Study: Ads make watching TV more pleasurable

A surprising new study concludes that viewers find TV more pleasurable when they watch commercials.

Researchers at the NYU Stern School of Business found viewers say they preferred to avoid advertisements, yet rated their overall experience of watching a TV show higher when commercials were included.

The seemingly counterintuitive findings will be familiar to those who have read the book "Stumbling on Happiness," which explained how the pleasure of any positive experience declines due to repetition and time. Watching TV (or eating a fine meal, listening to a favorite song, etc.) tends to be more enjoyable at the outset. The longer you do something, the less satisfaction it provides.

By taking a break from the experience -- in the case of watching TV, sitting through a few commercials -- the interruption helps re-freshen the novelty of the program.

"People often adapt to the experience of watching television such that each successive minute is slightly less enjoyable than the previous one," said the report's authors, who performed six studies testing aspects of this theory. "Advertisements, although independently aversive, disrupt this adaptation process and can therefore make the overall experience more enjoyable."

Viewers who do not like commercials will doubtless challenge the notion that the inclusion of ads could somehow make the show itself more enjoyable. The findings also fly in the face of Hollywood creative community assumptions about ads limiting fan appreciation for their shows. Many showrunners have said that watching their programs on DVD is the ideal way to see them -- free from the distracting hindrance of ads.

When asked, one of the researchers said his department's funding was entirely supplied by NYU Stern and no outside companies (such as advertisers) paid for the study. 

In addition to the adaptation effect, the study's authors say their findings suggested other reasons viewers rated TV viewing experiences higher when ads are shown.

"A disruption in a suspenseful plotline might heighten anticipation and intensify its subsequent resolution," the study said. "Similarly, commercials may offer opportunities to elaborate on what viewers have watched so far or to savor what is still to come."

So if the findings are accurate, why don't people recognize that ads make TV more fun?

The study authors have a few ideas, but no firm answers. One is that people don't study themselves -- you don't watch one show with ads, then the same show without ads, and compare the experience. Another aspect is that the ads act a point of contrast -- compared to the commercials, the programs can seem more entertaining. And finally, the effect isn't universal -- sometimes ads do not make TV more enjoyable (for instance, if the tone of the ad completely clashes with the tone of the show), and those instances can skew viewers' impressions of ads in general. 

Based on the research, the authors had a suggestion for broadcast networks that stream their content online: Stop putting ads at the beginning of the clip.

"Our results indicate that moving the commercial to the middle of the clip -- while not intuitively appealing to viewers -- would actually increase their enjoyment of the experience."

UPDATE: Study co-author Jeff Galak responds to reader comments and answers skeptics' questions about the study. Do ads really make TV more enjoyable?

Comments

[smokeybear]

Bullshit. I like to watch tv without interruptions. Commercials are usually annoying pieces of sh*t.

[Wrecktem]

They should tell all those people who loved The Dark Knight how much better it would have been if it had been broken up into little chunks.

This important new study will hopefully convince Paramount to stick ad breaks in the middle of this summer's Transformers 2. Not only will it be additional ad revenue for the studio, but people will love the movie even more.

[themerrill]

I want to know who funded this study. Because I've seen similar studies that show that people watch breaks more frequently when there are fewer of them. Slightly contradictory...we want to escape ads. Hence Hulu and torrents
Plus, if this is true, anyone watching the BBC is missing out. Um...bull. I'd prefer a BBC here in the US

[KL]

bullshit

[bored2tears]

With nearly 20 minutes of non-program time in the average prime-time broadcast, it's often hard to tell if one is watcihng a show or just a series of commercials. This study was obviously conducted under unreal circumstances.

[Ignacio]

This study is brought to you courtesy of the fine people at the Coca Cola Company, Time Warner, Clear Channel, ABC, McDonalds, Fox...

You get the picture.

[mike d]

This whole article is bullsh*t. I have had a satellite dvr since 1999 and would never think of doing with out it. I have had Tivo , and every dvr that DISHNETWORK has had and both of the DIRECTV dvrs. They make my life so much better. I HATE watching live tv and dvr everything I do watch. I miss nothing and I work 6 days out of 8 on 12-16 hour shifts. I could never do this if I watched commercials. The only time I do watch them is if it is a tv or movie advertisement for some other show or movie that I want to record or watch in the future. It looks to me like they want to try to sell the public on not using dvrs. The only thing commercials are good for is bathroom breaks or to get a snack. With a dvr I can hit pause and do the same thing , and then pick up right where I left off. DVRS are the best thing to ever happen to tv !

