# Fox eliminates shorter/defined ad breaks



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

From the Wall Street Journal:


> Viewers of the sci-fi series "Fringe" will soon have to watch something even scarier than brains leaking out of people's ears: more commercials.
> 
> Fox Broadcasting decided this week to discontinue its year-old strategy of regularly airing fewer advertisements, at higher prices, during some TV shows, Fox executives say.


Sorry to see that go. It was cool to be able to know to press "skip" twice or three times and be done with it. No back skips, no extra skips.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Not being able to read the complete article, maybe fox will continue posting the "minutes till" even though there will be more minutes to skip through. If Fox stops the practice I will miss it, cause I agree with "phrelin", it is a nice feature.


----------



## IndyMichael (Jan 25, 2003)

My sometimers disease may be getting the better of me, but didn't the old DirecTivos actually skip over 30 seconds at a time? D*Dvrs seem to fast forward thru the 30 seconds, instead of skipping them.

As far as Fox, I always thought it was odd for them to tell us how the skip their commercials.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

IndyMichael said:


> My sometimers disease may be getting the better of me, but didn't the old DirecTivos actually skip over 30 seconds at a time? D*Dvrs seem to fast forward thru the 30 seconds, instead of skipping them.


With the DirecTV boxes, you can configure them to either SLIP (FF) or SKIP (jump) 30 seconds with each click.



BubblePuppy said:


> Not being able to read the complete article, maybe fox will continue posting the "minutes till" even though there will be more minutes to skip through. [...]


+1. Combined with DirecTV's 30SKIP, it's a beautiful thing knowing in advance how many times to click. 

That said, it's a shame the shorter, but higher-priced, ad model isn't working. I think a lot of folks wouldn't even bother to fast forward if they knew the break was only going to last a minute. Good for the viewer, good for the advertiser... bad for the ad agencies? I wonder if they're sabotaging this? /steve


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Steve said:


> With the DirecTV boxes, you can configure them to either SLIP (FF) or SKIP (jump) 30 seconds with each click.
> /steve


Yep, I have my HR20-700 set to skip. I didn't like the slip feature.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I'll miss it, but I'll live without it.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Not that I watch much on Fox, but it seems to me that something like this would have been a real success. Common sense would tell me, people might not bother zapping through the breaks when they're short.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Yeah, a bit of a bummer. I was really getting used to knowing how many seconds the commercials would last while watching Fringe.

Oh well, back to the standard FFX3 method.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

phrelin said:


> From the Wall Street Journal: Sorry to see that go. It was cool to be able to know to press "skip" twice or three times and be done with it. No back skips, no extra skips.


No kidding. This feature made watching Fringe and Dollhouse better.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Oh well, back to the standard FFX3 method.


I just stack 5 skips and see where I land.


----------



## IndyMichael (Jan 25, 2003)

Steve said:


> With the DirecTV boxes, you can configure them to either SLIP (FF) or SKIP (jump) 30 seconds with each click.
> 
> /steve


Can you tell me the steps to do so? Just looked thru the menus and didn't see how.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

IndyMichael said:


> Can you tell me the steps to do so? Just looked thru the menus and didn't see how.


On DIRECTV HR2x receives, go to Keyword search and input *30SKIP* if you want to have SKIP behavior, or input *30SLIP* for default slip behavior. Select CONTINUE, press SELECT on ALL on the next screen, and then EXIT when it says no matches found. You've now changed what happens when you hit the SKIP button on the remote.


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> Yeah, a bit of a bummer. I was really getting used to knowing how many seconds the commercials would last while watching Fringe.
> 
> Oh well, back to the standard FFX3 method.


I'll miss it as well, but often I watched Fringe and Dollhouse on the Canadian channel. The international feed had the outro bumper like Fox, but without
"Fringe will return in XX seconds" line. I memorized each break (60, 90, 60, 60) so I could advance correctly. That worked until Global mixed things up one week with a 60, 120, 30, 60 schedule.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

This was one of the things I liked most about watching Fringe. 

As far as the skip/slip on a DirecTV DVR, they never stack properly.
If I see "Fringe will return in 60 seconds" and press the skip button twice, I'm going to have to backup when I get there.

OT for here, but the darned thing needs to add 30 seconds to any previous entry and not include the time between presses.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

It was inevitable. Early on in the season it became clear that advertisers were getting less for their money, not the 50% more than they needed to get to justify what Fox needed to charge to break-even on the experiment.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> It was inevitable. Early on in the season it became clear that advertisers were getting less for their money...


