Picture this: your favorite show hits its emotional peak, the music swells, and just as the hero makes a fateful decision—you’re served a jarring, tonally deaf ad for a car you’ll never buy. It’s a familiar frustration in the age of streaming. Viewers are often met with a barrage of repetitive, generic commercials that feel less like a thoughtful part of the experience and more like a clumsy interruption to be muted, ignored, or avoided with a well-timed trip to the kitchen.
This disconnect isn’t just bad for viewers; it’s a sign of a deeper strategic failure. It’s the result of an industry reflexively applying old rules to a new game, creating a generation of ads that simply don't belong.
The diagnosis comes from Robert McEvily, the VP of Marketing for North America at Camphouse. With a career spanning brand, content, and digital marketing, McEvily knows how legacy thinking can hold back innovation. He has a clear theory on why so many ads feel out of place, and a simple, human-centric test for fixing them.
The bathroom break test: For McEvily, the problem begins with a candid look at industry habits. Early streaming ads, he argues, failed to connect because they were never built for the medium. "Advertisements on streaming always felt like misfits—they were pulled in from a different medium, a different style of communication, and a different expectation." This creates a clear divide between the marketers who stick to the old playbook and those who understand the new assignment. The challenge, McEvily suggests, can be distilled into a single, pragmatic question: "What's the thing that's going to prevent somebody from taking a bathroom break?"
A bonus, not a break: Answering that question requires a complete philosophical shift. Instead of just filling a slot, the goal is to transform advertising into something more. "We should ask if it should even be considered an advertisement, or if it could be a bonus to the content you're already enjoying," he says. This means moving away from the traditional mindset of aggressively "hijacking" attention. The aim is to create something so interesting that the audience chooses to engage. "There's a way of rethinking it, of making the advertising feel more like something that is looked forward to or enhances the viewing experience."
Learn from the beast: This philosophy is most potent when applied to content with obsessive fanbases. "For shows that have a real hold on people, advertisers need to work harder to create experiences that are part of watching, not just commercials that show up," McEvily says. He points to the evolution of ads on MLB.TV, which went from a static logo to repetitive commercials, and finally to the smart, regionally-targeted creative of today. An even more radical example is the film The Beast, which replaced its end credits with a QR code leading to an alternate ending with advertisements baked in. It was a reward, not an interruption.
Be bold, break molds: This mold-breaking approach, however, is a direct rejection of the typical formulaic guides that promise easy wins. "Really good ideas always seem to break molds. But there's big money involved, you don't want to come to someone with, 'Hey, I've got this brand new idea, it's never been tested, please fund it,'" he explains. While the risk of a "big miss" makes clients anxious, McEvily sees value in taking the swing, arguing that failure is a crucial part of the process. "People always learn more from when they make mistakes than they do from successes."
Forward vs. backward: McEvily poses a simple test: what if your favorite artwork was made by a machine? "It would take the wind out of your sails," he says. That reaction speaks to his core belief: AI recycles the present, while human creativity moves things forward. "I see AI as a present-backward tool that just recycles, whereas human creativity has a forward momentum to it."
He recalls feeding The Great Gatsby into early grammar tools and watching the voice disappear. "If artists rely on AI to create advertisements, there will be something soulless about the result." The point isn’t to reject AI, but to keep it in its lane. "It should be a support system, something that helps us but not competes with us or replaces us."
