• by Frank Maggio , June 7, 2007

(Warning to the TiVo crowd: If you haven't watched the most-recent episode of "The Sopranos," read at your own risk -- a minor plot point is revealed.)

Dr. Melfi gave Tony a wake-up call -- and the boot -- this week. While it may very well have been too little, too late, it does provide an opportunity for us to consider if the TV industry needs a similar dose of psychoanalysis.

Namely, is it time for an honest look at what's ailing TV?

For example, Ed Swindler, executive vice president for NBC Universal ad sales, was quoted last week in an AP story concerning the need to make ads more effective. "No one on the creative side or the business side wants to make commercials intrusive, but we do need to commercialize efficiently so viewers can afford to get free television," he said.

Globally, the idea of empowering advertisers seems to have merit. However, until we address the real problem with ads, not only will TV fail to deliver ads more effectively, but the industry will continue to lose relevance. We all need to recognize and address the truth about ad intrusiveness, while also better understanding the public's indignant attitude toward ad-skipping.

Are we so close to the proverbial trees that we can't see a forest full of intrusive commercials? Do TV execs really believe that the majority of TV viewers perceive TV to be free?

The road to healing starts with the simple admission that traditional TV commercials are intrusive. The last time I checked my onscreen program guide, I didn't see a single commercial listed -- not one. Why? Because nobody's looking for the commercials (except, of course, on ReacTV, but that's for another day).

Ads do intrude; if they didn't, DVRs wouldn't be as popular as they are. Sure, it's nice to double-click and never miss a first-run episode. But let's not fool ourselves into believing that DVRs are merely tools to watch more TV; they're clearly tools for watching fewer commercials, too.

If we're being completely honest, ads are perceived by many viewers as TV's necessary evil, at least to the non-TiVo'd huddled masses. And if there's some unwritten rule that TV industry insiders can't admit it, they should at least act like they've heard the rumor; it's not 1950 any longer. In a day where single-TV families had nothing else to do, and nothing else to watch, occasional ads -- especially those presented in a respectful way -- were an acceptable part of the TV landscape. But those days are as long gone as "Little House on the Prairie."

We need to embrace the truth -- and that includes getting to better understand the reasons why people skip ads; indeed, why many feel entitled to skip them. Candidly, I think Swidler's call to keep TV free is noble, but out of touch with the mindset of the average TV viewer.

Perception is reality, and the reality is that TV is not free to over 80% of Americans. They pay for cable and satellite service, and we're fooling ourselves if we think that cable subscribers surf to their local NBC affiliate, and think to themselves, "Ahh, thank God 'Heroes' is free! I need to sit through this pod of ads to show my appreciation!"

The perception that viewers are paying for TV contributes significantly to the entitlement they feel regarding the right to skip ads. Ultimately, there is little or no respect for advertisers from viewers. Conversely, many would argue that slamming four minutes of ads down somebody's throat shows a lack of respect for viewers, as well.

I tend to agree that ad overload has probably contributed to the increased levels of ad apathy. And arguing which came first -- ad overload or ad skipping -- is a futile exercise. We need to make ads more effective -- and less skippable. And it needs to start from the couch.

Next week, I'll weigh in on how I think we can fix ads and bring back a dose of respect to the TV ad experience. In the meantime, tell me what your thoughts are. Is it too late to reestablish the symbiotic roles of advertiser and viewer in a world of "free" TV? Is admitting that ads are intrusive the first step of 12 on a road to recovery?