Long or short advert breaks

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:18:50 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:

If you're doing the props for a TV show you show the stuff people are
most likely to buy. You just go to a supermarket and buy the popular
brands. The market leaders. That's how you achieve realism.

Except you don't need to. The market leaders come to you and give you
the stuff for free, out of the goodness of their own hearts.

No they don't. Any such offers would be rejected as that could be
seen consititute bribery.


of
course, because having your product shoved in front of millions of
people is brilliant free advertising.

Sure thing chum. Having style setters such as Dot Cotton or Jim Branning
munching their way through their Kellogs cornflakes is bound to send sales
through the roof.

Just as would be interesting to see what impact Phiw has on the sales
of Mercs. Negative if anything, I'd imagine.

Consumers seek to imitate and emulate aspirational characters. If you
know what that means.

Name some aspirational characters in East Enders who viewers would
want identify with, to the extent of copying their choice in breakfast
cereal or anything else for that matter.

Basically sunshine, you're taking through your arse.


michael adams

....

"Calum" wrote in message
...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article ,
says...
"Dom Robinson" wrote in message

Why do the BBC, of all channels, have to say the product name?

Because if they didn't, they lose the broadcasting rights.

Is that in the contract, and can we see that online?

....

FFS Robinson it's common f*cking sense. If there's no TV coverage
including sponsor credits, then there's no event to start with.

....



It certainly tallies with what I've heard BBC spokespersonages say in
the past. Seem to remember they have to do things like showing the
sponsors name in captions and programme titles a certain number of times
as well.



The only reason these people sponsor events at all is in the
expectation of plenty of media coverage. If the Beeb refused to
credit the sponsor and all the other TV channels and media outlets
followed suit, then the London Marathon would probably collapse.
Either that, or they'd need to charge a prohibitive entry fee which
would discourage most amateur runners. And as they can't charge
spectators its difficult to see where they'd raise the prize
money to pay for the professionals.

Except that is, in "Dommy World". Perhaps Dommy could make a Youtube
video explaining how it might be done.


michael adams

....

Dom Robinson wrote:
In article ,
says...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article ,
says...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article ,
says...
product placement is already allowed on British TV (both BBC
and commercial channels) to add a sense of realism. But under
the current 'free supply' rules programme makers cannot profit
from it, and the brand has limited say over how it is featured
on screen.

So basically as long as the programme makers "don't profit from
it", not only can manufacturers of goods and services get their
products shown on air (free publicity that is worth many
thousands of pounds) but they can even have a limited say in how
it is featured!

And you say that "there *is* no PP on BBC shows" ?

How about 'The Apprentice' ? You think all those Amstrad products
turned up on screen by accident?


There's so much product placement on TV on all channels, not just
the BBC.

Coming soon we've got the "Flora London Marathon", then over the
year there's also the "888.com World Snooker Championship" and the
"Carling FA Cup Final", etc.

That's not PP; that's event sponsorship and is /nothing/ to do with
the channel it is being shown on; especially the BBC.

But the BBC shouldn't be promoting a product, like it's doing.

They're not. They're just covering an event. That's it. I think
there'd be more of a fuss (certainly from Snooker fans) if they
/didn't/ cover the event!

I don't see why they have to mention the sponsor, that's the point.

They /don't/. Having the sponsor's name "in vision" can't be helped as they
cover the event.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Freeview (free): http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:23:04 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:

Then numpties like you would complain as to why should you pay
a Licence Fee for programmes nobody watches.

Joined up thinking clearly doesn't come easily to morons like you.

Which is presumably why a lot of BBC programes are over the
top of your head.

Zero tolerance - zero a lot of things, by the looks of it.

Wow, you're quite obnoxious. Not BBC staff by any chance?
--

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:36:42 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:

No they don't. Any such offers would be rejected as that could be
seen consititute bribery.

Ah but they obviously do. The BBC's own report said as much.

Consumers seek to imitate and emulate aspirational characters. If you
know what that means.

I know just fine what that means. Of course what I don't understand is
why on earth anyone would watch EastEnders in the first place...
--

In article ,
says...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article ,
says...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article ,
says...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article ,
says...
product placement is already allowed on British TV (both BBC
and commercial channels) to add a sense of realism. But under
the current 'free supply' rules programme makers cannot profit
from it, and the brand has limited say over how it is featured
on screen.

So basically as long as the programme makers "don't profit from
it", not only can manufacturers of goods and services get their
products shown on air (free publicity that is worth many
thousands of pounds) but they can even have a limited say in how
it is featured!

And you say that "there *is* no PP on BBC shows" ?

How about 'The Apprentice' ? You think all those Amstrad products
turned up on screen by accident?


There's so much product placement on TV on all channels, not just
the BBC.

Coming soon we've got the "Flora London Marathon", then over the
year there's also the "888.com World Snooker Championship" and the
"Carling FA Cup Final", etc.

That's not PP; that's event sponsorship and is /nothing/ to do with
the channel it is being shown on; especially the BBC.

But the BBC shouldn't be promoting a product, like it's doing.

They're not. They're just covering an event. That's it. I think
there'd be more of a fuss (certainly from Snooker fans) if they
/didn't/ cover the event!

