Diminishing returns for ads

I have to believe that the "law of diminishing returns" applies strongly to TV ads. The more often any given ad appears on TV the less people are willing to pay attention. A little observation will support this. Watching Monday Night Football in a sports bar, the number of people who got up to order food or drinks or visit the rest rooms was fairly constant until a commercial was replayed. Then people stopped watching the TV and found something else to do. Even when people didn't leave the table they turned to look at those at the table with them instead of the TV.

It was not just the transition from action to commercial, either. I thought it might be caused by the "here's a good time to release pressure" response, and in fact that was easily observed. But the people remaining at the table often talked while watching the screen until the first repeated commercial came on, then started looking at each other. The interesting thing about that is that watching the screen generally didn't resume until the action came back on, or a commercial featuring scantily clad models or fast cars. No surprise there.

I have two conclusions from this and a few similar observations. First, that every repetition of the same or very similar ad moves from vague interest to disinterest, then to dislike. Thinking about TV and groups, the MUTE button is likely to be used about the third time an ad comes in in a short time.

The second observation is that once people stop paying attention to the commercial, they tend to continue disinterest until the actual program comes on. So one repetitious ad can not only cause disinterest (and eventually actual hostility) but will render following commercials and public service announcements less effective. I wonder if one of those smart DVR boxes which drop commercials could be set to let (or make) you see each commercial once, then skip it every time it comes on from that point forward.

What is the value of naming rights?

A few odd thoughts popped into my head when I heard that one of the venues inside the Time-Union Arena was getting a new name. In no particular order:

What's in a name? What is the actual return on investment from having a commercial name attached to a building, or part of one? Do enough people choose your product based on your name on a sports complex to increase your sales to the point where you can justify it as an advertizing expense? Or is it some mix of publicity and ego boost?

Naming rights on sections in a complex is newer. how far down the scale will it go? Will I next visit the Frank and Joe's Sunoco men's room, right next to the Slim-Fast ladies room? Or does a business have to buy a pair of restrooms and apply a single name to them, like Sam and Betty's Bar Personal Comfort Area? And do related businesses benefit more from name association than an unrelated business, like Nike being more effective than Nabisco on a sports complex? Perhaps the comfort stations would help a plumbing business more, or a paper products company? How about the Charmin Quilted Ladies Toilet? And if parts of an arena can have naming rights, how about areas within? Will I find the Pampers Changing Station inside one of these rest rooms?

What happened to the taxpayers name? The Times-Union Arena was originally the Knickerbocker Arena. Why didn't the naming rights get sold for the product or service preceding the name the taxpayer paid for, so that the name would be Sponsor Knickerbocker Arena and people would associate the sponsor and the building even more closely. It would be nice if the name contained some hint that we taxpayers paid for it.

Where does this trend end? The time is long past when we could count on common sense, good taste, public perception, or even basic human dignity to restrain the process of making money. Will we see naming rights sold to personal products companies, diseases, political parties, or religions? And will other public buildings sell naming rights? I have visions of the Trojan Condom Elementary School, or Prostate Cancer Woman's Shelter, and the price any of the legal firms who advertise on TV would pay for naming rights to the courthouse. I bet some people think I'm exaggerating, reread the second sentence of this paragraph. Funeral homes would buy naming rights on the morgue.

A difference in outlook between papers

Being a "news junkie" I get both the Schenectady Gazette and the Albany Times-Union every day. I was interested in the handling of the story on the death of North Korea's Kim Jung Il. The Gazette had the story on page one, right edge, with a color photo of the late leader. I thought that was about right, a change in leadership of a major nuclear anti-American nation is going to cause uncertainty in the region, and certainly given the number of cars and other goods we get from Korea and Japan any possible disruptions in that area could cause economic disruption locally on some scale.

The Times-Union gave about an inch of coverage on the front page in the "Other News" listings on the fold edge of the page, about half of which was occupied by a picture of a woman dancing around a Christmas tree. The actual news coverage was inside, and was also just a reprint of the same wire service story which appeared in the Gazette.

Same story, but very different treatment. It certainly shows differences in production policies, and as the son of a newspaperman I probably find it more interesting that the average reader.