Commercial skipping to cost $8 billion in TV ads this year?

We can't vouch for the number -- that's their job -- but JupiterResearch has a recently published report that gets a lot right when it comes to DVR use. They claim that 53 percent of DVR subscribers use their DVRs to skip commercials, and that if all of those households skip commercials 100 percent of the time (unlikely) cable and broadcast TV advertisers would be at risk of losing around $8 billion of the $74 billion they spend on ads in 2006. Sounds rather doom and gloom, and JupiterResearch also contradicts the idea that DVR users watch a whole lot more TV to make up for those missed ads. But luckily they manage to reach a much more reasonable solution than most: networks and advertisers should rethink programming and ad strategies to cope with the way consumers are using DVRs. Not rocket science, we know, but JupiterResearch sees some of the current efforts by the networks not only as ineffective, but as a penalty to users -- which doesn't really do anybody a lot of good.

[scott @ May 5th 2006 8:39PM]

I highly doubt that figure, first of all there cant be more than a few million Tivo subscribers, unless they expect every one of the people skipping commercials to spend about 40k a year based solely on tv ads.

dumbasses making stupid claims in an effort to ruin one of the best things about tivo...

[karmaghost @ May 5th 2006 8:40PM]

Only 53% use them to skip commercials? Why do you have a DVR then?

[Jeff @ May 5th 2006 8:43PM]

Oh pleeeeze. The very people who skip commercials are the least likely to be swayed by them. Informal poll: when was the last time you bought something because you saw it on a commercial? And what was so compelling about the ad that made you just hafta have IT?

[locke6854 @ Mar 27th 2008 9:04AM]

I think the only advertizing i'm susceptible to is food/restaraunt commercials when I'm hungry. I've went to KFC after seeing a 46" bucket of chicken.

[1Touchmovie @ May 5th 2006 8:48PM]

Sounds like Jupiter did some funky research! It's pure anecdotal evidence, but everyone I know or do business with (I'm in the custom audio / video business, so I see alot of PVR installations) that has a TiVO or other DVR skips commercials. Definitely far higher than 53%. In addition, they also watch more TV than they otherwise would. In most cases they watch TV for at least the same amount of time, but see more programming. If companies were more creative, they could use this to their advantage. Maybe they could do even more product placement and sponsorships, like we see on sports and reality?? shows. Some firm should come up with a way to capitalize on this trend, not eliminate it.

[BenInMontreal @ May 5th 2006 9:02PM]

Wow $8 bil. out of $74 bil.? How do "they" quantify those numbers? Is this solely based on the number of eyeballs they are missing? As someone that watches almost no TV on an actual television, I have truly learned to completely disregard commercials, even when I am forced to sit through them.
It is nice to see these stories, kind of like when Harry Shearer reads from the trade magazines on le show.

[tc @ May 5th 2006 9:03PM]

tv ads ruin the mood of a good show

[Vman @ May 5th 2006 9:08PM]

Looks like if they want to keep their names out there, you may start seeing some name brand junk washing up on "Lost" and increased iPod use on the "OC".

[BobR @ May 5th 2006 9:10PM]

BTW, who is it that determined the proper measuring stick is that consumers are forced to watch commercials? Why should we be forced to watch commercials any more than we are forced to watch every bit of the show? (Or are we going to add in the ad revenue lost from product placements within shows if people fast forward?!) That would be like saying that billboard companies are losing tremendous amounts of revenue because drivers are focusing on the road when they should really be paying attention to the billboards. Oh my, how much money they must have lost. We should legislate cars that have sensors to make sure the driver and all passengers are looking at the billboards when they pass by! Anyone getting my point?

[ET @ May 5th 2006 9:10PM]

Bwahaha. *presses tivo quick skip 7 times to rid my tv of the commercial break*

[yowsa @ May 5th 2006 9:12PM]

I'd think that the $8BB represents the amount of money that advertisers spend on advertising that's potentially "wasted" if DVR owners fast forward through commercials, not the amount of money that consumers won't spend as a result of not seeing commercials.

