Broadcasters Hope To Counter Ad Skipping By Replacing Ads With Short 'Inspirational Videos'
from the that'll-work dept
The cable & broadcast industry has gone to some pretty absurd lengths to avoid having to adapt to the cord cutting era. As ad-skipping DVRs started to become popular, the industry’s response wasn’t to embrace natural evolution, it was to file a bunch of lawsuits and creatively harass companies that were trying to give consumers what they wanted. Similarly, as cord cutting has grown thanks to sky-high prices and ad break fatigue, the industry’s overall response was to first raise prices like it was going out of fashion, then try to speed up or edit down programs in the hopes of shoving more ads into each viewing hour.
None of these “solutions,” you’ll be shocked to learn, actually slowed down the sector’s evolution or the exodus of cable TV consumers to more flexible, less costly streaming alternatives. Alternatives that are, you’ll note, actually listening to users and giving them what they’re asking for (usually).
More recently, we’ve seen broadcast and cable executives begrudgingly admit that they can’t just keep doubling down on the same dumb ideas and expect a better outcome. As a result, we’ve seen some broadcasters experiment with lower advertising loads during prime time. And we’re also seeing to see the industry get a little more creative as to what modern advertising actually means, even if many of these offerings aren’t likely to solve the problem either.
For example, NBC has pondered bringing back the bygone era of product placement, something that can easily go wrong if handled poorly. Similarly, Fox outlets like Fox Broadcasting, FX, at the National Geographic channel announced this week that they’ll soon start experimenting with replacing ads with short “inspirational videos” funded by the pharmaceutical and insurance sectors:
“Starting this fall, Fox outlets like Fox Broadcasting, FX, Nat Geo and their digital counterparts will begin running inspirational videos that tell stories about people who have overcome adversity. These tales won?t take part over the course of 22 episodes, but will instead show up during advertising time, and Fox hopes to get marketers to sponsor them. Pharmaceutical companies, sports advertisers, insurance marketers and wellness firms are viewed as potential candidates that might consider attaching their names to vignettes of various lengths about people triumphing over cancer, the loss of a limb, or even blindness.”
Executives at Fox are calling these “inspirational vignettes” or “unbreakables,” in that they’re supposed to keep the viewer’s attention fixed to the screen:
“Fox is expected to unveil the idea for the inspirational vignettes, known as ?Unbreakables,? Monday at the Cannes Lions advertising festival in France. ?As part of our relentless pursuit of providing the best viewing experience and the highest performance for marketers, we are turning ad time into brand storytelling time,? says Michael Shields, senior vice president of sales strategy for Fox Networks Group, in a statement.”
Short stories funded by major corporations seeded between programming sound a lot like… advertisements. And while you have to credit the industry for actually trying something new, this will do nothing to thwart cord cutting if the content in question isn’t actually compelling. We’ve talked in the past about how good content is advertising and how good advertisements should be good content — but do you really think that what comes out of this will be good content?
A better option for the cable and broadcast sector is to finally acknowledge that the cash-cow cable TV days of yesteryear are gone, they’re not coming back, and that cable operators and broadcasters are going to have to actually try and compete now. That’s going to require competing on price, service flexibility and customer service (gasp) instead of just doubling down on bad behavior. Many cable and broadcaster execs have grown so pampered from years of cozy deals and muted, “wink wink” style non-price competition that they’re under the false impression that they have any real say in the matter.
But that’s how competition works. You don’t much have a choice in the matter, and you can either adapt your business model to the new paradigm, or you can slowly but surely become an outdated relic surpassed by more nimble, flexible companies that actually provide what the customers want. Better ads are certainly part of that equation, but they’re only a small portion of what’s wrong with the traditional cable TV model.
Filed Under: ad skipping, advertisements, advertising is content, broadcasters, content is advertising, cord cutting, inspirational videos
Companies: fox, nbc
Comments on “Broadcasters Hope To Counter Ad Skipping By Replacing Ads With Short 'Inspirational Videos'”
Blipverts
After this horrible idea fails it’s time to try Blipverts.
High-speed subliminal technology will inject the adds directly into our brains faster than we can surf away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJP-Ilw_xaY
Re: Blipverts
If I recall correctly, you also weren’t allowed to turn your TVs off in that “future” universe.
