Chambers wrote:
> Money is an imaginary concept anyway. 

No it's not. It's only fiat money that's imaginary.

> Do you really think that you 
> physically have all the money in your bank account?  

No. Indeed, I don't even have the "money" that's in my wallet in the 
terms of green pieces of paper.

> so what's the 
> difference between the 1% of your net worth you carry with you being 
> cash versus some form of electronic payment?

That I can actually have as much of my net worth I want in the form of 
anonymous untraceable bits of paper I can use to buy stuff with?

Say you're the wife of an abusive police officer. Wouldn't it be nice to 
be able to hire a cab and buy a bus ticket without your abusive 
homicidal husband being able to ask the bank where it is you're hiding?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> number in *several* computers, thanks to redundancy :) ), so what's the 
> difference between the 1% of your net worth you carry with you being 
> cash versus some form of electronic payment?
> 

The differences are several I think.

There is not what amounts to a tax on commerce going straight into 
financial institution coffers, if two people use cash as an interface. 
There is with electronic, and if all money were electronic this would 
amount to a tax from the 'bank' on all existing commerce.  Further, 
there would be little cost to adding tax apon tax apon tax.  Tax money 
for everybody with influence.  Whoopee if you're one of them.

But if you are of the underclass, the demi-monde. You bear the burden. 
Also, if you have little access to the establishment, if you are 'other' 
and deemed undesireable, and cannot access the official mediums for 
money exchange, without cash the sanctions against you would be even 
more severe.  With the availability of currency, those forced to inhabit 
this shadow world could carry %100 of their 'net worth' as cash.

With solely electronic money, the ability for those in power to monitor 
people is enhanced tremendously as was already mentioned, and along with 
such control comes the ability to sanction others.

Now, there will always be a blackmarket and barter will always be used 
to circumvent this because such a homogeous world as is implicit in the 
vision of a cashless world can never exist.

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> "Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message 
> news:489b20cd$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> I now try to use the CC for online-only transactions. There was a long 
>> while where I just kept it at home. I try to pay whatever I can in cash 
>> now. Not to save money, but I got wary of various companies knowing my 
>> shopping habits.
> 
> 
>  That's exactly what I do. I hope they never get rid of cash, to me, it's 
> the most important thing in life, (as far as paying something goes). I 
> wouldn't feel safe if there wasn't any hard cash to use.
> 
>> Paranoia, as Sabrina said.
> 
>     Yes, that's it.
> 
>        ~Steve~
> 
> 

I hope neither of you are using those 'customer benefit' cards that 
everyone hands out. Or, at the least, carry 8 of them for the same store 
with different invalid addresses under fake names.

And I wonder why my key chain gets heavy . . .

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> Same thing with the majority of utility bills - the invoice comes 
>> through and the payment drawn a few days later.
> 
> While handy, it hasn't been available in the USA long enough for me to 
> trust it to work reliably. :-) It only took them about 5 or 10 years 
> before direct deposit failed to suck. No way am I letting them take it 
> *out* without my interaction.
> 

I have to agree. Besides, I find it much simpler to know that you always 
have to manage that withdrawal of money at a certain time, rather then 
remembering to do it the one time you charge too much. And the late fees 
on a credit card are normally much kinder then the overdraft fees from 
the bank.

The only time I've seen automated utility payment done right, was when 
it automatically billed a credit card. Cash back bonus, ding the utility 
company for the service fee, and have that extra month to pay it.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:21:25 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>
>Say you're the wife of an abusive police officer. Wouldn't it be nice to 
>be able to hire a cab and buy a bus ticket without your abusive 
>homicidal husband being able to ask the bank where it is you're hiding?

There is also "skimming" to take into account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skimming_%28credit_card_fraud%29#Skimming
Cash is anonymous and safe to use. Also it is quicker to get the transaction
through a till if the shop is using a dial up connection.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> There is also "skimming" to take into account.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skimming_%28credit_card_fraud%29#Skimming
> Cash is anonymous and safe to use. Also it is quicker to get the transaction
> through a till if the shop is using a dial up connection.

Yeah the speed/convenience does depend on circumstance.  For instance it 
cuts two ways with me.  At the gas pump the card is faster and more 
convenient than having to walk some cash over to the bullet-proof booth, 
maybe wait in a line, overpay, then walk back, pump the gas, then back 
over to the cashier to get any change.  But in the taxi, waiting for a 
customer to pay with a card slows things way down.  Utterly frustrating 
to loose a fare to another cab because you can't get your current people 
out of the car fast enough.  And then of course there is the wait to get 
your receipts from the dispatcher at the end of the shift.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:30:20 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:

>Yeah the speed/convenience does depend on circumstance.  For instance it 
>cuts two ways with me.  At the gas pump the card is faster and more 
>convenient than having to walk some cash over to the bullet-proof booth, 
>maybe wait in a line, overpay, then walk back, pump the gas, then back 
>over to the cashier to get any change.  But in the taxi, waiting for a 
>customer to pay with a card slows things way down.  Utterly frustrating 
>to loose a fare to another cab because you can't get your current people 
>out of the car fast enough.  And then of course there is the wait to get 
>your receipts from the dispatcher at the end of the shift.