The figures probably come from the difference between the number of viewings of the commercials if no one had DVRs and the number of viewings missed when they're skipped.

[josh @ May 5th 2006 10:03PM]

How about this headline instead:

"People getting up to make a snack during the commercial break to cost $8 billion in TV ads this year?"

People don't watch commercials wether they have tivo or not. When I didn't have tivo i'd spend my commercial time reading a magazine, making a snack, going to the bathroom or any other non-commercial watching activity i could find.

I remember when I was young they came out with "cable tv" and the whole gimmick was that we PAID so we didn't have to watch commercials... then one by one they added commercials and now we PAY to watch commercials LOL. Greedy bastards can stick it as far as i'm concerned.

Do whatever you want to Tivo. I'm still not watching your silly commercials.

[josh @ May 5th 2006 10:06PM]

Next thing you know they'll want to make us all install lay-z-boy chairs in front of our TVs with head and lid locks (a la clockwork orange) so we can't look anywhere but the commercial.

[slow news day @ May 5th 2006 10:17PM]

Not everyone skips commercials. I can point to my parents use of their DVR, as a replacment for having a VCR.

I thought the earlier announcement by ABC to release their shows a day after airing on TV on the web for free, with a few commercials that are interactive, was absolutely brilliant. Sure, I would love to watch without the commercials, and I generally fast forward at home on my DVR, but being able to watch TV via the web is really cool despite the (few) ads. The quality of the picture was excellent and I didn't notice any lag while streaming. Someday maybe TV will be streamed via the internet on demand, vs having to wait for the day and time of the show.

[Mickey @ May 5th 2006 10:39PM]

To Advertising Execs:
Make more interesting adverts that we may actually want to watch (like Virals) or embed your product into those shows we love to watch :) remember TiVo got a big promo from Sex and the City. Problem is we may start getting corny one liners in TV shows akin to Jim Carrey's ' The Truman Show' ... imagine on CSI, Grissom looking at a dead body with all the bloodstains then takes a pause and looks at the camera and says .. **** Bleach - helps gets rid of unwanted stains - even blood' .. haha fuuunneeee..

[Pzacle @ May 5th 2006 10:45PM]

Don't buy the 53% number. I bet its closer to 80% skip commericials 80% of the time. Except in this household, where 100% of us skip commercials 100% of the time.

For my two cents, its time companies start putting those advertising dollars toward improving the quality of their products, or improving the quality of their service.

[G Funk @ May 5th 2006 11:24PM]

Expect a lot more product placement...

[Greg @ May 5th 2006 11:26PM]

Uhh, let's think back to how I used to watch tv before dvrs, oh yeah, I changed the channel when a commercial come on. What's the difference? Skipping a commercial or changing channels takes an effort on the part of the viewer (unless you have mythtv).

Guess what networks? If I am forced to watch a commercial with my 8300, I pop up a window and watch another channel! Maybe having 12 minutes (guess) of commercials an hour is too much?

[feeble @ May 5th 2006 11:35PM]

Not Really Surprised.

I watch alot of tv, and havent watched an ad in months.

i have mce installed and hooked up to my main tv, and just record everything.

i guess im probably just feeding the moment when we start seeing ads on a bar at the bottom on the screen during a show.
hahaha, thats going to piss off alot of plasma owners.

[Eli @ May 5th 2006 11:44PM]

Skipping ads doesn't cost anyone anything, it means companies make less than their optimistically projected revenue.

Same as music/movie piracy doesn't "cost" anyone money, it just theoretically counts against the companies' own projected income.

[interlard @ May 6th 2006 12:13AM]

They shouldn't have made the commercials so annoying, every 10 minutes, lasting for 5 minutes. That used to be illegal in the US, 'til we let the 1980s government take it away.

Maybe they could bring that law back? Most people would welcome a short break every 15 minutes. No. Too easy. Advertisers aren't that smart.

