Jump to content

Advert Breaks are about to get longer


Recommended Posts

Apologies for the source...

Annoying advertising breaks during films and single dramas on the main terrestrial channels are to get longer, the media regulator has said.

New rules published by Ofcom mean that viewers of these types of programming are now allowed to be subjected to six minutes of commercials every 30 minutes. This is almost double the current three minutes and thirty seconds.

For a year-long trial period, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 will be able to screen up to 12 minutes of adverts, instead of the current seven minutes, in each hour.

The trial, which will also apply to single TV dramas but not series, begins on Monday and the changes could be made permanent.

This brings films and single dramas under the same limits as other types of programming such as game-shows, reality shows and documentaries, which can also show up to 12 minutes of advertising an hour.

But some viewers valued the protection given to films and single dramas as they often require more concentration from viewers as a result of the complicated narratives they employ.

It is claimed that broadcasters will now invest more money in drama as a result of the move.

Interruptions: the new rules will apply to one-off dramas such as Channel 4's Kidnapping Harry, above, and films

Interruptions: the new rules will apply to one-off dramas such as Channel 4's Kidnapping Harry, above, and films

But the decision comes not long after the House of Lords communications committee called for fewer adverts.

The trial period, which applies to the commercial public service broadcasters is being introduced as a result of changes to rules on product placement which come into force next week.

Product placement will be allowed in films, dramas and documentaries, TV series, soaps, entertainment and sports shows.

It will be banned in all children's and news programmes and in UK-produced current affairs, consumer affairs and religious programmes.

Over the course of the day the terrestrial channels are allowed on average eight minutes per hour of advertising. This can reach a peak of 12 minutes per hour for popular shows.

An Ofcom spokesman said: ‘This does not necessarily mean that these channels will increase the amount of ads that they show during feature films.

‘It is not clear whether broadcasters will necessarily choose to increase break lengths in films as better advertising opportunities exist elsewhere in the schedules.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359637/6-minute-advert-break-Ofcom-relaxes-rules-commercials.html#ixzz1Ep2yrglx

Yay, even less reason to watch live television.

Sky have recently started to place 'ads' in their Atlantic Anytime content (to be fair to them, it's mainly just 20-30seconds of fluff, not really ads in the traditional sense), but you can't help but wonder how long until they decide to take the next step and introduce proper ads to all their anytime content.

Link to post
Share on other sites
An Ofcom spokesman said: ‘This does not necessarily mean that these channels will increase the amount of ads that they show during feature films.

Yes, I'm sure they will be reluctant to increase their ad revenue and won't bother with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it genuinely means more funding goes into making the drama then I'm not too disappointed, as long as we don't continue down the road to the US model for TV advertising. Although I can say this as I never watch dramas or films live anyway, instead I solely rely on Sky+ so the changes won't really be an issue for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody likes ads interrupting shows but they are a necessary evil.

I know - if only there were some other, publically-funded means of paying for television channels... a yearly fee of sorts, perhaps, for TV owners? Hmm...

;)

(Though yes, considering the amount of complaining that goes on about the license fee when it only has to pay for the BBC [and the way the current government is doing what it can to constrain the BBC's income and ability to use their money], one can only imagine what the reaction would be to a license fee sizable enough to cover even more providers and their output... or indeed, how awful the output would be were the current fee stretched that far - it'd be like other countries' public television *shudders* )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people wouldn't then have to sit through them which would mean companies wouldn't pay as much which would then have a knock-on effect on the budgets for the programmes. Nobody likes ads interrupting shows but they are a necessary evil.

HBO's the best network ever and that's commercial free, pretty much. Sky are just fucking everyone over if you ask me as there's no real competition yet.

My main gripe is with how TV works in general. It's such an old way of thinking. Schedules, etc should all go out the window.

Link to post
Share on other sites

uurgh hideous idea.

As an aside, do channels count their own adverts as actual commercials? The BBC gets some in so they may not officially count- but Sky is so awful with ads it makes my eyes bleed.

