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.

197 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The same was true for cable TV when I was kid.

    1. Re:Well... by swb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What? Cable TV was almost never "commercial free" except for maybe 5 minutes at the dawn of the cable channel industry.

      My first sighting of cable TV in suburban Minneapolis showed commercials on the "cable" channels.

      And of course re-transmitted over the air channels always had commercials because it was just a closed-circuit feed of the OTA signal.

    2. Re:Well... by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you realize that maybe we were kids in a different time. When cable TV started the appeal was: 1 - you'll pay to watch commercials free TV; 2 - better programs. Now we have none.

    3. Re:Well... by StormReaver · · Score: 2, Informative

      What? Cable TV was almost never "commercial free" except for maybe 5 minutes at the dawn of the cable channel industry.

      The "premium" Cable TV channels (HBO, Cinemax, etc.) were indeed commercial free for some time, at least in the market where my family was served (SouthernCalifornia). That was one of the major draws of watching movies on Cable versus broadcast TV. I don't remember how long it took for commercials to appear, but (according to my infallible memory), it seemed like a number of years.

    4. Re:Well... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The girls in the seventh grade thought I came from a "poor" family because we didn't have cable to watch MTV and we didn't own an Apple ][ computer.

    5. Re:Well... by swb · · Score: 1

      Premium channels than and now were commercial free, but if there were bundled "cable channels" that were commercial free it was for a very short window of time. I don't know if cable systems sent HBO out to subscribers for free in the early days. They certainly never re-transmitted local channels commercial free.

      The *amount* of commercials has grown over time, I do remember there being fewer commercials on cable channels -- but channels like MTV were never commercial free AFAIK, and this goes back to circa 1983.

    6. Re:Well... by Neuronwelder · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the 1980's Cable was free of commercials!! You paid for the service and they gave you no commercials in return for your money.. Then endless unregulated greed came to town.. Yes folks! You now get 1000's of channels (of duplicates). I wonder if people caught up with this trick?... On the other hand: If you offered 40 commercial free channels (Of your choice.), it would be plenty for $20.00 bucks a month. Save your bandwidth for cable games, for people who want to pay extra!!

    7. Re:Well... by lgw · · Score: 1

      And didn't you? I know I did. Thanks goodness for the advent of the Commodore 64.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Once you get above a certain income level, you start seeing any one less wealthy than you as "poor".

    9. Re:Well... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Thanks goodness for the advent of the Commodore 64.

      We used to dream of having a C64. My family was so poor, we had to write our BASIC programs on a Timex/Sinclair ZX80.

    10. Re:Well... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I've travelling this week and the place I'm staying only has OTA TV. We tried turning it on. It's a wasteland.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    11. Re:Well... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Pshaw. At least you could get under the hood. Without the disk system and extended basic for my bare bones TI-99/4a, I was stymied. I lusted after the Adam computer and the generic TS-1000 clones for sale in the back of Radio Electronics magazines.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    12. Re:Well... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      So that's why I'm wealthy. I still have my Apple //e. I upgraded recently from a ][+

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    13. Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We're not gonna take it!

    14. Re:Well... by swb · · Score: 1

      That was the *promise* of cable TV, but the rebroadcast terrestrial stations would *never* have been commercial free due to all manner of contractual obligations to run advertising.

      I'll admit not having an encyclopedia of cable stations, but when I first watched cable in 1983 the non-premium channels had commercials. Maybe less than now, but still they had them. WGN was always a commercial-filled operation.

      Regardless of whether the very small handful of "cable only" channels were actually commercial free pre-1983, it was never very many of them, they were likely to be premium channels like HBO and it never lasted.

    15. Re:Well... by sudden.zero · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I beg to differ. I have many Beta and VHS tapes of the first days of Cable TV, and there are no commercials, at least not things other than shows, on any of the tapes. There were advertisements for other shows on MTV, but there aren't any ads for things like Food, Electronics, etc. They had what were called shorts, and these were clever little cartoons in-between shows, but not actual advertisements.

    16. Re:Well... by es330td · · Score: 1

      Do all your programs still work? In my family we had a //e, one uncle had a ][+ and another had a //c. Few things were more annoying than borrowing a program that worked on one but didn't work on another.

    17. Re:Well... by Higaran · · Score: 1

      I remember my first PC fondly, it was a Tandy Sensation from Radio Shack, that thing was CRAZY expensive at the time.

    18. Re:Well... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Once you get above a certain income level, you start seeing any one less wealthy than you as "poor".

      Nope. Probably because I'm regarded as "poor" because I enjoy working in IT Support, make $50K per year and live in Silicon Valley. Should I piss on others who make less than me because I'm pissed on by others who are "rich" than me?

    19. Re:Well... by jshackney · · Score: 1

      I travel about 230 days each year. I might turn the hotel television on once or twice in a month. Television is unwatchable these days.

    20. Re:Well... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I still have my Apple //e. I upgraded recently from a ][+

      That was a school fad back in the 1980's. Every school had Apple ][ with dual floppy drives and monitor. Richer families spent $2,500 on that setup. Poorer families went for the cheaper $250 Atari, Commodore or TI computers.

    21. Re:Well... by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you look at it.

      If you're used to satellite TV or Netflix - yeah, it's pretty barren. Compared to what WAS available though, in the modern age there's a lot more channels available then "back in the day".

      Since the mid 1990's the amount of over the air channels available here has more than tripled (5 channels to now 16). I mostly stick to Netflix but I do occasionally use the OTA antenna for things like football games and such.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    22. Re:Well... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Thanks goodness for the advent of the Commodore 64.

      I went through three Commodore 64's from middle school through college in ten years. Although I had a near letter quality dot matrix printer with Commodore and Centronic connectors, I was still required to use a typewriter for my reports. I had that printer for 20 years before I replaced it with an inkjet printer in 2005.

