Life without advertising

[PyramidHead]

It's a good thing this thread didn't get political, otherwise we might have ended up sniping at each other

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's a good thing this thread didn't get political, otherwise we might have ended up sniping at each other

Yes, well, I, for one, was not "sniping" at bilby, merely suggesting that he should read up on the history of the BBC and how it evidently traded commercials for monopoly state-censorship in spite of having also produced occasionally brilliant material. Advertising is often a pain in the ass, but it's not nearly as bad as government imposed censorship, imho.

 

[bigfield]

It's a good thing this thread didn't get political, otherwise we might have ended up sniping at each other

Yes, well, I, for one, was not "sniping" at bilby, merely suggesting that he should read up on the history of the BBC and how it evidently traded commercials for monopoly state-censorship in spite of having also produced occasionally brilliant material. Advertising is often a pain in the ass, but it's not nearly as bad as government imposed censorship, imho.

You probably should have started by saying that and avoided a lot of bother.

The BBC may censor material, but it shows that good TV, including both news and entertainment, can be done without advertising.

However we don't need to look only to government broadcasters for examples: streaming services such as Netflix and its competitors provide TV without advertising, too.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's a good thing this thread didn't get political, otherwise we might have ended up sniping at each other

Yes, well, I, for one, was not "sniping" at bilby, merely suggesting that he should read up on the history of the BBC and how it evidently traded commercials for monopoly state-censorship in spite of having also produced occasionally brilliant material. Advertising is often a pain in the ass, but it's not nearly as bad as government imposed censorship, imho.

You probably should have started by saying that and avoided a lot of bother.

I did. I said:

You might want to read up on the history of the BBC

Do you not understand how linking to a source--and pointing to that source with a preface of "You might want to read up on the history of" it--is doing precisely that?

The "bother" was entirely instigated by bilby.

The BBC may censor material, but it shows that good TV, including both news and entertainment, can be done without advertising.

Who said good TV cannot be accomplished without advertising? My point was that in the case of the BBC, they evidently traded commercials for government censorship and monopoly control. Two generally horrible conditions that no country should seek or be particularly proud of, regardless of whether or not it resulted in the twentieth iteration of Upstairs, Downstairs.

However we don't need to look only to government broadcasters for examples: streaming services such as Netflix and its competitors provide TV without advertising, too.

No, what they provide is advertising for their services. Those movies and TV shows and every bit of content all serves to advertise for "Netflix."

Just stop for one second and trade "Colgate" for "Netflix." Or "Coca Cola" for "Netflix." Everything you see listed on Netflix is an advertisement for Netflix.

It does not overtly state that, of course--except for programs produced directly by Netflix--but try to wrap your head around the meta condition of a company wanting you to give them your money. How do they do that? By advertising. How does Netflix advertise? By licensing and/or creating content that serves as the incentive for you to give them your money.

You see that they have something you want, so you will give them money for it. That's the very essence of advertising.

Do you think Netflix is giving people like Adam Sandler hundreds of millions of dollars to make artistically uplifting content, Ars Gratia Artis? No. They are creating long-form advertisements for Netflix.

Get it now? Just as the British government (effectively) created Dr. Who and Monty Python and the like in order to advertise themselves and the power they wield over the average British citizens. We will give you this trifle, but the tradeoff will be no talking about this subject or that subject and definitely no broadcasting of this sensitive thing we don't like or that sensitive thing that displeases our agenda...etc., etc., etc.

It is ALL advertising for something. It's inescapable. Unless you are an artist that literally creates your own content and self-publishes, but then, you would likewise be advertising.

The form it comes in is not relevant. The medium is the message. Get it?

 

[bigfield]

You probably should have started by saying that and avoided a lot of bother.

I did. I said:

You might want to read up on the history of the BBC

Do you not understand how linking to a source--and pointing to that source with a preface of "You might want to read up on the history of" it--is doing precisely that?

No--there's no way for the reader to tell what point you wanted to make by linking to the wiki article for the BBC.

The "bother" was entirely instigated by bilby.

The BBC may censor material, but it shows that good TV, including both news and entertainment, can be done without advertising.

