Web Ads Work Better Than TV Ads

Fohootville, We Hate You writes "According to a new study, Internet advertisements work better than television advertisements. Internet video watchers were reported to be 47 percent more "engaged" by the advertising they watched than were traditional TV viewers. The report does not mention whether pornographic internet advertisements were included in the study."

Comments

Riddle me this:

[locokamil]

Has anyone here ever intentionally clicked on a banner ad? A text ad? Any ad?

Re:Riddle me this:

[Rude Turnip]

Yes, several times when they offered exactly what I was looking for at exactly the right time. I clicked on a Google text ad this morning looking for custom rubber stamps. The fact that the merchant uses Google's checkout system, designated by the Google Checkout icon...*another ad*....sealed the deal for me.

Re:Riddle me this:

[fyrie]

Yes, usually on genre sites such as movie and video game sites. I don't feel like I need a shower when I click on an ad for the Blade Runner box set for example (something I clicked on).

Re:Riddle me this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah,

Once I figured out that Google only payed per click not per view, I started randomly clicking an add for the sites that I liked to support them. I've also clicked on interesting think geek items.

Re:Riddle me this:

[QuantumG]

Yeah, ya know they actually profile the time people spend at the site when they clickthru and correlate that with advertisers? Ya know that there are penalties for advertisers who click on ads on their own site to fraud revenue? Point being, you're probably doing more harm than good.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Tuqui]

Yes, I click all the MS Ad links here. MS is paying my Linux News.
And by the way "Linux Reference Center by Microsoft" is a improper use of a Registered Mark, isn't it?.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Cal Paterson]

I've clicked on ads when the ads have been extremely well targeted. Must've happened about 5 times maybe.

What you don't realise is that, with google, many people are unable to distinguish from the adverts and the legitimate results. I'm pretty sure google are aware of this, and a lot of adsense ads essentially act as a paid search result.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Slashdot Suxxors]

Goatse link in the parent. Don't click.

Re:Riddle me this:

[weave]

Yes. I bought a car last month based on a banner ad. A Honda Fit. I had never heard of one before, rarely watch TV, and the ad caught my eye. I looked at the page, then dug further and further into the site researching it, then went hunting for reviews and opinions online. After a few days of this I was convinced and went and purchased the car.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Blakey Rat]

Once I saw an ad for a Burger King BBQ sauce burger and I went out and bought one on a whim. It sounded good, and I guess I was hungry. The irony is that I didn't actually click the ad, I just closed the window.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Firethorn]

From what I've read, google is the master of targeted ads. I frequently click on the ads when they come up during google searches - they're usually pretty good. They easily have the best rate going.

As a result, they have far better results than less targeted but more disruptive ads - as a result of TV, people already have a massive resistance to ads they're not really interested in. Add that to the fact that most television ads today are mostly brand awareness - can we really answer how much difference Coke/Pepsi ads make today?

New products make more sense to advertise - awareness hasn't built up yet. Still, I've been deluged with so many ads that I've stopped watching television most of the time, and I've certainly built up resistance to advertising.

Every so often the media companies go too far with advertising - resulting early on in people taping TV shows in order to be able to fast forward through them. Then they came up with auto-forwarding players, and players that would automatically pause recording during commercials.

Then DVRs came and the same features popped up.

On the internet, advertising just kept getting more and more intrusive until a backlash occurred - Firefox, pop-up blockers, various ad-removal services, etc...

Meanwhile google tools along generating ad revenue by concentrating on providing useful, directed, but not intrusive ads.

Re:Riddle me this:

[aussie_a]

Yes, many times.

Have I clicked on slashdot ads? Never deliberately.
Have I clicked on Google ads? Never deliberately.

So which ads have I clicked on deliberately?
* Webcomic site ads for non-webcomic products - although this doesn't happen with any regularity. If its for products I'm interested in (anime, etc), I do so more regularly.
* Webcomic site ads for webcomics - This is where I mainly click on ads and do so fairly regularly.

Want to know how many television ads I'm swayed by? 0%

Re:Riddle me this:

[jellomizer]

Advertising is not Evil. Most of the time there are people with actual goods and services that could be a value to someone. I am fine with Adds just as long as they are under control. A flash banner add is not a big deal.
It is not like the 90's and early 2000's where the adds seriously effected speed of the content, waiting for doubleclick to respond was painful even on high speeds. But lately I rarely ever notice performance issues with adds.
Now adds are not the problem but the Greed of the Web Master. If they want to make a living with a somewhat popular web site they can do so with a tastefully targeted add placed per page much like slashdot, or osnews. But if they are greedy and want to try to make a lot of money they will try to put more and more adds to get the most money from the site.

The Webmaster can fight with the Add agency to keep things at the right level. I found some very open about their dealing with adds, making sure sound adds are not played, and no popups etc... And they just explain to the add company if you don't do this we will switch to an another add company because our users won't stand for this.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to support the goatse movement you insensitive clod...

Re:Riddle me this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, if someone can't read and understand the phrase "Sponsored Link," then fuck 'em. I don't give a shit if they are misled.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Anonymous Coward]

the real question is "why has anybody on slashdot seen a banner ad?"

i haven't seen one in 2 years. thnx privoxy.

Re:Riddle me this:

[sqrt(2)]

Nope. Because I don't see them first of all, and if I did I'd never click anyway. I use adblock plus with an aggressive filter and no whitelist, along with Customizegoogle to remove all adsense and other google text ads such as those in search results. My screen, my choice what gets shown, and all ads are inherently intrusive. Some forms less than others, but they all require your attention to be diverted from what you're really trying to get done, wasting your time in the process.

Re:Riddle me this:

[conureman]

I try to note the sponsors of especially egregious pop-ups in order to avoid purchasing their products.Spam, of course, rates a permanent boycott. I don't recall ever deliberately clicking on an off-site advertisement link. I am not much like a normal consumer however, and they aren't missing me.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Thx for mentioning the Fit. I hadn't seen it either, and now plan to test-drive one. How do you like it? I'm considering the selling of some GOOG to buy a more recent car :)

Re:Riddle me this:

[Arthur Grumbine]

The ads on Tom's Hardware are also very useful and directed, e.g. ads for the latest quad-core when the Tom's article I'm reading is benchmarking that exact proc, and I'm seeing how totally freaking sweet it is. I have those perfectly targeted ads to "blame" for 1/2 of my impulse purchases. And, in some kind of weird self-destructive way, I enjoy having those ads around...

Re:Riddle me this:

[HTH NE1]

I'm waiting for the opportunity to punch the real monkey behind that banner ad.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Propaganda13]

I don't mind most sponsored links, but some companies like Target seem to be default for things they don't carry. I also get annoyed with the link sites and the shopper sites.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hideous car! Jesus what a DOG of a car. Could it be ANY uglier? Holy Fucking Shit.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Raideen]

Has anyone here ever intentionally clicked on a banner ad? A text ad? Any ad?

