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

"BillKirch" > wrote in message
...
> 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

"Paul M. Cook©®" > wrote in news:KcUIb.36130
:

>
> "BillKirch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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 01 Jan 2004 18:52:01 GMT, ospam (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 $$.

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Paul M. Cook©®" > wrote in news:KcUIb.36130
> :
>
> >
> > "BillKirch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> 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.

>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.

#################
Cable networks are not regulated by the FCC....only BROADCASTING stations. BG

On 01/01/2004 2:12 PM, in article ,
"Paul M. Cook©®" > opined:

>
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Paul M. Cook©®" > wrote in news:KcUIb.36130
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "BillKirch" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> 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 20:52:38 GMT, Frogleg > 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

in article , BillKirch at
oads wrote on 1/1/04 8:05 PM:

>> 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.
>
> #################
> Cable networks are not regulated by the FCC....only BROADCASTING stations. BG

You are wrong.
The FCC *does* regulate cable television.

from http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States
government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established
by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate
and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and
cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and U.S. possessions."

in article , Paul M. Cook©® at
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 , DJS0302 at
ospam 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.

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

>Bullshit. You're not only ignorant, but stupid too.
>
>-sw

################
They might regulate transmission of cable but NOT content. Thats why you can
see things on HBO that you can't see on NBC. You stupid dick. BG

"BillKirch" > wrote in message
...
> >Bullshit. You're not only ignorant, but stupid too.
> >
> >-sw
>
> ################
> They might regulate transmission of cable but NOT content. Thats why you
can
> see things on HBO that you can't see on NBC. You stupid dick. BG

A court recently ruled that Eminem's use of the F word and its subsequent
broadcast on cable violated no laws. Cable content is pretty much wide
open. I hear the word bitch all the time now. On Discovery Channel, my
favorite series "American Chopper" frequently has one character threatening
to "shove my 12 inch boot up your ass." Pretty soon we'll even hear the
dreaded 3 letter T word that George Carlin spoke of, on cable.

Paul

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

>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 20:52:38 GMT, Frogleg > 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.

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" > wrote in message
...
> On 01/01/2004 2:12 PM, in article
,
> "Paul M. Cook©®" > opined:
>
> >
> > "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in
message
> > . ..
> >> "Paul M. Cook©®" > wrote in
news:KcUIb.36130
> >> :
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "BillKirch" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> 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 01/02/2004 12:04 AM, in article
, "BillKirch"
> opined:

>> Bullshit. You're not only ignorant, but stupid too.
>>
>> -sw
>
> ################
> They might regulate transmission of cable but NOT content. Thats why you can
> see things on HBO that you can't see on NBC. You stupid dick. BG

If Colin Powell's son (chief of FCC) says HBO ain't getting their license
renewed IT MEANS HBO AIN'T GETTING THEIR LICENSE RENEWED.

YOU ARE THE STUPID DICK! DICK!
--
=======================================
"Democrats **** me off," Eric Cartman.
=======================================

oads (BillKirch) wrote in message >...
> >Bullshit. You're not only ignorant, but stupid too.
> >
> >-sw
>
> ################
> They might regulate transmission of cable but NOT content. Thats why you can
> see things on HBO that you can't see on NBC. You stupid dick. BG

HBO is not advertiser supported, you idiot.
We were talking about the number of commercials allowed in an hour of
programming. The FCC regulates that. On all networks, broadcast or
cable.

Cable networks are not regulated the same way broadcast stations are.
Because broadcast channels are available to anyone with a tv and an
antenna, and theoretically are "free" they are required to serve the
community. Cable networks are not required to serve the community. The
local cable SYSTEMS are required to serve their community, which is
why there are leased access channels on every cable system, and things
like CSpan, and local channels that carry city council meetings, local
political debates, and, for a small fee,any Joe Schmoe who wants to do
a show on the public access channel. Cable NETWORKS, such as USA,
Lifetime, etc, are not required to serve teh community, since they are
national networks. The public service requirement is fulfilled by the
local system. (Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, whatever...)

Advertiser supported cable networks are subject to the same limits as
far as ad time in an hour that the broadcast networks are. The content
regulations are different. Comparing HBO to NBC is moot. HBO is not
advertiser supported, you have to pay to get it, so they will pretty
much show anything, and if you dont' like it, don't pay for it.
Simple. Comparing TNT, BRAVO, A&E, etc, in other words "Basic Cable",
advertiser supported networks to NBC is a little bit closer to the
mark. But again, the FCC only governs the number of commercials they
can run in an hour, but not the "content", the way they do NBC, for
example. You will hear the "7 dirty words" on HBO, for sure, at least
some of them. You might hear them on TNT or Bravo. You might also see
a naked breast on those channels. But on NBC, they will be bleeped
(and in the case of nudity, blurred).