Well, there's a hard lesson learned. Now that we have DVRs it's tough shit for the irresponsible advertisers. Go waste your money on banner ads (which our brains ignore, by the way). Democracy wins again. Har har.

[Colin @ May 6th 2006 12:56AM]

Whats an ad?

(DVR/Customize Google/No Flash/Ad Block user)

;)

[Scott @ May 6th 2006 1:21AM]

Well, here's a solution for people skipping ads and commercials. You know how TV shows never use name-brand items (ex: Coke or Pepsi), but use generic names that they make up? Well, if they integrate the brand names into the show, people will think about them, and want to get it, just like commercials. The only difference between this idea and commercials, is that people will subconciously think about the product, and want it later. On commercials the audience has to think about the advertisement because their show is not on. Just a little thought of mine...

[Lazarpandar @ May 6th 2006 2:09AM]

Naw naw, what they need to do, instead of haveing a 3 minute break of commercials every 7 minutes, is have a 15 second break of commercials every 35 seconds. And put a random ammount of delay on the "Play" button while in fast forward (anywhere between 1 and 5 seconds)

That way, they see the commercial or miss part of their show. its totally brilliant

[Revrant @ May 6th 2006 2:22AM]

Vman: Real life junk meets Television junk, Aw, ain't that a match made in heaven? ;)

I personally have never bought anything from a commercial, and a commercial has never influenced my desire to buy something, infomercials on the other hand...Well...I'm a hopeless romantic in that category.

I generally watch commercials if they entertain me, there's quite a few creative ones, it's mostly crap though, so I might flip channels until they're over.

I love how they determined these numbers, kind like how they determined people pirating things to amount to huge losses, as if to assume everyone would buy these things otherwise was a given. Oh, poor shmucks.

[fred @ May 6th 2006 7:38AM]

I guess Tv must move to popups and permenant banners to get the advertising revenue back up,

[Jeff @ May 19th 2007 12:29PM]

popups: They already sort of do this.. In the middle of shows the bottom 1/4 of the screen is often covered by HUGE ads with super loud noises advertising yet another show I don't care about... a popup if I've ever seen one, soon they'll use this crap for products. The guide on comcast is now cluttered to junk too.. Perm ads on the top and below the channel guide, you can't scroll page to page without "mousing over" the ad.

[Joe @ May 6th 2006 8:37AM]

Guess what my favorite current commercial jingle is, "Ford is the best in Texas" and I drive a Chevy....

[josh @ May 6th 2006 9:45AM]

>Quote:
>I guess Tv must move to popups and permenant
>banners to get the advertising revenue back up

They pull that crap and i'll boycott any products that appear in the banner.

[DaveZ @ May 6th 2006 10:34AM]

Are newspapers any better. 1 story or so per page surrounded by ads. You don't here newspapers complain when I just read the story.

[r @ May 6th 2006 12:25PM]

Why is everyone such commercial haters? You all do realize that those commercials pay for the shows you watch? If everyone skipped commercials, then corporations would not pay for advertising, and then you wouldnt get fancy special effects, big explosions, foreign on location shots, or even good actors. If anything, people who like TV enough to own a tivo should be more willing for out-of-the-box advertising tactics (such as pop ups while fastforwarding, or integrating the tv show into the commercial a la lost).

And for the record, a lot of people own tivo for reasons OTHER than fast forwarding commercials. I work approximately 12 hours a day, i own a tivo so i can watch tv shows on my schedule (although i do fastforward commercials, that is just an incidental benefit).

[evo @ May 6th 2006 1:04PM]

What no one seems to have mentioned is the fact that the vast majority of commercials are unapplicable to the viewer. Commercials necessarily cast a wide net because there is no information available on who is watching. What does it matter whether I watch a commercial for panty liners or not? The advertiser isn't "losing" any more money if I skip these commercials because I will never buy panty liners. Optimistically, only 10% of commercials are applicable to me as a consumer, so rather than waste my time watching commercials for products I will never buy, advertisers should do more work (using info provided by TiVo) to show me commercials I'm actually interested in. In fact, when I see commercials fly by for products I'm interested in, I rewind TiVo to watch them. Like most people I expect, I don't mind watching commercials for products I'm interested in buying.

