Note: My Web pages are best viewed with style sheets enabled.
|
Note: My Web pages are best viewed with style sheets enabled. |
Unrated |
The sponsors of commercials on TV too often waste their money. Here are three examples.
Having more than one commercial for a product during the same break does not increase consumers' positive attitude toward the product. Instead, it annoys those watching TV. This is especially true when two or even three identical commercials are shown during the same break. The result is a negative attitude.
During a break, showing several commercials for competing products is sure to make viewers forget which product was most attractive. For example, when automobile commercials for Ford, Chevrolet, Jeep, and Toyota appear back-to-back in the same break, which one will be remembered?
In most nations, prescription drugs — drugs that cannot be purchased without a doctor's order — cannot be advertised. The United States is an exception. However, pharmaceutical companies should recognize that good, ethical doctors will not be swayed by a patient's demand for a prescription. Only if the doctor believes a drug is actually effective for what ails the patient will he or she write an advertised prescription.
Of course, there is a problem with the total time taken by TV advertisements. This might not cost the advertisers money, but it is annoying. Back in the third quarter of the 20th century, many programs on TV were owned by an advertiser. Half-hour shows would have three commercial breaks: one at the beginning, one in the middle, and one at the end. Hour shows would have four commercial breaks: one at the beginning, one after a third of the show, one after two-thirds of the show, and one at the end. At each break, only one commercial would be shown; there were no competing commercials. Thus, in an hour show, the actual show might have 45 or even 50 minutes of content. Today, we are lucky to get 40 minutes.
14 March 2026
