On 23/01/2023 05:20 pm, David Woolley wrote:

> On 23/01/2023 16:21, JNugent wrote:

>> What cost is he talking about?
>
> When he buys a product that was advertised on TV, but he did not buy it
> after seeing the advert, he would like to be refunded the subsidy made
> to ITV, UK TV, etc, that is included in the price of the product and
> went towards providing him with free of charge programmes.

He cannot have a refund of a non-existent subsidy.

Advertising keeps prices down, not up. It is part of the mechanism of
the process of competition.

> He's basically saying that advertising supported TV involves taking
> payments from the public for things they may not have wanted to pay for.

I guessed that but wanted to see him making that claim. It is totally false.

> The logic works a bit better, if the advert wasn't on a channel he
> watched, as then he doesn't even get the benefit of TV service for the
> premium he is paying for the product.

:-)

On 23/01/2023 14:29, Phil_M wrote:
> As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
> goods that I buy?

Funny how advertisers, advertising agencies and commercial radio and TV
don't like to talk about how it costs.

There seems no doubt that it is a very inefficient way to fund anything.

On 23/01/2023 17:20, David Woolley wrote:
> When he buys a product that was advertised on TV, but he did not buy it
> after seeing the advert, he would like to be refunded the subsidy made
> to ITV, UK TV, etc, that is included in the price of the product and
> went towards providing him with free of charge programmes.

I remember many years there was a newspaper article that quoted the
proportion of the cost of various items that was spent on advertising.
It was much higher on many items than I suspected!

On 23/01/2023 20:33, JNugent wrote:
> Advertising keeps prices down, not up. It is part of the mechanism of
> the process of competition.

Rubbish

On 23/01/2023 19:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> You can choose which goods to buy, either expensive well advertised
> ones or cheaper ones. You don't have to pay a fee to one vendor to be
> allowed to buy goods from any of the others.

In practice you have little choice unless you want to but poorer quality
unbranded items.

On 21/01/2023 11:25, Scott wrote:
> I tried to contact British Gas by email as I wanted to send
> attachments. Not possible.
>
> I tried to contact John Lewis by mail about a subject that did not fit
> any of the boxes in their web-based system. We no longer monitor
> this email address.

It is often better to contact large organisation via Twitter because the
Tweet is publicly visible so they often reply.

I hate the webforms that many use, I did think of setting one up and
require them to reply by it - including lots of completely irrelevant
fields and poor programming so every field must be entered in one way
and rejected if something like a space is or is not put in something
like a postcode.

On 22/01/2023 14:09, Java Jive wrote:
> I wasn't referring to a qualification, merely using a generic term to
> describe any of several possible professions.

Rather like the way that we can call someone an engineer in the UK when
he is unlikely to be a Chartered Engineer.

Applies to many trades and professions.

On 22/01/2023 15:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If 'singer' is a generic term for someone who engages in singing, why
> can't 'lawyer' be a generic term for someone who is concerned with the
> law?

Glad you did not write 'someone who can sing' as it obviously does not
apply to a lot of 'singers' :-)

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 07:38:33 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 23/01/2023 19:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> You can choose which goods to buy, either expensive well advertised
>> ones or cheaper ones. You don't have to pay a fee to one vendor to be
>> allowed to buy goods from any of the others.
>
>
>In practice you have little choice unless you want to but poorer quality
>unbranded items.
>

Unbranded goods are not always poorer quality. The choice is yours.

Rod.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 07:51:51 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 22/01/2023 14:09, Java Jive wrote:
>> I wasn't referring to a qualification, merely using a generic term to
>> describe any of several possible professions.
>
>
>Rather like the way that we can call someone an engineer in the UK when
>he is unlikely to be a Chartered Engineer.
>
>Applies to many trades and professions.
>

Similarly with the term used to refer to the driver of a vehicle
stopped by the police even if it is discovered that the individual is
not qualified to drive. Terminology can refer to what someone actually
does, which may or may not tally with what they are qualified to do.

Rod.

On 24/01/2023 in message <tqo1qd$1mcc$2@dont-email.me> MB wrote:

>On 23/01/2023 17:20, David Woolley wrote:
>>When he buys a product that was advertised on TV, but he did not buy it
>>after seeing the advert, he would like to be refunded the subsidy made
>>to ITV, UK TV, etc, that is included in the price of the product and
>>went towards providing him with free of charge programmes.
>
>
>I remember many years there was a newspaper article that quoted the
>proportion of the cost of various items that was spent on advertising. It
>was much higher on many items than I suspected!