[Anon]

I call bullshit as well. If I'm watching a show on DVD, yes after a few hours my enjoyment is lessened if I haven't moved from my couch (which is unlikely). But it's always 100% annoying to watch commercials during regular programming. I avoid it at all costs. I'm chained to the TV as well if it's live...meaning I can't get up and really take breaks during commercials anyway...I might miss the show. It's so much more convenient to pause and go run an errand or make a snack.

This "study" seems like junk.

[James Hibberd]

As noted in the story, study researchers claim no outside companies were involved, that funding was provided by the school.

Here's the entire study, for those who are interested in further reading --

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1007767

They claim they were expecting to find the opposite, that commercials decreased the level of program enjoyment.

I suspect the idea about Hulu is off. If they're right, viewers will rate the content higher if the ad is in the middle of the clip rather than at the beginning. But that assumes a captive audience. I suspect putting an ad in the middle of the clip would result in more online viewers quitting the stream.

[John]

Ok, way to throw your website's credibility out of the window. Let's put on our statistics 101 hats and remember that CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION. So the fact that you have a sensationalized title for this article saying "ads make watching tv more pleasurable" is not only INACCURATE, it's stupid. All this study did was show that there is a correlation between watching ads and enjoying television, not that ads make you enjoy television.

It might just be that the people were shown really entertaining or erotic commercials that made them feel better about the overall experience. It also might be that certain people have short attention spans so the increased changing of images and sounds with different commercials amused them.

The point is, it could be any number of issues and it might even be that the ads themselves have nothing to do with it outside of mere coincidence. Take a frickin' math class and stop printing bullsh*t that discredits your website. Is this supposed to pass as journalism you sophomoric twits?

[dizzsound]

I make a living writing music for TV Commercials. This article makes me happier than a pig in shit!

[James Hibberd]

I'm not going to point-by-point with you when you clearly did not read the study (ex. they list the commercials shown and talk about the effect they had, including a possible arousal factor) and you did not even closely read what I wrote in the post (starting with my headline, which is "Study: Ads make watching TV more pleasurable" not "Ads make watching TV more pleasurable" -- note the slyly hidden attribution "Study:").

Second, this blog is not a peer-review journal for academic research. That said, reporters write study result stories every day, often lazily, based on press releases. I read the studies and ask follow ups to the researchers because I do not like articles which take, say, a trumped up online survey based on a leading question, and present it as a fact.

The research here expands on well-documented studies that show people rate things higher when interrupted from their enjoyment -- it doesn't mean they like the interruptions, but they like the thing they were deprived of more.

This isn't to say I'm declaring this study's conclusion correct. But it wasn't just tossed into the blog casually either. From my read, it was interesting and worth reporting and I made the link available for any who would like to read or debunk it. Such a debate happens when most new studies come out, even in peer review journals, and it doesn't mean reporters should avoid their findings.

[Really?]

Is this a joke? Sounds like a contrived study helping to secure the marketplace in prep for upfronts...

[Joe Bua]

Who are these people?

No, really, who are they, names and phone numbers, please.

I have stuff to sell them.

[R]

Right. It sounds like people appreciate the show more compared to the commercials, not because the commercials make the show better. Like saying how warm the sun is after it comes back out from behind some clouds. The clouds don't make the sun warmer, just show how crappy it is without it gone.

[Lawrence Lighjt]

The story is stupid journalism. At TBS, when they show a movie, the space the ads out at what you might call a leisurely pace and then accelerate the number of ads as you get closer to the climax. This drives everyone I know to hostility, and sometimes to shutting off the movie before it concludes. Some facts might be in order here, such as whether the ads are 30 seconds, 60 seconds or longer, and how many have to be inserted before the viewer goes completely bonkers. Facts, facts, facts seem to be missing here along with the demographics of the sampling and the way the questions were constructed as well as how the study was conducted. So another "news" (yes, in quotes) goes out that has no real referents in the real world, and people can claim whatever they want about the conclusions.

