Commercially driven

The University of Chicago Press publishes the “Journal of Consumer Research,” and one of their latest articles claims that commercial interruptions actually enhance a viewer’s enjoyment of a show. It didn’t seem to matter about the length or nature of the interruption, but the interruption itself was crucial.

The central argument is that viewers adapt to the level of comedy, suspense, etc. in the program, and their enjoyment diminishes as a result. The commercials allow the viewer's adaptation to recede, so they can enjoy the program more thoroughly when it comes back on.

The précis of the study did allow that some people don’t “adapt” to the shows, and that some programs do not lead to adaptation, but that information was presented as the exception that proves the rule.

This blog will continue after a word from the Arachnid Gymnastics Team.



I’m too cheap/poor/apathetic to pay to unlock the entire article, but I would be interested in seeing some of the specifics of this study (like who paid for it, for one). The only show that was mentioned specifically was Taxi, where one group was shown an episode with commercials, and another group shown the same episode without them. I don’t know how they measured “enjoyment,” but the group that had commercial breaks showed more enjoyment by a wide margin. I’m sure the researchers controlled for the idea that these people hated Taxi, so anything that interrupted it was welcome.

See, here’s the thing: television programs are written specifically to be interrupted every so often. There are many books on writing for television, and most of them advise the writer on how to structure their episode to make sure the audience comes back after the commercials. This usually involves a mini cliffhanger in dramas, or a setup for a wacky misunderstanding in comedies. Watching these programs without the interruptions throws off the rhythm of the show. I know, because I watch most television shows online or on DVD, and that rapid fade out/fade in is jarring.

We’ll be right back.



I remember when Fringe first aired, it was presented commercial-free, and the writers structured their stories to unfold more organically, rather than in discrete chunks. I’ve stopped watching it, so I don’t know if this is still the case, but the writing for films is structured the same way, and audiences manage to stay entertained throughout the entire two hours (depending on the quality of the film, of course). I’m sure that when watching a movie on a cable channel, you’ve been irritated when a commercial cut in at a seemingly random point – in the middle of an action scene, for example, or a conversation between the two leads. That’s because the movie wasn’t written for these breaks, and they have to get shoehorned in for the sponsors. I especially hate it when they break right before the film ends, so there’s three to four minutes of commercials, then about forty-five seconds of the movie when you get back.

Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion, right after this message from Benny Lava.



So though I’m sure they got some interesting, verifiable results, I think the structure of the script has more to do with it than anything else.