Re: [POLL] BBC funding
- From: Dave Fawthrop <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 17:48:19 +0100
On Wed, 24 May 2006 17:11:54 +0100, Patrick Nethercot (ngs)
<nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|Let's take not just any advert, but an M&S advert. They hire an agency
|to create a series for broadcast. Suppose the TV companies charge ?100K
|to screen it. But on top of that ?100K, M&S have had to pay the agency
|their fees, the production costs etc. amounting to several times the
|?100K. So rapidly the 1.5% of the shopping basket reaches more like 5%.
|
|5% of most peoples annual spending comes to far more than the licence
|fee, and then many people are also conned to paying again to watch it
|through subscription and Pay TV! No wonder commercial TV was described
|as a licence to print money! A BECTU study has even put the cost as
|high as 13% of consumer spending. But there is no outcry because this
|most inflationary and hidden 'tax' is unnoticed.
|
But I *try* to buy unbranded and unadvertised goods, so reduce this figure
considerably. Like most of us I switch off during TV adverts.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [POLL] BBC funding
- From: :::Jerry::::
- Re: [POLL] BBC funding
- References:
- [POLL] BBC funding
- From: Grumps
- Re: [POLL] BBC funding
- From: :::Jerry::::
- Re: [POLL] BBC funding
- From: Grumps
- Re: [POLL] BBC funding
- From: :::Jerry::::
- Re: [POLL] BBC funding
- From: Grumps
- [POLL] BBC funding
- Prev by Date: Qs about triplexed signals
- Next by Date: Re: [POLL] BBC funding
- Previous by thread: Re: [POLL] BBC funding
- Next by thread: Re: [POLL] BBC funding
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|