Most people understand that advertising helps pay for television, magazines, newspapers, websites, and other media. It is far better to have free or less expensive content available than to pay full price. Advertising is one of those things we must endure for the greater good, much like taxes.

Unfortunately, two problems are becoming common: the advertising is gradually taking over and even replacing content, and advertisers rarely adhere to truthfulness or proper representation of products.

More Advertising

In the early 1970s, the average television show had less than 10 minutes of advertising for every hour of programming — representing at least a 1:5 ratio for ads to content. Since then, most television shows now have 18-20 minutes of advertising. In 35 years, we have lost 10 minutes out of each hour of content.

Changes in the ad-to-content ratio are also obvious in other media. For example, many magazines use 40-50% of their printed pages for advertising.

Commercial media commonly offers two reasons for these changes. The first excuse is that the average consumer is now more sophisticated, demanding fancier content to hold their attention. The audience now requires special effects in every television show, and full-color glossy images on every page of a magazine. These industries complain that increased production values require more money, therefore they must sell more ads to cover the costs.

"Unfair" competition from "free" content (especially the internet) is used as the second excuse, drawing away the audience and raising the cost per consumer. Because the media outlets have a smaller audience, they cannot raise prices for advertisements but must instead sell more ads.

Suppose we accept these arguments, and concede that we can all live with less content and more advertisements.

On-Screen Garbage

In 1997, the TV Parental Guidelines system went into effect. For the greater good of protecting children from inappropriate content, we all learned to accept the unattractive rating icons that were displayed over content in the upper left of the screen.

Perhaps it was the public acceptance of these overlays that convinced networks they had a new branding and advertising opportunity. Whatever the reasoning, within a few years most networks began "watermarking" a lower corner of the screen with their logo. This change was often obnoxious since it blocked captions, subtitles, and other program content. The television, video, and film industries loved the logos, since this not only branded content but also prevented anonymous, high quality video recording. If a consumer wanted an unmarked version of the content, he would have to buy it instead of recording it himself.

In the last few years the logos have been joined by "on screen" promotions for other programming, and more recently even full advertisements with audio and motion video overlaying the program content.

Are you watching the program you tuned in to? Too bad, because the network is going to overlay the bottom quarter of the screen with their animated banners, programming announcements, and sponsors.

Are you trying to listen to dialog? Too bad, because for 15-30 seconds the network is going to force you to watch and listen to something else dancing over the screen.

The television networks complain that they must compete against other media, but these techniques do nothing but annoy the audience. By making the viewing experience more unpleasant, the industry is actually encouraging television viewers to find entertainment elsewhere. The networks are creating a self-fullfilling prophecy of lost advertising revenue by advertising themselves into obsolescence.

As with television, some commercial websites are getting carried away with floating ads that overwhelm content. These ads must be closed/canceled before the content can be viewed. Once the obnoxious advertisement is gone, there is still tons of advertising embedded with the desirable content.

Product Placement Overkill

Product placement has been a part of film and television for over 50 years, but these ads are becoming more prominent than ever before. Many recent films have over 30 product placements, most of which are displayed for seconds and fill enough of the screen that they cannot be missed.

The motion picture industry complains about decreased movie audiences, but they don't acknowledge that consumers don't want to purchase a movie ticket or DVD to see advertising. After all, they can get annoyed by advertising for free by watching television. As with the simultaneous on-screen promotions that annoy television viewers, product placement overuse drives audiences away.

Product placement has also made its way into video games. Initially, these ads made the gaming experience more credible by adding "real world" brands and products. Driving a "real" car from a "real" manufacturer is more appealing than a generic alternative, and occasionally seeing a "real" billboard flash by makes the game more immersive.

The game advertisements are no longer subtly in the background, and no longer just "adding realism." As with film and television, product placement in some games has become so prominent that it detracts from the experience and enjoyment.

Advertisements Replacing Content

More cable programming is becoming disguised informercials. Some networks present shows as "educational" and "enrichment" experiences, but the content is monopolized by one commercial interest. For all intents and purposes, the television program is an advertisement. Currently, this is most evident with travel programs — but the problem is also appearing in "educational" shows about manufacturing and science.

When asked why a program only offers information about one company's services, television producers usually defend their actions with multiple excuses: the company demanded exclusivity for the show be allowed access, or the company offered access that others would not. Interestingly, there are often money trails associated with these decisions that no one publicly admits. In some cases the company being showcased in the program actually contributes money to the production, or the network makes further deals regarding advertising — the hidden motivations are about cutting production costs and increased network advertising revenue.

Some commercial, full price video games have taken product placement to such extremes that products replace other content. These games use corporate mascots and advertising as an integral part of the gameplay. People don't want to pay full price for a game only to find fast food restaurants, retail stores, phone companies, and other corporate identities a major part of the story and experience. The problem has developed rapidly, and there doesn't appear to be any moderation on the part of game developers.

Misrepresentation

It has always been the job of the advertising industry to present their clients and products in the best light possible. Unfortunately, promotional messages have evolved from a "positive spin" to outright lies that are allowed with "fine print" exclusions.

"No payments for twelve months, and no interest ever" proclaims an advertisement. The fine print states that only certain customers qualify for this promotion, but details are only available at the retail location. In reality, less than 5% of customers qualify based on employment, credit history, or any other arbitrary reason the company determines.

"Wide screen television for $899," but the advertised price is after a $500 mail-in rebate. There is absolutely no possibility for the customer to go to the retailer and purchase the television for $899. The television requires an expenditure of $1399, and the rebate is not guaranteed.

By even the kindest of descriptions, these practices are misrepresentation. When money is involved, this meets the definition of fraud.

The motion picture industry has created problems by misrepresenting their films in advertising and trailers. More than ever, people complain that the movie they have just seen was nothing like the expectations created from advertisements. Instead of creating promotional materials that highlight the film content, many ads are chosen because they test well with focus groups and "target audiences" that haven't seen the film in question. By misrepresenting content, the industry is building dissatisfaction and distrust from the consumer.

When consumers can't trust advertising as being representative of products, or perceive promotions as mostly truthful, customer support drops. Without a positive or satisfactory purchasing experience, people have no reason to spent their money.

Bringing Back the Audience

Banners and promotions that do not block content are acceptable, but simultaneous on-screen promotions that obfuscate programming and content need to end.

Product placement practices need to be re-evaluated to become less obtrusive. It is much more effective for the audience to casually notice product placement than to have overt advertisements shoved down their throat.

Content that presents corporate interests and advertising as a major focus needs to be clearly and prominently packaged as being "sponsored by" the companies in question. For content that is purchased by the consumer, the product should be offered at a significant discount.

Promotional materials and advertisements should appropriately represent pricing and the product, so that consumer trust increases and a positive experience is created from retail and service purchases.

It isn't too late for advertising to stop being a "dirty word."