Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, iTS, Video
iTMS TV Terrifies Advertisers
Over at our sibling-blog, AdJab, Ajit Anthony points out that the commercial-less television shows available on the iTMS and the portable video capabilities of the new iPods are scaring the begebus out of advertisers. The post links to a C|Net article that quotes Jason Maltby, co-president of national broadcast for media buyer Mindshare as saying: "One could argue that if I'm a sponsor of Desperate Housewives, my commercial should be wherever Desperate Housewives goes, whether it's on the phone or an iPod."One could also argue that that's crap. I mean, you can buy commercial free shows on DVD. The sponsorship of television advertising is sponsorship for the cost of broadcasting the show, isn't it? Plus, you could always spend your money on product placement. Let's not forget that the shows are advertisements for themselves. I mean, people who are watching the shows on the iTMS will probably tune in to see the broadcast ad-laden versions of the shows, assuming that their iPods haven't replaced the TV, which I don't think it will.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dave said 11:49AM on 10-21-2005
That's right. For an advertiser to essentially say, "I paid for advertising during Housewive's airing on ABC, therefor my ad should accompany any airing of that show" is preposterous. I'd be livid if advertising made its way into iTunes tv shows. Here's a newsflash for greedy advertisers: I have a limited amount of time to watch tv, so I usually do so with my TiVo, and as a result I never see an ad.
Reply
JC said 11:59AM on 10-21-2005
I think the Ad agencies should do a "Sponsered by..." type of thing and drive down the price of the video's. I mean if I could buy a episode of Lost for 99 cents and in return I have to watch a 10 sec clip from Coke saying "This episode of Lost is sponsered by Coke" I wouldn't have a problem with it. I mean, if they worked out a deal with Apple to drive down the cost of video's therefore making it a little more enticing(sp?) for advertisers and content providers (they would get a cut from the sponsors for putting their quick ad on their show, etc..) more power too them.
Just my .02
Reply
JC said 12:03PM on 10-21-2005
I meant at the beginning or end of an episode. Not in the middle like normal tv
Reply
JT said 12:04PM on 10-21-2005
IMHO this is a moo point (the cow says moo): advertisers should stick to TV ratings to determine the rates of ad space.
If others choose to pay directly, it doesn't make any difference if there are still 30 mil people enduring the free-to-air broadcast...
They should tremble before TiVo however...
Reply
Sean Flanagan said 12:24PM on 10-21-2005
To support everyone's point that commercials shouldn't "travel" with a show to other formats, this is not how television advertising sales work. A company can purchase either a specific commercial time slot (i.e. 4th slot of the 3rd commercial break) or a certain number of showings over a certain period (i.e. 5 airings over the course of 5 hours, filled in at slots that have not been specifically purchased). In neither case is it implied that a virtual leash is attached to the advertising slot that accompanies a particular episode. In reality, for an advertisement to show during any broadcast, whether online or on air, a time slot must first be purchased for that particular broadcast.
When an episode of a show is rebroadcast in syndication or on the same network, the same commercials do not play as well.
Reply
fra said 12:31PM on 10-21-2005
They just want their product ad. placed anywhere and everywhere.
Do you really think the hippie with the black jumper would put such things on his little chewing gum pellet of joy?
Reply
James Kahler said 12:31PM on 10-21-2005
Commercials don't travel with shows for re-runs or syndication, so why should they travel to any other re-broadcast (wrong word) of the material. Said differently, the adverser didn't underwrite the risk of the show, they jsut paid for eye-balls on a particular night. They are not entitled to upside if the owner of the content finds a new way to reach new eyeballs.
The risk is actually with the networks and only if viewership goes down whereby their ad revenue will follow.
Reply
Tom said 12:32PM on 10-21-2005
I thought about this as well and obviously ads shouldn't be permanently attached to media purchased for repeated viewing. Think old episodes of your favorite show with 3 year old ads for products that don't exist anymore - that makes zero sense. But there is a difference between Apple's product and DVDs of a show - you can't buy the DVDs until well after the season is over and the shows have enjoyed a solo, exclusively located first run. I'm not including bittorrent here, because it's obviously not a sanctioned model.