I will sometimes see an ad for which I think that the advertiser should pay a stupidity/greed tax. In those cases, I will click on them. (I've never clicked-through and actually bought anything). With Google, it's click-throughs so it still counts. It's how I help Google sponsor the Summer of Code and to help sustain my favorite web sites.

Re:Riddle me this:

[that this is not und]

I only right-click on ads. To tell Seamonkey to never again load an image from that server. I guess in a way it's click-through.

I haven't seen a Slashdot ad in months.

Re:Riddle me this:

[s-orbital]

Yeah, the same happened to me, except it was a Wendy's ad in the Facebook news feed, except it backfired, since the grill/brewpub is closer than any Wendy's, and has really good burgers.

Re:Riddle me this:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Has anyone here ever intentionally clicked on a banner ad? A text ad? Any ad?"

Think Geek.

That's besides the point, though, you don't necessarily need to click for the ad to be effective. Before I had ever clicked on an Think Geek ad, I had remembered their name from their countless banners on Slashdot. When I had a lil spending money I wandered over there. Without the ad, I'd never have been their customer.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Brian Gordon]

You buy things through banner ads?! About as reputable as infomercials. Just go to a trusted merchant (amazon, buy.com, etc) and search for Blade Runner. Why on earth would you risk a new merchant when a trusted merchant is offering the same item?

Re:Riddle me this:

[arivanov]

Depends which ads. I usually search for parts, components, gadgets using google. If I am looking to buy something, I often treat the ads like yet another search result and I go through them. If we throw out the odd "on-duty" E-bay and Amazon add Google ad targeting is usually nearly perfect. In some cases the results in the ad panel are actually even better than the search results. Example - search google.co.uk for shower tray or shower door.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Anonymous Coward]

I frequently google just to see the ads. I'm just looking for somebody to sell me a product and the regular search results don't always or even usually include online vendors.

I open three to five vendors in different tabs and compare the prices. After making up my mind, I google the chosen vendor separately in case people have posted complaints about them.

I have never paid conscious attention to other forms of online advertisement.

Re:Riddle me this:

[brown-eyed slug]

If you ever start your own business, I hope for your sake that your potential customers don't all share the same view!

The simple reason for risking a new merchant is that their price and/or service may be better.

Of course, the more you're going to spend the more care you should be taking, and then a bit of research about the company may help. A new merchant may not have a lot of glowing reviews scattered around the web, but if they're ripping people off you can be fairly sure people will be writing about it.

Re:Riddle me this:

[andersbergh]

Wtf, you're saying Flash banner ads are ok? I don't think I've ever seen an "ok" Flash ad. They all want to play sounds, and Flash is an inefficient piece of shit that uses a lot of resources. Thank you FlashBlock for existing.

Re:Riddle me this:

[jellomizer]

Um I am looking at one right now that is not playing anything. I just checked the system requirements for adds and stuff a computer that is 8 years old can still play flash adds. (And still run other things as well). if you really want to hit performance lets do it like in the old days before near every OS can run flash of some version. Animated GIFs yea thats efficient lets download every pixel for each frame, To speed up the download except for smooth transitions we get blinking colors. Now that is inefficient. And the real Question what the heck are you doing on your computer with your webbrowser open when you need every last bit of RAM and CPU Cycle where flash is too much... Really Right now I am running an update on Vista in a virtual system that is talking half my RAM and CPU and I am still at 40% utilization. That is with the flash player open.
We get so caught up in creating these uber fast computers and are so panicky about system performance, and when you check them most of the time they are idle. Heck if my computer is going to be idle most of the time I would rather use it to at least make some nice graphics or adds that are not making me blind, and some of them are kinda fun to play with too.

Re:Riddle me this:

[jridley]

Hey, at least it's not the same as every other damn car out there. You can hardly tell most cars apart anymore.

Re:Riddle me this:

[jridley]

It's "ad" not "add". "add" is a mathematical operation.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Poromenos1]

About that, I've been wondering how players detect ads. I can't think of a good heuristic way to do it, does anyone know how it works?

Re:Riddle me this:

[Mutant321]

What a lot of people on Slashdot fail to realise is that online advertising is a *massive* industry. Even if you account for click fraud (or even people who just click accidentally or randomly), there are obviously a *lot* of people who see and ad online, click on it, fill out whatever forms, and end up *buying* something. Unlike traditional advertising, companies can track all this easily so they know their advertising is worthwhile.

Just because you ignore adverts, use AdBlock, etc. doesn't mean the rest of the world does. And clearly they don't - just look at some of the figures.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Cro Magnon]

Yup! And it's the wrong one. Where ads are concerned, I'd rather subtract.

Re:Riddle me this:

[stewbacca]

Advertising is not Evil. Most of the time there are people with actual goods and services that could be a value to someone. I am fine with Adds just as long as they are under control. A flash banner add is not a big deal.

I guess you aren't, but I'm offended by most ads because they are like bad movies; they are an insult to my (and everyone else's) intelligence and a waste of my time. For you to apologize for them makes me question the validity of your argument, frankly. Oh yeah, and it's "Ad", not "Add".

Having lived in the UK and Germany, the first thing I noticed was the relative lack of intellect-insulting advertisements (although the UK is catching up rapidly). How is it that societies like Germany and England can thrive and be competitive on the world market, without a ridiculously out-of-control, assault-the-consumer-with-ads mentality? I think the US would realize that people would still watch tv shows, still go to sporting events and still buy Tide with Bleach if all the ads just went away.

Ads will always pander to the bottom half of the bell-curve, because those are the same idiots who will actually buy the stuff (which is the point of the ad in the first place). The tricky part for advertisers is to trick enough suckers while offending the least amount of intelligent people as possible. I'm all for just making a damned good product, then throwing some ads out there to put your product in the public light, but no, that's not good enough for most companies, because if they are heavily advertised, they most likely are trying to compensate for some shortcoming.

Re:Riddle me this:

[stewbacca]

If a web ad were well designed, we wouldn't be able to answer your question, because we wouldn't be aware we had clicked on an ad in the first place.

Re:Riddle me this:

[stewbacca]

If google is so good, then why do I keep getting ads for University of Phoenix, when I've already graduated from the University of Phoenix?

Re:Riddle me this:

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Once I figured out that Google only payed per click not per view, I started randomly clicking an add for the sites that I liked to support them. I've also clicked on interesting think geek items.

If you click on an ad for a website you liked, you just charged them money. They pay to serve you the ad, and when you click on it, because they are the advertisers.

On the other hand, if you click on the ads at a website you liked, then they generate money.

Think of the sites like TV stations. You wouldn't watch ads for Fox on ABC to support Fox, because ad revenue is based on viewers. You would watch ads for whatever on Fox.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Actually, I do RTFA]

If he posts on Slashdot, there is a good chance he doesn't allow 3rd party cookies or even referer-logging. So other than IP address, how would they know?

