Online Ads vs. Traditional TV Commercials

(Not sure if this is the right forum for talking about ads, but it seemed the most likely.)

So I'm watching shows online, and closing ads every couple of minutes, and it got me to thinking: Traditional TV ads happened between content, whereas modern online video ads overwrite part of the show you're watching, calling attention away from the show itself.

TV ads never did this; if an ad appeared within a show or movie, it was called Product Placement and was done with the full knowledge and understanding of the show producers.

So I thought I might open a discussion of the distinction, and maybe some brainstorming about better ways to use ads online.

I don't oppose advertising in general. It's clear that we're used to using the Internet for free, basically, and pay-to-view barriers just drive most of us off to free sites instead. Advertising is a good way to make money without forcing the user to open his wallet - and, obviously, money's got to come from somewhere.

However, I think it's incredibly annoying to be trying to enjoy a music video or a review and have to either (1) tear my attention away from what I'm watching to actively destroy the ad in question or (2) put up with the dang thing blocking part of the thing I'm trying to watch and dividing my attention between show and ad.

You ever watch a show with subtitles and end up having your eyes drawn to the subtitles even when you want to be watching the action? It's like that. Sometimes it makes you miss important content or nuances.

(I'm not even going to go into the auto-start audio ads that force me to pause content while I figure out how to turn them off.)

Anyway, the ads in front of or in the middle of a show - pausing the content, letting you separate content from ad - those are better. They act more like TV ads.

But it makes me wonder. I actually think the pop-up-on-my-show ads are more effective. Consider:

• You're already in an active, engaged mode, paying attention to the screen.
• You have to actively close them down, which entails paying attention to them and sweeping your eyes over the content even if you don't care about it.
• That little annoyance that pops into your head is an emotional tie to the material. Emotions tend to make memories stronger.

Contrast the passivity of the before-content stuff: You're not engaged yet, don't need to take any actions to affect the content, may not even be paying attention the screen, and have no inherent emotional attachment.

Does this mean that the goals of the viewer and the advertiser are inherently in conflict? If the advertisers choose the most effective method, must it always interfere with the goals of the end viewer?

I'm not sure.

But I'd like to see what other people think.

For lack of a better word, advertising is destructive in nature. You see a lot of billboard ads, you stop paying attention to billboard ads. You see a lot of popup ads, you stop paying attention to popup ads (except to notice that little X to click.) After a few episodes of Tiger And Bunny, I even stopped noticing Product Placement. To make things worse for advertisers, I think that when you stop noticing more invasive ads, you automatically stop noticing less invasive ads, so they need to get more and more invasive rather than working cyclically.

(there should be an advertisement forum, for discussions like this)

I agree with the above troper. Even though you may be used to them, though, they're still annoying as hell.

Would being subtle count as being invasive? I'm not thinking of what they did with the subliminal messaging- oh wait, I am. Sort of.

Imagine if advertisements were helpful...

I've actually seen some of the ads on blip aired on television several days later.

I think the most successful way to combat that effect is to make ads entertaining. Hell, ads aired during the Super Bowl are so entertaining that people watch the Super Bowl just to see them. Geico ads in particular are usually clever enough that I often unmute the television just to hear them.

edited 16th Jan '12 2:34:26 AM by Zennistrad

I'd definitely agree that making good, entertaining ads is the best tactic.

I've actually taken time to hunt down advertisers' sites a couple times to thank them for a particularly entertaining ad, because I think they probably don't really get feedback when they're doing something right. ...and then I found out that sites like Jack-in-the-Box make it really difficult to give random feedback (you have to indicate which restaurant you're talking about before you can even type things in).

There were two very long ads that I sat down and watched - and thoroughly enjoyed - from one of the cruise lines... I forget which one, but at the time I was highly impressed. They were mini-movies that used the cruise as backdrop for a little human drama (e.g., a family had taken a cruise for the parents' anniversary, and couldn't get one adult son to attend - but he was really hiding on the ship, planning to surprise them for the big dinner). By focusing on the story and using the ship's many pleasures as backdrop, they managed to do an impressive job of showcasing the goods without being annoying or pushy.

And those ads were several minutes long. Nothing like the regular length of commercials in general. But they were effective.