My earliest memory of adblocking is the VHS recorder or player skipping commercials similar today to SponsorBlock and other autoskipping methods.
It's the one type of ad/sponsor I can never block or mute, it's just too short/sudden. It's a 5-10 second read. Muting the tv for a whole 3-minute commercial break doesn't bother me.
It's not new. Probably one of the most infamous examples, is why red and white are associated with Santa Claus. That's because they are Coca-Cola's corporate colors, and they heavily advertised and gave away a lot of swag, back at the beginning of last century. If you look at older depictions of Saint Nick, he's usually wearing some green.
I get sick of ads designed to look like copy, and presented inline in stories. That's going to get a lot worse, as LLMs are probably excellent at customising marketing drivel to fit into legit content.
Brand-building is important [to corporations]. Things like what words TV presenters and actors use can be manipulated to reinforce a corporate glossary.
Whenever you see a couple of actors enjoying a beer in a TV show, you'll notice the bottle labels are usually turned away from the camera. If you can see the label, it was generally paid.
I used to work for a famous camera company. I would often see actors using our cameras, but with the name blacked out (sometimes, you could see the electrical tape).
https://gmkeros.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/terry-pratchett-and...
Everyone knows it's the cost of doing business that when you tune in a ballgame, a couple of times the announcing crew will be like "oh by the way, here's this thing, check it out if you want because the manufacturer swears it's great!" In this dystopian age, that's like the oldest, most quaint form of advertising out there.
I don't know if there were VCRs capable of pausing automatically, based on the symbol.
Some examples — you can see one in the thumbnail for the first video in this playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGD2tjST16V9W8pWMM4bJ...
They were a way for the network to cue the regions for when to insert their regional content. It was not necessarily advertisements. And for programmes that were already regional, there was no need for cues from the network for when to run advertisements.
With digital playout, such things became no longer in-band.
If we are just measuring viewing of an ad as positive, then obnoxious ads will be viewed and thought to be effective. But the emotional response would be the opposite (getting annoyed instead of getting interested). I think for the company placing the ad it is a net negative.
Or the alternative, you can track it therefore you assign a disproportionate amount of value to it versus the things that are harder to track.
MPC has the ability to normalize volume in a video automatically.
Basically, nobody has the data because anybody who could have the data is incentivized to not look at it. That's the recipe for a rather long-lived bubble, one which if it popped (say, some short trader targeting the entirety of tech industry) would fundamentally change the tech industry. In short, I don't think making me watch a video of a truck for a couple seconds should be worth a nickel.
> But the emotional response would be the opposite (getting annoyed instead of getting interested). I think for the company placing the ad it is a net negative
In Advertising, "getting annoyed" is just a sub-metric of "getting remembered" ;)
Frankly, if the volume is too high I think the annoyance would be mostly directed towards the entire service playing ads at all, not the maker of the individual ad.
This really just tells me that either I'm an outlier (probably) or advertisers are morons
If I remember something annoyed me with an ad, I will move heaven and earth to avoid their product
I loathe advertising in general and the more intrusive it is the less I want your product. I keep a shit list of particularly irritating brands and go out of my way to avoid them
I have a related anecdote:
Several years ago there was a huge level of competition among brands to position their Bluetooth speakers at retail stores. The stores had a table or a shelf with a large variety of different speakers, companies competed on price, quality and design, created expensive display racks with buttons to demonstrate the quality of different content, paid the stores fees to put up those display-racks, etc.
Then, JBL decided to reduce the component costs for the speaker and put the money into colorful LEDs instead. Not as an end-user feature, but to grab the attention of the customer at the point-of-sale and stand out from all those other speakers.
This completely disrupted the market, and within 2 months they were the number one brand in Bluetooth speakers in low/mid price-segments. Their Audio quality was lower compared to others in the same tier, but they were the most attention-grabbing speakers in every store, creating the most sales.
Lesson for the entire industry: Cut the BOM for audio-components in the speakers and add LEDs!!
Within a few months the entire Bluetooth-Speaker shelf of all retailers was full of speakers with flashing LEDs...
There is evidence that louder ads work: https://news.nd.edu/news/loud-and-clear-high-energy-ads-keep...
This feel unsurprising to me given the long known fact that people tend to rate audio quality based on volume. (It’s what the stereo sales scene in Fast Times at Ridgemont High was based on.)
I think the difference between you and I is that I think it is always manipulative, and therefore is always very annoying
There are no honest advertisers. Only scum.