"shoving more ads into viewing hour"
That’s rather like putting arsenic in the milk because it tastes bad.
When I hear ‘inspiration videos’ my mind immediately thinks some kind of propaganda (either a political ad or an outrageous lie about a product by an advertiser).
I’ll be sure to skip through those ads even faster.
Re: Response to: ShadowNinja on Jun 21st, 2018 @ 2:01pm
That reminds me of Armed Forces Network(AFN). Before streaming, we had 1 channel that broadcast last season tv shows. They left out the ads and replaced them with PSA’s and short videos of military history. It didn’t take long for me to have my parents ship videos with commercials included.
and you can either adapt your business model to the new paradigm, or you can slowly but surely become an outdated relic
Or just finagle the legislatures and courts to mandate that your outdated business model must be maintained at all costs. Or go the route of games companies. What would loot boxes look like from Spectrum anyways?
Re: Re:
Spend $1 right now for a 5% chance to skip this commercial.
Well that should work just fine
Even on YT they are pumping several minute long ads.
I’ll give a channel I support 15-30s, more than that one must really expect a skip. If they try to block that, I back out of the channel. Often going back in will bypass the ad.
TV is dead to me. Wife still watches a little, but frankly I don’t feel the need to get inundated. I’d rather read a book.
Re: Well that should work just fine
Adblockplus on firefox works just fine for me. No ads now.
Re: Re: Well that should work just fine
No adds?
I have Firefox with add blocker.
Some sites you go to everything works fine and no adds.
If I try to go to a main stream media site and I get several layers of continuous pop video which screeches the most obnoxious trash.
Try going to other main stream media sites and I am blocked.
Other main stream media sites have popups that only demand you remove the add filter but allow you on the site.
Re: Re: Re: Well that should work just fine
They are talking about YouTube, where addblockers work, I use Ublock Origin, and it works just fine. Also, being a Linux user, the mainstream video streaming sites are problematic to say the least, due to DRM.
Re: Well that should work just fine
Yep. Done with TV. I will never go back. Too bad. So sad.
I will pay for streaming without commercials. But I will no longer tolerate commercials.
Re: Well that should work just fine
YT is really getting annoying with their PUSH to the paid service. No thanks!!!!!
Inspiriation
If I still watched live television, or cable, or streamed anything, I would be inspired to visit the bathroom, kitchen, my neighbor 1/4 mile down the road. I promise I will be back in time for the continuation of whatever drabble you were presenting prior to the injection of ‘inspirational drabble’ sponsored by entities that I want nothing to do with.
Re: Inspiriation
When I had cable, I used to miss the ends of so many shows because I’d leave during the commercials, or mute them, and then forget about the TV for hours. It couldn’t have been very good.
Certain ad-skipping video devices
were nobbled by the “content” providers so that they weren’t allowed to work in certain countries. Quelle dommage. These machines still come with 30 second skip buttons. It’s amazing how quickly one becomes skilled at observing the advert run times. 3 skips, 5 skips, 6 skips, 7 skips.
We aren’t making enough money with our ads!!
ADD MORE ADS!!!!!!!!!
Here is a crazy idea…
Offer fewer ads, charge more.
If its not a 1:15 break in the show to shove in 27 commercials, people are less likely to skip knowing its 1 30 second window with maybe 2 ads.
From an industry that encourages piracy by not making content people want to pay them for available at any price, quadrupling down on stuffing in more ads to make up for consumers skipping ads makes total sense.
It isn’t 1950, we aren’t all gathered around the tv to see Uncle Milty b/c there aren’t any other offerings. The world rarely stops to watch a tv show at the time it is broadcast.
If what you are making from the ad load worked out to like 10 cents a viewer, how much more valuable would it be to offer a commercial free stream for 25 cents to your audience? Over double the income!?!? And not having to worry about skipping or metrics!?!?
Instead of clinging to the past, perhaps embrace the future & stop treating your consumers as a resource to be exploited as customers who should be served. We used to make money selling ice to homes to keep food fresh, now we have refrigerators there isn’t still an ince industry group demanding hand outs & more rules to stay in business… perhaps try to become relevant again by accepting the future.
Re: Re:
While I like your concept there are some problems.
