Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Youngsters Skip DVR Ads Less Than Seniors

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the thumb-cramps dept.

Television 460

Dekortage writes "Analyzing DVR viewing research, Ad Age has noted something unexpected: older DVR users are more likely to skip ads than younger DVR users. The skew is particularly apparent among men: 50% of seniors skipping all the ads, but only 20% of teens do so. Women of any age group tend to be around 35%. Ad Age hypothesizes that younger viewers 'just pay attention to other media when the ads are on TV or, worse yet, perhaps the TV is just 'background music'... I always thought that ad skipping was a major benefit of DVRs. Do you skip all the ads?"

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Do you skip all the ads? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23399860)


I also have Adblock. I guess we are the minority here.

Also first post.

Re:Do you skip all the ads? (5, Interesting)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399902)

I also have Adblock
I wouldn't equate skipping ads with a dvr to adblock. With the DVR, it requires forethought and actions on my part whenever an ad comes on. With adblock, I just turn it on and occasionally right-click on an ad to get it to work. I also usually watch TV with my wife, so we can talk and "interact" during the commercials; sometimes we even get so into the interaction that we have to pause the commercials.

Re:Do you skip all the ads? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400028)

Oh, you.

Re:Do you skip all the ads? (2, Interesting)

Pestilence (15372) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400202)

I would. MythTv skips my ads for me with near-zero intervention, just like adblock. Once in a while it misses one and I have to manually skip.

Re:Do you skip all the ads? (-1, Offtopic)

Pestilence (15372) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400214)

Oh - and lowest user Id.

When you pick a user name, think about the future. (5, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400268)

Yes, lowest user ID, but I'll bet you're sad you called yourself "Pestilence".

On topic: I notice that almost every ad I see contains something dishonest or adversarial.

TV ads are a good source of information for me. They tell me what not to buy. If it's on TV, it's over-priced or unnecessary, with few exceptions. Otherwise the advertiser would not be able to pay, or be willing to pay, the huge cost of TV ads.

Re:When you pick a user name, think about the futu (1, Offtopic)

Pestilence (15372) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400322)

Why would I be sad about having such a kickass user name to go with my super low user id?

what is this television? (2, Insightful)

opencity (582224) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399864)

I barely watch tv and when I do the ads are the best part.
well ... there's bbc world news

Ads? (4, Insightful)

elvum (9344) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399866)

Re:Ads? (5, Insightful)

Bazman (4849) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400188)

What about all the ads for other BBC programmes? Trailers, promos, Radio 1 DJ ego-vertising? I sure skip those! I even skip the credits of most BBC shows now that they shrink them down to 1/8 screen size...

Re:Ads? (1)

It'sYerMam (762418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400514)

They're only a minute or two long though, and generally I'm more likely to want to watch some other BBC program than I am to buy $BRAND shampoo $MAKE air freshener or $COMPANY loans/insurance/mortgage/whatever.

I skip ads the right way... (4, Insightful)

ludomancer (921940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399872)

.. by not watching at all! This is trite, but I stopped watching TV specifically because of advertising. If I had a DVR, I would most definitely skip them, but from the few shows I've downloaded in the past I can see they're just putting the ads in the show itself now, so... Guess I'll keep not watching TV instead.

I just really hate that everything in our society has to be about selling you something, or pushing something else into your view.

Re:I skip ads the right way... (5, Insightful)

teebob21 (947095) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400080)

The last bit in your post made me prepare for a little ramble... Is today's society really any different than in the past? Corporate sponsorship of such things as stadiums is relatively new, but every time I read an old newspaper (I'm talking Wild West to Great Depression) I am fascinated by the blatant advertising for snake oil remedies and get-rich-quick gold rush schemes. It was right out there on the front page, too. Are we really any different today in America than the rowdy Chinese and Indian markets of yesterday? Perhaps the only difference is that these ads come faceless, in print or in video, rather than a hard-up vendor pushing his wares on the market corner.

To that end, why are there so many ads? Well, ads simply *work*. If they didn't, there would be no marketing departments and no billboards, no jingles on the radio, no Super Bowl extravaganza commericials.

I also think ad dollars (and the inevitable ads they pay for) save the average American a lot of money each year. How, you might say? Ad sales finance ventures that may otherwise be unprofitable or unsustainable. When Google became more than just the new kid on the block, and needed to finance a "real" business, they turned to ad sales for revenue. Broadcast TV is free to the public only because advertisers pay for airtime. I cannot imagine a scenario where ABC/NBC/CBS could stay in business broadcasting for free, without the life support of ad sales. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Even if 13 minutes of every half hour program is advertising, I get to watch an episode of [your favorite show] for free, courtesy of Tide or Tampax or Ford or whichever ad was on while I was digging in the fridge for some mustard on my sandwich. Unfortunately, those broadcasters (and most cable networks) are now addicted to this revenue and try to find more new places to sell ad space, like in-show interstitials.