    23. Re:Well... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      It always has been.

    24. Re: Well... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I didn't get cable or my first computer until 8th grade.

      I personally never had cable, in part, because I stopped watching television 30+ years ago. Although I had a Commodore 64 as a teenager, I didn't get my first PC until a roommate brought home a surplus IBM AT to get me to stop playing with his shiny new 386. As limited as the 286 was, I ran a WildCat! BBS off that system for a year while in college.

    25. Re:Well... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

      The premium TV channels are still commercial free (except for some between-program ads for other shows/movies on the same channel; which are primarily used to fluff out movie times so they start/end at roundish numbers.)

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    26. Re:Well... by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      And this is why we used to have cable 20+ years ago, and we stopped. What's the point today? None.

    27. Re:Well... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Why live in Silly Valley for $50k, when you could move to the Midwest, where $50k buys you something more comfortable than a shoebox?

      Born and raised here. Why should I let people for Michigan push me out?

      Since you're not chasing dollars, why not chase quality of life?

      Define quality of life? I can buy more stuff elsewhere, but I don't need to buy more stuff. I'm actually trying to get rid of the clutter in my life to live a minimalist lifestyle.

    28. Re:Well... by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      Nope. Probably because I'm regarded as "poor" because I enjoy working in IT Support, make $50K per year and live in Silicon Valley. Should I piss on others who make less than me because I'm pissed on by others who are "rich" than me?

      Of course income isn't the be all and end all.

      I earn a comfortable amount - but there are many people that earn less than me that have more at the end of the month and many people that earn more that have less

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    29. Re:Well... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I had the Timex/Sinclair 1000, it was a real challenge to code anything in 2K of RAM. And if you filled it up it just froze.

      Luckily, the library had an Apple ][, and pre-internet the library computers didn't have time restrictions.

    30. Re:Well... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Of course income isn't the be all and end all.

      This is Silicon Valley. If you don't make $100K+ and own two Tesla cars, you're not a real man. According to Slashdot.

    31. Re:Well... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      My first sighting of cable TV showed entire channels dedicated just to advertising products!

    32. Re:Well... by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      When I subscribed to Cable TV between 1999 and 2009, HBO and Cinemax (which were the only ones I subscribed to) still had lots of commercials. It was much like broadcast TV.

    33. Re:Well... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit. I had HBO in that period and I never saw a commercial on it.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    34. Re:Well... by sheramil · · Score: 2
      DISK SYSTEM? You kids are so privileged these days, it makes me livid. When I was a child we had to scour the streets for scrap paper to make punch cards which we'd punch with out own teeth before humbly submitting them to the local university to be run through their MONECS machine. AND they never showed us the output, so we had to listen at the window as the line printer clacked away and try to guess what it was doing.

      Disks! Pffft!

    35. Re:Well... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And that's relevant to the early days of cable how exactly?

      Cable TV started being rolled out in the 40s and 50s. The 80s were already halfway to the present.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    36. Re:Well... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I have to say, that years of being mostly free of commercials, they become truly irritating. Like some crazed barker screaming at you inside your own lounge, each repeat becoming increasingly grating. Nothing kills a product more for me than have the same commercial screamed at me more than once, once is bad, twice is horrible, three times, well fuck you then, yeah, I will remeber you but in a very bad way, with loathing and contempt.

      How would you behave, if someone walked in you front door and carried on like a typical TV commercial in your home, refused to leave and kept going on and one. Let's be honest the police would likely forgive you if you hit the barker with a stick repeatedly as long as you didn't kill them or permanently maimed, well, not too much.

      It always gets me how well the corporations have trained the sheep, things people would never ever accept other people doing but somehow blindly, dumbly accept it from corporations and the corporations expect those sheep to thank them for it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    37. Re:Well... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That my friend is where daisy wheel printers shined - typewriter quality text with all the convenience of a PC.

      I would have loved to have had a single printer with both a dot matrix and daisy wheel head.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    38. Re:Well... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That my friend is where daisy wheel printers shined - typewriter quality text with all the convenience of a PC.

      My electronic typewriter with a daisy wheel had an option for a parallel port connector at $200. Not something I could afford on a student budget.

    39. Re:Well... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      You're quite mistaken here.

      CATV, or Community Antenna TeleVision, was literally exactly that: Effectively a big long antenna that allowed reception of channels that were otherwise out of your geographical reach, and this concept was later extended to bring "superstations" like WGN and WTBS to more markets than just their home market. Nonetheless, these channels were never without commercials until the concept was even further extended to include content that wasn't broadcast anywhere and could only be seen with a subscription, at which point channels like HBO became a thing, and THAT would have had no commercials.

      Nonetheless, cable did in fact start with commercials. Channels like HBO eventually became tiered so you had to pay an additional fee, (by the way, until the 80's when congress passed a law saying otherwise, it was legal to receive pay channels without paying) but they remained commercial free.

    40. Re:Well... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That's pretty cool.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    41. Re: Well... by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      The proliferation of channels was more a result of the move to digital Tv than anything. The problem with analogue tv was it was limited as to how many channels you could pick up before side band interference made viewing implausible

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    42. Re:Well... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      You kids are so privileged these days, it makes me livid.

      In all serious, now it is just ridiculous. My kids have cheap microcontrollers and SBCs that vastly outperform anything I had to work with. I look at this stuff and just imagine what I could have done with it in my youth. Alas....

      Ok, now back to the subject at hand...
      I read Levy's book Hackers at the time, and the fact that all I could do was BASIC drove me batty! We were so dirt poor that a $20 Z80 was just a pipe dream! Now, my wife wonders why I can't turn down the opportunity to pick up vintage machines to play with. I tried to explain that this is all psychological scars from my childhood, but she still doesn't understand....

