British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

[PGage]

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

[Adam Bowie]

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

--
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+...@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.

[Jon Delfin]

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 10:16 AM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip] 

Also, I thought Oprah had a relationship with ABC, but it looks like this interview was in CBS?

The interview was produced by Harpo and sold to CBS. It may or may not be a factor that Oprah was briefly a correspondent for "60 Minutes." 

[Henry Fung]

Or that her BFF is the morning host on CBS This Morning which offers a great opportunity to clean up and show other highlights, like she did on reiterating that the Queen nor her husband are the racists concerned about future Archie's skin color. 

--

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+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CABCcf4d9ZpejKFje%2B%3DdW03Zm-P5Yxrp9KNEpWneiT6hEAvDkPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sean Healy]

Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads are still not allowed in Canada.  But we're certainly aware of them on American TV when a program slips through simultaneous substitution, or over-the-air.

There is a Canadian loophole that allows an ad to name a prescription product, but not it's use.  They are relatively rare.  For example, there were ads for Viagra with men smiling but no mention of what it was for.  Sort of a "nod, nod, wink, wink" concept.  No 30 seconds of the hideous side effects.

Much like the NHS, availability by (provincial) committee and you usually don't get a choice.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGDr4hLEEa87ma1bhK6%3Dsy5F_ZeO9G0M_oG36oJ7V8FZhw%40mail.gmail.com.

[PGage]

Right, only NZ and The US have such open direct-to-consumer advertising; and I am old enough to remember when it was if not prohibited at least rare here. And even in the US, most insurance plans have formularies, with expensive or not fully established medications not available. One purpose of all the “ask your doctor” ads is to put consumer pressure not just on doctors but on insurers to make certain drugs available.

I don’t really understand how you guys can afford both socialized medicine and the Royal albatross, while we still have so many millions without access to basic healthcare.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGDr4hLEEa87ma1bhK6%3Dsy5F_ZeO9G0M_oG36oJ7V8FZhw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kevin M.]

Just to add to the discussion, one of my fellow NBC Pages worked for a years in ad sales for the news division. Drug companies and semi-related life insurance companies notoriously buy ad time on the cheap, meaning if the program you’re watching contains a lot of pharmaceutical commercials, the program in question is not a big money maker for the network that airs it.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJsBgxcL3t%3DwnZ%2BTq2hV7xDnz2ZvcSiAWz8bAzSzeD6Aw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Stan S]

Someone please send the Brits the Joe Namath Medicare Advantage ads :) 

-Stan 

[Stan S]

Also,, if not for the big pharma ads, where would we get to hear new recordings of 70s pop songs and public domain standards? (I’m looking at you, company that uses“You Are My Sunshine ”) 

-Stan

[Doug Eastick]

Nod nod, wink wink?

Like this Viagra commercial?

https://youtu.be/F5MrKMzsHEg

I still remember a guy singing this one morning at work .   People were happy for him.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/e7a2d0c3-a4ac-1e7e-6c2a-d2ca05ce298f%40gmail.com.

[M-D November]

...and if anything, Oprah's allegiance at this point is to AppleTV+ rather than any of the broadcast networks...

[Melissa P]

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGDr4hLEEa87ma1bhK6%3Dsy5F_ZeO9G0M_oG36oJ7V8FZhw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kevin M.]

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:07 AM Melissa P <takingup...@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

I’m just old enough to remember Fred and Barney pausing from their antics in Bedrock to smoke some smooth, refreshing Kool cigarettes. 

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 10:50 AM Adam Bowie <ad...@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+...@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.

--
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+...@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.

--
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+...@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.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Jim Ellwanger]

I know you're joking about your age, but the sponsor of "The Filntstones" was Winston, not Kools.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81SMyZMoFL8

(I have no idea what's up with the aspect ratio on this one, but it does include the original closing credits, showing a flashing Winston billboard on the road into Bedrock.)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4Dfz2MuT_LpxrYzwrWQULyBA9gNRYCrh4mXpoXwO6amzA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kevin M.]

Dude, why you gotta fact-check me? 

Though in my head, it was Kools they were smoking. Must’ve been thing of a different pair of cartoon characters... maybe Tom & Jerry were breathing in menthols? Roadrunner and Coyote pausing to sing the praises of filters? 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/EA419582-6E1B-4560-8076-FD1EB656AE0C%40ellwanger.tv.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Adam Bowie]

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 6:16 PM Stan S <sta...@gmail.com> wrote:

Someone please send the Brits the Joe Namath Medicare Advantage ads :) 

Oh wow. Just watched a couple of YouTube.

Another good thing about our advertising rules is that you can't have reams of text that's too small to be legible, and on screen too briefly to read. I also don't think you can say one thing, and then "clarify" it with some tiny footnotes.