Here we still fill up with fuel then pay. Some places do have card facilities at
the pumps though. "Pre-pay", it is a terrible world :(
My pet peeve is people who pay for "small change" shopping with a card. But then
I'm getting old and cantankerous ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Here we still fill up with fuel then pay. Some places do have card facilities at
> the pumps though. "Pre-pay", it is a terrible world :(

Sadly, one pump-and-run can take the profit of an entire week from the 
gas station.

> My pet peeve is people who pay for "small change" shopping with a card. But then
> I'm getting old and cantankerous ;)

I get annoyed at people who pay with a personal check for that sort of 
stuff, myself. Altho I understand that's usually not their own fault.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> I hope neither of you are using those 'customer benefit' cards that 
> everyone hands out. Or, at the least, carry 8 of them for the same store 
> with different invalid addresses under fake names.

	Valid point. I have one for one store. I've always felt like getting 
another one with a fake address. Then I felt that would just be plain 
dishonest. Then I end up deciding to just shop elsewhere.

-- 
When a toast with butter falls from your hand, it always falls on the 
butter side.

When a cat falls from a height, it always lands on her feet.

If you tie a buttertoast over a cat with the butterside to the top, and 
let both fall, what will face the floor, the butter or the feet?


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

"Sabrina Kilian" <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote in message 
news:489e857d$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> "Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message

> I hope neither of you are using those 'customer benefit' cards that 
> everyone hands out. Or, at the least, carry 8 of them for the same store 
> with different invalid addresses under fake names.

    Noooo thank you. :)  Heard enough horror stories about them.

>
> And I wonder why my key chain gets heavy . . .

    Why does it get heavy?

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:48:40 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> I get annoyed at people who pay with a personal check for that sort of  
> stuff, myself. Altho I understand that's usually not their own fault.

Becoming less of a problem here. A lot of stores, especially petrol  
stations, don't accept cheques anymore.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:28:39 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> Becoming less of a problem here. A lot of stores, especially petrol
> stations, don't accept cheques anymore.

Yeah, it seems most restaurants here won't accept cheques either....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:58:45 +0100, St. wrote:

> Heard enough horror stories about them.

Such as?

I used to work in IT in the food/drug retail industry (but I don't any 
more).  So I'm curious how people think that data's being used.  I don't 
have a complete picture myself, but what I've seen of it in the chain I 
used to work in, I don't think it's anywhere as bad as people think.

Understanding customer spending habits allows a store to better stock up 
on the things I need/want.  In general, it would be impossible for a 
large chain to use that data to track individual shopping habits - the 
data is much more useful in determining things like aggregate products 
purchased by the local population and a better understanding of how 
customers use multiple stores in the same area.

I wonder what kind of stories Starbuck's data would give you, for 
example....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 02:13:53 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> The only time I've seen automated utility payment done right, was when
> it automatically billed a credit card. Cash back bonus, ding the utility
> company for the service fee, and have that extra month to pay it.

Where do you think the utility company gets the money to pay the service 
fee?

We're all paying that fee for the customers who do it through an increase 
in price....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:34:38 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:58:45 +0100, St. wrote:
>
>> Heard enough horror stories about them.
>
> Such as?
>
> I used to work in IT in the food/drug retail industry (but I don't any
> more).  So I'm curious how people think that data's being used.  I don't
> have a complete picture myself, but what I've seen of it in the chain I
> used to work in, I don't think it's anywhere as bad as people think.
>
> Understanding customer spending habits allows a store to better stock up
> on the things I need/want.  In general, it would be impossible for a
> large chain to use that data to track individual shopping habits - the
> data is much more useful in determining things like aggregate products
> purchased by the local population and a better understanding of how
> customers use multiple stores in the same area.

Yet I get vouchers from the supermarket tailored to correspond to items  
I've already purchased from there. I doubt anyone's picking over the data  
individually more a case of X purchases within Y days of product type Z  
all ranked with the top five being assigned corresponding vouchers.

It's also something to remember that such stores are branching out into  
other areas such as insurance etc. and that some cards can be used in many  
participating stores. In theory if I used a store card everywhere I could  
the company could know what I eat and how often, what type of clothes I  
buy, the books I read, the movies I watch, where and how often I buy  
petrol. Sure it's all automated until someone in the government decides  
they want to know more about a suspicious individual's habits.

> I wonder what kind of stories Starbuck's data would give you, for
> example....

At the very least it could reveal your work hours.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:48a05c0e$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:58:45 +0100, St. wrote:
>
>> Heard enough horror stories about them.
>
> Such as?

   Ok, re-reading what I said, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same 
thing. ;) I thought Sabrina was talking about what we call here 'store 
cards' - it's like a major retail store credit card, which in turn have 
really high interest rates, (that's the horror story, people have had high 
debt using them).

  So what's a 'customer benefit' card other than what you've already 
explained?

   ~Steve~




> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:06:28 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> Yet I get vouchers from the supermarket tailored to correspond to items
> I've already purchased from there. I doubt anyone's picking over the
> data individually more a case of X purchases within Y days of product
> type Z all ranked with the top five being assigned corresponding
> vouchers.

