The Commercial TV ccompanies are in trouble because of diminishing advertising returns. Why are they surprised? They are themselves significantly responsible for the downturn. Why would advertisers want to pay through the nose for space on a media which airs a large proportion of such disgustingly gross, peurile, unintelligible and repulsive commercials?
I am surprised that actual programme makers do not insist on vetting the commercial content to be broadcast during their own air-time in order to protect their own viewing figures, as I am sure that, like me, droves are reluctantly chanell hopping during the breaks in order to escape the unbelievable dross that some idiotic, naive, marketing “person” has had approved by a , presumably, equally idiotic marketing director of this or that company. During that channel hopping, it is not uncommon to “forget” what we were originally watching and stick with something else - or switch off and read a book - audience lost!
Then there is the unnacceptable length and frequency of advertising breaks, which make the watching of a film or programme, no matter how good, intolerable. No wonder the only way to watch is later on via PVR and skipping the commercial breaks. Hence the change in viewing habits encouraged by desperate, greedy, unimaginitive commercial tv companies who, like the BAA, put the customer (viewer) last in things, aided by so-called ‘creative’ marketing from outer space!! Advertisiers, like viewers, are turning away from what has become a very unattractive proposition - I begrudge my BBC licence fee but when they get a good programme, how absolutely refreshing not to be dreading that all-too-often commercial BRAKE !!
Subscribe to anyone