BREAK: *Specific Programme Sponsors* *Sky Advert 1* *Commercial* *Commercial* *Commercial* *Commercial* *Sky Advert 2* *Programme Sponsor* RESUME

And of course starting a programme then almost immediately cutting to adverts is nearly as bad as shovelling some in right at the finale, a few seconds before the closing credits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HBO's the best network ever and that's commercial free, pretty much. Sky are just fucking everyone over if you ask me as there's no real competition yet.

My main gripe is with how TV works in general. It's such an old way of thinking. Schedules, etc should all go out the window.

Well this Ofcom ruling seems to be geared more towards the commercial terrestrial channels where ad revenue is their main source of money. Even the HBO and Sky connection is a little unfair as HBO is around $15-20 p/m for a lot less TV than the basic Sky package. You can say the quality is much higher, which it is, but there is no way many channels could survive on a subscription based package.

What other system do you suggest beyond scheduling then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this Ofcom ruling seems to be geared more towards the commercial terrestrial channels where ad revenue is their main source of money. Even the HBO and Sky connection is a little unfair as HBO is around $15-20 p/m for a lot less TV than the basic Sky package. You can say the quality is much higher, which it is, but there is no way many channels could survive on a subscription based package.

What other system do you suggest beyond scheduling then?

Well I dunno how it could all work but in my ideal world it would be something like Hulu but without the ads. I wouldn't mind paying £40/50 a month for that.

It's surely the way things have to go soon. What with more and more people using DVRs and skipping ads or torrenting/streaming off some dodgy site.

I'd still let them get some commercial revenue, like from companies sponsoring shows, etc.

EDIT: Anyone ever get Homechoice? I liked that, that was the right idea, just way too early. From what I remember you paid x a month and it was all on-demand with no ads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But for a Hulu-like system to work broadband in the country needs to improve a lot. I realise large chunks of the population will have no problem downloading or streaming shows but it is not something open to all which is still a stumbling block. It is true that a similar type of system will probably take over traditional TV but I still think we are a way off. Does anybody know how money is split up for the networks on Hulu?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Cisco Systems report ranked the UK in 18th place in its global broadband leadership table, meaning the country has slipped three places in the last two years.

Despite this fall, the research - which was based on work carried out by Oxford University's Said Business School - found that average download speeds now exceed 6.4Mb/s, up from 4.6Mb/s in 2009.

Furthermore, it claimed that household broadband penetration rates now stand at 74 per cent, one percentage point above the Office for National Statistics' latest estimate.

http://www.cable.co.uk/news/uk-broadband-speeds-up-to-6-4mbs-claims-cisco-systems-800121205/

2/3 penetration is more than Virgin Media who do ok with their TV service! And an average of 6Mb/s is fine for streaming sd content, even hd content I guess. I did sd with Homechoice in 1999! Man, the picture quality must have sucked though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that the average speeds are 6.4Mb/s, even when I lived near a major city those speeds would be a fantasy and now I live in the back of beyond those speeds make me insanely jealous. I'm not suggesting the system can't find an audience, even now, but as a standardised and widespread system it is some time off not least because of the huge cultural change it brings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HBO's the best network ever and that's commercial free, pretty much. Sky are just fucking everyone over if you ask me as there's no real competition yet.

HBO has nearly 3 times the subscribers as Sky for far fewer channels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointless really...you can actually do something useful in six minutes, rather than three, so you'd be even less likely to sit and watch the ads.

Or fast forward them at 32x, which is also becoming the norm I'd guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I really can't watch drama shows on Sky TV these days. The number of adverts that are scattered all over the place during a single hour is ridiculous, and completely spoils the flow of an episode. Just to put this in to context, an episode of Stargate : Universe is about 42 minutes long....in a full one hour slot. An episode of Outcasts on the BBC is 58 minutes, for that same hour. In other words, 16 minutes every hour are wasted on adverts and previews of other shows.

That is unacceptable. People like to moan about the BBC's TV License fee, but at least we don't have to worry about interruptions every five minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfft, this is nothing. You've not experienced ad breaks until you've watched TV in the US. I'm sure half you clever folk have grown to recognise those odd fade-outs and fade-ins in shows where a commercial break is missing, but that doesn't really communicate the jarring, care-obliterating thunder with which the commercial break is announced and concluded, "YOU'RE WATCHING THE CLOSER, ON FFOOX" over footage of the lead character crossing her arms against a swirling background of bewildering CGI patterns.

There's often no commercials between the end credits of one show and the start of the next, but there are commercials between the cold open of the next show and its opening titles, so it seems like the cold open is appended to the previous show. Presumably this is to keep people tuned in against the urge, the rising urge at every commercial break, to just turn the TV off because you can't concentrate on the show.

Edit - Oh, Judgement Boy knows what I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HBO's the best network ever and that's commercial free, pretty much. Sky are just fucking everyone over if you ask me as there's no real competition yet.

My main gripe is with how TV works in general. It's such an old way of thinking. Schedules, etc should all go out the window.

In the US HBO and STARZ are known as the best channels there are(rightly so of course) and the only way you can get them over there is if you subscribe to a full channels package, I'm talking over $100 a month. When I was living over there I really wanted to have it but the costs are astronomic and that's how they fund it.

When we watched Lost, 24, House etc the commercial breaks are so intrusive we'd just wait until it was on the website and watch it on there, you get 30 or 60 seconds of commercials instead of the lengthy ones on TV and the HD streaming worked really well on their websites.

It is amazing how many people have TV recording devices these days and complain about sitting through adverts but do nothing about it instead of just delaying watching it and skipping the ads, I know I'm guilty of that too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I really can't watch drama shows on Sky TV these days. The number of adverts that are scattered all over the place during a single hour is ridiculous, and completely spoils the flow of an episode. Just to put this in to context, an episode of Stargate : Universe is about 42 minutes long....in a full one hour slot. An episode of Outcasts on the BBC is 58 minutes, for that same hour. In other words, 16 minutes every hour are wasted on adverts and previews of other shows.

That is unacceptable. People like to moan about the BBC's TV License fee, but at least we don't have to worry about interruptions every five minutes.

This is what I don't really understand. From what Ofcom are saying, this will allow ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to increase the ads from 7 minutes per hour to 12 minutes per hour. How is it then that Glee, a 41 minute program, has been scheduled into a one hour slot? Surely basic maths would imply that we've been having more than 7 minutes of ads per hour for any US Television show which fills an hour slot?

As for the proposals, I'm not really concerned . I don't watch much on any of the above channels and it is only bringing them into line with the regulations that Freeview channels and subscription channels have had to comply with. So anyone who has been watching a program on any but the five old channels would have already experienced the new Rules. Frankly had I not known about the different regulations I'm not sure I could have noticed the difference, particularly when all US shows are scheduled into hour blocks on whatever channel they are on anyway!

As for the future, I would imagine there will be two options eventually. One will be all programs on demand but without the ability to skip the adverts. Another will be all programs on demand without any adverts in exchange for a monthly fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any one use SeeSaw? Its mostly channel 4 and 5 stuff. But for £3 a month you can get it all free of adverts. There's a lot of content on there. I'd like more websites like this.

If I had the option not to download tv shows then I would use it just like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several tricks that the channels use - Channel 4 in particular schedule a program for an hour and five minutes, allowing them to include more ads "inside" and after the program. They will also run more trails (which don't count as adverts).

I watch very little on ITV these days, put up with the adverts on Sky since I know they are paying for the programs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't really bother me if I'm honest as the only thing I watch 'live' are sports. Everything else gets recorded on Sky+ to be watched at a later date, it's been that way for around 6 years now.

Product placement, now that's another story. It wouldn't be so awful if the products were simply background props but a lot of the times the camera seems to zoom in and settle on the products for a second or two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Product placement, now that's another story. It wouldn't be so awful if the products were simply background props but a lot of the times the camera seems to zoom in and settle on the products for a second or two.

there's going to be a new logo before and after shows with product placement. Makes deciding what to download and what to watch 'live' a lot easier.

dg_194692.gif

bit of a shit logo really, should have been a big cock spurting advertising shit into Malcolm McDowell's uncloseable eyes. Although tthat might have taken up too much space on the screen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.