OT-600 Million Dollars

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:18:48 -0700, rw
wrote:

Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:

Well, the candidates arent the ones putting up the money in the first place. So
the calculation of
ROI should not be based on what the elected president gets, rather what the
companies backing him
stand to earn after he is elected.

Good point. Halliburton's ROI on the last election is through the roof.

And you *know* we ain't seen nothin' yet....

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:18:48 -0700, rw
wrote:

Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:

Well, the candidates arent the ones putting up the money in the first place. So
the calculation of
ROI should not be based on what the elected president gets, rather what the
companies backing him
stand to earn after he is elected.

Good point. Halliburton's ROI on the last election is through the roof.

And you *know* we ain't seen nothin' yet....

Svend Tang-Petersen wrote:

Well, the candidates arent the ones putting up the money in the first place. So
the calculation of
ROI should not be based on what the elected president gets, rather what the
companies backing him
stand to earn after he is elected.

Good point. Halliburton's ROI on the last election is through the roof.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

I have read from a couple of sources that the advertising in this
year's presidential contests have exceeded a combined $600 Million.
This to get a job that will pay $1.6 Million +..........

First, the "profits" from that investment go far, far, beyond that.

Second, it is not a lot of money per citizen.

Third, far greater sums -- Billions, not merely millions-- are spent
on commercial advertising to persuade us that Bud is better than
Millers, that Millers is better than Bud, that Marlboros are better
than Camels, that Camels are better than Marlboros, that no one will
love you if you don't rub this or that under your arms, and for other
extremely trivial purposes.

How come no one gets excited about that?

vince

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

"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