Until an event that bankrupts them and turns their families in to the streets; just like what can happen across the Pond, when serious illness happens.
He was making the point that given the choice many people would not even pay for essential services.
He was comparing those services to TV which has been shown again and again as an absurd comparison. Those services are there to benefit everybody, not just those that can afford them.
He was comparing those services to TV which has been shown again and again as an absurd comparison. Those services are there to benefit everybody, not just those that can afford them.
No he wasn't.
"given the choice, i wonder how many would subscribe to the NHS, the fire brigade or the police force"
Seems very unambiguous to me.
You can choose to interperate it in a way to try and make your point if you wish, but it's clear as to why you are doing so.
Skys subscriptions are driven by the premier league rights. I only have sky because of sky sports. If they did not have those rights than skys subscriptions in my opinion would be less than half then what they currently are.
"given the choice, i wonder how many would subscribe to the NHS, the fire brigade or the police force"
Seems very unambiguous to me.
You can choose to interperate it in a way to try and make your point if you wish, but it's clear as to why you are doing so.
Perhaps we should ask Iain to clarify?
I choose to interperate it as the constant comparison he makes to public services that are paid for by everyone and there to benefit everyone to a service that chooses to deny their main services to society's most vulnerable.
And it is clear why I do - to show the absurdity of even mentioning 'the NHS, the fire brigade or the police force' in a thread about Sky.
I choose to interperate it as the constant comparison he makes to public services that are paid for by everyone and there to benefit everyone to a service that chooses to deny their main services to society's most vulnerable.
And it is clear why I do - to show the absurdity of even mentioning 'the NHS, the fire brigade or the police force' in a thread about Sky.
Why? Almost every country in the world accepts that TV is a vital part of their countries fabric.
Many countries have laws regulating the amount of locally produced content, knowing that TV has a direct impact and effect on the national identity and culture. Almost ever first world country has a state funded (licence fee or direct taxation) broadcaster, and they don't do that just so they can tell the newscasters what to say!
TV is a vital part of the nation. And every government for the last fifty years has accepted that.
Why? Almost every country in the world accepts that TV is a vital part of their countries fabric.
Many countries have laws regulating the amount of locally produced content, knowing that TV has a direct impact and effect on the national identity and culture. Almost ever first world country has a state funded (licence fee or direct taxation) broadcaster, and they don't do that just so they can tell the newscasters what to say!
TV is a vital part of the nation. And every government for the last fifty years has accepted that.
And what has any of that do with how many people choose to sub to Sky?
And what has any of that do with how many people choose to sub to Sky?
That old trick. When you realise you've lost the argument you suddenly say it's not relevant!
You were quite happy to discuss it when you thought you had a point.
Such as: He was comparing those services to TV which has been shown again and again as an absurd comparison. Those services are there to benefit everybody, not just those that can afford them.
and then: I choose to interperate it as the constant comparison he makes to public services that are paid for by everyone and there to benefit everyone to a service that chooses to deny their main services to society's most vulnerable.
And it is clear why I do - to show the absurdity of even mentioning 'the NHS, the fire brigade or the police force' in a thread about Sky.
But now you realise you've lost the point you suddenly say "it's not relevant"
Also, BBC1/2 get 27% of the weekly viewing share..... So 73% are watching something else!
Okay. Try this. How many channels can you get on satellite? For example's sake let's say 200. Okay?
So two channels get nearly one-third of all available viewers while the other 198 get the other two-thirds between them. So, 4% of the channels get's nearly 30% of the viewers. Any other two channels get more? NO!
I have read through this entire thread, with increasing astonishment, at our friend Steve's inability to understand the facts so eloquently placed in front of him by many other contributors.
BSkyB's expertise in covering football is without doubt the best around. Its news coverage is also very good. Its total failure in producing any memorable drama production in its entire history is remarkable.
I will simply say that Steve appears to be another of those people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Just like Rupert.
He was comparing those services to TV which has been shown again and again as an absurd comparison. Those services are there to benefit everybody, not just those that can afford them.
i wasn't comparing them at all, except in the context of :
wether or not people would voluntarily pay for something.
again, you talk about the tv licence as though its only something a wealthy minority can afford, which simply isn't the case.
I choose to interperate it as the constant comparison he makes to public services that are paid for by everyone and there to benefit everyone to a service that chooses to deny their main services to society's most vulnerable.
And it is clear why I do - to show the absurdity of even mentioning 'the NHS, the fire brigade or the police force' in a thread about Sky.
then you're completely misinterpreting what i'm saying.
the repeated mantra here is all about *choice*, and how people should have the choice as to whether or not they should pay for something.
so either the issue is *choice* or it isn't.
if it is, fine - but if it is, then that should apply to other public services too.
if it turns out that its not about choice after all, then that's fine too - but i wish people would stop going on about it, only to back peddle as soon as it becomes readily apparent that its actually not about choice.
This was a report on the cost of eyeglasses in various states in the US, some that allowed opticians to advertise and some that didn't. When states were allowed to advertise, prices went down.
This works for products such as eyeglasses, that we buy once ever few years and that are usually made to order.