But is it a problem to get discounts targeted at the products you buy?

> It's also something to remember that such stores are branching out into
> other areas such as insurance etc. and that some cards can be used in
> many participating stores. In theory if I used a store card everywhere I
> could the company could know what I eat and how often, what type of
> clothes I buy, the books I read, the movies I watch, where and how often
> I buy petrol. Sure it's all automated until someone in the government
> decides they want to know more about a suspicious individual's habits.

Overlap with insurance would be troubling for me; and government 
intrusion also would be.

>> I wonder what kind of stories Starbuck's data would give you, for
>> example....
> 
> At the very least it could reveal your work hours.

It'd take some pretty good forensics to get that for people who this 
would be a problem for, though.  I suppose it could be a problem for a 
security guard working a solo shift....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:10:39 +0100, St. wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:48a05c0e$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:58:45 +0100, St. wrote:
>>
>>> Heard enough horror stories about them.
>>
>> Such as?
> 
>    Ok, re-reading what I said, I'm not sure if we're talking about the
>    same
> thing. ;) I thought Sabrina was talking about what we call here 'store
> cards' - it's like a major retail store credit card, which in turn have
> really high interest rates, (that's the horror story, people have had
> high debt using them).

*Oh*, if it's a "store credit card", yes, I hate those things as well, 
would never sign up for one myself.

>   So what's a 'customer benefit' card other than what you've already
> explained?

So-called "customer loyalty cards".  Around here the biggest thing that's 
a "problem" with them is that to get the "normal" price, you have to have 
one, otherwise you pay a premium.  That's pretty common knowledge, though 
- that the "discounted" price is a price that gives them a profit 
margin.  In f&d retail, it's all about volume, so the profit margins are 
pretty thin to begin with.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:19:30 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> them a profit margin.  In f&d retail, it's all about volume, so the

By which I mean on the food side -the drug side profit model is clearly 
different....at least in the US.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>   So what's a 'customer benefit' card other than what you've already 
> explained?

Think of it as "automatic coupons". If you present the card, you get X% 
off from various products.  Of course, the card is tied to your identity 
or at least a pseudo-identity, so they can tell that people who buy Y 
also buy Z a lot.

I like the coupons on the back of the receipts better, myself.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Understanding customer spending habits allows a store to better stock up 
> on the things I need/want.

In a similar vein, I'm not actually bothered by targeted advertising.

After all, I'd much rather watch commercials that appeal to me than ones 
aimed at 5yos, or women going through menopause, or basically anyone 
who's needs differ from my own.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:12:44 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Understanding customer spending habits allows a store to better stock
>> up on the things I need/want.
> 
> In a similar vein, I'm not actually bothered by targeted advertising.
> 
> After all, I'd much rather watch commercials that appeal to me than ones
> aimed at 5yos, or women going through menopause, or basically anyone
> who's needs differ from my own.

True.  Of course, given a preference, I'd rather not watch ads at all.

But that's because I think the whole "entertainment as a delivery 
mechanism for advertisements" has gotten WAY out of hand, at least here 
in the US.  Take commercial TV stations, for example.  Their primary 
function is to serve advertising; entertainment is secondary.  The trend 
over the past 20+ years has been to increase the advertising time in an 
hour of commercial TV programming; it has doubled in that time period.

We've just been watching DVDs of Season 1 of The Muppet Show, which first 
aired in 1976 or 1977 - just over 20 years ago.  The shows run 25 minutes 
long; that's 10 minutes of commercials per hour of programming time.  
Today, an hour show runs about 42 minutes per hour of air time.

Companies that make "stuff" have gotten so obsessed lately with making 
the brand recognisible that they've forgotten the primary means of 
getting people interested in buying their products:  making products that 
are good, solid, reliable, and that actually work.

I don't buy Coke because I saw Michael Jordan drinking one in a 
commercial on TV or in a cinema.  I buy Coke because I *like* it.  But 
given a choice between buying Coke bottled in Atlanta and Coke bottled in 
Mexico City, I'll buy the Mexican Coke any time, because it's not made 
with high fructose corn syrup; it's made with real honest-to-$DEITY cane 
sugar.  But even more importantly, *it tastes better*.

Similarly, I'm not going to buy a Ford F150 pickup truck because Mike 
Rowe (from Dirty Jobs) advertises for them.  In fact, I wouldn't ever buy 
a Ford F150 pickup truck because, well first, I don't *need* one.  
Second, at 13 MPG and gasoline at > $4 per gallon, I couldn't *afford* it.

As a consumer, billboards, TV commercials, and even print advertising 
generally doesn't sway my buying habits.  I don't eat at Taco Bell any 
more because they couldn't get an order right if I stood there and walked 
them through it.  No amount of talking chihuahua "cuteness" (barf) on TV 
is going to make me want to go back more than a couple times of year (to 
see if they've improved on their reading comprehension skills and 
listening skills) because in the end, the product sucks (I consider the 
delivery of the proper order part of the product).  I'm more likely to go 
to the Wendy's next door because there's a far better than 50-50 chance 
that when I order a spicy chicken sandwich with no tomato, they'll 
remember to not put a tomato on it - and only about a 1 in 1000 chance 
that they'll screw the order up.

