How I Learned to Stop Worrying... and Love Ad Zapping. It's Here. So Grow With It.

Carla Sarett and Robin Broitman

The digital future is upon us. Finally, we have the convenience of PVRs, on-demand television and other digital options that allow us to fast-forward, pause, rewind and store content on our own schedule.

And, oh, yes, we can also skip ads if we choose. It is indeed a brave new world.

While there are differing forecasts for penetration of technologies like PVRs and VOD, most in the industry agree that TV will change dramatically over the next several years.

For TV viewers, the advantages of these changes are obvious. But for networks and advertisers, it’s a less-appealing picture.

Those who sell ads wonder whether these new technologies will threaten a business model that (with the exception of pay cable) subsidizes TV content through ad revenue.

Meanwhile, marketers are apprehensive about ad skipping but are eager (understandably) to pay less for buying ads.

All this fuss over ad zapping seems a bit behind the curve. Ad zapping is hardly a new problem, especially in an era of more than 70 cable channels. For a long time we’ve had a technology that allows us to skip ads — it’s called a remote control.

Are we the only wives whose spouses zoom from channel to channel every time an ad appears? Perhaps it’s not the ideal “filtering” technology, but a remote works remarkably well to “delete” ads. Our husbands often use VCRs (or trips to the refrigerator!) in a similar fashion. Sure enough, we now have a crowd of marketers eager to solve this “problem” of ad zapping. One of the more popular solutions is “advertainment” (e.g., advertising that’s “fun” and entertaining).

In the “Where’s Waldo” approach, products appear insidiously in TV programs through “product placement.”

A more extreme solution would make it downright illegal for consumers to skip or delete advertising using these new technologies — as if ad zapping itself were a form of digital piracy. Already we have DVDs with built-in technology to prevent us from forwarding through trailers. We wonder, what’s next? Forcing us to buy products?

There are other options.

Rather than struggling against these new technologies, companies can decide to work with them. The way it works now (in the “linear” world), we turn on the set to watch programs and ads “interrupt” us at regular intervals.

To gain our attention in this context, ads often have to stand out as clever, funny or visually stunning.

On-demand viewing changes all of this because viewers, not programmers or advertisers, determine how and when shows get watched. We’d guess that watching a half-hour sitcom is more fun without interruptions — just as reading a magazine article is more engrossing when we don’t stop to look at ads between the pages.

It may well be that we do choose to skip more ads, even if they are witty, as we’re given this extra convenience.

But remember, viewers zap ads now — no one measures it.

But this isn’t just a “no-win” situation. With VOD and iTV, ads no longer have to function merely as “interruptions.” Now advertisers have alternative ways to get out their message without annoying consumers who are busy doing something else (watching a TV program!).

And there’s actually a lot of interest in those messages. Far from avoiding commercial messages, consumers go out of their way to seek out product information. Readers buy entire issues of magazines that rate cars, computers, even clothes.

Local TV news programs consistently score well with segments reporting on gadgets and gizmos. In that other “on-demand” medium — the internet — millions of users flood sites that offer product-related information and ratings.

So there’s no dearth of consumer interest in what companies have to sell. The question is how well future TV advertising will serve that interest.

Thinking beyond today’s 30-second spot opens the door for many new kinds of ads. For one thing, advertisers can deliver longer, substantive messages. And interested (imagine that!) viewers can order these messages in a flexible on-demand environment.

Remember, the ad is no longer competing to gain audience attention, so it doesn’t necessarily win by being clever. Some pioneering advertisers — Volvo, Kraft, Coca-Cola, to name a few — are participating in tests for nascent VOD and ITV services (among them Cox Cable’s FreeZone VOD service in San Diego.)

There will be many kinks to work out. The ad sales model has to be revisited if traditional network viewing metrics are no longer to be the consistent gold standard for TV advertisers. There are no easy answers to revising ad sales models that have allowed networks to produce attractive content —and even ad-zapping audiences realize it’s ad revenues that make programs happen.

It’s true that strong brands will have a role to play in the kinds of ads that viewers choose to order. And equally true, on-demand advertising may not be an ideal vehicle for creating brands. Brand building will still require traditional media buys and will probably require a host of new tactics that have yet to be conceptualized.

But businesses do change, and business models change with them. Advertisers figured out how to utilize cable as an advertising medium (OK, so it took a while), and they will no doubt figure this one out too.

In this context, the constant fretting about ad zapping seems a waste of much-needed creative energy.

Technologies like the PVR or VOD are not disappearing — they’re here and they’re growing. Companies should hit the pause button themselves and take time to redefine the business opportunities.

Only then will we all be able to fast-forward to the digital future. We’re looking forward to see you there.

Author Information
Robin Broitman is the president of Interactive Insights Group in Reston, Va., and Carla Sarett, Ph.D. is the president of the Internet Research Group in Wayne, Pa.

Published January 17, 2003 in MediaLifeMagazine.com