[William Hughes]

BALONEY! The number of ads they show on TV these days (Along with what they advertise - foe example ED Pills during a Children's Show.) Made me so mad I CANCELLED my Subscription to Cable TV in January of 2009. Since then I have used the Subscription Money to Purchase DVDs of my Favorate TV Shows and Movies. I now have over 9,000 Hours of TV Shows, along with nearly 700 Movies. It will be YEARS before I will run out of Shows to Watch!

[Culturegeist]

William Hughes has it right.

No offense but this article is complete crap journalism and comes off sounding like faux-industry sponsored "research". It's like saying soldiers enjoy combat because it gets them out of the house.

The conclusions totally contradict the observations and viewing behavior patterns of anyone I know who either no longer watches cable/network television because of the annoying slew of irrelevant ad content constantly served up; or who (for the most part) go to the Web exclusively for their TV/cable content.

I ditched my Time Warner service and it's $90.00/month bill two years ago when, after watching the last moments of "The Closer" on TNT, an animated Nascar ad of a pit crew changing a tire on a race car floated across the face of the actor and obscured my view - that's just plain insulting and I was enraged. I'll never waste my money to have cable pump ad content into my apartment. It's the reason television as we know it rapidly becoming an irrelevant medium.

I have two words for the author and the bone-head researchers at NYU: Hulu and Netflix.

Get a clue.

[Susan Pariseau]

who rigged that result. I RARELY if EVER watch a show live anymore. I program what I want to see on my DVR and watch it commercial free. I skip through all of the sales pitches, etc. My 29 yr old son stopped by the other night and sat down to watch tv with me, he works mega hours so this isn't the norm. He commented an hour long show is acutally 30 minutes of commercials now. If you reduce the pay the actors are making and bring it down to realistic standards you wouldn't need to insert the number of ads that you do. What has changed over the years, actors pay checks. I remember watching tv as a child and there were a few ads for the sponsors. Now you have to plug so many items because of the money spent to make the shows and pay salaries. Bring Hollywoods pay checks back down to earth and reduce the number of ads, not rocket science. It is a job like any other.

[Eggbert]

THE STUDY DOESN'T SAY YOU LIKE COMMERCIALS!

Why is everybody having such a hard time getting that?

Everyboyd is all "I hate commercials so this study is bullshit whhhaaaa!"

Its saying that test after test showed that people when showed TV shows with or without commercials say they liked the SHOWS more during tests that were interrerupted by commercials.

THAT'S PRETTY SIMPLE AND INTERESTING!

Since when is it bad journalism to report the results of a control tested university study Not funded by private companies?

[Alejandro]

I wouldn't be too hasty to denounce the results of this study. It can sometimes be quite difficult for a consumer to know what he or she wants:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html

It seems to me that certain TV shows, like sitcoms, are produced with a certain rhythm in the plot to make commercial breaks seem natural. This would not be the case for theatrical releases like The Dark Knight.

Moreover, I believe that viewers are more put off by commercials if they're ill-conceived, incompatible with the show's personality or viewer profile, or if there are simply too many of them. On this last point it would've been interesting for the study to have been realized with different durations for the commercial interruptions. Fox has been toying around with the idea of shorter commercials in Fringe.

[Russell Bittner]

James,

I don't want to quibble about the content of this article -- at least not here. However, form is another matter. Can you please tell me what you really meant with the following sentence? "Another aspect is that the ads act a point of contrast -- compared to the commercials, the programs showed study participants can seem more entertaining."

I find it absolutely indecipherable -- unless you wanted to say that those who participated in the study were actually more entertaining than either the commercials or the programs. I'm on board with that. I think live human beings staring into a box for hours on end are an absolute hoot!

Yes, the headline on this article was an attention-grabber. Three gold stars for that. However, the content and the conclusions the article suggests remind me of a funny little page that appears at the end of Harper's Magazine every month under the rubric "Findings." Hundreds of scientists around the world are apparently getting paid handsome salaries to conduct research and produce findings that are, uh, just plain duh.

May I make a timely suggestion? In this week's (Feb. 9 & 16 -- with Eustace Tilley on the cover) anniversary issue of The New Yorker, you'll find a fascinating article titled "Checkpoints," by John McPhee. Now that's journalism -- and solid writing to boot!

