Slashdot Mirror
82% of Kids in 'Netflix Only' Homes Have No Idea What Commercials Are (exstreamist.com)
Two anonymous readers share a report: We decided to survey parents of young children (below 10 years old) to see how many kids in "Netflix only" homes knew what commercials are, compared to those homes who watch regular television. We surveyed 100 parents (50 Netflix-only homes, 50 normal television homes), here were their responses: 82% of kids in Netflix only homes don't know what commercials are. 38% of kids in regular television homes don't know what commercials are.
The same was true for cable TV when I was kid.
Without having commercials to teach you that companies consider you a never-ending open wallet, and that they WILL lie to you to get your money, will these Netflix-only kids grow up to be or more less naive about the honesty of other people and companies?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
kids are dumb
I mean really, its like its all starting over again? How long before Netflix and other streaming companies add commercials? CableTV started as a Pay TV with no commercials, and then added them when they wanted to more revenue...
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
The other day my 16-year-old daughter mentioned annoying YouTube ads. I asked, "They have ads on YouTube?"
She watches YouTube only on her phone, whereas I haven't done anything on the web without uBlock Origin in a long time.
I haven't forgotten commercials entirely, but I've forgotten what they are like, and they are super annoying. Last time I stayed in a hotel, I flipped on TV and tried to watch a show -- I didn't make it past the first half of the show before I flipped off the TV and went to my laptop to watch Netflix because I couldn't stand the ads.
and 30% of adults don't understand what its like to be trolled by a kid.
Slashdot's captcha system is a perfect example of a troll... GOD IT SUCKS.
Cool story, bro.
The only comment on the article's page is very accurate: "META: this article is a commercial for Netflix."
We surveyed 100 parents (50 Netflix-only homes, 50 normal television homes),
So an incredibly non-scientific tiny sample size, not at all representative of the population at large.
38% of kids in regular television homes don't know what commercials are.
I call bullshit on this one. There is no way you can actually watch cable TV and not know what a commercial is. Even with a DVR you'll still see them.
100% of kids in Netflix-only homes know what bit torrent is.
I like what they do now. In between shows, fine, but not shoved in your face every 4 -5 minutes.
How do you get 57% and 5% from a sample of 50?
Sounds kinda sad that those kids have never experienced Youtube and other free media sources.
- Raynet --> .
My daughter has lived her six years with no cable television so far. While watching the Olympics last year on over the air signals she found the commercials to be her favorite part. When you never get to see them they are new and cool I guess.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
...considering that watching commercials makes you stupid...
I don't wonder who is paying for this particular clever "story".
PBS doesn't generally have advertisements during kid's shows... Sesame Street doesn't have ads.
I don't recall bullshit studies about kids not recognizing commercials due to their kids watching Sesame Street, Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood, or any of the other legion of PBS shows for kids.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
They may not know what the term "commercial" is but they're endlessly exposed to commercials. The entire basis of kids programming is to sell toys.
Work Safe Porn
It kills ads that infect, track & slow you APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have built into the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/
Could your stories get any shittier? Are you trying for shitty stories?
Netflix-only kids don't know what commercials are
build Utopia, and people will pay $8.99/month to live there.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
YouTube videos are smothered in ads and kids experience them all the time. Netflix shows are also rife with subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) product placements. Live action shows feature massive luxury homes, Macbooks everywhere, fancy cars and shiny mobile phones. All that stuff acts to normalize expectations. It is brilliant and very effective marketing.
If you can't be bothered to watch the advertising you don't deserve the fucking show!
Do the kids in these homes also not watch Youtube?
I like this study. Similarly, we should see how many kids in non-vegetarian homes know what Tofu is.
You should not use percentages unless the number of respondents is fewer than or equal to 100.
In this case, it was 50.
It screams of BAD SCIENCE.
38% of kids in regular television homes don't know what commercials are
. I am sure these kids will grow up and learn what a commercial is, but considering the amount of commercial on American TV it is hard to believe that they have not been heavily exposed to those.
