|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Hear hear. So do you guys not get any channels for free? In the US you have to pay for cable and the like, but the major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, etc) are free.
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Tuxedo Ted posted:Coke's is called "Coca-Cola Life" Stupid name, but it tastes really good...damnit. It's a weakness. I bought a few six packs, only drank one a day or less, and watched the pounds add up quickly. It's half sugar, half stevia, so the calories are still there. I have to force myself to pass it by at the supermarket.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
I was going to say "why don't you just drink water?" and then I realized I live in BC and our water is cleaner and tastier than even bottled water 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
hyperhazard posted:So do you guys not get any channels for free? In the US you have to pay for cable and the like, but the major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, etc) are free. Every household that owns a device capable of receiving TV transmissions has to pay a yearly "TV license" - a tax, essentially - to fund the BBC whether they watch the BBC or not, which is £145.50 (i.e. about $223 dollars). It's an outdated socialist concept that has no place in the modern world. And then if you want Sky or anything else, you have to pay Sky's (or whatever's) subscription fee on top of that. Mr. Gibbycrumbles has a new favorite as of 19:04 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Does anyone have an opinion as to why McDonalds is doing so bad?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:It's an outdated socialist concept that has no place in the modern world. No it's not, you're just a moocher who wants to be part of society without paying for the benefits.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:No it's not, you're just a moocher who wants to be part of society without paying for the benefits. Except I made it clear I don't watch the BBC. Tell me again how I'm a moocher.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Super Waffle posted:Every gas station I've been to since I started driving (10 years ago) has a card reader right at the pump, you literally can't pump gas without swiping first, is this not normal? It used to be that gas stations pumped the gas for you pretty much universally. Once gas got expensive people started pumping and then driving off without paying way more. Pay at the pump card swipes eventually became everywhere so most people don't even really notice that you have to pay first because really these days most people just pay right at the pump and never go in. Cash is vanishing. There was a time when not every pump had a swiper on it and indeed you were expected to pay in cash. As for air pumps this is America where somebody, somewhere has the job of "figure out a way to make people pay for everything." You can't even get free condiments at hot dog stands in some places.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
At least around here, gas is cheaper if you pay cash. Just by a few cents, mind you, but some of the more penny-pinching people I know will swing by the ATM before filling up.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:At least around here, gas is cheaper if you pay cash. Just by a few cents, mind you, but some of the more penny-pinching people I know will swing by the ATM before filling up. It's about 10 cents more to pay with a card here in Oregon but we get to hang out in our cars and let someone else pump it (by law). I think Oregon and New Jersey are the only states that don't let you pump and it makes me nervous to go to Washington.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
It's kind of fruitless to talk about businesses in as broad a way as "in America, they make you pay for x thing!" Because America is huge and different regions' businesses are going to run differently. In my city, whether you pay for air depends on which station you go to and who runs it, some are free, some aren't.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
It should also be noted, in regards to the TV license that although "you are required" to pay for it. If you don't, they can't really do anything. The TV license folk turn up at your door but you are under no obligation to let them in or answer any questions. You'll get threatened with the courts but it's very rare to hear anyone being prosecuted for TV license evasion. So much so that the conservative government want to scrap it altogether. YouTube "TV license" and you'll see some videos of folk turning the "inspectors" from the TV license away from their door.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
So Pandora adds can have video, but let's face it, no one sees those so it's idiotic when there is an add highly dependent on visuals on Pandora. Once there was a Clash of Clans ripoff add that was just dramatic background music. I just thought it was a strangely short, misplaced track until I eventually happened to glance over at my phone while the add was playing. Movie trailers and car commercials are also pretty guilty of not making a more radio-like add for Pandora and just slapping their unchanged TV spot on there. McDonalds really gets it though, at least in Spanish. If people aren't going to be looking at your add you got to really get clever with the audio. So this one add features a man speaking in Spanish about McCaffes. They feature some kind of high definition sound of the drink being poured and then the sound of him sllllluuuuuurrrping it down. I'm not some kind of ASMR person, but that add makes me naseuous every time. I know it's supposed to sound delicious and refreshing but if I had a friend making noises like that while drinking I'd have to tell them they were being gross.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
jidohanbaiki posted:They feature some kind of high definition sound of the drink being poured and then the sound of him sllllluuuuuurrrping it down. I'm not some kind of ASMR person, but that add makes me naseuous every time. You're thinking of Misophonia, not ASMR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misophonia I have Misophonia bigtime. The sound of open-mouthed chewing in particular drives me up the loving wall. Eating with my parents is a horrific experience.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Those radio ads where they play the sounds of a food or drink being consumed actually work, apparently. I was talking to an old-timer and she told me a story of how back in the day when teens would hang out at the beach and listen to the same radio station, this one Coke ad featured the sound of a glass bottle being cracked open, a man taking a swig, and saying "ahhhh". After this ad played you would see people lining up at the snack stand. These York Peppermint Patties commercials are in the same vein, I think. They kinda creep me out though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpM4t4UyKwg
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:You're thinking of Misophonia, not ASMR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfZpgjLJeM4
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Except I made it clear I don't watch the BBC. Tell me again how I'm a moocher. The government has no way of knowing who watches the BBC unless they switch to a subscription-based model, which is not a very appealing idea for various reasons. Anyway, Flanders got rid of its television licence more than a decade ago, but rest assured that the tax burden is simply shifted elsewhere. That's the only way to fund a public broadcasting service unless you allow unlimited advertising.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
**TRIGGERS: whisper, lip-smacking, soft touches, eating sounds** Why can't people just watch videos of the little japanese food kits being put together instead of this weird fetish poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Of course this means they would only get a fraction of their budget, so maybe they'll be forced to throw out all the poo poo and just focus on the decent programmes. The only reason the BBC is able to branch out into anything that isn't horrendously mainstream is because of the license fee. And as someone whose only TV watching is Eurovision each year, the license fee is still a huge necessity for society, imo. Don't forget that the license fee also covers all the radio stations (incl 6 Music), their news and weather reports online, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:You're thinking of Misophonia, not ASMR Interesting, I hadn't heard of that before. I don't think I've got that though, despite those adds giving me chills. I'm fascinated that this strategy works though. It just sounds so gross. I can get with the sound of cracking a beer and the "Ah!" part making me sympathetically crave that same relief, but the glug glug glug in high definition is just too visceral of a sound for me. Immodium should try similar marketing for people like me. (Please don't)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Except I made it clear I don't watch the BBC. Tell me again how I'm a moocher. I don't drive a car. My father doesn't use public transport. We both pay taxes that fund roads and trains. The licence fee is a weird and outdated concept, not because you shouldn't have to pay it if you don't watch the BBC but because everyone should just be paying it as part of their taxes rather than as a special separate thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Meanwhile, on a taxpayer-funded Trident missile base,
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Horrible Smutbeast posted:**TRIGGERS: whisper, lip-smacking, soft touches, eating sounds** They could just punch each other until one of them comes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
jidohanbaiki posted:So Pandora adds can have video, but let's face it, no one sees those so it's idiotic when there is an add highly dependent on visuals on Pandora. Once there was a Clash of Clans ripoff add that was just dramatic background music. I just thought it was a strangely short, misplaced track until I eventually happened to glance over at my phone while the add was playing. Movie trailers and car commercials are also pretty guilty of not making a more radio-like add for Pandora and just slapping their unchanged TV spot on there. Panera Bread had a similar one where the slurping was the whole point of the ad. They added two noodle-y soups to their menus, which I guess had very different flavor combos. The ad was a voice-over describing one, then you'd hear ssssslurrrrrrrrrrrp, then he'd describe the other, and you'd hear another slllluuurrrrrrrp. And the point was supposed to be like, ha ha, oh hey, you can't HEAR the difference in these soups! Head on over to Panera. But the slurping sound was just so disgusting sounding. Ugh. There was another one for Coke or something that had the HIGH-DEF sounds of a Coke being poured and fizzing, which is supposed to be appealing, but I don't want to feel like I'm having a Coke poured directly into my ear canal on my morning commute.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
There's a few ads like that on the actual radio, as in the thing that never had and never will have visuals or else it would just be TV, where I live. They are literally just the audio to what I assume is a corresponding TV ad, one of which outright directs the listener to look at a particular event the ad would be depicting if it actually had visuals. But it doesn't. I guess you're supposed to recognise the ad from TV and associate it with the right product but I haven't watched commercial TV in years and that's an arrogant assumption anyway. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit and they're just lazy . 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Except I made it clear I don't watch the BBC. Tell me again how I'm a moocher. Are you under the impression that in America we only pay for the channels we watch?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Question Mark Mound posted:It's more likely they'll be forced to throw out all the niche material that other channels have no interest in and just focus on the same utter garbage that everyone else makes, e.g. Mrs Brown's Boys. The remit of the BBC needs a drastic change. They spend bucketloads of money every year competing with advertising-funded (and subscription) channels for viewers who are catered for either way. There is no need for the BBC to do this. That is not a public service. The way in which the licence fee is collected is archaic and out of line with every other public service, and the money should be exclusively used for news, educational, cultural and regional programming that could not be adequately funded any other way (plus producing those shows that return a profit due to sales in the global market). Match of the Day is a grand tradition but they have to bid for the rights, and pay huge salaries to thick former players like Alan Shearer and Phil Neville for their "insights" into games, keep Lineker on a leash to stop him saying anything interesting, and end up with a self-congratulatory piece of wank that puts Swansea games on last every week. It's an extraordinary waste of tax-payer money. ITV was awful when they stole the rights for a couple years, but they should be competing with Sky in any case. Radio 1 DJs are overpaid garbage as well. They get annual trips to Ibiza all on the clock the cunts. sassassin has a new favorite as of 11:35 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I don't drive a car. My father doesn't use public transport. We both pay taxes that fund roads and trains. The licence fee is a weird and outdated concept, not because you shouldn't have to pay it if you don't watch the BBC but because everyone should just be paying it as part of their taxes rather than as a special separate thing. The BBC is not an essential service for gently caress's sake. It's just entertainment, and a