Respectfully,

Russell

[Susan Pariseau]

We get it, the only reason I would assume someone liked a show better with commercial interruptions is it allows for snack breaks, bathroom breaks or to get a beverage. Not too terribly different from movie intermissions. Was the question posed why they preferred the shows with breaks? Again, DVR, life is good you can pause the show and return after stretching you legs, emptying your bladder, etc. Take a breath and try not to take it so personally. You aren't the first to be misunderstood and probably won't be the last.

[A.J. Hafeviere]

Putting ads in the middle of a web stream? There is no word more infuriating to people watching things online than the word "buffering," a word which is certain to appear more often if ads are put in the middle of streams instead of at the beginning or end.

[Chris Mullagan]

Russell, it means that the cruddiness of the commercials made the segments of the actual program seem much more entertaining. You're right, though; the sentence is horribly structured.

By the by, are you a fan of cinema or theatre? And if so, would you mind telling me what makes watching the dramatic arts presented on a box so inferior to watching them presented on a screen or a stage?

[Rob]

Television has weaker narratives. Of course they look worse without ads because all their plot turns are masked and glossed by commercials. Mediocrity compliments itself frequently.

[Doug]

These so-called researchers are forgetting the conditions of causation, one of which is "there is no third variable"! I submit that the third variable is happiness (or, cynically, empty-brained) that accounts for more enjoyment because ANY stimulus short of unpleasant odors or physical pain is seen as enjoyable. Yes, there are people who like just about everything that pretends to entertain, because they lack discernment. So take away their lame commercials and they won't enjoy their lame programs nearly as much. I doubt the study controlled for happy people, because it had to recruit people willing to help, who tend to already be happy tv-lovers.

If you read the abstract, they did control for "adaptability" (which erased the effect). So it's not as simple as "variable A causes variable B" -- unless you figure all people are similarly adaptable. I would be interested to know how often the authors consult (for $$$) with gullible agencies and networks. This study does not pass the smell test, judging only from the abstract.

[christopher]

the problem is with the phrasing of the title of the article, which infers causation between ads and increased pleasure watching tv shows.

this is inaccurate. the reason for the increased enjoyment is the delay of gratification. this is time-tested technique used by entertainers of all types for eons. in fact, the shows themselves use the technique (which is why we talk of 'climaxes' at the end of shows).

so ANY type of breaks would increase the enjoyment. the commercials aren't the REASON the shows are more enjoyable (in fact, as the article noted, they can do the opposite), they just happen to be going on while the real reason is happening - the break. you could put black with no sound up for 1 minute and probably achieve the same effect.

so to make a statement of inferred causation like "Ads make watching TV more pleasurable," is disingenuous and obviously designed to get attention.

[Tina]

This survey is complete crap. There is only so many nutra system commercials a person can take. I swear that company must spend at least the cost of the bailout package everyday on marketing.

[Blake]

Riiiight... nobody likes commercials. Not that I would know, I haven't watched one in months. Thank you TiVo.

[Tim]

TV ads are nothing bu a real pain in the butt. I always hit the mute button.

[EMILY]

A TEA BREAK WHEN AN AD IS ON, AND A CHUNK OF THE PROGRAME IS MISSED, ALSO SOME ADS SAP AT THE INTELLIGENCE,-- THE MUTE BUTTON IS A USEFUL TOOL.

[Aimee the Aunt]

My 8 month old nephew stops whatever he's doing to watch the TV whenever an ad comes on regardless of whether there are children in it, music or any other visible or audible content.
There's plenty of ways to get folks to watch, the most likely I can think of are subliminal sounds and images.
My nephew is responding to something other than ad conent. Regardless of the show that's on, the ads are what get his attention.
I'm worried about what is being transmitted that I don't know about. If I don't know what is coming into my house, I can't defend against it or put it in it's proper perspective.

[Save Scifi Channel]

I have five DVRs so most of what I watch is recorded and would allow me to fast forward past the ads and I do if I have several shows to watch . If I am not in a hurry (busy) I as often as not just let the DVR run and do not bother with the FFing past commercials. Maybe I have a degree of guilt being a freeloader and not a paying viewer ( someone that pays for the programing by watching the ads). The idea that the ads are a kinda of break might actually be true. HDNET does the ads at the end of some shows and that also works to get me to watch the ads before the nest program.