Does some advertising go to far? Certainly. There's no need for annoying interstitials during a show, especially when it covers up an important part of the action. Do ad dollars shape the world we see today? Of course. Some of our most American retreats are named for advertising. Wrigley Field for example...possibly the first stadium named for an advertiser. It's a historic name now, but we're all weary of Pac Bell/SBC/AT&T Wireless/Minute Maid Park and the Nokia Sugar Bowl. (That said, I would have hated to see Candlestick Park in San Francisco fade away into the shadows over something simple like the naming all time favorite ballpark, and I'm not even from California)

Ads can be annoying and overdone, but they are a product of a free capitalistic society. Considering the available societal alternatives (China, Myanmar, and Cuba come to mind), I'll take a few ads and nearly constant product placement. Besides, I didn't buy a Tivo for nothing!

Re:I skip ads the right way... (4, Interesting)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400184)

The last bit in your post made me prepare for a little ramble... Is today's society really any different than in the past? Corporate sponsorship of such things as stadiums is relatively new, but every time I read an old newspaper (I'm talking Wild West to Great Depression) I am fascinated by the blatant advertising for snake oil remedies and get-rich-quick gold rush schemes
You make a really excellent point, and you're exactly right! The poster you replied to just doesn't get it!

I would actually go beyond what you said--you said that for instance, corporate sponsorship of stadiums is a new thing. Maybe corporate, but in years past it would have been an individual. Think of in the US have many buildings (universities, etc) are named after people who gave money to build them--Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.

Going back even farther in history, Pompeii gives countless examples of graffiti that showed politics then was no different than today--slanderous and brutal! Same for advertisements, they were everywhere.

Re:I skip ads the right way... (5, Insightful)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400248)

Yes we're different. Not perhaps, different than a MARKET earlier, the purpose of a market is, afterall, to SELL stuff. But different in the pervasiveness. This has many reasons. One is a large selection of goods that are really quite equivalent to the buyer, where marketing tries to create incentive to select brand A over brand B on reasons other than price alone when really the differences are debatable. Another is the rising distance (physical and otherwise) between producer and consumer. You don't -know- the guy growing your potatoes anymore. And so mass-marketing has taken over from reputation and word-of-mouth. The worst is, though, that it is EVERYWHERE. Walk down a street in Berlin, and the Brandenburger Tor, one of the most famous landmarks there is is under renovation, and covered with a GIGANTIC telecom-banner. Your shopping-cart has advertising on the handlebar. So does the fuel-pistol-thing when you refuel. All the products you buy are packaged in advertising. TV has more comercials than programming, radio ain't much better. The Internet is filled with banner-ads and stupid flash-crap. Things wheren't always like this. And I'm not convinced we're better off for it. I'm not in favour of banning advertising or anything. But I *am* in favour of having a reasoned debate about under just which rules we want it. And I don't think "anything goes" is it. There is such a thing as visual pollution.

Re:I skip ads the right way... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400316)

I wouldn't say that ads save anybody the end those advertising costs just get passed on to the person buying the advertised product.
For instance, in the US the big pharmaceutical companies spend a lot more on advertising than they do on R&D, but ultimately the ads are paid for along with the prescription (or the insurance that allows one to afford the prescription).

Re:I skip ads the right way... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400348)

To that end, why are there so many ads? Well, ads simply *work*.
No they don't. All scientific (psy) studies to establish whether or not they work (well, the ones I have read) have been inconclusive. They show a tendency/inclination towards familiarity, but have been unable to prove that advertising actually increases familiarity with a product.

The advertising system *works*, but not in the way that it succesfully directs consumerism: it's a large market in and of itself, and I'd posit that it's become a self-sustaining ecology rather than a result-oriented practice. I see advertising as a self-fulfilling prophecy: it exists only because businesses believe it works, and continues to exist because consumers believe that the product with the most expensive advertising campaign must therefore be the best.

Of course, that's not to say that new products shouldn't be brought to the attention of its intended target market (aka product positioning). But advertising is way past (below) that level of sophistication.

disclaimer: yes I'm biased. I actually switched to another telecom provider because my current one managed to start a truly obnoxious advertising campaign (KPN Hi).

Re:I skip ads the right way... (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400392)

I also think ad dollars (and the inevitable ads they pay for) save the average American a lot of money each year. How, you might say? Ad sales finance ventures that may otherwise be unprofitable or unsustainable.

Then such ventures should fail. I have no problem with that.

Advertising makes products that I do want cost more, simple as that. Without spending money trying to convince people who don't want a product that they need it anyway, companies would have a lower overhead and thus could sell for less. Of course, they would sell less overall, and only companies with legitimately useful products would thrive (with the occasional freak exception, of course), but I don't view either of those as necessarily a "bad" thing.

Look at our society, look at the current economic crisis, look at Bratz dolls, and tell me we don't have an outright disease of buying crap we don't need. We have a problem, and we can thank advertising for hefty chunk of that.

Ads can be annoying and overdone, but they are a product of a free capitalistic society.

Just as you can have dinner without gorging yourself to the point of bursting; Just as you can drink without passing out drunk; You can have capitalism without encouraging people to spend more than they have on crap they don't need.