Re:Riddle me this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. I bought a car last month based on astroturfing. A Honda Fit. I had never heard of one before, rarely watch TV, and the apparently spontaneous consumer comment caught my eye. I looked up the page, then dug further and further into the site researching it, then went hunting for reviews and opinions online. After a few days of this I was convinced and went and purchased the car.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Firethorn]

Many of the early ones, at least, used the sound level as a clue - Most television stations turned the volume up on commercials.

I'm not 100% sure how this worked, but apparently it's like the volume difference between commercial FM stations and PBS broadcasts. I generally have to give the volume knob a half turn up in my car when I switch to the public station. This 'turn up' was detectable even when no sound was present, and overwhelmed even loud segments of most movies.

They've gotten sneakier since then, but there was a time when many people grabbed for the remote to turn the volume down when ads came on.

Re:Riddle me this:

[AusIV]

I agree (except for your spelling of 'ads'). There have been several occasions that I've purchased/used something based on a Google advertisements. Off the top of my head, I bought an IR receiver for my MythTV box after sending my dad an e-mail about homebrew IR receivers, and I found the wireless card in my desktop based on an ad after searching for linux compatible wireless cards. Now, if anyone thinks they're selling me something I'm not already looking for they're an idiot, but ads have helped me narrow down a search on a few occasions.

Now, if an ad is obnoxious (flashing, sound) or slows down the page load noticeably, its entire subdomain gets adblocked. But if an ad is subtle, reaching out only to people who are looking for the product, I don't block it because I might find something interesting from that advertiser at a later time.

Re:Riddle me this:

[jimbojw]

Advertising is not Evil.

Sorry, you lost me there :/

Re:Riddle me this:

[zenpickle]

Yes if they are targeted to something I have interest in. Google ads are often valuable because can directly relate to my search If I am searching for things to buy.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Firethorn]

Maybe they're hoping to have you back for an undergraduate degree? Or perhaps continuing education? ;)

Seriously, that they're the best of the lot doesn't mean that they don't have misses. UoP ads are probably more directed for you than serving up ads for feminine products, joint pain, or for various medical issues I don't suffer from. I mean, you'd think that erectile dysfunction is a national crisis from the advertising I've seen on the tube(when I bother to turn it on).

At least for search page results, if I don't like the ad I skip over it and go to the next one. No middle of the screen bothering, no blinking or animated 'punch the monkey' ads that caused me to uninstall flash for so long, no random redirects to full page ads that I've been seeing lately.

By not bugging people, you don't piss them off so that they won't buy the products, but by being targeted you keep your click-through rate high and useful.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Anonymous Coward]

The McDonalds "I'd hit it" banner ads convinced me to buy more burgers.

Re:Riddle me this:

[fyrie]

I never said I buy through banner ads. In the previous example, it usually is just an ad leading to the studios page for the dvd, or the gaming studios page for the game. These ads are intended to inform you about a product so you can go buy them at amazon or wherever.

Re:Riddle me this:

[It'sYerMam]

I use google text ads if I'm looking to buy something. I don't click on them otherwise, though.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they profile. But how do they monitor time spent at the website? HTTP is stateless so once the page is downloaded the connection is closed, so the viewer could spend 20 minutes looking at the page then close it or close it straight away and the webserver wouldn't know any difference.

Re:Riddle me this:

[andersbergh]

I never said I needed every last bit of the "horsepower". But I use laptops. When they start to do things, the fans begin to spin, the thing heats up, etc. Especially so with a stupid flash banner in some firefox tab that I don't care about anyway... And I have no idea what you mean about .gifs, I think they're ok. They don't play stupid sounds, they don't use 10+% CPU, etc.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Anonymous Coward]

The station don't actually turn the sound levels up. The ads usually have compressed dynamic range.

Re:Riddle me this:

[toddestan]

Honestly, it looks pretty much like the Chevy Aveo, Kia Spectra, Nissan Vectra, and a bit like the Mazda5. None of those cars are particularly good looking (IMHO), but the Mazda is by far the ugliest. Not that I'm bashing the Fit - if I had to buy a new car tomorrow it would be high on the list of canidates.

Re:Riddle me this:

[rtb61]

Now that is just plain wrong. What you should have said is the reason you would risk a new merchant is because of the add, it made you do it, it 'engaged' you, it was entrancing and mesmerised you. You must look at it, you must buy, you must buy it now, even if you don't need it or ever thought you needed it ;).

Google add words are targeted at sellers not buyers. I got sick of the low end merchants, interstate/overseas merchants that it always seemed to spew up and used http://noscript.net/ to permanently kill the google anal-ytics script (not to forget doubleclick).

Re:Riddle me this:

[QuantumG]

Have a look at your google analytics cookies. They include how long you spend on a page, thanks to javascript. Next time you go to any page that has google analytics on it you send up those cookies.

Re:Riddle me this:

[zummit]

Yes. I sometimes click on ads when I visit sites I like and want to support ($).

Re:Riddle me this:

[Geminii]

Advertising is not Evil

I don't mind pull-advertising. It's the oceans of push-advertising diverting my attention, my bandwidth and my temper which piss me off.

Ask yourself this: If advertising were truly, effortlessly optional - as in, there was a Big Red Switch (or equivalent) on people's TVs, computers, DVDs, movie experiences, newspapers, magazines, radio, line of sight to any commercial flat surface etc, labelled ADVERTISING ON and ADVERTISING OFF, which do you think people would set it to?

If it came pre-set to ADVERTISING OFF by default, who would switch it on? The gawkers, the terminally bored, shopoholics, and the advertising industry itself. No-one else wants to be subjected to an endless firehose of utterly irrelevant spruiking.

To be honest, pull advertising isn't great either. If I want to buy something of a certain type, I want genuine reviews, comparisons and pros/cons created by end-users, not by anyone associated with the product or its marketing.

But Oh, some say, without advertising you'd never know about New Magic Wonder Sparkle, the toothpaste icecream floorwax tax accountant!

To which I say: Should I ever have a need for that kind of product or service, I will do my research at that time. Until then, I wish to remain blissfully ignorant of the existence of any given product. And yes, I will know about the existence of the products or industries in general, because I read the news, I talk to people, I watch TV and read web articles where these industries and product *categories* are mentioned. I don't need to know about the ZAPPO '08 raingutter demagnitizer, all I need to know is that guttering products exist in the world, should I ever feel a need for one.

And that's something that advertising doesn't do half as well as the thousand other information channels people have access to.

Advertising is predominently annoying, irritating and distracting in the same way as a diseased poodle continually tugging on your socks. It is utterly unnecessary 99.99% of the time, and the other 0.01% is worse at what it does than almost any other of the multitudinous alternative options.

Not banner ads, you idiots

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The ads they are talking about are ads run inline in the video, not the crap surrounding the video frame.

Re:Not banner ads, you idiots

[ShieldW0lf]

I fucking hate those things. Instant, permanent goodbye to the site that I see them on.

Advertising makes me think of men in suits being burnt at the stake.

