|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
randirain Inner circle Fort Worth, TX 1650 Posts |
I agree with you gdw... it's really stupid.
The money that was used to create this act and the money that the act will cost could have gone to self employed people of the US. How about an act like that? Randi |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-05 17:33, gdw wrote: Yes and no. The FCC was "started" well before TV, but they were by and large just there to serve broadcasting companies and advertisers. The FCC didn't recognize rights of viewers/listeners until a 1964 court case out of Mississippi. Quote:
Now, you would maybe have a point if the industry was harming people with their lack of self regulations. Of course, if they were, then people would stop being involved with the industry. You don't like what's on your tv, guess what, you have the final say, change the channel, or turn it off. You don't like the ads, don't buy their products. Unfortunately, the "Don't buy the products" option doesn't do much on an individual level, and obviously (to anyone who's watched television lately) there's no critical mass of consumers with nothing better to do but organize petitions and boycotts and massive letter-writing campaigns. So, it's either 1) Don't watch the shows you like; 2) Deal with the annoyance; or 3) Actually rely on those government officials who have been tasked with regulating a particular industry to take up this particular issue. Quote:
But is it an issue of pragmatics, or an issue of principle? Either the government shouldn't be involved at all, or it should be involved "at all," and we can talk about the specifics of any particular regulation. If you're in favor of no government regulation, then don't act like it matters at all to you whether or not there was "a threat" of what would happen. Your position is simply, "Hey, if my kids are watching Saturday morning cartoons, and an anal sex scene comes up on a commercial to advertise that evening's program, no big deal...we just won't buy a Toyota, because they sponsored the show."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
The one I'd like to see is "You can't run a radio commercial that has a siren sounding."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Nom de Guerre New user 82 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-05 14:41, gdw wrote: and Quote:
On 2011-01-05 15:55, gdw wrote: I would urge you to re-read this whole thread, and in particular, pay attention to what balducci, RS1963, Randy, and EsnRedshirt have written. They have already said just about everything I would say to you in response to your question. The two things I'd emphasize are: 1. As balducci said, I doubt it should take much in the way of resources (or effort). 2. To echo what many in this thread have said, this has been a long time coming. I work on TV shows, movies and commercials (ironically), yet I rarely watch any TV networks that air commercials, and I haven't for some time now. The excessive volume level that is mastered into many of these commercials for broadcast is one of the reasons why I tend to avoid those networks in the first place. In a further ironic twist, once this act is implemented, and advertisers are forced to comply, it's conceivable that I actually might start watching those networks again. This means those advertisers will actually have a shot at influencing my purchasing habits. So, this congressional act act might prove to actually be GOOD for businesses who broadcast their advertisements by actually INCREASING viewership. This is assuming that there are others out there who feel as I do, who happen to be in desirable demographic from the advertiser's standpoint. Sometimes people and businesses have to be pushed, kicking and screaming, to do what is good for both them and the greater public in the end. |
|||||||||
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2885 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-05 17:33, gdw wrote: To you it's a "minor volume change." To other people, it's an ongoing problem that the people in charge have refused to address for many years.
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-06 06:18, ed rhodes wrote: You know, today, I discovered another problem, one which is probably MUCH more dangerous, and would take more effort on my part to fix when it comes up than this one. I think we should get the government on it right away. My dash board was fogged and frosted over this morning. It made it difficult to see how fast I was going. I could have been speeding an not even known it. Of course, I could just scraped it clean myself, but I think the government should make a regulation that there are little defrosters installed to fix this oversight. Have you yourself actually found this to be a "problem?" One so egregious that you need the guys with guns to step in to fix it? And for those that think this will not be a big deal as far as cost, maybe not for the initial use of resources for the government to institute and enforce it, though even that is still a good chunk of money that certainly could have better uses, but this is the kind of thing that will eventually affect you directly cost wise. It's not a simple matter of making sure all future commercials are withing the acceptable levels, but all the many commercials that have already been made. They will still be used, so they will have to be adjusted. This may seem like such a tiny inconvenience, but let's think about how this can go. Either way, it's going to cost money. Whether they try to do it via the broadcasters, having them adjust the volume for air, or the makers of the commercials. This means it is something that will bring up the costs of advertising, even if just a tiny bit. Just remember, this is one of hundreds of "little" regulations in just one aspect of one industry, each of which increases the price a little bit. It all adds up. It may be that advertisers are less inclined to advertise on tv, which means it will be harder to fun tv programs, which will be passed on to the viewer. Or, it could be that advertisers don't do anything, and it is left up to the broadcasters to adjust, which means, either they will want more money to air ads, which puts us back to advertisers being less inclined to go with tv, which is what we had above, or they will simply directly defer the cost to viewers again. I'm not saying there will be a mass exodus from tv advertising, that would be ridiculous, but every regulation like this has minor effects just like this, and the cost always will get passed onto you. It may only be pennies for this specific regulation, but like I said, this is just one of hundreds already done, and the many more they will continue to implement, whenever there is some "problem" like this, that someone will complain about. There's always going to be something someone will complain about. The question is, do these things really make people say "THIS looks like a job for, GOVERNMENT!" And if they do, what kind of priorities do said people have?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-06 12:03, gdw wrote: I think that this is a good idea, with respect to government intervention in many contexts. I also think, however, that if you applied the "let's think about how this can go" approach with honesty and with equal zeal to LACK of intervention, many of your positions would be somewhat moderated.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-06 12:03, gdw wrote: I'll argue it will actually save money, as the sound engineers who work on the ad will have one less adjustment (increasing volume) to make on their product. And how do you pass on the cost of watching television to the viewer, considering it's free? By the way, comparing a fogged dashboard to loud commercials is apples and oranges. A more accurate comparison would be if the dashboard fogged up at random- in which case I'd expect the manufacturer to issue a recall, or risk horrible publicity from the news. However, TV news programs don't tend to be overly critical of the people paying the bills.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
Bill Hilly Elite user 449 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-06 12:14, EsnRedshirt wrote: It ain't free here! The minimum cost is $67.90 per month because you have to subscribe to all the crap in order to get the (former) local channels. It happened when they all went digital. The frequency band the digital channels are on is not the same old VHF band. The coverage distance is about 1/4 the distance it used to be. Leaving a huge rural population no choice but to subscribe to satellite services. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
"I'll argue it will actually save money, as the sound engineers who work on the ad will have one less adjustment (increasing volume) to make on their product.
