Sounds like a common sense decision
 

Rick wrote:

would then
have to depend entirely on advertising, just like all the others.



Wasn't / isn't Channel 4 partly publicly funded?

I thought that ITV still had some public service obligations, which I
would assume means that they get something in compensation, these days.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:36:17 -0000, "Rick" wrote:



"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
Its interesting that the British public are now getting used to seeing
BBC
programmes with ad breaks on Yesterday and other channels, and I just
wonder
how long before the BBC can advertise.

The day after Hell freezes over I suspect. If the BBC were officially
allowed
to advertise, the last vaguely credible excuse for calling it a public
service
and imposing a licence fee for it would be conspicuously gone. It would
then
have to depend entirely on advertising, just like all the others.



Wasn't / isn't Channel 4 partly publicly funded?

No. It was initialled funded with money from the ITV companies. It is
now self-supporting via advertising revenue. There was a proposal in
2007 that Channel 4 should receive money from the TV licence but it
never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4#Funding

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:03:41 +0000, David Woolley
wrote:

Rick wrote:

would then
have to depend entirely on advertising, just like all the others.



Wasn't / isn't Channel 4 partly publicly funded?

I thought that ITV still had some public service obligations, which I
would assume means that they get something in compensation, these days.

Public service obligations - Yes. Public funding - No.

The public service obligations are part of the licence agreement for
each regional franchise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel...9#Organisation

As a public service broadcaster, the ITV network is obliged to
broadcast programming of public importance, including news, current
affairs, children's and religious programming as well as party
election broadcasts on behalf of the major political parties and
political events, such as the Budget. The network also needs to
produce accessible output containing subtitles, signing and audio
description.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

Scott wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:43:53 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Well, its much like other things. They all think adverts make us buy
stuff, in the sense that idiots can be convinced of anything, maybe they
are correct, but once the said ads **** you off they are surely counter
productive.
Brian

It would be difficult to believe that all that money has been spend
over all these years with no empirical evidence of success. Most
companies try to cut costs if they can and if advertising did not work
I think that is a cost that would soon be cut.

Lots of people proudly, and loudly claim not to be influenced
by adverts.

As you say - the behaviour of self-interested advertisers
suggest otherwise.

BugBear

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article ,
bugbear
wrote:


Lots of people proudly, and loudly claim not to be influenced by adverts.

As you say - the behaviour of self-interested advertisers suggest
otherwise.

An alternative hypothesis is that the ad-men are actually quite good... but
specifically at selling their services to companies and convincing them to
pay for ads. :-)

That doesn't necessarily mean the ads then succeed at selling the client's
products. Only that the company has been convinced to pay for the ads.

Think of the fog of 'consultants' who go around vampiring off companies,
government, etc, peddling the latest trendy ideas.

Bear in mind that the ad-man's mark... erm 'customer' is the client who
pays for the ads to be made. Not the end-consumer who may buy goods. So for
advertising to prosper the critical requirement is for ad-men to convince
others to buy the adverts. The claimed talent of advertisers is to make
people fall for what they say, after all. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:59:01 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article ,
bugbear
wrote:


Lots of people proudly, and loudly claim not to be influenced by adverts.

As you say - the behaviour of self-interested advertisers suggest
otherwise.

An alternative hypothesis is that the ad-men are actually quite good... but
specifically at selling their services to companies and convincing them to
pay for ads. :-)

That doesn't necessarily mean the ads then succeed at selling the client's
products. Only that the company has been convinced to pay for the ads.

Think of the fog of 'consultants' who go around vampiring off companies,
government, etc, peddling the latest trendy ideas.

Bear in mind that the ad-man's mark... erm 'customer' is the client who
pays for the ads to be made. Not the end-consumer who may buy goods. So for
advertising to prosper the critical requirement is for ad-men to convince
others to buy the adverts. The claimed talent of advertisers is to make
people fall for what they say, after all. ;-

Today's Herald Diary carries the following:

Remembrance Sunday yesterday of course, and John Bannerman, with other
veterans of the Royal Marines Reserve had spent the days before it
collecting for Poppy Scotland outside Asda in Govan, where customers
were more than generous. Says John: "An old lady came up to me with a
handful of coppers, and asked me if it was all right to put the
coppers into the can. I assured her it was, adding, 'Every little
helps'. 'This is Asda son, no' Tesco', she replied."

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Bear in mind that the ad-man's mark... erm 'customer' is the client who
pays for the ads to be made. Not the end-consumer who may buy goods. So for
advertising to prosper the critical requirement is for ad-men to convince
others to buy the adverts. The claimed talent of advertisers is to make
people fall for what they say, after all. ;-

You'd think disillusion would set in...

Bill

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On 12/11/2012 15:04, bugbear wrote:

Lots of people proudly, and loudly claim not to be influenced
by adverts.

As you say - the behaviour of self-interested advertisers
suggest otherwise.

These two statements are not incompatible. If I were to place an advert
on TV, and even 5% of the audience bought my product I'd be pretty pleased.

Andy

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On 12/11/2012 08:58, NY wrote:


or BBC-related publications like Radio Times

The Radio Times isn't a BBC publication. The web site dropped a lot of
information when it changed hands a year ago.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Bear in mind that the ad-man's mark... erm 'customer' is the client who
pays for the ads to be made. Not the end-consumer who may buy goods. So
for
advertising to prosper the critical requirement is for ad-men to convince
others to buy the adverts. The claimed talent of advertisers is to make
people fall for what they say, after all. ;-


That really is nonsense. Advertising Agencies which fail to get consumers
to buy goods don't get much repeat business. There are almost countless
examples of how "good" advertising sells bad products

--
JohnT