The first problem is that the culture of the prevailing entities needs to change from lying to everyone, to telling the truth. While that is not necessarily problematic in and of itself, it’s gonna take a while for consumers to absorb this, and then, later, maybe much much later, believe it.
The second, and there are likely more, is Wall Street, and like other exchanges, related. More profit every year or we ax you. Oops, make that every quarter. The 25 cents would become 45 cents in a year or so, and then what? What’s the loss to the companies? Operating capital, something they would have if they didn’t pay out all of their profits every year.
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps it is time for them to take a stand with the shareholders.
If we keep doing what you demand you won’t make anything from your investment, because the customers we are hemorrhaging is increasing.
Look at the number of companies taken over, hollowed out, filled with debt, and left for the shareholders… you want to think it can’t happen in this industry, it is possible. The demands to get paid more makes them cut more corners, lose more customers, then some investors show up & feast on the carcass.
Hostess went bankrupt. How in the fuck did a company selling sugary crap to Americans fail? They might want to tell you healthy eating blah blah blah, the real reason is investors demanded more, and more, and more.
Perhaps it is time to kill the idea of a duty to shareholders, because doing that is killing off customers & while you might be able to load the carcass with debt you won’t get that much when it falls.
Without customers there is no income, there are other options now consumers aren’t captive to you. While they might want to tell you cord cutting isn’t a thing, they are lying to you. If you want people to come back, you need to remember that you’re supposed to care about their desires & not if this increases the dividend a nickel.
RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
I’d like to see them move into the past bygone days when a “soap” opera was title such as the entire show was sponsored by one company that sold soap, or the radio era when Ralston Wheaties sponsored entire shows. One long commercial at the beginning of a show follower by one at the end.
Those shows also had gimmicks such as a Dick Tracey watch which helped unlock weekly show codes and got kids excited.
If they go down this route I’m all for it.
Will they, no way, it will be infomercial followed by a segment from Sinclair about how we should view politics followed by some long ad about how climate change is a hoax.
Corporate America, Corporate Media all one in the same.
Think about Disney buying Fox television, now imagine the Disney view of commercials every two minutes trying to sell something. The shows aren’t even watchable, which is driving eyes to digital, and these media folks are gonna do what they can to ruin that experience too…
If it’s premium, if we pay – there SHOULD NEVER be advertisements…
Re: RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488540/sinclair-tv-stations-family-separation-propaganda
Re: RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
That is what drove the nail in the coffin for me. The last season I watched, of those shows that I watched, there was so little time between commercials that they could not even develop the weak themes that they were trying to portray. My mind said to me, no more, and I listened.
Re: RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
“I’d like to see them move into the past bygone days when a “soap” opera was title such as the entire show was sponsored by one company that sold soap, or the radio era when Ralston Wheaties sponsored entire shows.”
I’m pretty sure production budgets have gone up way too far for most companies to be willing/able to pay for that.
“If it’s premium, if we pay – there SHOULD NEVER be advertisements…”
Definitely agree. If I’m paying to watch the show, I don’t want other people paying to show me something else on top.
Re: Re: RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
Re: Re: Re: RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
“why are professional budgets so high?”
Depends on the show. Some are needlessly high, some achieve a huge amount on a production the scale of a blockbuster movie at a fraction of the budget. Also, perhaps the key word there is “professional” – yes amateurs can create content that’s of high quality, but as quickly and consistently over the same timescales, with the same quality of cast and crew?
There’s a lot of wastage for sure, but if you only concentrate on the budgets, you get horrors like “reality” TV.
“The death of the TV studios will not be bought about by the likes of Netflix, but rather by the Likes of YouTube.”
Why not both? Although, there’s a good argument that both are now partly TV studios in and of themselves.
Re: Re: Re:2 RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
Re: Re: Re:3 RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
“Well that depends on whether they can gain the patronage needed to become a full time effort.”
So, there’s my point – when those people do go full time, will they actually reduce the budgets significantly? Or are the lower costs only achievable while they’re not doing it full time on the scale and volume that the current “professionals” are doing it?
I agree that lots of people are watching things made on YouTube and the like that cost very little compared to a lot of traditional TV. But, there’s also a reason why we’re not seeing lots of amateur productions on the scale of a Game Of Thrones, and why Netflix is still spending millions on their original content, as well.
