MEDIA FORUM: Sky’s answer to channel hopping causes a furore - During Sky Sports latest score service on Saturday afternoons, commercials and ticker-tape data are made to share the same screen. Is the commercial message damaged? Does Sky place adv
Arguably, Larry Sanders has the most honest approach. ’No flipping,’ he says as he cues the commercial break, standing there with a wan smile and aiming an imaginary remote at his audience. Unfortunately, we’ll never know if this works, because the remote isn’t the only imaginary thing about The Larry Sanders Show, the spoof chat show starring Garry Shandling.
Arguably, Larry Sanders has the most honest approach. ’No
flipping,’ he says as he cues the commercial break, standing there with
a wan smile and aiming an imaginary remote at his audience.
Unfortunately, we’ll never know if this works, because the remote isn’t
the only imaginary thing about The Larry Sanders Show, the spoof chat
show starring Garry Shandling.
But the problem certainly isn’t fictional. Since the invention of the
remote, commercial television channels have been held to infra-red
ransom by their viewers - and the problem has grown in direct proportion
to the number of channels available. Your programming may be the most
breathtaking and riveting in the history of moving pictures but that
won’t mean a thing come the commercials - you’re almost bound to lose
large chunks of your audience when the ad break comes along.
Encouraged by advertisers and agencies, TV channels have tried the odd
wheeze now and then to discourage flipping. Like a quiz question just
before the start of the break with the promise of an answer at the
end.
But this sort of thing has always been a relatively small incentive to
set against the insatiable curiosity of the viewer.
Last week, though, two channels decided to confront the issue once
more.
The initiative that caused most fuss was the one taken by Sky Sports,
but Granada Plus was almost as radical. Granada has started encouraging
viewer patience by flagging the next programme in a tagline in the top
left corner during the break. Sky went even further, utterly changing
the nature of the ad break in its Gillette Soccer Saturday latest scores
and results service - during breaks, the ads are only given two thirds
of the screen, with the results service continuing uninterrupted in
ticker-tape format.
Some advertisers were not amused. Some are even asking for their money
back. Sky, however, points out that those advertisers should look at the
ratings - the initiative massively reduces audience defection. Mark
Wood, the commercial director of Sky Sales, says it’s important to
stress that this does not involve a major policy change - it is a
programme-specific experiment. He also points out that it was approved
in advance by the Independent Television Commission and affects only
those breaks scheduled during the 90 minutes in which football is being
played.
He adds: ’The jury is still out on the debate between higher audience
levels in the breaks - relatively easy to prove - and attention levels;
we are still awaiting qualitative research findings. Clearly, we have
not set out to annoy advertisers and take very seriously any concerns
that maybe raised. Simply put, we exist to satisfy our viewers and if
more of them watch the breaks in Gillette Soccer Saturday with greater
attention, that would be good for all concerned. We know the programme
is popular, we know the break viewing levels are higher and soon we’ll
know if the advertising works harder.’
Paul Parashar, the head of TV at New PHD, says he appreciates these
arguments and will reserve judgment until the research is available. He
states: ’You could argue that this is a special case and if advertisers
don’t want to be a part of it they don’t have to go in there. But the
point is that we might have good reason to want to be in there and this
could well diminish the value of being there. Any benefit in terms of
audience retained would have to be balanced by decent attention levels
and you’d have to suspect that the only reason the audience would stay
would be to watch the ticker tape, not the advertising.’
Other planners and buyers are equally keen to avoid a knee-jerk response
and some are thoroughly blase about the whole business. They point to
the fuss caused a few years ago when smaller channels decided to leave
their station ident on the top right of the screen during ad breaks.
Surely, even the most precious of creatives is now able to live with
that?
Some, however, argue that this may well be the thin end of the
wedge.
Sky, they insist, is always ’pushing the boundaries’. In line with its
digital-age penchant for split screens, Sky is testing how the market
will react to a new era of television advertising, where the medium
comes more into line with print (or indeed, the internet): in the new
model, advertising and editorial will have to co-exist from time to
time. You might have to buy TV like press, paying more for a ’whole
page’ or even, internet style, opt to run a commercial non-stop in
postage stamp size in the top corner, hoping that viewers will click on
it and open it up.
Peter Souter, executive creative director of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO,
isn’t willing to speculate about that sort of scenario but he does agree
that there’s something fundamental at stake here. ’When commercial
television first arrived it was a public contract with the consumer -
you can have the programmes you like but the price is that you have to
look at some ads now and again. They bought into it. In the last ten
years that contract has been broken. There is so much in the way of
sponsorship and credits and promos that ads are seen as an intrusion. If
they hate all of that stuff, in the end they will hate television. I
haven’t actually seen what Sky is doing so I feel slightly reluctant
commenting about it, but it’s clearly an abuse of the money we give them
to put ads on. Who cares what the ratings are - they’re not watching the
bit that we want them to watch.’
Graham Duff, the chief executive of Zenith Media, appreciates there is a
creative issue here that will have to be addressed - along with concerns
about awareness - when the research comes in. But he does believe there
are other worrying aspects to this episode. He says: ’The most negative
slant you can put on all of this is that it raises the issue of how
important advertising really is to Sky. Sky takes tens of millions in
advertising revenue and no-one’s suggesting that’s unimportant but it’s
certainly dwarfed by the amount Sky takes in subscription revenues.
We’ll just have to see how it continues to handle the whole episode.’