Who said good TV cannot be accomplished without advertising? My point was that in the case of the BBC, they evidently traded commercials for government censorship and monopoly control. Two generally horrible conditions that no country should seek or be particularly proud of, regardless of whether or not it resulted in the twentieth iteration of Upstairs, Downstairs.

That's a fair point.

However we don't need to look only to government broadcasters for examples: streaming services such as Netflix and its competitors provide TV without advertising, too.

No, what they provide is advertising for their services. Those movies and TV shows and every bit of content all serves to advertise for "Netflix."

Just stop for one second and trade "Colgate" for "Netflix." Or "Coca Cola" for "Netflix." Everything you see listed on Netflix is an advertisement for Netflix.


It does not overtly state that, of course--except for programs produced directly by Netflix--but try to wrap your head around the meta condition of a company wanting you to give them your money. How do they do that? By advertising. How does Netflix advertise? By licensing and/or creating content that serves as the incentive for you to give them your money.


You see that they have something you want, so you will give them money for it. That's the very essence of advertising.


Do you think Netflix is giving people like Adam Sandler hundreds of millions of dollars to make artistically uplifting content, Ars Gratia Artis? No. They are creating long-form advertisements for Netflix.


Get it now? Just as the British government (effectively) created Dr. Who and Monty Python and the like in order to advertise themselves and the power they wield over the average British citizens. We will give you this trifle, but the tradeoff will be no talking about this subject or that subject and definitely no broadcasting of this sensitive thing we don't like or that sensitive thing that displeases our agenda...etc., etc., etc.


It is ALL advertising for something. It's inescapable. Unless you are an artist that literally creates your own content and self-publishes, but then, you would likewise be advertising.

The form it comes in is not relevant. The medium is the message. Get it?

You make a valid point, but Netflix's advertising is inoffensive to users. I can watch a TV show on Netflix without interruptions for ads. This is not the case with free-to-air TV, where broadcasters interrupt programs to broadcast ads and superimpose banner ads during shows.

I'll grant you that Netflix is advertising to me by showing me their product, but that's not much different than saying that the local bakery is advertising to me by serving me a Cornish pasty. Advertising simply by doing a good job is benign, and doesn't have the quality of being intrusive that causes ads to irritate me.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No--there's no way for the reader to tell what point you wanted to make by linking to the wiki article for the BBC.

"Linking"? The point of linking is for others to click on the link, not simply to link something. Literally all anyone had to do was to read the article to immediately get the point, but when it became clear bilby did neither, I clarified by quoting the article for him.

My mistake for assuming an intelligence not in evidence.

You make a valid point, but Netflix's advertising is inoffensive to users.

To some. I, otoh, get incredibly pissed off searching and searching and searching for something to watch, spending so much time seeing the same shows I don't want to watch (because most of it is crap or something so outdated that everyone has already seen it several times over). Why? Because for them it's about quantity, not necessarily quality.

I can watch a TV show on Netflix without interruptions for ads.

True. The entire process is one continuous ad. That, however, does not mean it will remain that way.

 

[bilby]

It's a good thing this thread didn't get political, otherwise we might have ended up sniping at each other

Yes, well, I, for one, was not "sniping" at bilby, merely suggesting that he should read up on the history of the BBC and how it evidently traded commercials for monopoly state-censorship in spite of having also produced occasionally brilliant material. Advertising is often a pain in the ass, but it's not nearly as bad as government imposed censorship, imho.

Well your argument would perhaps not be such utterly condescending crap if you didn't have massive censorship in the USA.

And by the way, the TV licence (and it's precursor, the radio licence) pay for the BBC. This is not a tax imposed on people whether they like the programming or not - If you don't want to own a TV, you don't have to pay for the programs.

And linking to a very long article that mentions your actual point in amongst dozens of other points is NOT making your point. How the FUCK was I supposed to know that your beef was with what you consider unacceptable government censorship, and not with some other personal bugbear of yours? For all I knew, you wanted to argue that as the BBC began as a radio broadcaster, it wasn't really a TV corporation.