“The next decade should be interesting”
I agree here. Whatever happens, it’s clear that the legacy broadcasters either have to change their game or fail. What that actually means will be interesting to see.
Re: Re: Re:4 RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
Almost certainly yes, because they will not have a large management superstructure to support. They are likely to be one show organizations, and not a corporation with its focus on growing, and desire for status symbols like fancy offices.
The different approach of Internet natives, like using social media to find someone to make a prop or costume, also keeps the costs down by eliminating layers of bureaucracy.
Re: Re: Re:5 RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
“Almost certainly yes, because they will not have a large management superstructure to support. “
But, larger productions would require more than the average amateur video, surely? Maybe not the size of a current studio, but definitely larger than the average non-professional production.
“They are likely to be one show organizations”
Some YouTube producers aren’t even one production organisations now. Why would creative people restrict themselves to one project when they are doing it professionally? Even now, people work on other projects between TV seasons, so unless that entire paradigm is changed I don’t think you’re quite right there.
“The different approach of Internet natives, like using social media to find someone to make a prop or costume, also keeps the costs down by eliminating layers of bureaucracy.”
But, that only works for smaller productions. What happens when you start needing costumes for hundreds of extras? You need to start paying other full time professionals, not just some other hobbyist who can knock something off in their spare time. What happens when you start needing to build sets larger than a garage? What happens when you need to start paying fees for professional permits or filming on location in a foreign country? Who scouts for those locations and arranges the permits – other . full time professionals that aren’t normally needed by smaller productions. A lot of the “hidden” costs of larger productions is things you wouldn’t normally think about, but those hundreds of names in the end credits aren’t just there for vanity and listing wastage, they’re things that actually need to be done to have a professional grade product.
Do you deliberately make lower quality content to avoid these things, or do you find yourself paying more and more money to make a professional production? The waste is one thing, but which necessary costs can you reduce without changing the quality of the product. There’s a big difference between finding like-minded people who are happy to help out as a one-off and people whose professional services need to be hired.
I’m not saying it can’t be done cheaper, and I’m certainly not saying there’s not a ridiculous amount of waste the way it’s done currently. I’m saying that there’s a reason why some of these budgets are so large, and once you get to a certain point of scale larger budgets become necessary. With that comes more complications than amateurs working with small budgets.
There’s a big difference between trying to set up the next Big Bang Theory or NCIS vs the next GoT or Rome. The latter takes a lot more than the average amateur project. Again, I’m not saying they can’t do it, but there’s a lot more reasons for high budgets than people wanting fancy offices.
Re: Re: Re:6 RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
You ask the extras to source their own costumes, or for extras that have the right costumes. The Internet allows for a very different way of carrying through projects. Besides which many large crowd/army scenes these days are rely mainly on CGI characters. It may not be as hard as you think, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCL9NB8VQjs, which was a large LARP event.
Also, Star Trek Continues was a purely amateur products, and at least as good as the original in production quality.
Also, not I was not implying that productions do not pay for props, but rather they way that they source them involves a much lower overhead approach.
I would agree there is always likely to be a few studios around to carry out the real big and complex projects, but for the bulk of programs that fill the cable and TV channels individuals and small groups can do better, and definitely have more engagement with their fans. Also, those individuals and groups will be much more cooperative than competitive, which is a common characteristic of those that do, as opposed to those that control.
Re: Re: Re:7 RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
“You ask the extras to source their own costumes, or for extras that have the right costumes.”
There’s a reason why costume designers are considered important for major projects. A professional production would need to ensure some consistency, historical dramas would need to ensure accuracy, and so on. Lord Of The Rings didn’t ask LARPers to bring along their own armour, it was crafted for them, and with good reason.
“Besides which many large crowd/army scenes these days are rely mainly on CGI characters”
This is true. However, the point is that once you start scaling things up, if you need consistency and quality then “lets ask random people to source things” becomes more problematic than “let’s hire professionals to get good results” – and I don’t think that “let’s just hope our effects guys do a good job later” is a suitable response, even if that same team is as good as the ones employed by the studios (and lets face it, even they can have problems putting out convincing stuff).
“Also, Star Trek Continues was a purely amateur products, and at least as good as the original in production quality.”
