Originally posted by rwingett I'm sure some other model for funding sports, or TV, or newspapers could be found. Your problem is that you seem to think that since things are a certain way, that that's how they must remain. I'm sure a society where advertising played a minimal role would find perfectly good ways of coping.
Even cable TV has ads. How do you think TV would work if there was no advertising? I'm guessing that you would not want TV to be only available to the wealthy.
Originally posted by quackquack Even cable TV has ads. How do you think TV would work if there was no advertising? I'm guessing that you would not want TV to be only available to the wealthy.
How should I know? Human beings are a creative species. I'm sure they could devise a society that did not require advertising revenues to function properly. And if they were given the opportunity to reorganize society in such a fashion, I'm sure it would have a great deal of popular support.
Again - you're thinking solely within the constraints of society as it is presently organized. There is no reason that society couldn't be organized in a completely different fashion.
Originally posted by rwingett How should I know? Human beings are a creative species. I'm sure they could devise a society that did not require advertising revenues to function properly. And if they were given the opportunity to reorganize society in such a fashion, I'm sure it would have a great deal of popular support.
Again - you're thinking solely within the constraints of socie ...[text shortened]... ed. There is no reason that society couldn't be organized in a completely different fashion.
Of course society could be organized in a different way. But it has evolved this way. If a major proposal like banning advertising were to be taken seriously one would want to know (1) how it might be better and (2) how we plan to deal with the inevitable negative effects. Your willingness to make sweeping changes but not address the definite negatives of change is one of the biggest problems found in government today. Of course there would be popular support for TV without ads but how to you expect to get product if there is no revenue?
Originally posted by quackquack Of course there would be popular support for TV without ads but how to you expect to get product if there is no revenue?
Here in SA, there is expensive satellite tv, free satellite tv, and tv licence and advert supported terrestrial tv.
Most of the free satellite channels are pushing something (religion, propaganda).
Interestingly, paid for satellite TV spends a lot of time advertising themselves.
I think TV could be supported by being paid for directly either via a tax system or a flat licence fee. It does not require adverts.
Originally posted by quackquack Advertsing is an industry. It creates jobs and tax revenue directly and for the firm advertising.
And I am generally against useless industry. It stupid to get a whole lot of people employed doing nothing just to 'create jobs and tax revenue'. Why not stick with social grants, it is just as productive if not more so as they still have free time to do something else.
Similarly, I am all in favour of more efficient distribution systems rather than employing half the nation as traders.(as in small shops).
Originally posted by twhitehead And I am generally against useless industry. It stupid to get a whole lot of people employed doing nothing just to 'create jobs and tax revenue'. Why not stick with social grants, it is just as productive if not more so as they still have free time to do something else.
Similarly, I am all in favour of more efficient distribution systems rather than employing half the nation as traders.(as in small shops).
Banning a whole industry is a radical suggestion. It is really radical when the industry is lucrative and we the economy is so desperate for money that huge segments are pushing for stimulus projects that aren't ever as good as a working industry. We don't ban cigarettes or alcohol yet you are against advertising.
Why are you convinced advertising is even bad. Normally free speach is considered a positive (not a negative) yet you want to deny companies from having the opportunity to pay to speak to the public. Why?
In the US people already pay a fairly significant fee for cable and there are still as many ads as free TV. I don't think people could afford TV if there were no ads.
There will be no social grants for most shows. People like watching ball games or their favorite weekly show. Advertising makes this possible.
Originally posted by FMF Do you think, for example, that tobacco companies should be permitted to deliberately target children?
Well, the sale of tobacco products to children is generally speaking outlawed in the western world, so any marketing tactics employed to attract child customers would be by extension prohibited. This doesn't mean that companies selling products which are actually accessible to children, or that children can legally purchase, should be subjected to any ban, determining what kind of marketing practices they can legally engage in.
Originally posted by generalissimo Well, the sale of tobacco products to children is generally speaking outlawed in the western world, so any marketing tactics employed to attract child customers would be by extension prohibited. This doesn't mean that companies selling products which are actually accessible to children, or that children can legally purchase, should be subjected to any ban, determining what kind of marketing practices they can legally engage in.
So we have established at least one significant example of the protection of children from commercial activity - in this instance the marketing and sale of tobacco - not being left to the parents, but being the subject of government intervention instead.
Originally posted by FMF So we have established at least one significant example of the protection of children from commercial activity - in this instance the marketing and sale of tobacco - not being left to the parents, but being the subject of government intervention instead.
Once the left wins this argument and further regulates business not to market to children, what is next FMF? How about the elderly? How about people with low IQ's?
What a wonderful world it would be if government could simply regulate away all the bad folk.
"I'm melting, I'm melting, what a world, what a world!!" 😵
Originally posted by whodey Once the left wins this argument and further regulates business not to market to children, what is next FMF? How about the elderly? How about people with low IQ's?
What a wonderful world it would be if government could simply regulate away all the bad folk.
"I'm melting, I'm melting, what a world, what a world!!" 😵
So you think tobacco companies should be able to market their products to children under 10?
Originally posted by FMF So we have established at least one significant example of the protection of children from commercial activity - in this instance the marketing and sale of tobacco - not being left to the parents, but being the subject of government intervention instead.
This isn't at all to do with tobacco specifically, this has to do with marketing and the existing body of laws- there's no real justification for your assumption that the the current regulations pertaining to buying and selling of products are suddenly all irrelevant when it comes to advertizing or the ban of certain types of advertizing. So no, we haven't "established" anything, we're only considering this proposal of yours with a little more regard for context.
Originally posted by FMF It seems you think the OP implies a proposed blanket ban on everything. It was not intended that way. Well, let's start with cigarettes. See if we agree on that.
Either ban the product altogether, or forget banning the advertising. That is the ultimate in hypocricy to take the taxes on a product, but ban advertising.
Banning the product may carry with it the prospect of a black market.
Originally posted by quackquack What about indirect advertising? Some beverage companies pay for things like (the school's track) in exchange for selling their line of product.
Where is the line drawn between good and bad beverages. Gatoraide, Powerade? Tea drinks? Who is to judge?
Ban Marketing That Targets Children Under 10?
13 Oct '11 16:04
Back to Top