And how do you pass on the cost of watching television to the viewer, considering it's free?" Um, either way, the engineers have to adjust the audio. Mixing is quite a bit of work. Also, are you telling me you don't pay your cable provider?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
The cable provider isn't the same as the broadcaster/channel. I pay to get the box and the service. After that, the basic commercial channels are free. The only channels I specifically pay for are premium, commercial-free channels. Which don't have to worry about the volume issue in the first place.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Yes, but those costs will eventually affect your costs from the provider.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
Nom de Guerre New user 82 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-06 12:03, gdw wrote: Of the many assumptions you're making, I'll just address this one for now, since I have to run... First of all, with few exceptions, commercials have a relatively short lifespan. Most commercials run their course and are pulled from broadcast circulation within a few weeks to a few months. So, "all the many commercials that have already been made" will NOT actually have to be adjusted. Further, it is easy enough to put a grandfather clause in the date of implementation of the new regulation that would allow a grace period of say 3 or 6 months. The number of commercials still airing after that length of time would be very few indeed, if any. I'll go one further... Even if advertisers had to go back to re-master the audio portion of many of their commercials, that cost would be negligible when compared to the total money spent on any given ad, especially when one considers the exorbitant cost for the actual air time. |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Quote: So will the price of copper, since they have to use wires to build the boxes and make the cables. There's so many variables that it's impossible to look at a bill and say, "There! That $0.02 is directly caused by government meddling with advertising regulations, and I want it back!"On 2011-01-06 12:37, gdw wrote:
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-06 13:01, EsnRedshirt wrote: There's a big difference between the cost of items, and cost caused by ridiculous petty regulations like this. The point is, not the amount it will cost, but that this is such a pointless petty wasteful use of government force.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2885 Posts |
[quote]On 2011-01-06 12:03, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-01-06 06:18, ed rhodes wrote: Quote:
Oh well, you can reduce anything to foolishness if you choose. Quote:
It may be that advertisers are less inclined to advertise on tv, which means it will be harder to fun tv programs, which will be passed on to the viewer. Why? Because they can't yell at us? That would be stupid. (Maybe, just maybe they'd have to come up with better advertising to get our attention instead of just making it louder.) Quote:
They have the priorities that say; "We've tried to get this fixed for years and been ignored. Now we have to go to a central agency to get it fixed." Read an old Robert Heinlein novel. "Podkayne of Mars." At one point, the characters are on a Venus completely run by advertising agencies. It's funny, but kind of frightening.
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Why are they even bothering?
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/art......_parents It's a good point, tv commercials will likely fade away soon. Though, he very reasons they suggest this are also the very reason there's no need for this kind of regulation in the first place. Even without pvr's and the like allowing us to skip commercials, again, you still always had the power to do EXACTLY the same thing the government is with this, your freaking remote, hit the volume button. That's my whole point, did you really need government to hit the volume button for you? It's right there, just move your thumb a bit to the left, there ya go, just saved the country a crap load of money they wasted writing, voting on, passing, and then enforcing this bill. Sure, it's not as expensive as the stimulus bills, but really, how many problems can you fix by MOVING YOUR FREAKING THUMB? How much money could you be saving the tax payers by just moving your thumb if you're one of the few who really has a problem with the volume? How is this not one of the most frivolous, and selfish endeavours to endorse?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
By the time I've moved my thumb, my speakers have been blown, the windows have been shattered, and my friends have been paralyzed after breaking their necks diving for the remote.
I'm going to come over to your house and crash two cymbals over your head while you're watching TV. Don't worry, I'll stop as soon as you ask me to.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
Bill Hilly Elite user 449 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-01-06 15:57, ed rhodes wrote: Now that just makes too much sense, Ed. It's like when everyone is yelling nobody hears anything. When people hit the mute button the advertisers are losing the chance to get their message heard. Ever notice what people do when a commercial begins silently in the midst of a set of loud ones? It reminds me of a thread somewhere around here. I think it was about parents at the back of a room where the magician was doing a kid's birthday party. They're talking loudly. The magician goes silent for a bit. Everybody pays attention. But what IS creative advertising? I'd love to chat about that but I have to go out and stop those woodchucks form chucking my dang wood.* |
|||||||||
Bill Hilly Elite user 449 Posts |
* New Geico ad.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Government regulating volume of commercials??? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |