Photo: grenade
In a plot twist worthy of Lost, it turns out that TV commercials aren't obnoxious interruptions after all. They're helpful interruptions, which increase your enjoyment of TV by periodically reminding you how much you'd rather be watching your favorite show.
That's according to a new study published in the Journal of Consumer Research, which found that commercials restore a sense of novelty to TV programming by breaking up the cycle which we become bored with following what's on the screen.
In one of several experiments, the study's authors screened the sitcom Taxi for two groups. One group saw an episode with commercial interruptions, and the other saw an episode with no interruptions. Those who saw Taxi with commercial breaks enjoyed it more, by a decisive margin.
In the authors' words: "t every given moment, watching the sitcom will still be more enjoyable than watching a detergent commercial." That contrast could be one factor that kept the show fresh for viewers in the experiment.
But aren't TV shows more fun with commercial breaks included precisely because they're written with these interruptions in mind? Filmmakers don't seem to need commercial breaks to keep audiences interested. Or could Sam Mendes have pushed his Revolutionary Road into a Golden Globe for best drama by chopping it up with a few well-timed words from his sponsors?
(Hat tip: Ars Technica, via Sam Kallen)
I have to agree that it's the way the show is written to take advantage of the commercial breaks. They should do a similar study with an episode of the Sopranos, but stick in commercials about where they'd go in a regular show.
ResponderEliminarIf you've seen a lot of TV shows, sans commercials in the "breaks" you know it can be kind of weird, to see a cliff hanger, fade to black, and return instantly with a recap of the same cliff hanger. It's very anti-climactic and obvious how the show was designed to be seen. Obviously, feature films are not made with commercial breaks in mind (and suffer when they are added).
ResponderEliminarIt makes a lot of sense. Sometimes, when I'm reading, I get bored. But whenever I start hitting myself in the head with a hammer instead, I totally wish I was reading!
ResponderEliminarWhat if they watched the show but had to manually fastforward through the commercial breaks (like a DVR user), would the fastforwarding break be enough of a break to make the show better?
ResponderEliminarThis a bit off-topic.. but I've noticed a new tactic by movie advertisements: they keep the name of the movie and the release data visible and static in a bar at the top of the screen for the whole commercial. This must be to advertise to DVR users who are fastforwarding through the commercials, but still watching the screen to know when to stop fastforwarding. I think it is very clever.
Beating the dead horse:
ResponderEliminarThe better the writing, the more the commercial breaks matter. Now, there is also some really good writing on TV that does not intentionally use commercial breaks, but most of the best writing does. And the great premium cable shows (e.g The Soporanos, Dexter, Six Feet Under, etc.) suffer for the additional breaks.
This hit me hardest when I was watching the West Wing back in the day. Sorkin would raise tensions going into a break, and needed the break for the views to return to a more normal level for the next scene. It was just too jarring without the break.
So, this is not a matter of breaks being inherently good. Rather, it is a matter of great writers understanding and writing for the presentation of their material.
I think it depends on the show....
ResponderEliminarShows like Lost, which have an intense plot, are much better enjoyed (IMO) with a commercial break. At least when watching it with friends, we can kinda discuss stuff, and fill in the gaps...
I also like commercial breaks in comedies, to give you a little break from the laughter.
Also, some shows (Arrested Development springs to mind) make really good use of the commercials in many of their episodes, which allow them to add more humor.
However, game shows, and reality shows dont gain anything from commercials.
I despise commercials if I'm watching TV alone, but do actually find them useful if watching with a group of people. I don't think commercials restore a "sense of novelty" because personally, if I'm that bored I'm more likely to turn the program off than subject myself to commercials and boring TV.
ResponderEliminarBut if I'm watching TV with a group, commercials are useful because they give us a chance to mute them and then talk about what we just saw and make predictions about the rest of the show (Lost, I'm looking at you). We end up doing this anyway if we watch a season on DVD, we just end up using the pause button instead of the mute button.
This test seems more than a little flawed as it fails to control for the kind of content. A sitcom is only one kind of tv show genre. I'm entirely doubtful that the same results apply to tv shows with drama.
ResponderEliminarFurthermore, I think they're not accounting for the kind of audience either, which I think can be split into either devoted fans or casual watchers. I'm certain that fans would be much more disgruntled by commercial breaks than casual watchers.
