“I want all his phones, his BlackBerry, his apartment, his car, bank accounts, credit cards, travel patterns – I want to know what he’s going to think before he does. Every dirty little secret he has, and most of all we want the name and real-time location of his source.” – Noah Vosen, “The Bourne Ultimatum,” Universal, 2007

It’s a good thing department store magnate John Wanamaker isn’t alive today (he passed away in 1922).

Back in those days, he uttered the famous words that the advertising industry has been trying to beat down/counter for years, “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half”

If he were still around, he might say more – lots more – is wasted.

Of course, with most of the ads today being AI-enabled, you don’t have a clue as to which ones resonate with people and which ones don’t quite make it off the starting line–not because they’re bad, they’re actually a lot better and more creative.

It’s just that you see more and kinda’ glaze over/watch without seeing most of them. 

It’s nowhere near the 5,000 Yankelovich cited in his 2007 research. The current estimate is probably under 500.

Ads on Ads – Visit any big city and you’ll understand what ad overload is with billboard on top of billboard, street signs, window ads, moving/stationary ads and so much more that they simply blend into the background becoming part of the white noise of life.  The same can be said for the over abundance of digital and pay TV ads … seen but not seen. 

Of course, if you live in metro ad-dominated cities like New York City, Tokyo, Seoul or LA, you already know that and don’t even see them anymore.

Technology got better and so did the ads.

In the heady times of pay TV, advertisers were bidding to get their stuff in front of 1,000s of people (CPM – cost per thousand); and the more, the better.

It didn’t matter if only one in a thousand was even mildly interested in the stuff, Nielsen and other measurement folks said the ad was seen by a million + people.

Oh goodie.

The problem was you didn’t know a d*** thing about them except they were hopefully breathing

Advertisers were happy, show runners were happy and the networks were mostly happy.

The nets saw time as infinite, elastic. 

Selling a “few” more 30s meant income/profits so they stretched the ad slot in the US to about 20 minutes. Bosses/shareholders were happier and folks at home had more time to go to the bathroom, the kitchen, whatever.

Of course, marketers had a more efficient, more effective way of reaching consumers … digital media (web pages, websites, social media, video games, etc.) and knew how to give you free stuff in exchange for all of your data which they could sell again … and again … and.

Zuch (Facebook/Meta), Sundar (Google/YouTube) and the others were rolling in data and making money like there was no tomorrow. 

But in 2018, the fit hit the shan and the EU said, “No more.  People have a right to their private and family lives, their homes, their correspondence.”

Translated, that meant no more cookies and no more automatic acceptance to their rules that no one could or bothered to read.

The EU’s GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) ended the good life.

A couple of years later, California bravely passed its own version – CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act) – and soon, every country passed its own version. And while China, Russia, Iran and a few other countries have different interpretations of privacy, they still have their laws.

Despite the volume of digital ads you have to dump and dodge, the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) said they found people are “delighted” with free, ad-supported services.

Free Contact – With a smarphone in nearly everyone’s hand (or close at hand), the screens are filled with a broad array of social media app icons all designed to keep you connected and involved–and they’re free.  Okay, they cost you “a little bit” of personal information, but that’s practically free … right?

In fact, they said if their stuff like Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram; and well, any of the online stuff wasn’t free, they would gladly pay $163.50/mo. for the services.

Seriously?? – Sure, people who have grown up online and with a device always close at hand are connected to their apps–often with too much regularity; but would you feel they’re so vital that you’d pay real money to keep them?  Probably not.

After reading the IAB’s (Interactive Advertising Bureau’s) remarkable study, we’re not certain if Americans – by extension everyone, everywhere – are the most astute shoppers or the biggest suckers.

We asked our son and he gave us one of those “duh” looks and said, “yeah, right.”

He knew all of those great digital media services already keep close track on what he does, where he does it, how he does it and when.

Irritating – People are continually irritated at the volume and types of ads that appear on their devices and online.  It’s also a little creepy when they follow you, often to the point that they become the last company you’d buy from.

He (actually, any “normal” person) doesn’t enjoy the way they cram ads around decent information/content; but until a better option comes along, it is what it is.

Ad disruption – A growing number of people want to use the free online apps but get tired of the constant barrage of ads … and there’s an app for that

And yes, he’s pretty happy with the ad blockers he has tested and ultimately added to all of the family’s devices. Every so often, it’s nice to have people who were born with a device in their hands and online.

Of course, IAB didn’t believe their report either because they added… “IAB does not analyze the data for accuracy or reliability, nor do we take responsibility for the findings.”

Yeah, it’s sorta a non-research project because the digital media folks keep paying huge fines when they cross the line and overly abuse users. 

But they simply write the fines off as a cost of doing business and promise they won’t do it again with their fingers crossed behind their backs. 

Fortunately, the streaming media people are smarter than all that because they saw what happened with pay TV.

Oh sure, Reed (Hastings past boss of Netflix), with Amazon quickly following, started out with a great idea that folks wanted their entertainment without interruptions.

And people did … up to a point.

But, acquiring, making a constant stream of new, different shows, movies cost a lot of money and they had no intention of being a nonprofit company.

During the same time period, studio folks – everywhere – thought the tech folks’ idea of bypassing the folks in the middle and going DTC (direct to consumer) looked sweet … and profitable.

People could handle the periodic subscription increases of Netflix and Amazon Prime because even the two combined were far less than they paid for their ad-obese cable bundle.

Ad Free – After living with the growing creep of ads around their TV shows/movies in their cable bundles, the idea of watching content without constant/extended interruptions was irresistible to people. But as the number of subscriptions increased, so did the frustration of finding just the entertainment people wanted to see right now.

