Just read this article:
BBC confirms plans to make over-75s pay TV licence fee
This article was linked to on twitter and many on there are saying the licence fee should be abolished and the BBC should show adverts. That people can skip the adverts or get a cup of tea, go to the toilet and so on during the adverts if they don't like them.
I think they're failing to grasp the bigger picture. If the BBC get paid for showing the adverts, then who is paying for these programmes? It'll be the ones that finance the BBC, the companies whose goods and services are advertised. So where do they get the money from? They take a hit on their profits? Unlikely, I imagine they'll increase the prices of their goods and services to cover the cost. Meaning we all pay anyway, but on average more than the license fee (as the programmes AND the adverts now need to be paid for) and we have to suffer the adverts to boot!
And to what avail? The total amount spent on goods and services is unlikely to change significantly as a result of adverts, the money spent just gets shifted to those products that are the most heavily advertised. So other companies have to spend more on advertising to compete, resulting in higher prices still. It's all just so irrational.
The world would be much better if there were no adverts on TV and we just paid for it all directly.
Edited to add (30 mins after posting the above):
Someone mentioned to me on twitter that my misgivings about adverts are met by the fact that one can have either a free service with adverts, or we can pay for the service and have an ad-free experience. He appeared to suggest that this happens with some apps on smartphones (I don't know since I don't possess a smartphone).
If this is true then we need to be aware that those who are paying for a service, rather than a "free" service with adverts, are paying twice over. They are paying directly for an ad-free experience and they are also paying the same amount as everyone else for the goods and services that are advertised. But, as I point out, the price of goods and services are inflated so as to allow companies to recuperate the cost of adverts.
Mostly philosophical topics, especially pertaining to the philosophy of mind and whether an afterlife makes sense.
Tuesday 11 June 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Ralph Lewis's Arguments against an Afterlife
I read an article by Ralph Lewis M.D entitled: Is There Life After Death? The Mind-Body Problem He attacks any possibility of an afterlife....
Popular Posts
-
Note: This response is approximately 13,000 words long. I have a shorter version of approximately 5,000 words that I have called A Review ...
-
1. Preliminary I recently finished reading The Soul Fallacy by Julien Musolino for the second time, and I thought I'd pen down some of...
-
1. Introduction Common sense holds that what has been labelled the secondary qualities , such as colours, sounds and odours, exist out there...
-
Steven Novella , an American clinical neurologist, is well-known in the skeptical community and is co-founder of the New England Skeptical S...
-
People ask what's the point of life, what's the point of the Universe, and even if there's an afterlife, what would be the point...
-
There's a new AI chatbot called ChatGPT that seems to be vastly superior in its responses to any other chatbot I have attempted to con...
-
1. Introduction I read this article a couple of weeks ago by a professor of philosophy called John G Messerly. He says: There has b...
-
Introduction: I read the following article: Why Parapsychological Claims Cannot Be True It says: The entire field [of parapsychol...
-
I read an article by Ralph Lewis M.D entitled: Is There Life After Death? The Mind-Body Problem He attacks any possibility of an afterlife....
-
Preamble The rally, or the last hurrah, which in recent years has been termed terminal lucidity , refers to where a person, typically suffer...