Ads on guide screen

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:52:52 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

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.

I did put it in scare quotes. I could not offhand think of a more
suitable phrase.

The point I was trying to make is that it is the companies whose
products are advertised who are paying for the programmes to be made and
shown. They do not pay directly, of course - the money goes through
advertising agencies to TV networks and then to programme making
companies. If the companies whose products are being advertised find
that there is no benefit in paying to have their adverts shown because
no one is watching them they will stop buying time on TV. The income of
the TV networks and programme makers will dry up as a result.

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

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:

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

Bingo!

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

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

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

Obviously I'd prefer superior equipment without advertisements. If
you have any better suggestions as to how to achieve this, I'd welcome
them.

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?

Yes, I know how it works. Perhaps you should reconsider your
prejudices.

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

Peter Duncanson wrote:

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.

Do you extend the same argument to newspapers and magazines?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

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

Obviously I'd prefer superior equipment without advertisements. If
you have any better suggestions as to how to achieve this, I'd welcome
them.

Yes. Look for the shelf next to the one marked 'Free Beer'.

In message , Chris J Dixon
writes
Peter Duncanson wrote:

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.

Do you extend the same argument to newspapers and magazines?

Chris

Let's hope it doesn't extend to on the street, the bus, the tube, in the
Post Office or the letter box.
--
Ian

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:15:26 GMT, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Peter Duncanson wrote:

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.

Do you extend the same argument to newspapers and magazines?

Yes.
Newspapers rely heavily on the income from advertising. The majority of
a newspaper publisher's income comes from advertising. With a reduction
in advertising income newspapers would be unable to continue as they
are. Some would stop publishing, some might continue with papers with
fewer pages and some might risk a price increase or a combination of
thinner and pricier.


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

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:46:27 +0100, Peter Duncanson said...
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:15:26 GMT, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Peter Duncanson wrote:

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.

Do you extend the same argument to newspapers and magazines?

Yes.
Newspapers rely heavily on the income from advertising. The majority of
a newspaper publisher's income comes from advertising. With a reduction
in advertising income newspapers would be unable to continue as they
are. Some would stop publishing, some might continue with papers with
fewer pages and some might risk a price increase or a combination of
thinner and pricier.

Advertising is a kind of cold calling. The return from cold calling is
about 1%. Advertisers know this, so really only 1% of readers (or
viewers) have to respond to the advert for the advertisers to believe
that they've got their money's worth. If you don't respond, it doesn't
matter a hoot whether the reason was that the advert didn't move you, or
if you didn't even see it. There is no 'moral contract' involved at all,
the advertisers are chancing their arm, and at the moment they believe
that it pays to do so.

If at some time in the future advertisers change their minds, then this
way of funding magazines and TV channels will have to be re-thought, and
some channels may die if they are not adroit. Others will take their
place with new funding models. It's no big deal.

--
Mark Myers
usenet at mcm2007 dot plus dot com
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:07:12 +0100, Mark Myers wrote:

If at some time in the future advertisers change their minds, then this
way of funding magazines and TV channels will have to be re-thought, and
some channels may die if they are not adroit. Others will take their
place with new funding models. It's no big deal.

Some production companies depend on the resale model. They sell their
products to distributors, some of which are commercially based. It
would be interesting to know which production companies sell to both
the BBC and commercial channels.

Steve

--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com

In article , Peter
Duncanson
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:52:52 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

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.

I did put it in scare quotes. I could not offhand think of a more
suitable phrase.

The difficulty in finding a suitable phrase may be a sign of the dubious
nature of the idea being expressed by the original source. :-)

The point I was trying to make is that it is the companies whose
products are advertised who are paying for the programmes to be made and
shown. They do not pay directly, of course - the money goes through
advertising agencies to TV networks and then to programme making
companies. If the companies whose products are being advertised find
that there is no benefit in paying to have their adverts shown because
no one is watching them they will stop buying time on TV. The income of
the TV networks and programme makers will dry up as a result.

OK. That suits me. Shall we line up and all say "Bye! Bye!" as the
(un-)commercial stations vanish? :-)

TBH I almost never watch or listen to the 'commercial' stations anyway.
Partly because the content seems uninteresting to me, partly because of the
waste of time due to adverts. So I would actually be pleased if they
evaporated.

So far as I know I can't go into a shop and get them to sell me items
*cheaper* on the basis that, "I don't watch the adverts on TV, so can you
discount the price by the amount I don't want the makers to spend on
adverts I don't watch, and stations I don't watch?"

IIRC Whenever challenged about adverts for tobacco, the ad biz kept
insisting their ads didn't increase sales, just moved them from one brand
to another. So by their own argument, sales of things people *want* to buy
won't fall if the advertising channels vanish. Hence we can save the money
wasted on adverts if they do. :-)

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