What a 40-Second Ad on Amazon Prime Made Me Realise

Last night, I was watching From on Amazon Prime Video, and I could not resist binge-watching it. The episodes end at such good cliffhangers that stopping after one felt almost impossible. Before I knew it, it was around 2 AM.

I was on episode four. It ended, and I wanted to know what happened next. I was very sleepy by this point, but I was also curious. So, I clicked on the next episode and moved on to episode five.

Except, before the episode even started, there was a 40-second advertisement.

Those 40 seconds gave me enough time to rethink my decision. I closed my iPad and went to sleep.

If the advertisement had not been there, I would probably have watched another two or three episodes.

This experience got me thinking about something I might otherwise have overlooked. As a product designer, I started wondering about the placement of advertisements and how they influence our behaviour and decisions.

When an interruption changes a decision

Why is it so difficult to stop watching a series when you know you should?

I think a lot of it has to do with how stories are told. A good cliffhanger leaves you with unanswered questions, and the next episode promises to give you the answers. When you are already invested in a story, continuing takes very little effort. The next episode is right there, just one click away.

But an advertisement creates a pause.

For those 40 seconds, I was no longer thinking about the story. I was waiting for an advertisement to finish. And somewhere in that pause, I became aware of everything I had been ignoring for the past few hours: how late it was, how sleepy I was, and how much I needed to rest.

The advertisement did not make From any less interesting. It simply gave me a reason to reconsider a decision I had already made.

And I did.

Is Amazon losing more than it is gaining?

Amazon has a clear reason to show advertisements. They generate revenue, and placing an ad before an episode gives the platform an opportunity to monetise a viewer who has already chosen what they want to watch.

From a business perspective, the decision makes sense. But I wonder if there is a trade-off that is easy to overlook.

Binge-watching relies on momentum. The story keeps you curious, and the availability of the next episode makes continuing effortless. An advertisement introduces a break in that momentum.

If a viewer is already sleepy or close to deciding that they have watched enough, those 40 seconds might be all it takes for them to stop. The platform earns revenue from the advertisement, but it might also lose the viewing time that would have followed.

Of course, I cannot say that Amazon is losing customers because of this one experience. But it made me wonder: could the placement of advertisements sometimes work against the very behaviour that makes binge-watching valuable to a streaming platform?

It is a question worth investigating. Does the revenue from an additional advertisement outweigh the possibility of viewers leaving earlier than they otherwise would have? And does this change depending on how many episodes someone has already watched?

Without that data, we cannot know.

It is not just about whether an ad should exist

I do not think advertisements are inherently bad, nor do I think streaming platforms should stop monetising their content. The question, for me, is more about when and where they choose to do it.

An advertisement before the first episode feels different from one that appears between episodes. At the beginning, I am still deciding whether I want to watch something. But between episodes, I have already made the decision to continue. I am invested in the story, and I am ready for the next episode.

Could that moment be treated differently?

Perhaps streaming platforms could experiment with limiting repeated advertisements during a viewing session, rather than treating every episode as a fresh opportunity to show one. They could measure not just advertising revenue, but also episode completion and continued viewing. These are possibilities worth testing, although fewer interruptions could also mean less advertising revenue.

What interests me is how a seemingly small design decision can have consequences beyond the immediate interaction. An advertisement can play exactly as intended and still have an unintended effect on the overall experience.

Last night, a 40 second advertisement made me stop watching a series I was thoroughly enjoying.

I went to sleep, and I am not complaining about that part.

But it did leave me wondering whether, in trying to monetise a viewer's attention, a product might occasionally be giving them the very thing they need to stop.