Re:Not banner ads, you idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

And I absolutely hate them. I rarely even visit pages where such things are found, but when I have to see an ad before I can view the video I am trying to watch, it's a reason for me to exit that site immediately and look for the video somewhere else.
They are way more annoying than TV ads, because if I have to watch a 30 second ad before being able to see that funny 20 second clip of a cat doing something hilarious, I get mad.
And they haven't worked on me yet. TV ads managed to do that sometimes.

Re:Not banner ads, you idiots

[Jarik_Tentsu]

Ads do more than the immediate effect of someone buying the specific product or clicking on the specific link. It let's you know that what alternative you currently own is *obselete* or at least, there's better things out there.

Even if you don't go right now and buy that particular product, in a couple of years, chances are you'll feel whatever you have is getting old and want to upgrade.

~Jarik

Re:Not banner ads, you idiots

[stewbacca]

ads are ads are ads are ads. They are all unwelcomed, unless I'm actively seeking them. But yeah, I'm an idiot.

That's because

[koan]

That's because TV isn't interactive, I remember a study done once that measured the brain activity of a TV viewer and it actually declined, the internet *at a minimum* requires that you be involved.
Your brain is in an awake state (well most of us) unlike a TV viewer.

And no, constantly pushing the channel buttons is not interaction.

Re:That's because

[hedwards]

It is actually true that the human brain is more active while sleeping than when watching TV. The other thing is that TV commercials are rarely of any interest to the people watching TV. Usually they are for products or services which don't appeal to a particular viewer. Ads on videos like that are far easier to target to the viewer than the ones on TV, radio or in newspapers.

Additionally, if I can click on an ad and actually find out more information, I'm much more likely to pay attention to it than the same tired Mastercard commercial. For the most part, even the most amusing commercials cease to be interesting after 3 or 4 views.

Re:That's because

[QuantumG]

One should mention that most of you are talking about american television, which is almost 50% ads and boring ads at that. Other parts of the world have much more interesting television (and ads).

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet video is hardly more interactive than changing channels.

Re:That's because

[Brickwall]

Oh, pooh. The FCC limits advertising on TV to 16 minutes per hour, or a little more than 25%, certainly not 50%. And some ads are fantastic; the US advertising agencies spend enough money on them.

What bugs me is when the same frickin' ad is played twice in one commercial break or four times during a single show. As amusing it might be the first time, by the time I've seen it four times in an hour, I'm never buying the product, no matter how much I might be able to use it, because I'm so annoyed.

Re:That's because

[QuantumG]

Yeah, turn on your tv and get out your stopwatch.. hint: the time between shows is not regulated. In any case, the reason why they are playing the same ad twice in a single ad break has nothing to do with advertising strategy, it has to do with the ever reducing number of advertisers. There is simply too many channels with too small a chunk of the audience to warrant the prices demanded for television advertising.

Re:That's because

[Baricom]

The FCC limits advertising on TV to 16 minutes per hour Please cite your source. I found nothing to corroborate this and a FCC document that directly contradicts you.

Re:That's because

[Jeff DeMaagd]

And no, constantly pushing the channel buttons is not interaction.

Clicking mouse buttons is somehow on a whole different level?

Re:That's because

[vanDee28]

You need to see where en what you click as opposed to just pressing a button and vaguely aiming at the tv

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

"We think basically you watch television to turn your brain off, and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on."

-- Steve Jobs, "MacWorld", February 2004

Re:That's because

[hkmarks]

Looks like an assumption based on the fact that with all the ads cut out, most hour-long programs are about 44 minutes and rarely less. But that includes things that aren't really ads, like station identification, or news updates.

I thought it was based on some sort of rule, but I guess not.

Re:That's because

[absoluteflatness]

Of course, news updates are ads themselves, it's just that they're advertising the local news broadcast. Most things masquerading as "updates" contain no information except some kind of teaser, and more major news tends to lead to a break in programming altogether.

Station identification, while indeed required by the FCC, is essentially always worked in to some other aspect of the broadcast, such as the aforementioned news ads, other promos for the station, or simply superimposed on the screen at some point.

The 44 minute "rule" is most likely an act of self-preservation by the networks. Any significant increase in ad time could easily be offset by loss of viewers. Exceptions include sports like football, where "official timeouts" are inserted in every break of the action to allow for full commercial breaks, and other special cases like that new "Duel" game show on ABC. The first episode of that show felt like it was veering dangerously close to 50% commercials, not to mention all the time wasted away during the show itself.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

Your brain is in an awake state (well most of us) unlike a TV viewer.

Awake? ...you forgot to mention the huge majority who are in a totally aroused state!

Re:That's because

[BryanL]

Case in point: infomercials.

Re:That's because

[nospam007]

Oh, pooh. The FCC limits advertising on TV to 16 minutes per hour, or a little more than 25%, certainly not 50%. And some ads are fantastic; the US advertising agencies spend enough money on them.
__
In Europe they have nekkid ladies, titts and asses in the ads, as you know, sex sells.

Unsurprising, really

[NovaX81]

I know with most of the people I associate with, commercials are just a time to go get something done during a show, or talk about things while there's no content playing. No one's really paying attention to the ads.

On the reverse angle, internet ads are streamlined into the content more often than not. Plus, with systems like AdSense at work, the ads are related to the page you're looking at (which is most likely something you're interested in), whereas while the ads on TV have a targeted audience, they aren't exactly 'user specific'.

Re:Unsurprising, really

[SerpentMage]

I completely agree with you. I also have learned to completely tune out ads. It really is a bizarre acquired trait. I could watch a show and if somebody asked what commercials were playing I would be pretty much clueless. But like you, you do things during the ads.

You could argue that I am clueless, but I have found when news breaks, or upcoming programs are talked about my brain reacts on a dime. I guess it is like a sleeping dog or cat. They don't ever really sleep, just close their eyes and rest until something of importance happens.

I think if they actually did less ads with a higher quality they would be better off.

Funny I ignore both equally

[edwardpickman]

If I take notice of an ad it's because it's obnoxious and I want to avoid the product they are advertising. A perfect example is Head On. I'd let my head explode before I used any of their products. If you've missed these little gems flip on CNN they run every few minutes and some times several times in a row. I generally hit the mute button during commercials. Flashing and animated web ads are the worst for me. One of my favorite sites years ago got so obsessed with flashing ads I couldn't read the stories I was logging on for. I started sticking post-its around the side of the pages until I realized this was nuts and deleted the bookmark. I seriously question the effectiveness of obnoxious adverising since I know personally I avoid companies that use it. It may be a numbers game where they come out a few points ahead but I've stopped using products and services that I had used for years because of the over the top ads. They may see a benfit but there has to be a better way than driving away some customers.

Re:Funny I ignore both equally

[Neil Jansen]

Flashing and animated web ads are the worst for me. One of my favorite sites years ago got so obsessed with flashing ads I couldn't read the stories I was logging on for. Protip: When you come across a site with annoying flashing ads, press the escape key. At least in Firefox, this will stop any/all animated GIFs on the page.

