Completely disagree - it benefits us hugely as viewers to have virtually commercial free news most nights and gives channels the flexibility to show programmes that may not appeal to advertisers in primetime.
Now there might be an argument to tweak it to 45 minutes but going to 60 would be of no benefit to the viewers. What is a real shame is that broadcasters don't use it more to their advantage - Dancing on Ice would benefit hugely from having 3-4 breaks rather than 6, while ad free films against Strictly for example if marketed right could prop up their whole evening.
Agree on commercial free news but the point about programmes that don’t appeal to advertisers doesn’t really stack up as they have breaks in them anyway. They could still show those programmes if they wanted to with adverts and make some money on them. Most advertising isn’t done through spot buying anyway so the advertisers often don’t choose exactly which programmes their adverts go into. They just buy a certain number of spots to reach a certain number of viewers, normally in particular demographics, and the sales team allocate the adverts. You do get spot buying in the bigger shows and certain specific shows but it’s not the majority.
It would benefit the viewers if it encouraged more commissioning in the shoulder peak hours rather than relying on films and repeats. I’m not saying increase the number of adverts across the day, just allow more flexibility in the spread.
Ad free films might rate OK against Strictly but it wouldn’t be any use to ITV because they’d make no money on them.