Ads on guide screen

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

The ads are only annoying because they reduce the screen area available for
the EPG down to about two thirds of what it could be.

No, they're more annoying because I don't want to have to be advertised
at to operate my own television.

But it's hardly a
deal breaker, particularly given the superior quality of Panasonic stuff
generally. The baby really shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater.

It certainly put me off buying one.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

The ads are only annoying because they reduce the screen area
available for the EPG down to about two thirds of what it could be.

No, they're more annoying because I don't want to have to be
advertised at to operate my own television.

But it's hardly a
deal breaker, particularly given the superior quality of Panasonic
stuff generally. The baby really shouldn't be thrown out with the
bathwater.

It certainly put me off buying one.

I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

It certainly put me off buying one.

I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.

Unfortunately the public are so apathetic that before we know it there
will be ads on our fridge doors and in our showers, and you'll still
be bleating on about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And you'll have to watch them. Jamie Kellner, CEO of Turner
Broadcasting, said it was "theft" to skip over advertisements.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

In article , Richard Tobin wrote:
And you'll have to watch them. Jamie Kellner, CEO of Turner
Broadcasting, said it was "theft" to skip over advertisements.

Really? Somebody actually said that? I've always thought the entire
advertising industry was up its own bum, so to speak, but for one of
them to come out with a monstrous notion like that and speak it out
loud without shame just shows how far from reality they are.

How can simply deciding to pay no attention to their parasitic drivel
be described as "theft" when we are taking nothing from them? What
about the "theft" of the time they expect us to waste looking at it?
What about the "theft" of the extra money we usually can't avoid paying
for advertised products that adds nothing whatsoever to their value? We
might as well describe it as "theft" to lock our front doors because it
denies burglars the opportunity to make a living.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:22:25 +0100, Mike Henry
wrote:

In en.co.uk, Roderick
Stewart wrote:

In article , Richard Tobin wrote:
And you'll have to watch them. Jamie Kellner, CEO of Turner
Broadcasting, said it was "theft" to skip over advertisements.

Really? Somebody actually said that? I've always thought the entire
advertising industry was up its own bum, so to speak, but for one of
them to come out with a monstrous notion like that and speak it out
loud without shame just shows how far from reality they are.

How can simply deciding to pay no attention to their parasitic drivel
be described as "theft" when we are taking nothing from them? What
about the "theft" of the time they expect us to waste looking at it?
What about the "theft" of the extra money we usually can't avoid paying
for advertised products that adds nothing whatsoever to their value? We
might as well describe it as "theft" to lock our front doors because it
denies burglars the opportunity to make a living.

Yes, it's amazing but he really did say it.

"In response to a question on why personal video recorders (PVR's) were
bad for the industry, Jamie Kellner, chairman and CEO of Turner
Broadcasting, responded: "Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your
contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch
the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis.
Any time you skip a commercial ... you're actually stealing the
programming.
When asked if he considers people who go to the bathroom during a
commercial to be thieves, he responded: "I guess there's a certain
amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom. But if you formalize it
and you create a device that skips certain second increments, you've got
that only for one reason, unless you go to the bathroom for 30 seconds.
They've done that just to make it easy for someone to skip a
commercial."

see http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1113

Funnily enough, I didn't sign a contract with ITV, C4 and five to watch
their adverts so I'm safe. Phew!

If these people had a problem, they should have made a fuss over 30
years ago when VCRs were common. More people do it now and it's easier
than with a VCR; nothing else is different.

Unfortunately Jamie Kellner has a point. Commercial TV is not paid for
by subscription, a licence fee or out of general taxation. It is paid
for by advertisers. It is advertising money that in the end pays for the
making and broadcasting of programmes. Advertisers will stop advertising
on TV if their adverts stop generating sales of their products.

From the advertisers' and commercial broadcasters' point of view there
is a sort of "moral contract" between them and the viewers:

We will pay for the programmes if you watch our adverts.

When we choose to watch the programmes but not the adverts we are
undermining the whole basis of commercial TV.

Jamie Kellner is exaggerating when he calls this theft. But he knows
that if everyone stops watching adverts, his company, Turner
Broadcasting, and all other commercial TV broadcasters will go out of
business simply because they will have no income.

Watching the adverts is a sort of "subscription" we pay for getting
otherwise free TV.

