Advertising and branding may kill traditional television.

Advertising and branding are killing traditional television. Commercial broadcasters are responsible. Here’s Why…..

Following the highly alarming news that the BBC may include ads in their podcasts, I feel forced to air my humble opinion.

Advertising is a behemoth industry. Everywhere you turn you are being bludgeoned with product. Every bus and taxi is adorned with ad wraps… bus stops rotate with lit ads… billboards festoon most roadsides. Papers and magazines are traditionally funded by advertising and most have moved to online with annoying pop-ups, or even worse scroll-busting ads. To a point that’s okay because it’s a commercial world we live in, but the BBC is our unique, ad-free, brand of the people. You could argue that the license fee is a quasi premium subscription fee but it isn’t. The BBC is a unique British Institution with British talent at it’s heart and soul.

We sit in front of our monitor for a chance to be entertained… perhaps for company of sorts… to relax… be thrilled, excited, engaged! Instead… aside of the Beeb, we get ads!!

It’s hard to find a program to watch as channels have become saturated with ads; your favourite programme most likely has product placement spoiling the fragile storyline too. Every sport is awash with brands; hardly an inch of clothing or pitch is left ad free, including the event name itself.? Even the BBC broadcast matches where the pitch has been emblazoned with a gambling company’s logo… a huge logo, designed to sit horizontally true and centred to screen. This has all gone too far and it’s not just the younger audience that’s switched off.

Statista report that tv advertising-spending in the UK reached an estimated ￡5.4 billion in 2022. That’s great, but how much is basically throwing mud and hoping some sticks, all at the expense of their clients? And is it only beneficial to the broadcaster? What are advertisers being told in the quest for them to spend their money? IMHO it’s really unacceptable for the viewers and awful for advertisers - things have to change.

The industry believes the change is to side-load to an online service - but this is the opposite of what’s needed. Whistl reports 81% of UK households are already signed up to subscription services. Do we really need more - can we afford that? This growth has created a market expected to surpass ￡1.8 bn by 2025, but then will that become oversaturated too?

Advertisers/Brands - wake up! If viewers are migrating online, not just to youtube, Netflix, etc., but to a myriad of free or paid subscription services…. if viewers are recording their entertainment so as to skip through ads… if ads spoil our fun… then your entire raison d’être for live-TV-advertising is on the line.? So start thinking smart! Less ads and programs ad-free!!

Broadcasters offer their premium content with program ‘extras’ on paid subscription services that are promoted as ‘Ad free’! Ironic that broadcasters have killed TV with too many ads and are now offering ad-free services. They think viewers will simply pay to avoid ads, whereas the reality is the broadcaster is simply losing viewers.

Surely selling live TV ad-space all becomes about false hope and in the meantime programs lose viewers. In losing viewers the channels become desperate to impart information every way they can; they overlay programs with supers, animated text and bugs. It’s a downward spiral where the program is the least important product on the channel. That’s a blight on the brilliant creative teams that make the programs.

Turn on your TV anytime of day or night and instantly you’ll understand that advertising has killed it.

TV has become an advert and viewers have stopped engaging. Millions are switching off or, like me, recording everything to watch at our own leisure and skipping the ads. If I’m browsing a website and ads keep popping up then I’ll exit the site, so it’s the same with TV. The industry hasn’t learned that too much is… too much.

What are the brands being told about stickiness?

Marketing budgets are increasing but viewer willingness to engage in an ad is, I believe, falling off a cliff. Hence premium subscriptions, which are ad free.? Do brands believe a recorded program means their ad has been watched? No one can gauge actual views but brands of course see sales increase/decrease against their ad output. Again, because advertising is so broad and includes PR, press, online, search relevancy, seo, print, sponsorship and so on, it would be extremely hard to decree that ads (during a live program) have any impact.

Naturally many brands want to posture and TV advertising is part of that; but my argument is more about the viewer being allowed to watch a program without the incessant interruption of ads.

Worse - Ads all look the same - that’s one of the saddest things…. they all pretend to be PC with the same casting agent…. too many licence a legendary music music track and in some awful instances they rewrite the song’s lyrics!! It’s just trash. Where has the creativity gone? Creatives are ‘painting-by numbers’; they are responsible for dumbing down the industry that I love.? Audio on some ads is atrocious. Accents used as cliches. Rain signifying a period should be the low but there are even worse!

The ad agencies are working to formula in order to satisfy their clients’ excel sheets - and not the consumer. Television viewing has become saturated ads, saturated sponsorship bumpers, saturated promos, saturated superimposed text telling us what’s up next, channel bugs, and with product placement dictating a story’s script! STOP!!!!!! Enough.