But paying for five to seven SVOD services got to be expensive and frankly, finding the show/movie you wanted to watch across all of the services became a real pain (yeah, we know…still is).

Instead of steadily increasing the subscription cost on the most popular streaming service, the co-bosses of Netflix (Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters), who took the reigns when Hastings made himself redundant, took the bold step of telling freeloaders (password sharers) that their free entertainment was coming to an end and you pay like everyone else or get cut off.

Netflix – and Wall Street – estimated that 100-plus M people were sharing passwords which was overlooked and rationalized as an advertising/marketing expense until profit took priority over constantly growing subscription numbers.

Wall Street and the streaming competitors were sure Netflix subscriptions would drop like a rock, and they did dip – a little – but quickly recovered to more than 270M plus worldwide.

To soften the blow and boost income, Netflix and most of the other streamers added a lower cost ad-supported service.

Of course, the idea of ads in their shows/movies didn’t sit well with friends who cut the cord to escape the tone-deaf stupidity of the old TV ads.

Tolerant – It’s not that people don’t like ads in and around their shows/movies, it’s just that they prefer intelligent and less frequent ads.   Of course, there are always going to be haters.

We’re in the group YouGov refers to as “ad accepting” – yeah, they’re okay and sometimes even entertaining and helpful.

Two of our friends though are “ad adverse” and enjoy their movies/shows without any interruption.

Living north of the Golden Gate Bridge, one is willing to pay the premium, noting that the slightly higher subscription fee is still less expensive than going to the movie theater several times a month.

But our friend down in the high desert has more fun by gaming the system. 

He lines up the shows he has to watch, wants to watch on one of the services and when they offer a trial service at a lower cost for a three-month period (there’s always a special) then he jumps in, binge watches the desired content and bails on them before the full fee kicks in.

BAM!! he put it to the man.

Us?

We tend to agree with most of Statista’s findings and view the new ad approach as “almost” a pleasure to watch.

Improve Ads – With more and better information about their prospective customer and the audience viewing a show/movie, advertisers can be more effective in reaching and influencing prospective customers

The ad break of 3-4 minutes almost feels like no ads compared to the waterboarding of pay TV.

We don’t miss the constant barrage of accident lawyer, or the dumb and flow of prescription drug ads (not really certain why the US and New Zealand are the only two countries that let these manufacturers advertise direct to the consumer but …).

Song n’ Dance – With a better understanding of a product/service core customer and the people watching a show/movie, companies can do a better job of staying connected with the viewer.

The “new” ads even feel refreshing, unique, intelligent, better.

Marketers and agencies were probably dancing their happy dance when they found out they could get so much meaningful information about the viewers so they could make the ads more educational, informational and … helpful.

Personal Data – Social media could be as efficient and effective as ad-supported streaming media because the data is out there and being gathered.  But doing a better job would only slow their ad revenues.

It’s not that social media doesn’t have or can’t develop the same data to do a better job for the user and advertiser.  Instead, they chose to follow the script of the 1962 Twilight Zone segment regarding aliens who came to earth with their book To Serve Man.

They treat their services like a cookbook, and they just encourage you to eat up.

On the other hand, streaming media is really competitive entertainment first and secondarily an advertising delivery opportunity.

The entertainment comes first but if it isn’t in sync with the viewer, it’s of little value to the advertiser because it doesn’t deliver the right audience for them. Even though the ad side is more volatile than ever before, we don’t see intelligent streaming management endangering that symbiotic relationship.

Streamers don’t require firm, long-term commitments that traditional TV demanded/demands.  

Instead of buying blocks, advertisers can buy ads programmatically selecting shows/movies, days/times, viewer profiles and other or split criteria. And while the price might be higher, the ads are more precisely delivered with less wastage, less irritation (for all parties).

Ad Option – Given an option of lower monthy fees and a few ads during an hour of viewing that don’t interrupt the storyline, many people will choose an AVOD service while others will stay with their SVOD service.   People want to make their own choices. 

Netflix ad revenues are projected to exceed $5B by 2029, following the same formula that has helped them maintain their streaming leadership position. 

Sandaros has emphasized that the content and ads will be served locally so that they seamlessly appear without latency and that they will absolutely cap their ad load at 4-5 minutes per hour with ads tailored to the content being viewed and the viewer.

No, we don’t miss the friendly assistance/advice of the lawyers or the selection of appropriate feminine products but we’re pretty sure there are people out there who need to, want to and perhaps will even enjoy catching their ads.

Okay, we know people love to hate ads, but that hatred can’t be taken at face value.  They just don’t like stacks of ads, irrelevant ads, intrusive ads and a constant barrage of the same dumba** repetitive ad(s).  

 Fortunately, at least in the streaming video arena, the environment is changing. And as Jason Bourne suggested in The Bourne Ultimatum, “Get some rest Pam, you look tired.”

The smart streaming services are going to balance their constantly changing show/movie libraries so they keep folks involved, help advertisers/marketers to use all of their services properly and let their subscribers decide which type of ad-free/ad-supported service best meets their entertainment/budget needs. 

Who knows, we might even be willing to join our ad-adverse friends … naw!!!

# # #

Andy Marken – andy@markencom.com – is an author of more than 800 articles on management, marketing, communications, industry trends in media & entertainment, consumer electronics, software, and applications. An internationally recognized marketing/communications consultant with a broad range of technical and industry expertise especially in storage, storage management and film/video production fields; he has an extended range of relationships with business, industry trade press, online media, and industry analysts/consultants.