I also recommend NoScript for getting rid of Java/Javascript ads and script-based tracking tools. AdBlock is another nice tool that could be helpful.

Re:Funny I ignore both equally

[that this is not und]

I just have Seamonkey configured to not animate gifs at all. It's right there in the options. You can set it to cycle the gifs some specified number of times or not at all. The gif just stays frozen at the first frame. If it loads at all, of course, because right-click to block all images can quickly kill all images from the ad servers on sites you visit.

Not having Macromedia flash installed is also helpful. There isn't even a native binary for the machine I browse the web on.

Re:Funny I ignore both equally

[roguetrick]

I hear Head On is homeopathic anyway, so just stick your head under the faucet for the exploding head. You'll get the same result.

Re:Funny I ignore both equally

[justthinkit]

Protip: When you come across a site with annoying flashing ads, press the escape key. At least in Firefox, this will stop any/all animated GIFs on the page.

This was a pro tip five years ago. Today almost all advertising/annoying/blinking stuff is flash-based.

I also recommend NoScript for getting rid of Java/Javascript ads and script-based tracking tools. AdBlock is another nice tool that could be helpful.

While you are at it, download an updates HOSTS file, to truly block ads at their source.

Feeling engaged?

[Futselaar]

maybe I don't quite get marketing, but I would prefer not to measure the success of advertising in terms of 'feeling engaged', but rather in terms of 'units sold'.

Re:Feeling engaged?

[tonsofpcs]

Engaging viewers is great for brand marketing, the goal there being to get the branding (name) known, not necessarily the product or service. A big example of brand marketing is mMode/mLife in the 2002 Super Bowl

Re:Feeling engaged?

[stewbacca]

mMode/mLife

Who? What? Looks like they failed at brand marketing. Now if you were to have said, "just look at the last 35 years of Budweiser ads", that would be crystal clear.

Video, yes. Images, no.

[Fastball]

Web ad videos are more "engaging," because video player controls are usually disabled for the ad before the actual content you want to see is delivered. Naturally, with TV, the advertiser doesn't can't disable your remote.

As a consequence, there's almost no video I'll click anymore unless I know for certain it's ad-free. Still, I'm sure most folks just gut it out and let the ad play so they can see the content that follows (maybe open a new browser tab, etc.). So in a way, it's "engaging," but I'd be curious to see what percentage of folks abort and move on without seeing the content.

If I had video content online that I'd want people to see, I'd be leary of prepending a ad video that folks couldn't skip.

Re:Video, yes. Images, no.

[LoverOfJoy]

Web ad videos are more "engaging," because video player controls are usually disabled for the ad before the actual content you want to see is delivered. Naturally, with TV, the advertiser doesn't can't disable your remote.

You must be using a browser without tabs. I "change channels" all the time in opera when I'm avoiding the ad before the content.

Re:Video, yes. Images, no.

[evilviper]

Web ad videos are more "engaging," because video player controls are usually disabled for the ad before the actual content you want to see is delivered.

Only with Flash can they "disable" the "player controls". Avoid Flash, and you can fast-forward through any video if it's technically possible to seek, and sometimes, even if it's not (ie. cache)!

Engaged?

[davidsyes]

"The report does not mention whether pornographic internet advertisements were included in the study."

I'd say if it was porn, the subjects could have been involved in:

- Digital More-ass
- Quantum slipstream
- Black holes
- add-vert-tize mints
- Quad-drastic wormhole

with a combination of weak and strong forces bonding and binding the at-tension...

Re:Engaged?

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful there, or you'll start sounding like that "yOUR" tract guy.

Web ads work?

[PolarBearFire]

Anybody ever deliberately follow ad links? The only times I ever click on them is by mistake.

These type of "studies" are mostly to convince companies to shell out money for more internet advertizing. There's no real feasable way compare the effectiveness of TV and internet advertizing. As for people that are more "engaged" to online advertizing, maybe the real reason they are so engaged is because they are trying to find the (X)that's often camouflaged in the ad or the mute button in annoying video ads.

Re:Web ads work?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The only times I ever click on them is by mistake.

Yeah, I hate when they make the last thumbnail a link to the pay site.

What about ad-blocked ads

[Secrity]

TFA didn't mention if ad blocking was taken into account.

Re:What about ad-blocked ads

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Why can't ad blocking be made sufficiently intelligent to skip over in-line ads?

Do these exist?

you're the Jew

No, I'm not.

At least 100% better for me.

[headkase]

I actually stopped watching TV a few years ago, sure I watch the very occasional program but usually I don't watch anything at all. I average less than an hour a week watching tv and when I do it's turning on the news for 10 minutes every three or four days. I believe that I'm actually more fully engaged with the Internet and gaming as they are active forms of entertainment and having made the transition to them, well, I really don't even miss tv all that much.

no porn?

[jollyreaper]

47 percent more "engaged" by the advertising they watched than were traditional TV viewers. The report does not mention whether pornographic internet advertisements were included in the study." If they did include porn, I think that would read "47 percent more 'engorged'".

Regardless, the TV ads these days are rubbish, bad ads and too many of them. From the family gathering this year, I can see that everyone has finally made it over to my side of the argument which is slightly more radical than Bill Hicks. Even my mom is sick of it and this is someone who likes advertising, who responds positively to "cute" commercials. When they lost her support, they lost everyone.

I download everything I want to watch. When I am exposed to commercials, I feel zero sense of persuasion, just a growing, burning anger that can only be quenched by dick-stomping the next advertising exec I meet. They are ruining our culture and our lives.

Re:no porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

I download everything I want to watch. When I am exposed to commercials, I feel zero sense of persuasion, just a growing, burning anger that can only be quenched by dick-stomping the next advertising exec I meet. They are ruining our culture and our lives. Ad execs (and by extenion ads) are ruining our culture and our lives? I suppose the ads do make Celebrity Dog School a little more low brow...

Here's why I don't mind the ads in net videos

[Rude Turnip]

I'm referring specifically to video podcasts that I can download for free through iTunes, Miro, etc. First of all, most of the videos are in plain, standard MP4/H.264 that I can stream to my Xbox 360 or Apple TV...that means I can fast-forward if I choose. Second, a lot of the ads are voiced by the hosts of the shows I watch (Diggnation, Web Drifter, just about anything from Revision3), so they feel a little more personal.

Overall, the ads are for something you might actually be interested in since a lot of the shows are very tightly focused. The fact that the hosts voice the ads helps you draw the connection that these ads are paying for the shows.

That said, I would never touch any of the flash-based web videos offered by ABC, NBC, etc. Too "corporate" and impersonal. If I can't stream it to my TV, it does not get watched.

Re:Here's why I don't mind the ads in net videos

[stewbacca]

I am skeptical of the "corporate" web episodes experience too, but am very pleased with the ABC one. The HD shows are very good (after they spool up enough to be clear). The NBC one, however, is trash. What an awful-awful-awful player. And the double kick in the nuts is that they pulled their content from iTunes. At least on iTunes I could purchase The Office and watch it at my leisure WITHOUT "brief commercial interruptions". The web version is so choppy and pixelated at times that it is unwatchable.

Hang on

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to say that there is porn on the Internet?

Re:Hang on

[BryanL]

I know. They needed to provide links in the OP.

Captain Obvious

[Dachannien]

Obviously, the one defining difference between normal TV and web-based TV is the remote control, and the ease with which you can change the channel. Commercial comes on? Flip flip flip flip flip. You get to ignore commercials, zone out, and satisfy your OCD all at once. Eventually, your show comes back on, and you flip back.

There's no channel to change with web-based TV shows. Sure, you can alt-tab to another browser window, but once the ad is done, you'd have to task-switch your brain back away from whatever it was you were doing to distract yourself from the ad. It just doesn't have the same feel-good feeling of repeatedly pounding a dinky little worn-down button on the remote.

On a side note, could overlay ads on TV possibly get more annoying? Sometimes they take up 50% of the screen and include loud obtrusive noises. Fox and TBS are especially annoying in this respect. What happened to the good old days, before Spike became Spike, when they'd just take a tiny strip of the screen at the bottom and tell you what was going to be on next? Do people really watch more Sex and the City just because they plaster Sarah Jessica Parker's old and tired face on top of whatever it is you're actually trying to watch?

Re:Captain Obvious

[TheSpatulaOfLove]

I agree whole-heartedly about the banners on the bottom half of TV shows now a days. It's absolutely awful and reminds me of pr0n pop-ups when you mistype a URL. I guess it's par for the course for networks like Fox, which built their entire empire on trash tv.

Another thing that drives me nuts is when they play the same commercial six times during a half hour show. I don't mind watching some advertisements, and well, there is some entertainment value in good ads, but watching it over and over again really is annoying.

I'm seriously off topic here, but I think that advertising has become a game of dirty pool in the last ten years, with every medium racing to the bottom. The problem is only getting bigger - thank goodness I can reduce my intake of this with my DVR, and in the case of web, my proxy server and browser tools...

Re:Captain Obvious

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Commercial comes on? Flip flip flip flip flip. You get to ignore commercials, zone out, and satisfy your OCD all at once."

a.) Commercials are syncrhonized across nearly all channels.

b.) I doubt this is all that handy for those of us using Digital services with 500 channels and a pause between each channel change.

"Sure, you can alt-tab to another browser window, but once the ad is done, you'd have to task-switch your brain back away from whatever it was you were doing to distract yourself from the ad."

Heh. Well that's easy, just make a comment on Slashdot. It's like an automatic transmission for your brain!

Re:Captain Obvious

[evilviper]

What happened to the good old days, before Spike became Spike, when they'd just take a tiny strip of the screen at the bottom and tell you what was going to be on next?

I hope you aren't blaming Spike for pop-ups. They originated with AOL-Time Warner (pop-ups are one of the wonderful things that merger brought consumers), and got their first use on the USA and TNT networks.

And no, I don't like the smaller pop-ups telling me what's going to be on next. I can find out extremely easily on my own, and if they really cared, they could put it with the OTHER 4 commercials during EVERY SINGLE BREAK telling me what other shows and movies that I can't stand are shown on that network. The large, commonly animated, station logos need to go away, too.

Do people really watch more Sex and the City just because they plaster Sarah Jessica Parker's old and tired face on top of whatever it is you're actually trying to watch?

Not likely. But I am sure there are plenty of people who won't watch ANYTHING on that network anymore, because they can't follow the shows that they DO want to watch, in-between the ads.

I predict, with the switch to HDTV (and the opportunities for several sub-channels), that basic cable is going to die off. They no longer get a substantial portion of their revenue from cable subscriptions, and I'm sure everyone would be much happier if they could get their ~20 favorite channels OTA without paying $50+ per month.

Re:Captain Obvious

[justthinkit]

Commercials are syncrhonized across nearly all channels.

This is the advantage of switching to a sports channels -- e.g. baseball breaks between innings, not by the clock. Football on change of possession. Tennis, every 2 games. Basketball -- well, heh, who really watches basketball? Seen one dunk, seen 'em all.

Re:Captain Obvious

[Dachannien]

I hope you aren't blaming Spike for pop-ups. No, but I remember (almost with nostalgia, at least in comparison to the crap they plaster all over our shows now) when TNN (i.e., before Spike became Spike) would run a tiny little text-height bar at the bottom of the screen for a few seconds during the daily TNG marathons indicating that yet another episode of TNG would be on next. I don't get why that's not enough, unless the networks want to piss off their viewers.

difference in ability

[themushroom]

Can you hit Mute on the computer, walk to the fridge during an online ad, or fast-forward through a streaming ad? Not usually.

Do not mistake this as "more effective". Accurately this "less avoidable" than TV ads.

Re:difference in ability

[Raideen]

Can you hit Mute on the computer (yes) walk to the fridge during an online ad (yes, if I were The Flash) or fast-forward through a streaming ad (there's usually a way)?

The thing about ads mixed in with video is that so far, avoiding them usually isn't worth it (at least on the sites that I've seen). A 10-15 second commercial isn't long enough to raid the fridge. I've also seen some sites that don't let you pause during the commercial which means that you have to pause the video somewhere before or after the commercial if you want a longer break (which is stupid, since you're forced to watch the full length of the commercial anyway). I'm sure that they'll realize that short commercial breaks are too effective and we'll soon get back our regular bathroom break/fridge raid timed set of commercials.

Cover the screen

[piltdownman84]

I can relate to the post it notes on the screen. I have made for my tv two special paper cutout to cover the "ticker" and the space where scores pop up without notice. I watch alot of sports and I don't want to know other scores. I've never understood why so many stations will flash the score on screen without notice of a game they themselves are timeshifting directly after the current one.

erp?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Has anyone here ever intentionally clicked on a banner ad? A text ad? Any ad?

What are these "ads" to which you refer?

Web Ads are Contextual and Voluntary

[Phoenix666]

A web ad for a tech product or service that's served up on slashdot or thinkgeek is more likely to be something I'd be interested in than, say, anything sports or feminine hygiene related. So it's rather contextual a priori. 99% of the ads you see on TV are totally irrelevant and therefore irritating. Geico ads? No thanks, we take the subway.

Google's AdSense is helping push advertising from something that irritates the hell out of people to something that might be somewhat useful, in that the ads are even more relevant than from just general context.

The second, albeit weaker, argument for why web ads are more effective than TV ads is that they are more voluntary and less obtrusive yet there for people to click on if they're interested. So those who don't care about whatever it is pretty much just ignore it, and those it connects with can click through for more information and/or purchase.

I loathe every form of TV/Radio/Movie/Out-of-Home/Print advertising and actively resolve not to do business with those who use those media to steal my time and interrupt what I'm doing; yet with web ads I have found myself actually hitting the Back button to return to a page that had an ad which seemed interesting. It feels weird to say anything positive about any advertisement, but there you are.

