🚀 go-pugleaf

"BillKirch" <baldguy96@aol.comnoads> wrote in message
news:20040101030547.16180.00001422@mb-m22.aol.com...
> Everytime I just flip over to it ,to see whats on ...it's a commercial.
They
> must have 40 minutes of commercials an hour.

And the other 20 is Emeril.

Paul

On 01 Jan 2004 08:05:47 GMT, baldguy96@aol.comnoads (BillKirch) wrote:

>Everytime I just flip over to it ,to see whats on ...it's a commercial. They
>must have 40 minutes of commercials an hour.

The total available advertising time is regulated by the FCC (I think
it's 18min/hour max).  There aren't any more commercials on FTV than
most other stations.

-sw

"Paul M. Cook©®" <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> wrote in news:KcUIb.36130
$E17.17740@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:

>
> "BillKirch" <baldguy96@aol.comnoads> wrote in message
> news:20040101030547.16180.00001422@mb-m22.aol.com...
>> Everytime I just flip over to it ,to see whats on ...it's a commercial.
> They
>> must have 40 minutes of commercials an hour.
>
> And the other 20 is Emeril.
>
> Paul
>
>
>

Wouldn't that make it 60 minutes of commercials?

>Everytime I just flip over to it ,to see whats on ...it's a commercial. They
>must have 40 minutes of commercials an hour.

They're not the only ones.  I hardly ever watch tv anymore because 9 times out
of 10 whenever I turn it on there's a commercial on every station.   The thing
I hate the most is when a station uses a large chunk of its advertising time to
promote itself.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 20:52:38 GMT, Frogleg <frogleg@nowhere.com> wrote:

>FoodTV is no different from any other channel.

I suspect the reason it seems there are so many commercials is because
they are really not aimed at the demographics of this group.
Commercials for restaurants like Olive garden, frozen prepared meals,
etc, are pretty annoying.  Now a spot for Penzeys, or any high end
cookware might seem to be a little quicker.

Gar

On 01 Jan 2004 18:52:01 GMT, djs0302@aol.comnospam (DJS0302) wrote:

>>Everytime I just flip over to it ,to see whats on ...it's a commercial. They
>>must have 40 minutes of commercials an hour.
>
>They're not the only ones.  I hardly ever watch tv anymore because 9 times out
>of 10 whenever I turn it on there's a commercial on every station.   The thing
>I hate the most is when a station uses a large chunk of its advertising time to
>promote itself.

The official, legally permittable time for USAsian commercials has
been creeping upward for years. "Classic" (old) TV programs must now
be extensively cut to fit the 22-minute half-hour, and the (approx.)
44-minute hour. FoodTV is no different from any other channel. PPV is
just that -- you pay with time or you pay with $$.

I never "watch" the Food Channel -- I record it, then I watch it.
But I pick my programs to record, I don't record the whole 24/7.

I never record Emeril.  What a show-off!

Dee



"BillKirch" <baldguy96@aol.comnoads> wrote in message
news:20040101030547.16180.00001422@mb-m22.aol.com...
> Everytime I just flip over to it ,to see whats on ...it's a commercial.
They
> must have 40 minutes of commercials an hour.

"Wayne Boatwright" <WayneBoatWright@SMN.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94636E9DC9630wayneboatwright@204.127.36.1...
> "Paul M. Cook©®" <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> wrote in news:KcUIb.36130
> $E17.17740@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
>
> >
> > "BillKirch" <baldguy96@aol.comnoads> wrote in message
> > news:20040101030547.16180.00001422@mb-m22.aol.com...
> >> Everytime I just flip over to it ,to see whats on ...it's a commercial.
> > They
> >> must have 40 minutes of commercials an hour.
> >
> > And the other 20 is Emeril.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
>
> Wouldn't that make it 60 minutes of commercials?

Sometimes it really is all commercials all the time.  FoodTV has taken on a
format in which many of its shows are nothing more than pure advertising.
Take "The Best Of."  What company could want better advertising with a
guaranteed demographic?  I strongly believe all those many hotels, inns,
web sites and other mom and pop companies fork over wads of cash to be
featured on those shows.  I'd never boycott them for that reason mind you
but things like stealth advertising really frost my cookies.