Advertising made people aware of the price and encouraged competition.
With daily products like milk, Coke, beans, petrol etc we know the prices. We see them every day. We do not need advertising to tell us that brand X is cheaper than brand Z. We can see them next to each other on the shelf.
If advertising was banned then Tesco, Asda and Sainsburys would still be at each others throats because we can easily compare prices without needing adverts on TV.
The "eyeglasses example" does not apply to all products, only ones thta people buy rarely and need advertising to inform them of the alternatives and the costs.
And to me. What I don't see is how on earth its got anything to do with the tv licence.
That's because it shows your argument to be false. That's one of the standard tactics you use.
When something goes against you and you can't argue against it, say it's "irrelevant". If the comparison appears to support your argument then it's suddenly relevant.
For example, what do eyeglasses have to do with the TV licence?
That's because it shows your argument to be false. That's one of the standard tactics you use.
When something goes against you and you can't argue against it, say it's "irrelevant". If the comparison appears to support your argument then it's suddenly relevant.
For example, what do eyeglasses have to do with the TV licence?
Nothing. But you bought them up.....:D
If advertising reduces prices, that was an example.
And to me. What I don't see is how on earth its got anything to do with the tv licence.
You are correct, it has nothing to do with the TV license.
It is making the point that many people would not pay for things unless compelled to.
That may include the services mentioned.
Iain clearly explained this, I have already explained this, so why do you and others persist in trying to twist the points meaning into something else?
Perhaps because it shows the point that hendero made about voluntary subscription, which Iains comment was addressing, to be a flawed one?
As has been said repeatedly, the issue of advertising reducing or increasing prices is too complex to package it up neatly into one effect or the other. It depends on what the advertising is used for:
1 Increasing sales, in which case any fixed costs get spread over more units, probably lowering prices in the near future (or possibly just increasing margins).
2 Supporting a price campaign, in which case, the lower prices were going to be charged anyway (for a time) and the advertising cost will have been factored in. Advertising may increase the period of the price deal being available.
3 An awareness campaign for a new product, in which case there's no way of knowing what the price would have been if it was not advertised. The price of other competing products would probably have a bigger impact on the initial price.
4 Creating or maintaining a premium brand, in which case the advertising is paid for by increased prices.
Essentially, all of the above examples exist in TV advertising so it's a mixed bag. Some stuff is undoubtedly cheaper, more units of some stuff are sold, and other stuff is more expensive. The net effect is, surely, that the commercial TV companies income comes from somewhere and the bottom of the "food chain" is the household budget. (or is it their employers, or is it their employers customers !)
amazing how much better the weekly reach is than the daily reach
it is not "amazing" at all, it is just longer exposure, if you leave a slice of bread out for a day it is like to get 100 microspores on it, if you leave the same slice of bread out for a week it is likely to have 1,000,000 micospores on it.
Wow just got into this to see it's red hot.
I wish people would not confuse Sky and the TV Licence / BBC.
I watch more BBC (and Channel 4 orientated) material than anything else, either direct or through channels like the UKTV ones. So, I'm happy with paying the TV licence for the programmes the BBC produces.
I subscribe to Sky mainly because it's the best delivery system available - HD and SD channels in mostly better quality than Freeview would give me. I also like the Sky + system for its functionality and am happy to accept that I have to pay for this.
The pay for Sky v why should I pay for the licence fee argument is not the same thing.
interesting, so you choose sky not just because if its content (sports/movies/docs etc) but also the picture quality, prv features (someone said earlier they use a separate pvr but used sky+ for the epg) the baility for pause and rewind live tv - so when a probbcer type states "oooh what content does the sky channels produce in the uk" it is a little loaded question - mainly as they dont produce the same uk tv content as the bbc and because sky deliver so much more than just aggrigate content...
Comments
Without advertising everything we buy would be more expensive and we'd spend more money on fewer things.
Like I said, what's the point :yawn:
He was comparing those services to TV which has been shown again and again as an absurd comparison. Those services are there to benefit everybody, not just those that can afford them.
No he wasn't.
"given the choice, i wonder how many would subscribe to the NHS, the fire brigade or the police force"
Seems very unambiguous to me.
You can choose to interperate it in a way to try and make your point if you wish, but it's clear as to why you are doing so.
Perhaps we should ask Iain to clarify?
I choose to interperate it as the constant comparison he makes to public services that are paid for by everyone and there to benefit everyone to a service that chooses to deny their main services to society's most vulnerable.
And it is clear why I do - to show the absurdity of even mentioning 'the NHS, the fire brigade or the police force' in a thread about Sky.
Why? Almost every country in the world accepts that TV is a vital part of their countries fabric.
Many countries have laws regulating the amount of locally produced content, knowing that TV has a direct impact and effect on the national identity and culture. Almost ever first world country has a state funded (licence fee or direct taxation) broadcaster, and they don't do that just so they can tell the newscasters what to say!
TV is a vital part of the nation. And every government for the last fifty years has accepted that.
And what has any of that do with how many people choose to sub to Sky?
