Right [rolls up sleeves]
Firstly, you're correct necropolist. When i said that the connection between consumer spending and advertising budgets is "so abstract to be meaningless" i was wrong. That (in my defence) wasn't really what i was thinking; but reading it back now - the statement is clearly silly. There's a very direct link between the two.
HOWEVER. What i was actually objecting to (but in a clumsy and indistinct manner) was Merrick's statement that:
>
> If not watching the BBC should qualify for a
> rebate on the TV license, shouldn't not
> watching TV qualify for a rebate on your
> groceries?
>
which i still think makes no real sense. And (unusually for Merrick) displays a lack of analysis of the situation.
Folks can stop reading now, as i'm about to get all abstract and analytical. And it's all a bunch of philosophical hypothesising really.
Firstly; let's say you're Jo Smith. You own a TV but never watch BBC. You are paying 100 quid for a service that you do not receive. If you refuse to pay, you get arrested and sent to jail. Pretty straight-forward. Pretty unjust (most people would agree) given that you *genuinely* never watch the beeb.
Next; you're Alex Jones. You don't own a TV but clearly do still buy groceries. Are you paying for a service you don't avail of?
Well, the argument being put forward (by Merrick), if i understand it correctly, is that some of your grocery bill goes on the ad budget of the companies from whom you purchase your goods. Therefore, because you don't watch the ads, you are paying for a service you don't receive.
Is that the crux of the argument? If it's not - if some other point is being made - then i'm just not understanding it; and someone'll need to spell it out more clearly.
This assumes that the advertisements are a service to the consumer (which - although they may be painted that way by the marketers - is clearly false). Advertising is a service *to the advertiser*.
It is possible to buy groceries from outlets that do not advertise on TV. Just go to the local farmer's market if you have one, or corner green-grocer who buys from the nearest farmer's market. You'll find an interesting fact. The food may be measurably better (it often is), but it'll also be slightly more expensive than - say - Tesco.
The reason for this is because the big companies can work with economies of scale. They know they have a consumer base of millions, not hundreds; and can therefore buy in much bigger bulk, and apply consequently smaller margins (only slightly smaller - but enough to be noticeable).
Now, this may not be a universal thing. But it's a fact here in Northeast London. The local shops and markets are more expensive than the big chain stores. For this reason i shop in the chain-stores when i'm skint, and on the markets when i've just got a contract.
It is completely legitimate to argue that one of the factors that allows these economies of scale to work is precisely the fact that these conglomerates have large marketing budgets (there are plenty of other reasons - by far the biggest being to do with the 'concentration of capital' which is an inevitable result of capitalism).
I think the system sucks. I think global capitalism is a rotting corpse that's leaking maggots onto every spare piece of physical and psychological space on the planet. I think marketing is one of the most putrid of those maggots.
But i honestly don't see how you can argue that advertising is a "service" to consumers in the same way that the BBC is a service to TV watchers. Which is (i believe) the implication of Merrick's statement.
Am i wrong?
|
