tv license rant /the bastards

close
more_vert
necropolist N
necropolist Mar 12, 2003 12:40:55
Replying to grufty jim

jeepers, interersting argument.

>The adverts are paid for by advertisers, not by the public. You can argue that consumers pay for them indirectly; but that's so abstract as to be meaningless.

meaningless? it's pretty bloody clear from where i'm sitting. they might not be a bit of direct taxation, but they are still very very clearly a part of the costs of each good. As Merrick says, various studies indicate that the 'average' person pays more for their telly via ads than via the license fee. It isn't easy to ascertain exactly how much of each product goes on advertising, but we know for sure that a certain percentage does.

The argument about viewers not being able to withstand the power of advertising has no relevancy to this discussion, its a cpomplete distraction. Likewise the money back for products you don't purchase, it fails to understand the point.

So the argument for a reducvtion in the price of groceries etc is quite valid, imo.

G grufty jim
grufty jim Mar 12, 2003 12:54:38
Replying to necropolist

Do some people without televisions still buy consumer products? Do some people who watch adverts never buy the products being advertised?

If the answer to either question is "yes", then licence fees and ad revenues are fundamentally different.

To draw an equivalency between them is therefore unjustified. And it smacks - as i say - of Enron-accounting (the idea that two things which, on the surface, appear very similar can simply be assumed to be the same). Advertising does allow choice. It's an attempt to remove that choice (i'm not arguing otherwise), but thank christ it's not got to the point where it's 100% successful yet. Nobody goes to prison for ignoring an ad, folks. The police bust you for not paying the licence fee.

To suggest there are equivalent levels of coercion mystifies me.

I mean, come one; i've ranted enough on this forum for you to be aware of my stance on advertising, necropolist. Haven't i? I ain't trying to defend this evil and dangerous emotional manipulation and psychological bludgeoning.

But let's not over-state an argument to the point where it loses its potency through being absurd. I am never going to buy a new car (though i may buy a second-hand van when i move somewhere rural). This is despite being constantly sold new cars via commercials (they even use my favourite music to do it!)

I know all about the power of adverts. But it's very different to legal obligations to pay taxes. If you think it's the same, that there are equal measures of choice involved, the so be it. I just can't see it.