On 21/05/2021 18:30, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:OCY6RDarX5pgFAz5@perry.uk...
>>>> The whole concept of selling space on the back of a ticket for advertising
>>>> stinks. FFS, I do *not* want to be forcibly advertised at, everywhere in
>>>> life. The best advert is one that you can ignore or look at depending on
>>>> whether you want to buy a product, as opposed to one that is rammed down
>>>> your throat.
>>>
>>> Are you prepared to pay higher ticket prices as a result? And as we
>>> apparently live in a democracy, what does the rest of the ravelling public
>>> think about this.
>>
>> OK, let them carry advertising but print it in invisible ink ;-)
>>
>>
>> I know that the only way to get lower prices is to subsidise with
>> advertising. Doesn't make it much more palatable, though.
>>
>> The problem is that advertising is starting to become more and more
>> pervasive, with the distinction between advertising and
>> editorial/articles/programmes becoming ever more blurred.
>>
>> In printed form, that means pages which are not entirely article or else
>> entirely advert(s), but instead have a mix of article and adverts.
>>
>
> More annoying are the adverts which look and feel like a news article.
>
>> On TV it's ever more of a screen hour being devoted to adverts (in the
>> pre-1990s, a "1-hour" programme was 52 minutes; now it's 46 minutes) and an
>> additional break (as opposed to the same number of breaks, but each a bit
>> longer), and breaks *within* programmes being longer than the ones *between*
>> programmes. It all makes it harder and harder for people to avoid being
>> advertised at.
>
> Tom Scott has an excellent feature on this; starting at 6:14
> <https://youtu.be/m__OZ3ZsO4Y>
>
> I rarely watch "live" TV (C4 news for several months during the early part
> of the pandemic being the notable exception; and even that often ended up
> being paused); anything recorded (or paused) gets fast-forwarded over the
> adverts. I think advertisers are becoming wise to this and including text
> large enough that even on 30x speed you know what the product is!
>
> Most annoying whilst fast-forwarding, is the adverts is the ones which are
> styled look like the programme which it’s shown in the middle of!
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>

What annoys me is that so many ads. are totally "naff".

Anything with a loud-mouthed wally yelling at me and/or pretending to be
an animal tends to convince me that what they are trying to sell is
probably just as rubbishy as their adverts.

In message <s8omj8$ht7$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:58:00 on Thu, 27 May
2021, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:

>> I rarely watch "live" TV (C4 news for several months during the
>>early part of the pandemic being the notable exception; and even that
>>often ended up being paused); anything recorded (or paused) gets
>>fast-forwarded over the adverts. I think advertisers are becoming
>>wise to this and including text large enough that even on 30x speed
>>you know what the product is!

>> Most annoying whilst fast-forwarding, is the adverts is the ones
>>which are styled look like the programme which it’s shown in the
>>middle of!

>> Anna Noyd-Dryver

>What annoys me is that so many ads. are totally "naff".
>
>Anything with a loud-mouthed wally yelling at me and/or pretending to
>be an animal tends to convince me that what they are trying to sell is
>probably just as rubbishy as their adverts.

You aren't their target market (nor am I), so they don't care!
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aPQvSlgcqKsgFAJ4@perry.uk...
> In message <s8omj8$ht7$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:58:00 on Thu, 27 May 2021,
> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> I rarely watch "live" TV (C4 news for several months during the early
>>> part of the pandemic being the notable exception; and even that often
>>> ended up being paused); anything recorded (or paused) gets
>>> fast-forwarded over the adverts. I think advertisers are becoming wise
>>> to this and including text large enough that even on 30x speed you know
>>> what the product is!
>
>>> Most annoying whilst fast-forwarding, is the adverts is the ones which
>>> are styled look like the programme which it’s shown in the middle of!

That's why it is essential that UK broadcasters retain the convention of a
"break bumper" - a caption saying "End of Part 1" and "Part 2" which clearly
demarcates the programmes from the adverts. Interesting that round about the
time of the increased from 2 breaks to 3 breaks within a 1-hour programme,
the habit of numbering the parts disappeared so you just get a caption with
the programme's name, and not an indication of which break it is.

The really insidious nasty habit (and I'm surprised Ofcom allow it) is an
advert for a promotion that is related to the programme (eg a travel
programme that has an advert for a holiday), and on Channel Five that is
*within* the programme (ie just before the break bumper instead of just
after). And that is a seamless transition, without even an "Advert" DOG.

