We Hate Adverts - The Bear and Badger

Yossarian

Mod74 wrote:

Paul the sparky wrote:

That adverts are usually a few decibels louder than the show you're watching pains me.

I'm sure that was supposedly outlawed you know.

Well, they kind of are and they aren't. TV shows tend to have a much greater dynamic range (the difference in volume between the quiet bits and the loud bits) than adverts (films usually have an even greater dynamic range than either). Essentially, adverts tend to be no louder than the loudest parts of a TV show, but usually a TV show will only have one or two sections when it's at it's loudest. Adverts, being so short, don't need so much range, so they tend to have everything pushed up as loud as it will go (including simple speech) from the very start. So, although they're not louder than the loudest part of what you're watching, they're usually louder than whatever immediately preceded them.

Mod74

Yeah, I'm sure it was that range compression thing that was supposedly outlawed. Probably not though as I've seen some fancy TVs have a "quiet advert" function. Not sure how it tells the difference between film and an advert though.

Yossarian

I doubt that they've outlawed compression, it's an essential part of the mixing process.

Mod74

There's something here that says the rules were changed/strengthened in 2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1932640/Television-advertisers-told-to-quieten-down.html

Still seems to be a complaint though.

Yossarian

The best part of that article is near the end:

The new rules come only a few months after Ofcom announced that it was considering proposals that would force television viewers to endure longer and more frequent commercial breaks.

It said that it was reviewing the rules at a time when traditional commercial broadcasters are seeing their advertising revenues fall, as viewers move in droves to digital channels.

Yep, that'll be what ensures the viability of commercial broadcasters, moar adverts.

krs

Blue Swirl wrote:

It was on QI, so it must be true.

I like the implied cynicism. Unless it isn't, in which case I don't.

[Deleted User]

STV has frequent adverts encouraging us to visit Scotland.

JonB

SpaceGazelle wrote:

I'm sure adverts have no effect on my buying habits. As a kid, sure, but not now. Mind, I presume everyone thinks like this. But surely nobody buys a particular car because of an advert?

The content of the ad is often irrelevant, it's more to do with brand recognition and presence. You* associate quality not with the ad but with the predominance of the ad campaign - the fact that the company is able to afford high profile advertising on a large scale. In the shop, you're more likely to go for the 'safe' brand that seems familiar and 'authentic'. There are plenty of brands that would hardly need to advertise again in terms of you knowing what their product and image is (Nike, Coke etc.), but they have to keep competing on ad spending to keep their profile higher than others. In theory.

*Not you personally, I mean in general.

Webbins

There are a couple of low rent belters doing the rounds on Yorkshire ITV so cannot speak of their reach to other parts of the Empire, but if you ever catch an Auto Money or Ramsdens pawnbrokers ad, they're something to be cherished.

I used Auto Money to feed my family of 15 because thanks to the Tories I can now only claim £26,000 in support, and I've not even put ear studs in the three two year olds yet.

Skerret

Matt_82 wrote:

I almost always mute adverts, much to the annoyance of my girlfriend who for some reason wants to see them. My ex was the same. I don't know why really but I hate adverts. I feel slightly claustrophobic or something when they're on. Tivo stuff has been very handy.

I feel the same, though much of the content between ads also has this effect.

krs

He's ranting about copyright and in a typically facile Banksy pun way, but some valid points regardless.

Advertising can be good, it just rarely is. When we had our careers symposium at school the advertising guy was an utter, utter badger cunt.

mistercrayon

krs wrote:

Blue Swirl wrote:

It was on QI, so it must be true.

I like the implied cynicism. Unless it isn't, in which case I don't.

qi made me feel like all those respected scientists did when newton/galilleo/einstein came along

Hulka T

I liked how the owner of a wall ook the Banksy work down and sold it, that was funny. And free advertising.

Webbins

The Wood Green one? The sale of that got halted at the last minute, residents wanted 'their' Banksy back. Seems to me that if your man chooses to use your property as a canvas, you're then free to do with it as you please.

Yossarian

You are, but it doesn't stop you being a cunt for profiting off something which is intended for everyone.

g.man

Fuck that! I'd have painted over it.

Yossarian

Painting over it is a valid response.

Webbins

He 'painted' on the wall of a business, they saw a business opportunity. I would have been that cunt, but then I don't give credence to Banksy's work, would quite happily sell to those that do.

Yossarian

I'd have thought that the greater business opportunity would be in the free advertising you get from leaving it there. There are tours of street art these days.

adkm1979

Yossarian wrote:

You are, but it doesn't stop you being a cunt for profiting off something which is intended for everyone.

Fuck that noise, Yoss. Is some self-important bell-end vandalises my property, that's all it is, and any notion of it being 'art' or 'for the people' is for hippies, low-lifes, or low-life hippies lacking a firm grasp on reality, and I'll do what the fuck I want with it. If that means fleecing one of these brainless cunts who thinks it's valuable, so be it. Intended for everyone, what a joke.

Webbins

It was on the side of a Poundland, if it had been a Jessops then yes. Banksy went and chucked another one up anyway didn't he?

Hulka T

No i did the second one, suckers!!!

Yossarian

adkm1979 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

You are, but it doesn't stop you being a cunt for profiting off something which is intended for everyone.

Fuck that noise, Yoss. Is some self-important bell-end vandalises my property, that's all it is, and any notion of it being 'art' or 'for the people' is for hippies, low-lifes, or low-life hippies lacking a firm grasp on reality, and I'll do what the fuck I want with it. If that means fleecing one of these brainless cunts who thinks it's valuable, so be it. Intended for everyone, what a joke.

Spoken like a proper copper. Nice work.

Although, I do agree with you that anyone who's willing to pay for a piece of street art that's been removed from the street is indeed a brainless cunt.

adkm1979

Painting on something with the permission of that something's owner might qualify as street art. Painting on something without he permission of the owner of that something will never qualify as street art. It is vandalism, nothing more. This has nothing to do with my job, and everything to do with basic morals and principals.

Yossarian

I don't think things are quite that straight forward myself. Apparently, companies are allowed to monoplolise public space and plaster their names and logos everywhere without, as pointed out in that image krs posted, having asked my permission. They're allowed to invade my very home in order to try and affect the very way I think. I have issues with the morality and principles behind that, and as a result have sympathy towards those who are willing to subvert the corporatistion of our public spaces and actually use them in order to do something for the public (in as much as any art can be said to be made for the public, although these people aren't even charging for their work).

Diluted Dante

Yossarian wrote:

You are, but it doesn't stop you being a cunt for profiting off something which is intended for everyone.

No, if someone paints on my wall without asking I'm not a cunt for selling it. If it's intended for everyone then arrange to do it somewhere it cannot be sold.

Hulka T

I rather cave art, personally. Still vandalism mind.

Yossarian

Diluted Dante wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

You are, but it doesn't stop you being a cunt for profiting off something which is intended for everyone.

No, if someone paints on my wall without asking I'm not a cunt for selling it. If it's intended for everyone then arrange to do it somewhere it cannot be sold.

There is no such thing as genuine public space left in this country. Everything belongs to someone.

Diluted Dante

Only paint on government owned buildings then. Or the floor.

Yossarian

But again, corporate money is allowed to take over our public spaces, why should it be a one way street?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories