowest common denominator.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by daeg ( 828071 )
      As someone in TV, I can tell you wholeheartedly that no, they are not. Our advertising projection and target for the next fiscal year is higher than last year -- but so are online projections (by a factor close to double). We're seeing more advertising clients that want to advertise both on TV and online for higher.

      Local businesses are advertising less on the cheap, fringe stations and seem to be going back to the larger, more dominant stations even if they are more expensive per second of airtime.
    • Google advertising is great for people who are looking for something.

      TV is still king when it comes to certain companies where brand strength is critical. Companies like Coca-cola or Pepsi don't really advertise much online. That's starting a little with Google Videos and coming down the line for YouTube.

      Adsense doesn't do much for a product that doesn't have anything to offer online. Sure there's potential there to do things like start delivering McDonalds (or any local restaurant) ads to people shortly be

  • Tivo like solutions not popular in UK (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thelost ( 808451 ) on Thursday November 02, 2006 @10:37AM (#16688217) Journal
    The roll out of Tivo solutions in the UK have not been nearly as popular as in America. I have noticed since the launch of Tivo in the US it has got to the point where it is culturally referenced in films, tv, media, everywhere - in other words it's practically reached Hoover standard.

    The reasons why DVR solutions are of course more complex then the point I am making here, but I would argue one of the reasons is that we have two terrestrial channels that have no adverts (bbc1 and bbc2) and three (ITV1, Channel 4 and Channel 5) which we grumble about, but honestly aren't that invasive - compared to American television.

    With the advent of digital tv we actually have access to a great many more channels, but for the most part all the bbc channels are ad free - it's what we pay a tv license for.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thelost ( 808451 )
      *The reasons why DVR solutions are not popular in the UK is of course more complex then the point I am making here, but I would argue one of the reasons is that we have two terrestrial channels that have no adverts (bbc1 and bbc2) and three (ITV1, Channel 4 and Channel 5) which we grumble about, but honestly aren't that invasive - compared to American television.

      added to note an error in what I previously wrote. Damn I wish slashdot had a 2 minute edit feature like digg, it's about the only place they get o
      • I don't live in the UK, and consequently don't pay your license fee, owever I do receive the 4 BBC chanels for adults on satelite and consequently I would have assumed the reason no one bothers with a Tivo is that the channels with ads (ITV Channel 4 and all the total drivel) aren't worth watching. Whereas the above 4 plus the 2 for kids plus all the regional variations of BBC (That can be fun, working out why certain history progs aren't shown in Scotland or NI) are brilliant telly.

        The States on the other

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by benb ( 100570 )
      > for the most part all the bbc channels are ad free - it's what we pay a tv license for.

      Be glad about it. In Germany, we pay forced license fees for ARD and ZDF (public TV stations), but they do have ads and, what's worse, product placement, and a lot of their content is crap (folk music to copies of commercial TV formats), not like BBC.
    • Tivo did a deal with Sky. They're known as SKY+ in the UK.

      There are other PVRs out there for Freeview/analogue users but the strength of Tivo was its ability to record based on a TV guide.

      Since the market for these DVRs is fragmented there hasn't been such a push for people to buy a PVR.

      PVRs are about a whole lot more than just ad free TV. They're great for watching sports where you can replay live TV.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by RealSurreal ( 620564 ) *
        "Tivo did a deal with Sky. They're known as SKY+ in the UK."

        Got a reference for that? Cause I got one that says you're wrong : http://www.garysargent.co.uk/tivo/TIVOvsSKY.htm [garysargent.co.uk]
        • TiVo did make a deal with Sky, but Sky+ is different. TiVo did a deal with Sky where Sky looked after the subscriber management (and still do), and Sky were involved in the (badly done) marketing of TiVo in the UK. If you have a UK TiVo and watch the start up animation you'll noticed at the end a "recommened" by Sky on the right hand side of the TiVo home page while the little TiVo man swings by which is from this time. However Sky had their own system in the works (namely Sky+) which came out about a year
    • > two terrestrial channels that have no adverts (bbc1 and bbc2)

      That's funny the BBC channels I (very) occasionally watch are full of advertising for other BBC products.

      Not to mention all the product placement.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by iainl ( 136759 )
        The BBC has as much advertising for what else is on TV this week as any other channel during the breaks between programmes. The real difference is that they don't break off immediately after the opening credit sequence, and strictly, literally every 5 minutes after that, to advertise stuff DURING the show.

        Thanks the the fact that most stuff on the BBC is going to be shown on some other, ad-funded channel at some point, shows are an odd number of minutes long. So they fill the 2 mins between shows with stuff

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      If what you are saying is correct, then the primary reason for DVR/TiVo/etc is removing commercials, not recording shows to watch them on our time. That would mean that commercials are so hated that the industry really needs to re-think even making them at all.

      I, personally, am more interested in not having to be in front of an appliance at a certain time of day/night. For instance, last night I watched Bones as it was being aired, but then decided that I was too tired to watch Lost (one of my favorite sh
    • Surely you also get Sci-Fi, Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, History Channel, Discovery, etc. etc. Channels 2-13 are only good for prime time and sports here and forget the weekends... drivel and bad reruns of crappy sitcoms.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by iainl ( 136759 )
        I've you've got digital TV then yes, you get all those things and more besides. We mostly don't feel the need to watch them, however - the viewing figures are miniscule, since most of it is done better by the BBC and without adverts during the show.
    • It's about watching TV when it's right for you, not when the broadcasters want you to.

      Even if I couldn't skip ads I still wouldn't be without a TiVo.

      Because it catches all my shows I want to watch and then I can watch them when I get home.

      I don't even have kids, but I don't see how families could get by without a PVR. What happens when you're watching a show live and your baby starts crying?

      There are many shows I watch that I barely know when they're on. They're on when I get home and feel like watching the
  • First the kind of advertising you get on the web is very different from the one you get on a TV.

    Usually what you get on the Web is : Video Games, Movies, IT solution, Websites... Things people who surf are interested in.

    And you get on TV : Food, Detergent, Soap, Cars, ... Things a whole family needs on a day-to-day basis.

    Additionnally, TV got some help from the web : Now everytime a major TV serie come out, there is a dedicated website to create a buzz and provide some informations to get more people

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Thansal ( 999464 )
      Now that is not 10% accurate.

      The fun thing about advertising on the internet is that what you look at is what you see in advertisments. It is much easier to target adds when you are on a gardening website (http://www.gardenweb.com/ [gardenweb.com] refresh it a couple times and look at what comes up, I doubt you will see adds for tech gadgets or pr0n) then if you are watching a sitcom.

      Yes, it used to be the case where you almost entierly had techies and computer savie people on the internet. With the popularity of broadba

    • And you get on TV : Food, Detergent, Soap, Cars, ... Things a whole family needs on a day-to-day basis.

      Beer!!! Don't forget beer, a crucial family need... Yeah... 8-)

  • By the end of the year advertisers in the UK will have spent more money advertising on Google than they did on the UK's Channel Four TV station.

    No wonder french president Jacques Chirac has plans for a European search engine [digitalmediaasia.com] called "Quaero".


    • I didn't know about this Quaero engine.

      That article says it's being built by companies and such, but is it an actual government project?

      That just seems weird to me. I know if the US Gov. tried to put together something to topple Google, everyone would be screaming about government bias and such. If it is a French Gov. project, isn't anyone worried about that? I'd have to think people would be a little naive to think that any particular government was above tinkering in their own interest.
  • The US has been forced to contend with heinously patronizing and crude TV advertising for decades, but the UK's advertising industry has managed to create art out of the dirty act of selling.

    What do this snaggle-toothed limey think he's doing, slandering our great American advertising industry? There is indeed a cream [google.com] that rises to the top [wikipedia.org] of the business [careerbuilder.com], raising TV [about.com] commercials above the mere act of shilling.
    • Is that we dont have local TV channels. The smallest adversting market is probably "Scotland" which is still 5 million people spead out over a country.

      If you run a car dealership then you can't afford to run TV ads because you'll be targetting people who live many hours away from you.

      Most of the particularly distasteful US commercials are more small businesses. I think people like Geico and Apple have pretty clever ads.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Alioth ( 221270 )
        Having lived in the US from the mid 90s until 2002, I can tell you for certain the worst adverts are from car dealers. They are all uniformly loud and obnoxious, and involve the owner of the dealership SHOUTING his message, followed by slogans like "Prices driven down" in a loud echoy voice. They are truly appalling. Mind you, the corporate ads by car companies in the US aren't much better than the dealership ones - mostly, they are corny, and over-rely on country and western music (especially pick up truck

        • There are plenty of large company ads that make me laugh out loud, and I like to think I'm not a complete dolt. You're certainly right about the local car dealer ads though. They are most certainly the bottom of the barrel and account for way too much ad time.

          I saw that Honda commercial you're talking about once before. It is certainly cool... but we do, occasionally, get really creative marketing on TV here. I think we can agree that genius is pretty rare anywhere you go.

  • The dearth of opportunity to get short films exhibited could explain why Cnet hasn't seen so many.

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=short+film+festiv al&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB [google.co.uk]

    The one I work seen plenty of attendance growth in the last few years.

    YouTube et. al. are all well and good but there's something about a few beers in the bar with the filmmakers, crew and appreciative audience you just can't get with a download.

    $200,000 per minute does price plenty of folk out of the market for TV advertis
  • I can't comment on current adverts as I'm a Mythtv'er, but the article is right, there were some creative ads in the UK. The Guinness ones come to mind.

    However, the majority were total mind sucking crap, which is why I don't watch them any more.

    But do I see Gooogle ads? Nope. Adblocked. I think online adverts are more easily blocked than TV ads (especially when we factor in product placement), so although Google do well now, things could change very quickly.

  • Has this guy ever watched UK TV? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mgblst ( 80109 ) on Thursday November 02, 2006 @10:47AM (#16688353) Homepage
    Some of the best short films of the last century have been television advertisements... Even if some of these make the transition... online, they'll lack the spectacle of their TV equivalent."
     
    What a load of rubbish. Art, indeed. Yes, the high art that is Car Insurance adds and refinancing company adds - I swear, 50% of adds on UK tv consist of these two "products". A nodding dog, a red car... has art really become this?
    • A nodding dog, a red car... has art really become this?

      You know when an advert is art when someone makes a Dance Remix [youtube.com] of it
    • At least you don't have to deal with CRAZY GIDEON and his low low prices on Big Screen TVs ;-p I'm tellin you he's CRAAAAAAAZZZYYYYY! though he does have some hot east-euro-trash lookin' strippers standing around looking bored....

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by iainl ( 136759 )
      Have you been watching digital-only channels again? Because that's certainly the case there.

      Back on the real channels we still get the likes of the Bravia, Guinness and Honda adverts. It's all down to the perceived demographic of the crap you're watching, really.
  • Even if some of these make the transition... online, they'll lack the spectacle of their TV equivalent."
    Wrong. On the Internet, you generally have the option of avoiding video ads. Any video ad on the Internet will therefore have to be more spectacular than ever to make people actually choose to watch it and tell their friends about it.

  • The article suggests we will see the slow erosion of traditional television broadcasting, and with it, the death of the great TV ads of the past. The article offers an alternative possibility for the future of television.

    And I'd suggest then that the article is wrong. How about, I don't know, just MORE ADS EVERYWHERE, all the time? Television isn't going anywhere, but it is losing its monopoly on moving images in the home. So the shifting around is going to be natural. That doesn't mean moving images will s

  • That's right, Ridley Scott started out in adverts. So, no chance of a repeat there then, as advertising and music videos kept "british cinema" alive for many years.
  • "the death of the great TV ads of the past"

    Let us all mourn the death of great TV ads. Surely something to be missed, along with the previous passing of the Spanish Inquisition, the bubonic plague, the Iron Maiden, and having boiling oil poured on you from cathedral tops by irate bellringers.
  • It's worth keeping in mind that television in the UK has a very different flavor then in the US. Firstly, the country is geographically smaller, so it's all national. There are no local affiliates. Channel Four is literally channel 4 on the dial for the whole country.

    Secondly, the top stations (BBC1 and BBC2) have no ads what so ever, they are funded by a per household tv tax. Only somewhat 'new' channels like Four have ads and they are often regarded as somewhat 'tacky'. Maybe I'm missing something, but al

    • When the UK has the BBC (which broadcasts Dr. Who to Glastonbury (the only things from the UK I watch)), I doubt there is much advertising on TV in the UK.

      The BBC news site http://news.bbc.co.uk/ [bbc.co.uk] is the best website for new since it DOES NOT HAVE ADS.

      On the flip side though, even Dr. Who is really tacky and barely barely worth watching. All good really good high-budget TV series are from the US with the TV advertisment model.

      Some of the Channel 4 stuff I've watched always gave me the impression that U

      • ..Dr. Who is really tacky..