Most cable channels police themselves on matters of taste and
offensive content. But they are not required to, the way the broadcast
networks are.

>If Colin Powell's son (chief of FCC) says HBO ain't getting their license
>renewed IT MEANS HBO AIN'T GETTING THEIR LICENSE RENEWED.

#############
Previous poster said:
"A court recently ruled that Eminem's use of the F word and its subsequent
broadcast on cable violated no laws. Cable content is pretty much wide
open.
#################
HBO is a PAY network. They do not have to adhere to the same requirements as
say NBC, or FOX which BROADCAST. FCC dictates transmission criteria but NOT
content ...as far as how many commercials
per hour they can air. you're childish tirades do not upset me. You know
nothing
BG

On 01/02/2004 12:18 PM, in article
, "BillKirch"
> opined:

>> If Colin Powell's son (chief of FCC) says HBO ain't getting their license
>> renewed IT MEANS HBO AIN'T GETTING THEIR LICENSE RENEWED.
>
> #############
> Previous poster said:
> "A court recently ruled that Eminem's use of the F word and its subsequent
> broadcast on cable violated no laws. Cable content is pretty much wide
> open.
> #################
> HBO is a PAY network. They do not have to adhere to the same requirements as
> say NBC, or FOX which BROADCAST. FCC dictates transmission criteria but NOT
> content ...as far as how many commercials
> per hour they can air. you're childish tirades do not upset me. You know
> nothing
> BG

Correction, I *know* you are a dumb ****!
--
================================================== ===================
"New Orleans food is as delicious as the less criminal forms of sin."
-- Mark Twain, 1884
================================================== ===================

>Correction, I *know* you are a dumb ****!

##############
You're what happens when the fetus does'nt get enough air.I don't kick in the
motel door and knock the cock out of your mouth when your're working....so
leave me alone here. BG

in article , Frogleg at
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 ****-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.

Sheryl Rosen wrote:
>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!

What I think is funny is when an announcer on a commercial says to hurry and
call within the next 5 minutes to get a one time extra bonus on an item and
then you see the same commercial on another station 10 minutes later.

in article , DJS0302 at
ospam wrote on 1/3/04 12:28 AM:

> What I think is funny is when an announcer on a commercial says to hurry and
> call within the next 5 minutes to get a one time extra bonus on an item and
> then you see the same commercial on another station 10 minutes later.

Well...it gets people to call, doesn't it? They don't actually say that you
WON'T get it if you call tomorrow, do they? So it's not really dishonest.

It's word-play, that's all. You are appealing to people who want something
for nothing. Do you really believe anyone would pay $30-40 each for those
Ron Popeil knives? They can say they are "worth" whatever they want them to
be worth. No one ever pays that much for them. They never sell for that
amount.

"Paul M. Cook©®" > 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 , at
wrote on 1/3/04 7:52 PM:

> "Paul M. Cook©®" > 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, wrote:

>"Paul M. Cook©®" > 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" > wrote in message
...
> On 4 Jan 2004 00:52:33 GMT, wrote:
>
> >"Paul M. Cook©®" > 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

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:00:41 GMT, "Paul M. Cook©®"
> wrote:

>
>"Frogleg" > wrote
>>
>> 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!

OK. Someone must know whether these are infomercials or not. I regard
'The Best of' as sort of travel info -- if you're ever in this city,
here are some of the local favorites. Or if you're looking for a
particular kind of B&B, here's one in Charleston or Annapolis. 'Food
Finds' is similar -- this company makes and ships this particular
foodstuff which we are showing you. There is 'product placement' in
movies and TV; '$40 a Day' is advertising. In fact, anything that
identifies a restaurant or product is advertising, paid or not. So how
can you make a program about restaurants or chefs *without*
identifying what you're talking about? 'Good Eats' doesn't mention
brands, but there's sure a lot of identifiable equipment involved.
'Jamie's Kitchen' is a long ad for 'Fifteen.' I'm *sure* there's a
bunch of quid pro quo in these arrangements, but perhaps not a
conspiracy to feature the worst BBQ in Atlanta for a hefty monetary
commission.

Sheryl > wrote:

> Advertiser supported cable networks are subject to the same limits as
> far as ad time in an hour that the broadcast networks are. The content

Which, according to the FCC's web site is no limit on
commercials per hour, except during children's programming.

> mark. But again, the FCC only governs the number of commercials they
> can run in an hour, but not the "content", the way they do NBC, for

Can you give me a pointer to an FCC regulation that specifically
limits the number of commercials? Seriously, I looked and looked
and the only limit they talk about is in regard to children's
programming. So, in theory, a station could have 50% commercial
time, which explains infomercials I guess . . .

