OT-600 Million Dollars

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
...

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...

How come no one gets excited about that?

I don't drink Buds nor Millers and don't smoke Marlboros nor Camels.

But seriously, the folks that pay for that commercial have to answer to a
board of directors and shareholders.

Well, the putative point of today's little exercise is that the folks who
benefit from political ads......and by extension, those who pay for
them.....are answerable to someone too. Debatable, to be sure, but an
interesting point of view, nevertheless.

And in your specific example you won't
find commercials over the air for cigarettes and alcohol advertising does
have some boundaries.

Political advertising has boundaries as well. Try to imagine, for instance,
someone hiring.......oh......say, ME to run their campaign ads.

Wolfgang
who notes that one does not see many ads opposed to the mass murder of
innocents abroad.

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
...

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...

How come no one gets excited about that?

I don't drink Buds nor Millers and don't smoke Marlboros nor Camels.

But seriously, the folks that pay for that commercial have to answer to a
board of directors and shareholders.

Well, the putative point of today's little exercise is that the folks who
benefit from political ads......and by extension, those who pay for
them.....are answerable to someone too. Debatable, to be sure, but an
interesting point of view, nevertheless.

And in your specific example you won't
find commercials over the air for cigarettes and alcohol advertising does
have some boundaries.

Political advertising has boundaries as well. Try to imagine, for instance,
someone hiring.......oh......say, ME to run their campaign ads.

Wolfgang
who notes that one does not see many ads opposed to the mass murder of
innocents abroad.

Wolfgang wrote:


Wolfgang
who notes that one does not see many ads opposed to the mass murder of
innocents abroad.




.......or in favor of those much closer to home, who are much more deserving..........
The fuel savings alone would seem to justify that.... Yep, let's kill the close-in
crowd, first. We gotta kill *somebody*, right?


--
Tom

n4tab at earthlink dot net

"a-happy-up-yours" wrote in
message .net...
Wolfgang wrote:


Wolfgang
who notes that one does not see many ads opposed to the mass murder of
innocents abroad.


......or in favor of those much closer to home, who are much more
deserving.......... The fuel savings alone would seem to justify that....
Yep, let's kill the close-in crowd, first. We gotta kill *somebody*,
right?

Excellent point. The fuel savings WOULD be enormous......but they would
pale by comparison to the improvement in America's image abroad.

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset"*

Wolfgang
*Often attributed to Innocent III. Actually, the papal legate Amaury. See,
for example, "The Devil: A Biography", Peter Stanford, Henry Holt and
Company, 1996, p.141.

"a-happy-up-yours" wrote in
message .net...
Wolfgang wrote:


Wolfgang
who notes that one does not see many ads opposed to the mass murder of
innocents abroad.


......or in favor of those much closer to home, who are much more
deserving.......... The fuel savings alone would seem to justify that....
Yep, let's kill the close-in crowd, first. We gotta kill *somebody*,
right?

Excellent point. The fuel savings WOULD be enormous......but they would
pale by comparison to the improvement in America's image abroad.

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset"*

Wolfgang
*Often attributed to Innocent III. Actually, the papal legate Amaury. See,
for example, "The Devil: A Biography", Peter Stanford, Henry Holt and
Company, 1996, p.141.

But seriously, the folks that pay for that commercial have to answer to a
board of directors and shareholders.

If you want to be serious, the folks who really pay for those
commercials are YOU and everyone else who buys the advertised
products.

I've been retired for ten years and can't cite current numbers, but
it's safe to say that commercial advertising's media expenditures
alone cost something like two thousand dollars per family per year.

To add insult to that injury, you not only pay pay higher prices for
the advertised products, to cover the cost of the ads, but you pay an
even higher price made posssible by the advertising.

In case that's unclear, what I mean is this: A firm takes a product
that sells as a generic or a private lable for one dollar, spends
fifty cents to advertise it, and raises the price to two dollars.

And in your specific example you won't find commercials over the air for
cigarettes and alcohol advertising does have some boundaries.

I know that, but I thought we were discussing economic waste. The
number you cited as the amount spent on political ads included print
media expenditures, not just broadcast ads.

vince

vincent p. norris wrote:

If you want to be serious, the folks who really pay for those
commercials are YOU and everyone else who buys the advertised
products.

I am deadly serious. While I recognize and respect your background, the
other obvious caveat to private industry marketing and the associated
mark up of products, is that I have a choice to buy the item or not.

I've been retired for ten years and can't cite current numbers, but
it's safe to say that commercial advertising's media expenditures
alone cost something like two thousand dollars per family per year.

I think you're close.

[snip]

I know that, but I thought we were discussing economic waste. The
number you cited as the amount spent on political ads included print
media expenditures, not just broadcast ads.

At the end of the day, *normal* advertising in theory is to increase
sales which in theory results in more production which begats more
workers to fulfill the production (I know with beer it gets muddy). In
politics, IMO, there is no long term benefit to the economy and again,
IMO, a sure sign that the system is broken given the moneys spent. But
ya gotta buy them votes somehow.

vincent p. norris wrote:

If you want to be serious, the folks who really pay for those
commercials are YOU and everyone else who buys the advertised
products.

I am deadly serious. While I recognize and respect your background, the
other obvious caveat to private industry marketing and the associated
mark up of products, is that I have a choice to buy the item or not.

I've been retired for ten years and can't cite current numbers, but
it's safe to say that commercial advertising's media expenditures
alone cost something like two thousand dollars per family per year.

I think you're close.

[snip]

I know that, but I thought we were discussing economic waste. The
number you cited as the amount spent on political ads included print
media expenditures, not just broadcast ads.

At the end of the day, *normal* advertising in theory is to increase
sales which in theory results in more production which begats more
workers to fulfill the production (I know with beer it gets muddy). In
politics, IMO, there is no long term benefit to the economy and again,
IMO, a sure sign that the system is broken given the moneys spent. But
ya gotta buy them votes somehow.

At the end of the day, *normal* advertising in theory is to increase
sales which in theory results in more production which begats more
workers to fulfill the production

Not sure what you mean by "normal." The primary purpose of "national'
advertising (which really means the advertising done by manufacturers,
as distinct from retail advertising) is to enable them to charge
higher prices than would be possible under price competition. This is
made abundantly clear by the writings of those who "invented" national
advertising at the end of the 19th century, as well as by current
statements and other evidence. E.g., advertised brands are, almost
without exception, higher in price than identical but unadvertised
private labels and generics.

Now, once that purpose has been achieved, then manufacturers strive to
increase market share, but only at the higher price. But it is a
zero-sum game, because abundant evidence indicates that advertising
does not increase the primary demand for a product--that is, the total
amount of beer, cigarets, soap, etc., sold. If one firm gains market
share, others lose it.

As nutty as this sounds to someone who hasn't studied economics, this
actually results in a lower volume of sales than would occur at the
lower prices. Consequently, employment levels are lower, not higher,
as a result of national aldvertising.

Just one example: Years ago, during a Senate investigation of the
automobile industry, the UAW presented evidence from several
published econometric analyses that showed that many more cars would
be sold at the lower prices that would exist in the absence of
advertising, resulting in significanntly higher employment in the car
factories.

But PROFITS would be lower, so obviously the car makers would not do
that. In short, national advertisers make higher profits by selling
less.

If you want details, I can dig out the data and also the Sudoc number
of the Senate report.

In politics, IMO, there is no long term benefit to the economy....

Its purpose is to benefit the polity, not the economy. Most
economists would argue there are no long term (or short term) benefits
to the economy from national advertising, either.

Retail advertising is a different matter entirely, and serves a useful
purpose.

vince