The end of CITV...?

The other major terrestrial commercial stations can show children's programming without the major influx of fast-food commercials then why can't ITV. Plus when ITV started reducing the budget for children's programming they started the increase in commercials, i.e. during singular programmes (not the Saturday Morning magazine shows) they started to shows commercials half way through. That is a practice that ITV adopted only a few years ago, so they have only themselves to blame if the only advertisers are fast food advertisers.

But we are totally going off the point here... If the ban does come into effect, does this mean that alcohol advertising will be banned from prime-time programming due to the increase of binge drinking, or pain relief advertising should be banned due to the probability of overdosing etc.etc.etc..... In other words we live in a free country where people can advertise whatever they want (in an aprropriate manner set out by the old IBA) whenever they want (again within guidelines set by the old IBA). If the banning of certain adverts at certain times begins then we are going down the road of not only a nany state, but a state-owned tv system where politicians have the final say as to what is shown or not. Do we really want that??? If anything, keep everything as it is and it is down to individual/parental responsibility as to whether or not one reacts to commercials. Has no-one ever heard of self-control????

Five are also thinking about reducing Milkshake, and Channel 4 doesn't show any children's programmes of any degree. The BBC are obviously uneffected



Indeed, and it all depends on what is classed as fast food. Is it just McDonalds, or does it include adverts for chocolate bars and crisps? Cereals like the infamous Frosties ad etc?

Around 1999, ITV inserted ads into 30-minute CITV dramas, following the relaxation of an old IBA ruling that forbade the practice. An initial 12-week experiment began in the months leading up to Christmas (surprise surprise).

When I contacted them CITV explained they had fought the extra ad break tooth and nail, fearing viewers would switch over to BBC1. Fast forward a few years and, with the extra ads now permanent, the official explanation for extra ads during CITV became "we're a commercial channel funded by adverts". I've never really paid any attention to the content of these additional ad breaks; perhaps I'd be in for a shock now I know the politics.


While I agree with most of that, the one type of advertising that should be banned on moral grounds is that for personal injury firms and other greedy ambulance-chasers.

And what are they going to show weekday afternoons where CITV is currently shown? More repeats I suppose

I still don't get this whole "let's ban junkfood ads/toy ads in kids programmes" argument. I can remember these adverts on Childrens ITV in the late 80's/early 90's & although I did used to badger my parents for these toys or wanting to go to McDonalds / Burger King if I was told no it meant no, no matter how much I kept going on or an tantrums performed because I was told No.

It seems as if all parents say nowadays is yes, then when their kids resemble hot air balloons they blame it on everyone else except themselves.

Lets not forget toy adverts & junk food adverts existed for decades without any problems. Alot of these problems seem to have stemed from the last 5-6 years.

Also have to agree with the above post about insurance/compensation ads, these are the ads that should really be banned. Also ads for Tenner Lady/Tampax at 6/7pm when most people are eating their dinner.

five may be reducing the number of hours on "five", but don't forget that they are mainly shown at breakfast time so no real competition really except with CBBC2. BUT they will be expanding Milkshake/Shake on to one of their new digital channels - so really they will be expanding their brand. Funny though that the type of adverts that the gvt are thinking of banning are not really shown during these slots!!!!

Channel 4 does show children's programmes - albeit very early in the morning (i.e. when five are showing Sky News), but they do and guess what very little advertising from so-called junk-food companies (I will stop using fast-food and start using junk-food as that is the proper terminology, so my sister says anyway!!). BUT during T4 (which is shown most of the daytimes on Saturday and Sunday), which is their youth brand, how many junk-food commercial are there??? not many. Just goes to prove that you don't need junk-food commercials to gain revenue for a "popular" brand

So...
If you have a popular brand with good decent popular programmes for any age then this will garner advertising revenue from various genres of advertisers/companies. The less choice and limited access to less entertaining programmes equates to less options for advertisers and hence one genre WILL be in the majority (i.e. CiTV = junk-fod advertisers; T4, Milkshake/Shake = various genres). Which is for the better - who has the better chance of surviving???

Who ever said that CITV only has adverts for junk food? It's just a significant part, especially at this time of year when there's no Christmas push for Toys

The junk food situation will effect revenues across children's programmes. This isn't just something ITV are going on about. As it happens Broadcast has led with this story on the front page of this week's issue, with quotes from the likes of Nickelodeon and Five

Watching the CITV Channel for a bit today, and there's already a high number of generic adverts for loans and insurance which seem to be sold very cheaply and arn't aimed at kids anyway

T4 isn't children's programmes. From what I can see Channel 4's kids schedule consists of 2 episodes of The Hoobs at 6am, which are repeats anyway

I never said that they ONLY have junk-food adverts, I said that they were in the majority.
I never said that T4 was children's, its their youth strand, just like CiTV used to be for youth as well as children

Of course there is parental control. there are the tantrums to get the junk food. Wouldn't it just make the parents life much easier, if marketers were banned from specifically aiming at children? Especially if parents are finding it harder to say no, it should be banned. Any Public parenting information should be a longer-term solution.

Some children have more needs than others. Should teh children who put up even more of a fight get fat, because they have a few difficulties, and the television has made them hell-bent on recieving the unhealthy 'taste', and why put parents through unnecessary pester-pressure.

I think OFCOM should kick out some of the English contractors, in favour of independent companies, and ban them from merging, to re-introduce competition within the channel three network.

I identify with the 'nanny-state', but I don't think this is a case of it here. People should have the right to choose, and not be told what to eat. However I don't thinkt hat people should be allowed to promote something hazardous. Especially to children, who as I said earlier have just been told legitimate messages in the often educatinoal programmes.

it is a bit different to medicines, because they provide medication to illnesses. However the adverts don't encourage the overdose use of them. However junk food adverts do encourage the binge-eating (the harmful use) of junk-food.
yes, they do say:
"to be eaten as part of a healthy life-style and diet."
or:
"refrain from too much fatty foods."

Yeah. The childrenh are not gonig to pester now ! !

I think that alcopops shouldn't be aimed at teenagers. They should also place greater emphasis on the importance of enjoying alcohol responsibly.

If the ban is introduced then it IS the beginning of the slippery road to banning different genres of advertising at different times, i.e. becoming very much state-controlled. I know that the UK is a relatively state-countrolled country as it is now with Blair and cronies not giving a damn at what the population wants and giving in to other countries on extradition (i.e. The UK govt have given the NatWest 3 to the US when there is no actual case -but it cannot be done the other way!! So be careful to anyone who ever held or sold ENRON shares as you WILL be next to be extradited!!!). The govt controls so much of what we do, it is a very much pathetic country and the people of this country ahve let it go that way - lack of political empathy so the people of the UK have given up and need to be told what, how and when by the government - is this what people really want.

What is wrong with they way advertisers operate now? they have been operating like this for over 50 years so why change it - just because there is a lack of empathy/self/parental control nowadays!

well, I didn't find it htat good, or rather, it all went to pieces after the kid found his dad. They realy didn't make good use of the antagonist girl, it showd she was a stuck up cow and by the end of it thought nothing of it.

Not realy sattifaying watch for a speacail.

I think they should say at the end"Oh and by the way,i wouldn't have too much McDonalds because you don't want to get fat now do you?"