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    43. Re:Well... by dddux · · Score: 1

      Nowadays everybody wants you to pay for the commercials, too. As if we're being privileged to watch them. Windows 10, for example. Terrible times. That's why people turn to illegal streaming websites. I personally haven't seen a commercial for years and years. If I happen to see one somewhere I go "wooow, how stupid is this? Why should I watch this? Why is this being pushed upon me?" As I said, this becomes especially obvious when you live your life commercials-free. They are not contributing to our quality of life at all. They are just annoying. I want to continue living my life commercial-free and I'll fight with everything I can to do that.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    44. Re:Well... by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Right you are my friend! And to add to what you said, let's turn it around. Air wave transmitting stations pay for their rent by putting on commercials. What you receive on your TV set is free. So what makes cable so big that you have to pay for it on top of being force fed commercials??

    45. Re:Well... by dddux · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's almost funny that you have to pay for cable and they still bomb you with commercials anyway. I've scratched my cable TV about ten years ago and never looked back. If they want people to pay for subscription they should have program free of commercials. However, I think it's kinda too late now as the streaming services are taking over.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    46. Re:Well... by DEN_GUY · · Score: 1

      Very Proudly. Mine are among them. I have 3. They aren't constantly marketed to. Well worth the $20/season, or the monthly on NF.

  2. Good or not? by Calydor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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=-
    1. Re:Good or not? by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have the same worry with my kids, who don't even know how to control the FIOS part of the TV. But I also find the irony of wondering if television commercials are good for kids quite amusing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Good or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They aren't claiming that Netflix-only kids don't see commercials, rather that Netflix-only kids don't know what commercials are. This is the goal of the advertising industry, to make ads indistinguishable from other content.

      Surely a Netflix-only kids has seen a YouTube ad or two; they just don't know it.

    3. Re:Good or not? by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Without having commercials to teach you that companies consider you a never-ending open wallet

      You must not watch very many recent movies or television shows. They movies/shows have become the commercials: product placement.

      In same cases, the movies have essentially become mildly entertaining infomercials for kids (e.g,. the Lego movies). In other cases, the movie is a way to get kids to want the inevitable avalanche of associated merchandise. Kids didn't need commercials to know that they wanted the Frozen lunch box or the Cars backpack. To quote the wise Yogurt, "merchandising, it's all in the merchandising" (you will have to imagine the funny accent).

    4. Re:Good or not? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I found with my kids, they actually just seemed to want to less stuff than a lot of kids their age.

    5. Re:Good or not? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is anything new. When I was a kid, it was actually more blatant with He-Man, GI-Joe, Thundecats, TMNT, and other shows basically existing only to promote the toys. Going back and watching those shows was almost painful. The quality was so bad. And we watched it anyway because there really wasn't much else on TV.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:Good or not? by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      We're a mostly PBS and Netflix home, so they don't see many commercials. However, they do see them when we watch live sports. I make sure to point out that ads are lies that are trying to trick you into buying their products. Sometimes we even talk about how a particular ad is trying to appeal to you.

    7. Re:Good or not? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Well, my kid sure didn't like hearing their messages at least. When my son was 3 his only exposure to video had been nature documentaries and sesame street on Netflix. Then one day he paid attention to some show my wife and I were watching on Hulu, a commercial came on and he screamed "I DON'T LIKE THIS SHOW CHANGE IT!" So at least he developed "disgust for advertising" at an early age.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:Good or not? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I suspect they'll be less naive as to the dangers of commercials, but also more affected by the commercials that they do see, which is what my own experience has been up to this point. I cut the cord years ago and have had ad-blockers installed for even longer, so I've been away from commercials for long enough to grow used to their absence. When I do see an ad, the following seems to be true:
      - I'm no longer ad-blind, so (for better or worse) I pay a lot more attention to them when I do see them
      - The ones I see are more likely to influence me (e.g. clicking clickbait ads when at a computer without ad-blocking, even though I know better)
      - I have a far lower tolerance for them than I used to, and my default response has shifted from apathy to annoyance
      - Because they carry such a strong negative connotation for me now, I find that I'm far less willing to trust services built on advertising
      - I'm far more willing to patronize establishments whose business model relies on people like me handing them money

      So, I expect it's a little of A and a little of B: they'll be more susceptible, but they'll also be more aware.

    9. Re:Good or not? by Karlt1 · · Score: 2

      It depends on when you were a kid. I was a college student in the 90s. But kids growing up in the 90s - early 2000s had some quality animated television that ages pretty well - Batman:TAS and the related D.C. Shows, Animaniacs, DuckTales, Pinky and the Brain, Tiny Toons, etc.

    10. Re:Good or not? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I found with my kids, they actually just seemed to want to less stuff than a lot of kids their age.

      My kids are the same. I asked them what they wanted for Christmas, and they said they already had nice laptops and phones, and didn't really need anything else. When I was a kid, my "wanted" list filled several pages.

    11. Re:Good or not? by choovanski · · Score: 2

      My favorite show as a kid was The Transformers. If we're to be honest it was first and foremost a half hour commercial for the Hasbro toy line. This is nothing new.

    12. Re:Good or not? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      You must not watch very many recent movies or television shows. They movies/shows have become the commercials: product placement.

      I'm sure that would NEVER happen.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    13. Re:Good or not? by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My favorite show as a kid was The Transformers. If we're to be honest it was first and foremost a half hour commercial for the Hasbro toy line. This is nothing new.

      The reason Pebbles, daughter of Fred and Wilma Flinstone, was a girl rather than a boy was because the producer noted that girl dolls sell better than boy dolls. That was 1962. There's nothing new here.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re: Good or not? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      commercial breaks are the traditional time to get a snack (probably for the product you just saw), or a beer (again, the kind they just showed you)
      some people see commercials as a break from tv, but really it's just reinforcement =D

      netflix and dvr on the other hand.. hrm.

