World Without Commercials Response

I made a thread about if the world stopped having commercials in 2002. And people said it wouldn't work. Thing is, what if the advertisers paid for the program WITHOUT advertising? Old Spice, Coca-cola, and everything else continued to pay, but they didn't advertise? No commercials on TV. Just PSAs i guess, which would be liscensed by the government.

Growing up in Canada, it would be hard for these two psas to be the only commercials on tv for years, on a certain channel, TSN, that is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-3HOYGGtE4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrhV3QTkNyw

Someone ought to get them banned from TV sooner than they were put off the air, especially the one with the baby crying.
 
Why would they pay for it?

I guess cause he TV producers would get upset that they don't have enough money. It's like at a NASCAR race. I don't think you're interested in NASCAR but it's not like the sponsors have to put their money into funding the car. Yet they do it to be loyal to drivers.
 

Flubber

Banned
Yet they do it to be loyal to drivers.


If you think companies buy advertizing on NASCAR uniforms and race cars out of loyalty to the drivers, you're in for a rude awakening.

Numerous people, including myself, in the other thread you began on this topic explained to you how the real world works. You need to re-read those posts and try to understand them.
 
Corporations don't do that out of loyalty. They do that because they make money off of advertising, or at least there is the perception they have that their advertising makes them money. They show people the product exists, and that [insert interesting person] uses it, and therefore get people to buy the product.

Corporations do not care about anything except money, and they rarely do anything out of the goodness of their heart. They do everything to make money. The only thing keeping them from lying, cheating and stealing is the law and basic human decency in the people that run the corporation and invest in it. Even that only goes so far and doesn't exist in a lot of place nowadays. Christ, the only reason there is a pink ribbon on products is not breast cancer concern; it's because corporations know that tapping into a cause will make people buy their product thinking they're being altruistic by buying that product. Any time you see anything like that, whether it's pink ribbons or images of veterans returning home saying they'll give every 10 cents to the veterans, it's not because they care. It's because people will lazily buy the product with that pink ribbon over the other, or that picture of vets over the other because it makes them think they're being altruistic and so they can feel good. In reality, it's just a racket on the backs of suffering people.

Anyway, the reason commercials are on television is because TV continues based, partially, on advertising dollars. Old Spice doesn't give two f*cks about the Big Bang Theory. People watch that show, and then they see the product and might be enticed to buy it, and if they aren't, they know it exists and will buy it more readily than the other brand. The more people watch the show, the more people to potentially buy the product their commercial is advertising. That's the business model. There's no altruism to it. They give the channel money to put in their commercial, and then the corporation makes money because people buy what was advertised. Modern television also makes money because cable and satellite providers pay to host their channel, and in turn the customers pay the cable and satellite providers for their service to watch the channel, to watch the show, and then get shown a series of commercials every 10 minutes. Back in the day, that did not used to be the case. All that existed was network TV (NBC, ABC, CBS, DuMont, etc) and the way they made money was based purely on the advertisment people paying them to put their product in a commercial slot on TV, and paying the channel to have something like Ed Sullivan say "we're brought to you by Altoids"; they were paying the show, and paying them to say that so they'd get that notice from the public so the public would go out and buy the product. It was free for the viewer, because they didn't have to pay to see it. Then Cable and Satellite came along, without commercials and supported monetarily by people paying for the service. In time, that went away and Cable and Satellite put in commercials and still made people pay for their services. Some channels are still commercial free and based purely on subscription, like HBO.

Corporations are not in the business of losing money. They don't do it out of the kindness of their hearts. They put on a commercial, people buy the product after seeing it, they make money. That's how all advertising works.
 
Corporations don't do that out of loyalty. They do that because they make money off of advertising, or at least there is the perception they have that their advertising makes them money. They show people the product exists, and that [insert interesting person] uses it, and therefore get people to buy the product.

Corporations do not care about anything except money, and they rarely do anything out of the goodness of their heart. They do everything to make money. The only thing keeping them from lying, cheating and stealing is the law and basic human decency in the people that run the corporation and invest in it. Even that only goes so far and doesn't exist in a lot of place nowadays. Christ, the only reason there is a pink ribbon on products is not breast cancer concern; it's because corporations know that tapping into a cause will make people buy their product thinking they're being altruistic by buying that product. Any time you see anything like that, whether it's pink ribbons or images of veterans returning home saying they'll give every 10 cents to the veterans, it's not because they care. It's because people will lazily buy the product with that pink ribbon over the other, or that picture of vets over the other because it makes them think they're being altruistic and so they can feel good. In reality, it's just a racket on the backs of suffering people.

Anyway, the reason commercials are on television is because TV continues based, partially, on advertising dollars. Old Spice doesn't give two f*cks about the Big Bang Theory. People watch that show, and then they see the product and might be enticed to buy it, and if they aren't, they know it exists and will buy it more readily than the other brand. The more people watch the show, the more people to potentially buy the product their commercial is advertising. That's the business model. There's no altruism to it. They give the channel money to put in their commercial, and then the corporation makes money because people buy what was advertised. Modern television also makes money because cable and satellite providers pay to host their channel, and in turn the customers pay the cable and satellite providers for their service to watch the channel, to watch the show, and then get shown a series of commercials every 10 minutes. Back in the day, that did not used to be the case. All that existed was network TV (NBC, ABC, CBS, DuMont, etc) and the way they made money was based purely on the advertisment people paying them to put their product in a commercial slot on TV, and paying the channel to have something like Ed Sullivan say "we're brought to you by Altoids"; they were paying the show, and paying them to say that so they'd get that notice from the public so the public would go out and buy the product. It was free for the viewer, because they didn't have to pay to see it. Then Cable and Satellite came along, without commercials and supported monetarily by people paying for the service. In time, that went away and Cable and Satellite put in commercials and still made people pay for their services. Some channels are still commercial free and based purely on subscription, like HBO.

Corporations are not in the business of losing money. They don't do it out of the kindness of their hearts. They put on a commercial, people buy the product after seeing it, they make money. That's how all advertising works.

If you aren't sick of me yet, I'd just like to say that this has been an interesting experiment. It'll Makes me think differently the next time someone complains about commercials,that's for sure.
 
Thing is,people don't like commercials,so why don't more companies stop doing commercials if people don't like them? There's no perceived integrity in a commercial someone doesn't like.
 
Thing is,people don't like commercials,so why don't more companies stop doing commercials if people don't like them? There's no perceived integrity in a commercial someone doesn't like.

People don't like taxes either. Why don't we get rid of taxes? Because society would crumble since the government needs to pay for things. Why doesn't TV get rid of commercials? Because it would crumble since it needs money. TV is a business. They need someone to pay them money. Advertisers do that and have from day one. They get their commercials on air, which gets the word out or entices people, and then people go buy their things and they make money.
 
At least in Australia, the government has given away the use of public property to private entities. This gift could readily be revoked, or the conditions of gift could be changed, or the state could charge a television specific tax on corporations who benefitted from the under pricing of previous advertising.

For many years the second Government television station, SBS, ran no ads except station announcements, show advertising. I don't think they ran PSA. I'm rather certain that the first Government television station, ABC, doesn't run PSA or advertisements other than internal ones; which leaves them advertising themselves, their commercial operations, and through product placement products.
 
Top