Re:I skip ads the right way... (5, Insightful)

Jellybob (597204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400500)

You can have capitalism without encouraging people to spend more than they have on crap they don't need.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

The problem isn't that people are buying things, it's that they're buying things that are truly unneccesary, and in some cases actually harmful.

Taking the example of Bratz dolls, if I had children, I wouldn't even consider buying them. As far as I can see, they're teaching children that being succesful is the same as being famous. For any reason, no matter how degrading.

It appears that society agrees though. The person named as the most popular role model in the UK for teenage girls recently was Amy Winehouse. Which leads me to think I should probably leave the country, before another generation of kids grow up who believe they're entitled to fame just because they exist, instead of having to work for it. After all, if Amy can do it just by getting wasted in front of cameras now and again, why shouldn't they?

Re:I skip ads the right way... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400422)

Considering the available societal alternatives (China, Myanmar, and Cuba come to mind), I'll take a few ads and nearly constant product placement. Besides, I didn't buy a Tivo for nothing!

Ooh, nice bit of product placement there! :-)

Re:I skip ads the right way... (1)

the_one(2) (1117139) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400540)

13 minutes commercial / 30 min is way to much imho. i could handle maybe 10 min / hour

Young children... (4, Funny)

Nutria (679911) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399878)

... just get captivated by the high-energy movement and noise of commercials. At least that's how my 8yo & 10yo act. I'm constantly yelling (from the next room) "Skip over the commercials!!!".

Re:Young children... (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400138)

I'm constantly yelling (from the next room) "Skip over the commercials!!!".
They watch the ads as an act of rebellion.

Next they'll install Vista, put all their personal info on facebook and answer Nigerian spam.

Television? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23399882)

I thought and Miro kind of made that irrelevant these days.

Digital Video Recorder (3, Informative)

Bwerf (106435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399888)

I don't know if anyone was confused by the abbreviation, but anyway, DVR seems to be Digital Video Recorder [] . Maybe it's just because I'm from sweden. Anyway, hope it helps someone.

women (3, Funny)

William Robinson (875390) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399896)

Women of any age group tend to be around 35%.

That proves, women never grow :P

Brand Loyalty (2, Interesting)

Ixitar (153040) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399900)

It might also be that the older we get the more we don't change brands. If a person drinks Coke then he/she will more than likely not drink Pepsi or another brand. This is more prevalent as we age. One would then start to skip ads for Coke, Pepsi and any other cola drink, because it is not going to change your mind.

Re:Brand Loyalty (2, Insightful)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400024)

Actually buying things is part of it. The other part is making you feel good about your purchases after the fact and maintaining that 'brand loyalty'... So if you're sitting on the couch watching the Hockey Game with your favorite beer in your hand and the commercial for it comes on, dont you feel better about buying your beer?

Re:Brand Loyalty (1)

Jellybob (597204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400508)

No, not really.

But then I buy my beer to drink it, rather then to jerk off into it.

I would, but (1)

Spacejock (727523) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399904)

... my DVR doesn't support it. They've put in a skip but it does about five minutes, or ten, or thirty (seems to be a percentage of the total) and it's right next to the button which leaps ahead to live, deleting all the paused recording in the process.

You've just reminded me why I prefer DVDs.

Re:I would, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400046)

You mean those that are infected with anti-piracy clips and unskippable ads for movies that will soon be obsolete but still annoying much later on, when you just want to re-watch a movie or series?

Buyers vs non-buyers (5, Insightful)

Mike1024 (184871) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399906)

I always thought that ad skipping was a major benefit of DVRs. Do you skip all the ads?
If you assume most people who pay for DVRs want to skip ads, one would expect DVR buyers to skip ads.

Their teenage children may not feel as strongly about adverts because children of DVR buyers, unlike DVR buyers themselves, have not self-selected for wanting to skip ads.

Jusy my $0.02.

Re:Buyers vs non-buyers (3, Insightful)

aztektum (170569) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399992)

Pretty much the first thing that popped into my head as well.

Younger people are more into popular culture, which is heavily marketed on tele. They have more of a propensity to stay in touch. "Older people" are going to be far more "set" in their way and less influenced by ads.

Hence, as the parent suggests, their desire to purchase a DVR

Re:Buyers vs non-buyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400014)

I'm one of those that only have TV (DVR) as background noise. Most of the time I will only pay attention when I am not actively doing something on my Mac.

Re:Buyers vs non-buyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400070)

Which would also explain why women are more consistent than men (they're not the ones buying DVRs).

Viewing habits would be an interesting correlation (1)

GrpA (691294) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399910)

I tend to watch the ads while my wife skips them...

The difference? I don't watch much TV so many of the ads are new to me... So I don't mind watching them. I find it more frustrating hunting for the start of the show that watching them, unless they are really long or really bad and annoying.

