Why do we need plus 1 channels?
 

In article ,
Steve Terry wrote:
+1 doubles advertising time

Which is fine if the main channel is fully booked. But non of them are
these days.

--
*Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Why do we need plus 1 channels?
 

On Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009 at 10:49:53h +0100, Steve Terry wrote:

+1 are so the TV Co can fit in more adverts, the purpose of a TV program
isn't to entertain or provide a service, it's to support, and fill in
time between the adverts

Yes, most people think that TV programs are the product of commercial
adverted funded television companies, whereas in fact they are merely
a biproduct.

The product which these companies sell is the audience and the customers
are the advertising agencies.

If the company does not have the ratings (audience of demographics desired
by the advertising agencies) then there is no product to sell and the company
will fail.

Why do we need plus 1 channels?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Terry wrote:
+1 doubles advertising time

Which is fine if the main channel is fully booked. But non of them are
these days.


Increasing amounts of so called public information films paid
for by the taxpayer fill the gaps
and i still don't know who the hell Frank is, or why i should call him?

Steve Terry

Why do we need plus 1 channels?
 

In article ,
Steve Terry wrote:
Which is fine if the main channel is fully booked. But non of them are
these days.


Increasing amounts of so called public information films paid
for by the taxpayer fill the gaps

Not unlimited gaps, though. On 5 US they use trailers - and something more
akin to the potter's wheel. ;-)

and i still don't know who the hell Frank is, or why i should call him?

The power of advertising, then.

--
*A day without sunshine is like... night.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Why do we need plus 1 channels?
 

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:20:41 +0100, "Steve Terry"
wrote:

Increasing amounts of so called public information films paid
for by the taxpayer fill the gaps
and i still don't know who the hell Frank is, or why i should call him?

I think that's the point.

If the target audience did know who, or more accurately what, Frank is
they wouldn't ask him about anything.
--
Martin Jay

Why do we need plus 1 channels?
 

"Martin Jay" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:20:41 +0100, "Steve Terry"
wrote:

Increasing amounts of so called public information films paid
for by the taxpayer fill the gaps
and i still don't know who the hell Frank is, or why i should call him?

I think that's the point.

If the target audience did know who, or more accurately what, Frank is
they wouldn't ask him about anything.
Martin Jay


Nope, I'm sure the point is to feed taxpayers money to 3rd rate
commercial agencies

Steve Terry

Why do we need plus 1 channels?
 

Martin Jay wrote:

If the target audience did know who, or more accurately what, Frank is
they wouldn't ask him about anything.

Alternatively ... spend £1/4m on a mobile phone advert for safe sex,
when someone discovers from a FoI request that it only got 5500 views,
and therefore cost £45 per view, claim those 5500 views actually
exceeded your target!

So they actually expected to pay more than £45/viewer? Unbelievable!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8074914.stm

Why do we need plus 1 channels?
 

Brian Gaff wrote:
Without them a lot of the moaners on here could get their definition back
methinks.

Brian


I think it was a way of trying to supress PVR sales. Broadcasters hate
them rightly or wrongly, but if they properly integrated into PVRs the
whole experience could be so much better. They are too busy trying to
make 'value added' services that they totally forget what their customer
want, or maybe its just that the customer are the advertisers not the
consumers.

On the advertising front, the free model is breaking down now that
advertising revenue is dropping. That maybe a result of the recession
cycles, but I also have alot of worries about lack of added value in the
world and increasing 'cost' of living. I do hope we have become immune
to advertising, but its probably just a fantasy.

AFAIAC advertising is all a lie, they are using our psychology against
us, not to inform us about their product and its special features, but
to make us buy it. It doesn't create any extra wealth, expect for those
well paid Marketing Exec's, or help consumer chose the correct products.
Its all 'buy this product and you will be happy' messages, or 'buy
this its cheaper really take it now while you can'. Its just tries to
prevent you spending money on other things, there is no extra money, and
credit only causes the boom/bust cycles, the more the bigger. More and
more jobs in the world are not adding value to society and it seems the
less value you add the more money you get to take.

We do all seem to enjoy taking part in lifestyle/fashion products of the
day, ipods or the lastest mobile phone, but do we need them?..NO
Do they make us happy?..NO
Will important stuff like food, energy and raw materials get more
expensive?..YES, and faster as a result of the above advertising.

At the end of the day if you are a business you look after you customer,
if you are an advertiser on a web newspaper, you do not expect the
newspaper to discredit your industry or make things more difficult for
you, hence the newpaper articles cease to become independent and become
biased to the needs of the advertisers.

It is time people realised that when you click on an advert you are
giving away something for free that is valuable (your choice and
eventual money) in return for something you have no choice over. As
accountants say 'there is no such thing as a free lunch'. But this is
todays general business model to try to trick people into parting with
their money or trick them into thinking they are getting good VFM, it is
the stupid taking advantage of the more stupid.

Just like house prices and endless credit, the advertising funded 'free'
model stinks and will be the next thing against the wall when the
revolution comes.

....ooh I didn't expect all that to come out..oh well

Anyway with the Internet the options for a replacement for marketing and
advertising are endless, but I fear it will never come because there is
too much money to be diverted.

--
Tony

Why do we need plus 1 channels?
 

Hear about the Irish version?

-1 channels so everything starts an hour earlier than on the main channel..
Hides behind cactus to avoid tomatoes.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Brian Gaff wrote:
That is possible, but its still a waste and one we have apparently
not got the bandwidth to support. After all, not all channels have
this extra channel anyway. With the advent of getting your stuff of
the web, and the reducing costs of pvrs, what is the point really?

I suspect it's channel squatting, ie the broadcast equivalent of domain
name squatting. The major companies bought up the frequencies in a panic
when they were offered, thinking they had to have them. Then they found
they hadn't anything to put on them but feared the regulator might remove
them if they didn't, and so came up with the wizard wheeze of showing
everything again, totally pointlessly, one hour later.

Does anyone know the viewing figures for the +1 channels I wonder?

Why do we need plus 1 channels?
 

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
om...
Hear about the Irish version?

-1 channels so everything starts an hour earlier than on the
main channel..
Hides behind cactus to avoid tomatoes.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Brian Gaff wrote:
That is possible, but its still a waste and one we have
apparently
not got the bandwidth to support. After all, not all
channels have
this extra channel anyway. With the advent of getting your
stuff of
the web, and the reducing costs of pvrs, what is the point
really?

I suspect it's channel squatting, ie the broadcast equivalent
of domain name squatting. The major companies bought up the
frequencies in a panic when they were offered, thinking they
had to have them. Then they found they hadn't anything to put
on them but feared the regulator might remove them if they
didn't, and so came up with the wizard wheeze of showing
everything again, totally pointlessly, one hour later.

Does anyone know the viewing figures for the +1 channels I
wonder?





No no Brian. It's the Irish video recorder.

It records what you don't want to watch and plays it back whilst
you're out.


(The old ones are the best........)


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com