Is this kind of data available on the web? I'm curious how they measure it. TIA. /steve


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Marlin Guy said:


> This was one of the things I liked most about watching Fringe.
> 
> As far as the skip/slip on a DirecTV DVR, they never stack properly.
> If I see "Fringe will return in 60 seconds" and press the skip button twice, I'm going to have to backup when I get there.
> ...


My 30sec skip seems to be right on.
When I first saw the "secs to" I thought "this isn't going to last".


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Steve said:


> Is this kind of data available on the web? I'm curious how they measure it. TIA. /steve


The measurement was revenue, of course... how much revenue they were able to demand. X minutes of commercials, @ $A per minute; versus (X-Y) minutes of commercials, @ $B per minute.

The info was posted on the broadcasting news sites (like HERE) a few weeks after Fringe premiered. I'll try to find a link, when I have some spare time.

Edited: I found some of the data HERE. 


> Fox is calling its initiative to air shows with *50 percent fewer commercials* Remote Free TV. Mid-season drama The Dollhouse will also air with fewer ads. During the upfront, Fox was able to sell ads during those two shows at a price increase of *35 percent to 40 percent* over the previous year.


Doing the math, using the variables I established above:


```
$B = $A * 1.4 and (X-Y) minutes = (X * 0.5) minutes
So the difference in revenue is $((X-Y) * B) - $(X * A) 
     = $((X * 0.5) * (A * 1.4)) - $(X * A)
     = $(-0.3 * X * A)
```
... or basically a 30% loss in revenue.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> The measurement was revenue, of course... how much revenue they were able to demand. X minutes of commercials, @ $A per minute; versus (X-Y) minutes of commercials, @ $B per minute.
> 
> The info was posted on the broadcasting news sites (like HERE) a few weeks after Fringe premiered. I'll try to find a link, when I have some spare time.
> 
> Edited: I found some of the data in print. Fox was able to demand 40% higher rates -- i.e., B = A * 1.4. However (X-Y) = X * 0.5. So, doing the math, (X * A) - ((X-Y) * B) = (X * A) - ((X * 0.5) * (A * 1.4)) = 0.3 * X * A or basically a 30% loss in revenue.


Gotcha, thanks!  So relatively straighforward to measure from Fox's revenue standpoint.



> Early on in the season it became clear that advertisers were getting less for their money


 This is the line I was wondering about, tho. How is that determined? Simple up- or down-tick in sales #'s, or some other measurement? I ask because I'm suspicious of the ad agencies. A new paradigm that results in fewer ads could mean less business for them in the long-run, and I wonder if they're unhappy about this. /steve


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

Thsi was definitely nice for use DVR folks but I knew it couldn't last. Really, how could this have possibly benefited the network or advertisers?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

pfp said:


> Thsi was definitely nice for use DVR folks but I knew it couldn't last. Really, how could this have possibly benefited the network or advertisers?


Only that some folks might not bother to FF, if they knew the break was only going to last 60 seconds. /steve


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Right, and I can certify that at least two viewers didn't break that way. When they said, "Fringe will be back in 90 seconds," you'd hear three quick 30-second skip clicks on the remote. :whistling:


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> Right, and I can certify that at least two viewers didn't break that way. When they said, "Fringe will be back in 90 seconds," you'd hear three quick 30-second skip clicks on the remote. :whistling:


Make that three.:lol:


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

BubblePuppy said:


> Make that three.:lol:


make it 4


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

pfp said:


> make it 4


Make it 5. It was dumb. If they stuck in more 20 second or 50 second breaks, maybe. But didn't anyone at Fox understand the 30 second skip button?


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

I used to have an RCA VHS VCR that went back after the show taped and marked the beginning and end of a commercial break. When you later played that program, the VCR would automatically detect the beginning of a break and FF to the end of it. There was an expected mechanical time delay while it FF, but a lot faster than watching the ads.

I know it's a feature that might not readilly lend itself to a DVR without some serious tweeking, but it's just a matter of time ... someone will come out with one that allows that. Of course, the manufacturer better have deep pockets to fight the advertisers in court.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

HDG said:


> I used to have an RCA VHS VCR that went back after the show taped and marked the beginning and end of a commercial break. When you later played that program, the VCR would automatically detect the beginning of a break and FF to the end of it. There was an expected mechanical time delay while it FF, but a lot faster than watching the ads.
> 
> I know it's a feature that might not readilly lend itself to a DVR without some serious tweeking, but it's just a matter of time ... someone will come out with one that allows that. Of course, the manufacturer better have deep pockets to fight the advertisers in court.


I believe that Tivo had a dvr that did that sort of thing.......you see how long that lasted.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

BubblePuppy said:


> I believe that Tivo had a dvr that did that sort of thing.......you see how long that lasted.