It's kind of like spammers that send me ads for Viagra. I don't need or want Viagra, and I've set up my filtering to block any emails with the word in it. Considering I try so hard to keep this stuff out of my way, why do they bother spending so much effort getting around my filters by spelling the word any number of ways? Shouldn't it be clear that if I filter it, I don't want it?

[jhon @ May 6th 2006 3:28PM]

Thats lot of money 8 billion is not a joke. Thats enough money put in the adds.

http://eoffers.blogspot.com

[c.Lake @ May 6th 2006 7:00PM]

@ #29 -- Evo

Thank you! That is the MOST intelligent thing anyone has posted about, annoying commercials in years. Why the hell can advertisers get this ONE HUGH point through their stupid thick heads? Commercials worked fine when TV was free (using bunny ears). However, TV is NO LONGER FREE!! WE, THE VIEWER PAY FOR TV!!!!!! Cable (Satellite) is about $100 or more month. We allow YOU to put commercials on TV (only because we're used to seeing them), not the other way around. I'm tired of this same old argument that, "advertisements pay for bluh, bluh, bluh" speech, because it's getting old.

Personally, I've been watching less TV, not more, because of my DVR. So all of these lame little tricks and schemes that advertisers have been pulling to get our attention, is going to backfire on them when WE (the viewer) stop watching television altogether. I know a lot of people who don't watch television at all. Nobody talks about TV shows at work. They all talk about DVD's of the TV shows, they've rented. This article is both WRONG and insulting. You idiots are simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and you better learn how to paddle.

[Matt @ May 6th 2006 7:40PM]

No one LOST any money. They CLAIM that the "probable" cost of commercial skipping is $8 billion. Who the hell knows for sure. What I do know is...

Its pretty much the same stupid argument that the MPAA and RIAA make about "downloaders" and "pirates". They claim these two groups are costing BILLIONS in lost revenue. BULL! These very groups are NOT purchasing their movies and music so you have to believe that one must first make the revenue in order to lose it! Right?

These numbers are thrown out there for stupid and uninformed legislators who get lobbied with more than the BILLIONS these organizations claim to lose on whoever they can find to lay the blame on for their out-of-date business models.

[John Anderson @ May 8th 2006 9:06AM]

Phony issue. Hilton has a hotel in London, it cost them a lot of money to build, so I must stay there or be accused of theft?

And shotgun targeting, as Evo pointed out, means over 80% of adverts have no connection with my life --- and another 10% may but are nonetheless (I cannot afford a new Lamborghini even though I drive) irrelevant.

But no doubt the attempts to force us to view ads will continue, as they have since at least the Betamax case. The two I am particularly [UN]fond of are the secondary coded ads that show up in fast-forward mode, and the one that disables fast-forward if a segment (ie, advert) is so coded.

[mary @ May 29th 2006 9:11AM]

A simple solution, which I have done. Unplug your tv and enjoy the peace and quiet that a tv-less household can bring. Transfer all your vhs to dvd(go dvd c-t 200) and cut out the trailers. Rent movies. Read a book, garden, clean your house, surf the internet listen to internet music, subscribe to internet tv shows and enjoy an ad free life. I compare tv ads to a stranger entering my home, screaming at me to buy, buy, buy and leaving... until 12 minutes later when he returns to do it again. I refuse to allow this and I have not watched tv for over 5 years. Now, you can't pay me enough to watch it. What are you paying your cable bill for? To watch ads that you shouldn't be paying for in the first place? Well, you are paying. paying to watch ads that they PROMISED us that we wouldnt have to see, when cable first came around. Greedy corporate cable companies. Not on my dime mr comcast. Not on my time.

[Jeff @ May 19th 2007 12:22PM]

One word direct reply to the title: GOOD!

I hope they lose more.