On 01/01/2004 2:12 PM, in article 2X0Jb.36506$E17.4268@nwrddc02.gnilink.net,
"Paul M. Cook©®" <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> opined:

> 
> "Wayne Boatwright" <WayneBoatWright@SMN.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns94636E9DC9630wayneboatwright@204.127.36.1...
>> "Paul M. Cook©®" <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> wrote in news:KcUIb.36130
>> $E17.17740@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
>> 
>>> 
>>> "BillKirch" <baldguy96@aol.comnoads> wrote in message
>>> news:20040101030547.16180.00001422@mb-m22.aol.com...
>>>> Everytime I just flip over to it ,to see whats on ...it's a commercial.
>>> They
>>>> must have 40 minutes of commercials an hour.
>>> 
>>> And the other 20 is Emeril.
>>> 
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Wouldn't that make it 60 minutes of commercials?
> 
> Sometimes it really is all commercials all the time.  FoodTV has taken on a
> format in which many of its shows are nothing more than pure advertising.
> Take "The Best Of."  What company could want better advertising with a
> guaranteed demographic?  I strongly believe all those many hotels, inns,
> web sites and other mom and pop companies fork over wads of cash to be
> featured on those shows.  I'd never boycott them for that reason mind you
> but things like stealth advertising really frost my cookies.
> 
> 

When they came to my city they featured all the right happn' places.

The eateries they featured don't advertise and have lines around the block.

So I think your argument is flawed.
-- 
=======================================================================
The principal difference between genius and stupidity is that there are
limits to genius!
=======================================================================

in article 2X0Jb.36506$E17.4268@nwrddc02.gnilink.net, Paul M. Cook©® at
pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net wrote on 1/1/04 5:12 PM:

>
> Sometimes it really is all commercials all the time.  FoodTV has taken on a
> format in which many of its shows are nothing more than pure advertising.
> Take "The Best Of."  What company could want better advertising with a
> guaranteed demographic?  I strongly believe all those many hotels, inns,
> web sites and other mom and pop companies fork over wads of cash to be
> featured on those shows.  I'd never boycott them for that reason mind you
> but things like stealth advertising really frost my cookies.

It's not just "Best Of", it's also "Unwrapped". You're right, many of their
shows are nothing but veiled commercials.

I rarely watch FoodTV anymore, and that's one of the reasons. Of course,
it's rare to find a show where they actually cook on the network anymore.
But when they do, it's really just a commercial for All-Clad.

in article 20040101135201.07934.00002052@mb-m16.aol.com, DJS0302 at
djs0302@aol.comnospam wrote on 1/1/04 1:52 PM:

>> Everytime I just flip over to it ,to see whats on ...it's a commercial. They
>> must have 40 minutes of commercials an hour.
>
> They're not the only ones.  I hardly ever watch tv anymore because 9 times out
> of 10 whenever I turn it on there's a commercial on every station.   The thing
> I hate the most is when a station uses a large chunk of its advertising time
> to
> promote itself.

The thing I hate is, they now plug their upcoming shows on the lower third
of the screen WHILE THE PROGRAM is on. Makes me crazy.

When they came to my city, they hit a well kept secret of the locals.  The
only way I ever found it was word of mouth and the really long lines to get
in, in addition to no parking space because the place was packed with happy
diners.

Sid


"The Wolf" <elvispmpsd@compuserve.net> wrote in message
news:BC1A104A.4BC1C%elvispmpsd@compuserve.net...
> On 01/01/2004 2:12 PM, in article
2X0Jb.36506$E17.4268@nwrddc02.gnilink.net,
> "Paul M. Cook©®" <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> opined:
>
> >
> > "Wayne Boatwright" <WayneBoatWright@SMN.worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
> > news:Xns94636E9DC9630wayneboatwright@204.127.36.1...
> >> "Paul M. Cook©®" <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> wrote in
news:KcUIb.36130
> >> $E17.17740@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "BillKirch" <baldguy96@aol.comnoads> wrote in message
> >>> news:20040101030547.16180.00001422@mb-m22.aol.com...
> >>>> Everytime I just flip over to it ,to see whats on ...it's a
commercial.
> >>> They
> >>>> must have 40 minutes of commercials an hour.
> >>>
> >>> And the other 20 is Emeril.
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Wouldn't that make it 60 minutes of commercials?
> >
> > Sometimes it really is all commercials all the time.  FoodTV has taken
on a
> > format in which many of its shows are nothing more than pure
advertising.
> > Take "The Best Of."  What company could want better advertising with a
> > guaranteed demographic?  I strongly believe all those many hotels, inns,
> > web sites and other mom and pop companies fork over wads of cash to be
> > featured on those shows.  I'd never boycott them for that reason mind
you
> > but things like stealth advertising really frost my cookies.
> >
> >
>
> When they came to my city they featured all the right happn' places.
>
> The eateries they featured don't advertise and have lines around the
block.
>
> So I think your argument is flawed.
> -- 
> =======================================================================
> The principal difference between genius and stupidity is that there are
> limits to genius!
> =======================================================================
>
>