And if the ad's interesting enough, I rewind and watch it twice :)


TiVo (4, Informative)

riceboy50 (631755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399912)

I love the TiVo easter egg for enabling 30-second skip [] . I don't know how I lived without it before. I've heard of Myth and other software DVRs stripping out commercials altogether, but I enjoy the TiVo service.

Background (3, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399914)

I've wondered if music, despite our need for it, is just a passive enjoyment source. What I mean is that it takes no energy at all to simply have background music play while we are actively engaged in something else. Through this, the value of music is diminished to the point of zero because in the end anything will do.

Contrast this with TV or movies which require a much more concentrated effort to enjoy. While there are certainly some TV shows which you can tune out for half an hour and not miss anything, in general watching the boobtube means imposing a restriction on your activities for that time period. Because of this, the value of TV and visual media is perceived higher than music.

With the advent of on-demand television/movies, the value of TV and movies drops considerably lower. While still higher than zero due to the inability to produce shows of any quality immediately (as would be possible with music throughhumming to yourself or singing in the shower), the value is lower due to the loss of time restriction. Whereas you would have to assign a timeslot to watch TV, now you can pick it up any time, even to the extent that video playback was just background noise.

What's more, once viewers stop paying attention to anything they aren't really interested in, advertisers are going to start clamoring for both more technical restrictions built into the device and more in-line advertising (through advertisement bars and in-show placements).

The future is going to suck for TV.

Damn right I skip all the ads! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23399916)

Without my DVR I wouldn't be able to watch TV!

Also, here in the UK, they seem to have started 'turning the volume up' on adverts to really grab your attention. That, the way they treat you as mindless consumers and the whole bullshit science of 'health food' and 'beauty' products make me really appreciate my DVR.

Re:Damn right I skip all the ads! (1)

Jellybob (597204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400526)

I kind of enjoy the pseudo-science adverts... in a "my God, is anyone stupid enough to believe that" way.

"Eat as many colours of fruit and veg as you can"
"Now with pentapeptides"
"6 blades and a vibrating massage strip"

That combined with the volume increase for adverts is usually enough to make me just turn off the TV, and wait until my computer has finished recording the program so I can edit out adverts.

How would they know? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399934)

The nifty thing about DVRs is you watch when you want what you want.

So how would they know what people do other than what they say they do?

Self report is a pretty lame statistical tool.

Re:How would they know? (3, Insightful)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400048)

TiVo did a pretty impressive foot-in-mouth when, shortly after the Janet Jackson boob incident, they said it was the most rewound moment ever.

Ever notice how they're always rather insistent that you plug the dvr into a phone or ethernet? Dish charges $5/mo per dvr that isn't plugged in.

skip commercials (1)

nycheetah (172069) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399936)

um...of course I skip the ads. Whats wrong with you?

Re:skipping tv-commercials (1)

tankadin (1175113) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400066)

Is there any thechnology that could be used to program tv to skip all adds? Change channel perhaps or to show the duration of the commercial and the time to the end of the ad-break

Re:skipping tv-commercials (1)

jim.hansson (1181963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400372)

I think you can can have programs look for the channel logo, and if it's not showing then it is a commercial, someone with more experince in image processsing maybe can tell if it's doable. Getting TV makers to put this kind of technology inside TVs that another problem, and then most channels will leave the channel logo on under commercials too :-( .

Scene releases = No ads (2, Insightful)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399938)

Thanks to scene releases, I get no standalone ads at all. Of course I do get the in-show ads, like the pushing of iTunes, Coke, and Fords, on American Idol.

Re:Scene releases = No ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400086)

Me too. Just tonight I was using my TV for something other than a really big low-res third monitor, because I was working on a spare machine. I thought I'd try this cable tv stuff I had. It comes free with my internet. So I was watching The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, and seeing commercials for the first time in a long while. "Huh," I thought to myself, "So that's what's normally in between the 'We'll be right back' and 'Welcome back'." After enduring through all that much nonsense, along with not being able to pause, rewind, or fast forward like I can with a video file on my PC, I've concluded that watching television is sub-optimal. I'll continue to scan the tvtorrents feeds.

Re:Scene releases = No ads (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400234)

I hope you leech those torrents just like you leech on society.

Re:Scene releases = No ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400452)

That's right. Not watching ads is stealing! You're taking bread straight from the mouths of babes if you don't sit and let the adverts wash over your consciousness and slip deeper into your soul.

Watch the ads. Save the baby. Won't somebody please think of the children?

Re:Scene releases = No ads (4, Funny)

Jellybob (597204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400536)

You download TV, and then decide to watch American Idol?

Do feel free to jump in front of the nearest bus. You'll be doing the genepool a favour. Maybe if we get enough people removing themselves, "I should be famous because my mummy loves me" TV will slowly die out.

here's an observation for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23399946)

youngsters, especially teenagers, tend to be a lot lazier. Skipping Ads? they probably just can't be bothered.

Re:here's an observation for you (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400258)

I'd post a stirring rebuttal but I can't be bothered.