I didn’t say it couldn’t be done. I have definitely seen some impressive fan projects over the years. But, could they do it on the same schedule as the team behind Star Trek Discovery is doing it? Again, that’s the point. If you’re going to supplant TV, you can’t give people a “season” that takes years to be released. It not only has to be of an expected quality, you have to give people content on the schedule they’re sued to. That’s where a lot of the money comes in to play.
“for the bulk of programs that fill the cable and TV channels individuals and small groups can do better, and definitely have more engagement with their fans”
I don’t doubt that. But, there’s still reasons for the budgets than you’re giving credit for.
Re: RadioEraModelIsEnjoyable
BESURETODRINKYOUROVALTINE
Ovaltine? A crummy commercial? Son of a bitch!
I’d rather have normal commercials that syrupy glurge. It’s bad enough when commercials try to be "inspirational", like the "story of Green Mountain coffee" commercial that seemingly ran every five minutes for a while, telling about how fair-trade coffee leads to better lives in the Third World. If I’d seen that stupid thing one more time I was ready to start searching out coffee grown by child slaves under the whips of brutal overseers.
Ad skipping is piracy!
Pirates! All you TD folks are Pirates!! /s
Seriously – Content I’ve purchased, gives my an absolute ownership of it. So under the Libertarian paradigm, should I be able to skip ads or not?
Ohh! thats why
WOW, what great reasoning..
Less watching cable, MORE commercials..
More watcing on the net, MORE commercials..
WHY?? cause they are supposed to show 1 commercial to a SPECIFIC amount of customers.. THAt is the selling point.
NOT better shows..NOT older shows that we aint seen in 20-40 years..
When all thats seen is police/Gov./Judge shows on TV…AND MOST of it repeats..
Im sorry…but for SOME odd reason they dont remember, the TRICKS that failed in the past.,..
Sounds like an intensely boring version of what some commercials in Japan look like .. https://youtu.be/sZsJyCyGBSI … If it’s entertaining, but not obnoxious, fun, yet honest eyes will stay on the screen.
Bygone
> NBC has pondered bringing back the bygone era of product placement
Bygone era? Hardly. Product placement is still going gangbusters. I just watched an episode of TAKEN the other night that slapped the audience in the face with its product placement.
MILLS: I’ll need a fast car.
FBI GUY: We have an agent who just finished a deep cover assignment.
<A Mustang suddenly comes roaring around the corner and screeches to a halt right in front of them, with the Mustang logo centered squarely in frame in extreme close-up.>
DRIVER: Did someone order a blatant product placement?
(And was that guy just sitting there on the other side of the building, engine idling, waiting for a radio cue to hit the gas and make a dramatic entrance? Did the FBI crew actually take time out from their crime fighting to set up and organize a dramatic car entrance for Mills’ benefit?)
“I used to be an average Joe like you. Then I took an arrow to the knee. But thanks to Big PharmaCorp, my knee has regrown! I can be an average Joe again!”
Come on, seriously? We all know this is still advertising. I also wonder how the people featured in the ads (I mean inspirational shorts) feel about their pain and suffering being used to market company brands.
Ad people! It’s spelled ad!
Right, broadcasters. Because trying to sell me a product under the guise of a saccharine, set-up sob story is surely going to discourage me from turning off the TV.
I mean, if you’re going to blithely act like you care for consumers, why not do the same thing and find some poor sucker to peddle your advertising with?
I think I actually have something constructive related to this story. I am one of those cord-cutters. I don’t have cable. I have Netflix an antenna and a OTA PVR (the Tablo for those who care). For the OTA I mostly record and then either cut out the commercials manually (takes me about 10 minutes per hour of recording) or play right from the PVR and fast-forward commercials.
However, every once in a while I run across a commercial I like. In such a case, I cut it out and move it to the end of the show.
Most recently, there have been a few commercials for the US parks system involving (involving a redhead and a deer having a staring contest). That one goes at the end of any episode it shows up in. Prime example of good content in a commercial.
Youtube started inserting ads AFTER the video has started playing. It pauses de video and forces you to watch stuff you don’t want. As a result I have caught myself avoiding Youtube because of this bullshit (ie: looking for the video elsewhere).
Advertisement has become deeply toxic. And the going without is pretty easy once you get fed up enough.
Re: Re:
I watch a lot of YouTube, use Ublock Origin, and never see a YouTube advert.
I’m okay with inspirational video on ad skipping.