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 20:24:45 -0600, Gar <> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 20:52:38 GMT, Frogleg <frogleg@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>FoodTV is no different from any other channel.
>
>I suspect the reason it seems there are so many commercials is because
>they are really not aimed at the demographics of this group.
>Commercials for restaurants like Olive garden, frozen prepared meals,
>etc, are pretty annoying.  Now a spot for Penzeys, or any high end
>cookware might seem to be a little quicker.

I can't decide which is more annoying: an endless series of 15- to
30-second spots one after another (and often repeated in the same 2-3
minute 'break'), or a 2-minute whine about some cosmetic or gadget.

The endless repetition also gets to me (not, I think, in the way
advertisers plan). I mean,  you hear/see the *same* ad 50 times a day,
day after day, even with 3 hrs of TV.   Targetting seems odd, too.
Every year I hear about award-winning beer spots that I *never* see
because I don't watch any sports. But I *do* drink beer.

in article b50bvv4acis54fgavkkupvvod3jq9ud71q@4ax.com, Frogleg at
frogleg@nowhere.com wrote on 1/2/04 9:43 AM:

> The endless repetition also gets to me (not, I think, in the way
> advertisers plan). I mean,  you hear/see the *same* ad 50 times a day,
> day after day, even with 3 hrs of TV.   Targetting seems odd, too.
> Every year I hear about award-winning beer spots that I *never* see
> because I don't watch any sports. But I *do* drink beer.

This is something I know about, since that's my job....I buy time on tv for
commercials.  The vast majority of beer drinkers, and HEAVY drinkers, watch
sports.  The heaviest drinkers are 21-34 year old men.  They are also the
likeliest to change brands based on a commercial. By the time a person
reaches 40 years old, they are most likely loyal to their brand, choose it
by taste and are not going to be swayed by scantily clad, heavily implanted
models, and have also curtailed their drinking to the level of "occasional
drinking", not heavy drinking.   Frankly, the bulk of the money spent on
beer is by this younger, sports watching demographic. The rest of us don't
really matter. A mature adult, one who thinks, rather than reacts, will
choose their brand of beer by how it tastes. The cleverest commercial in the
world wouldn't get me to drink Coors, because to me, Coors is piss-water.
I'm also a 40 year old woman, definitely NOT being targeted by beer ads.

As for repetition, we realize there is a threshold where frequency is
counterproductive. We just don't always know where that is, since it's
different for every product.  And the reason you often see the same spot
ad-nauseum, more so on cable tv than elsewhere, is that they get cheap
rates, over-buy and figure some will get bumped in favor of people paying
more. Supply and demand. But it doesn't always work that way. And if the
station isn't sold out, they will run "bonus" spots for their preferred
clients.  Especially with Direct Response commercials....those that sell a
product or service via a phone number or website....often these are sold at
rock bottom rates, and will only run in spurts.  They merely have to hit a
"minimum" that is set between the buyer and the tv station, usually in a
month. Because these are most effective in spurts, they typically run them
all in a span of a few days. You see the same ad for a greatest hits cd by
some artist, by the 3rd time, you're humming along, by the 4 or 5th time you
see the commercial, you're dialing that toll free number and getting out
your credit card! That's what we hope, anyway!

Thus concludeth our lesson in tv media buying for today.

"Paul M. Cook©®" <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> wrote:

> Sometimes it really is all commercials all the time.  FoodTV has taken on a
> format in which many of its shows are nothing more than pure advertising.
> Take "The Best Of."  What company could want better advertising with a
> guaranteed demographic?  I strongly believe all those many hotels, inns,
> web sites and other mom and pop companies fork over wads of cash to be
> featured on those shows.  I'd never boycott them for that reason mind you
> but things like stealth advertising really frost my cookies.

