Just read this article:
BBC confirms plans to make over-75s pay TV licence fee
This article was linked to on twitter and many on there are saying the licence fee should be abolished and the BBC should show adverts. That people can skip the adverts or get a cup of tea, go to the toilet etc during the adverts if they don't like them.
I think they're failing to grasp the bigger picture. If the BBC get paid for showing the adverts, then who is paying for these programmes? It'll be the one's that pay the BBC, the companies who goods and services are advertised. So where do they get the money from? They take a hit on their profits? Unlikely, I imagine they'll increase the prices of their goods and services to cover the cost. Meaning we all pay anyway, but on average more than the license fee (as the programmes AND the adverts now need to be paid for) and we have to suffer the adverts to boot!
And to what avail? The total amount spent on goods and services is unlikely to change significantly as a result of adverts, the money spent just gets shifted to those products that are the most heavily advertised. So other companies have to spend more on advertising to compete, resulting in higher prices still. It's all just so irrational.
The world would be much better if there were no adverts on TV and we just paid for it all directly.
NB: Apart from a couple of posts where I directly quote AI to enable me to address and argue against what it says, AI has not otherwise been used in any shape or form in either this blog nor my "Philosophical Thoughts" blog.
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Tuesday, 11 June 2019
Friday, 12 May 2017
Banning the advertising of Junk Food
I read the following article:
Labour vows to ban junk food adverts during X Factor and Hollyoaks
I hear people arguing that this is a ridiculous policy. They tend to say that:
a) Banning these advertisements would have no effect on the consumption of these foods.
b) It's the parents responsibility and the state shouldn't intervene.
If "a" then the manufacturers are wasting their money producing and buying the time for TV commercials. They should simply keep this money so they'll have higher profits. Or pass the savings on to the consumer. The latter would be good, cheaper prices and we don't have to suffer their adverts!
Frankly though I regard it as being preposterous to suggest these adverts have no effect at all. Especially advertising tasty food.
As for "b" it'll simply never work. Kids see junk food advertised, they'll go and buy it if they have the money, especially as their friends are all buying it.
Human beings are human beings. Many of them are influenced by adverts -- especially for nice tasting food. You can't change what human beings are. You can't change their nature -- you have to change society to accommodate their nature.
Labour vows to ban junk food adverts during X Factor and Hollyoaks
I hear people arguing that this is a ridiculous policy. They tend to say that:
a) Banning these advertisements would have no effect on the consumption of these foods.
b) It's the parents responsibility and the state shouldn't intervene.
If "a" then the manufacturers are wasting their money producing and buying the time for TV commercials. They should simply keep this money so they'll have higher profits. Or pass the savings on to the consumer. The latter would be good, cheaper prices and we don't have to suffer their adverts!
Frankly though I regard it as being preposterous to suggest these adverts have no effect at all. Especially advertising tasty food.
As for "b" it'll simply never work. Kids see junk food advertised, they'll go and buy it if they have the money, especially as their friends are all buying it.
Human beings are human beings. Many of them are influenced by adverts -- especially for nice tasting food. You can't change what human beings are. You can't change their nature -- you have to change society to accommodate their nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The nature of morality
From here, or here (to bypass paywall). What actually drives these conflicts is a more fundamental difference in moral philosophy: moral a...
-
Someone on twitter/X asked the following question: A mathematician emerges from a cave, hands you the photo below, and asks "Will a c...
-
An interesting article about thought experiments here . People do tend to ignore thought experiments. I get the strong impression that they ...
-
From here : 1. "If it’s a phenomena (and not just an event), it will or can be repeated". Depends what the author means by ...
-
I recently read the following article: What the Buddha Didn't Teach About Reincarnation It says: "This is not to say that “we” ...
-
Below on the left is a photo of me taken back in 1985. I uploaded that photo to ChatGPT and said to it "Generate an image of what this ...
-
There's 2 possibilities: a) This is the only life there is. When we die we simply cease to exist. Our lives and the Universe are, in a...
-
Woody Allen has said : I firmly believe ... that life is meaningless. I’m not alone in thinking this — there have been many great minds far...
-
Someone said in a comment under a Guardian article: My solution to this problem is somewhat simplistic. I don't do social media. As in...
-
The Wikipedia page on Lucy Letby First of all, let me say at the outset that I'm really loath to comment on whether I think she's gu...
-
It keeps being claimed (eg David Papineau, Sean Carroll et al ) that if consciousness caused anything in the brain over and above physical c...