Re:Web Ads are Contextual and Voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

Adsense ads (and online ads in general, but Adsense ads are the majority of ads present on the web) are even more annoying because they make an assumption I meet some targeted criteria just because they served the ad. At least with NTSC analog TV ads, there is no such tracking assumption just because they showed a certain TV commercial.

In the case of a discussion board, I'm reading the discussions, not the ads. If on occasion they advertise something way off such as cooking utensils in an automotive discussion group, it shows that the Adsense is basically looking for popular keywords on the current page that is displayed or within the discussions linked on that page... and some keyword tricked Adsense into displaying cooking utensil ads rather than on-topic automotive ads.

In the extremely rare occasion that I see something in an ad that may interest me (such as a new technology product), I note the URL in the ad and then type the URL into a separate browser window, thus denying the advertiser and advertising host their precious pay-per-click clickthrough.

Re:Ads, admen, and the destruction of the US

[Anonymous Coward]

How muscular is your buttocks?

Engagement

[Triv]

"Engagement" was in quotes in the summary, and rightly so - it's an advertising metric. Think of it this way:

Nielsen numbers ideally measure how many people are watching a given television show based on a percentage of a demographically relevant sample, but they don't measure how much attention people are paying, so TV on in the background when a person is preparing dinner is weighted the same as someone who's involved in the show.

Engagement, usually through things like questionaires based on show content, measures how much attention people are actually paying.

Engagement is a Big Deal, big enough so that many TV networks have started factoring Engagement numbers into their formula for determining how much blocks of advertising are worth in any given show.

--Triv

Re:Engagement

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Engagement" was in quotes in the summary, and rightly so - it's an advertising metric.

Submitter here. Actually, I put it in quotes just because I didn't know what it meant and I wanted to spice up some dull news with a porn joke.

Glad to know I did something right, though :)

Re:Engagement

[Triv]

Actually, I put it in quotes just because I didn't know what it meant and I wanted to spice up some dull news with a porn joke.

Proof positive that everything pornographic is relevant in some fashion to somebody. Hell, I've known that for years.

Especially technophobes and the visually impared

[Almahtar]

I've been stunned by how often I'll be leading an older person around,trying to teach them how to find answers for themselves, and they can't tell the difference between the adsense ads and the normal results. I can't for the life of me figure out why, but it seems like they're so afraid of computers that they just don't bother applying common sense.

It's like they've been so acclimated to computers speaking tech babble ("Illegal operation at 0x00ff0e9a") that they don't realize that some things (like web pages) are written in plain English (or whatever your native language is).

can I then have a TV again? (was: Riddle me this:)

[lanc]

Haven't got a TV now for around 7 years - it annoyed me more than it added to my life, partly because of advertisements. Probably would then (I guess in 200 years or so) it possible to watch TV again? Shows that make sense? Just a simple, mass-controlling media again with films sometimes and stuff?

what-ography?

[dwater]

..."pornographic internet advertisements"

I read that as 'phonographic internet advertisements'.

I'm so embarrassed.

Of course

[jandersen]

The difference is in relevance. Most TV ads are irrelevant to most people - unless you have children in the right age group, you won't care much about a Pampers advert, and on tv you can't search for things, you just see what happens to pass by. On the web you will be looking for things, mostly, and therefore there is a bigger chance that the adverts are relevant - and that you are motivated to take an interest.

Go FIT Go.

[SPQR_Julian]

I bought mine back in July after going in to test drive a Civic. Liked the Fit a hell of a lot more. Ridiculously roomy inside and I was hitting 40 mpg while doing 85 on the freeway.
Just make sure you spring for the Sport edition. The slightly larger rims and spoiler aren't that big a deal, but the upgraded sound system includes little tweeters up front. For me, that was a really nice touch.

Re:Go FIT Go.

[Chosen Reject]

I bought a fit about 5 months ago. I was on a waiting list for about a month for it. Called places in Denver, Las Vegas, and Salt Lake to see if I could get it earlier. Those are nice cars. But yes, the sport is the one to get. My wife and I wanted it (the sport) just for the cruise control alone.

Not on me, they don't

[PingXao]

Because I don't see them. Whether that's because I frequent sites without a lot of advertising or because I use adblock with Firefox, I don't know and, frankly, I don't care. My web surfing experience is not affected one way or another by ads or the lack thereof.

'47 percent more "engaged" by the advertising'...

[NotQuiteInsane]

... shouldn't that be 47% more enraged by the advertising?
:)

Time to grumble about Slashdot ads

[Alioth]

Slightly OT rant, but of all the places I would have thought would have better sense not to run obnoxious advertising, it'd be Slashdot. But recently, we've had ads on Slashdot with sound (it took me a while to figure out which computer was making the sound of a door slamming), and now an HP/AMD ad that rolls out a large graphic on top of whatever you're trying to read. Normal banner ads on Slashdot are fine, and if it's for something interesting I'll click on it. Obnoxious ads are not - they push me to want to install ad-blocking software, and then everyone loses: I don't find out about potentially useful products, and Slashdot doesn't get any ad revenue from me.

Not that interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Install:
Firefox http://en.www.mozilla.com/en/firefox/
Ad-Block plus https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865

You're now browsing the internet as it should be. Welcome.

Re:Why Did the Jew Steal The Palestinian Water Sup

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, classic.

Limit?

[conureman]

The FCC used to limit advertisement to eight minutes per hour. AFAIK the limit kind of topped out at 60 recently.

Well, duuuhhhhh

[dbmasters]

Web ads can be contextually and geographically sensitive, depending on other factors it can contain known history/interests of the user as well. Of course they are better performing...this is not rocket science...

Re:Well, duuuhhhhh

[stewbacca]

Web ads can be contextually and geographically sensitive, depending on other factors it can contain known history/interests of the user as well.

To borrow from the NYT, then why do I keep getting spams for home mortgages and dating sites when I already own a house and I am already married? Those male enhancement ads, on the other hand...

TV ads are very geographically sensitive, and to an extent, contextual as well. Watch some Ultimate Fighting on Spike, and notice how all the ads are targeted to testosterone laden tough-guys.

Unscientific BS

[stewbacca]

I have to call BS. Not that I have a better study to point to or anything, but online ads are far easier to ignore than TV ads, because TV ads take up the whole screen. At one point, sporting events actually got advertisers to agree to letting the sports game stay on at the bottom of the screen during the commercials. The advertisers quickly balked because, surprise, nobody paid any attention to the ads, even though they took up 80% of the screen and had the audio. Same thing goes for the web, except in most cases the ads only take up a very small portion of the screen. Like right now, I can't even notice "The Future is Blu" ad at the top of this page without making a concerted effort to find it and look at it.