Solution (3, Funny)

Tx (96709) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399948)

Advertisers should slow their commercials down so that the play at the right speed when we're doing a 32x fast forward. Think about it - everybody wins. The TV companies sell more ad space, because a 5min break only gives 9 seconds of ad playback time. We the viewers get really concise, focussed ads. And the advertisers will actually get their ads watched the whole way through. I am a fricking genius, am I not!

When your time is running out... (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399950)

...every moment is too precious to be wasted on advertising.

Re:When your time is running out... (2, Insightful)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400458)

and that's why they are watching TV in the first place?

Does the research differentiate (5, Insightful)

joeflies (529536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399954)

between channel surfing and ad skipping?

Just based on personal observation, I notice most young people don't skip ads, but rather start watching another program. Their hyper short-term attention spans drive them to find new content instead of finishing the content they were originally watching. A teen will watch 10 minutes of 5 different shows in an hour, without having to use the skip button on the dvr at all.

Older people, with greater attention spans, want to continue the program they were watching, and thus use the technology to skip the ads in order to watch the entire program.

Re:Does the research differentiate (4, Interesting)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400090)

As a young person who, thankfully, doesn't really watch TV on a regular basis I can tell you the reasoning for this is part of why I don't.

Say you're watching a show and an ad comes on, you've got a good three minutes, at least, before your show comes back. So you find something else good to watch until it goes to commercial. Then you switch back, but wait, show #1 is still on commercial, find show #3. When it goes to commercial #1 is probably back, if not maybe number #2. The way shows repeat themselves over and over again and the increasing length of commercial breaks means you can just about watch two or three shows at a time if you're intent on doing so.

Finding three good shows to skip between, that's the challenge. I can rarely find one, which may explain why catching 50 minutes of one show or 10 minutes of five different ones all comes out about the same in the end.

The majority of ads target young people *nm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23399988)


Hell yes I skip (2)

davmoo (63521) | more than 6 years ago | (#23399998)

The only button on my TiVo remote with noticeable wear on it is the skip forward button.

Anyone surprised by this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400000)

It's normal that DVR owners skip DVR ads since they already have the product.

Do you remember that old website ? (1)

dascritch (808772) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400002)

Zapavision [] : The ads are the show

Call me old fashioned.... (5, Funny)

Dieppe (668614) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400008)

Hell, I skip the articles about skipping the ads.

Some ads better than the programs (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400018)

Some ads are pretty funny. So I do get some enjoyment of watching them. But the fact remains, that I have never bought something just because I saw it on tv. So watch or don't watch, it's all the same to me.

Re:Some ads better than the programs (1)

ThJ (641955) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400300)

You do. Would you buy something you never saw an ad for? We instinctively trust advertised brands.

Yes to skipping ads (1)

JoshHeitzman (1122379) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400036)

What cable TV I watch I do fast forward through ads. On rare occasion I see one that catches my eye (usually a movie trailer) and go back and watch it.

Re:Yes to skipping ads (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400266)

Most teens watch the ads as that is the market most of the ads are aimed at. Apart from the odd SAGA/stairlift ad on afternoon telly, what was the last oldie advert you saw?

Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400072)

I don't watch or subscribe to cable or broadcast television.
On-demand and internet-based programming is the future and DVR will be rendered meaningless.

Not surprising (4, Insightful)

rts008 (812749) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400084)

When I first started paying attention to TV, the commercials were between the half hour shows, or one commercial break (a word from our sponsors was the term used) halfway through an hour long show.
Then it went to commercials between the half hour shows, with one commercial halfway through at 15 minutes. An hour show would have the commercials between, and then every 20 minutes.
Then it went from two commercials between shows, and then one ever 15 minutes.
Then two every 15 minutes.
Then two every 10 minutes.
When I finally could not take anymore, and just quit watching TV altogether about 5 years ago, it was 3-4 commercials every 4-5 minutes. I tried recording a 30 minute show-pausing during the commercials, and ended up with 18 minutes of show...the other 12 minutes were commercials...over one third of the 30 minute show was commercials, not the show.

And those insidious 'infomercials'- 30 minute commercials WITH commercials...WTF?!?!?!

Enough already!
So yeah, I enjoyed being able to watch a show with only one or two SHORT commercial breaks, but I cannot enjoy the way it is now where the commercial breaks seem to be longer than the show breaks in between them.

To me it seems to have done a complete 180. It started as a way for advertisers to use a show to get a chance to show an ad or two and provide the entertainment draw to increase the audience to view those couple of ads.
Now the show is only an vehicle to drown you in commercials, the show be damned.

So now, with a DVR (with say a 200GB HDD), you're filling up over 70GB's of it with commercials, and during playback, you end up having to either hold on to the remote, or pick it up every 4 minutes to fast forward through the commercials.

No wonder most kids today have short attention spans, or just do something else and leave the TV playing in the background.

This sounds like a study done back in the early 1990's (given an $86,000 USD grant) to find out if people preferred warm or cold showers, and why. Duh!

Re:Not surprising (2)

aXis100 (690904) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400256)

I know what you mean.