        I suspect that is vaguely deliberate...... If you ever saw the originals you'd probably understand why. If they over modernised it there would be a massive backlash. No seriously.. Death on the streets, arson, massive - widespread public unrest.....

        Sounds like a case for The Doctor....

    • Channel Four is literally channel 4 on the dial for the whole country.

      Never heard of S4C [wikipedia.org]? Also, try using the "now and next" pages on teletext sometime - you'll be suprised how often most of it just says "regional variations".

    • > Secondly, the top stations (BBC1 and BBC2) have no ads what so ever

      Really ? So what do you call all those little 30 second slots they keep having which are blatantly advertising BBC products then ?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by RahoulB ( 178873 )
      one major difference between the two, that Channel 4 has done tons to eradicate, is the frequency of the ads.

      In the past, a half hour show would have one ad break. A one hour show would have two or three.

      Now, on C4, any American show (they don't seem to do it with the British ones) will have an ad break as soon as the titles finish and then another every couple of minutes later.

      • Your comment that there are ad breaks on Channel 4 'every couple of minutes' is innaccurate.

        OFCOM stipulate that on channels 3 to 5, no more than 1 ad break is permitted in a scheduled broadcast of up to 44 minutes, 2 breaks in a broadcast up to 59 minutes and 3 in a broadcast up to 89 minutes. Furthermore, there must be at least 20 minutes between internal breaks, a slight reduction in this time being permitted if it aids continuity.

        So, your typical US drama on Channel 4 will have a maximum of 3 ad breaks.
        • You're correct as to ad-break frequency (so 3 breaks is the maximum in a 1-hour show), but Channel 4 does seem to have moved to often having a US-style "post titles break" within the first ten minutes. It's not necessarily a bad idea if whoeever designed the show intended there to be a break at that point - what would be a bad idea would be too long / too frequent breaks.
          • But they only ever do that on american shows, where the break (thanks to american ad patterns) naturally is. I prefer this to how they used to break american programmes at "british" times, where the breaks would be in the dumbest places.

    • but all I ever seen to see on UK tv is ads for car insurance and ring tones.

      Outside of primetime this is correct. The reason is simple, not enough people watch TV outside of primetime any more to justify the spend by the big companies. The airtime is soaked up by these insurers & loan sharks who will spend the vast majority of their marketing budget on TV ads. Similarly, Channel Four is possibly the third most popular channel in the UK. They have always commanded smaller audiences than commercial rival

    • t's worth keeping in mind that television in the UK has a very different flavor then in the US.

      Correct.

      Firstly, the country is geographically smaller, so it's all national. There are no local affiliates. Channel Four is literally channel 4 on the dial for the whole country.

      WRONG. There are local variations for most of the main "terrestrial" channels.

      Secondly, the top stations (BBC1 and BBC2) have no ads what so ever, they are funded by a per household tv tax.

      WRONG. BBC2 is a minority channel.

      Onl

    • I would hardly call C4 "new" - it's 24 years old today (it started on November 2, 1982). Even five is almost 10 years old now.
  • This type of thinking assumes that *everyone* is plugged into their computers and the Interweb. But this just isn't so. There are and will always be large numbers of people that use the computer very little or not at all.
    • True, but they're not the people advertisers want to reach. The people that advertisers are willing to spend big bucks to reach are increasingly more likely to be found online and not in front of the TV.

      Though I never understand while it's always an either/or when it comes to these things (either you're watching TV or you're surfing the web) - surely you can have the TV on and surf the web at the same time.

  • The US has been forced to contend with heinously patronizing and crude TV advertising for decades, but the UK's advertising industry has managed to create art out of the dirty act of selling. Some of the best short films of the last century have been television advertisements

    I, being an American, have never watched TV in another country (watchign TV when traveling, for anythign other then pure news, seems silly to me). Are the commercials in the UK actualy good and worth watching? Commercials are one of t

    • FUD. I am forced to record everything and watch it later, adverts have killed live UK TV for me. On the rare occasion there is a funny advert, it ceases to be funny on repeat viewings and by the 20th viewing you are tearing your eyes out.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by RahoulB ( 178873 )
      they used to be pretty good.

      the carling black label ones (very funny beer ads), the levi's spaceman ad (all those levi's ones were good but i presume they were international), even bloody shake and vac (which most people in their thirties still know all the words to, despite being over twenty years ago).

      you could ALWAYS tell immediately if it was a british ad, an american one or (the lowest of the low) a european one, simply from the quality.

      i've not seen an ad on the TV for about ten years that has made me
    • No, I haven't seen American Ads and if they truly do elevate their British cousins to the status of "great art" then I really hope I never do.