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

>Which, according to the FCC's web site is no limit on
>commercials per hour, except during children's programming.

##############
Which means Steve Wertz is the ignorant Idiot that doesn't know what he's
talking about. BG

>baldguy96
>
>sumgai sez:
>>Which, according to the FCC's web site is no limit on
>>commercials per hour, except during children's programming.
>
>Which means Steve Wertz is the ignorant Idiot that doesn't know what he's
>talking about. BG

You're catching on... "sqwertz" (his real name) has not even once ever offered
a reference to any of his fercocktah assertations, which of course is
indictative of his being both an imbecilic ******* and a schizophrenic douche
bag.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

Sheryl Rosen > wrote:

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

No. Different strokes.

in article , at
wrote on 1/5/04 2:32 PM:

> Sheryl > wrote:
>
>> Advertiser supported cable networks are subject to the same limits as
>> far as ad time in an hour that the broadcast networks are. The content
>
> Which, according to the FCC's web site is no limit on
> commercials per hour, except during children's programming.
>
>> mark. But again, the FCC only governs the number of commercials they
>> can run in an hour, but not the "content", the way they do NBC, for
>
> Can you give me a pointer to an FCC regulation that specifically
> limits the number of commercials? Seriously, I looked and looked
> and the only limit they talk about is in regard to children's
> programming. So, in theory, a station could have 50% commercial
> time, which explains infomercials I guess . . .
>
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.

I couldn't find one on the web, to tell you the truth. But there is
something wayyyyy back in the recesses of my mind, that I learned about 20
years ago (maybe more) back in college, that the FCC limits the number of
minutes of "non-program" time in an hour. Non-program time means just that.
News breaks, promos for upcoming shows, commercials, whatever. Now that I
think of it, that's what it's called. "Non-Program" time. Perhaps a search
on that will bring it up?

Believe me, if the networks could deplete the program time in favor of
commercials, they would. That's the revenue stream!

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 03:58:02 GMT, Sheryl Rosen
> wrote:

>I couldn't find one on the web, to tell you the truth. But there is
>something wayyyyy back in the recesses of my mind, that I learned about 20
>years ago (maybe more) back in college, that the FCC limits the number of
>minutes of "non-program" time in an hour. Non-program time means just that.
>News breaks, promos for upcoming shows, commercials, whatever. Now that I
>think of it, that's what it's called. "Non-Program" time. Perhaps a search
>on that will bring it up?
>
>Believe me, if the networks could deplete the program time in favor of
>commercials, they would. That's the revenue stream!

The unofficial rule of thumb some years back when I wrote for print
media, was 60% advertising to 40% content (that is if you wanted to be
profitable). I haven't any hard evidence other than observation, but
the percentage advertising appears to have increased.

So, it could be worse on Food TV.

Sheryl Rosen > wrote:
> >
> > Can you give me a pointer to an FCC regulation that specifically
> > limits the number of commercials? Seriously, I looked and looked
> > and the only limit they talk about is in regard to children's

> I couldn't find one on the web, to tell you the truth. But there is
> something wayyyyy back in the recesses of my mind, that I learned about 20
> years ago (maybe more) back in college, that the FCC limits the number of
> minutes of "non-program" time in an hour. Non-program time means just that.

I tried that, and the only hits on the FCC web site were references
to childrens educational television. In fact, I found statements
pretty much saying they don't regulate commercial time except during
children's programming. That surprised me, and is why I asked if you
had a specfic citation.

> Believe me, if the networks could deplete the program time in favor of
> commercials, they would. That's the revenue stream!

Then how do you explain info-mercials? Those are clearly program
length commercials. Those would have to violate any such rule limiting
commercial time per hour. I'm afraid that the balance between
commercial time and program time may be just what the stations
and networks choose to limit themselves to. I understand that in
some areas even Home Shopping Network is on broadcast channels.
I would not be surprised to find that the networks have some
contractual agreements that limit how much time they will sell
during a particular program, but that's not the same as an FCC
regulation.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

Steve Wertz > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:09:14 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

> >Then how do you explain info-mercials? Those are clearly program
> >length commercials. Those would have to violate any such rule limiting
> >commercial time per hour. I'm afraid that the balance between
> >commercial time and program time may be just what the stations
> >and networks choose to limit themselves to.

> FCC says they have to identify their programs as paid commercial
> advertisements at the beginning and end of each program.

Yes, so? That is not a limit on number or time of commercials
per hour is it?

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

On 01 Jan 2004 18:52:01 GMT, ospam (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 mute button on your remote is your friend.

your pal,
blake