Yes, people would get angry for the Radio Times, but not Children In Need. Your argument is delicately propped up on what people think is acceptable. CIN is acceptable to most people, but not Radio Times, so what's the problem?
Because both, like it or not, are BBC products or services, and regardless of whether or not people think one is more acceptable than the other, to plug either amounts to the same thing.
Quote:
If
subtle
hints towards the idea helps people to remember this event is upcoming then more people will donate. It's not something sinister to rack up sales of commercial goods, it's for a goddamn charity and your cynicism towards this is just a tad pathetic on your part.
But it's not at all subtle, these days, that's the whole damn point. The plugging becomes more aggressive every year - in between the programmes as well as in them. It has long ceased to be about "helping people remember" and now borders on pester power.
Yes, people would get angry for the Radio Times, but not Children In Need. Your argument is delicately propped up on what people think is acceptable. CIN is acceptable to most people, but not Radio Times, so what's the problem?
Because both, like it or not, are BBC products or services, and regardless of whether or not people think one is more acceptable than the other, to plug either amounts to the same thing.
But why not plug CIN on the BBC? We're not talking about ITV, Sky or Five, we're talking about the BBC. CIN raises money for a good cause, not for a company.
There's no point in me going round in circles, in that case, if you're still not getting it.
Ask yourself this, would CIN actually suffer if it was not so aggressively promoted by our dear friends the BBC marketing men? I very much doubt it. On the day, you'd go to work/school/wherever, a tin would be rattled at you and you'd happily give something. The BBC is exercising double standards in its promotional behaviour here and whether or not you think CIN is a good cause isn't the issue.
A bit like, "On a commericial channel a charity would be considered a "product" or "service""?
Since the commercial channels don't have anything comparable to Children in Need or Comic Relief, it's difficult to say how they would behave or to what extent programmes like Coronation Street would become unofficial advertisements for that particular cause. But any charity can now advertise on commercial television just as a washing powder or a fast food chain can, though they have to buy the airtime in the same fashion.
Didn't the BBC get in trouble over the Make Poverty History episode of The Vicar of Dibley?
I get your point completely and agree the BBC can take it too far - but I've no problem with it if it's done well and in small doses - and it's almost certainly a top-down arrangement, rather than the producers of Holby or EastEnders thinking Children in Need is coming up so lets do something linked to it.
Regarding commercial TV, in the past Hollyoaks have had storylines based around Red Nose Day - but based more around the fundraising rather than the course.
Since the commercial channels don't have anything comparable to Children in Need or Comic Relief, it's difficult to say how they would behave or to what extent programmes like Coronation Street would become unofficial advertisements for that particular cause. But any charity can now advertise on commercial television just as a washing powder or a fast food chain can, though they have to buy the airtime in the same fashion.
So isn't it reasonable to assume that a charity which runs an advertisement, though not selling an actual product, would still be perceived as "an advertiser" the same and therefore be bound by the same restrictions as everyone else buying airtime, including the ban on "product" placement"?
Not paying attention to that, it's a strawman argument.
tvarksouthwest posted:
Jugalug posted:
Yes, people would get angry for the Radio Times, but not Children In Need. Your argument is delicately propped up on what people think is acceptable. CIN is acceptable to most people, but not Radio Times, so what's the problem?
Because both, like it or not, are BBC products or services, and regardless of whether or not people think one is more acceptable than the other, to plug either amounts to the same thing.
No it doesn't. We are well aware that CIN is owned by the BBC but it's a non-profit organisation, the Radio Times however is owned BBC Worldwide, a profit making company. Your argument for it being "product placement" is flawed because of the logic you're applying to it.
tvarksouthwest posted:
But it's not at all subtle, these days, that's the whole damn point. The plugging becomes more aggressive every year - in between the programmes as well as in them. It has long ceased to be about "helping people remember" and now borders on pester power.
But you're still speaking as if they'll be coming around your house and taking it from your pockets there and then. Of course they won't and if it irritates you like so many countless things made after the mid 70's do then ignore it.
Forget it, this isn't an argument about if it suits the majority, it's if it suits the minority of one and a few starched shirts over at the POV messageboard.
My final word on this matter are that people are possibly refusing to consider the points I made because I have dared to attack the way CIN is promoted. I haven't said anything here I don't stand by.
My final word on this matter are that people are possibly refusing to consider the points I made because I have dared to attack the way CIN is promoted. I haven't said anything here I don't stand by.
That's fine, be a bit odd to so staunchly stand for something you don't care about. I'm attacking you not because "Oh, lookit 'im goin' an' bein' all critical about that thar charidee" as you assume but because you couldn't come back with a reasoning as to why it's not good without it being debunked.