Sure, that would have been a dumb argument to try to make. But so is the argument that censorship on the BBC is somehow worse than on US commercial television. I can't read your mind and work out what idiocy you have gleaned from a rather large wikipedia article.

Perhaps you should read up on human history. There's a really compelling implied point in there that makes a superb argument; I will leave it up to you to work out to what I am referring.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well your argument would perhaps not be such utterly condescending crap if you didn't have massive censorship in the USA.

Moral censorship, not government censorship of opposing political views.

And by the way, the TV licence (and it's precursor, the radio licence) pay for the BBC.

Yes, I know.

This is not a tax imposed on people whether they like the programming or not - If you don't want to own a TV, you don't have to pay for the programs.

Iow, it's a tax imposed on people whether they like the programming or not, with the only option being don't own a TV instead of exercise your power as a consumer/audience member to determine what programming will be crafted to keep you coming back for more.

In Britain, the audience had no say in what was presented. Indeed, what was popular--as the article begins with--was deliberately banned in favor of a "we know best" arrogance and established monopoly. In America, we effectively vote for what we want by the extent to which we watch or don't watch. Programmers follow the audience, not the other way around.

It has its problems, certainly, but the POINT was that so does the BBC's approach.

How the FUCK was I supposed to know that your beef was with what you consider unacceptable government censorship

By doing as I suggested you do and read up on the history of the BBC in the article I linked to for that expressed purpose, which clearly and unmistakably was all about the extensive government censorship, which is prima facie bad, not merely what I "consider unacceptable."

And then after you stuffed your strawman and I reiterated that you should read the article I linked to.

And then again after I had to quote the article at length to walk you fucking through it like a cheese eating school boy.

But so is the argument that censorship on the BBC is somehow worse than on US commercial television.

It is. Far, far worse. We censor certain swear words and nipples. The BBC to this day censors political thought and criticism!

I can't read your mind

I didn't ask you to. I suggested you read up on the history of the BBC ffs and then gave you the link to that history that was all about the government imposed censorship and monopoly stronghold over the BBC that was a deliberate and direct result of providing commercial free programming! A brain dead five year old could have figured it out by just reading the article, but when you still couldn't, I then spelled it out for you and now, thanks entirely to you and this monstrous stupidity of yours, we have you thinking you're somehow the wronged party.

Don't worry, I will never again give you the benefit of the doubt to be an intelligent individual capable of discerning the central thesis of an article whose central thesis is repeated clearly and in depth throughout the entire article, as the extensive quoting I had to subsequently provide--in response to you asking me why--unmistakably demonstrates.

You need to have everything spelled out in big EZ 2 READ TYPE and clicking on a link that SPELLS EVERYTHING OUT FOR YOU is not something you are capable of handling on your own and even then--after it is literally spelled out to you--you STILL get it wrong.

Got it!

Fucking hell.

 

[bilby]

Moral censorship, not government censorship of opposing political views.



Yes, I know.

This is not a tax imposed on people whether they like the programming or not - If you don't want to own a TV, you don't have to pay for the programs.

Iow, it's a tax imposed on people whether they like the programming or not, with the only option being don't own a TV instead of exercise your power as a consumer/audience member to determine what programming will be crafted to keep you coming back for more.

In Britain, the audience had no say in what was presented. Indeed, what was popular--as the article begins with--was deliberately banned in favor of a "we know best" arrogance and established monopoly. In America, we effectively vote for what we want by the extent to which we watch or don't watch. Programmers follow the audience, not the other way around.

It has its problems, certainly, but the POINT was that so does the BBC's approach.

How the FUCK was I supposed to know that your beef was with what you consider unacceptable government censorship

By doing as I suggested you do and read up on the history of the BBC in the article I linked to for that expressed purpose, which clearly and unmistakably was all about the extensive government censorship, which is prima facie bad, not merely what I "consider unacceptable."

And then after you stuffed your strawman and I reiterated that you should read the article I linked to.

And then again after I had to quote the article at length to walk you fucking through it like a cheese eating school boy.

But so is the argument that censorship on the BBC is somehow worse than on US commercial television.