Our advertising isn't perfect. Gambling ads are completely legal here, and frankly endemic. I suspect that they'll be banned in due course since everyone has discovered how normalising they've made gambling. The social costs of the addiction - which can start at very young ages - is high. (And let's face it, computer game loot boxes are also gambling.) No doubt as gambling legislation continues to be weakened in the US,  you'll see it on your TVs too. In the meantime, look at the shirts of around half the Premier League football teams to see gambling ads, many of which are aimed at Chinese consumers, somewhere else that gambling ads are banned.

Mind you, in the UK political TV (and radio) ads are banned. Imagine that! 

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 7:07 PM Melissa P <takingup...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

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.

I'm always interested who has paid for such studies :-)

We don't get a lot of legal advertising in the UK. I don't believe it's massively controlled, and when there was a big equivalent of class action suits against banks which entitled many to some refunded payments, there were lots of ads. It's just not a category. Although UK TV advertising is very "national" rather than local. But you don't get billboards, bus posters or any of the other kinds of ads I see when I visit the US.

 

Adam

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4CgUjaRkaXHHe7uBbud4UFaFCYo0zYLNcqf3Qr4EuN8Ag%40mail.gmail.com.

[Karen Owen]

There was 90 minutes of program in the 2 hour slot.

They also used half of the air time for today's CBS

This Morning to show even more.  Oprah said she

recorded 3 hours and 20 minutes with them for the interview



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Karen Owen]

Variety answers it here

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/oprah-winfrey-interview-meghan-harry-paramount-plus-1234924861/

It's on CBS.com website

[Brad Beam]

From: tvor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvor...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam Bowie

>Our advertising isn't perfect. Gambling ads are completely legal here, and frankly endemic. I suspect that they'll be banned in due course since everyone has discovered how normalising they've made gambling. The social costs of the addiction - which can start at very young ages - is high. (And let's face it, computer game loot boxes are also gambling.) No doubt as gambling legislation continues to be weakened in the US,  you'll see it on your TVs too. In the meantime, look at the shirts of around half the Premier League football teams to see gambling ads, many of which are aimed at Chinese consumers, somewhere else that gambling ads are banned.

 

We’re already there with gambling ads, for both your run-of-the-mill state lottery as well as onlines Draft Kings and BetMGM. (In the fine print is “Got a problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.” Or some such.)

 

Per WV legislation which allows for online gambling, each brick-and-mortar – of which there’s five – can run up to three online casinos. This includes the one at the Greenbrier Resort, which is run not by our billionaire governor, but his family. *wink-wink nod-nod*

 

_   _

|_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV

|_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw

[Paul Murray]

Online gambling became legal here in MI a few weeks ago, and OMG MAKE THE ONLINE GAMBLING COMMERCIALS STOP.  

They were some actually running in advance, which was a little weird, because apparently it wasn't exactly clear what date the state government would start allowing it. Now there's more and more every week.

[Steve Timko]

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 9:52 AM Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just to add to the discussion, one of my fellow NBC Pages worked for a years in ad sales for the news division. Drug companies and semi-related life insurance companies notoriously buy ad time on the cheap, meaning if the program you’re watching contains a lot of pharmaceutical commercials, the program in question is not a big money maker for the network that airs it.

I see the boner pill ads with the hot MILF wives during all the NFL and college football games. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4Cerb1mBUbZho1t6d0PmakZs9nXXbRxAnX5T%3D9%2Bd-yuEg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Jeffries]

And a laugh track and canned applause, which you will not hear on the color version of the end titles when MeTV runs the first two seasons.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/EA419582-6E1B-4560-8076-FD1EB656AE0C%40ellwanger.tv.

[Melissa P]

More than likely, mostly the federal government, through graduate student fellowships, etc.  

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 3:12 PM Adam Bowie <ad...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote:

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.

I'm always interested who has paid for such studies :-)

0mail.gmail.com.

[Karen Owen]

On 3/8/2021 3:35 PM, Karen Owen wrote:
> Variety answers it here
>
> https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/oprah-winfrey-interview-meghan-harry-paramount-plus-1234924861/
>
>
> It's on CBS.com website
>
>

I saw an ad this morning for the Grammy awards show
that said it will be streaming on Paramount+

[Adam Bowie]

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 5:52 AM Paul Murray <pmur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Online gambling became legal here in MI a few weeks ago, and OMG MAKE THE ONLINE GAMBLING COMMERCIALS STOP.  

They were some actually running in advance, which was a little weird, because apparently it wasn't exactly clear what date the state government would start allowing it. Now there's more and more every week.