The really disturbing thing I'm starting to see now (starting with Eureka 
on SciFi) is *in show* advertising.  Not product placement - but actual 
advertising of a real-life product *in the show* as if the show was 
intended to be an infomercial.  I *hope* they knock that off, but even 
the fact that the actor who plays Carter is a friend of a friend of my 
wife's won't stop us tuning out if they don't knock that crap off right 
now.  If I want to watch The Truman Show, I have the disc on the bookcase.

All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent 
making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes with 
the product, or making a good product better.

(sorry, didn't mean to rant - this is one of my major pet peeves just at 
the moment).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> The really disturbing thing I'm starting to see now (starting with Eureka 
> on SciFi) is *in show* advertising.  Not product placement - but actual 
> advertising of a real-life product *in the show* as if the show was 
> intended to be an infomercial.  I *hope* they knock that off, but even 
> the fact that the actor who plays Carter is a friend of a friend of my 
> wife's won't stop us tuning out if they don't knock that crap off right 
> now.  If I want to watch The Truman Show, I have the disc on the bookcase.
> 
> All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent 
> making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes with 
> the product, or making a good product better.
> 
> (sorry, didn't mean to rant - this is one of my major pet peeves just at 
> the moment).
> 
> Jim

It's happened before, it'll happen again. How many old radio shows were 
sponsored by certain products, and found creative ways to work those 
into the show? It went away for a while, because people pay for cable, 
but it's come back because there is money to be made there.

Geez, Eureka, though . . . I should be surprised about it but I'm not. 
The adverts for it, over the summer, were funny. Until they switched 
from 'buy this product that is actually impossible' to 'buy this actual 
product that we claim is impossible.' I just can't imagine how a top 
secret government facility can explain having such mundane sponsors who 
most likely lack proper clearance.

But, it's SciFi channel. They hate funding good shows, and would 
obviously rather throw money away on weekly B movies. As evidence, see 
every show they've only ever shown just one season of, showing Eureka 
out of order, canning FarScape, canceling SG-1 at the episode 200 wrap 
party, and showing last season's Heroes and Lost.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:11:43 +0100, Jim Henderson  

<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> But that's because I think the whole "entertainment as a delivery
> mechanism for advertisements" has gotten WAY out of hand, at least her
e
> in the US.  Take commercial TV stations, for example.  Their primary
> function is to serve advertising; entertainment is secondary.  The tre
nd
> over the past 20+ years has been to increase the advertising time in a
n
> hour of commercial TV programming; it has doubled in that time period.


The latest trick on commercial channels here is to run two programmes ba
ck  

to back with only a short trailer-type ad separating them and then chuck
  

in the ad break early. Better yet the first programme overruns slightly 
so  

the next one starts 1 minute late whereas the BBC seem to be finishing  

programmes slightly earlier so the next one starts 1 minute before it's 
 

scheduled.

> The really disturbing thing I'm starting to see now (starting with Eur
eka
> on SciFi) is *in show* advertising.  Not product placement - but actua
l
> advertising of a real-life product *in the show* as if the show was
> intended to be an infomercial.  I *hope* they knock that off, but even

> the fact that the actor who plays Carter is a friend of a friend of my

> wife's won't stop us tuning out if they don't knock that crap off righ
t
> now.  If I want to watch The Truman Show, I have the disc on the  

> bookcase.

What's annoying me here is the BBC news programmes slipping in reference
s  

to other programmes on later - "We'll return to coverage of World War  

Three in a moment. Now is acne a problem for you? A BBC programme being 
 

shown later today states that..."

Then there's the squeeze, which Charlie Brooker delightfully lampooned i
n  

his series*. There's now a style guide for programmes about what they  

can't do during the end credits because the broadcaster wants to squeeze
  

the show into the top left-hand corner and list upcoming programmes on t
he  

right while having an VO explaining how wonderful they are and why you  

should watch them. Damned annoying when you're trying to discover who  

played what and the credits are a quarter the proper size.

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrm2dj6bIU0

> All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent
> making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes w
ith
> the product, or making a good product better.

Pfft everyone knows it's marketing that sells products, not having the  

best or even just a good product.

> (sorry, didn't mean to rant - this is one of my major pet peeves just 
at
> the moment).

So you should be, can't stand ranters me ;-)

-- 

Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> are good, solid, reliable, and that actually work.

I remember seeing a book in the store about ten ways how to make your 
brand more popular. The methods were things like "don't let someone sell 
both coke *and* pepsi", and "if they sell coke make them sell sprite 
also" and "end every ad with a picture of your brand" and such.

I noted with amusement that nowhere on the list was "associate your 
brand with a product people like."

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I noted with amusement that nowhere on the list was "associate your 
> brand with a product people like."

	Forgive my cynicism, but for products like cars and soft drinks, people 
don't "like" what they like. They "like" what they see in commercials.

	Actually, it goes well beyond cars and soft drinks. General 
electronics, cell phones, certain packaged items.

	The book is spot on. Creating a product that actually does the job well 
and is pleasurable to use often doesn't compete well with those products 
that follow the tips in the book.