>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>>What annoys me is that so many ads. are totally "naff".
>>
>>Anything with a loud-mouthed wally yelling at me and/or pretending to be
>>an animal tends to convince me that what they are trying to sell is
>>probably just as rubbishy as their adverts.
>
> You aren't their target market (nor am I), so they don't care!

I am not an advertiser's target market for the simple that I bitterly resent
being advertised at which I see as pestering when I'm trying to do something
else. I'm also very bad at relating brand names to adverts, so an advert for
X's oven chips *may* make me buy chips - but maybe those made by Y.

Advertising is a necessary evil on commercial TV and in commercial
magazines, with the emphasis very much on "evil" ;-)

I tend to remember adverts by how/why they are annoying and puerile: "the
one with the man twerking in tight shorts", "the one with those sodding
Russian meerkats", "the one with the guy in the corkscrew moustache".

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aPQvSlgcqKsgFAJ4@perry.uk...
>> In message <s8omj8$ht7$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:58:00 on Thu, 27 May 2021,
>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> I rarely watch "live" TV (C4 news for several months during the early
>>>> part of the pandemic being the notable exception; and even that often
>>>> ended up being paused); anything recorded (or paused) gets
>>>> fast-forwarded over the adverts. I think advertisers are becoming wise
>>>> to this and including text large enough that even on 30x speed you know
>>>> what the product is!
>>
>>>> Most annoying whilst fast-forwarding, is the adverts is the ones which
>>>> are styled look like the programme which it’s shown in the middle of!
>
> That's why it is essential that UK broadcasters retain the convention of a
> "break bumper" - a caption saying "End of Part 1" and "Part 2" which clearly
> demarcates the programmes from the adverts. Interesting that round about the
> time of the increased from 2 breaks to 3 breaks within a 1-hour programme,
> the habit of numbering the parts disappeared so you just get a caption with
> the programme's name, and not an indication of which break it is.
>
> The really insidious nasty habit (and I'm surprised Ofcom allow it) is an
> advert for a promotion that is related to the programme (eg a travel
> programme that has an advert for a holiday), and on Channel Five that is
> *within* the programme (ie just before the break bumper instead of just
> after). And that is a seamless transition, without even an "Advert" DOG.
>
>
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>
>>> What annoys me is that so many ads. are totally "naff".
>>>
>>> Anything with a loud-mouthed wally yelling at me and/or pretending to be
>>> an animal tends to convince me that what they are trying to sell is
>>> probably just as rubbishy as their adverts.
>>
>> You aren't their target market (nor am I), so they don't care!
>
> I am not an advertiser's target market for the simple that I bitterly resent
> being advertised at which I see as pestering when I'm trying to do something
> else. I'm also very bad at relating brand names to adverts, so an advert for
> X's oven chips *may* make me buy chips - but maybe those made by Y.
>
> Advertising is a necessary evil on commercial TV and in commercial
> magazines, with the emphasis very much on "evil" ;-)
>
>
> I tend to remember adverts by how/why they are annoying and puerile: "the
> one with the man twerking in tight shorts", "the one with those sodding
> Russian meerkats", "the one with the guy in the corkscrew moustache".
>
>

I pretty much miss all the ads, because I simply skip over them; I don't
even see them whizz past at 64x speed. But it's impossible to miss the
sponsorship bits that bookend each programme segment. So I knew not to
consider Great Rail Journeys again once it started sponsoring travel
programmes. And that goes for most programme sponsorships: I don't want to
buy from the sort of companies that sponsor TV programmes.

In message <s8qb7a$tgp$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:56:04 on Fri, 28 May
2021, NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:

>>>Anything with a loud-mouthed wally yelling at me and/or pretending to
>>>be an animal tends to convince me that what they are trying to sell
>>>is probably just as rubbishy as their adverts.
>>
>> You aren't their target market (nor am I), so they don't care!
>
>I am not an advertiser's target market for the simple that I bitterly
>resent being advertised at which I see as pestering when I'm trying to
>do something else. I'm also very bad at relating brand names to
>adverts, so an advert for X's oven chips *may* make me buy chips - but
>maybe those made by Y.
>
>Advertising is a necessary evil on commercial TV and in commercial
>magazines, with the emphasis very much on "evil" ;-)
>
>I tend to remember adverts by how/why they are annoying and puerile:
>"the one with the man twerking in tight shorts", "the one with those
>sodding Russian meerkats", "the one with the guy in the corkscrew
>moustache".

