Re: tv license rant /the bastards | Forum

tv license rant /the bastards

more_vert

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.

necropolist Mar 12, 2003 13:59:02

Replying to grufty jim

I'm not entirely sure what we're arguing about here, but I'll carry on anyway.

Of course there are large differences between direct taxation (license fee) and indirect pricing (advertising costs). but that's not to say they are entirely dissimilar either.

Of course no one buys every product they see an advertisement for, but I dont see the relevance of that. if we were to follow up the implication of the original statement (non-telly owners should get a rebate for the costs of advertising on the telly), then what would happen would be that you might well get a discount on the sainsbury's pizza's that you bought, but not on the maestro, that you didn't buy.

my main beef was with your statement that arguing that consumers pay for adverts in the long-run is "so abstract as to be meaningless", when i think it is very far from it. As you say the companies who pay for the advert see it as a 'necessary evil' - and as such factor in its costs into the price of the goods being advertised. Rather like, say, wages. As such it is a very simple and direct link between the costs of adverts and how they get paid for.

Demanding the right to 'our' money back for such goods is, of course, even less likely to be succesful than demanding our license fee back because we don't watch bbc, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make bit of a fuss about it.

Merrick Mar 12, 2003 14:08:38

Replying to grufty jim

>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.

Is that still so if, as is the case, some people with a TV never watch BBC?

>To draw an equivalency between them is therefore >unjustified.

Hmmm, more a comparison than an equivalency.

>To suggest there are equivalent levels of coercion >mystifies me.

I'm not saying there's equivalent levels of coercion (although it's impossible to opt out of the advertising budget for products you buy), but I am saying there's an equivalent level of payment made for a TV service.