    15. Re:Good or not? by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

      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 may be true, but the flipside is that without growing up inundated with asinine commercials, they may also tend to be less tolerant of them overall. One could hope this would lead to trending away from commercials as a valid way of paying for entertainment. I've avoided TV and radio commercials for a decade and now find them utterly abhorrent.

      Personally, I'd love it if we moved away from all advertising subsidization. It would lead to fair market prices for entertainment and services, as well as bringing back some sanity in the salaries for actors. With some luck we might even end up back where the user the customer instead of the product.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    16. Re:Good or not? by Calydor · · Score: 2

      iTunes gift cards and Steam gift cards will go a LONG way today.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    17. Re:Good or not? by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      Imagine if you will, a society that successfully eliminates con-men for a time. They have a "tough on lies" stance, or lock down the currency, or no one has anything to steal. Whatever reason, you have a generation of people who have never been flim-flammed, cheated, lied to, stolen from, and/or welshed. And then things change, as they do, and now con-men are introduced to the populous. They are liars in a society full of trust. Imagine that clusterfuck.

      So, is the inverse true? Let's say we had some sort of sanctioned thieves guild. Government employees who were paid to try and swindle money away from you. Hopefully without actually taking your money. Do you think that society would be "easy pickings" for con-men?

      It might be tempting to kill all the germs around you child. Or to protect them from liars and cheats. Or to protect them from themselves when they want to do something risky. But raising kids is a difficult tightrope of balancing protection and experience. If your kids never see any ads and are never told that the smiling people aren't quite what they appear, they're in for a world of hurt when you release them into the real world.

    18. Re:Good or not? by tattood · · Score: 1

      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?

      Well, I certainly hope that the parents of these kids will do their job as parents and teach their kids these things instead of hoping that TV will teach them.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    19. Re:Good or not? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The thing is, if you're not used to tolerating liars then you'll be shocked and outraged at lies. Fairness isn't something taught, it is basic to being alive and having to eat and stuff. Lots of tests show that if you set up a reward system for monkeys and then "cheat" the monkeys will get upset and their cooperation will go down. Nobody had to teach them that.

      All commercials could possibly do is desensitize people to something they naturally would be outraged at. This is actually pretty basic behavior. It is blatantly obvious if you get your understand of behavior from behavior sciences instead of just wild guessing from ignorance like, "golly, I think what would happen would be some nonsense I just made up."

    20. Re:Good or not? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Actually, people who study the merchandising say that the commercials do in fact increase demand for child products.

      Find a nerd and have them look it up for you, is my advice.

    21. Re:Good or not? by Evtim · · Score: 1

      People who grew in the 70's and 80's behind the wall participated in this experiment. No commercialism and then suddenly the wildest and most unregulated [for a time] one. My observation - it was good in the long run. I am rather immune to ads and companies installing desires and insecurities in me and see the same in virtually everyone from my generation. The kids who grew up during the wildest changes however are damaged forever - I was horrified to see it real time. Now they determine the zeitgeist...it is a mess!

      Overall I applaud the news!

    22. Re:Good or not? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Course you need to get the correct one...

      Steam gift cards would both be solid hits for them, but I'm not sure that's generally applicable.

      My daughter could make use of an itunes card, she has an iphone... but there's nothing really she wants to buy from the ios app store as we monitor their purchases and they ask for stuff from steam all the time... but almost never from the appstore. My son doesn't have an idevice, and his taste in music is mostly video game soundtracks ... that come with games he bought on steam. or he'll pull up a track on youtube if he just wants to hear something one-off. He'd never buy music from itunes... he re-gifted his last itunes card.

      Meanwhile, the girls next door are both idevice fans, hiphop fans, etc... so would get a lot of mileage out of itunes. But I almost doubt the girls next door would know what a steam gift card was even for :/

    23. Re:Good or not? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      They movies/shows have become the commercials: product placement.

      Identifying product placement needs to be learned. It's not instinctive and it's not an easy jump to make. If you don't know what a commercial is, how marketing works, how can you make the next connection that your favourite superhero is not drinking coke because it's refreshing and delicious.

    24. Re:Good or not? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      You can see this just by looking at advertising of past generations. They could never get away with the sorts of things we see today.
      Inversely, watch some advertising from South America, it's garish to American eyes, but in some ways it seems move honest then what we're used to seeing.

    25. Re:Good or not? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I had this talk with my son just a little while ago. It's kind of heartbreaking to explain to kids how many people are lying to them just to make them spend money.

    26. Re:Good or not? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Or how will kids hone their BS detectors without all the test data commercials give us?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    27. Re:Good or not? by Rande · · Score: 1

      I was 7 when I learnt this valuable lesson.
      I bugged my Mum to buy me the great toy that was being shown on TV all the time.
      When I got it, it wasn't nearly as much fun as it was on TV.
      That's when I lost my innocence - before then I always thought that adults always had the children's best interests at heart.

  3. How long before Netflix adds commercials? by MikeDataLink · · Score: 1

    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!
    1. Re:How long before Netflix adds commercials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The day Netflix shows their first commercial on my TV is the day that I cancel my Netflix subscription.

    2. Re:How long before Netflix adds commercials? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I must be older than you. Cable started out as a simple rebroadcast over wire system, and the pay TV channels came later.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:How long before Netflix adds commercials? by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      Illegal downloads?

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    4. Re:How long before Netflix adds commercials? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      My home town in Kansas always had great reception for OTA because the terrain is fairly flat and unobstructed so we didn't get cable until the mid 80s after they had added pay channels and the population had increased making demand high enough to make it worthwhile. Satellite was popular for remote areas that couldn't get cable around that time as well but the nearby city had cable since maybe the 60s.

    5. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The last time I went to a theater, it was only ads for other upcoming movies. That's a little different from typical TV commercials.