Tribrix raises a good point that the fact that these tv shows were designed with commercials in mind is hard to remove from a study of this nature. I'd assume, like you, that feature films would suffer from commercials, but then again I had assumed that TV shows suffer from commercials too, despite being designed with them in mind (I like watching my tv shows on TIVO or buying seasons of DVDs... I had assumed this was increasing my enjoyment). Maybe commercials would increase the enjoyment of movies too. I'll wait to see the study to make any guesses about that outcome.
ResponderEliminarIf this argument is correct I must start hitting my face periodically, so I will enjoy not having pain "more".
ResponderEliminarI have a problem with these type of experiments with results that cannot be generalized to other situations. They are too context dependent.
I think it depends to some extent on the show and how it is written. If it is a HBO or Showtime show written to be viewed in one hour-long block, then adding in commercials would probably decrease viewer enjoyment. However, sitcoms like Taxi which air on commercial channels are written in short acts to make room for the commercials.
ResponderEliminarMy bias is against commercials, as I always flip channels during commercial breaks....
If the show is really interesting, then u dont need any commercials..
ResponderEliminarif its dragging and interesting in bits and pieces, then u would need commercial to relief.
So why do they increase the volume 50% or more so that you autmatically hit the mute button?
ResponderEliminarIsn't ter technology that sensies this and stops the idiots from screaming at you?
Has anyone taken into account that Taxi just isn't as funny now as it was 30 years ago? :)
ResponderEliminarRe: the static area on the commercials. I haven't seen that, but I've been wondering aloud since I got my DVR a few years ago why commercials didn't do something like that, to get at least a FEW seconds' exposure...
They should repeat the test with some BBC sitcoms that were not written with commercial breaks in mind (older sitcoms would probably be best as these days the writers might be considering the international market where commercials would be added).
ResponderEliminarIf you need the commericals to make the show more interesting, you're watching bad TV.
ResponderEliminarI do agree that commericals are nice when watching TV in a group of friends-- gives everyone a chance to talk about what happened, get more popcorn, etc. But its annoying when you're alone and actually watching something. I'm sure if they need breaks for suspense they could come up with something less irritating.
The interruptions are welcome when I am watching tv and have to do other things like get a drink or check on the stove. This is most obvious when PBS has something good, I have to plan according to the show timings and can't leave my seat as there are no breaks.
ResponderEliminarThere is something very enjoyable though when we watch a marathon of Sopranos or Weeds dvds and the continuity is great fun. It means we watch 3-4 episodes at a stretch and the interweaving plot lines are more intense.
If this were true, wouldn't people who have TiVo watch the commercials, because it made them like the shows more? Or does the act of fast forwarding satisfy the need for novelty?
ResponderEliminarA number of semi-documentary cable shows (like New Detectives, First 48 etc) do 10 minutes of show, a 3 minute break, then a minute of recap for the audience they assume has forgotten everything during the break.
ResponderEliminarIt's a bit insulting and mildly annoying. On the plus side, you can jump into the show at any point and pick up the thread.
Thank goodness for Tivo -- I can outfox them with one finger (-:
I live in the UK and HBO shows like the Soporanos are shown on Channel4 which has commercial breaks and I always felt that the commercial breaks interrupted the flow of the show more than other show that were made to show on Channel 4 which planned for commercial breaks such as The West Wing.
ResponderEliminarManny
this post overlooks the obvious: when can i pee?
ResponderEliminarHas any one done a study that shows our culture has a short attention span because of sitcoms and commercials?
ResponderEliminarWho paid for this study?
Marketing Companies!
So there's a way I could enjoy The Wire even more? Sign me up!
ResponderEliminaror not.
#22 Nick is right- follow the money...
ResponderEliminarand it is weird that they chose "TAXI" of all the shows to use...
I don't enjoy commercials because they take my time, which is more valuable. Perhaps the people in the study did not have to value time because they were getting paid for it and the amount of time to participate in the study was not markedly different for each group.
ResponderEliminarIf you gave me the choice between watching a show for 42 minutes and sitting for 18 minutes after versus a 60 minute show with commercials interspersed I might choose the commercials, but I have other uses for my time.
