The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

Ads Are Good For Your Health. Brought To You By The People Who Do Ads.
March 10, 2009, 6:24 am
Filed under: Comment

Have a read of this

And if you listen carefully, you’ll hear WPP executives cheering into their silver breakfast bowls.

In all seriousness, when you’ve had a read, let me know what you think.

Does this mean films should start putting commercial breaks in the middle of the story and can Colgate sit back and relax knowing their formulaic and overtly rational communication has as much validity – if not more so – than the latest Fallon extravaganza?

Surely if you’re really enjoying yourself, you wouldn’t actively seek an interuption … isn’t the point of pleasure that you don’t want anything to change?

To be honest this is mindfucking me, because there are definitely examples I can think of where ‘interuption’ has benefits, but rather than increase the pleasure, it’s more about increasing the anticipation – which maybe is their point, but I’m too muddled to be sure.

[Thanks to Amber for finding me this]

12 Comments so far
Leave a comment

there may be times when interuptions heighten the experience, im thinking specifically madame slash here but ads? they reckon people sit there waiting for an ad because it makes the show theyre watching better? colgate brighten toothpaste ads can make a programme better? what the fuck are they watching fox news?

weve been told for years that ads tend to fuck people off or give them an excuse to put the fucking kettle on so who was really right, the last lot or this mob. fuck its like all research. one minute theyre saying its acceptable to get pissed every night and make a druken suggestion to the missus next theyre saying its wrong. i wish theyd make their fucking minds up.

Comment by andy@cynic

I don’t buy it.

The only reason why this research showed results was because we’ve become accustomed to the way TV and commercial breaks work (how many years has this been the norm?) and everyone knows that tv writers will structure their scripts with storyline archs leading into commercial breaks thus heightening the anticipation of the viewer. By the time Dave Caruso solves the crime and puts his sunglasses on for the 14th time, we’ve been taken up and down the arch multiple times and emotionally we feel satisfied. That doesn’t say anything about the engagement of the actual ads though!

I saw the Watchmen on the weekend. It’s 3 hours and features no commercial breaks and fuck me I LOVED it!!

Comment by Age

Only when:

The ads are so bad they make crap shows seem better.

The ads are bloody good.

Ask any F1 fan about it moving back to BBC, the one thing they will shout joy over is no more ads.

Comment by Rob Mortimer

I always thought ads were the lazy marketers tool of choice but it seems the same can be said for TV and film directors.

Where is everyone today?

Comment by Bazza

I can’t remember having read something utterly bullshit as that in the last couple of months. Surely one ad break during a movie might be good. Just to spring a leak or get a drink from the fridge. But it’s not enhancing anything. It just enables me to do a thing or two without missing something interesting.
The only thing that matters is if a program or activity is interesting. If it is you can enjoy it for hours without getting used to the good feeling.
Anyway. Hello everybody.

Comment by Seb

well well well. look who the fuck we have here. my fave kraut creative. fuck it. my favourite kraut fullstop. hope youre doing something brilliantly destructive to explain why youve not been here giving campbell abuse lately.

bazza. campbell is living his fucking jetset life again. the socialist millionaire will be back writing shit in a few days unless lee postpones his plane like i made him promise.

funny how so many of us in adland are laughing at this research when we should be celebrating. i saw some roy morgan shit recently that said tv viewing was higher than net or some other equal bollocks. fair play to the research companies. without them spouting their fucking crap adland would be all by itself in the corporate isolation ward

Comment by andy@cynic

Well, well, well. Look who the fuck answered first. My fave creative direction guru from the states. Maybe even my favourite guru. But don’t let that go to you head. Well actually I did a few quite destructive things. Like for example destructing the relationship I had for 6 years. Had to find a new flat and everything. Then I was destructing the Google account that my agency used to have. Though that wasn’t my fault. I was the one saying: We shouldn’t do it like that. But as always when I say something nobody listened. After we lost now everybody says: We should have done it another way. But we didn’t lose all the account. Just the most interesting parts, ha. Now with a new love, a new flat and a new website I’m seriously back to annoy Rob here. And to find a new job, ha. But I see that you are still keeping the standards in the comments section up. That’s good. I’m actually pleased.

Comment by Seb

fuck me seb youve been in the fucking wars havent you. but whenever theres a period of being a shit magnet you end up coming out the other side better even if it takes a fucking while to understand it. and tell your bosses or ex bosses or whatever the fuck they are that keeping or losing google is immaterial because they are into creation not fucking ads so the amount of cash theyd of got is about the same theyd get from herr rudolphs sweet emporium. you should also tell the blame throwing wankers they should listen to you and talk to us 🙂

Comment by andy@cynic

Seb is back ….

As much as I love the comments on this post [especially as adland people are slagging off research that actually supports adland] I’m more excited Seb is back.

Hello matey …

Comment by Rob

Oh Campbell, do you mind if I have that comment of yours embroidered on a pillow to rest my head on it every night?

Comment by Seb

Rob, I’ve just sent you an email but from my new account. So a look into your SPAM-folder might be a good idea…

Comment by Seb

years later now… i got my head around the two academic papers that were linked to in the ny times article. and i have to say: i don t buy them. there are reasons for that. caused by the methods and underlying assumptions, e.g. the issue of time and duration in the context of adaption as well as for example asking after 50 seconds of different noises and silence how one liked the last five seconds, i bet one is confused; the issue of judging something as either positive, negative or comparable or novel in advance by the researchers (experience/tv-show/commercial) without testing/screening; the singularity of a vacuum cleaner noise vs. the complexity of a tv show; relatively small groups; no splitting by gender (maybe interesting for either liking fighting swordsmen or fighting clowns) etc. etc. i could basically slag those papers off. which would be quite arrogant as i am not a psychologist and have not read the referenced literature…
what disturbes me is that in both papers i haven t read anything about the issue of attention (attention span, motivation etc.). even if commercial breaks make a tv-programme more enjoyable, i guess it s more about a break for the viewer s attention than adaption. i don t buy the issue of adaption in the complex tv-show-context so far. especially as those studies circulate around a micro-level, and don t investigate a long term or in a wider context… and i bet it s relevant how many spots interrupt the programme. if it s the programme interrupting the commercials it could be all pointless… but that s just my two cents anyway…

Comment by peggy

Leave a Reply