k²
|
It's amazing the intent to mislead whenever the press says that so and so is going to cost whatever so many millions of pounds.
The reality is that it's not costing them anything - they just can't make their money that way anymore. You can't lose it if you don't yet have it.
It's like saying Joe losing his job will cost him £30,000 a year. No, Joe losing his job will mean that he won't make £30,000 a year from that job - he's just going to have to find another job.
The junk food industry not being able to advertise on TV is not going to cost them so many millions of pounds. They're just going to have to find some other ways to advertise their products.
*****
Can anyone say that the tobacco industry has lost much since tobacco adverts were banned? |
|
gvih2g2
 |
Well, they won't need so many hours of TV anyway because they'll be out in the street playing with hoops and digging the gardens of little old ladies to keep fit and trim in Labour's Utopian NannyBritain!
Seriously, ITV are ALREADY trying to do away with their statutory responsibilty to broadcast kids' TV programmes. This will be used as another excuse. |
|
alphacenturi
|
Cost which industry £39m?
Not the advertising industry, they will be tasked by the companies to find other and more unique ways to reach their markets.
Not the tv companies, they will just have the air time filled with something else.
The food industry? Will thousands of us stop going to MsDonalds because we've all forgotten they sell Big Macs?
It's all a crock sh*t in the argument to allow advertising of processed crap to children.
Nothing will be lost by anyone apart from the odd pound of weight by some of the many fat kids walking our streets. |
|
colin050659
 |
Thats nothing compared to the lives it will SAVE |
|
Corvinus
|
Hey, Citv is already going under.
Kids programmes will suffer a little until other advertisers can be found. |
|
Drop a heart, break a name
|
Well they might eat less junk food if they are seeing less advertisement fot such food. |
|
Peter M
|
But think of the saving to the NHS in later life |
|
Rozzy
|
Those watching them might just be a bit slimmer and more healthy! |
|
robdunf
|
I think we will see the fun out of childrens TV shows disappear, no more cartoons like he-man or pokemon. You'll see more learn this, do that kind of shows appear because they generally cost less to make. Of course they can always do the BBC trick and run repeats... yeah... Thundercats might come back on!!!
I can understand why they do this, but the bigger problem is Parents can't say no to their children anymore. They blame the different franchises for their inability to stand up to their own child. This is gonna cause grief of some other kind down the line. Can you imagine the number of people out of a job if McDonalds went bump... |
|
simonavitch
|
Kids under 16 will start to become inventive for a change.
A beer belly at 12 years is not progress.
Multiplication Tables would be a good start. |
|
Robert H
 |
Oh, sure it will!!
Because of course, no-one else wants to advertise to under 16s, do they?
I refuse to believe that there aren't large numbers of other advertisers queuing up to take those slots, after all, since the marketing men discovered the money available in this particular niche, it's a market that has grown and grown.
The industry is being ridiculous and reactionary towards a move that will hopefully go some way to reducing obesity levels in children. Hopefully, that is. |
|
| |
|
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Advertising & Marketing 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