	Along Jim's thread, I actually refused to go to Hardees for many years 
because of *really* obnoxious ads. I figured ads should work both ways.<G>

-- 


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I noted with amusement that nowhere on the list was "associate your 
>> brand with a product people like."
> 
>     Forgive my cynicism, but for products like cars and soft drinks, 
> people don't "like" what they like. They "like" what they see in 
> commercials.

OK, I'll grant you that one. :-)

I'd say that for products too complicated (or otherwise hard to 
describe, like a soft drink) to actually describe in the ad, this is 
probably true.

I think there are any number of products that are simple enough that you 
could do a decent job of describing them in an advertisement, tho. Say, 
a vacuum cleaner. Not much to say there.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I think there are any number of products that are simple enough that you 
> could do a decent job of describing them in an advertisement, tho. Say, 
> a vacuum cleaner. Not much to say there.

	But unless there's something grandtastic about a certain vacuum 
cleaner, my guess is that the ones best placed on store shelves will get 
bought.

-- 
"Energize" Picard said, and a pink bunny with a drum materialized.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:56:53 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> I think there are any number of products that are simple enough that you  
> could do a decent job of describing them in an advertisement, tho. Say,  
> a vacuum cleaner. Not much to say there.

"Our vacuum cleaners suck more then the competition's"

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> cleaner, my guess is that the ones best placed on store shelves will get 
> bought.

Likely. Of course, the internet and mail-order mucks everything up, too. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> "Our vacuum cleaners suck more then the competition's"
> 
LOL

John

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:54:03 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:11:43 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> But that's because I think the whole "entertainment as a delivery
>> mechanism for advertisements" has gotten WAY out of hand, at least here
>> in the US.  Take commercial TV stations, for example.  Their primary
>> function is to serve advertising; entertainment is secondary.  The
>> trend over the past 20+ years has been to increase the advertising time
>> in an hour of commercial TV programming; it has doubled in that time
>> period.
> 
> The latest trick on commercial channels here is to run two programmes
> back to back with only a short trailer-type ad separating them and then
> chuck in the ad break early. Better yet the first programme overruns
> slightly so the next one starts 1 minute late whereas the BBC seem to be
> finishing programmes slightly earlier so the next one starts 1 minute
> before it's scheduled.

Yeah, I've seen that as well - end up having to adjust the recording 
times to start 1 min early and end 1 min late.  Which means if I've got 
three programmes set to record in a 2 hour period (one ending and two 
starting, for example - we've a dual tuner DVR), something's going to get 
clipped.

>> The really disturbing thing I'm starting to see now (starting with
>> Eureka on SciFi) is *in show* advertising.  Not product placement - but
>> actual advertising of a real-life product *in the show* as if the show
>> was intended to be an infomercial.  I *hope* they knock that off, but
>> even the fact that the actor who plays Carter is a friend of a friend
>> of my wife's won't stop us tuning out if they don't knock that crap off
>> right now.  If I want to watch The Truman Show, I have the disc on the
>> bookcase.
> 
> What's annoying me here is the BBC news programmes slipping in
> references to other programmes on later - "We'll return to coverage of
> World War Three in a moment. Now is acne a problem for you? A BBC
> programme being shown later today states that..."

Yeah, we get some of that as well.

> Then there's the squeeze, which Charlie Brooker delightfully lampooned
> in his series*. There's now a style guide for programmes about what they
> can't do during the end credits because the broadcaster wants to squeeze
> the show into the top left-hand corner and list upcoming programmes on
> the right while having an VO explaining how wonderful they are and why
> you should watch them. Damned annoying when you're trying to discover
> who played what and the credits are a quarter the proper size.

Yeah, I've seen that as well in some of the shows on BBC America (and 
stuff I've watched from other sources).

>> All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent
>> making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes
>> with the product, or making a good product better.
> 
> Pfft everyone knows it's marketing that sells products, not having the
> best or even just a good product.

Oh, right, I forgot - because they wouldn't do that if it wasn't 
effective.  Stupid me - it's too bad I'm not willing to be a sheep....
 
>> (sorry, didn't mean to rant - this is one of my major pet peeves just
>> at the moment).
> 
> So you should be, can't stand ranters me ;-)

Eh, too bad. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:40:36 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> are good, solid, reliable, and that actually work.
> 
> I remember seeing a book in the store about ten ways how to make your
> brand more popular. The methods were things like "don't let someone sell
> both coke *and* pepsi", and "if they sell coke make them sell sprite
> also" and "end every ad with a picture of your brand" and such.

Was "make it *better* than the competition" in there anywhere?

> I noted with amusement that nowhere on the list was "associate your
> brand with a product people like."