That old trick. When you realise you've lost the argument you suddenly say it's not relevant!
You were quite happy to discuss it when you thought you had a point.
Such as: He was comparing those services to TV which has been shown again and again as an absurd comparison. Those services are there to benefit everybody, not just those that can afford them.
and then: I choose to interperate it as the constant comparison he makes to public services that are paid for by everyone and there to benefit everyone to a service that chooses to deny their main services to society's most vulnerable.
And it is clear why I do - to show the absurdity of even mentioning 'the NHS, the fire brigade or the police force' in a thread about Sky.
But now you realise you've lost the point you suddenly say "it's not relevant"
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
So two channels get nearly one-third of all available viewers while the other 198 get the other two-thirds between them. So, 4% of the channels get's nearly 30% of the viewers. Any other two channels get more? NO!
BSkyB's expertise in covering football is without doubt the best around. Its news coverage is also very good. Its total failure in producing any memorable drama production in its entire history is remarkable.
I will simply say that Steve appears to be another of those people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Just like Rupert.
where in hell did you pluck that little gem from?
i didn't say that at all.
what i did say was that given the choice i wonder how many people would choose to pay for them.
do you honestly think that given the choice everyone would contribute towards them?
Iain
so without advertising, companies who make and sell things would be making more money than they currently do by advertising?
sounds to me like they've missed a trick....
so if i launched a new product on the market, competing with existing products, i could both charge more, and sell more, all without advertising?
Iain
i wasn't comparing them at all, except in the context of :
wether or not people would voluntarily pay for something.
again, you talk about the tv licence as though its only something a wealthy minority can afford, which simply isn't the case.
Iain
then you're completely misinterpreting what i'm saying.
the repeated mantra here is all about *choice*, and how people should have the choice as to whether or not they should pay for something.
so either the issue is *choice* or it isn't.
if it is, fine - but if it is, then that should apply to other public services too.
if it turns out that its not about choice after all, then that's fine too - but i wish people would stop going on about it, only to back peddle as soon as it becomes readily apparent that its actually not about choice.
Iain
Remember the Texan eyeglasses.
And to me. What I don't see is how on earth its got anything to do with the tv licence.
As I said a few hours ago in another thread:
This was a report on the cost of eyeglasses in various states in the US, some that allowed opticians to advertise and some that didn't. When states were allowed to advertise, prices went down.
This works for products such as eyeglasses, that we buy once ever few years and that are usually made to order.
Advertising made people aware of the price and encouraged competition.
With daily products like milk, Coke, beans, petrol etc we know the prices. We see them every day. We do not need advertising to tell us that brand X is cheaper than brand Z. We can see them next to each other on the shelf.
If advertising was banned then Tesco, Asda and Sainsburys would still be at each others throats because we can easily compare prices without needing adverts on TV.
The "eyeglasses example" does not apply to all products, only ones thta people buy rarely and need advertising to inform them of the alternatives and the costs.
That's because it shows your argument to be false. That's one of the standard tactics you use.
When something goes against you and you can't argue against it, say it's "irrelevant". If the comparison appears to support your argument then it's suddenly relevant.
For example, what do eyeglasses have to do with the TV licence?
Nothing. But you bought them up.....:D
If advertising reduces prices, that was an example.
You are correct, it has nothing to do with the TV license.
It is making the point that many people would not pay for things unless compelled to.
That may include the services mentioned.
Iain clearly explained this, I have already explained this, so why do you and others persist in trying to twist the points meaning into something else?
Perhaps because it shows the point that hendero made about voluntary subscription, which Iains comment was addressing, to be a flawed one?
1 Increasing sales, in which case any fixed costs get spread over more units, probably lowering prices in the near future (or possibly just increasing margins).
2 Supporting a price campaign, in which case, the lower prices were going to be charged anyway (for a time) and the advertising cost will have been factored in. Advertising may increase the period of the price deal being available.
3 An awareness campaign for a new product, in which case there's no way of knowing what the price would have been if it was not advertised. The price of other competing products would probably have a bigger impact on the initial price.
4 Creating or maintaining a premium brand, in which case the advertising is paid for by increased prices.
Essentially, all of the above examples exist in TV advertising so it's a mixed bag. Some stuff is undoubtedly cheaper, more units of some stuff are sold, and other stuff is more expensive. The net effect is, surely, that the commercial TV companies income comes from somewhere and the bottom of the "food chain" is the household budget. (or is it their employers, or is it their employers customers
K
it is not "amazing" at all, it is just longer exposure, if you leave a slice of bread out for a day it is like to get 100 microspores on it, if you leave the same slice of bread out for a week it is likely to have 1,000,000 micospores on it.
not amazing
interesting, so you choose sky not just because if its content (sports/movies/docs etc) but also the picture quality, prv features (someone said earlier they use a separate pvr but used sky+ for the epg) the baility for pause and rewind live tv - so when a probbcer type states "oooh what content does the sky channels produce in the uk" it is a little loaded question - mainly as they dont produce the same uk tv content as the bbc and because sky deliver so much more than just aggrigate content...
good points