Television Advertising that Works: An Analysis of Commercials fro ...

Although others have followed this model, a recent Adage.com survey found 65% of voters said they would not pay for on-demand content that contains commercials (Klaassen, 2005). Overall, it is still too early to determine a specific VOD-pricing model. Moreover, even with the increased penetration of DVRs and VOD technology, it does not appear this technology changes the amount of time we consume television, only the way we consume it. The individual viewing time remains constant between owners and nonown-ers of this technology: an average of 3.9 hours daily (Myers, 2004).

In addition to DVRs and VOD allowing consumers to personalize what they view on their television screen, consumers can choose to view traditional television content on alternative devices. Much of the delivery of this content is still in test, but in 2006 Television Week projected $270 million in upfront commitments going to cross-platform, on-demand offerings from networks. Although only 3% of the total $9 billion projected, it still represents a significant change and a new means for advertisers to expand their reach using traditional television advertising (Spotsndots, 2006).

Many players already participate in the mobile video-delivery game, including Apple’s iTunes, America Online, Google’s Google Video and Yahoo!, in addition to program availability directly from the broadcasters’ Web sites (Caplan, 2006). Viewers can play downloadable video content on any mobile device able to play digital video such as an Apple iPod or a video-enabled cellular phone. Viewing has moved to cell phones as well. eMarketer reports 3% of mobile phone subscribers view television content on their phone, with the number projected to hit 15% by 2009. Web sites are also experimenting with video advertising.