Hacker News Reader

Plausible explanations include (a) the study is flawed, (b) some TV is so bad the commercials are a relief, or (c) the cohort that enjoys TV with ads more are the nascent idiocracy.

Did those willing to pay more for the DVDs want the ads on the DVD? Or pay more to get without ads?

View on HN

The article says the reason. A pleasurable activity being interrupted and restarted is more pleasurable due to the resumption. This makes a lot of sense to me, because I certainly enjoy a lie in more if I wake up and then go back to sleep than if I merely woke up at the later time.

I think it's a variant of the old "nothing feels good if nothing feels bad to compare it with" chestnut. You could probably replace the commercials with almost anything mildly inconvenient.

I think it really depends on the type of interruption. Most commercials are not a calm segue to take a break from the show. Advertisers purposely increase the volume because they know you're going to be stepping away and shock you with colors and a barrage of images because they know they have microseconds to get some image into your subconscious so that you can think of their product on your next commute to work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com