I don't think it's that people object to a state (read: tax) funded broadcaster[1], it's that they want a lot more options than that. If the BBC put out a hundred channels with a similar variety[2] to those currently available, with no adverts, I doubt if people would complain. But when we only had one BBC channel plus one ITV channel (with adverts) having double the choice was worth the adverts for most people. (Not for my family, we rarely watched ITV because we disliked the adverts, but we were atypical.)
But TV companies complaining because people now use time-shifting and skip the adverts is disingenuous, because even without time-shifting people have always got up and made a drink, had a cigarette, turned off the sound, or even changed channel during the adverts (even setting an egg-timer to remind them when the advert break would end). Few people have ever sat and watched through them, and probably those people still do watch the adverts because they enjoy them.
There is also a qualitative difference between advert breaks and advert banners. The latter are annoying (especially TV companies who just cut at regular intervals, sometimes in the middle of a word), but in general don't obscure the actual material, just break it up (and with an editor the programme can be more or less reassembled). Banners, on the other hand, do obscure the picture and are context-insensitive, often obscuring important parts (TV station logos sometimes do that, but many are small and transparent enough that it's not so bad, and being usually static are fairly easy for the eye/brain to filter out).
[1] This may not be what you meant, if so then I apologise.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-04-27 08:10 am (UTC)But TV companies complaining because people now use time-shifting and skip the adverts is disingenuous, because even without time-shifting people have always got up and made a drink, had a cigarette, turned off the sound, or even changed channel during the adverts (even setting an egg-timer to remind them when the advert break would end). Few people have ever sat and watched through them, and probably those people still do watch the adverts because they enjoy them.
There is also a qualitative difference between advert breaks and advert banners. The latter are annoying (especially TV companies who just cut at regular intervals, sometimes in the middle of a word), but in general don't obscure the actual material, just break it up (and with an editor the programme can be more or less reassembled). Banners, on the other hand, do obscure the picture and are context-insensitive, often obscuring important parts (TV station logos sometimes do that, but many are small and transparent enough that it's not so bad, and being usually static are fairly easy for the eye/brain to filter out).
[1] This may not be what you meant, if so then I apologise.
[2] For some value of 'variety'.