Apologies for the spotty input -- because grad school was decades ago. That said, if I remember correctly, a semester class was split into two parts, one of them, the economics of advertising.
Around the time that I was in school, the Federal Trade Commission was just beginning to lift bans in certain industries that had previously been prohibited from advertising on television. I remember long discussions in class about those industries and even wrote a term paper on one of them -- eyeglass advertising. The others I remember are the funeral industry, lawyers, and -- (and non-OTC) pharmaceuticals. The theory: more advertising = more competition = lower prices (and more and better information) for consumers. By now, I'm sure there's a ton of data and conclusions about how effective lifting the bans has been. Benefits outweigh costs? Prices? I haven't a clue because I haven't looked at the papers/studies. One effect is most certainly the case: advertising by the legal profession has made it possible for an oversupply of lawyers to find employment. Pharmaceuticals? Lower prices? Better health? Better informed consumers? I don't know, but the literature is undoubtedly out there. Just thought I'd post because it seems that a lot of people don't remember a time when morticians, optometrists, lawyers, and drug companies didn't advertise on TV. On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 10:50 AM Adam Bowie <a...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote: > I know of at least two people who stayed up until 2am to watch it live on > some kind of dodgy stream somewhere. And yes, there were a lot of comments > on the volume of advertising the interview had. I don't know if it was more > than the usual 19-20 mins per hour, but that is higher than we get in the > UK where we were, until recently, regulated by the EU and still have limits > on the number of breaks (two mid-breaks in a one hour show, one break in a > half-hour), and the number of ads. > > But literally every person I talk to who's been to the US for vacation or > business will mention the pharmaceutical ads. It's worth noting that this > has been (at least until very recently - I believe Canada might now allow > them) an almost uniquely American thing. In the UK and EU, you only see > drug adverts for over the counter drugs. There's no "Ask your doctor" > advertising. There's also much hilarity at the nature of the ads - 30 > seconds of benefits/ 30 seconds of hideous side effects. I believe that > this type of advertising was only also legal in New Zealand. So yes - it's > about as strange to us as seeing cigarette advertising on TV. > > Of course, European health services are very different. In the UK, most > people are treated under the NHS and you basically don't get a choice about > drug treatment. Not every drug is even available - there are committees > that determine which drugs the NHS will make available. (So yes, really > expensive cancer drugs sometimes aren't available). And while some do have > private healthcare, it probably doesn't really allow for the kind of > drug-picking these ads are hypothesised on. Private healthcare is really to > make sure you don't have to wait for surgeries etc. It's probably not going > to cover you for an expensive cocktail of drugs otherwise unavailable on > the NHS. > > The interview is airing in the UK tonight on ITV, although obviously it > has already been fully gutted by all the news programmes this morning. > Personally I'm getting more - small r- republican as the days go by. The > Royal Family needs to radically modernise or ship out. > > > Adam > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 3:16 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am not in the target demo to watch an interview of Oprah interviewing >> “Royals” (though the headline that they allege that someone at the palace >> was worried their kids skin would be too dark sounds about right). >> >> I did find this Twitter thread interesting, in which Brits who were able >> to watch the American broadcast of the interview are obsessed with how many >> commercials Americans are exposed to for drugs. It is a reminder that >> healthcare does not have to be a business. Would be nice to put more >> restrictions again on direct-to-consumer advertising in the US. >> >> Also, I thought Oprah had a relationship with ABC, but it looks like this >> interview was in CBS? >> >> https://twitter.com/ayeshaasiddiqi/status/1368901637604007939?s=21 >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYLU_ug38DOpU4%2B55BaNC_aFODog6AcUz3fqc-BC_B9ZnQ%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYLU_ug38DOpU4%2B55BaNC_aFODog6AcUz3fqc-BC_B9ZnQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGDr4hLEEa87ma1bhK6%3Dsy5F_ZeO9G0M_oG36oJ7V8FZhw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGDr4hLEEa87ma1bhK6%3Dsy5F_ZeO9G0M_oG36oJ7V8FZhw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPw-5ONQuS66DDs-EN3qV43zMJ%3DtXXLmwny1M63fNahpTQ%40mail.gmail.com.