"But aren
ResponderEliminarI'm sad that no one has said they like commercials (since I create them.) The study did not say what commercials were the 'Taxi' showing. Perhaps they were from the 80's and the nostalgic look added to enjoyment of the show....
ResponderEliminarKip-
ResponderEliminarI have noticed other shaky ways that ad people are responding to the jump-ahead button on most DVRs. Mine is equipped with a feature to automatically jump ahead in 30-second bursts, the average length of a commercial. Yet, I find that the commercial break never ends in 30-second increments. I could understand a second or two here and there, but it seems to be a full 15 seconds generally. I'm guessing they have slightly varied the length of commercials in response. I know when TiVo first came out, they actually had an auto-commercial-skip button, that supposedly somehow knew the exact length of specific commercial breaks and skipped that much. Broadcasters protested and sued, I believed, so it changed to the 30-second jump.
I also see shows pop back up during commercial breaks. PTI does this, regularly sneaking back in with behind-the-scenes footage for about 5 minutes during a break, which, if someone was watching, would cause them to think the show was back, resume watching, and possibly get sucked into an ad. I still have yet to watch an entire commercial, but it definitely seems as if they are finding ways around this, and I wonder how it is impacting people's feelings to commercials in these situations.
I nominate teej (#3) for comment of the moment.
ResponderEliminarI'd say we can infer from the data of the results that utility is relative, much like a god night sleep is more welcome after a tiresome day than a day lounging on the couch.
ResponderEliminarI'd say the optimal strategy for a sitcom planning would be enough commercials to keep things interesting (as well as providing pre-set places for cliffhangers and spots to make extra money for the station). but make them long enough to keep the story going.
Maybe by similar reasoning, mediocre movies should be preceded by previews of really crappy movies to come...
Television is bad enough for you without commercials. I always feel like rats are eating my attention span watching TV. How can something as degrading as advertising improve something as lame as network TV?
ResponderEliminaryeah, what's up with screening Taxi?!
ResponderEliminarWhy wouldn't they have screened something like Sex and the City which is at least relatively current, and was filmed in commercial and non-commercial versions.
There's no way I can take this study seriously.
Interesting study, but I think I'm outside their representative sample somehow. I absolutely love watching good TV shows on DVD, with no commercials, and detest watching them when broadcast with ads. It's an easy test for me to run, as I often end up watching the same shows both ways (Lost is a good example) and inevitably end up enjoying the 2nd time more than the 1st (even though I know what to expect in most cases).
ResponderEliminarBut then again, I'm probably not a typical TV viewer, as I've never even once watched any "Reality TV" or shows like American Idol.
Maybe they enjoy the show itself a little bit more, but do they get more enjoyment out of the experience as a whole, including the time they've wasted on the ads.
ResponderEliminarIs it because they used "Taxi" in the study?
ResponderEliminarI mean, if I spend half an hour watching something awful, then maybe I need something even more awfuland dull to make me realise that I'm better off with the marginally less awful option.
Whereas if I'm watching something that's actually enjoyable, then I don't want to be interrupted.
I'm relieved to hear this - I've just moved to England and while watching the BBC I find myself missing commercials! Maybe I'm not crazy after all. There are the obvious practical reasons, as others have mentioned: 58 minutes is too long without a chance to put on a sweater, get a snack, or visit the bathroom (I'm very well hydrated). However, I also like the mental break to digest what I've been watching. I watch a lot of programmes on history/culture/current affairs, and a break every 15-20 minutes helps me to absorb the info. I do acknowledge that with some dramas it definitely can take you out of the action when you want to be immersed in it.
ResponderEliminarThe only thing I really hate about commercials is having to watch the same ones over and over. It's especially rough during sports seasons: a baseball game has at least 16 inning and half inning breaks, plus pitching changes, and the same Flomax commercial plays during each one.
Breaks are good to show during a programme - it's better to have a break rather than watch a programme for a whole hour with no breaks because you get bored after a while. I just think that there are too many breaks on tv nowadays, and they are too long, with the same adverts shown - there should be less breaks, not more!
ResponderEliminarHow can anyone actually watch American TV with the constant advertising every 5 minutes, and the irritatingly weird 1 minute breaks that they have?!
ResponderEliminar