I don't see why they have to mention the sponsor, that's the point.

They /don't/. Having the sponsor's name "in vision" can't be helped as they
cover the event.

They don't have to say it.
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1136 DVDs, 372 games, 401 CDs, 110 cinema films, 52 concerts, videos & news
/* burnout paradise, simpsons movie, duffy in concert, spiderwick chronicles
New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DVDdom

In article ,
says...

"Calum" wrote in message
...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article ,
says...
"Dom Robinson" wrote in message

Why do the BBC, of all channels, have to say the product name?

Because if they didn't, they lose the broadcasting rights.

Is that in the contract, and can we see that online?

...

FFS Robinson it's common f*cking sense. If there's no TV coverage
including sponsor credits, then there's no event to start with.

Nice of you to disagree(!)


It certainly tallies with what I've heard BBC spokespersonages say in
the past. Seem to remember they have to do things like showing the
sponsors name in captions and programme titles a certain number of times
as well.



The only reason these people sponsor events at all is in the
expectation of plenty of media coverage. If the Beeb refused to
credit the sponsor and all the other TV channels and media outlets
followed suit, then the London Marathon would probably collapse.
Either that, or they'd need to charge a prohibitive entry fee which
would discourage most amateur runners. And as they can't charge
spectators its difficult to see where they'd raise the prize
money to pay for the professionals.

As if. It got by fine without sponsorship originally.

Still, if the London Marathon was cancelled, would anyone miss it? I'm sure
anyone who wants to can find 26 miles to run.

Except that is, in "Dommy World". Perhaps Dommy could make a Youtube
video explaining how it might be done.

Too busy with Patrick Swayze, thanks.
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1136 DVDs, 372 games, 401 CDs, 110 cinema films, 52 concerts, videos & news
/* burnout paradise, simpsons movie, duffy in concert, spiderwick chronicles
New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DVDdom

In article ,
says...
uk.media.tv.sky
Dom Robinson
Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:47:26 -0000


Why?

Because michael adams has a "public duty" to disagree with whatever anyone
else says


Thats not 100% true .

I once made the point there was a market for a dedicated printed
freeview tv guide as listing stuff like skyone and the sky movies
channels is all a bit pointless if you cant actually watch them - and he
agreed with me a couple of months later .

He just needs some time to think about stuff :-))

Very "Deep Thought"
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1136 DVDs, 372 games, 401 CDs, 110 cinema films, 52 concerts, videos & news
/* burnout paradise, simpsons movie, duffy in concert, spiderwick chronicles
New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DVDdom

"Dom Robinson" wrote in message
t...

They don't have to say it.

It would probably be a condition of sponsorship that they *do* say it.

Ian

"Dom Robinson" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...

"Calum" wrote in message
...
Dom Robinson wrote:
In article ,
says...
"Dom Robinson" wrote in message

Why do the BBC, of all channels, have to say the product name?

Because if they didn't, they lose the broadcasting rights.

Is that in the contract, and can we see that online?

...

FFS Robinson it's common f*cking sense. If there's no TV coverage
including sponsor credits, then there's no event to start with.

Nice of you to disagree(!)


It certainly tallies with what I've heard BBC spokespersonages say in
the past. Seem to remember they have to do things like showing the
sponsors name in captions and programme titles a certain number of times
as well.



The only reason these people sponsor events at all is in the
expectation of plenty of media coverage. If the Beeb refused to
credit the sponsor and all the other TV channels and media outlets
followed suit, then the London Marathon would probably collapse.
Either that, or they'd need to charge a prohibitive entry fee which
would discourage most amateur runners. And as they can't charge
spectators its difficult to see where they'd raise the prize
money to pay for the professionals.

As if. It got by fine without sponsorship originally.

Wrong yet again Dommy. Not that that's ever stopped you before of
course. Maybe you could make a Youtube video on the London Marathon
as well ?

quote

From the outset in 1981 it was realised that finance would have to come
from the private sector and the Marathon asked sports agencies to find a
sponsor. West Nally came up with Gillette who funded the race for the
first three years. In 1981 they paid £50,000 to be title sponsor, but
delighted with the enhanced exposure doubled that to £100,000 the
following year.

/quote

http://www.london-marathon.co.uk/sit...=12&article=12


Now what do you think might be the significicance of the word " title"
in the phrase "title sponsr" there eh, Dommy ?

Maybe if you can't work it out for yourself you could ask someone
eh?


Still, if the London Marathon was cancelled, would anyone miss it?


quote

An unusual feature is the very large amounts of money raised for charity,
much more than other marathons.[1] According to the race organisers, it is
now the largest annual fund raising event in the world with the 2006
participants raising over £41.5 million for charity, bringing the total
amount raised for charity by runners, to a grand total of £315 million.[2].
In 2007, 78% of all runners raised money.

/quote

The recipients of the £315 million in charity donations down the years would
miss it I'd imagine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Marathon


Just think Dommy. Some of those charitable donations may even have gone to
Heart Research. So that the London Marathon may be indirectly resposnible
for giving you, and us, an extra five or ten years of whinging time added
to your life.





michael adams

....