      Regardless, if Netflix does bring back commercials, look for torrenting to rise again, perhaps in a slightly different, harder-to-track form. The cat's out of the bag now; people are putting up with the paid stuff (Netflix, streaming music services) now because it's very convenient and ad-free for a comparatively low monthly price. Stick ads back in it and that's going to fall apart.

    6. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. OTA Channels are there because the FCC mandates they be carried by your cable system. It's part of the rules that let them exist.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:How long before Netflix adds commercials? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Most people forget the very early days of what cable TV was. There's a common short form you'll see on the back of old TVs where the cable plugged in. It was CATV. This stood for Community Access Television or Community Antenna Television. Basically, in areas with poor reception, they would build one giant antenna to get really good reception, and then put a cable to each person's house so that they could get reception of the channels that were coming over the air for free.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    8. Re:How long before Netflix adds commercials? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Proof? I watch Netflix every day and have never seen such adverts.

    9. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by Desler · · Score: 1

      In many areas it was because they had poor OTAA reception due to issues such as terrain and so the CATV system allowed them access.

    10. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by green1 · · Score: 1

      only ads for upcoming movies?

      Either your location is very different from mine, or you arrived late to the movie.

      I remember a time when theatres had a curtain that was closed when you walked in to the theatre, and only opened at the time the show was supposed to start. Depending on the movie, the show would start immediately, or 1 (maybe 2, but not normally) movie trailer would play, and then the show would start.

      Now the theatres don't have a curtain, because they want the screen showing ads the moment you walk in to the theatre. the ads before show time are a mix of ads for other movies, and ads for miscellaneous products and services. Then the lights dim at the scheduled start time, and the volume doubles. We then see 5-10 minutes of ads for miscellaneous products/services, followed by 5-10 more minutes of movie trailers before the show we paid to see starts.

      The ratio of ad to movie is actually not all that different from the ad to show ratio on cable TV, they just front load it all.

    11. Re:How long before Netflix adds commercials? by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Netflix already has commercials, sort of. Many of Netflix's shows have been doing product placements of things like Apple products for years now, and they have advertising for certain shows built into the home page of their web site and applications. Surely you must have noticed that Netflix always promotes their own shows before they show other content now.

    12. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Either your location is very different from mine, or you arrived late to the movie.

      I came right on time, or maybe slightly late, I forget exactly. I wasn't early.

      Yes, I've been to movies in the past where if you got there pretty early, you had to sit though a bunch of stupid ads. The lesson here: don't get there early. If you're going there early to get better seats, the problem is that there's too many people, which is a big problem all by itself; you need to wait until the movie has been out a while and isn't going to be in the theater much longer. And go during a matinee. Then there won't be many people there at all. That's a much better way to watch a movie, if you really feel you must go to a theater.

      Better yet, just stay at home. Today's movies suck anyway. You can get a giant TV now cheaply, and play Blu-Rays on it or streaming video.

    13. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by green1 · · Score: 1

      At my theatres you'd be between 5-10 minutes late to miss the unrelated products and only have to see the movie previews.
      If you show up about 15 minutes late you're probably right on time, but you'll piss off everyone in the theatre who's already been seated forever.

      I don't think theatres understand who their competition is. It's no longer other theatres, it's watching movies at home. And right now the ONLY advantage the theatres have is earlier release dates. Today's home setups have better image quality, better sound quality, better seating, better food and drink, and a better overall experience.
      Gone are the days where the alternative to the theatre was a 24" CRT connected to a VHS machine.

    14. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Unless you lived in a major city, reception was spotty at best.. cable provided a far more reliable experience.

    15. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I see about 1 movie in the theater per year and that's what I do; matinee, show up on time.

      BTW, if you bought a "TV" that plays streaming media without an external streaming device, your living room might be a sort of movie or radio show that is being recorded for posterity. I wouldn't allow such a device inside my home.

      Though their latest trick is that the "dumb" TVs don't have any outputs. It took about 30 minutes to take it apart and splice a closed-circuit headphone jack in. The good thing is that these days everything has HDMI, and if I want to stream something I just stream it to a computer, which has better security, and then just use the TV as a monitor. Actually, I play DVDs through the computer too, because software players provide full control and hardware players (including smart TVs) have to honor whatever menu restriction and forced-ad nonsense they write to the disk.

    16. Re:How long before Netflix adds commercials? by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Hulu has ads even at the ad-free tier for some shows due to "streaming rights". They also dropped daily show. As soon as I can ween my wife off her last couple shows I am dropping it. Lousy BS.

    17. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, stay away from the "smart TVs". But if the "dumb TVs" become unavailable, and you're worried about being recorded, the video part at least is pretty easy to disable, using a small piece of electrical tape. The audio would be more difficult, but taking it apart and cutting the microphone wires should do the trick. Even better would be to connect to those wires with your own custom audio circuit that pipes in some horrible noises, or random trash, or something. Let them record that. Has anyone done any IP traffic analysis to see what these smart TVs really are "phoning home"?

    18. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're exactly right about the theaters' competition. But as for pissing off people by being right on time (15 mins late), that's easy to solve: go to a matinee (or maybe a weekday night), and only when the movie has been playing for a few weeks. There'll hardly be anyone in the room. Don't ever go to a movie when it's brand-new.

    19. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Where I grew up (2 hours from Philadelphia), we got one station clearly and a few more weakly if you had a good aerial. Cable brought us all of the Philly stations plus a few unaffiliated "super stations".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    20. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by green1 · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you're willing to wait a few weeks to go, why not wait a couple more weeks and watch it at home with a better experience? Remember, the only thing theatres still have going for them is that they get the movies before they're available at home. If you're willing to wait, why go to a theatre at all?

    21. Re:How long before Netflix adds commercials? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Also, said everyone with ad free cable in the early days. hint: They didn't.