Youtube has commercials and kids are constantly watching shit on there.
I don't believe that anyone could find 50 "Netflix-only" kids who have never seen "normal" TV.
Isn't that the more surprising figure? 2/5 kids in a typical home (which has a TV which children watch ~24hrs/week) don't know what a commercial *is*. Oh, I see, the question was to the parents, "Do your kids know what commercials are?" -- This is a survey on parents' opinion about what their kids 'know'. The headline maybe should read "82% of Exstreamist readers who are parents in netflix-only homes think their kids don't know what commercials are" because technically that's all they've indicated.
Commercials?! You brought commercials into this house?! Well if you like them so much how about you watch a whole PROGRAM'S worth of commercials! Honey, call up Verizon! Tell them we want the NASCAR package.
Kids get bombarded on YouTube with commercials so they see plenty of garbage.
The best way that I taught my kid about commercials was to discuss the "stop the person on the street"/improvisational" commercials.
Then asked him that if they were just normal, spontaneous people, then why was there a camera and make-up and lighting.
Then, who was trying to trick him, and why...
He became very skeptical about advertising, after that.
We're a Netflix-only household. My kid almost never sees commercials there. But I don't want him to not know what they are because I don't want him to fall prey to the tactics advertisers use. So whenever we do run across commercials (at the movies, at grandmas house, etc.), we often talk about them with respect to issues of truth, opinion, spin, manipulation, and reasons to buy.
I would not be happy for my kid to be one of the 82% who don't even know what a commercial is.
So kids that only see Netflix don't know about commercials.... Let me guess, they don't know about rotary dial phones, phonograph records or cassette tapes either because they've never see them..
What a surprise.. I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die from THAT surprise...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I use things like AdBlock all the time. I never watch regular TV, I never listen to the radio, I rarely follow the news. I never have any idea of what movies are coming out. I never know of hot new products unless it's on a site I read. Most things I hear about come via word of mouth. Another good example is there's been like some hot song or musician with like a billion views and I've never heard of them / heard the song.
...
enough of a reason to go to netflix - saving/protecting the minds of kids is as important as saving/protecting their health.
no early cable tv was local OTA channels in areas with poor pick up. Super stations came later on as well stuff like HBO.
TFA is based on a sample size of 100. So....take this with a grain of salt. But how many households are "netflix only" and also excluding youtube? My five year old knows what commercials are because of youtube. Also, Hulu.
The slow pan past a Lexus in Suits is a commercial.
http://www.lexusnxforum.com/fo...
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Let them frolick in the pastures for a bit longer before they plunge into the morass that is modern media.
That's okay, they can have mine.
Table-ized A.I.
(Cue the superhero music in the background) HARK!--Kids who haven't been exposed to commercials or advertising???!!! This looks like a job for MICROSOFT WINDOWS!
they just call them "ads" because these same kids still are interacting with things like youtube.
I might turn the hotel television on once or twice in a month. Television is unwatchable these days.
It depends on where you travel to. US television is indeed unwatchable due to the ad breaks but if you happen to visit Europe and they have the BBC channels those are entirely ad free and even the commercial UK channels only have 2 breaks per 1 hour programme (or one per 30 minute programme).
Watching regular cable TVs with kids that were raised watching movies and TV series without ads, is a nightmare. Every time an ad starts, they just start screaming they "don't want this" and "go back to the movie!". They just don't understand the concept of ads. Which is great, because when you're paying for something, you shouldn't be shoveled in with ads as well. Too bad cable TV refuse to accept this and still charge us for channels we don't want in our lives instead of charging per channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
people, especially children, are a lot more easily influenced than you're allowing for. This is why in the 60s people fought hard (and lost) to keep TV advertisements from hitting children. There's a theory that one of the reasons the boomers are as self centered/narcissistic as they are (compared to other generations) is they were the first generation raised on TV.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A few years back when my boy was 4 or so, he experienced his first commercial. He had been watching YouTube on computers and Kodi for his first few years, so no commercials. Then we got a tablet and he watched YouTube through the app, which gave him his first commercial. "I don't want this", he tells me. Sorry guy, you just gotta wait.