Reply
Erik Hammond said 12:49PM on 10-21-2005
Pay for my download. I'll watch the commercial. Pay for my DVD, I'll even switch to Pepsi...
Reply
Terry Bain said 1:03PM on 10-21-2005
Sorry for my obnoxious comment here, but I hope you mean "bejesus." I spent ten minutes trying to figure out what "begebus" was, thinking it might be TV terminology (um... yeah, I can be that slow), and finally landed on "bejesus" being scared out of hucksters.
I also finally decided that if bejesus was being scared out of them, they weren't paying close enough attention to ratings in the first place, because they pay for ads based on those ratings, and those ratings only tell them about people watching the broadcast on TV.
Also and finally, this likely explains why it takes TOO DAMNED LONG for Lost episodes (and other episodes) to appear on ITMS, in an effort to keep the hucksters from utterlly freaking out (at least until the broadcast ratings show that people are surprisingly willing to watch their shows... and their ads... more than once).
Ad Ver Tisers of the bejesus sort are apparently Very Simple Beings incapable of Not Worrying and/or Fussing about Change.
Change will come. Change is coming. Change is now. Have a sandwich.
Reply
Dan said 1:05PM on 10-21-2005
You can make any argument you like, but this has never been the model and never will be.
Advertisers are just going to have to come up with better models rather than reflexively peeing their pants at every technological innovation. The best advertisers will always find ways to advertise effectively.
For example, and this is just a crazy, wild-eyed idea. You could say.., try to make interesting, funny, and engaging advertising. And not make mind-numbingly stupid and annoying advertising.
Advertisers are so used to captive eyeballs that very few have even tried to do anything but shovel the same old repetitive, moronic crap at us.
We watch Tivo almost exclusively, but I almost always stop and watch the new SONIC commercials with the clueless guys, because they're funny. (I realize only part of the country gets these commercials - sorry for the obscure reference)
I actually watched the "Island Fire" commercial three times in a row once on my TiVo because it cracked me up.
I watch Apple commercials. I watch promos. I often rewind the Tivo to catch a commercial for something that looks interesting. (Single serve coffee makers, for example) I hit the "Thumbs Up" on my Tivo while fast forwarding if something catches my eye. I request more info from text ads on my Tivo, and I watch ads and promos downloaded to my Tivo occasionally.
I also click Google text ads. I often SEEK OUT Google text ads - it's a great way to find the product I need. I also click advertising banners in TUAW, MACNN and others, and I don't block them because I'm happy to "pay with my eyeballs" for their services.
So shut up, stupid dinosaur advertisers. Figure it out and stop harassing the digerati. :-)
Reply
rjlawrencejr said 2:52PM on 10-21-2005
Yes, I definitely think of the shows as being advertisements for themselves. Last evening, I downloaded the pilot episode of "Night Stalker" and really enjoyed it (Gabrielle Union is easy on the eyes too), and when I got home, I immediately tuned to ABC to catch last night's episode.
Reply
Penginkun said 4:52PM on 10-21-2005
Tell ya what. Let's have two versions of the files. We'll have the $2 paid download uncut and without commercial interruption. The other will be the same as the broadcast version, with ads intact. It will be free. Think that'll make them happy?
Reply
C.K. Sample, III said 4:57PM on 10-21-2005
Hmmm, Penguinkin, that idea sounds oddly familiar (http://www.tuaw.com/2005/10/13/tuaw-poll-1-99-or-free-with-ads/)...
;-)
Reply
Prof B said 5:02PM on 10-21-2005
Well, it'll be easy enough to scroll through them on the iPod, anyway. If the trade off is a $.99 price tag (which I doubt will happen, but we can dream, eh?), it'd be worth the second it takes to flick the wheel through a cluster of ads.
Reply
Penginkun said 5:14PM on 10-21-2005
I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself...
Reply
Alexandre Roche said 7:37PM on 10-21-2005
This guy's a moron.
If you know anything about marketing/advertising today, you know that there is a ridiculously broad amount of media you can buy today, and TV is just a small portion. That's like saying that by buying an AD on ABC during Desperate Housewives your brand should also be mentioned in any Desperate Housewives print ads..... The iPod and Television are not the same media.
Reply