• by Cory Treffiletti , Featured Contributor, August 6, 2025

Imagine being able to interrupt a baseball game with a commercial -- and only paying $9 for the space.  That’s what Bulova did when it paid for the first interruptive ad in American television, right before a Brooklyn Dodgers game in July 1941.  The ad said, “America runs on Bulova time” -- and in doing so, begat an entire industry worth over $150 billion annually when you tally up TV and digital video ads.

The irony is, not much has changed since 1941, except the price.

I imagine interruptive ads were a novelty and people considered them like content, but featuring brands.  After all, brands in content were not new -- Texaco Star Theatre had been on television since 1938. 

Fast-forward a few years, and the major television networks began to standardize ad slots. Pricing began to increase, reflecting the growing audience and definitive impact that was created by television advertising.

 In the 1960s, TV advertising truly began to mature.  In the age of the fictional Don Draper, real Mad Men and Mad Women realized the value of conveying messages that interrupted programming. They wielded the power of those ads to influence culture and drive immense business value. 

These days, that influence and power are held firmly in the hands of social media and the creators of the content that today’s audience spends most of its time watching.  Traditional TV advertising had a good run --  a solid 80+ years of running the show. But signals are different now, and consumers are more scattered -- and empowered to avoid those kinds of interruptive ads.

Or are they?

The fact is, interruptive TV ads are here to stay, although maybe with some revisions.  Networks and streamers are starting to get the message that viewers don’t like interruptive ads, and their benefit is decreasing.  That’s clear when you look at the ad load in streaming compared to linear TV.  It may not feel like it, but streaming actually has fewer ads than linear TV.  The streamers know they can’t keep increasing ad loads, either.   If they do, viewers move or block the ads.  This signal is powerful, even if the understanding of the signal is a tad bit latent. 

As TV and streaming platforms recognize the desire for fewer ads, they are supplementing with other formats.  I’m not going to dive into those today, but I will point out that agencies and advertisers will need to become more creative in the ways they convey their messages.  My takeaway here is that, as the pendulum had previously shifted to data and targeting, now it is beginning to shift toward creative and storytelling again.  It was always about the media, but maybe now it’s more about the message again.  Your creative needs to do more of the work. 

The brands can, and will, start to become the content once again.  Maybe it won’t go to the Texaco Star Theatre level, but don’t be surprised when you start seeing more content brought to you by, curated and created by the brands. 

Great creative can be placed with lower frequency.  Great creative can break through the noise faster and doesn’t need to have overwhelming media targeting to make its point.  Great creative, in the form of great storytelling, can remain fresh and engaging, and have a stronger impact than any mass inundation from overspending and overzealous media professionals. I truly love media -- but still, great creative wins.

So, while that $9 was spent to create an entire industry, let’s not forget the simple message that  “America runs on Bulova time.” This simple message was coupled with a simple ad buy and a frequency of one, and had long-lasting impact. Maybe today’s video ad legacy can be the same.