During my study of economics they used soap powder as an example. Long
time ago but something like 10d was the cost of the product and most of
the rest of the price you paid was spent persuading you to buy it.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that
was responsible went immediately.
(Gordon Brown, April 2009)

On 24/01/2023 08:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> During my study of economics they used soap powder as an example. Long
> time ago but something like 10d was the cost of the product and most of
> the rest of the price you paid was spent persuading you to buy it.

The one that stuck in my mind was packs of disposable nappies, I can't
remember the percentage but it was a high proportion of the retail price.

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <k37dgvFmegtU1@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> The BBC can't be "sold off" because it doesn't belong to the state.
>
>> It is a private organisation with unbelievably wide and
>> unjustifiable legal privileges.
>
>> The main one of those is that it is entitled to have £159 a year
>> out of the pockets of those who watch TV, irrespective of whether
>> they watch, or even want to watch, the BBC's output. Imagine the
>> furore if it were proposed that The Sun or the Daily Telegraph
>> should have an analogous privilege.
>
>> The BBC needs to be stripped of the ability to pick pockets and
>> should sink or swim on its own merits. If it's as great as its
>> supporters claim (and I do not claim that it is not excellent), it
>> will have no difficulty in raising revenue via voluntary
>> subscription.
>
>> Anyone opposing that is actually admitting that people are being
>> forced to pay for what they don't want (the BBC). And there can be
>> no justification for that. Those who want to pay Amazon, Netflix,
>> Disney+, etc, and to watch ITV, C4 and C5 free of charge, should be
>> allowed to do so without being forced to subsidise the preferences
>> of others as a condition of consuming their own choice(s) of
>> provider.

> Thank you.

> A well written solid argument.
> +1

> Bob.

WHS

--
Spike

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 07:38:33 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 23/01/2023 19:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> You can choose which goods to buy, either expensive well advertised
>>> ones or cheaper ones. You don't have to pay a fee to one vendor to be
>>> allowed to buy goods from any of the others.
>>
>>
>> In practice you have little choice unless you want to but poorer quality
>> unbranded items.
>>
>
> Unbranded goods are not always poorer quality. The choice is yours.
>
> Rod.
>

Little choice. Even the likes of Aldi advertise on the TV as do almost
every other supermarket.

On 24/01/2023 15:52, Tweed wrote:
> Little choice. Even the likes of Aldi advertise on the TV as do almost
> every other supermarket.

You have to got to the really cheap and nasty shops to find a lot of
unbranded stuff.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:57:16 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
>
>>> An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
>>> devolution in Scotland and Wales.
>>
>> What effect?  Both have their own channels opting out from network. They
>> do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to
>> be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.
>
>They don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".
>
>That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional
>and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is
>possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of
>postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and
>allocation.
>
>> The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
>> for local viewing.
>
>I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
>magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
>Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
>time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of
>those over the years).

My impression is that STV (North and Central) produce more local news
than ITV when you take into account the STV late news and Scotland
Tonight. .
>
>The same will be true of the former HTV's Welsh studios.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 15:55:24 +0000, Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:

>On 23/01/2023 at 14:29, Phil_M wrote:
>> As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
>> goods that I buy?
>>
>Good one.

No I think you should pay extra since without advertising sales would
fall and the unit cost of each item would increase :-)

On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 15:12:29 +0000 (GMT), charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

>In article <k37djrFmegtU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
><jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 21/01/2023 11:19 am, Scott wrote:
>> > On 21 Jan 2023 11:12:37 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqggoh$2ilrk$1@dont-email.me> Wilf wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 21/01/2023 at 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Has anybody here ever had a complaint about the BBC upheld?
>> >>>> Christian Fraser said on a news programme a few days ago that the UK
>> >>>> doesn't have a constitution. I complained and pointed out we are one
>> >>>> of the oldest democracies in the world, that we house the Mother of
>> >>>> Parliaments, and our constitution is one of the oldest in the world.
>> >>>> I got the usual bland reply telling me they had watched a recording
>> >>>> and then tried to put it into a context where it would be a true
>> >>>> statement, although they didn't deny it was what he said.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> And that's a reason for destroying a world-recognised and acclaimed
>> >>> British institution?
>> >>
>> >> One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main
>> >> one, if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
>> >
>> > Selective reporting Cult of the personality Populist presentational
>> > style
>> >
>> > I believe in plurality of sources but I wouldn't abolish the BBC though.
>
>> Neither would I.
>
>> Just the compulsory nature of the BBC subscription.
>
>The "Compulsory BBC Subscription" is the result of Parliament, not the BBC
>itself.
Yes it is, hence the use of the word 'compulsory' (meaning required by
law). I am sure everyone reading this group is fully aware that
Parliament makes, amends and repeals laws with no need to have it
pointed out.