It is. Far, far worse. We censor certain swear words and nipples. The BBC to this day censors political thought and criticism!

I can't read your mind

I didn't ask you to. I suggested you read up on the history of the BBC ffs and then gave you the link to that history that was all about the government imposed censorship and monopoly stronghold over the BBC that was a deliberate and direct result of providing commercial free programming! A brain dead five year old could have figured it out by just reading the article, but when you still couldn't, I then spelled it out for you and now, thanks entirely to you and this monstrous stupidity of yours, we have you thinking you're somehow the wronged party.

Don't worry, I will never again give you the benefit of the doubt to be an intelligent individual capable of discerning the central thesis of an article whose central thesis is repeated clearly and in depth throughout the entire article, as the extensive quoting I had to subsequently provide--in response to you asking me why--unmistakably demonstrates.

You need to have everything spelled out in big EZ 2 READ TYPE and clicking on a link that SPELLS EVERYTHING OUT FOR YOU is not something you are capable of handling on your own and even then--after it is literally spelled out to you--you STILL get it wrong.

Got it!

Fucking hell.

OK - so your entire reason for chipping in was that despite agreeing completely with everything I said, you felt that I should be unhappy with using the BBC as an example of advertising-free television, because of your completely irrelevant opinions about moral censorship.

I sincerely apologise for my idiotic failure to grasp that you were making an off-topic point, that was so obviously important that it need only be hinted at, in order to show me the error of my ways in wanting to discuss something other than your preferred subject matter in my thread.

Thank you so much for the massively pointless condescending pile of stinking bullshit; It's certainly made everyone aware of just how important your preferred topic of conversation is over that of the thread. I am sure everyone thinks you are ever so smart.

Now could you kindly either return to the topic, or fuck off. Thanks.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

OK - so your entire reason for chipping in

Was because you were glorifying the BBC's history of commercial-free programming in spite of the fact that there was a much darker trade-off involved in that history, which is entirely relevant to the thread, so stop acting like a fucking child.

 

[bilby]

OK - so your entire reason for chipping in

Was because you were glorifying the BBC's history of commercial-free programming in spite of the fact that there was a much darker trade-off involved in that history, which is entirely relevant to the thread, so stop acting like a fucking child.

I wasn't glorifying anything, so take your derail and your condescending attitude and shove them back up your arse.

It remains a fact that TV can and does exist without being a vehicle for advertising. Making your original point wrong, in a way that your pathetic derail cannot mask.

It would have been much easier for you to just say "Sorry, I was wrong". Or even "Sorry, I was only thinking about the USA, and not the wider world".

But instead you chose to be an arsehole rather than admit to the slightest error.

I would suggest that your accusation of childishness contains a very large element of projection.

 

[PyramidHead]

Did you guys know that Cuba has large and beautiful murals depicting national solidarity and hope for the future on its buildings and billboards instead of Pepsi advert--oops, my bad, I wouldn't want this thread to devolve into hostility and namecalling

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

OK - so your entire reason for chipping in

Was because you were glorifying the BBC's history of commercial-free programming in spite of the fact that there was a much darker trade-off involved in that history, which is entirely relevant to the thread, so stop acting like a fucking child.

I wasn't glorifying anything, so take your derail and your condescending attitude and shove them back up your arse.

YOU blew this all way out of proportion and you know it. Now you're continuing to act like a fucking child because you're getting spanked for it.

It remains a fact that TV can and does exist without being a vehicle for advertising.

And the example you raised up was the BBC, which ALSO HAD A DARK COST TO NOT HAVING ADVERTISING. The tradeoff was monopoly control and heavy and continuing government censorship of political criticism.

YOU and YOU alone were in the wrong here.

 

[bilby]

I wasn't glorifying anything, so take your derail and your condescending attitude and shove them back up your arse.

YOU blew this all way out of proportion and you know it. Now you're continuing to act like a fucking child because you're getting spanked for it.

Seriously, invest in a mirror.

It remains a fact that TV can and does exist without being a vehicle for advertising.

And the example you raised up was the BBC, which ALSO HAD A DARK COST TO NOT HAVING ADVERTISING.

They also had a logo that was their acronym in slightly curved edged boxes. Which I didn't mention, because it was completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I don't frankly give a fuck if someone else wanted to talk about their logo, and a broad hint that their branding is something I don't know enough about would have left me totally mystified. Because it would have been an inadequately introduced and fucking stupid derail.

The tradeoff was monopoly control and heavy and continuing government censorship of political criticism.

So fucking what? Their programming wasn't created solely to provide a vehicle for advertising. That would be true even if the trade off were a board of directors who eat kittens for breakfast.

YOU and YOU alone were in the wrong here.

Only if by "in the wrong" you mean "completely factually correct, but not talking about something I wanted to discuss". And only if by "you alone" you mean we need to ignore your factually incorrect claim that all television programming was created to support advertising.

You are being an arsehole. Trying to steer the conversation to a topic you would prefer to discuss, while insulting me, first for not realising that you were on an off-topic rant, and then not wanting to support your change of subject.

If you want to talk about something other than the topic of the thread, start your own fucking thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you guys know that Cuba has large and beautiful murals depicting national solidarity and hope for the future on its buildings and billboards instead of Pepsi advert--oops, my bad, I wouldn't want this thread to devolve into hostility and namecalling

Propaganda is a form of advertising.

 

[PyramidHead]

Did you guys know that Cuba has large and beautiful murals depicting national solidarity and hope for the future on its buildings and billboards instead of Pepsi advert--oops, my bad, I wouldn't want this thread to devolve into hostility and namecalling

Propaganda is a form of advertising.

Pee is stored in the balls.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Seriously, invest in a mirror.

So you're rubber and I'm glue? Jtfc.

The tradeoff was monopoly control and heavy and continuing government censorship of political criticism.

So fucking what?

So that's a thousand times worse than periodically having your idiot box show being interrupted with an ad for a car.

Their programming wasn't created solely to provide a vehicle for advertising.

You're right, it was far worse. It was deliberately and overtly created so that the monopolized medium would serve as a propaganda delivery mechanism; for thought control of the nation as a whole as actually expressed by the people doing it. Their fucking motto was Nation shall speak peace unto Nation. You watch what the government wants you to watch; what the government approves of you watching--which necessarily means that any artists who want their works on the BBC must likewise change their work to reflect what is expected of them. It's fascism plain and simple.

That the trap was laced with honey instead of barbed wire doesn't make it any less of a trap.

YOU and YOU alone were in the wrong here.

Only if by "in the wrong" you mean "completely factually correct, but not talking about something I wanted to discuss".

This isn't your personal diary. You posted an idiotic comment about how marketers are out to convince people about the necessity of commercials, but don't listen to them; there are other states of affair without commercials and then listed the BBC as your exemplar, ironically missing the fact that the TRADEOFF for no commercials on the BBC was that the British people had been in the thralls of monopolized government censorship and arrogant presumptive thought control--that they were forced to pay for, no less, for the privilege--ever since.

Your example was shit and I pointed out why. Who the fuck cares what YOU wanted to discuss?

And only if by "you alone" you mean we need to ignore your factually incorrect claim that all television programming was created to support advertising.

The BBC WAS initially borne of a commercial enterprise, yet ANOTHER fact in its history that I pointed you toward:

Britain's first live public broadcast was made from the factory of Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company in Chelmsford in June 1920. It was sponsored by the Daily Mail's Lord Northcliffe and featured the famous Australian soprano Dame Nellie Melba. The Melba broadcast caught the people's imagination and marked a turning point in the British public's attitude to radio. However, this public enthusiasm was not shared in official circles where such broadcasts were held to interfere with important military and civil communications. By late 1920, pressure from these quarters and uneasiness among the staff of the licensing authority, the General Post Office (GPO), was sufficient to lead to a ban on further Chelmsford broadcasts.

A very crucial nexus point in fact right at the fucking beginning stages. Sponsored popular entertainment was banned precisely because it "caught the people's imagination" and was thus immediately feared "in official circles" and they shut that shit down. Permanently and to this very day as, once again, evidenced in the fact that no footage of actual parliamentary procedure can be used in a comedic/satirical broadcast.