> There are no honest advertisers. Only scum.
That’s a step too far, IMO, and before saying that you should at least reflect on how some advertising somewhere likely benefits you. There are many kinds of advertising. Advertising is not necessarily dishonest. If you work for a for-profit company, your company probably advertises. If you work for a non-profit company, your company probably advertises. If you work for a government agency, your org probably advertises. Advertising is any form of letting people know you or your services or goods exist. If you’re only talking about a subset of that, we should discuss how you’re defining advertising.
We are chatting on the website of a venture capital company. This very forum you’re using is a subtle advertisement, and a significant portion of the chatter here is about how to start a company, including marketing and advertising. The type of ad/marketing that HN is is neither annoying nor manipulative.
If you ever start your own company - and I recommend it - that’s when you learn the fact that advertising is both absolutely necessary and fairly difficult to do well. If you ever do anything in public, announcing it is advertising. The vast majority of companies advertise, as do many government and non-profit and public-interest organizations, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Advertising is a huge part of the business model that funds the arts in the US, and without it, we’d have a lot fewer plays, dancing, and music.
Sure, let's discuss.
I cannot agree. Even if it isn't necessarily wrong, that's not strictly correct either. I'll call it a generalization well past the point of not being useful.
Reading several dictionaries' definitions of "marketing" and "advertising", there is room between them, with advertising focusing on paid placement in every one. The American Marketing Association says: "Marketing is a business practice that involves identifying, predicting and meeting customer needs. Advertising is a business practice where a company pays to place its messaging or branding in a particular location." https://www.ama.org/marketing-vs-advertising/
Yet "paid" isn't enough, and not only because of the common phrase "paid advertisement". A more accurate distinction might be made with intent. Perhaps: an advertisement is intended to change a viewer's trajectory to the advertiser's desired outcome when the viewer is not already heading in that direction. This is not completely satisfactory.
I believe most people would find it a little off or burying the lede, though not necessarily wrong, to hear, "https://adobe.com/photoshop is advertising for Photoshop", in a way they wouldn't if "promotes" was used instead. I believe most would have a similar impression, "that's a rather weird way to phrase it", if you were to say a business is advertising in the phone book when they are only listed by name, address, and number -- the most basic listing.
Defining ads as requiring payment leaves out some obvious examples that aren’t “paid”, like companies next to freeways or streets that put commercial advertisement murals on their buildings. It’s routine for billboard companies, magazines, publishers, movie trailers, etc., to advertise the space they offer for paid ads. It’s common for Google to advertise Google services on google.com. Nobody is “paid” for the ads in those cases, not in the sense you’re talking about, and I’m sure those are still ads by your definition, whatever it is, right?
So, for the purposes of this discussion, assume I accept your definition of advertising as being paid promotion. Nothing in your comment addressed my point that paid advertising is the business model by which the arts largely gets funded, nor that you likely benefit financially from paid advertising by organizations you’re part of. I don’t know that for a fact, of course, I’m just betting based on the fact that the vast majority of people are part of, or make a living from, organizations that do paid advertising.
You haven’t established any reasons why paid advertising would be considered “dishonest”, or why advertisers should be considered “scum”. Does that apply to your employer? Does that apply to grant foundations or business donors that fund plays or concerts? Does that apply to the government? Kickstarter or gofundme campaigns? Startup companies? Paid PSAs?
There are some ads and companies that I would agree are dishonest and scummily manipulative, like cigarettes. But there are also plenty of ads that are innocuous and not irritating, and quite a few ads and advertisers who are good and kind people that support their communities and public works.
I have been making an effort the past couple years towards less advertising in my life, including less reliance on ad-supported services. That has required a significant investment of time, though less money than you'd expect, and is why I was interested in discussing what it is about advertising that causes people to say things like the person above did with "scum". However, you conceded that and appear disinterested in discussing it further; where you're going now doesn't look very interesting or useful.
> You haven’t established any reasons why paid advertising would be considered “dishonest”, or why advertisers should be considered “scum”.
One good reason to not like advertisers is because the job involves such a high degree of intentional manipulation of a viewer towards the advertiser's self-interest. Many do call that dishonest. I called this "paid placement" definition not completely satisfactory -- but this is so very prevalent and typical that you accepted it as true.
Have you heard "visual pollution" used for advertising? https://petapixel.com/2023/01/11/what-major-cities-would-loo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa Those working towards pollution are quite scummy. How many snake oil salesman do you need to be ill-intentioned before the whole profession is tainted where you are no longer surprised to see people stereotype them? You're not adding much to the discussion if you're only arguing against a stereotype with the equivalent of, "there are some very bad advertisers, but you also have some that are very fine people".
> you likely benefit financially from paid advertising by organizations you’re part of.
My current employer does not advertise, and I've been with them a decade. I've never been in a position to control advertising by any of my past employers, most of whom did advertise. I recall declining advertising jobs, such as door-to-door sales of Cutco knives, back when I was a student. (I still remember that presentation, despite leaving in the middle; this captures much of what I felt: https://www.thetakeout.com/the-invasive-manipulative-art-of-....) There is no gotcha here: I am a working stiff, my employer is medium-size, though they also don't rely on customers off the street. I don't see how these things do or do not affect the current discussion.
Other than as an employee (or business-owner), I struggle to imagine what other types of organizations I could be a part of that would provide financial benefit to me. My church does provide financial benefits in the form of donations to families, but I am thankful to have not been in the position to need that. They also don't advertise, though is the line blurred by accepting advertisements to put in flyers distributed to members, or in that instance, is the church the community which benefits from the advertisers?
Most people have no control over advertising by their employer, and I see no cognitive dissonance with an employee cashing paychecks while disliking the advertisers employed by their employer. Nor is there dissonance with a business owner feeling scummy by their own need to hire advertisers. Distasteful things can be necessary in a given environment.
You recommend starting a business, and I have gone far enough down that path to realize one of my significant hurdles would be dealing with things such as advertising. Still, a business would probably be worthwhile, and if I ever do, I hope I feel scummy when I advertise instead of feeling entitled:
* https://web.archive.org/web/20020802143637/https://research....
* https://publicknowledge.org/watch-those-commercials-or-else/ -- It's amusing how this describes the first TV remote being advertised for muting commercials without getting up.
If you agree that some ads and some advertisers are not dishonest, not scummy, and not doing harm, then I think we’re probably in full agreement. I agree that some ads are some advertisers are deceitful, I’m aware of visual pollution and I don’t want it. I also seek to minimize ads with my own online activity.
> “paid placement” definition […] is so very prevalent and typical that you accepted it as true.
No, I agreed to accept it for the purposes of this conversation, to avoid further useless semantic argument, because you were pushing that definition. I did in fact offer multiple examples of how that definition does not work in general, and outside of this conversation, my definition of ‘advertise’ is unchanged and does not equal ‘paid promotion’.
> I wanted to discuss how advertising is not “any form of letting people know you or your services or goods exist”.
Google’s first definition of advertise is “describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance.” Google’s 2nd definition is “seek to fill a vacancy by putting a notice in a newspaper or other medium”. Google’s 3rd definition is “make (a quality or fact) known”. Google’s 4th and last definition is to “notify someone of something”. I don’t know about you but in my mind, all four of those definitions are very close to what I said. To advertise is to “make known”, yeah that is a lot more concise than my quote. It doesn’t necessarily involve payment, and it doesn’t necessarily involve manipulation, and it doesn’t necessarily involve dishonesty or scummy people. Right?
I’m not pro ads, my singular contribution to this conversation is to counter the false claim that all advertisers are bad people and that all advertising is bad. I was trying to give examples of advertising - examples that you and GP would agree count as advertising - that are not dishonest, scummy, or manipulative.
Yes, ads in your church flyer absolutely count as paid promotion, and your church benefits financially from them. The other example that I gave of a non-business organization that does a lot of paid promotion is the government, and I mentioned it specifically because much of the paid promotion activity from the government is informational & PSA type of advertising. (Though I can readily admit our current administration is pushing some truly stunning advertising.)
> There is no gotcha here
I wasn’t aiming for a gotcha, I was aiming for a more serious reflection on the role of advertising in society. The stance by GP that I was reacting to that all paid ads are pure evil is an extreme stance that fails to recognize why advertising is here and why it’s so prevalent, fails to acknowledge the benefits of advertising, and fails to offer any thoughtful alternatives. If we want to talk about advertising being bad, we ought to steer toward what we can do instead. Without a viable alternative to the economic output of advertising, we can complain about the bad ads all we want, but we’re tilting at windmills and nothing will change, right?
Are you certain your employer does no advertising? To me that implies your employer does no marketing at all, and gains all new customers strictly via referrals from other customers. Is that true? That’s great if so, but doesn’t change the fact that most people work for companies that advertise, which is a good reason to reflect on the role of advertising in society.
