[ttctciyf]

Well, I suppose there is a presumption of an enjoyable TV program to start with. I'd overlooked that. I suppose it's quite possible (and maybe even common) to craft TV that is so awful that even the commercials serve to improve the experience (some celebrity game shows come to mind, not to mention certain news outlets...)

But if we assume TV that people have elected to watch in the first place, what do you think of the argument that viewers would likely choose the "without commercials" option?

Assuming this is so, are they fooling themselves into inferior enjoyment?

[vidarh]

I do believe viewers would likely choose the "without commercials" option ahead of time, but chances are good that they would enjoy it less. We're horribly bad at guessing what will provide the best payoff for us over time. And even when we know, we are horribly bad at making use of that knowledge rather than letting ourselves be led by impulses.

To take the lottery example: How many people do you think would opt for $1m today vs. $10000 this year, $12000 the following year, $14000 the year after, and so on, until they'd have received, say, $3m? Pretty much all research into both lottery winners and the way we judge rewards now vs. later indicates that most of us would likely opt for the $1m now, yet be less happy for it over time vs. an option where we can look forward to steadily increasing rewards over a long period of time.

I'd be willing to be that you could show people data on how the options would likely affect their happiness, and the majority of people would still opt for the $1m now, and go out and start spending.