"tim (moved to sweden)" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"tim (moved to sweden)" wrote in
message ...


No-one forces consumers to buy products that are advertised on
the TV. The fact that they do just shows that the medium works.

If you don't like the deal that you get from advertised products
I suggest that simply buy the ones that don't advertise, as these
are bound to be cheaper, are they not?


That is far to simplistic,

Really?

And taking all the money spent on TV advertsing and saying
that it is an artifical cost added to the price of a product, isn't?

It adds much more than that to the price.

I use Andrex toilet roll for purely medical reasons, because it contains
Aloe Vera. According to the advertsing industry itself I am paying four
times what it would otherwise cost because Marshall-Thompson's advertising
campaign has been so successful. If there was a cheaper brand whoch
contained Aloe Vera I would buy that but then my local supermarket would
probably not bother stocking it. I had never seen a TV or magazine advert
for this particular type of toilet roll before I started buying it.

(kim)

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article
ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
That's when you might find the TV licensing people hassling you
to
buy a TV
licence for a computer (even if you don't watch TV).


No you won't, a computer can't *receive* any such service, if and
when you either buy a TV tuner / receiving card (or, possibly in
the
future, buy a broadband service) that is when you *will* need a
licence.

Oh yes it can! A computer may not use radio reception, but then
neither
does a TV set connected to a cable service, and such a TV set can
still
receive the broadcasts and is required to have a licence.

NOT IT CAN'T, unless it is fitted with extra components, or connected
to other 'services'.

Any computer
with a broadband connection to the internet can already receive TV
programmes from hundreds of places around the world, icluding a few
BBC
services, and we are promised more. Some of these are internet-only
services, and some of them are duplicates of conventional
broadcasts.
The technology is already here and already working.

Yes, but that is a 'service' that is added to the computer and it
will be the commencement of that 'service' which will attract the
need for the licence, just as a computer doesn't need a licence ATM
unless it contains or until it contains a TV tuner card.


Direct your browser to http://tv4all.com/portal.htm to see for
yourself.


I don't need to, but thanks for the link, a computer can't receive TV
off the air if it doesn't have a TV tuner card, it can't receive IPTV
if it doesn't have a broadband connection - without that card or
connection it's no more able to receive a television service than a
toilet pan can!....

It's either the TV tuner card or the IPTV / broadband connection that
makes it into a 'receiver'.

"kim" wrote in message
...
"tim (moved to sweden)" wrote in message
...



And taking all the money spent on TV advertsing and saying
that it is an artifical cost added to the price of a product, isn't?

It adds much more than that to the price.

I use Andrex toilet roll for purely medical reasons, because it contains
Aloe Vera. According to the advertsing industry itself I am paying four
times what it would otherwise cost

Four times! I don't believe you (or rather them).
Companies routinely charge what they can get for their
product but (for a patent free product) there is usually
competitive pressure to get a lower price. Whilst some
products might command a premia, it's going to be
10-20% at most. A statement "4 times what it would
otherwise cost" because of advertising is pure rubbish.
"4 times what it costs to make", is quite likely but the
cost to make something is unconnected to cost to sell.

because Marshall-Thompson's advertising
campaign has been so successful. If there was a cheaper brand whoch
contained Aloe Vera I would buy that but then my local supermarket would
probably not bother stocking it.

Ah ha, you got it.

Advertising is a marketing cost. If you didn't have this marketing
cost you have to have some other way to encourage sales of your
product .

In this case, no adverts means that the shops won't stock your
item so the alternative is starting up your own chain of shops to
sell your product (not so stupid an idea as it sounds, some
companies do this).

It is just plain wrong to suggest that advertising, in general, is
dead money that simply increases the price for no effect (I
concede that in a small number of items it is, but not for most)

Tim

"John Porcella" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
Said to me today:
"Some of them on here they grumble about it, having to pay £50 for a
box. But what they don't seem to realise is, they'll save that over and
over again because they won't have to buy the license any more."

Perhaps this person was referring to those over 70?


.....who would be looking forward to age 75, at which time their TV Licence
would be free?

JohnT

In article s.net,
LID says...


Which is just an old fashioned, per marketing speak, PVR! Think about
it....

I know what a PVR is, the Tivo is a PVR and according to the people who
owns one it is the only true PVR.

As I said, the majority of people owns a VHS recorder. DVD recorders are
getting cheaper, but the cheaper ones seems to have problems.

In article ,
says...

Not everybody has Sky +


I have typed that already.

In article , says...

It adds much more than that to the price.

I use Andrex toilet roll for purely medical reasons, because it contains
Aloe Vera. According to the advertsing industry itself I am paying four
times what it would otherwise cost because Marshall-Thompson's advertising
campaign has been so successful. If there was a cheaper brand whoch
contained Aloe Vera I would buy that but then my local supermarket would
probably not bother stocking it. I had never seen a TV or magazine advert
for this particular type of toilet roll before I started buying it.

Do you really think it would be cheaper if they was hnot advertising it?
I doubt it, because they will charge what people will pay. If people did
not buy the product, then the product would either be cropped or reduced
in price. anyway, T.V is not the only advertising medium.

"Ad C" wrote in message
k...
In article
s.net,
LID says...


Which is just an old fashioned, per marketing speak, PVR! Think
about
it....

I know what a PVR is, the Tivo is a PVR and according to the people
who
owns one it is the only true PVR.

FFS, what does PVR stand for, and then think what a VCR does for it's
owner, this is what I mean by 'marketing speak'.... Also, what about
a DVD-RAM recorder.

"Ad C" wrote in message
k...
In article ,
says...

Not everybody has Sky +


I have typed that already.


....and it was a meaningless statement then as it is now....

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"tim (moved to sweden)" wrote in
message ...

That is far to simplistic,

Really?

Yes!


And taking all the money spent on TV advertsing and saying
that it is an artifical cost added to the price of a product,
isn't?


It's a fact, were do you think the money comes from, ultimately?....

It comes from the product, yes. This is not the same as
saying that it would be saved if it wasn't spent on advertising.

It could be that by advertising the product more of it is sold.
The manufacturers are thus able to run their production more
efficiently which might reduce the cost of manufacturer, by
MORE than the cost of the advertising. Advertise and the
product could actually costs less. No, that's not a fiction,
it's a perfectly reasonable scenario. Of course it doesn't
happen everytime but it can happen sometimes.

tim