A tea brand has PR’d to boast about spending ￡12-million on their new ad…. they highlight the expensive artist, music and director but not the creative. The tea company must have been sold quite a story by the ad agency. I’m just saddened that the industry appears so broken.

I remember years ago watching TV in the US and programs were being promoted as uninterrupted, ad free. When will the UK reach breaking point to do the same? Television has (IMHO) lost the plot with the format of so many programs built around ads. But the truth is most of the audience has probably switched channels, logged in to their Netflix or Prime accounts or just aren’t watching any more.

The proof is indeed Netflix, which is doing phenomenally well. It’s a place where the consumer feels comfortable in watching a program/film at their leisure without being interrupted by ads, or without having to relive a mediocre storyline, several times, because of the interruption from ads. Netflix is a world-class leader. It’s about content and the viewer.

Many factors make us buy a product - refer to Apple as a test case. They are incredibly good at understanding their consumer at every level. So why can’t everyone? Stop ruining TV in the hope it will sell anything.

OfCom state that ’in any one clock hour there must be no more than 12 minutes of advertising spots’. Plus add promos and bumpers. Plus channels use tactics to maximise this. Does anyone know a viewer that wants this or more?

Killing a program with endless ads is not how to win-over viewers. I’m not saying no ads; I’m pleading to top and tail; hammock programs with ads either side.

Anyway, still want to argue?

In the decades since TVs birth, there has never been a channel devoted solely to adverts. Of course there are shopping channels but I mean a channel which just plays ads. That should tell you something.

As if catch up, plus one, recording and streaming weren’t enough, the breadth of repeats is a truly damaging reflection of the industry too.

Broadcasters appear happy with five/six-figure viewing figures whereas in the past eight-figure viewing figures was the aim. Think about it - there are millions more viewers and yet live viewing figures have dropped off a cliff.

The industry may allegedly pretend that the realisation of multi platform makes up for the deficit… They may allegedly pretend that if they combine all interactions across all media that things have improved, and therefore they allegedly keep asking advertisers to pay more in that belief.

Is it time to totally rethink the entire TV advertising system?

Another massive gripe - On screen bugs/logos/idents... plus 'coming next' supers!!! Why do channels feel so derisory about their content? We know what channel we are watching because we have EPG’s. We know what’s coming later because we have EPG's and apps and browsers and brains.? It's so sad that a producers hard work is merely a back-drop for a super. Worse when they are animated - Channels, what are you thinking!

In any week of broadcasting… Take out the ads; take out competition spots; take out all repeats and time-shift; take out Australian and American programs… and what do you have left? Point made! What a waste of British talent! The best talent in the world simply not being supported even with the influx of funds from the proliferation of ads.

No wonder Netflix, Amazon, TikTok and YouTube are huge and you don’t hear ‘coming up.’ 27 times an hour… They get it.

To sign-off, I spent a few days watching TV live. I refrained from recording anything or Netflix (apart from Baby Reindeer). And I watched ads because many times (BBC aside) every channel was on their ad-break. Here’s some highlights and lowlights on my opinion of channels:

BBC

The BBC has 8 National TV Channels and 8 Regional TV channels…. plus 13 National Radio Stations and 49 Regional Radio Stations. Bet you didn’t know that. The BBC is the best thing about British television by far. If they move to ads then there’s nothing left of the industry I love.

HIGHLIGHTS

No ads!! Some great/brilliant drama including Blue Lights; Gethin Jones. Vick Hope. Richard Osman. Worth the licence fee.

LOWLIGHTS

It’s not the repetition of programmes such as ‘House Under The Hammer’ and ‘Bargain Hunt’ that I struggle with, it’s the determination to make every episode the same. Watch one episode and you’ve seen them all. ‘Flog It’ is the worst offender but it’s still great to dip in and out of. There’s so much talent at the BBC - let them roam!

ITV

Ads, promos, ads promos, here’s what’s coming next, ads, promos, ads promos, competition, a bit of the program plus ‘coming up’, ads, promos, ads promos, something happens in the programme but then ads, promos, ads promos, competition, next week’s highlights. ITV is by far the worst offender of flying in animated graphics during a program to promote a later program. They must know how weak their programs are as they are so willing to distract the viewer during the actual program.

HIGHLIGHTS

Some great drama if watched from a recording. Almost nothing else. ITV has lost its way.