Fortunately in Australia the government broadcaster (ABC) puts out some pretty good content and even does digital multi-channeling, all without commercial advertising. There are some internal ABC promotional bits, but thankfully they're between shows.

The rest of the time I stick to downloaded series where someone else had cut out the ads for me. :)

Re:Not surprising (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400362)

Sounds like a much better deal than we have here (USA).

I really miss the site.

I went back to reading. My imagination is much better at providing the imagery while reading than most show/movie graphics.
And I don't need a fast-forward button!

Re:Not surprising (2, Informative)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400352)

That's why I liked watching things like Star Trek on the BBC (used to be BBC 2 at 6pm). You didn't get any adverts and so the show was 45 minutes long. Follow it up by a couple of episodes of Simpsons and you're done by 7:30pm instead of 8pm :)

Ditto for Formula One and other sport - much better on the BBC when it doesn't get interrupted by adverts (football - the real one - they chat for a few minutes of the 15 minute break because of adverts and Formula One they have to put adverts during the race).

I don't know if it is unfamiliarity with the adverts or an actual occurrence, but the few times I've watched American TV rather than UK TV then the American TV seems to have more adverts. Having said that, now that I've got Sky then watching some of the satellite channels evens the match up a bit. Maybe it was just terrestrial that had fewer ad breaks.

Re:Not surprising (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400516)

There are more adverts on satellite (and digital terrestrial, and cable) than there are on analogue terrestrial television. ITV1, Channel 4 and Channel 5 are subject to quite harsh restrictions on advertising, which don't apply to the likes of Sky or UKTV. A half-hour BBC show expands to 40 minutes on UK Gold.

I'm not even sure what products are being advertised since I ditched Virgin Media for Sky Plus. Having a big ugly dish on the house is not good (makes it look like a Council house -- fortunately it's around the back so not visible from the street) but missing out on The Simpsons, Weeds and Lost was worse.

Skip live ads (1)

Thirsty Ferret (953681) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400098)

I skip all the ads unless I'm distracted by something else. If I want to watch something on TV when it's broadcast I'll start recording it and then start watching about 10 mins in, then when the ads come I can skip over them and gradually catch up with the broadcast. I don't like ads :P

It's simple... (2, Insightful)

kylegordon (159137) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400100)

Old folks know the value of time. Teens just love to waste time, until they realise how important it is.

Re:It's simple... (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400190)

If it were really important, you wouldn't be here.

moral of the story (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400104)

make good ads that aren't annoying.

Re:moral of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400364)

Congratulations! You managed to create a post with only two errors!

Granted, it was only a one sentence post, but it looks as though the remedial English classes are working.

We are all very proud of you, keep up the good work!

Next, we'll work on content.

I skip ads (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400110)

I watch little TV - mostly Futurama/Colbert Report on Comedy Central and some History/Discovery Channel. Nothing else.

When I record something, I skip the ads -- but I usually make a mental note of the advertising and the brand being advertised. Not for any particular reason or obligation, but I think it's because I'm still focused on the show rather having zoned out earlier at the start of an advertising break.

If an ad is particularly entertaining, I even back up and watch/rewatch it though:)

As a young person... (3, Insightful)

Loplin (1037544) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400112)

As a young person(21) with DVR in my room, I have to say that I don't always skip the ads.

Most often I am watching tv live, and I can only fast forward through something that has either already been aired and recorded, or is ondemand. Fortunately, the DVR will record two channels at once; either the one or two channels I specify, or the last channel I was at and the current channel I am at. This lets me watch two channels back and forth.

Sometimes I have the tv on as background, or am only somewhat paying attention to it. The second most common reason for not skipping, for me(aside from watching live), is that I simply forget that I can fast forward! I frequently wake up from some kind of mindless daze in the middle of a commercial and realize... "oh, WTF am I doing?!", then start fast forwarding. This can even happen more than once or twice in the very same program.

Re:As a young person... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400418)

That never happens with me. I usually (well, used to) watch tv late at night, just before bed or something. I regularly doze off, and only half-consciously watch the show. But every commercial break is like an alarm clock: the volume gets turned up +10dB, the screen starts flashing vividly and I'm immediately awake again.

So now I've stopped watching TV altogether, and when I do I always have the remote in my hand, my finger on the mute-button...

I'm not young anymore! (2, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400118)

The skew is particularly apparent among men: 50% of seniors skipping all the ads, but only 20% of teens do so.

Because the seniors realize they haven't got much time left to watch ads? [ducking]

Picture in picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400142)

I don't have a DVR, unless you count BitTorrent and eMule as one .-) but they come with no ads at all.

Things are different when watching TV. Luckily I've got a TV set with Picture in Picture, so I just switch to another channel when ads start and keep an eye on the original one in the PiP window. When ads stop I switch back, unless the other show is more interesting.

I thought... (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400146)

the major benefit of DVRs was being able to record sans tape.

I find myself forgetting it's recorded TV (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400160)

I'd guess that 1/2 the time I watch DVR'd TV, I watch through the ads simply from being so accustomed to the pacing of commercial breaks, that it's not a nuisance to watch them during my favorite shows.