On 24/01/2023 16:21, Scott wrote:
> No I think you should pay extra since without advertising sales would
> fall and the unit cost of each item would increase 😄

They always claim that but didn't the ITV strike, years ago, have little
effect on sales.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 15:55:24 +0000, Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 23/01/2023 at 14:29, Phil_M wrote:
>>> As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
>>> goods that I buy?
>>>
>> Good one.
>
> No I think you should pay extra since without advertising sales would
> fall and the unit cost of each item would increase :-)
>

So you mean watching telly makes things cheaper? Perhaps we should have a
national campaign to do this to beat inflation :)

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:19:54 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 15:55:24 +0000, Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/01/2023 at 14:29, Phil_M wrote:
>>>> As I don't watch adverts, can I deduct the cost of advertising from the
>>>> goods that I buy?
>>>>
>>> Good one.
>>
>> No I think you should pay extra since without advertising sales would
>> fall and the unit cost of each item would increase :-)
>>
>
>So you mean watching telly makes things cheaper? Perhaps we should have a
>national campaign to do this to beat inflation :)

Or as an exercise in population control :-)

On 24/01/2023 07:37 am, MB wrote:

> On 23/01/2023 20:33, JNugent wrote:

>> Advertising keeps prices down, not up. It is part of the mechanism of
>> the process of competition.

> Rubbish

What a well-researched and totally-convincing rebuttal.

When are you going to explain Einstein's General Theory for us?

On 24/01/2023 04:20 pm, Scott wrote:

> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
>
>>>> An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
>>>> devolution in Scotland and Wales.
>
>>> What effect?  Both have their own channels opting out from network. They
>>> do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to
>>> be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.
>
>> They don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".
>> That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional
>> and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is
>> possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of
>> postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and
>> allocation.
>
>>> The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
>>> for local viewing.
>
>> I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
>> magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
>> Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
>> time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of
>> those over the years).
>
> My impression is that STV (North and Central) produce more local news
> than ITV when you take into account the STV late news and Scotland
> Tonight. .

There is late night local news on ITV. And a half-hour local news
magazine 18:00 - 18:30, Mon - Friday.
>>
>> The same will be true of the former HTV's Welsh studios.
>

On 24/01/2023 04:51 pm, MB wrote:

> On 24/01/2023 16:21, Scott wrote:

>> No I think you should pay extra since without advertising sales would
>> fall and the unit cost of each item would increase 😄

> They always claim that but didn't the ITV strike, years ago, have little
> effect on sales.

TV advertising is not the only fruit.

It never was.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 18:07:37 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:

>On 24/01/2023 04:20 pm, Scott wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2023 11:18 pm, MB wrote:
>>>> On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
>>
>>>>> An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
>>>>> devolution in Scotland and Wales.
>>
>>>> What effect?  Both have their own channels opting out from network. They
>>>> do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is to
>>>> be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.
>>
>>> They don't have ANY income direct from "licence income".
>>> That all goes to the BBC's head office and is doled out to its regional
>>> and local outposts (including local radio) by that head office. It is
>>> possible that HQ might allocate "the licence fee collected in respect of
>>> postcodes XXXXX to ZZZZZ", but that would still be a HQ decision and
>>> allocation.
>>
>>>> The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
>>>> for local viewing.
>>
>>> I expect the STV / Grampian produce as much local news and news
>>> magazine-type programming as any English former franchise area (eg,
>>> Anglia, Meridian, Tyne-Tees) does, plus in the case of STV from time to
>>> time, a bit of stuff for the network ("Taggart" is the most obvious of
>>> those over the years).
>>
>> My impression is that STV (North and Central) produce more local news
>> than ITV when you take into account the STV late news and Scotland
>> Tonight. .
>
>There is late night local news on ITV. And a half-hour local news
>magazine 18:00 - 18:30, Mon - Friday.
>>>
As far as I can see, ITV London has late night news from 10:30-10:45
(15 minutes). STV has STV News at 10:30-10:40 then Scotland Tonight
at 10:40-11:05 (total 35 minutes).

>>> The same will be true of the former HTV's Welsh studios.
>>