You can't move for gambling ads during football (soccer) coverage. Technically, they're impressive. The ads contain live odds for the game that you're about to watch or in the middle of. The overall surrounding of the ads the same, but the specific deal is live-generated around 30 seconds before the ad airs. Of course odds change constantly so there's some rule that says the bet has to be available for a short period of time. But they only ever use slightly complicated combination bets eg. "Arsenal to win 3-1 and Lacazette to be a goalscorer." That's so precise that you can offer fairly generous odds and keep the bet live for a while. 

The downside is utterly normalised. The ads all have "When the fun stops, stop." included in them. And occasionally, they'll mention that they have deposit limits to stop you putting your entire monthly payslip on the football. But yeah - gambling has become a problem.

Of course the aforementioned gambling skews male, but fear not, there are lots of bingo mobile apps all over daytime TV too...

The people who have really got addicted to gambling are our football teams. If, as seems likely, the government tightens up a lot on advertising, then lots of them might be in trouble. But I've strayed off topic enough here!

Adam

[Tom Wolper]

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 10:44 AM Adam Bowie <ad...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote:

You can't move for gambling ads during football (soccer) coverage. Technically, they're impressive. The ads contain live odds for the game that you're about to watch or in the middle of. The overall surrounding of the ads the same, but the specific deal is live-generated around 30 seconds before the ad airs. Of course odds change constantly so there's some rule that says the bet has to be available for a short period of time. But they only ever use slightly complicated combination bets eg. "Arsenal to win 3-1 and Lacazette to be a goalscorer." That's so precise that you can offer fairly generous odds and keep the bet live for a while. 

The downside is utterly normalised. The ads all have "When the fun stops, stop." included in them. And occasionally, they'll mention that they have deposit limits to stop you putting your entire monthly payslip on the football. But yeah - gambling has become a problem.

Of course the aforementioned gambling skews male, but fear not, there are lots of bingo mobile apps all over daytime TV too...

The people who have really got addicted to gambling are our football teams. If, as seems likely, the government tightens up a lot on advertising, then lots of them might be in trouble. But I've strayed off topic enough here!

There is a big ramp up in ganbling in the US and advertising is sure to follow. Professional teams are already striking deals with gambling companies and shows are starting to appear for fantasy football players. In current pandemic conditions both casinos and state lotteries have launched online games and I have already seen commercials from the local casino and billboards from the lottery. I'm sure the online business is not going away when the casinos reopen to capacity and I'm sure they will be spending on commercials to build that business.

[Joe Hass]

I can bring it back.

Remember when we heard that Sinclair bought the Fox Sports RSNs? They've sold the naming rights.

Paul, I hope you enjoy Bally's Sports Detroit for all your Tigers, Red Wings, and Pistons coverage needs!

https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networks/sinclair-unveils-bally-sports-network-lineup-which-will-replace-and-reshuffle-the-fox-sports-rsns.html

And Bally's has made it clear they're going to make gambling a major part of the sports broadcasts.

https://theathletic.com/2360091/2021/02/02/ballys-sports-guide-changes-gambling-coming-regional-sports-tv

--

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+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGDc_cm-BpwgkJ0eyc%3DcVTgHG-Bw1oMaHoKwtvPTS6L7ZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Jeffries]

There is a conflict with the Duke and Duchess' production deals with Netflix that's keeping the interview off of P+.

Mark Jeffries
spotl...@gmail.com

--
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+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/4c03c48a-b5c5-0cae-2dca-a0bdc832477d%40frontiernet.net.

[John Edwards]

Ah yes, dodgy streams. The way I watch 90% of the cricket I see and a non-trivial amount of soccer, rugby league and AFL... 

As for drug ads, the ones we get in Canada are much more soft sell. We don't get the 15 seconds of benefits followed by 20 seconds of what dread diseases you can also get. 

Our ads tend to be of the "ask your doctor about NewDrug" variety, where they don't mention what the drug actually does and only vaguely allude to what problem it solves, or they will mention broadly that "there are solutions" for whatever the ailment is and that you should ask your doctor about it. One about toe fungus seemed to be on particularly high rotation during CFL games, which helped lessen my in-game food consumption....

John

On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 10:50, Adam Bowie <ad...@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+...@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.

--
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+...@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.

--

John Edwards
"You can insure against the weather, but you can't insure against incompetence, can you?" - Phil Tufnell

[Paul Murray]

> Paul, I hope you enjoy Bally's Sports Detroit for all your Tigers, Red Wings, and Pistons coverage needs!

As they say on Reddit ... thanks, I hate it.

I don't pay for TV (well, Hulu bundled with Spotify, and Para+ for the half-off year at least), and I'm not a big sports fan, so the impact on me will be minimal. But on principle ... yep, that sucks. And of course it's Sinclair.