All of them good reasons *why* you aren't their target market.
--
Roland Perry

On 28/05/2021 10:03, Recliner wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:aPQvSlgcqKsgFAJ4@perry.uk...
>>> In message <s8omj8$ht7$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:58:00 on Thu, 27 May 2021,
>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> I rarely watch "live" TV (C4 news for several months during the early
>>>>> part of the pandemic being the notable exception; and even that often
>>>>> ended up being paused); anything recorded (or paused) gets
>>>>> fast-forwarded over the adverts. I think advertisers are becoming wise
>>>>> to this and including text large enough that even on 30x speed you know
>>>>> what the product is!
>>>
>>>>> Most annoying whilst fast-forwarding, is the adverts is the ones which
>>>>> are styled look like the programme which it’s shown in the middle of!
>>
>> That's why it is essential that UK broadcasters retain the convention of a
>> "break bumper" - a caption saying "End of Part 1" and "Part 2" which clearly
>> demarcates the programmes from the adverts. Interesting that round about the
>> time of the increased from 2 breaks to 3 breaks within a 1-hour programme,
>> the habit of numbering the parts disappeared so you just get a caption with
>> the programme's name, and not an indication of which break it is.
>>
>> The really insidious nasty habit (and I'm surprised Ofcom allow it) is an
>> advert for a promotion that is related to the programme (eg a travel
>> programme that has an advert for a holiday), and on Channel Five that is
>> *within* the programme (ie just before the break bumper instead of just
>> after). And that is a seamless transition, without even an "Advert" DOG.
>>
>>
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>
>>>> What annoys me is that so many ads. are totally "naff".
>>>>
>>>> Anything with a loud-mouthed wally yelling at me and/or pretending to be
>>>> an animal tends to convince me that what they are trying to sell is
>>>> probably just as rubbishy as their adverts.
>>>
>>> You aren't their target market (nor am I), so they don't care!
>>
>> I am not an advertiser's target market for the simple that I bitterly resent
>> being advertised at which I see as pestering when I'm trying to do something
>> else. I'm also very bad at relating brand names to adverts, so an advert for
>> X's oven chips *may* make me buy chips - but maybe those made by Y.
>>
>> Advertising is a necessary evil on commercial TV and in commercial
>> magazines, with the emphasis very much on "evil" ;-)
>>
>>
>> I tend to remember adverts by how/why they are annoying and puerile: "the
>> one with the man twerking in tight shorts", "the one with those sodding
>> Russian meerkats", "the one with the guy in the corkscrew moustache".
>>
>>
>
> I pretty much miss all the ads, because I simply skip over them; I don't
> even see them whizz past at 64x speed. But it's impossible to miss the
> sponsorship bits that bookend each programme segment. So I knew not to
> consider Great Rail Journeys again once it started sponsoring travel
> programmes. And that goes for most programme sponsorships: I don't want to
> buy from the sort of companies that sponsor TV programmes.
>