lot of it is of very questionable value. I don't mind paying for things like hospitals, roads and housing. Taxes should only be used for essential things. e: ^^^ what the guy above me said. Mr. Gibbycrumbles has a new favorite as of 12:26 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:The BBC is not an essential service for gently caress's sake. It's just entertainment, and a lot of it is of very questionable value. Whether or not it's "essential" is not nearly as important as whether it's valuable or worthwhile. Taxes aren't just there to cover the very minimum of necessity, they're there to provide a whole range of services. If you want to argue that the BBC shouldn't be producing things that commercial stations would make anyway, fine, I'd even agree. But it's not like it's just another TV station, it does make TV that is valuable but not commercially viable, and that seems like something worth funding to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Whether or not it's "essential" is not nearly as important as whether it's valuable or worthwhile. Taxes aren't just there to cover the very minimum of necessity, they're there to provide a whole range of services. If you want to argue that the BBC shouldn't be producing things that commercial stations would make anyway, fine, I'd even agree. But it's not like it's just another TV station, it does make TV that is valuable but not commercially viable, and that seems like something worth funding to me. I would happily do with less football and awful comedy and more Attenborough documentaries and niche comedy. Eurovision gets a pass since it has to be put on by the national broadcaster, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
Romanticising the BBC as a concept diverts attention away from the awful, wasteful, self-aggrandising job they've been doing for decades, and the efforts made by other profit-based broadcasters to provide limited-interest high-value programming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
I for one feel that the BBC handled their marketing really poorly when they covered up that nonce Jimmy Savile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
sassassin posted:the efforts made by other profit-based broadcasters to provide limited-interest high-value programming. Big Brother? Benefits Street? (actually, scratch the latter, Channel 4 is state owned and not really a "profits based broadcaster") If you're more going for Sky Arts, you're lucky if you get more than 2 non-repeats on either channel and the VAST majority of their programming is bought in. That and the channels are there purely so Murdoch can say "see, it's not just the BBC doing niche programming!" - if the BBC goes they'll be shut down crazy-fast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
sassassin posted:The way in which the licence fee is collected is archaic and out of line with every other public service, and the money should be exclusively used for news, educational, cultural and regional programming that could not be adequately funded any other way (plus producing those shows that return a profit due to sales in the global market). If the show returns a profit on its own why should license fees be used to pay for it? Top Gear was an enormous money-maker for the BBC, the notion that some pensioner needs to cough up $225 a year to pay his share of the production fees for an enormously popular show about enormously expensive cars for enormously wealthy people is silly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
I would argue it was worth it
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Speaking as an American, I really like BBC shows and I don't want them to go away 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Radio Help posted:This one's pretty easy to explain. The dollar menu is downplayed because McDonalds wants to appeal to millennials, and millennials (according to overly-broad marketing tropes) would rather pay more for something they perceive as higher-quality. The stores look the same because they always kind of have been the same, save for the few outlier franchises in small towns. Playplaces are gone because they're an insurance liability and are a hassle to clean. The aquarium costs more money to maintain than it makes for the store, and a sizable portion of the sampled market demographic didn't even notice that the dinosaur was there in the first place. I'm glad that McDonald's did their careful millenial marketing research. Now all my friends and I drive the extra block to Taco Bell or Burger King to buy things for a dollar instead of a buck fifty. Seriously, that has to be the most hocus-pocus horseshit about marketing toward a specific demographic that I've ever seen. The people looking for higher quality burgers sure as poo poo ain't looking at McDonald's, and the broke rear end early 20 somethings who want a burger while earning a less-than-livable wage are going to buy cheaper fast food instead
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
But they never asked the guy if he had stairs in his house! What kind of lovely Goons are these blokes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfHRhXW1hno
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
death .cab for qt posted:I'm glad that McDonald's did their careful millenial marketing research. Now all my friends and I drive the extra block to Taco Bell or Burger King to buy things for a dollar instead of a buck fifty. I think a big part of the problem is no one knows how to properly define what a Millennial is; I've seen the birth dates range from 1977 to 2014 (the latter being about baby food and defined current babies as the last of the Millennials), though most are from 1980-2000 or so. Combing through food-oriented Millennial research is a major part of my job, and the dirty secret is this: no one knows what the hell Millennials want. The most common response is they want high quality, they want cheap, they want socially responsible and they want personalized all at once. Which is pretty useless information for a company, because they might as well be asking for a unicorn in terms of how easy* it is to hit all those buttons simultaneously. The usual result is that terrible Campbell's ad campaign earlier in the thread. One interesting thing is that current research about older Millennials (mid-30s) says that they're exactly the same as Gen Xers in terms of shopping habits. In my semi-educated opinion this is because they are Gen Xers. I feel like companies would have better results splitting Millennials up into three mini-generations that came of age before, during or after the Great Recession. All three groups would have similar social/quality desires from their food, but fairly different disposable income/economic prospects and likely different answers on what they'd like to pay. *I know they could afford it, and some companies are hitting them pretty well, but good luck getting initiatives for all four desires past shareholders 99% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 15:22
|
|