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

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:36:07 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

Watching the adverts is a sort of "subscription" we pay for getting
otherwise free TV.

I would rather pay real money subscriptions than watch adverts.
Advertising breaks were once tolerable. The current frequency of four
or five breaks per hour is too much.

Steve

--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

It certainly put me off buying one.

I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.

Unfortunately the public are so apathetic that before we know it there
will be ads on our fridge doors and in our showers, and you'll still
be bleating on about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

No, it's your choice entirely. If you prefer inferior equipment without
adverts, that's fine by me.


And you'll have to watch them. Jamie Kellner, CEO of Turner
Broadcasting, said it was "theft" to skip over advertisements.

I don't think you have any idea how the advertising works on a Panasonic
EPG, do you?

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:42:48 +0100, Mike Henry
wrote:

In , Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:22:25 +0100, Mike Henry
wrote:

In en.co.uk, Roderick
Stewart wrote:

In article , Richard Tobin wrote:
And you'll have to watch them. Jamie Kellner, CEO of Turner
Broadcasting, said it was "theft" to skip over advertisements.

Really? Somebody actually said that? I've always thought the entire
advertising industry was up its own bum, so to speak, but for one of
them to come out with a monstrous notion like that and speak it out
loud without shame just shows how far from reality they are.

How can simply deciding to pay no attention to their parasitic drivel
be described as "theft" when we are taking nothing from them? What
about the "theft" of the time they expect us to waste looking at it?
What about the "theft" of the extra money we usually can't avoid paying
for advertised products that adds nothing whatsoever to their value? We
might as well describe it as "theft" to lock our front doors because it
denies burglars the opportunity to make a living.

Yes, it's amazing but he really did say it.

"In response to a question on why personal video recorders (PVR's) were
bad for the industry, Jamie Kellner, chairman and CEO of Turner
Broadcasting, responded: "Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your
contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch
the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis.
Any time you skip a commercial ... you're actually stealing the
programming.
When asked if he considers people who go to the bathroom during a
commercial to be thieves, he responded: "I guess there's a certain
amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom. But if you formalize it
and you create a device that skips certain second increments, you've got
that only for one reason, unless you go to the bathroom for 30 seconds.
They've done that just to make it easy for someone to skip a
commercial."

see http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1113

Funnily enough, I didn't sign a contract with ITV, C4 and five to watch
their adverts so I'm safe. Phew!

If these people had a problem, they should have made a fuss over 30
years ago when VCRs were common. More people do it now and it's easier
than with a VCR; nothing else is different.

Unfortunately Jamie Kellner has a point. Commercial TV is not paid for
by subscription, a licence fee or out of general taxation. It is paid
for by advertisers. It is advertising money that in the end pays for the
making and broadcasting of programmes. Advertisers will stop advertising
on TV if their adverts stop generating sales of their products.

From the advertisers' and commercial broadcasters' point of view there
is a sort of "moral contract" between them and the viewers:

We will pay for the programmes if you watch our adverts.

From the viewers point of view, there is NO such "moral contract"
whatsoever.

It's sort of implied.

Put it another way, if we don't watch the adverts and buy some of the
sdvertised goods and services there will be no adverts and no programmes
either.

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

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
Unfortunately Jamie Kellner has a point. Commercial TV is not paid for
by subscription, a licence fee or out of general taxation. It is paid
for by advertisers. It is advertising money that in the end pays for the
making and broadcasting of programmes. Advertisers will stop advertising
on TV if their adverts stop generating sales of their products.

From the advertisers' and commercial broadcasters' point of view there
is a sort of "moral contract" between them and the viewers:

We will pay for the programmes if you watch our adverts.

Utter nonsense. A contract is not dependent on anybody's point of view.
There either is one or there isn't one. It's an agreement between at least
two parties (and usually formalised in some way), not just a notion dreamt
up by one of them in its own interests.

I've no idea what a "moral contract" might be. The phrase is meaningless.
I feel no moral obligation whatsoever to support the advertising industry,
and cannot imagine for an instant why I should.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article , Norman Wells wrote:
Unfortunately the public are so apathetic that before we know it there
will be ads on our fridge doors and in our showers, and you'll still
be bleating on about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

No, it's your choice entirely. If you prefer inferior equipment without
adverts, that's fine by me

Why does anything need to be inferior without adverts?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/