You are being an arsehole.

FUUUUUUCK you. YOU started this horseshit by overreacting instead of just reading what I wrote and you goddamned know it.

And not a single thing I posted was off topic! The British government deliberately and pointedly shut down private (aka commercial) broadcasting in order to use the new medium for monopolized thought control. Once again, from the Wiki piece I linked to and suggested you read the first time you shat yourself with thread apoplexy (emphasis mine):

Mid-1925 found the future of broadcasting under further consideration, this time by the Crawford committee. By now, the BBC, under Reith's leadership, had forged a consensus favouring a continuation of the unified (monopoly) broadcasting service, but more money was still required to finance rapid expansion. Wireless manufacturers were anxious to exit the loss making consortium with Reith keen that the BBC be seen as a public service rather than a commercial enterprise. The recommendations of the Crawford Committee were published in March the following year and were still under consideration by the GPO when the 1926 general strike broke out in May. The strike temporarily interrupted newspaper production, and with restrictions on news bulletins waived, the BBC suddenly became the primary source of news for the duration of the crisis.

The crisis placed the BBC in a delicate position. On one hand Reith was acutely aware that the government might exercise its right to commandeer the BBC at any time as a mouthpiece of the government if the BBC were to step out of line, but on the other he was anxious to maintain public trust by appearing to be acting independently. The government was divided on how to handle the BBC but ended up trusting Reith, whose opposition to the strike mirrored the PM's own. Thus the BBC was granted sufficient leeway to pursue the government's objectives largely in a manner of its own choosing. The resulting coverage of both striker and government viewpoints impressed millions of listeners who were unaware that the PM had broadcast to the nation from Reith's home, using one of Reith's sound bites inserted at the last moment, or that the BBC had banned broadcasts from the Labour Party and delayed a peace appeal by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Supporters of the strike nicknamed the BBC the BFC for British Falsehood Company. Reith personally announced the end of the strike which he marked by reciting from Blake's "Jerusalem" signifying that England had been saved.

While the BBC tends to characterise its coverage of the general strike by emphasising the positive impression created by its balanced coverage of the views of government and strikers, Jean Seaton, Professor of Media History and the Official BBC Historian, has characterised the episode as the invention of "modern propaganda in its British form". Reith argued that trust gained by 'authentic impartial news' could then be used. Impartial news was not necessarily an end in itself.

The BBC did well out of the crisis, which cemented a national audience for its broadcasting, and it was followed by the Government's acceptance of the recommendation made by the Crawford Committee (1925–26) that the British Broadcasting Company be replaced by a non-commercial, Crown-chartered organisation: the British Broadcasting Corporation.

In short, you pointed out that there were alternatives to advertising, citing the BBC's history of occasionally good programming as an example. I suggested you should read up on the history of the BBC, because the tradeoff for no commercials was actually a thousand times worse than having to deal with slightly annoying commercials.

You then shat yourself and haven't stopped.

 

[bilby]

OK.

So we now know that BBC television is fundamentally all about advertising, because before TV was even fucking invented, the corporation had some sponsors for radio broadcasts.

And that mirrors are completely unavailable in the bizarro world inhabited by those who believe such tripe as a defence against admitting the slightest error.

And that my ignore list just got one name longer.

Thanks for fucking up my thread with your ego.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Did you guys know that Cuba has large and beautiful murals depicting national solidarity and hope for the future on its buildings and billboards instead of Pepsi advert--oops, my bad, I wouldn't want this thread to devolve into hostility and namecalling

Well we sure want to leave out Cuban advances in cancer research. Here's why we're indoctrinated to hate Cuba, Castro kicked out american capitalists who were pillaging Cuba's natural wealth. You know, same reason we're supposed to hate Venezuela and support toppling their govt. For fweedumb-n-shit.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Did you guys know that Cuba has large and beautiful murals depicting national solidarity and hope for the future on its buildings and billboards instead of Pepsi advert--oops, my bad, I wouldn't want this thread to devolve into hostility and namecalling

Propaganda is a form of advertising.

Pee is stored in the balls.

Nope.