That is pretty amusing.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:26:13 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> 	Along Jim's thread, I actually refused to go to Hardees for many 
years
> because of *really* obnoxious ads. I figured ads should work both
> ways.<G>

I refuse to go into Hardees for a couple of reasons. First, there aren't 
any here in Utah (so it's easy), but second (which actually came first) 
was my younger brother worked there once - and he refused to eat the food 
there as a result.  He said "you don't want to know what goes on in the 
kitchen there"....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:34:21 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:56:53 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> did spake, saying:
> 
>> I think there are any number of products that are simple enough that
>> you could do a decent job of describing them in an advertisement, tho.
>> Say, a vacuum cleaner. Not much to say there.
> 
> "Our vacuum cleaners suck more then the competition's"

I vaguely recall a similar line actually being used by Hoover - "Hoovers 
really suck"....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:58:52 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> It's happened before, it'll happen again. How many old radio shows were
> sponsored by certain products, and found creative ways to work those
> into the show? It went away for a while, because people pay for cable,
> but it's come back because there is money to be made there.

Sure, but that doesn't mean I have to *like* it....or watch shows that do 
that, for that matter.

> Geez, Eureka, though . . . I should be surprised about it but I'm not.
> The adverts for it, over the summer, were funny. Until they switched
> from 'buy this product that is actually impossible' to 'buy this actual
> product that we claim is impossible.' I just can't imagine how a top
> secret government facility can explain having such mundane sponsors who
> most likely lack proper clearance.

Actually, they did sorta work it into the story.  That bit could be 
interesting.

> But, it's SciFi channel. They hate funding good shows, and would
> obviously rather throw money away on weekly B movies. As evidence, see
> every show they've only ever shown just one season of, showing Eureka
> out of order, canning FarScape, canceling SG-1 at the episode 200 wrap
> party, and showing last season's Heroes and Lost.

Well, some of those decisions made some sense; SG-1 was partly writer's 
fatigue, partly the cast's fatigue (esp. Michael Shanks, I think), and 
they'd done a lot farther beyond it; my wife and I used to say "remember 
when this show was about the *STAR* *GATE*?" - never a good sign.  
Atlantis isn't bad, but I liked the first seasons of SG-1 best.

Eureka out of order was definitely a problem - I know Colin Ferguson 
wasn't happy about it, because he wrote about that.

BSG is the one show there that I think has done *really* well.

But also don't forget that part of the recent problems with the shows in 
the US in general was the writer's strike.  That's why some things had 
earlier seasons shown this year.

One of the writers for Eureka cited the writer's strike as one reason why 
they needed corporate sponsorship; they had to cut the number of episodes 
down, but still had to pay the cast & crew the contracted wages.  They 
had to do something, but at least that writer does know - and understands 
why - some fans are going to be VERY upset about it.  So at least they're 
aware of it, and I'm hoping they can keep it pretty light (and poke fun 
at themselves for it) and do it just the one season and then get back to 
"business as usual" next season.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:08 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:54:03 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:11:43 +0100, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>> The latest trick on commercial channels here is to run two programmes
>> back to back with only a short trailer-type ad separating them and then
>> chuck in the ad break early. Better yet the first programme overruns
>> slightly so the next one starts 1 minute late whereas the BBC seem to be
>> finishing programmes slightly earlier so the next one starts 1 minute
>> before it's scheduled.
>
> Yeah, I've seen that as well - end up having to adjust the recording
> times to start 1 min early and end 1 min late.  Which means if I've got
> three programmes set to record in a 2 hour period (one ending and two
> starting, for example - we've a dual tuner DVR), something's going to get
> clipped.

Should have been solved by now. We had PDC back in the VCR days, the  
broadcaster would send a signal at the end/start of a broadcast and the  
recorder would be looking for this signal at about the time it should be  
starting. Failed miserably as some broadcasters didn't use it and some  
misused it (you'd get the 60-second news blip instead of the programme).  
With EPG's it should all be a done deal, but for the last few weeks it's  
been showing Newsnight when Never Mind the Buzzcocks has been broadcast  
unless I reset the EPG and one programme I'm regularly recording starts 15  
minutes before its scheduled.

>>> All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent
>>> making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes
>>> with the product, or making a good product better.
>>
>> Pfft everyone knows it's marketing that sells products, not having the
>> best or even just a good product.
>
> Oh, right, I forgot - because they wouldn't do that if it wasn't
> effective.  Stupid me - it's too bad I'm not willing to be a sheep....

Life is so much easier when you are :-P

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:52 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:40:36 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> are good, solid, reliable, and that actually work.
>>
>> I remember seeing a book in the store about ten ways how to make your
>> brand more popular. The methods were things like "don't let someone sell
>> both coke *and* pepsi", and "if they sell coke make them sell sprite
>> also" and "end every ad with a picture of your brand" and such.
>
> Was "make it *better* than the competition" in there anywhere?

I guess that's covered by the "don't let someone sell both coke *and*  
pepsi". You don't need to make a better product if you don't present the  
consumer with a choice.

As an example my mother often complains she can't pick up a certain brand  
of sauce at her main shop supermarket and has to go elsewhere; I'm running  
an internal bet as to how long it'll be before she either starts doing the  
main shop in this other store or ends up buying a different brand.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:48:40 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Here we still fill up with fuel then pay. Some places do have card facilities at
>> the pumps though. "Pre-pay", it is a terrible world :(
>
>Sadly, one pump-and-run can take the profit of an entire week from the 
>gas station.
>

Ah! I forgot it's New York, New York so tough they named it twice. In case
someone stole it. Here we take photographs of the car number plate and threaten
to tell their mothers :)

>> My pet peeve is people who pay for "small change" shopping with a card. But then
>> I'm getting old and cantankerous ;)
>
>I get annoyed at people who pay with a personal check for that sort of 
>stuff, myself. Altho I understand that's usually not their own fault.

