Skip to main content

Paid to view

We're all familiar with pay per view - the idea of paying money to watch a sporting event or whatever on TV, but now there's the inverse. Paid to view. An opportunity to be paid to watch those miniature masterpieces known as adverts.

At the moment, apparently, you have to be invited, but soon I think anyone will be able to pop along to the Nectar Adpoints site and be made rich beyond their wildest dreams by watching a few ads.

Okay, I exaggerated a bit. A lot. All the payments are in Nectar points (which as cunningly worth half as much as pennies, so the impressive-sounding 500 nectar points is £2.50). There's an up-front joining award (currently 250 points), then you get an amount for watching an ad (typically 4 points), another 4 points for answering a couple of multiple choice questions and a bonus point for clicking through to the manufacturers website. So that's typical 9 points, or 4.5p per ad. As most ads lasts 30 seconds, allowing another 30 seconds for faffing around with the questions that's £2.70 an hour, rather below minimum wage (though I suppose it's more fun than working in McDonalds).

However, don't give up your day job. You are only allowed to earn 250 points - £1.25 - a week.

The question that fascinates me is whether or not this process gives any real benefit to the advertisers, who presumably are paying for the privilege. And funnily I would suggest it doesn't, because of the way Nectar has decided to make sure you are actually watching the ads. Some time in every 20 to 30 seconds they pop up a little box on the screen. The viewer then has to click the box within 5 seconds or the ad starts again. I can see why they do this, because they don't want you starting an ad then doing something other than looking at the screen. But I still think it's a bit of a shot in the foot.

To see how the system worked, I did try out a few ads (the things I do for my readers...). To begin with I was treating it like a very slow video game. Wait for the box to come up and click it. But after a few ads I actually watched one or two of them I hadn't seen on TV. And found every time I actually watched the ad, I missed the box and had to start all over again. So the only way I could get my magnificent reward was to not watch the ad. Of course it is possible to do both with a bit of practice, but I did find the more interested I was in the ad, the more likely I was to forget to click the box, and so got irritated with the advertiser - surely not what they are trying to achieve.

Time, I think, to rethink the attention checking mechanism!


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope