• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, July 8, 2013

So I was watching a cable TV drama, and up came a DirecTV commercial. That’s right. I was not fast-forwarding, merely lulled into remote control inactivity by colorful pixels.

The creative might have offered up the differences between DirecTV and Dish Network, its archrival and competitor. But that’s not why I remember it. It was what followed.

This DirecTV commercial led directly into a Dish Network commercial. The Dish spot was for The Hopper and the ability to watch Dish programming on any device. The message didn’t beat up on DirecTV.

Years ago, this type of commercial positioning conflict would have been relatively big news. But, given the rise of fast-forwarding and quick-fingered, time-shifting happy customers, does it really matter any more?

Program time-shifting coupled with fast-forwarding through commercial breaks is the rule these days, so a marketer with a spot in position “A” -- the first commercial coming out of program content – might see such positioning conflicts as an afterthought. So emphasis might be placed instead on the last position in a commercial pod.

Still, not all consumers have the fast-forwarding dexterity to be able to time exactly where commercial content ends and program content resumes. Complicating things further, many cable networks like to use “A” positions in a commercial pod for their own program promos.

Traditional commercial conflicts probably still arise from high-profile live events -- the Super Bowl, of course, the two high-rated NFL Championship games, the Academy Awards. But such mistakes are rare.

What does it mean for consumers when they see two similar products back to back? It tweaks some interest, perhaps pushing them to compare differences between two marketers. No, this isn’t scientific. But one could dig for more information. (Hello, Internet!).  Now think about other popular consumer products and services going head-to-head: Verizon vs. AT&T; Apple’s iPhone vs. Samsung Galaxy; Progressive vs. Geico vs. Allstate vs. State Farm; or Charles Schwab vs. Fidelity.

The problem, naturally, is that any big consumer marketer wants center stage -- and would never willingly look to place TV messaging side-by-side with a competitor. Among other things, consumers could no doubt get confused about messaging, tone, and content.

The positive? At least one viewer (me) not only stopped, but hit rewind.