I probably annoy the rest of the queue by getting rid of all my small change in
shops. Well it annoys my wife.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:08:45 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:52 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> Was "make it *better* than the competition" in there anywhere?
> 
> I guess that's covered by the "don't let someone sell both coke *and*
> pepsi". You don't need to make a better product if you don't present the
> consumer with a choice.

Heh, well, I know for many of the fast food chains, they don't have a 
choice, because they're actually owned by Pepsico or Coca-Cola.  I used 
to work for a company that did outsourced benefits management (for both 
companies, oddly enough), and seeing the brands that came in with those 
agreements was surprising.

> As an example my mother often complains she can't pick up a certain
> brand of sauce at her main shop supermarket and has to go elsewhere; I'm
> running an internal bet as to how long it'll be before she either starts
> doing the main shop in this other store or ends up buying a different
> brand.

That'd be an interesting thing to look at....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:01:19 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:08 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>> Yeah, I've seen that as well - end up having to adjust the recording
>> times to start 1 min early and end 1 min late.  Which means if I've got
>> three programmes set to record in a 2 hour period (one ending and two
>> starting, for example - we've a dual tuner DVR), something's going to
>> get clipped.
> 
> Should have been solved by now. We had PDC back in the VCR days, the
> broadcaster would send a signal at the end/start of a broadcast and the
> recorder would be looking for this signal at about the time it should be
> starting. Failed miserably as some broadcasters didn't use it and some
> misused it (you'd get the 60-second news blip instead of the programme).
> With EPG's it should all be a done deal, but for the last few weeks it's
> been showing Newsnight when Never Mind the Buzzcocks has been broadcast
> unless I reset the EPG and one programme I'm regularly recording starts
> 15 minutes before its scheduled.

I wish they'd do that - and a better job of everyone synchronizing their 
clocks, too.  Shows that say they start at, say, 9:00 on some channels 
start as much as 5 minutes later....My DVR used to have a bug (since 
fixed, but it was there for a LONG time) where if you adjusted the start/
end times, it would occasionally lock up between 2 and 4 AM.  Actual 
documented bug in the software.  Took almost 2 years for them to fix it.

>>>> All that money that goes into advertising could be much better spent
>>>> making a product that I want to buy, improving the service that goes
>>>> with the product, or making a good product better.
>>>
>>> Pfft everyone knows it's marketing that sells products, not having the
>>> best or even just a good product.
>>
>> Oh, right, I forgot - because they wouldn't do that if it wasn't
>> effective.  Stupid me - it's too bad I'm not willing to be a sheep....
> 
> Life is so much easier when you are :-P

So I've heard, but I'm just not willing. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I wish they'd do that - and a better job of everyone synchronizing their 
> clocks, too.

Nowadays, with feeds being synched between different providers (as in, 
local weather stuck into the 45-second slot allocated in the 
country-wide news feed) I find TV stations much more on-the-ball about 
being on time.  Of course, some shows still run over, and sometimes the 
schedule changes, but I've found usually not on the order of minutes. At 
least around here.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:11:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I wish they'd do that - and a better job of everyone synchronizing
>> their clocks, too.
> 
> Nowadays, with feeds being synched between different providers (as in,
> local weather stuck into the 45-second slot allocated in the
> country-wide news feed) I find TV stations much more on-the-ball about
> being on time.  Of course, some shows still run over, and sometimes the
> schedule changes, but I've found usually not on the order of minutes. At
> least around here.

Yeah, out here, Comcast just doesn't seem to do a good job of having the 
stuff synchronized to the correct time; the cable-only channels are the 
worst, I've found.  Part of it is that "one-minute overlap" they've 
started doing, but part of it is just bad timekeeping.

The local PBS station is also quite bad in that regard.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> St. wrote:
>>   So what's a 'customer benefit' card other than what you've already 
>> explained?
> 
> Think of it as "automatic coupons". If you present the card, you get X% 
> off from various products.  Of course, the card is tied to your identity 
> or at least a pseudo-identity, so they can tell that people who buy Y 
> also buy Z a lot.
> 
> I like the coupons on the back of the receipts better, myself.
> 

Again, I don't mind them, since I like smart product placement :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:06:25 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:01:19 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:08 +0100, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>> Yeah, I've seen that as well - end up having to adjust the recording
>>> times to start 1 min early and end 1 min late.  Which means if I've got
>>> three programmes set to record in a 2 hour period (one ending and two
>>> starting, for example - we've a dual tuner DVR), something's going to
>>> get clipped.
>>
>> Should have been solved by now. We had PDC back in the VCR days, the
>> broadcaster would send a signal at the end/start of a broadcast and the
>> recorder would be looking for this signal at about the time it should be
>> starting. Failed miserably as some broadcasters didn't use it and some
>> misused it (you'd get the 60-second news blip instead of the programme).
>> With EPG's it should all be a done deal, but for the last few weeks it's
>> been showing Newsnight when Never Mind the Buzzcocks has been broadcast
>> unless I reset the EPG and one programme I'm regularly recording starts
>> 15 minutes before its scheduled.
>
> I wish they'd do that - and a better job of everyone synchronizing their
> clocks, too.