I believe that was replay not tivo


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

pfp said:


> I believe that was replay not tivo


I think you're right. It was those REPLAY patents (now owned by DirecTV) that led to this _Wish List_ request:

*Up to FFX3, automatically switch to PLAY at the end of a commercial block.
*
/steve


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

pfp said:


> I believe that was replay not tivo


Thanks for the correction.
I didn't have either one but I knew there was a dvr that did that.


----------



## xmguy (Mar 27, 2008)

phrelin said:


> From the Wall Street Journal: Sorry to see that go. It was cool to be able to know to press "skip" twice or three times and be done with it. No back skips, no extra skips.


Agreed. If they said it would return in 60 seconds. I'd press Skip twice. Plus MORE commercials now we get LESS time watching Fringe!!


----------



## xmguy (Mar 27, 2008)

HDG said:


> I used to have an RCA VHS VCR that went back after the show taped and marked the beginning and end of a commercial break. When you later played that program, the VCR would automatically detect the beginning of a break and FF to the end of it. There was an expected mechanical time delay while it FF, but a lot faster than watching the ads.
> 
> I know it's a feature that might not readilly lend itself to a DVR without some serious tweeking, but it's just a matter of time ... someone will come out with one that allows that. Of course, the manufacturer better have deep pockets to fight the advertisers in court.


Commercial Advance. I remember my RCA VCR did that. Not to well. But still.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

xmguy said:


> Commercial Advance. I remember my RCA VCR did that. Not to well. But still.


Mine did it well if I let it whir and purr for 30-minutes after it taped. Like every feature, it has it's time. The networks making it harder to skip commercials seems like a tailor-made excuse to get this feature incorporated (or re-incorporated) into today's DVRs.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

be careful what you wicsh for. If something like this were to take root we would probably see more obvious product placement in our shows or the shows becomeing outrights ads for products (Eureka). Or perhaps theose enormous BUGS on channels such as SciFi (sorry Syfy) will fill 1/3 of your screen with a commercial while the program continues to run. I for one don't want to see anything like this happen.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

...or entire shows built around product placement. Sorry, _30 Rock,_ no matter how much I love you, it's still product placement to write an episode that riffs off _Mamma Mia_ especially if there's a commercial for the DVD ate the end.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> ...or entire shows built around product placement. Sorry, _30 Rock,_ no matter how much I love you, it's still product placement to write an episode that riffs off _Mamma Mia_ especially if there's a commercial for the DVD ate the end.


Agree, but i think it works for this show since it's so over the top.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

pfp said:


> be careful what you wicsh for. If something like this were to take root we would probably see more obvious product placement in our shows or the shows becomeing outrights ads for products (Eureka). Or perhaps theose enormous BUGS on channels such as SciFi (sorry Syfy) will fill 1/3 of your screen with a commercial while the program continues to run. I for one don't want to see anything like this happen.


I don't either. But gloom and doom ain't my cup 'o tea, either. I'll look for work-arounds before I give up on TV altogether. The networks know they tread a fine line between us viewers and their commercial sponsors. Let them figure it out. We can either accept or reject their offerings.

Not using existing technology to solve a problem just doesn't make sense to me. Of course, one problem solver doesn't an industry fix, but it's a start. We have such a long way to go.


----------



## snipes007 (Jan 28, 2007)

I give Fox credit for trying such things, although they don't have a history of any of those things being successful. Remember the FOX Hockey Puck Tracker.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

snipes007 said:


> I give Fox credit for trying such things, although they don't have a history of any of those things being successful. Remember the FOX Hockey Puck Tracker.


Make that a LOT of credit.

The DVR is probably the first consumer backlash specifically directed at the networks and its distributors (OTA, sat or cable). Fox happens to be one of the first to try and stem the flow, so to speak. Others may have tried different things. I'm just ignorant of who they are. If the present trend continues, other networks will feel the pinch where it really hurts.

The networks would be well advised to recognize that viewers have reached a point of commercial saturation, whether that be in the form of breaks, bugs, or product placement. They need to devise a happy medium that satisfies all and penalizes none.

A tall order for sure in an industry that survives on advertisers Dollars. And maybe therein lies a part of the solution, who knows? They're smart folks; surely they can devise alternate revenue streams to keep their board rooms, and us, happy.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Just when I thought they had abandoned "Remote Free TV", Fox comes up with this wrinkle (From Advertiisng Age):


> The fight to keep viewers from zapping past commercials continues at Fox in the 2009-2010 programming season. After experimenting with running fewer ads in select programs and charging advertisers more for the privilege of having less clutter surrounding their messages, Fox will offer the technique -- known as "Remote-Free TV" -- in more limited fashion next season, executives said today.
> 
> The News Corp. network will also run pieces of content during ad breaks crafted by the producers of the shows running on air at the time, part of another move to keep audiences rooted to the screen during commercial interruptions.