It's only another form of advertising. You might as well not buy from
the sort of companies that advertise on the side of buses.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 28 May 2021 12:09:33 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 28/05/2021 10:03, Recliner wrote:
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:aPQvSlgcqKsgFAJ4@perry.uk...
>>>> In message <s8omj8$ht7$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:58:00 on Thu, 27 May 2021,
>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> I rarely watch "live" TV (C4 news for several months during the early
>>>>>> part of the pandemic being the notable exception; and even that often
>>>>>> ended up being paused); anything recorded (or paused) gets
>>>>>> fast-forwarded over the adverts. I think advertisers are becoming wise
>>>>>> to this and including text large enough that even on 30x speed you know
>>>>>> what the product is!
>>>>
>>>>>> Most annoying whilst fast-forwarding, is the adverts is the ones which
>>>>>> are styled look like the programme which it’s shown in the middle of!
>>>
>>> That's why it is essential that UK broadcasters retain the convention of a
>>> "break bumper" - a caption saying "End of Part 1" and "Part 2" which clearly
>>> demarcates the programmes from the adverts. Interesting that round about the
>>> time of the increased from 2 breaks to 3 breaks within a 1-hour programme,
>>> the habit of numbering the parts disappeared so you just get a caption with
>>> the programme's name, and not an indication of which break it is.
>>>
>>> The really insidious nasty habit (and I'm surprised Ofcom allow it) is an
>>> advert for a promotion that is related to the programme (eg a travel
>>> programme that has an advert for a holiday), and on Channel Five that is
>>> *within* the programme (ie just before the break bumper instead of just
>>> after). And that is a seamless transition, without even an "Advert" DOG.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>
>>>>> What annoys me is that so many ads. are totally "naff".
>>>>>
>>>>> Anything with a loud-mouthed wally yelling at me and/or pretending to be
>>>>> an animal tends to convince me that what they are trying to sell is
>>>>> probably just as rubbishy as their adverts.
>>>>
>>>> You aren't their target market (nor am I), so they don't care!
>>>
>>> I am not an advertiser's target market for the simple that I bitterly resent
>>> being advertised at which I see as pestering when I'm trying to do something
>>> else. I'm also very bad at relating brand names to adverts, so an advert for
>>> X's oven chips *may* make me buy chips - but maybe those made by Y.
>>>
>>> Advertising is a necessary evil on commercial TV and in commercial
>>> magazines, with the emphasis very much on "evil" ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> I tend to remember adverts by how/why they are annoying and puerile: "the
>>> one with the man twerking in tight shorts", "the one with those sodding
>>> Russian meerkats", "the one with the guy in the corkscrew moustache".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I pretty much miss all the ads, because I simply skip over them; I don't
>> even see them whizz past at 64x speed. But it's impossible to miss the
>> sponsorship bits that bookend each programme segment. So I knew not to
>> consider Great Rail Journeys again once it started sponsoring travel
>> programmes. And that goes for most programme sponsorships: I don't want to
>> buy from the sort of companies that sponsor TV programmes.
>>
>
>It's only another form of advertising. You might as well not buy from
>the sort of companies that advertise on the side of buses.
>
Or governments?

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2021 12:09:33 +0100, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 28/05/2021 10:03, Recliner wrote:
>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:aPQvSlgcqKsgFAJ4@perry.uk...
>>>>> In message <s8omj8$ht7$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:58:00 on Thu, 27 May 2021,
>>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I rarely watch "live" TV (C4 news for several months during the early
>>>>>>> part of the pandemic being the notable exception; and even that often
>>>>>>> ended up being paused); anything recorded (or paused) gets
>>>>>>> fast-forwarded over the adverts. I think advertisers are becoming wise
>>>>>>> to this and including text large enough that even on 30x speed you know
>>>>>>> what the product is!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most annoying whilst fast-forwarding, is the adverts is the ones which
>>>>>>> are styled look like the programme which it’s shown in the middle of!
>>>>
>>>> That's why it is essential that UK broadcasters retain the convention of a
>>>> "break bumper" - a caption saying "End of Part 1" and "Part 2" which clearly
>>>> demarcates the programmes from the adverts. Interesting that round about the
>>>> time of the increased from 2 breaks to 3 breaks within a 1-hour programme,
>>>> the habit of numbering the parts disappeared so you just get a caption with
>>>> the programme's name, and not an indication of which break it is.
>>>>
>>>> The really insidious nasty habit (and I'm surprised Ofcom allow it) is an
>>>> advert for a promotion that is related to the programme (eg a travel
>>>> programme that has an advert for a holiday), and on Channel Five that is
>>>> *within* the programme (ie just before the break bumper instead of just
>>>> after). And that is a seamless transition, without even an "Advert" DOG.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>>
>>>>>> What annoys me is that so many ads. are totally "naff".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anything with a loud-mouthed wally yelling at me and/or pretending to be
>>>>>> an animal tends to convince me that what they are trying to sell is
>>>>>> probably just as rubbishy as their adverts.
>>>>>
>>>>> You aren't their target market (nor am I), so they don't care!
>>>>
>>>> I am not an advertiser's target market for the simple that I bitterly resent
>>>> being advertised at which I see as pestering when I'm trying to do something
>>>> else. I'm also very bad at relating brand names to adverts, so an advert for
>>>> X's oven chips *may* make me buy chips - but maybe those made by Y.
>>>>
>>>> Advertising is a necessary evil on commercial TV and in commercial
>>>> magazines, with the emphasis very much on "evil" ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I tend to remember adverts by how/why they are annoying and puerile: "the
>>>> one with the man twerking in tight shorts", "the one with those sodding
>>>> Russian meerkats", "the one with the guy in the corkscrew moustache".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I pretty much miss all the ads, because I simply skip over them; I don't
>>> even see them whizz past at 64x speed. But it's impossible to miss the
>>> sponsorship bits that bookend each programme segment. So I knew not to
>>> consider Great Rail Journeys again once it started sponsoring travel
>>> programmes. And that goes for most programme sponsorships: I don't want to
>>> buy from the sort of companies that sponsor TV programmes.
>>>
>>
>> It's only another form of advertising. You might as well not buy from
>> the sort of companies that advertise on the side of buses.
>>
> Or governments?
>

