New research suggests consumers view FAST networks comparable to that of limited advertising-supported TV streamers when it comes to advertising time in a program -- although industry estimates are that FAST average ad loads are much higher.
One question posed to respondents is: “How do you feel about the total …
Wayne, this kind of impressionistic research merely indicates that respondents in such studies can't make tight distinctions re issues like ad loads--or their impact. The only way to get a good read is to take a number of ads for the same brands that use both platforms and mreasure the results--ad attentivenss, ad recall, sales motivation, liking, etc. to see if there are meaningful differences in viewer response.
Hey Ed! Thanks for commenting - my company did this research. We didn't ask about the number of ads in isolation, but rather whether viewers felt the number of ads was "reasonable" or "unreasonable". "Reasonableness" rides on other things besides the number of ads: e.g. the overall ad experience, the relevance of the ads, how much money you might have saved by choosing to watch with ads over ad-free, etc. And people are more likely to watch platforms where they feel the ad experience is "reasonable", even if that platform doesn't empirically have the smallest number of ads.
Thanks, Jon. As you probably guessed, my response was triggered by the headline. You didn't establish that AVODs and FASTs have the same degree of ad clutter--as it states. As for the general finding about people contending that they are more inclined to use sevices with "less" ad cltter---or "reasonable" amounts of ad messages--of course. However it depends on the content and demos of the audience. For example, older viewers are much less likely to avoid ads by leaving the room during commercial breaks than younger ones so if a network--say CNN or the Fox News Channel---has a preponderance of 65+ viewers that alone may be the decisive factor---even if there are a lot of commercilas on these channels.