TV license

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:35:47 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip interesting discussion

The methods by which ITV and other commercial TV broadcasters can make
money are severely restricted by law. In particular, "product placement"
is forbidden.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed...cement?view=uk

product placement
noun a practice in which companies pay for their products to be
featured in films and television programmes.

If this ban was removed soaps and fictional programmes would be full of
characters talking about their latest purchases and how wonderful they
are. On our screens would be actual product names not invented ones.

This might be less annoying than having many interminable ad breaks, or
maybe not.

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

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
If this ban was removed soaps and fictional programmes would be full of
characters talking about their latest purchases and how wonderful they
are. On our screens would be actual product names not invented ones.

This might be less annoying than having many interminable ad breaks, or
maybe not.

To me it would be hell. Unless really part of the plot - which is unlikely.

--
*Husbands should come with instructions

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:31:18 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
If this ban was removed soaps and fictional programmes would be full of
characters talking about their latest purchases and how wonderful they
are. On our screens would be actual product names not invented ones.

This might be less annoying than having many interminable ad breaks, or
maybe not.

To me it would be hell. Unless really part of the plot - which is unlikely.

There could be a storyline about a character selecting a TV and having
it installed: excellent named TV but installation including aerial
erection performed by an unknown bodger; proper named installer and
aerial erector comes to the rescue; Etc.

Then there are cars, washing machines, kettles - from various suppliers,
and so on. the possibilities are endless.

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

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
..

There could be a storyline about a character selecting a TV and having
it installed: excellent named TV but installation including aerial
erection performed by an unknown bodger; proper named installer and
aerial erector comes to the rescue; Etc.

The Wright Stuff ?

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
If this ban was removed soaps and fictional programmes would be full of
characters talking about their latest purchases and how wonderful they
are. On our screens would be actual product names not invented ones.

This might be less annoying than having many interminable ad breaks, or
maybe not.

To me it would be hell. Unless really part of the plot - which is
unlikely.

On "The Rowan & Martin Laugh-In" some of the best sketches were the
commercials. They got edited out beofre the BBC's audiences saw them.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:41:24 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
If this ban was removed soaps and fictional programmes would be full of
characters talking about their latest purchases and how wonderful they
are. On our screens would be actual product names not invented ones.

This might be less annoying than having many interminable ad breaks, or
maybe not.

To me it would be hell. Unless really part of the plot - which is
unlikely.

On "The Rowan & Martin Laugh-In" some of the best sketches were the
commercials. They got edited out beofre the BBC's audiences saw them.

One episode of American Idol a few years ago incurred the wrath of the
British regulator.

The contestants were shown singing as a group sitting in a car. This was
product placement. The car maker had paid for this and hoped to sell
more of the car shown. I think the ITV editors didn't bother to cut it
out because on this side of the Atlantic it was simply entertainment -
the make and model of the car were irrelevant to British viewers. The
car was not on sale in the UK and the brand name was not used in the UK.

However, knuckles were rapped.

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

Peter Duncanson wrote:

There could be a storyline about a character selecting a TV and having
it installed: excellent named TV but installation including aerial
erection performed by an unknown bodger; proper named installer and
aerial erector comes to the rescue; Etc.

Then there are cars, washing machines, kettles - from various suppliers,
and so on. the possibilities are endless.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the early 1960s ATV programme, Jim's Inn.

The ITA put a stop to it, but it was indeed a TV series with product
placement built in.

http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/jimsinn.htm

On Wednesday, August 26th, 2009 at 07:25:48 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Their expenditure is greater. They have radio channels and the World
Service to fund too.

Domestic radio services receive a tiny level of funding compared to BBC-1
network.

BBC World Service and non-English external services radio are funded by
the taxpayer not the licence fee payer. As far as I am aware, the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office instructs the BBC which foreign language services
to provide and then sends them an appropriate sum of money to pay for
the service. This is why the BBC no longer provides programming in French,
except to Africa, or German or Italian or any of the other European
languages it used to provide.

BBC World (television) is a commercial venture of BBC Worldwide.

All that said, if the Tories win next year's election, which
unfortunately I think they will, the BBC will not survive in its present
form.

The BBC has not existed in its traditional form since privatization began
under the Thatcher regime with the sale of transmitters and engineering.
This policy of backdoor privatization has continued apace under Faux LaboUr
and the Tories will only continue it further until the BBC has become no more
than a publisher, and part time program maker, in the image of their glorious
Thatcher vision of what a broadcaster should be -- Carlton Communications
(glitz and no substance).

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
If this ban was removed soaps and fictional programmes would be full
of characters talking about their latest purchases and how wonderful
they are. On our screens would be actual product names not invented
ones.

This might be less annoying than having many interminable ad breaks,
or maybe not.

To me it would be hell. Unless really part of the plot - which is
unlikely.

On "The Rowan & Martin Laugh-In" some of the best sketches were the
commercials. They got edited out beofre the BBC's audiences saw them.

Velly interesting...;-)

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The message
from Mark Carver contains these words:

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Mike Henry
writes

Therefore - once again - how do YOU suggest they fund these new high
definition services that you are demanding of them?

I've no idea, and don't give a ****. That's up to them, they have
highly paid executives and marketing wonks to do their thinking for
them. How do _you_ suggest they are funded?

You seem to think we _need_ the ITV channels. Why?

To keep the BBC on their toes ?

Really? I think that it's this very "competition" that's responsible
for the 'New Stylee" programming[1] that's being pushed down our throats
by the 'wet behind the ears' ex-meedja studies producers the Beeb feel
impelled to employ these days.

[1] The dumbing down of what used to be flagship programs on BBC2 and,
for a source of more extreme examples, the utter ****e being broadcast
on BBC3.

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.