Re:Especially technophobes and the visually impare

[asiansteev]

Haha, just last week I e-mailed my mom a link on how to restore iPod factory settings on about.com. Half an hour later, she called and asked if she had to install the program that the page told her to install. The page I sent her had no such instructions. She had clicked on an ad on the site thinking that it was part of the instructions.

targeted ads are better

[zenpickle]

I am traditionally down on all ads but one day Amazon recommended a book I had never heard of that was interesting. That caused me to totally rethink my position. Basically the issue to me is I welcome useful information. Most traditional media ads are at least a waste of time and at worst are misleading. I have shifted my lifestyle to avoid ads. I don't watch television and listen only to public radio mostly to protect myself from being inundated with junk ads. Most internet ads still seem poorly targeted. My local newspaper seems to not target at all. Everyone gets the same popups. However when they are targeted properly they can make my life easier. What could be wrong with that. I'm not against advertisors winning as long as it doesn't mean I have to lose. Properly targeted ads come a lot closer to win/win.

Um, no?

[5of0]

Woah, wait a minute...

There's no channel to change with web-based TV shows. Sure, you can alt-tab to another browser window, but once the ad is done, you'd have to task-switch your brain back away from whatever it was you were doing to distract yourself from the ad. It just doesn't have the same feel-good feeling of repeatedly pounding a dinky little worn-down button on the remote.

First of all, this is /. - you Ctrl-tab to another tab. Heck, you do that even if you're using the latest version of IE. Secondly, since when is watching another channel not "task-switching" your brain away from whatever you were watching, and distracting yourself?
This is the most ridiculous argument I've seen in a while - here's what you're proposing:
TV
1. Whatever you're actively watching switches to commercial
2. You switch to another channel, ignore the commercials, and wait for your show to come back on, occupying yourself with whatever happens to be on the other channels
3. Flip back to whatever you were actively watching when it comes back on
Web-based shows
1. Whatever you're actively watching switches to commercial
2. You switch to another tab, ignore the commercials, and wait for your show to come back on, occupying yourself with whatever happens to be on the other tabs
3. Tab back to whatever you were actively watching when it comes back on

I see one reason you might think it's different. Perhaps the web supposedly requires more engagement than idle TV watching? No - the web is the ultimate in surface browsing just-because-I'm-bored (is there any *other* reason you read /.?). I'd say the web is *better* - you can tell when your commercial is done by the sound, you can easily actually get something done while waiting if you so desire (not catch some meaningless snippet of a show) - I don't see *any* advantage of TV over web in this particular instance.

Re:Um, no?

[Dachannien]

I don't use tabs. Nothing against them, but I grew so used to using the taskbar to switch between browser windows that I just never got into tabs.

But as for your real point, yes, my assertion is that channel surfing takes far less concentration and attention than web surfing. Besides, if you're paying enough attention to the sound of a web-based TV ad to know when your show is back on, you're paying more attention to the ad than you would be on conventional TV, which is what this whole topic was about.

Re:Um, no?

[callmevinny]

> First of all, this is /. - you Ctrl-tab to another tab.

For those of us who use Ctrl-Tab to switch desktops in KDE, one can
alternatively use Ctrl-PageUp/Down to switch between tabs (in Firefox,
that is). FWIW.

Comparing like to like...

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the shorter, individual ad clips separating Heroes content far less annoying than the longer blocks of longer ads, and have made purchases based on this (buying from one pizza place rather than another) to show my support.

In principle, targeted advertising is also worthwhile for me as a viewer. The ideal, here, is the same for both the advertiser and the consumer - the consumer is informed of something they do want but did not know existed. The closest I have seen to this in actuality is Amazon's recommendations and some ads for obscure games on some webcomic sites.

What about ads that are also content?

[saxoholic]

Biggest example I can think of... Will it Blend? http://www.willitblend.com/
It is an ad campaign, but it is also video content. You don't get those kind of advertisements on TV. Maybe that's why online ad watchers are more engaged? The online ads are actually engaging?
Of course, I didn't read TFA. Is it referring to commercials within videos of TV shows online? Perhaps it's that viewers can't change the channel?

Re:Especially technophobes and the visually impare

[toddestan]

They probably just haven't learned to filter them out mentally yet. I'm sure banner ads will catch their attention too, whereas any image 468×60 pixels in size pretty much automatically gets ignored by more experienced web users.

Thar be Bushies here, Captin'

[grolaw]

Oy, Scotty - man the phasers and load the forward torpedo tubes. The Bush-Rove-Borg are moderatin' agin.

Fire at the sight of Rove's thighs - he controls the entire news cycle. Take him out and Alberto-the-whiny-voiced and Monkey-man will have no power left in their nacelles. Karma be damned - FIRE AT WILL!

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is my reasoning as to why web ads work better than TV ads:

          Targetting. If this study really is about video ads, this isn't true so much, but for ACTUAL web ads, they are targetted. TV -- ads for herpes cream, gross-ass tampon ads, ads for medicines I do not need, and the new trend I've seen, local northeastern chains buying national ads (sorry chumps, your store doesn't exist here, you're wasting money.). The ads seem completely independent of what channel I'm on. Web -- I was reading a space comic a few days ago, and the ads were for like Apollo photos (I looked at that site quite a lot, very interested), tech sites I get ads for interesting tech items, etc. Hell yes I'm more engaged.

        Quantity. TV -- I don't think ANYBODY can honestly stay "engaged" for 5 minutes straight by adverts that are not funny or interesting in any way, and usually advertising products that not only are they disinterested in but they can't actually use. I fast forward through the TV ads personally if mythtv doesn't skip them for me. Web -- even for videos, a ~15 second ad seems typical "worst case", or perhaps 1 30-second at the beginning and 1 30-second at the end if it's a full-length show. Even if the ad is useless, I probably won't totally zone out quite that fast.

F[orget] ADS! :P (>_<);

[Anonymous Coward]

I avoid them as much as possible.

A SHAMEFUL waste of time and resources!

If the product or service is so good, word-of-mouth is all that's needed.

Does WAL-MART *REALLY* need to spend $4,000,000.00 A DAY on advertising!?!
Imagine how much lower their prices would be if they didn't spend this amount
each day on advertising....

Thank goodness for the 'NoAd' hosts file at:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

I even block Google AdSense: If the webmasters want to show ads they can host them themselves on their domain and make the ad truly 'unblockable' -- blocking the host in this case blocks the desired content.

This is probably where the Internet at large is heading in the near future.

As I said in an earlier AC post, there are only 3 groups making REAL money online:

1) The ISPs that get you online.

2) The 'meatspace' economy facilitators like Amazon and eBay.

3) The search engine/ad agencies like Google and Yahoo.

If you are not in the above groups and making legit money online, more power to you!

Ads which work better?

[jesse285]

Ads are all right if they were fair and work right,I agress that sometime when you try to sell me things 24 hour a day they do become a pain with out the happenness.

most tv ads are not longer fun to watch

[DaGoZi]

tv advertising is very difficult to measure whereas web advertising you can know exactly the results of your campaigns. Moreover, most of the tv advertising are boring and unappealing. I even find more clever advertising on the streets these days