|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head U-Know! | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: tv license rant /the bastards 27 messages | Select a forum: |
| 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. Reply | with quote | Posted by necropolist 12th March 2003ce 13:59 In reply to: Re: tv license rant /the bastards (grufty jim) |
Messages in this topic: |
|