The exceptions are shows like Meet the Press where the last EIGHT minutes is a huge commercial break.

ad skipping (1)

theeddie55 (982783) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400186)

why do we make it sound like ad skipping is new, even beta max and vhs had fast forward buttons.

In an unexpected suprise, why youngsters... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400204)

....don't skip ads as much, was found to be a matter of not being old and experienced enough to know better.

No need (1)

chrylis (262281) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400206)

I don't skip commercials... MythTV does it for me!

Non-DVR owner (5, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400228)

I don't have a DVR but I think I can explain this quite simply. I don't buy a TV to watch ads. Myself, being an old fart, just wants to watch the highlighted programs that I know I will like. I no longer want to "try" watching much unless it really grabs my interest. By flooding me with ads, the TV companies have made it almost impossible to get me interested in any new series that I might want to watch. I'm more likely to read about it in a paper/online or pick up on it via word of mouth once it's been established for about two or three series. Thus, I have a tendency to totally skip all ads for anything.

If I was a kid today, I wouldn't see the point in TV at all. It's all just ads. When I was younger, there were a handful of ads that, even back then, I used as a convenient break in my programs to use the bathroom, make a drink etc. But now there's nothing of interest to them, and if they manually skipped them all they'd never get anything done. They are actually doing what the TV companies would fear most - they are learning to completely ignore ads in all media because they are saturated with them from an early age in all media. That's a good skill for them to have, I say. Thus, they can leave them playing and it makes little difference.

Myself and my wife gave up on broadcast TV about five years ago. By that I mean that the TV is now just a display device - we watch DVD's (and even still videos) and we play games on it all the time. But that's pretty much it. We have a satellite subscription on the lowest paid rate because then we get the "old programs" channels and things like Discovery but we're even considering giving that up because it's no longer of much value to us. We watch a "new" program about once a year, if that. But if I stumble across a favourite, I'll watch it if I'm in the mood.

The chances are that we only watch maybe one or two half-hour programs a night now and only about three or four nights a week unless we are working hard. That's WAY down on our previous rates. Most of the programs we do watch are re-runs that we know we are going to enjoy (although they are being slowly ruined by being edited for broadcasting during the day and then repeated with those same edits during the evening - so we "jar" on the gaps because we know the programs well enough to know something "naughty" was cut out, even though it's way past most people's bedtime). We have the remote on hand to mute all the adverts (because of the "let's raise advert volume levels" stupidity) and wait for the channel banner until we turn it back on. In the gap, we read, make phonecalls or prepare food. A lot of the time we just switch the thing off or, if our interest was peaked by a favourite program being on but it being yet another repeat of that episode we've watched a thousand times, what we will do is dig out our "complete set" DVD and choose a better episode of the same series.

Broadcast TV is slowly dying under the weight of the ads, for which the good programming has given way - it has been for years. They are poor quality (especially the ones that seem US-based when broadcast to a UK audience - the Cillit Bang man really needs a volume-reduction operation and the "US advert with dubbed fake UK voices" is just too grating when it's every other advert), uninteresting, not well targetted, over-used, over-frequent, and too forced. And the programs that they are replacing are becoming more like adverts every day. Even the bloody movies are adverts now (the bit in "I Robot" about the trainers really annoyed me in an otherwise very enjoyable film).

I can remember a time when I was younger, when a Saturday night was a non-stop run of fantastic programs, some old, some new and some which even then were 20-year-old repeats but it didn't show that badly - that made you stay in front of the TV all evening. The example that my wife likes to use is Tony Hancock (although we're both far too young to remember it the first time around, that's our sort of humour and type of era/program we watch) - when that was first on, apparently, the pubs would empty and everyone would go home to watch it. That whole "settling down to watch the telly" thing finally died about ten years ago, if not a long time before. Personally, my family replaced it with video games - the Wii was possibly the best thing ever invented for us. Then broadcast TV started to die altogether.

I now only watch a handful of channels. My children aren't going to watch hardly anything - they are going to be brought up on DVD's (or equivalent) of the best of entertainment. They will be doing what I now do - find something you like, buy it on DVD, copy it to cut out the ads, warnings and other crap and when you have a library large enough, just settle down in front of the telly and CHOOSE what to watch depending on your mood without ANYTHING in the way. Even DVR's will go the advert-sponsored route eventually (if they haven't already), and so will Internet-based services like iPlayer, 4onDemand and the like.

This is what happens when you cross the line between "if we show an advert or two we can cover costs" to "let's sod the programs and the viewers and make money". It's happened on the web, it's happening on TV, it'll happen on every media until people learn to totally blank out all ads entirely. I think we have a responsibility to teach our children how to avoid adverts, salesman and other sales tricks.

