Sounds like a common sense decision

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

Companies may force me to receive adverts within and between programmes but
no-one should be able to force me to sit through them without being able to
skim through them.

Will there be a ruling next that every time I walk past an advertising
hoarding I must stop and look at the advert, and that I must not turn over
two pages in a magazine to avoid an advert?

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want to be
advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore anything that
you don't want to see.

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

--
From the laptop of

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

Companies may force me to receive adverts within and between programmes
but no-one should be able to force me to sit through them without being
able to skim through them.

Will there be a ruling next that every time I walk past an advertising
hoarding I must stop and look at the advert, and that I must not turn over
two pages in a magazine to avoid an advert?

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want to be
advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore anything
that you don't want to see.

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.

In article , NY
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want to
be advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore
anything that you don't want to see.

Presumably not a problem in practice in this case as no-one in their right
mind would watch Fox anyway. In fact the makers of the hopper might find
they sold more recorders if they could be set to skip the Fox programmes as
well. :-)

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

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
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.

I agree. All that adverts make me do is to add more and more products to my
mental list of "don't buy this because the advert ****es me off". Indeed
they may make me think "I need to buy a product X, but buy anything *except*
brand Y of it". Which is probably not what makers of brand Y want from their
advert :-)

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

Companies may force me to receive adverts within and between programmes
but no-one should be able to force me to sit through them without being
able to skim through them.

but it's not trying to do that

It's trying to stop a system that allows you to automatically jump to the
end of them without (you) knowing where that end is

"Scott" wrote in message
...
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.

20+ years ago I worked for BT.

Apparently there would be a spike in call volume immediately when a BT ad
was shown on the TV.

So there are people collecting empirical evidence that they are successful.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , NY
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want to
be advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore
anything that you don't want to see.

Presumably not a problem in practice in this case as no-one in their right
mind would watch Fox anyway. In fact the makers of the hopper might find
they sold more recorders if they could be set to skip the Fox programmes
as
well. :-)

So that's no Simpsons, Family Guy, Glee. All programs that I am led to
believe are popular and watched by millions of people (even if not by me)

tim

In article ,
Jim Lesurf writes:
In article , NY
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want to
be advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore
anything that you don't want to see.

Presumably not a problem in practice in this case as no-one in their right
mind would watch Fox anyway. In fact the makers of the hopper might find
they sold more recorders if they could be set to skip the Fox programmes as
well. :-)

This court case was presumably in America, though, going by the names of
the other TV companies mentioned. It might be that in that country
people watch Fox for lack of anything better.
--
John Hall

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:19:46 -0000, "NY" wrote:

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
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.

I agree. All that adverts make me do is to add more and more products to
my
mental list of "don't buy this because the advert ****es me off". Indeed
they may make me think "I need to buy a product X, but buy anything
*except*
brand Y of it". Which is probably not what makers of brand Y want from
their
advert :-)
Perle De Lait Yogurt ,Passed someone marketing it and giving away
samples yesterday. "Would you like to try some" "No thank you, your
advert with the laughing tart at the end getting orgasmic over
fermenting milk irritates me."
Will never get back to anyone of course but I felt better.
That commercial is screen smashing material.

ALL modern commercials are screen-smashing material by the very nature of
the fact that they are trying to induce me to buy something.

A few older commercials like the one for Smash "And then they smash them all
to bits with their metal implements" have stood the test of time, but the
majority are inane and aimed at people with a negative IQ: they make the
elementary mistake of selling the sizzle instead of the sausage - all style
and no substance.

"Chips or Daddy? Daddy or chips?" is a case in point - it features a twee
five-year-old which only make it worse.

Does anyone else remember adverts and maybe even the type of product they
are selling, but not the brand? Unless they are being made by the Toothpaste
Marketing Board or the Chip Marketing Board then they have failed in that I
may end up buying the right product but a different brand :-)