      There are perhaps a couple of ads a year which are amusing, the first time you see them, but in the main they're just a nuisance and quite likely indistinguishable from American Ads. Having said that some of the most irritating are those for cosmetic products with the stupid, inane, catchphrase stuck on the end of some insipid dross showing women using the product and
    • In a way. There have been some _great_ adverts for products such as Hamlet cigars, Guiness, Cinzano, Smash, Yellow pages, John Smiths etc. Some of these are classics that everyone remembers even 20 years after the advert was shown. There are also some dismal adverts, however I think that the advertisers recognize that producing a quality ad that people remember and talk about is worth the money, particularly for products where the brand is more important than the absolute quality of the product.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Alioth ( 221270 )
      Most commercials in the UK are utter shite. However, unlike in the US (where ALL commercials are utter shite - I lived in Houston for 7 years, so yes - I've seen them), there are the gems that make you stop fast forwarding the video - or stop you channel surfing.

      Take for example the contrast between car ads in the US - where they are almost uniformly loud, in your face, and obnoxious - with a recent Honda Civic ad in the UK: http://tvadverts.blogspot.com/2006/01/honda-civic- choir.html [blogspot.com] .

      Indeed - it's on You
      • What was the advert with that kung fu fighting bear in it, I think it was some kind of fish related product, that was funny even on the 2nd and 3rd viewings.
      • there are the gems that make you stop fast forwarding the video - or stop you channel surfing.

        In a way i PREFER ads to be really bad. I can go make a cup of tea, maybe give that book i'm reading another chance to hook me. Granted, i could do this with "great" ads too, but if i am sucked in to watching them at least if they're rubbish i can fall back onto a vague sense of self superiority to smirk my way through them. Good adverts are..insidious. Advertising is a huge business, there's tons of Psychologi

  • The Guinness Wave ad (actually pretty cool)
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=_p7_55d8u5E [youtube.com]

    The Hovis ad:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=CFLBvLxLJMI [youtube.com]

    Guinness de-evolution ad:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-350824356 8549381115 [google.com]
  • ..."meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
  • i've never paid for cable or satellite. the service has just never seemed to offer me any value: while there's some decent content, it's overwhelmed by noise, and i'm not willing to schedule my life around the box. today, i watch several programs regularly, however.

    take, for example, Lost [go.com], Jericho [cbs.com], and Heroes [nbc.com]. three different networks, prime-time big-money shows, and each of their networks distributes the latest episode online for free. sure, it's in some stupid flash player, which diminishes the experienc
  • They may be spending more with Google than broadcast advertising, but which one is generating more bottom line revenue? And which one has the bigger ratio?

    I think I've mentioned before, this sort of data is a lot like the Addys (ad award like Grammys) which are issued based on peer review rather than effectiveness. Who cares if the ad is really great - if it didn't cause anyone to go purchase the product or service what good is it as an ad?

    I tell you who has the most effective advertising campaign right now

  • Terry O'Reilly and The Age of Persuasion [typepad.com] is an excellent radio program about advertising. O'Reilly tracks the evolution of advertising into the internet age and talks about the implicit bargain that there has always been between advertisers and audience: that the audience gets something of value in return for the message, and how this is in danger of being broken in some internet models (popups etc) and has been broken (by e.g. highway billboards which most advertising professionals loathe) in the past.

  • The US has been forced to contend with heinously patronizing and crude TV advertising for decades

    As someone who used to live in the UK and now lives in the US I'd say this is a very dated view. It was true, perhaps even as little as 10 years ago, but now it's a bit misleading.

    There is quite a bit of wit, subtlety, humor, even dare I say it art in the best US TV advertising these days. In fact when I visit the UK I often find adverts who seem to have abandoned those things for straight out absurdity, incon

    • It was true, perhaps even as little as 10 years ago, but now it's a bit misleading [...] men in plastic orange suits slapping people (Tango adverts) really undermine any idea that the US is far behind

      I'm confused here. You've Been Tangoed was fifteen years ago. I was at primary school at the time. Everyone came in the day after that ad first aired and started slapping people in the face at random...

  • I suppose the future of ads will be the viral ones like Carlton's Big Ad [google.com], which was a successful viral campaign on the Internet before it hit television, even though it was made for TV.

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Close