I'm seriously waiting for the first music CD to come out with adverts between each track. It's got to happen eventually and if it doesn't, it'll only be the premature death of the CD that would stop it. Would you read a book where every fifth page was a full page colour advert? That'll happen at some point too. Ad's have infested the Internet, TV, radio, newspapers, even the legislation in some countries. There's a saturation point where you just don't care any more. There's a line in one of the Red Dwarf books - about an advert for Pepsi being made using local stars so that from Earth everyone can see the word Pepsi in the sky. I seriously wouldn't put such antics past certain advertisers if they had the capability physically, financially and legally.

My generation just get annoyed with adverts because we weren't brought up with them and therefore we have to switch them off/cut them out. Our kids just don't care any more because they are saturated and so they just totally ignore them. Good for them. I hope it kills the advertising business. We'll still have kids talking in trademarks for years to come but hopefully we'll weed it out to the point where only "reasonable" advertising is actually effective.

Re:Non-DVR owner (1)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400370)

I'm seriously waiting for the first music CD to come out with adverts between each track.

I doubt it. Download sales increasingly popular and will they eventually completely overtake compact disc sales. Also, music is no longer the sole (or even the primary) form of income for artists: the real money is in merchandise, live performances, making appearances as a brand at events (and in.. adverts, ironically).

Re:Non-DVR owner (1)

AngelofDeath-02 (550129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400444)

Truthfully, I think I'm an exception within my age group (Young 20's) in that I don't channel surf. It annoys the Fuck out of me because I'll get sucked into whatever is on and want to finish the show, which is impossible ...

Anyway, I've learned to tune out advertising, as you say. This seems to be why ads are starting to progress to within the show itself. Take Heroes for example. Why do you think the Nissan Versa and Nissan Rogue are so prevalent? That Heero made such a point about getting the Versa? Well ... Nissan paid a -lot- of money, that'd be my guess. If you watch these episodes online, Nissan has transitioned the advertising to match with the shows progression on vehicles as well. (The other two major advertisings were Chase and Cisco, fyi)

Anyway, you really can debate the legitimacy of advertisements, and how excessive they've become. You can debate and quantify how they ruin content, but I don't think you can deny their evolution. They will adapt, and so will we. The slow will be annoyed, and others just won't give a shit.

Unexpected? (1)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400250)

Ad Age hypothesizes that younger viewers 'just pay attention to other media when the ads are on TV or, worse yet, perhaps the TV is just "background music"...'

How was this an unexpected result? People have always used advert slots to get up for a drink, walk the dog, visit the loo and so on. Younger viewers simply have more distractions (friends, choirs) and more gadgets (mobiles, computers, consoles) that might need attention, or could provide the necessary distraction during the interruption.

And using television as background music isn't exactly new either.. anyone who has ever hoovered or ironed can vouch for that. The difference between young and old is quite simple here as well: younger people tend to live in smaller houses (think of a studios) where it's more likely primary tasks are nearby a television set.

Skipping Ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400262)

Thats like stealing Television how are the channels going to make money?

absolute numbers? (2, Informative)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400298)

I'd rather suggest that it's a selection bias. Among young people, TV is a lot less common than among older people, who often use it instead of social contacts (who are either dead or old and not very mobile themselves).

Lots of young people don't even have a TV anymore. It's definitely a pattern. Far from a majority, but while in our parents generation a TV simply was part of every home, in our generation you're not looked at funny anymore when you say you don't have a TV. It's not a big deal, because it's fairly common.

So, the study group self-selects. Those who have a DVR have a TV as well. First link. Those who have a TV aren't simply "everyone", but those who more or less decided to have a TV. Second link. Why do you decide to get a TV in an age where half of the program is ads? Because you don't care much about that. Third link. If you don't care much about ads, you don't expend much energy to skip them. And that's what the study has shown. Any correlation to age probably goes more through this self-selection than through any other age-related attribute.

I don't skip the ads.... (1)

shippo (166521) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400330)

...but only because I only watch channels without ads in the first place.

Subliminal advertising (2, Funny)

SKPhoton (683703) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400360)

or, worse yet, perhaps the TV is just "background music"
Worse? Advertisers love that. Their messages then seep right into the listener's subconscious unimpeded!

That just proves old point (1, Flamebait)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400410)

Younger people do not have brains.

Yes! (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 6 years ago | (#23400440)

I deliberately start watching late; then I just rewind to the beginning of the programme, and fast-forward through the advert breaks.

Visiting people who don't have Sky Plus is really annoying!

Re: Youngsters Skip DVR Ads Less Than Seniors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400454)

I pre-record almost everything and skip through the ads. I hate them so much. I'm 21. I'm not sure if that makes me a "youngster" or not.

Here's an idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23400468)

Television content is becoming irrelevant. I gave it up when I moved away from home and I don't miss it. The internet is a far more efficient resource for timely and targeted news. I can get current news on topics of interest all day long and I'm not forced to sit through ads that make my stomach churn (they can be ignored) or content I feel has no relevance to me.

I find these days that the little television I see is worse than my email inbox. Lately the ads on tv are for the same type of "products" I mark/delete as spam every day, only worse because I can't just press delete and move on.

Ultimately, any form of media that pushes content to a user rather than give them the content they want when they want it will fail.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>