Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

> 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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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.

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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!

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 10:44 AM Adam Bowie 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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 5:52 AM Paul Murray 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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

More than likely, mostly the federal government, through graduate student fellowships, etc. On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 3:12 PM Adam Bowie 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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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. On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 1:25 PM Jim Ellwanger wrote: > I know you're joking about your age, but the sponsor of "The Filntstones" > was Winston, not Kools. > >

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 9:52 AM Kevin M. 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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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

RE: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

From: tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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.

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 6:16 PM Stan S 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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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? On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:25 AM Jim

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:07 AM Melissa P 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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

...and if anything, Oprah's allegiance at this point is to AppleTV+ rather than any of the broadcast networks... On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 10:54:11 AM UTC-5 Jon Delfin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 10:16 AM PGage wrote: > [snip] > >> >> Also, I thought Oprah had a relationship with ABC,

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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. On Mon., Mar. 8, 2021, 12:05 p.m. Sean Healy, wrote: > Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads are still not allowed in Canada.

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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 On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 1:16:09 PM UTC-5 Stan S wrote: > Someone please send the Brits the Joe

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

Someone please send the Brits the Joe Namath Medicare Advantage ads :) -Stan On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 12:52:02 PM UTC-5 Kevin M. (RPCV) 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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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. 

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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. On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 7:54 AM Jon Delfin wrote:

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 10:16 AM PGage 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."

Re: [TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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

[TV orNotTV] British Reaction to US Pharmaceutical Ads

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