    22. Re: How long before Netflix adds commercials? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Some movies just seem better to me with a larger audience, for whatever reason. This still isn't a good reason for finding a sparsely attended showing rather than watching it at home.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. I've forgotten too by hawguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:I've forgotten too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I take it that you laptop isn't running Windows 10 then.

    2. Re:I've forgotten too by Dracolytch · · Score: 1

      I'm with you... I pay for Pandora, which gets rid of those ads. I don't watch much TV, so Netflix provides more content than I'll be able to watch... And frankly, any time I turn on the radio or tune into a major sporting event on TV, I find the ads awful and grating. That $12 / month for those two services, versus the $150+ / month for cable? My life is better without commercials. Oh, and when my children spend an extended period of time at my house, and so they're not asking for the XYZ they saw advertised at their mom's? It's awesome.

      --
      This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
    3. Re:I've forgotten too by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

      Aye. Everytime we visit family, The Television(s) are rarely off. I can barely stand it. Even before we got rid of cable - 95%+ of our TV viewing was DVR'd and manually skipped commercial breaks.

  5. Cool story, bro. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cool story, bro.

  6. Only Comment by darkain · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only comment on the article's page is very accurate: "META: this article is a commercial for Netflix."

  7. I call BS by sjbe · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:I call BS by pesho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Keep in mind that we are talking about kids under ten. If nobody explained to them what a commercial is it is very likely that they see it as normal TV show.

    2. Re:I call BS by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Yup! Even the few seconds between the start of the commercial break and the time I hit the FF button hard enough to hurt my finger is annoying. Plus it takes me out of the "moment" of the show I'm watching.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:I call BS by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Double WTF: do these kids really watch NOTHING but netflix, and never watch anything on, oh, for example, youtube?

      Doesn't seem hugely credible.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:I call BS by boskone · · Score: 1

      when my kids were three, and they saw their first commercials they said "we hate 'mercials!" since we mostly would watch DVDs or on demand. (Dis Jr. on demand is pretty much commercial free)

    5. Re:I call BS by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Maybe their parents installed an adblocker?

      True, but at that point it's really not representative at all. Also, are there adblockers which work with the youtube apps?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:I call BS by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      o an incredibly non-scientific tiny sample size, not at all representative of the population at large.

      The sample size is not a problem. The p-value for there being a delta between the homes is <0.001

      Now, the sampling may have not been scientific or random, but you haven't shown that at all.

      There is no way you can actually watch cable TV and not know what a commercial is.

      38% of kids not knowing what a commercial is called is different from not knowing what one is.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:I call BS by swillden · · Score: 1

      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.

      How do you know it was a non-scientific (or, more precisely, non-representative) sample? The sample size has nothing to do with whether the sample is representative of the population at large. Representativeness is all about the sample selection process.

      In this case, the sample size makes the margin of error a little larger than we usually use, but not uselessly so. In this case, (assuming good sampling), the margin of error for a 95% confidence interval is 11%, so there's a 95% chance that the true percentage of Netflix-only kids under 10 that don't know what a commercial is lies between 71% and 93%. If you wanted to tighten that down to a 5% margin of error, you'd need a sample size of 227 (assuming a skewed response rate like 82/18. A more conservative analysis that doesn't make that assumption yields a required sample size of 385).

      Note that all of this is independent of the size of the population at large, unless the population in question is quite small (For example, suppose you assumed nothing about the responses, and wanted a 5% margin of error with a 95% confidence interval. If your total population is 10, you need to ask all of them. If your population is 100, you need to ask 80. But of 1,000, you only need to ask 278. Of 10,000, ask 370. Of 100,000, ask 383. Of 1,000,000, ask 384. Of any larger number, 1.1M to any size at all, you only need to ask 385 people chosen in an unbiased fashion.

      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.

      Note that I'm not claiming this sample is representative. That's a separate question that can only be addressed by carefully examining the selection process, which would presumably require reading TFA, at a minimum. I'm happy to spend several minutes calculating various margins of error and required sample sizes, but reading the article is too much.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:I call BS by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Kids pick up context from adults. Today it's common to skip commercials. Mom will say to Dad, "Fast forward, skip the commercial." Or "That's a bad/good commercial".

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    9. Re:I call BS by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      When the kids are watching shows that are in reality just adverts for merchandising, how can they learn the difference between an advert for transformers and adverts for personal finance?

  8. On the other hand.. by ddtmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    100% of kids in Netflix-only homes know what bit torrent is.

    1. Re:On the other hand.. by ichthus · · Score: 4, Funny

      And, 100% of kids in BitTorrent-only homes think they know what Netflix is.

      --
      sig: sauer
  9. Stats? by dogbert_2001 · · Score: 2

    How do you get 57% and 5% from a sample of 50?

    1. Re:Stats? by Agent0013 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      50 parents. We are not told how many kids were in the study.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    2. Re:Stats? by gameboyhippo · · Score: 1

      I agree that the sample size is too small. But anecdotal, I think there is some merit to this. While I'm not sure the number is 82%, I know that my children cannot complete common slogans that are second nature to us kids growing up in the dark ages.

    3. Re:Stats? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Still, the margin of error for 50 samples with p=0.82 is ~5%

  10. Limited media experience by raynet · · Score: 1

    Sounds kinda sad that those kids have never experienced Youtube and other free media sources.

    --
    - Raynet --> .
    1. Re:Limited media experience by StarryEyed · · Score: 1

      If you can pay for Netflix, good chance you can afford YouTube Red and avoid those commercials as well.

    2. Re:Limited media experience by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      Commercials on Youtube??? What kind of Philistine doesn't use adblock or whatever. I don't think I've seen a commercial on Youtube within this decade that wasn't actually the content I was looking for.