I hope you feel neither scummy nor entitled when you start a business and have to advertise. Making known your goods or services is simply a necessary part of doing business, and when it’s done well it’s an honest living and supports the families you employ.
Tension somewhere between the usual ad boundaries? Nothing's happening. Tension near the 7 or 10 minute boundaries (depending on 30 or 60 minute shows)? Something's gonna happen.
It makes TV shows predictable even when watched on an ad-free platform.
What I'm talking about is far less visible, if at all, in adless 60-minute runtime episodes.
Edit: and "what I'm talking about" is clear before-the-ad cliffhangers with after-the-ad "rewards" in the form of events that advance the plot.
Like the PEPSI vending machine, brightly lit up and just happened to be there PERFECTLY working order in the middle of an apocalypse to provide a refreshing Pepsi to Brad Pitt at the tense zombie cat-and-mouse moment in World War Z?
That means Netflix couldn't make any of it's own shows, you wouldn't have each media company with its own streaming service.
Add on top of that standard fees for streaming royalties which were how do I say contract free syndication. As in you don't need to make a deal with a studio, any company can have anything in their streaming library and everybody pays the same fee (maybe with something like a 1 year lockout, but anything made available on one would be required to be available on all).
Then you have a real market for streaming services and productions instead of all of these little monopolies. Consumers get to choose with their wallets instead of tying the art with the corporate policy.
I actively avoid buying things if I keep bumping into their obtrusive ads.
I do. I don’t watch things with ad breaks.
Profit motivated business (i.e. almost all of them) have a fiduciary duty towards the owners or shareholders. They are legally bound to maximize profits at all costs. If they don't do this, the leadership will be found guilty of dereliction of duty and be sanctioned.
Business aren't people, therefore human morality does not apply. Regulations are the only thing that keeps this behaviour in check. It's the nature of the beast unfortunately.
> and yet that doesn't seem to cause a negative outcome for them
It absolutely has a negative outcome for them, there is a post on the front-page of HN right now about how a California law is forcing Netflix and other streaming services to turn down the volume of their ad breaks.
Why did that law not apply to streaming services in the first place? The internet was very much alive and kicking in 2010. Sure, streaming wasn't as prevalent as it is today, but it wouldn't have taken a lot of imagination to see the same problem would become an issue on the internet as well.
For instance, there's a law banning video rental stores from sharing customer records, because it's obviously bad if private entities are allowed to collect and use potentially private information like media consumption habits. But movie streaming? Every detail about every piece of media you read or watch, when you watch, when you pause or bounce, every interaction and speck of attention catalogued and actively used to guide consumer behavior? That's fine actually, totally allowed.
How about copyright? Right of first sale dictates that you can do whatever you want with a purchased copy of some media, short of distributing copies. You can give it away, sell it, lend it out, modify it, make personal copies, whatever. But what about "media but on computer"? That all goes out the window. Oh, you don't own a copy, you just have a non-transferable limited license to view that media on a specific device for as long as the distributor doesn't change their minds. An insane legal fiction that magically nullifies hard-won rights.
On September 25, the City Paper published Dolan's survey of Bork's rentals in a cover story titled "The Bork Tapes". The revealed tapes proved to be modest, innocuous, and non-salacious, consisting of a garden-variety of films such as thrillers, British drama, and those by Alfred Hitchcock. [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomi...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bork_tapes#:~:text=On%20Septem...
If anything, the law has given cover to shady walled garden business practices that would not have survived otherwise.
>"thing but on computer"
From a tech layperson, all the tech "innovation" I'm seeing seems to just be old stuff but "online" and therefore not subject to the "old rules".
A prioritization or recommendation algorithm does not count as publication. The work was already published by somebody else. Do you blame a library card catalog for listing by subject, title, or chronology?
I would if someone reordered them based on some subjective "engagement" metric.
The card catalog is not a recommendation engine. YouTube's recommendations are... literally a recommendation engine. I think platforms should be legally liable for the things they promote via subjective choices. Pity the law isn't set up that way.
Why
> The work was already published by somebody else.
This is just wrong. It is literally the platform that does the publishing. However, section 230 says that we won't treat the platform as the publisher.
This is not some logical necessity. It's just a law that we can change.
This suggests they were thinking of linear television. Some searching tells me that in fact this is how it was apparently interpreted, for when it was applied to cable TV it was not applied to on-demand cable programming. It was just applied to the regular cable channels.