LOWLIGHTS

Proliferation of ads and promos. Early morning TV - appalling - sensationalism at its worst.

CHANNEL4

Who is 4 aimed at? It’s touted as if it’s for an emerging younger market, yet outputs for an aged community. I honestly don’t know. 4 appears obsessed with property, food and US programs. All so very tired but at the same time some great branding. Personally I really like 4.

HIGHLIGHT

Simon O’Brien and Stacey Solomon.

LOWLIGHT

A raft of staid formats that can easily withstand a reboot.

CHANNEL 5

Not once in all my research did I turn over to this channel and actually see a programme. 98% of the time it was ads and 2% promos - but never did I see a programme live; and it didn’t matter what time of day I was switching over - there was never a programme.

So my findings here are based on recorded TV.

HIGHLIGHTS

Alexis Conran.

LOWLIGHTS

Apart from US re-runs, Channel 5 appear to have purchased a shed-load of archive footage; they hash this content and intersperse it with talking heads and voxpops from out of work celebs. A lot of their archive is Royalty-based so their hardest job is dreaming up Royal show titles. Exceptionally poor TV.

Most of their original TV output is unwatchable due to blurring! The legal inability to show an arrested person’s face, or an interviewee, or a shoplifter, etc. Whom at Channel 5 thinks or believes that any consumer wants to watch a blur!!!! But don’t worry, the ads will soon appear!

There’s a huge difference between sweating-the-assets and stinking of something.

SKY CINEMA / SKY MOVIES

I pay an inordinate amount to haveSky Movies but rarely is there a film worth watching and when there is Sky ask for further payment in their online store (if you don’t want to wait).

HIGHLIGHTS

No in-movie ads.

LOWLIGHTS

Sky have lost the ability to secure the best films like they did back in the day. Their latest original movie is mostly set at night in a rainforest with no lights. It’s just unwatchable.

OTHER CHANNELS

HIGHLIGHTS

Sky Arts - My favourite, Atlantic, the choice to dip into a variety of channels and topics… something for everyone, in-between the ads.

LOWLIGHTS

Ads and on screen bugs especially the animated ones! What are you thinking!

24hour NEWS CHANNELS

Has news always been propaganda even in the free world? Am I being naive thinking that it’s just in the last 5-10 years that the news channels are just as desperate for viewing figures as everyone else? That they don’t consider themselves a public service anymore - they seem to me as sensationalisers building upon speculation, and broadcasting anything anyone says no matter what, as long as it fits their narrative. No one has learned from cases such as Colin Stagg,? Caroline Flack or Cliff Richard. Four news channels can cover the same story and you’d think it’s 4 different news stories. Also - Am I the only one who finds sponsoring anything on a news channel wrong?! As I write, there are currently 110 armed conflicts in the world. Our news ‘choose’ 1 or 2 to speculate over. Some coverage is gold-class; in 2 hours of news there may be 10 minutes of exceptionally great insight and outstanding journalism, but the rest is speculation and gossip. News broadcasters interview news broadcasters for information - all in the comfort of the same studio! News likes to appear to give a platform to anyone who wants to say anything incendiary. It leads to false accusation and lynch-mob mentality. Is democracy the will of the majority or the will of the loudest? And why does news have to be bad news? As if we must live in fear? Michael Moore explores this in his films. Perhaps one day some news editor will split the news 50/50 between good and bad.

NETFLIX

Thank you for existing.

I created the world’s first download site for original content on mobile against the backdrop of the industry saying that no one wants to watch content on mobile devices. In a small way we helped develop DRM, data flow and Codecs. Netflix made the entire concept (and more) work.

…At its best television brings the world into one small screen. It offers the audience an opportunity to share, unite, divide over content, but either way engage. It allows for seamless integration of regions and nations.

At it’s worst live television is dead. It has been superseded by the proliferation of online/mobile services. It is possibly the reason broadcasters don’t mind taking up most of the screen with superimposed text over the program, telling you who they are and what program will show later.

At their best, tv ads can entertain and engage; they can elevate a brand from zero to hero. Ads can unite a cat with a budgie, small as we rock out to a drumming gorilla or surfing wild horses, and let us know that the ‘Holidays are coming’, as well as make everyone exclaim ‘wassup’.

At their worst ads make us switch off or switch channel or go make a cuppa; they have become instantly forgettable unless played 1,000 times a day, month after month; they favour focus groups over creativity; they favour significant financial spend over creativity; they favour safety over creativity.

Bad ads embarrass the brand or just make it insipid.