    3. Re:Limited media experience by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

      It's not like Firefox with Adblock is available on Android, right?

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

  11. Almost sounds like my kids by Agent0013 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Sometimes they are entertaining when done well, plenty of people watch the SuperBowl to see funny commercials. Radio commercials sure have become extra grating after not being exposed to them for a while, though...

    2. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      On the radio stations I listen to, I've learned about how long the breaks are, and I turn the damn thing off for the commercials and turn it back on about the time the break ends.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by garcia · · Score: 1

      My children are in the same boat; however, they do NOT like commercials or the inability to pick and choose what they're going to watch at whatever moment.

      When we travel we now take our Roku w/us b/c even with PBS, they're annoyed by the reality of traditional TV telling its viewers what they're going to watch and when.

    4. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by Solandri · · Score: 1

      As much as everyone hates commercials, they also have some informational value. I lived without a TV for a couple years. One day my friends and I decided to go watch a movie, and I realized I had absolutely no idea what movies were playing because I never saw commercials. They tried for a while to give me a basic plot summary of each movie, but eventually I just told them to pick something they wanted to see and I'd tag along.

      The same goes for new products - you often wouldn't know they existed without commercials. You'd have to learn about them via word of mouth, or seeing it in use. When someone comes out with a really cool and useful invention, informing the public that it exists improves economic efficiency by facilitating rapid adoption.

      I think the real problem with commercials is (1) marketing lies and (2) repetition / irrelevance (repetition is a form of irrelevance - once you've seen a commercial, a repeat viewing is mostly irrelevant). Government regulation can address (1). But (2) is a lot trickier. The way advertisers are trying to address (2) is by collecting data about your personal interests and tracking your behavior. But that runs afoul of privacy concerns. Maybe the gatekeeper should be an adblocker that sits on your personal computer or device and filters out repetitive or irrelevant ads, while letting ones you'd be interested in through, without letting the advertiser know which category their ad fell in.

    5. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      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.

      I don't remember how old my daughter was before she saw a commercial. Probably 6 or 7. Like your daughter, she was fascinated by them. In fact she looked up commercials on YouTube for a while afterward. There have been some that were pretty funny. The VW V-Dub commercials were hilarious. We have dobermans, so the Audi "Doberhuahua" commercial was good for a laugh too.

    6. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Commercials are often entertaining......until you've seen them and they just keep repeating, repeating, repeating.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's just the Curling is really, really dull?

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    8. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by citylivin · · Score: 1

      Whenever i watch some OTA, i consider the commercials to be mini movies of sorts and love watching them for their anthropological value - getting the pulse of society.

      However that quickly wears off as the same commercials are always played in the next commercial break, and the next. And then i am just grateful i almost never have to put up with that crap anymore.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    9. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's another bad thing. Even if the commercial doesn't totally suck the first time, it does suck by the 10,001st time.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    10. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by I+kan+Spl · · Score: 1

      But do you sing along with the jingles?

      Obscure?

      --
      My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
    11. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I'd like a way to give feedback on ads.

      Dear Adweasel:

      Your ad sucks because:

      1. I don't like people YELLING AT ME!
      2. Those jokes weren't even remotely funny!
      3. I've already seen the damn thing 1,000 times. Now it's 1,001!
      4. All the above!!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    12. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      One of small joys in traveling is turning on a TV and seeing the local adverts - How the same, or similar products are marketed in other areas/countries.
      Now obviously, this is a side distraction. It is not the reason for traveling, or something I look forward to - just an interesting bonus

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    13. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Marketing/commercials is/are different in different countries for sure. It can be very interesting, at times.

    14. Re:Almost sounds like my kids by MiSaunaSnob · · Score: 1

      THIS!!!!!!!!! my son has the same problem, the only thing worse for him is when he cant pause TV.

  12. Maybe a good thing... by Uncle_Meataxe · · Score: 1

    ...considering that watching commercials makes you stupid...

  13. 4 out of 5 doctors recommend..... by computerchimp · · Score: 1

    I don't wonder who is paying for this particular clever "story".

  14. PBS, anybody? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:PBS, anybody? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Not many households are PBS only. The kids can see the ads blaring on the shows their parents watch. Yet another reason they don't want to grow up.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:PBS, anybody? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      PBS may not have ads during their shows, but they DO have advertisements. They play a lot of ads actually between shows and all the entities that donated to support the shows in the opening and closing credits.. It may get some of it's support from the government, but it still runs advertisements of sorts.

      Don't get me started on the donation drives....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:PBS, anybody? by magarity · · Score: 1

      PBS doesn't generally have advertisements during kid's shows... Sesame Street doesn't have ads.

      Sesame Street is almost 100% product placement for Sesame Street licensed toys and other merchandise,

  15. Kids shows are commercials by KalvinB · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Kids shows are commercials by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      The entire basis of kids programming is to sell toys.

      For the most part, that is correct. One shining exception to that rule is, "Trollhunters," which may very well be the single best "children's show" ever created.

    2. Re:Kids shows are commercials by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Trollhunters was okay, but have you seen the new Netflix Voltron series? It's phenomenal. Story, art, voice acting, whole package.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:Kids shows are commercials by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      I sometimes watch 'Phinneas and Ferb' with my 3 year old, sometimes he gets bored and leaves the room.. and it's the only one of his shows that doesn't get immediately turned off when this happens.

  16. WELCOME TO TEH FUTAR! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    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

    1. Re:WELCOME TO TEH FUTAR! by aicrules · · Score: 1

      If you have netflix, check your cc statement. It's not 8.99 anymore. If you don't have netflix, you probably don't care! And you may still not care even if you do have it. In all likelihood I've wasted an entire post on this topic only because I have a bit of knowledge that I hope someone finds useful. Though they likely will not.