With linear TV everything is prepared in advance. When they sell an ad slot they know what program they will be showing at the time. There's plenty of time to match the ad volume to the program volume, which I suspect in 2010 could not be reasonably automated.
With on-demand you don't know what programs the ad will be in until the program actually starts. You could potentially be showing that ad in thousands of different programs at approximately the same time. If the level adjustments could not reasonably be completely automated this may have been impractical.
Not really. There's a lot of live programming. Ad campaigns may be cancelled and replaced close to the time of airing. Local stations and cable systems preempt national ads and insert their own ads at times.
The way this was resolved was not by tuning ads to the content they interrupt, it was by setting standard audio levels for all programming and tuning the ads to fit that standard.
Whatever the product is, they will never have me as a customer.
> a video streaming service that serves consumers residing in the state shall not transmit the audio of commercial advertisements louder than the video content the advertisements accompany
I was hoping we'd find a more precise definition. Couldn't this be gamed by editing a short (1 second, for example) segment of the intended content to have loud audio to artificially set the upper bound?
> The Calm Act refers to A/85, and A/85:2013 specifies BS.1770 (specifically referencing BS.1770-1) as the source of its loudness measurement techniques (1770-2 did not exist at the time A/85 was finalized). So BS.1770-1 currently serves as the yardstick by which U.S. television programming will be evaluated for CALM Act compliance.
> BS.1770 recommends the Leq(RLB) measurement algorithm, where Leq(W) the frequency weighted sound level measure, xw is the signal at the output of the weighting filter, xRef is the reference level, and T is the length of the audio sequence.
> The drawback of BS.1770 as originally conceived is that it measures average loudness over the entire length of content. This may be fine if the loudness is fairly consistent over time. If not, a quiet section of content may, as illustrated in Figure 5, bias the average level so that it measures as acceptable despite having some sections that are unacceptably loud.
[1] https://www.telestream.net/pdfs/whitepapers/wp-calm-act-comp...
Even in the show itself, sudden loud bits just send me scrambling for the remote to bring it down to half or even quarter volume.
What stopped that, was that TVs and videotape machines looked for loud content, and used that to trigger ad-skipping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Advertisement_Loudn...
Might be a "chicken/egg" thing.
i want to mute ads when i am watching espn plus. my current tv is fire tv. i guess i'd have to build a little robot arm that presses mute button on the remote?
The sheer audacity of the industry arguing that it's "technologically too difficult" to match the loudness of an ad to the loudness of the program is an insult to the people who wrote the original CALM Act code ten years ago. They can serve up geo-specific, personalized, real-time ads based on what I ate for dinner last night, but ensuring the audio standard is consistent is where the technology apparently hits a brick wall? Please.
Every time one of those blast-furnace commercials kicks in, it's a perfect encapsulation of how little the streaming platforms respect their paying customers. It’s a deliberate strategy—a final, desperate attempt to shock your brainstem into attention after you've spent an hour in the quiet dynamic range of cinematic dialogue.
I'm not in California, so for now, I'm still relying on my TV's ancient "Night Mode" compressor just to survive the commercial breaks. Hopefully, the rest of the world stops pretending this isn't fixable and applies the same basic standard of decency. Our home theater systems deserve better.
They exist to ensure things are done right when there's no other incentive to do them right other than "it'd be nice".
Instead of and app I use Brave browser. It blocks YouTube ads
Money is an important societal mechanism. It comes with some steep cons however.
I have no real point to this comment.
Best way to avoid advertising when owning a smart TV is to bash your face into to a wall repeatedly until you can non longer perceive anything.
There was a huge crackdown of both such services providers and their users in the EU (ties between politicians and sports broadcasting lobbies), which was immediately followed with increased pricing from every service, from Sky, DAZN, Mediaset Premium etc to on-demand platforms like Prime, Netflix, Disney Plus, etc.
In addition it seems a cartel has followed up: almost every service has added Ads on top of their lower tier, even though users already paid the increased price in service.
Thus all the stuff to haphazardly integrate streaming services. Selling it as a preconfigured kit might be risky.
Too late in my case, between the loud noises and the infantile UX I've long since deleted the app.
There is no vaccine, no cure once you are exposed to content. Your house will be filled with 300,000+ things and it is impossible to find anything, the fastest way to get your stuff is again amazon same day delivery because you don't have the time to rummage through the hundreds of thousands of things!