Why Should Broadcasters Use Shorter Ad Breaks? đź“ş
Could fewer, shorter commercial breaks make television advertising more effective—even when they mean fewer ads per hour? An exchange at Open Garden's CTV Innovators event in France gave us plenty to think about.
1. What happened at Open Garden's CTV Innovators event?
On Tuesday 24 March, Open Garden hosted its CTV Innovators conference. The exchange that stayed with us took place during the “Streaming & Live” panel featuring Nicolas Jaimes, Edouard Schmidt of Magnite and Olivier Rozental of RMC BFM Ads.
They were discussing BFM/RMC's new live FAST channel (free ad-supported streaming television), which uses short commercial breaks rather than the traditional, longer television ad break.
As we remember the conversation, Nicolas observed that the shorter breaks felt as though they contained more advertising. Olivier replied that the opposite was true: the channel was showing fewer ads per hour than a conventional long-break format (the quotations here are paraphrased from memory, not a verified transcript).
And that is where things get interesting. How can fewer ads create the impression of more advertising?
2. Why might long ad breaks cause viewers to look away?
Picture the familiar television ad break. You realise there is time to pick up your phone, check a message or scroll through social media. The advert is still on the big screen, but your attention may have moved to the small one.
Our deliberately unscientific challenge: watch what happens when the next long ad break starts in your living room. Does someone reach for their smartphone? We suspect the answer will often be yes (our original “99%” was a joke, not a measured statistic).
A full-screen video placement does not automatically mean full viewer attention. That is the same distinction we make when discussing attention on the Open Web: an opportunity to see an ad is not proof that someone actually watched it.
3. Could shorter breaks hold attention for longer?
Now imagine a much shorter interruption. The viewer may decide it is hardly worth unlocking a phone. Instead, they stay with the programme—and perhaps watch the commercials.
That is our interpretation of Nicolas Jaimes' reaction: the ads may have been more noticeable, even though there were fewer of them in total. A more memorable break can feel more frequent than a long break viewers mentally tune out.
There is an important distinction between perceived ad load, actual ads per hour and attention per impression. Short breaks could improve one without necessarily improving the others. Creative quality, programme genre, break timing and repetition will all matter.
4. What should broadcasters measure beyond ads per hour?
Rather than judging commercial load by the number of spots alone, broadcasters and advertisers could compare short- and long-break strategies through controlled tests.
| Metric | Question to answer |
|---|---|
| Ads per hour | Is the actual advertising load lower or higher? |
| Viewer retention | Do fewer people leave or switch away during the break? |
| Attention | Are viewers genuinely watching the ads rather than a second screen? |
| Brand outcomes | Does the format improve recall or other advertiser objectives? |
| Yield | Can stronger effectiveness offset fewer available impressions? |
These are proposed measurement questions, not results from the CTV Innovators panel. The ideal experiment would hold audience, creative, programme context and campaign pressure as constant as possible.
5. What can traditional broadcasters learn from streaming platforms?
Streaming services such as Netflix and YouTube have helped make shorter or more deliberately placed ad interruptions part of the conversation around ad-supported video. Their implementations differ, of course, and neither platform is proof that one break length works everywhere.
But the strategic question is compelling for French broadcasters: could a less intrusive advertising experience command more attention—and ultimately more value? Instead of maximising the number of ad slots, the industry could focus on the quality of the viewer experience and the effectiveness of each impression.
It also fits our broader reflections on the changing video advertising market and the danger of confusing technical delivery with genuine impact.
6. Why does GreyFox Ads care about this debate?
At GreyFox Ads, we believe brands should not put all their video investment into one environment. High-quality mobile Open Web placements can complement television and CTV plans, especially when screen share, context and supply quality are taken seriously.
That is why we created our Master Deals: curated programmatic buying designed to simplify activation, prioritise quality French publishers, reduce unnecessary supply paths and make costs more transparent.
Our argument is not that smartphones automatically beat television. It is that advertisers should compare real effectiveness across screens, not just the number of impressions delivered.
Original LinkedIn post: Why broadcasters should use shorter ad breaks. See also our introduction to the GreyFox Ads Master Deal.
Want to make your video and display campaigns more effective?
Explore quality curated French Open Web inventory, or discuss how to complement your CTV investments with attention-focused programmatic advertising.