NFL is an extreme example but I always found the comparison interesting.
There was service years ago--maybe it's still around--from one of the TV networks that would cut a whole game into 15-20 minutes, mostly be not showing any ads during the game, and cutting out all of the commentary/standing around.
The NFL GamePass service that you can subscribe to (how I mostly watch the NFL from outside the US) offers 'Game in 40 minutes' (sometimes called Condensed). It just cuts from play-to-play-to-play. It's a great way to be able to watch a couple of other NFL games in a given week (fits nicely into a lunch break), but I do actually miss the proper commentary. Good commentary teams are very helpful in breaking down what happened in the blur of action that is each play.
How many breaks this works out to varies by show, since they try to cut it at strategic points. Usually 2-4 per 30 minutes.
If anyone has actual data on this I'd love to see it. Especially historical data.
Other ways television advertising has increased over time:
Number of ad breaks. In the 1950s and early 1960s ads were aired before and after shows, often with the host of the show doing the ad reads for one or two products that were billed as the show's "sponsors". A break for ads in the middle of the content was added in the mid-1960s, and the number of breaks per hour increased at least into the 1990s. https://ibuzzle.com/television-advertising-history
Number of ads per break. Television ads have gotten generally shorter over time. 30 seconds became the norm during the 1970s. From 2009 to 2019, the percentage of ads that were 15 seconds long increased from 35% to 42% (https://time.com/96303/tv-commercials-increasing/).
Amount of paid product placement inside the shows. In 2009, product placement occupied between 5.5 minutes and 19.25 minutes per hour, with unscripted shows the highest (https://www.marketingcharts.com/television-9434). Spending on television product placement has increased since then (https://www.marketingcharts.com/cross-media-and-traditional/...).
Addition of advertising to previously ad-free platforms. I recall that most cable networks originally did not air ads but cannot find the data to back that up. In 2021-2022, streaming services have increasingly added ads: https://www.marketingcharts.com/television/tv-advertising-22... In a 2022 survey, 41% of American TV-watching adults felt there were too many ads on television vs. 18-25% for various streaming platforms (https://hubresearchllc.com/reports/?category=2022&title=2022...).
https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/operating-respons...
There's been a fair bit of misunderstanding around Channel 4 since Nadine Dorris (ex Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) aanounced plans to sell off Channel 4. A lot of people never reaslised it was publicly owned and then assumed it was the same model as the BBC, but with some adverts.
[0] https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/what-we-do/channe...
That fact is supported by how bad the first season of the US office did ratings wise. People warmed up to it quickly thanks to the quality of writing, but the showrunners and producers clearly didn't feel confident in the future success of Steve carrell as a leading star or they wouldn't have ordered he get hair plugs to make him more look more likable.
Lastly, there is something to be said, at least regarding comedy, about differences in taste between cultures. British and US comedy have often been quite different over the last 70 years and is evident in the stylistic differences between the british and us versions of the office in season 1.
Just a note that I don't think any of the actors in the original version of The Office were recognizable in the UK before it aired. So either it is more important in the US to have a big name attached, or TV execs at least believe so, or they remake it for other reasons and the big name is a nice-to-have.
To add more perspective - of the projects a network picks up in a given year, only about 18% will go on to produce a pilot that same year. And usually if a pilot isn't greenlit for a project in its first year, it's effectively dead. So the fact that the IT Crowd (US) got a pilot at all is already remarkable.
There's something I was watching on Sky, that had ad-breaks, but no ads; instead, they showed a still frame saying that normal content would be resumed shortly.
When they do show ads, they are nearly all:
* Motorised recliner armchairs
* No-medical life insurance
* Home equity release plans
* Charity appeals with fluffy puppies and sobbing grandmas.
That is, the ads mostly seem to be pitched at retired people, and the ad slots are being sold to low-budget advertisers. I use a PVR, so I barely notice ads. Most cable and satellite providers these days provide a PVR as part of the service. So my guess is the TV advertising business model is collapsing; only poor people, and people too demented to learn to use a PVR, actually watch ads.
Meanwhile, running an ad slot with no ads in it must be saying something rather loud to potential advertisers: "We can't sell this ad slot, so lowball your bid!".
I don't watch TV regularly but I've never seen them run out of adverts for slots; with bidding I would doubt that happens much?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_and_organisatio...
You may enjoy Private Eye, worth buying a trial copy.
The image was that the PE journalists basically spent their working day hanging out in Fleet Street bars, shooting the breeze with journos from mainstream papers, and collecting gossip. I have no idea how accurate that picture is.
Michael Scott not being David Brent is what saved the US office, and going in a wildly different direction is what allowed it to become what it ultimately did.
I say this as someone who loved both shows.
This is not a "UK comedy is has more flawed characters" thing either, IT Crowd, Peep Show were full of terrible, flawed, miserable human beings but there were still some drama & larger than life aspects to those shows that gave it some element of "relief". UK office has no relief, it's just pure misery.
> [..] has no relief, it's just pure misery.
That's kind of the entire point mate. There is plenty of relief, but it's not your typical American sitcom relief.
Not sure how you can find this bleak and dull:
Having said that, if you know the context, that is, if you have watched the series, the looks and expressions of the actors are priceless, relatable and advance the story in what could have been a just slapstick moment.
I never know if I love or hate the Office UK as some scenes bring me to tears and others I just can't watch to the end. It is a masterfull piece of TV. I have only watched a few scenes of the US version on YouTube and I find them funny. It is a very different beast.
Stars of these programmes were just making their way into celebrity, like Jeremy Spake and Maureen from Driving School, and the people on slightly later shows knew their fame could be a path to them 'making it'. David Brent falls right into this category.
The Office was so incredibly well observed and authentic, it's a work of art.
The US one had other goals, it's just an American sitcom with a nod to mockumentary and zany unbelievable antics.
The usually involve some "loser" character getting hit with unfortunate circumstances over and over.
The TV execs evidently don't agree with you; Friday Night Dinner is currently on its _fourth_ attempt at an American remake. I can't imagine it working out well.
That said it's been years since I watched the original (I've watched the US one far far too many times over the pandemic) and all this chat makes me want to rewatch again.
Going to get my UK passport rejected saying this haha. I definitely prefer the American underlying hope than the British underlying despair. I've already got the latter built in!
And then there's the larger issue of a lot of British TV actors simply not having the recognizability of their American counterparts which is a major selling point (esp in the pre-web media days). Steve Carrell was a minor star from his time on the Daily Show which made him a good fit to 'sell' the US Office.
>Did the UK IT Crowd ever take off in the US?
It was a minor cult hit, especially among the technologically-inclined demographic. But it's not especially well-known.