The default here is BBC time.

> Shows that say they start at, say, 9:00 on some channels
> start as much as 5 minutes later

Groan just had one programme on the EPG actually scheduled to start 10  
minutes early then normal. Just for this one week mind then it goes back  
to normal.

> ....My DVR used to have a bug (since
> fixed, but it was there for a LONG time) where if you adjusted the start/
> end times, it would occasionally lock up between 2 and 4 AM.  Actual
> documented bug in the software.  Took almost 2 years for them to fix it.

Apparently one bug on mine meant that using the PiP facilty didn't free  
the time shift memory used by it when switched back to one channel. Oh and  
if I use the padding on recording it disables the series link so you  
either have to remember to
set it manually each time or set up your own repeating slot and disengage  
it from the EPG (which is what happened above)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:04:16 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:08:45 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:52 +0100, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Was "make it *better* than the competition" in there anywhere?
>>
>> I guess that's covered by the "don't let someone sell both coke *and*
>> pepsi". You don't need to make a better product if you don't present the
>> consumer with a choice.
>
> Heh, well, I know for many of the fast food chains, they don't have a
> choice, because they're actually owned by Pepsico or Coca-Cola.  I used
> to work for a company that did outsourced benefits management (for both
> companies, oddly enough), and seeing the brands that came in with those
> agreements was surprising.

Kind of the current joys with the privatised water companies here where  
you can choose to have your water supplied by Company A, Company A or  
Company A. But hey at least the fast-food companies are agreeing to this  
;-)

>> As an example my mother often complains she can't pick up a certain
>> brand of sauce at her main shop supermarket and has to go elsewhere; I'm
>> running an internal bet as to how long it'll be before she either starts
>> doing the main shop in this other store or ends up buying a different
>> brand.
>
> That'd be an interesting thing to look at....

Indeed something that should have been carried out by the Competition  
Commision in their last study if their brief wasn't so restricted. Oh yes  
there's plenty of competition between supermarkets provided you do one  
third of your shopping in Sainsbury's, one-third in Tesco, and the  
remainding third at Asda. Doesn't everyone shop this way?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:27:45 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> Heh, well, I know for many of the fast food chains, they don't have a
>> choice, because they're actually owned by Pepsico or Coca-Cola.  I used
>> to work for a company that did outsourced benefits management (for both
>> companies, oddly enough), and seeing the brands that came in with those
>> agreements was surprising.
> 
> Kind of the current joys with the privatised water companies here where
> you can choose to have your water supplied by Company A, Company A or
> Company A. But hey at least the fast-food companies are agreeing to this
> ;-)

Yeah, it's a nice "choice" isn't it?

>> That'd be an interesting thing to look at....
> 
> Indeed something that should have been carried out by the Competition
> Commision in their last study if their brief wasn't so restricted. Oh
> yes there's plenty of competition between supermarkets provided you do
> one third of your shopping in Sainsbury's, one-third in Tesco, and the
> remainding third at Asda. Doesn't everyone shop this way?

Well, I know we do most of our grocery shopping at CostCo, with specialty 
items from specialty shops, and fresh produce from the local supermarket 
(buying produce in bulk doesn't make sense, it just tends to go off).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:22:50 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> I wish they'd do that - and a better job of everyone synchronizing
>> their clocks, too.
> 
> The default here is BBC time.

Would that that happened here....

>> Shows that say they start at, say, 9:00 on some channels start as much
>> as 5 minutes later
> 
> Groan just had one programme on the EPG actually scheduled to start 10
> minutes early then normal. Just for this one week mind then it goes back
> to normal.

That's nice....

>> ....My DVR used to have a bug (since
>> fixed, but it was there for a LONG time) where if you adjusted the
>> start/ end times, it would occasionally lock up between 2 and 4 AM. 
>> Actual documented bug in the software.  Took almost 2 years for them to
>> fix it.
> 
> Apparently one bug on mine meant that using the PiP facilty didn't free
> the time shift memory used by it when switched back to one channel. Oh
> and if I use the padding on recording it disables the series link so you
> either have to remember to
> set it manually each time or set up your own repeating slot and
> disengage it from the EPG (which is what happened above)

Ouch...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:14:41 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:22:50 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> set up your own repeating slot and
>> disengage it from the EPG (which is what happened above)
>
> Ouch...

It gets better as the recording takes its name from the EPG and can't be  
edited, so disengaging it defaults to giving the recording the name of the  
channel. Imagine a few of those in a list.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:54:52 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:14:41 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:22:50 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>> set up your own repeating slot and
>>> disengage it from the EPG (which is what happened above)
>>
>> Ouch...
> 
> It gets better as the recording takes its name from the EPG and can't be
> edited, so disengaging it defaults to giving the recording the name of
> the channel. Imagine a few of those in a list.

That would make it difficult to distinguish between them, I imagine...

Jim

Post a reply to this message