The slogans in question weren't placed by the government, and weren't
actually ads.

In message <s8rh0b$ofb$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:40:59 on Fri, 28 May
2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 May 2021 12:09:33 +0100, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/05/2021 10:03, Recliner wrote:
>>>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:aPQvSlgcqKsgFAJ4@perry.uk...
>>>>>> In message <s8omj8$ht7$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:58:00 on Thu, 27 May 2021,
>>>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I rarely watch "live" TV (C4 news for several months during the early
>>>>>>>> part of the pandemic being the notable exception; and even that often
>>>>>>>> ended up being paused); anything recorded (or paused) gets
>>>>>>>> fast-forwarded over the adverts. I think advertisers are becoming wise
>>>>>>>> to this and including text large enough that even on 30x speed
>>>>>>>>you know
>>>>>>>> what the product is!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most annoying whilst fast-forwarding, is the adverts is the ones which
>>>>>>>> are styled look like the programme which it’s shown in the middle of!
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why it is essential that UK broadcasters retain the convention of a
>>>>> "break bumper" - a caption saying "End of Part 1" and "Part 2"
>>>>>which clearly
>>>>> demarcates the programmes from the adverts. Interesting that round
>>>>>about the
>>>>> time of the increased from 2 breaks to 3 breaks within a 1-hour programme,
>>>>> the habit of numbering the parts disappeared so you just get a
>>>>>caption with
>>>>> the programme's name, and not an indication of which break it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> The really insidious nasty habit (and I'm surprised Ofcom allow it) is an
>>>>> advert for a promotion that is related to the programme (eg a travel
>>>>> programme that has an advert for a holiday), and on Channel Five that is
>>>>> *within* the programme (ie just before the break bumper instead of just
>>>>> after). And that is a seamless transition, without even an "Advert" DOG.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What annoys me is that so many ads. are totally "naff".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anything with a loud-mouthed wally yelling at me and/or pretending to be
>>>>>>> an animal tends to convince me that what they are trying to sell is
>>>>>>> probably just as rubbishy as their adverts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You aren't their target market (nor am I), so they don't care!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not an advertiser's target market for the simple that I
>>>>>bitterly resent
>>>>> being advertised at which I see as pestering when I'm trying to do
>>>>>something
>>>>> else. I'm also very bad at relating brand names to adverts, so an
>>>>>advert for
>>>>> X's oven chips *may* make me buy chips - but maybe those made by Y.
>>>>>
>>>>> Advertising is a necessary evil on commercial TV and in commercial
>>>>> magazines, with the emphasis very much on "evil" ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I tend to remember adverts by how/why they are annoying and puerile: "the
>>>>> one with the man twerking in tight shorts", "the one with those sodding
>>>>> Russian meerkats", "the one with the guy in the corkscrew moustache".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I pretty much miss all the ads, because I simply skip over them; I don't
>>>> even see them whizz past at 64x speed. But it's impossible to miss the
>>>> sponsorship bits that bookend each programme segment. So I knew not to
>>>> consider Great Rail Journeys again once it started sponsoring travel
>>>> programmes. And that goes for most programme sponsorships: I don't want to
>>>> buy from the sort of companies that sponsor TV programmes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's only another form of advertising. You might as well not buy from
>>> the sort of companies that advertise on the side of buses.
>>>
>> Or governments?
>
>The slogans in question weren't placed by the government, and weren't
>actually ads.

I'm sure I've seen products advertised on the side of buses, and not
merely slogans.

Here's one which might have inconvenienced you, back in the day, had it
triggered a boycot:

https://www.promo-advertising.co.uk/uploads/slider/bus_adverts.jpg
--
Roland Perry