On onscreen adverts
Apr. 26th, 2010 10:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerPeople who don't have satellite or cable, or who don't watch much telly anyway, may not be aware that it's been common practice on non-terrestrial channels for some considerable time to stick little banners all over the screen plugging the next programme, or another programme, or an upcoming live event, at every conceivable point either side of any advert break. Yes, it's irritating, but so are the advert breaks themselves, and nobody complains about them.
And then the Beeb does it to nuWho and everyone goes wild.
Every so often someone on Making Light or somewhere indignantly refutes the notion that publishers are indifferent to the quality of the content they sell except insofar as it impacts on the profit margin. They point out, and they should know, that not only they themselves, but absolutely everyone they know who works in the business, is fully and whole-heartedly dedicated to finding the best writers they can and bringing their work before the world. Likewise, I'm sure anyone who works for any given television channel would say with their hand on their heart that the sole purpose of their existence is to bring quality programming before the discerning viewer. It's all about the programmes.
And yet...in the past few years, we've seen the encroachment of continuity announcements over the closing credits of every single programme (or sometimes the closing minutes of said programme), the appearance of the station ident in the top left corner (which only gets removed for the adverts), the squeezing of the said credits into a tiny tiny box so as to include adverts for more programmes, often including commercial sponsors' logoes, and the growth of the intrusive banner such as 6.8 million people saw on Saturday. We have also noted that the continuity announcements are frequently miscued, the screen-squeezing is sometimes applied to the programme rather than the credits, and, in short, whoever is running the daily broadcast schedule seems to spend at least some time each day asleep at the switch. It certainly appears that the content of the programmes is to some extent regarded as filler, at best, and at worst an unnecessary intrusion into the process of selling product (or, in the non-commercial channels' case, keeping people hanging on for the next programme). There's indifference in there somewhere.
The weird thing is that it took so long for anyone to notice. Maybe, if the thousands who complained about it on Saturday have any actual effect (beyond the anodyne "apology" which somebody dashed off late on Sunday), it will spark a wave of complaints to ITV2, 3 and 4, Virgin 1, Sky 1 to 3 and all the rest. We'll see.
And then the Beeb does it to nuWho and everyone goes wild.
Every so often someone on Making Light or somewhere indignantly refutes the notion that publishers are indifferent to the quality of the content they sell except insofar as it impacts on the profit margin. They point out, and they should know, that not only they themselves, but absolutely everyone they know who works in the business, is fully and whole-heartedly dedicated to finding the best writers they can and bringing their work before the world. Likewise, I'm sure anyone who works for any given television channel would say with their hand on their heart that the sole purpose of their existence is to bring quality programming before the discerning viewer. It's all about the programmes.
And yet...in the past few years, we've seen the encroachment of continuity announcements over the closing credits of every single programme (or sometimes the closing minutes of said programme), the appearance of the station ident in the top left corner (which only gets removed for the adverts), the squeezing of the said credits into a tiny tiny box so as to include adverts for more programmes, often including commercial sponsors' logoes, and the growth of the intrusive banner such as 6.8 million people saw on Saturday. We have also noted that the continuity announcements are frequently miscued, the screen-squeezing is sometimes applied to the programme rather than the credits, and, in short, whoever is running the daily broadcast schedule seems to spend at least some time each day asleep at the switch. It certainly appears that the content of the programmes is to some extent regarded as filler, at best, and at worst an unnecessary intrusion into the process of selling product (or, in the non-commercial channels' case, keeping people hanging on for the next programme). There's indifference in there somewhere.
The weird thing is that it took so long for anyone to notice. Maybe, if the thousands who complained about it on Saturday have any actual effect (beyond the anodyne "apology" which somebody dashed off late on Sunday), it will spark a wave of complaints to ITV2, 3 and 4, Virgin 1, Sky 1 to 3 and all the rest. We'll see.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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'.