His little sister would just keep clicking videos until she got one without a pre-roll or the commercial was vaguely interesting. She often assumed she just clicked on the wrong video when she clicked a picture of some cartoon and it gave her a commercial.
38% of kids in regular television homes don't know what commercials are
Then you're measuring English comprehension as much as you are awareness of a concept existing... Study invalidated.
I can't remember the last time I even saw a commercial. All thanks to ad blockers and some wonder full and completely free download services for movies and tv series. Arrr, arrr! Consequently I am shocked how bad it is, every time I have to use a computer without ad blocking. Likewise visiting someone with a television on in the background. Why would anyone have this repetitive loud voiced torture device in their living room?
Aren't kids still forced to sit through commercials at school through Channel One network and BusRadio ?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
As soon as they start watching movies in theatres, then they'll learn what commercials are.
[/wish-it-was-snark]
A lot of TV-less households have kids on ipads, browsing Youtube constantly, and I guarantee they have seen pre-video "advertisements".
let me guess that product placement ads are more common since Netflix showed up...
We use bbc iplayer (UK resident) and kids dvds streamed from a NAS. Our kids only see ads when they visit friends and family and look very confused. The BBC licence fee is worth it just for the cbeebies channel and the BBC for schools website.
Grownup tv wise, Sky tv (satellite) was ditched a while ago and replaced by buying box sets from Amazon and using Amazon prime.
I am happy to pay for non advert video. Although, DVD makers please don't put adverts on DVD's, it makes no sense 5years later!
I raise my children in a commercial only household and collect the $0.38 per month I get from Google adwords. The kids don't know the difference.
The sample size is not a problem. The p-value for there being a delta between the homes is
The sample size absolutely is a problem if you want to draw any broad conclusions about the population at large. There is more to a study than merely the ability to have a p-value. There is a reason most political polls have population sample sizes of 1000 or more. You need a sample size that large to have a useful confidence interval. And even if you have enough data to draw meaningful conclusions, you still need the right data - data that accurately reflects the population being measured.
Now, the sampling may have not been scientific or random, but you haven't shown that at all.
It is a fairly safe assumption that anyone who fails to reveal their testing methodology probably isn't taking great pains to model the population at large, especially with a small sample size. Maybe they did some awesome work but I very much doubt it. Unless they are will to show in detail how their model might be reasonably reflective of a larger population I'm going to remain highly skeptical and you should be too. This "study" looks to me to be nothing more than lazy click bait.
How do you know it was a non-scientific (or, more precisely, non-representative) sample?
Because they didn't indicate any details about what the population was composed of or how it was carefully chosen to eliminate any selection biases or other problems. There is no reason to hide this information and without it any conclusions from the study are suspect. Maybe by some miracle it is a useful data set but I very strongly doubt that. I used to do statistical analysis for a living many moons ago and after doing that for a while you get a nose for BS "studies". Give me 50 of anything to measure and don't make me reveal my sampling methods and I can "prove" almost anything you want me to.
In this case, the sample size makes the margin of error a little larger than we usually use, but not uselessly so.
Maybe not useless in principle but in reality it almost certainly is. The margin of error is not independent of the sample selection. If they cannot show that their sample is reasonably likely to representative of the population they are modeling then the whole thing is useless. The fact that they can get a p-value with significance doesn't even remotely begin to make the study valid.
If you can accept a 14% margin of error, you can "scientifically" poll a population of any size, on any boolean-valued question, with an unbiased sample of only 49. So there's nothing wrong with a sample size of 50.
It's only a 14% margin of error if the population sample was selected properly. If it wasn't then the actual margin of error is far larger.
I think at this point every sensible person agrees that one of the most important tasks for today's parents is to teach good food habits in their kids. It is proven to work. And junk food for kids is significant portion [ha-ha] of advertising. Even if this is the only help to the parents from non-ad childhood it is still worth it, big time!
I'm sure they watch stuff on youtube and other sites. I swear commercials are almost as bad now than when I was a kid watching live TV. With live TV, you have commercials every 10 minutes or so. With youtube and the like, it seems like I'm forced to watch a commercial with almost every single video and some I can't skip. The world of no commercials on the internet is dying. We're not far from the day where commercials will be back in full force regardless of the service you're using to watch your media.
My kids know because of youtube.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
It's a wonderful life for them while we have 6 interruptions in "It's a wonderful life"
All toddlers -> early primary school kids I've ever known watch bought movies & TV shows on disk rather than TV channels. In the most extreme case, My youngest cousin used to cry when a TV show she was watching would go to commercial because she didn't understand what commercials are.
I guess that points to a flaw in the study - did they just ask kids "What are commercials?" I bet half of them wouldn't even know what they're called.
what a lot of rubbish. My 4yo knows what commercials are from youtube. I'm quite sure these "netflix only" homes also have youtube
... that the people who did the survey are complete morons.
Even with on-demand, kids are exposed to ads at any time. Being a cut-cutter does not mean ad-free in any way shape or form. Every service shows an ad at one point or another and people (including kids) still watch OTA TV.
And the world just became that much better.
Your sig here!
My kids watched commercial-free TV for a long time when they were young (DVDs and MythTV recorded shows with commercials cut out). However, when they first started watching shows that had commercials (mostly toys and such on kids channels) they were _very_ interested in the commercials themselves. I'd wondered whether I'd made a mistake not exposing them to any commercials at all.
It took a while for them to build up an immunity to commercials before they were annoyed with them, and learned how to edit them out with MythTV themselves.
When I was young I can't stand commercials either. However attention span getting lower as age progress. May be fatigue due to day work, may be eyesight deteriorates. Able to walk away once in a while during the advs actually helps me finish watching the whole thing.
For a time in middle school I was envious of those who could afford an Apple ][ or TRS-80 Model III. I wanted to compute! But, then the C64 arrived, and it became a big part of my life -- for its awesome games (supported by the great VIC-II and SID chips) and programming accessibility (good BASIC implementation, good assembly language tools, and a *superb* huge programmer manual which was awesomely hardcore (authors deserve great praise), including a circuit schematic and full assembly language guide).
Thank you, Jack Tramiel (a person who defied a horrifying fate and did incredible things in life).
My kids had trouble with an eye chart. A symbol for a calculator was identified as a phone, and a symbol for a classic phone was unidentifiable. In school testing, they asked what a key was for, and "starting cars" was deemed wrong. My kids have never seen me use a key to unlock a house door. Electronic locks and garage openers dominate. Adults often can't see how life appears to fresh eyes.
Say is that a PS Vita? Does it run Monument Valley?
so these kids don't watch youtube, don't see billboards, don't see or hear tv or radio when they go out in public or out to eat?
We don't have any kind of subscription service (Netflix, Hulu, Cable, etc.) so our kids only watch shows/movies from DVDs we rent from the library. We were staying at a hotel once and we put the Disney channel on for them. They couldn't understand why the show kept stopping and showing commercials. They kept asking why. My wife and I thought it was hilarious. We had never realized that we were raising our kids without commercials. We were just trying to save some money, it didn't occur to us that there were side benefits.
I would believe 82% IF I could read the specifics on the sampling and questions asked the kids.
Kids that young dont see commercials as commercials. They have to have seen video of some kind with ads at a friend's house or a device shared with a friend. They also would see some at a daycare or activity. I can believe if the study wasnt rigid enough the kids could not report seeing a commercial esp the younger ones in the stated age range.
Though that's means when they're older and therefore forever locked as a "productive member of society," they won't know the difference between a fact or an advertisement, something that people struggle with now. The analystic lingual and literal skills our generation developed to separate the two will be gone. It'll be taught in elite colleges as an elective.
What are these "comercials"?
"We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun."