Sky One introduces on-screen paid for advertising during programmes
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
Come on, if you think about it logically, it's easy to guess this
stuff. That's what I'm doing.

So you don't *know*, you are just *guessing*.
Of course, your guesses are always right....

Loz

Sky One introduces on-screen paid for advertising during programmes
 

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:31:33 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
Come on, if you think about it logically, it's easy to guess this
stuff. That's what I'm doing.

So you don't *know*, you are just *guessing*.
Of course, your guesses are always right....

Absolutely. :-)

They're certainly much more likely to be correct that wild allegations
of conspiracy to serially break the law for almost no return..
--

Sky One introduces on-screen paid for advertising during programmes
 

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:42:53 GMT, Edster wrote:

So you admit it was an advert?

Well I don't think there's any doubt that it's not meant to be there,
is it?

--

Sky One introduces on-screen paid for advertising during programmes
 

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:42:54 GMT, Edster wrote:

They're certainly much more likely to be correct that wild allegations
of conspiracy to serially break the law for almost no return..

Whereas in your world they would do it all for free.

Er.. what?

--

Sky One introduces on-screen paid for advertising during programmes
 

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:42:53 GMT, Edster wrote:

The difference is that you guess that Dominos Pizzas didn't pay Sky to
have their advert on screen all the way through the Simpsons. Why
would they do something like that for free?

They wouldn't, because it's illegal. So there's an excellent chance
that it was, therefore, a mistake.

--

Sky One introduces on-screen paid for advertising during programmes
 

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:24:08 GMT, Edster wrote:

If it wasn't meant to be there why did they change it so that it kept
coming back after it had been switched off?

I don't know. None of that changes the fact that it's obviously there
by accident, though.

--

Sky One introduces on-screen paid for advertising during programmes
 

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:24:08 GMT, Edster wrote:

Er.. what?

Why would your employers risk their license without taking money for
risking it?

OK, first of all, can we drop this "your employers" crap, I don't know
where you got that idea from but it's very tedious. (Possibly you're
thinking of one of the other people in this thread who very likely DO
work for a proper TV company and might know more about this than
either of us) Secondly... I'd imagine that risking a broadcast licence
is such an insanely high-stakes game with so much to lose that no
possible amount of money would make it worthwhile. Which I believe
lends more weight to what I was saying earlier, for which, may I just
reprise, once more with feeling: IT MUST BE A MISTAKE!

--

Sky One introduces on-screen paid for advertising during programmes
 

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:24:08 GMT, Edster wrote:

If it wasn't meant to be there why did they change it so that it kept
coming back after it had been switched off?
I don't know. None of that changes the fact that it's obviously there
by accident, though.

But you don't *know* that it was an accident. It is just your opinion.
However justified you feel in forming that opinion, it is still just your
opinion.
Others have the opinion it was not an accident...

I wrote to C4 with regard to them popping up the red button with an ad every
couple of minutes during lost.
They didn't reply saying it was an "accident", it was more a case of "thanks
for your comments, we will take them into consideration in future use of the
interactive services". They haven't done it again AFAIK.
I complained to Ofcom, but all I ever got was an acknowlegement of the
complaint.

Loz

Sky One introduces on-screen paid for advertising during programmes
 

OK, first of all, can we drop this "your employers" crap, I don't know
where you got that idea from but it's very tedious. (Possibly you're
thinking of one of the other people in this thread who very likely DO
work for a proper TV company and might know more about this than
either of us) Secondly... I'd imagine that risking a broadcast licence
is such an insanely high-stakes game with so much to lose that no
possible amount of money would make it worthwhile. Which I believe
lends more weight to what I was saying earlier, for which, may I just
reprise, once more with feeling: IT MUST BE A MISTAKE!
--

I once got told that the regional department, you know the people who put
out perhaps 6 hours max of TV programming per week & that includes news and
sport, prefer it when we fail a programme for technical reasons to just pay
the Ofcom fine because its cheaper than going back into a edit suite to
re-edit and correct the mistake. Its a bizarre world we live in.

I wonder what Edsters feeling on subtitles are when they go out of sync or
when its a live programme and they are delayed whilst its typed in - mistake
or a deliberate attempt to upset all those people who need it. !!

Dave

Sky One introduces on-screen paid for advertising during programmes
 

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:17:58 +0100, "loz"
wrote:

But you don't *know* that it was an accident. It is just your opinion.

If it wasn't an accident then it would have been an act of
deliberately breaking the rules. That's got to be something far less
likely to be let slide, surely.

I wrote to C4 with regard to them popping up the red button with an ad every
couple of minutes during lost.
They didn't reply saying it was an "accident", it was more a case of "thanks
for your comments, we will take them into consideration in future use of the
interactive services". They haven't done it again AFAIK.

That just means that whoever read your email didn't understand it and
sent you the standard reply filed under 'interactive'.

I complained to Ofcom, but all I ever got was an acknowlegement of the
complaint.

That is less forgivable. Maybe they're still investigating it? How
long ago was it, exactly?

--

Sky One introduces on-screen paid for advertising during programmes
 

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:26:34 GMT, Edster wrote:

Wasn't sponsoring a programme against Ofcom's rules a few years ago,
before the broadcasters got together and offered financial incentives
to allow it? Now it is commonplace.

Sponsoring a programme was never against Ofcom's rules, it having been
made legal by the IBA in the late 1980s, before Sky satellite even
existed.

There has been no reported
recriminations against Sky for their "mistake" that allowed
semi-permanantly on screen advertising during the Simpsons.

Has anyone complained to Ofcom about it? Since it only happened, what,
a week ago, and Ofcom typically take three to four months to publish
an adjudication on complaints and/or levy fines as necessary, I don't
think you'd be hearing anything just yet.
--