Shorter Commercials? For Real?

It sounds obvious, I know. But a report this week on the Washington Post Online states that when a television network puts fewer – and shorter – commercial breaks into a show, the viewers like it more, and better still, are less likely to surf away from the channel. This cuts way back on the chances of those viewers finding something more interesting on the other channel and not coming back after the commercial break (all 3 minutes 16 seconds of it) is over. Apparently, telling them how long the commercial break will be (e.g. “Bob’s House of Spackle will return in 73 seconds”) works even better on both dimensions – the viewers are pleased to hear it, and less likely to surf away. Particularly if the announced break is really short…

Why this isn’t actually obvious has to do with the primary misconception that television viewers have about their programs – and the commercials, for that matter. You see, however much the viewing public may think (or hope) otherwise, television exists mainly for the purpose of selling advertising time. It’s sort of an unwritten, unspoken contract between broadcasters and the viewing public: you watch our 14 minutes of advertising and we’ll show you 46 minutes of entertainment, free of charge. This is why old-time cable channels charged money for their content: because they weren’t showing you ads, they had to make money some other way. Or, to look at it another way, instead of you watching the ads, you were just giving them money for the content directly…

Unfortunately, as the years passed people started messing with the contract. Television stations and producers started following the example of Hollywood movies and putting ads for products (called product placements) directly into the programs, and cable channels started to realize that people would still pay extra for their exclusive content if there were ads, and started selling ad space just like the broadcast stations. Worst of all was the “program crawl” concept – little animated ads or previews running along the bottom of the screen while the program was in progress, distracting the viewer and sometimes even blocking out critical parts of the picture. Viewers fought back with VCRs, editing out or fast-forwarding through commercials, and spending more time on DVD movies and the Internet. The introduction of digital video recorders like TiVo and television downloads for you iPod completely upset the balance, and today the broadcast networks are growing desperate to bring back their lost viewers…

Which brings us back to the concept of shorter, less invasive advertising. If the networks can demonstrate that shorter and less annoying commercial breaks result in more people watching their ads, they should be able to justify charging more for those ads and retaining the same revenue while improving their relationship with the viewers. It’s a better answer than those “sponsored by XYZ Corporation, with no commercial interruptions” concepts, because those shows usually open and close with hordes of XYZ Corp. commercials that no one watches, because the viewers know they’re coming. If the broadcast networks can back it up with some quality programming, they might even be able to turn the tide and restore their traditional contract with the viewers...

Therein lies the problem, of course. The viewing public has gotten a taste of programming on their schedule, of what they actually want to see, and without having to bother about advertising interruptions at all. It’s possible to regain their attention, if you have something new, unique, or at least interesting (I note here things like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, which are neither new nor unique, but seem to interest a lot of people), but it’s going to be hard going to attract an audience without at least one of these elements. Regardless of how short your commercial breaks happen to be…