Call for bicycles to be licensed
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Wiltshire gang jailed for 'half UK's caravan thefts'
Next: Compare the Market dot com are pants.
From: JNugent on 14 Mar 2010 11:10 Adrian wrote: > Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk>: >>> Well, if the "Road Fund Licence" isn't a tax perhaps you could tell me >>> what it is. Much the same as the BBC "Licence" Fee, it is a tax, pure >>> and simple, which does not take into account the ability to pay. >> It's not _quite_ as bad as the TV Licence. You at least have the option >> of buying a smaller car and paying less, or even nothing. Smaller TV's >> don't hack it :-( > Umm, you won't die without a TV, y'know. > 'course, you could try to go without paying anything towards the cost of > the commercial TV channels. That'd be quite an achievement, b'sides the > subtle detail that the average household pays many times the TV licence > cost towards those commercial TV channels - even before you count > subscriptions to pay channels & services. That is an old chestnut, based, I'm sorry to have to say, partly on the "it stands to reason" school of philosophy, and partly on the "zero sum" fallacy, cited so memorably by Karl Marx: "One man's profit is another man's loss". Advertising - of all media types - is something which allows industry and commerce to operate more efficiently and more cost-effectively than it would be able to do without it (otherwise, they wouldn't do it). It fosters competition and keeps prices down, not up. Just think of the most massive increase in the reach of advertising ever: the internet, and its effects. OK, it doesn't reach every last market; but the ones it has reached have become more competitive. If advertising were completely banned, it is not at all apparent that prices would fall or stay stable. The price a radio listener or TV viewer pays for programming is therefore not to be found within the price of the product adverytised. It is the time he/she expends being advertised at.
From: Adrian on 14 Mar 2010 12:08 JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> 'course, you could try to go without paying anything towards the cost >> of the commercial TV channels. That'd be quite an achievement, b'sides >> the subtle detail that the average household pays many times the TV >> licence cost towards those commercial TV channels - even before you >> count subscriptions to pay channels & services. > That is an old chestnut, based, I'm sorry to have to say, partly on the > "it stands to reason" school of philosophy, and partly on the "zero sum" > fallacy, cited so memorably by Karl Marx: "One man's profit is another > man's loss". > > Advertising - of all media types - is something which allows industry > and commerce to operate more efficiently and more cost-effectively than > it would be able to do without it (otherwise, they wouldn't do it). It > fosters competition and keeps prices down, not up. Uh, no. With that argument, you assume that advertising increases the amount of widgets purchased. It doesn't. It moves the sales from brand X to brand Y. No more, no less. People would still buy cornflakes if Kelloggs didn't advertise. They'd still buy washing-up liquid if Fairy didn't advertise.
From: Clive George on 14 Mar 2010 12:30 On 14/03/2010 16:08, Adrian wrote: > JNugent<JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >>> 'course, you could try to go without paying anything towards the cost >>> of the commercial TV channels. That'd be quite an achievement, b'sides >>> the subtle detail that the average household pays many times the TV >>> licence cost towards those commercial TV channels - even before you >>> count subscriptions to pay channels& services. > >> That is an old chestnut, based, I'm sorry to have to say, partly on the >> "it stands to reason" school of philosophy, and partly on the "zero sum" >> fallacy, cited so memorably by Karl Marx: "One man's profit is another >> man's loss". >> >> Advertising - of all media types - is something which allows industry >> and commerce to operate more efficiently and more cost-effectively than >> it would be able to do without it (otherwise, they wouldn't do it). It >> fosters competition and keeps prices down, not up. > > Uh, no. > > With that argument, you assume that advertising increases the amount of > widgets purchased. It doesn't. It moves the sales from brand X to brand > Y. No more, no less. > > People would still buy cornflakes if Kelloggs didn't advertise. They'd > still buy washing-up liquid if Fairy didn't advertise. It's a bit of both. Advertising can be used to create demand where none existed before.
From: delboy on 14 Mar 2010 15:11 On 14 Mar, 16:12, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > So what do people need a "large 4x4" for, other than as a result of > lifestyle choices? Have you never got bogged down on a muddy countryside track towing a trailer with a 2WD? I have! 4x4's were also responsible for many 'heroic' rescues in the recent heavy snowfall episodes that struck the UK. Derek C
From: JNugent on 14 Mar 2010 19:44
Adrian wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >>> 'course, you could try to go without paying anything towards the cost >>> of the commercial TV channels. That'd be quite an achievement, b'sides >>> the subtle detail that the average household pays many times the TV >>> licence cost towards those commercial TV channels - even before you >>> count subscriptions to pay channels & services. > >> That is an old chestnut, based, I'm sorry to have to say, partly on the >> "it stands to reason" school of philosophy, and partly on the "zero sum" >> fallacy, cited so memorably by Karl Marx: "One man's profit is another >> man's loss". >> >> Advertising - of all media types - is something which allows industry >> and commerce to operate more efficiently and more cost-effectively than >> it would be able to do without it (otherwise, they wouldn't do it). It >> fosters competition and keeps prices down, not up. > Uh, no. > With that argument, you assume that advertising increases the amount of > widgets purchased. No, I certainly don't "assume" that - it does increase sales. It's not as simple as saying that an adert for Rice Krispies increases sales of that product; it may also help improve sales for other breakfast cereals as well, perhaps even cereals not produced by Kelloggs. > It doesn't. It moves the sales from brand X to brand > Y. No more, no less. It does that as well. It isn't all it does. It also helps increase the sales of the category of goods of which Brand X and Brand Y are examples. > People would still buy cornflakes if Kelloggs didn't advertise. When Kellogg's started making cornflakes, no-one would have asked for them and no-one would have stocked them were it not for the power of advertising. Before the invention and marketing of branded breakfast cereals, people... er... didn't eat them. Breakfast cereals are probably a very good example of a familiar product whose very existence and success was a result of advertising. And of course, advertising breakfast cereals helps all breakfast cereals hold their market share against alternativs which might be eaten for breakfast. > They'd still buy washing-up liquid if Fairy didn't advertise. They would. But not as much and not as much of that company's product. The advertising industry is very sophisticated and well-researched. And so are its clients, though it is fashionable to express the opposite view. If the truth really was - as you imply - that advertising was pointless, no-one would waste the money. Advertising isn't pointless (though we all know that almost everyone likes to think that they are not personally influenced by it, which simply cannot be right) and it is reasonable to assume that most money spent in the industry is not wasted, subject to that Proctor and Gamble once said about half their advertising budget being a waste. |