|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 23, 2023 9:49:33 GMT
I am speaking about advertising agencies who do like certain target audiences.. It's a fact that advertisers avoid "certain target audiences" - but once again, that's nothing sinister. It's about money. "Can the audience of this programme AFFORD the goods I'm selling - and do they have any INTEREST in it?"If the premium advertisers thought they could shift a few units by hawking their goods on GBN, they would. You..”A-List companies don't want to be seen associating with them (It's hardly a surprise to guess how advertisers see them),” Contradiction? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 23, 2023 9:55:21 GMT
It's a fact that advertisers avoid "certain target audiences" - but once again, that's nothing sinister. It's about money. "Can the audience of this programme AFFORD the goods I'm selling - and do they have any INTEREST in it?"If the premium advertisers thought they could shift a few units by hawking their goods on GBN, they would. You..”A-List companies don't want to be seen associating with them (It's hardly a surprise to guess how advertisers see them),” Contradiction? IMO, it is dangerous to give any right-wing politic pushers any credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 23, 2023 9:57:12 GMT
You..”A-List companies don't want to be seen associating with them (It's hardly a surprise to guess how advertisers see them),” Contradiction? IMO, it is dangerous to give any right-wing politic pushers any credibility. Thank you for your opinion See2. I will treasure it. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jul 23, 2023 10:22:50 GMT
Is GB news government funded?
|
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Jul 23, 2023 10:33:40 GMT
Is GB news government funded? No. But if there WERE a government involved, it'd probably be Dubai (that's where one of the owners is registered). |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 23, 2023 10:52:01 GMT
Advertisers wouldn't be "getting them" to do anything or, indeed, setting out to "kill" them. GB News are free to conduct themselves precisely as they wish. If firms want to advertise with them, they will. There's no agenda or conspiracy at work here. I think this is a rather naive view. It is rather how the system is supposed to work, but the working assumption behind this model is that no agent/s with an ulterior motive gain significant influence. This assumption is usually a good one because it is reasonable to assume an ideological fruitcake gaining significant influence would almost certainly itself require a significant market distortion. The problem with both these assumptions is we know that gigantic and persistent market distortions have been forcibly applied and these distortions act in favour of fruit-cakery and against merit/competence. We now have a system wide competency crisis. I certainly agree that it would be very naive to believe that the Advertising Companies were free agents - a cartel would be a better description.. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 23, 2023 11:00:40 GMT
Liam Halligan is a very accomplished economist, financial expert and expert commentator. I very much respect his views over any forum keyboard warrior. He's not saying the same stuff as all the other economists I listen to. He is a politician campaigning for looser monitory policy, the very thing that screwed us up in this current time. That's not to say he does not understand economics, but he uses his knowledge to create biased opinion mascaraing as fact and then calling the rest of the industry stupid for not agreeing with him. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 23, 2023 11:06:21 GMT
I think this is a rather naive view. It is rather how the system is supposed to work, but the working assumption behind this model is that no agent/s with an ulterior motive gain significant influence. This assumption is usually a good one because it is reasonable to assume an ideological fruitcake gaining significant influence would almost certainly itself require a significant market distortion. The problem with both these assumptions is we know that gigantic and persistent market distortions have been forcibly applied and these distortions act in favour of fruit-cakery and against merit/competence. We now have a system wide competency crisis. I certainly agree that it would be very naive to believe that the Advertising Companies were free agents - a cartel would be a better description.. ..and, what is more, almost certainly using a definition of 'hate' that consigns 95%+ of the world's population to some non-trade-able 'hate group'. Market forces really can't cause these sort of lunatic outcomes. You have to steam-roll market forces quite a lot to get that sort of thing - this is Soviet-like levels of self-injuring, self indulgence. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 23, 2023 11:15:23 GMT
I think GB News have a few more pressing concerns than OFCOM at the moment. Last night I was chatting with a marketing consultant I bump into occasionally at parties. Since we last met, she's been called in to advise GBN on upping their advertising revenue. In a nutshell, it's hopeless. A-List companies don't want to be seen associating with them (It's hardly a surprise to guess how advertisers see them), and they're pretty stuck paying high salaries to their presenters on an advertising base built on mobility scooters, funeral plans, and incontinence pads. (Buying advertising there is CHEAP.) Unsustainable. A tiny Freeview channel I occasionally give some advice to (old, mainly British, movies and TV shows) has an almost IDENTICAL advertiser base, yet remains successful - they only have three paid employees, and the few onscreen presenters are paid a pittance on a session by session basis. THAT'S the way to run a channel on a shoestring. I'm fully backing this view. Yes I have noticed the same thing. They are running at a huge loss and A list advertisers will not touch them. The thing is A list advertisers are often owned by Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street. They be your brands like Coke and Kelloggs. The reason is, aside from the more obvious reasons, that Blackrock have a set of codes called ESG. If a firm fails to meet its ESG spec then it is not invested in and it dies. Investment is the lifeblood of these brands and it is one giant pyramid of ownership with these guys running the show with their ESGs. ESGs are like the TV station sitting a university exam in wokery. Now you can see the reason for the problem, but here is the real problem. The cash to run it is from politicians. This is why they have two sharks circling. They have the banks and their monthly bills shark and they have political bias and the Ofcom shark. You swim away from one shark and the other one gets you and vice versa. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jul 23, 2023 11:21:23 GMT
I certainly agree that it would be very naive to believe that the Advertising Companies were free agents - a cartel would be a better description.. ..and, what is more, almost certainly using a definition of 'hate' that consigns 95%+ of the world's population to some non-trade-able 'hate group'. Market forces really can't cause these sort of lunatic outcomes. You have to steam-roll market forces quite a lot to get that sort of thing - this is Soviet-like levels of self-injuring, self indulgence. But surely for the sake of being woke that can be ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 23, 2023 11:36:37 GMT
But surely for the sake of being woke that can be ignored. Yes. If you are an ideological fruitcake - ie an incompetent person who should not hold the position / influence you hold and would not hold it if meritocratic selection were primary. We have a competence crisis caused by government interference |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 26, 2023 15:42:18 GMT
But surely for the sake of being woke that can be ignored. Yes. If you are an ideological fruitcake - ie an incompetent person who should not hold the position / influence you hold and would not hold it if meritocratic selection were primary. We have a competence crisis caused by government interference Replacing one fruitcake with another is something GB News aught to be aware of. If you want to criticise the BBC from GB News studios you had damn well better make sure your act is perfect, which it is not. The BBC is actually less biased on economic matters than GB News. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 26, 2023 15:53:44 GMT
Yes. If you are an ideological fruitcake - ie an incompetent person who should not hold the position / influence you hold and would not hold it if meritocratic selection were primary. We have a competence crisis caused by government interference Replacing one fruitcake with another is something GB News aught to be aware of. If you want to criticise the BBC from GB News studios you had damn well better make sure your act is perfect, which it is not. The BBC is actually less biased on economic matters than GB News. I think you are probably some flavor of technocratic authoritarian, who likely talks out of his hat on such issues regularly - but, on the other hand, being wrong is what opinions are all about. The reason the BBC vs GB news is not a proper comparison is because the BBC is publicly funded and has a duty of impartiality. AS far as i'm concerned, you can take your Chinese style broadcasting regulatory standards and shove them where the sun doesn't shine - they are being miss-applied if they are being applied to political opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 26, 2023 16:12:50 GMT
Replacing one fruitcake with another is something GB News aught to be aware of. If you want to criticise the BBC from GB News studios you had damn well better make sure your act is perfect, which it is not. The BBC is actually less biased on economic matters than GB News. I think you are probably some flavor of technocratic authoritarian, who likely talks out of his hat on such issues regularly - but, on the other hand, being wrong is what opinions are all about. The reason the BBC vs GB news is not a proper comparison is because the BBC is publicly funded and has a duty of impartiality. AS far as i'm concerned, you can take your Chinese style broadcasting regulatory standards and shove them where the sun doesn't shine - they are being miss-applied if they are being applied to political opinions. Loads of people give an argument as totally one-sided. I don't respect these people at all. They end up fooling themselves and going stupid. The BBC can be right and it can be wrong, and the same with GB News. The Youtube channels I'm a fan of are the ones which are always right. I listen to variety of channels on youtube though, even ones I completely disagree with and sometimes I learn things from them too, but the main reason is to see the argument from all sides. You will notice I don't do what I'm critical of myself. For example if we are talking about China, much as I love the people and respect the government I will not try and hide the fact the have the death penalty which I'm fundamentally against. You call it authoritarian, but really what you are looking at is someone here who knows there is only one truth and the more rigorous the closer you will get to it. GB News is compromised because it is funded via political donations. It's a scam in effect, even though I support some of what it says, especially regarding woke. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 29, 2023 9:57:59 GMT
I hear the other day the Discovery Channel dropped its investment in GB News. It was said it was a major blow to their finances. You see what is going on is cross reputational damage. Discovery have their own customers and sell themselves as educational, which of course does not go down well when they invest in firms that tell lies. Reputation is a potent sales differentiator in the media market.
|
|
