Commentary

30-Second Spots Aren't Dead - We Just Use Them The Wrong Way

by Cory Treffiletti , Featured Contributor, September 11, 2024

Can you recall all the times over the years where people have been proclaiming the 30-second spot dead or dying? Many articles have been written about it. The topic has been bandied about for almost twenty years now, but the fact is, the 30-second spot is not dead. It is being used in the incorrect way, and is due for an update.

The fact is clear, however: Nobody. Likes. Commercial. Interruptions. However, the 30-second spot that precedes content or is used sparingly during content might be OK.

Think about it. It’s the law of supply and demand. I watched a show on Paramount Plus last night, and in a 60-minute show there were 17 commercials. A regular show on network TV has 28 (yes, believe it) commercials included.

When I watched that show on Paramount Plus, I saw 17 ads for the same four to five advertisers. The frequency was high, all in the same episode.

That’s a wasted media buy. Why not simply reduce the number of commercials -- maybe four as pre-roll, and four to six as spots scattered through two or three interruptions? You could charge more for those spots, and you would create less annoyance for your customers. The advertisers get a more efficient media buy that doesn’t feel like too high a frequency. The publisher gets the same, or even potentially more revenue for the ad spots because of the perceived value in scarcity. Consumers gets to watch their show more continuously. Feels like a win-win-win, if you ask me!

This issue of commercial interruption is more pronounced when you factor in that I’m paying the studio for access to their content, so they are making double the money. I get the model in cable where the ad placements are divvied up between local, network and operator. That gets split among a lot of people. When I am subscribing direct, I feel like I should get fewer commercials. Interruptions suck, and we continue to perpetuate the model. It makes me truly contemplate whether I will watch shows that way or not.

The 30-second spot is an endemic piece of video advertising, but there are other models coming along. Native, product placement, overlays and more are starting to infringe on the traditional model of interruption, but the 30-second spot still has a future. Put them at the beginning and end of a show. Limit their use and charge more. They do work when done well. Consumers are OK with that model. Make them unskippable. Consumers will live with that.

It’s the desire to keep being greedy and insert more commercial interruptions while charging for subscriptions that is going to be the death of the model. Listen to your consumers when they say, with their actions, that they don’t like the current model.

To avoid customer feedback is insanity, and it’s what started this whole problem in the first place. Cable could have sustained itself if not for the constant commercial interruptions on top of the fees it charged. Learn from the past, look to the future, and find a better way.

streaming, tv

5 comments about "30-Second Spots Aren't Dead - We Just Use Them The Wrong Way".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Joseph Jaffe from Alpha Collective, September 11, 2024 at 1:20 p.m.
Whether you tag me or not, the 30-second spot always comes home to roost :P

These in Life after the 30-second spot: "In it's existing form, the 30-second spot is either dead, dying, or has outlived its usefulness."

Still true.

Seth Godin said, "Advertising is the tax we pay for being unremarkable."
I said, "Frequency is the tax we pay for being unmemorable."

Reducing the load of ads (most of which are loads of Sh1t) is the first small step...
Reply

Joseph Jaffe from Alpha Collective replied, September 11, 2024 at 1:21 p.m.

*thesis

Joe Cerone from Magna Global, September 11, 2024 at 1:57 p.m.

This is an excellent article! I agree with the author that, when used appropriately, consumers don’t mind brief commercial interruptions. However, what frustrates them is paying for streaming services that initially offered commercial-free content, only to later be bombarded with 17 ads. It feels like the new streaming model isn't progressing but rather regressing to the old broadcast model—the very thing consumers tried to escape.

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, September 12, 2024 at 9:59 a.m.

Cory, the problem with your suggestion ---to put the commercials before and after the show or to simply have many fewer of them is that makes little sense from a business standpoint---and most marketers as well as TV progtrammers are business minded. Pre and post roll commercials will garner many less viewers than commercials in in-show breaks. A Limiting commercials---and charging more also sounds like a good idea but in reality you are saying---let's put the viewer first and the advertiser last. Limit the number of ad exposures the marketer can buy by , say, 50% ---but charge him much more for them----isn't an attractive proposition ---even if attentiveness rises slightly to the ads--say by 10-15%. And that's about all you will get. Why? Because the networks will have to charge at least double---not plus 10-15%-----to break even on the deal.

The core---not to be confused with cory--- assumption---that everybody hates commercials---also is questionnable. Yes, some object to those extra long breaks and times when the same message is repeated over and over again. However, observational studies do not show people tuning out or leaving the room in droves whenever these situations arise. Small losses--yep---but hardly a disaster. The reason for this is that a lot of people don't mind commercials --- many find them informative as well as entertaining. Also, on that last point, many commercials are designed to capture attention by using humor, special effects, children, famous celebrities, etc. and this often works ---even in ad cluttered situations.

So, yes, the increase in commercial clutter has been significant, but this is not the first time this has happened. Back in the 1970s--when "30's" replaced "60s" the number of messages per break doubled---but viewers got used to it and many still watched the ads. Same thing in the 1990a when they introduced "15s". Again the breaks were filled with still more messages---but viewiers got used to them. The same thing is happening now---and people complain---as they always do----but there is no evidence from the "camera" studies that more folks than usual are avoiding commercials.

That said, I deplore those occasions when they run the same ad message two, three, four or more times in the same break. That's stupid---let's make that "terrible". But what percentage of the average viewer's TV time involves such situations. I'll bet that its less than 2%.

Jonathan Bouman from Oodle, September 16, 2024 at 4:36 p.m.

The problem with frequency is because of multi-inventory source buys. Brands end up bidding against their own campaigns across many CTV channels and over-saturate the viewer. This is just poor, lazy planning.

Another concept for spot load I like is for one advertiser to sponsor the entire show. Something like, "limited commercial interruption during this program is provided to you by X brand." Then have a :30 pre-roll, a :30 mid-roll, and a :30 post-roll. Viewers will remember the brand and have a most-likely postitive affinity for them as well.