Hmmm. If they mix these things, the skip button might not be so useful. Might have to revert to FF.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Just when I thought they had abandoned "Remote Free TV", Fox comes up with this wrinkle (From Advertiisng Age):Hmmm. If they mix these things, the skip button might not be so useful. Might have to revert to FF.





"Advertising Age" said:


> The News Corp. network will also run pieces of content during ad breaks crafted by the producers of the shows running on air at the time, part of another move to keep audiences rooted to the screen during commercial interruptions.


You may not have to FF. Bravo's been doing this for a while. Fortunately, the _"pieces of content"_ have little or no bearing on whatever is on-going in the main program. I find it easy to "skip" over them without fear of missing anything.


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

pfp said:


> be careful what you wicsh for. If something like this were to take root we would probably see more obvious product placement in our shows or the shows becomeing outrights ads for products (Eureka). Or perhaps theose enormous BUGS on channels such as SciFi (sorry Syfy) will fill 1/3 of your screen with a commercial while the program continues to run. I for one don't want to see anything like this happen.


On this week's Family Guy, Stewie pointed out and complained about the pop-up ad for another show that was taking up the bottom of the screen at the time! :lol:


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

jeffshoaf said:


> On this week's Family Guy, Stewie pointed out and complained about the pop-up ad for another show that was taking up the bottom of the screen at the time! :lol:


Yep, and in the Family Guy tradition they took something mildly amusing and ran with it so long that it became a bit annoying.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

SNL did a similiar thing with TNT and basketball coverage too.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

If the sometime out-of-the-box-thinking Fox execs followed the Hulu model of infrequent 15-second commercials, they would practically guarantee that everyone viewing either live or recorded would see each and every ad. At the 15-second level, it's no easy task and really not worth it, to try to avoid the pitches.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

One 15 second commercial, every minute. 

45 seconds of program; 15 seconds of commercial; 45 seconds of program; 15 seconds of commercial; 45 seconds of program; 15 seconds of commercial; etc.

Yeah, that'll work, eh?


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> One 15 second commercial, every minute.
> 
> 45 seconds of program; 15 seconds of commercial; 45 seconds of program; 15 seconds of commercial; 45 seconds of program; 15 seconds of commercial; etc.
> 
> Yeah, that'll work, eh?


Apparently you missed the operative term "infrequent."

To put it another way, fewer, shorter commercials, with increased viewership may be a model that works economically. There's nothing sacred about the current network model, as Fox has already demonstrated.

Regardless, by copy of this posting, I give the Fox execs full permission to use and benefit from my ridiculously simple yet brilliant idea (actually, I suppose Hulu has to be given credit).


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

zkc16 said:


> Apparently you missed the operative term "infrequent."


No I didn't miss it at all. However, it is unreasonable to expect networks to accept less advertising revenue than they get now.



zkc16 said:


> To put it another way, fewer, shorter commercials, with increased viewership may be a model that works economically.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: Let's cut commercial time in half. So that's still a 15 second interruption after 90 seconds, and again and again.



zkc16 said:


> There's nothing sacred about the current network model, as Fox has already demonstrated.


Fox's experiment *failed*. Or didn't you notice?


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> No I didn't miss it at all. However, it is unreasonable to expect networks to accept less advertising revenue than they get now.


I don't remember mentioning anything about less revenue.



> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: Let's cut commercial time in half. So that's still a 15 second interruption after 90 seconds, and again and again.


No, let's try it this way; Only four 15-second commercials each half hour, but with an increased *actual* viewership factor of 10.



> Fox's experiment *failed*. Or didn't you notice?


Exactly one of my points. Fox is capable of out-of-the-box thinking, but missed the model this time. Or didn't you notice?


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

zkc16 said:


> I don't remember mentioning anything about less revenue.


But your implication in that regard was inescapable, even though you may wish to dispute it.



zkc16 said:


> No, let's try it this way; Only four 15-second commercials each half hour, but with an increased *actual* viewership factor of 10.


Your fantasy doesn't pay the bills. Nice try.



zkc16 said:


> Exactly one of my points. Fox is capable of out-of-the-box thinking, but missed the model this time. Or didn't you notice?


You simply don't have a grasp on the real value of viewers' eyes.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> But your implication in that regard was inescapable, even though you may wish to dispute it.
> 
> Your fantasy doesn't pay the bills. Nice try.
> 
> You simply don't have a grasp on the real value of viewers' eyes.


Uh-huh.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I'm glad we were able to finally agree on something.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Folks, let's take the personal discussions to private message, ok?


----------