I don't get that sense when I watch those shows. Anything's possible, but
without some evidence, I find it doubtful that these businesses pay for
being mentioned on Food Finds, etc.

in article bt7o4h$r8u$3@cronkite.temple.edu, stan@temple.edu at
stan@temple.edu wrote on 1/3/04 7:52 PM:

> "Paul M. Cook©®" <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> wrote:
>
>> Sometimes it really is all commercials all the time.  FoodTV has taken on a
>> format in which many of its shows are nothing more than pure advertising.
>> Take "The Best Of."  What company could want better advertising with a
>> guaranteed demographic?  I strongly believe all those many hotels, inns,
>> web sites and other mom and pop companies fork over wads of cash to be
>> featured on those shows.  I'd never boycott them for that reason mind you
>> but things like stealth advertising really frost my cookies.
>
> I don't get that sense when I watch those shows. Anything's possible, but
> without some evidence, I find it doubtful that these businesses pay for
> being mentioned on Food Finds, etc.
>

But Stan, doesn't it "feel" like a commercial?
It does to me, but perhaps, different strokes....

On 4 Jan 2004 00:52:33 GMT, stan@temple.edu wrote:

>"Paul M. Cook©®" <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> wrote:
>
>> Sometimes it really is all commercials all the time.  FoodTV has taken on a
>> format in which many of its shows are nothing more than pure advertising.
>> Take "The Best Of."  What company could want better advertising with a
>> guaranteed demographic?  I strongly believe all those many hotels, inns,
>> web sites and other mom and pop companies fork over wads of cash to be
>> featured on those shows.  I'd never boycott them for that reason mind you
>> but things like stealth advertising really frost my cookies.
>
>I don't get that sense when I watch those shows. Anything's possible, but
>without some evidence, I find it doubtful that these businesses pay for
>being mentioned on Food Finds, etc.

I don't watch these often, but don't they say something about viewers
nominating their favorite places and food items? The Food Finds are
often quite small operations without, one assumes, enough $$ to lure a
TV show to their fudge shop. True, the restaurant or producer receives
publicity ('though with many features showing people lined up outside,
it seems they don't need any extra), and takes a hit for having a TV
crew hanging around for a day or 2.   I doubt Gourmet magazine is paid
when featuring the restaurants of a city or type; why should FoodTV be
different? The revenue is in the *real* advertising, not the feature
stories.

"Frogleg" <frogleg@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ngvfvvst7pf3aq5t5gensk68iu4ps7lqr3@4ax.com...
> On 4 Jan 2004 00:52:33 GMT, stan@temple.edu wrote:
>
> >"Paul M. Cook©®" <pmBERMUDA_SHORTScook@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Sometimes it really is all commercials all the time.  FoodTV has taken
on a
> >> format in which many of its shows are nothing more than pure
advertising.
> >> Take "The Best Of."  What company could want better advertising with a
> >> guaranteed demographic?  I strongly believe all those many hotels,
inns,
> >> web sites and other mom and pop companies fork over wads of cash to be
> >> featured on those shows.  I'd never boycott them for that reason mind
you
> >> but things like stealth advertising really frost my cookies.
> >
> >I don't get that sense when I watch those shows. Anything's possible, but
> >without some evidence, I find it doubtful that these businesses pay for
> >being mentioned on Food Finds, etc.
>
> I don't watch these often, but don't they say something about viewers
> nominating their favorite places and food items? The Food Finds are
> often quite small operations without, one assumes, enough $$ to lure a
> TV show to their fudge shop. True, the restaurant or producer receives
> publicity ('though with many features showing people lined up outside,
> it seems they don't need any extra), and takes a hit for having a TV
> crew hanging around for a day or 2.   I doubt Gourmet magazine is paid
> when featuring the restaurants of a city or type; why should FoodTV be
> different? The revenue is in the *real* advertising, not the feature
> stories.

Not advertising?  How about the myriad of shows where they feature "unheard"
of companies selling novelty items like southern pickle relish, habanero
jam, pralines or bloody mary mix?  They don't have lines around the block.
And at the end of the show is a phone number and or web address where you
can buy their hideously overpriced wares.  16 bucks for a pound of apple
butter?  Paleaaaaaaaaaaassssssse!

Paul