    2. Re:WELCOME TO TEH FUTAR! by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      Yep. I am still paying 7.99 a month since I don't need the high def.

      Yes, that's Seven dollars and ninety nine cents. Not a typo.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    3. Re:WELCOME TO TEH FUTAR! by aicrules · · Score: 1

      I would go without high def, but since I need to be able to stream on two devices at once I pay for the high def plan.

  17. YouTube is filled with ads... by Dzimas · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:YouTube is filled with ads... by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      That's why I got Youtube Red. $10/mo might sound a bit steep, but since I don't consume media from Netflix or anywhere else I'm fine with it. Haven't even bothered to check out any of the "original" content, I just wanted to drop ads without also dropping financial support for the content creators I watch.

  18. The scary part by pesho · · Score: 3, Informative
    It could be just me, but I wouldn't worry so much about the kids on Netflix not knowing what a commercial is. You would kind of expect that. What worries me is that

    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.

  19. Bullshit by circularWaffle · · Score: 1

    Youtube has commercials and kids are constantly watching shit on there.

  20. B.S. by Nunya666 · · Score: 1

    I don't believe that anyone could find 50 "Netflix-only" kids who have never seen "normal" TV.

  21. Alternative headline? by asylumx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    38% of kids in regular television homes don't know what commercials are

    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.

    1. Re:Alternative headline? by Syphonius · · Score: 2

      Here's the scary question for that stat:

      Assuming the number is accurate (for some values of accurate), do they not know what a commercial is because they have never seen one or because they cannot differentiate the commercial from the show they are watching?

  22. I innoculate my kid against commercials by ldbapp · · Score: 1

    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.

  23. What a suprise.... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    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
  24. no early cable tv was local OTA channels by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    no early cable tv was local OTA channels in areas with poor pick up. Super stations came later on as well stuff like HBO.

    1. Re:no early cable tv was local OTA channels by number6x · · Score: 1

      This was especially true out west. If there were a couple of mountains between you and the nearest large city, everyone got the local OTA channels from cable. Usually run by the local electricity supplier. Then big independent stations from places like Atlanta and Chicago started to go nationwide via cable. The 1970's had 'premium' cable channels starting out. This exploded in the early 1980's. This is when cable companies started charging more and more. The premium channels started out commercial free.

  25. embarassingly small sample size by camazotz · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:embarassingly small sample size by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      A sample size of 100 is more than adequate. Why wouldn't it be?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  26. The definition is changing. by sootman · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:The definition is changing. by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Quantum of Solice was one giant Ford ad. Made me hate both.

    2. Re:The definition is changing. by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      That's almost as bad as this one, from "House"

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ... worst I've ever seen. Completely shameless.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  27. No problem! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    That's okay, they can have mine.

  28. yes they do by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    they just call them "ads" because these same kids still are interacting with things like youtube.

  29. Depends where you Travel To by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    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).

  30. 57 channels and nothing on came out in the 80's by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
  31. That's not how it works by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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/
  32. Seen the same by watermark · · Score: 1

    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.

  33. 38% of kids in regular television homes don't know by tomxor · · Score: 1

    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.

  34. I am not a kid but.. by CptLoRes · · Score: 1

    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?

  35. How can this be? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Aren't kids still forced to sit through commercials at school through Channel One network and BusRadio ?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:How can this be? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I just checked, BusRadio is gone. At one time it was really popular in Southern states and a few in the Midwest. You might be a fairly young teacher, as I remember Channel One very well.

      Until the use of public schools to provide a captive audience is made illegal, it will keep happening. Even if you don't recognize when it does happen.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  36. Re:conclusion? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Pretty much. I find that 38% figure pretty damning.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  37. let me guess product placement ads? by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    let me guess that product placement ads are more common since Netflix showed up...

  38. Commercial-Only Household by QlooQl · · Score: 1

    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.

  39. Sample size and sample selection by sjbe · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Sample size and sample selection by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      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.

      It depends on what you're measuring, and the expected size of the effect. A political poll that wanted to answer the question "Did Democrats vote more often for Hillary than did Republicans" would probably find that a sample of 60 (30 Dems, 30 Republicans) is more than enough to answer the question. Most political polls have more than one question and are measuring far more subtle changes. Further, they want enough data to slice up by race/class/gender/party lines. So of course they need more.

      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

      Now that part is probably true. I'd also question the way their survey question was phrased. And, it's most likely lazy click bait.

      All that said, their sample size was completely sufficient. We should take care to appropriately criticize studies. Otherwise, we'll have kids growing up not knowing what a power analysis is in addition to a not knowing what a commercial is.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  40. Sampling matters by sjbe · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Sampling matters by swillden · · Score: 1

      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 small sample size and resulting large margin of error does not make the result useless in principle or in reality.

      The margin of error is not independent of the sample selection

      Certainly not. That was my whole point: it's selection process that matters. Small sample sizes can be perfectly 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.

      Note the text I bolded.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  41. p.s. food! by Evtim · · Score: 1

    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!

  42. How is this possible? by mrun4982 · · Score: 1

    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.

  43. Youtube by slazzy · · Score: 1

    My kids know because of youtube.

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
  44. Nice for them by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    It's a wonderful life for them while we have 6 interruptions in "It's a wonderful life"

  45. There is Hope! by BadTuna · · Score: 1

    And the world just became that much better.

    --
    Your sig here!
  46. This could backfire... by Guy+Smiley · · Score: 1

    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.

  47. Ads will get less annoying as you age by dillee1 · · Score: 1

    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.

  48. What Kids See Differently by Jaborandy · · Score: 1

    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.

  49. No commercials doesn't mean no ads by BrunoB · · Score: 1

    Say is that a PS Vita? Does it run Monument Valley?

  50. We don't have Netflix by irrational_design · · Score: 1

    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.

  51. Sounds like a wonderful future by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

    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.