Foxy, Bronwyn and others,
Too true folks.
In the context of the 'bogan' debate many people are influenced by what is in the ads 'whiter white' the association of fun happiness with junk food. "Coke" are past masters of this but nothing is mentioned about the 12teaspoons of sugar in each bottle. Any wonder why the more vulnerable have no idea of nutrician etc. Child mothers who can't cook et al.

The net result of all this is adversely impacting our health care budget like smoking Col and his ilk would scream nanny state, caveat emptor etc. But I would suggest that "misinformation" spin is the problem. In many cases the undereducated/undiscerning are the target of these ads they do the most consuming of these types of products. Leaked literature from one company showed that the poorer suburbs are the biggest consumers of their unhealthy products.

To me ads should as cigarettes claim (sic) they are after market share not creating new markets.

I would suggest discretionary products should have an extra tax to pay for their inevitable consequences.
e.g. Maccas should be taxed for both medical purposes and waste stream cleanup. Booze should cost more and the extra to health costs.

Instead the bottlers fight tooth and nail to ensure accessible to children. and that recycle fees like in SA don't go any further.

It seems to me that business should be able to sell their products but should be responsible. To me if a product can't be produced for a price that allows for responsible amelioration then perhaps it shouldn't be on the market.

If as consumers we have to be responsible why then should purveyors not be like wise?

As for the cost argument …rubbish! Consider their packaging and advertising budgets.

Dear Bronwyn,

Once again, you totally nailed it.
I only wish I had your talent.

Dear examinator,

Can I give you a hug?
You dear man, are one in a million.
I'm thankful to have you
as a poster on this Forum.
You've raised such great threads,
with so much food for thought...
I hope that you'll keep posting for
a long, long, long time.

Examinator
“In the context of the 'bogan' debate”
re
“Child mothers who can't cook et al.”

I am not responsible for their slack morals, their bogan parents are.

I realized a long time ago, we all make choices, that some retarded morons make bad ones is not something I am required to accept responsibility for. I am more concerned with ensuring some bureaucratic half-wit, who could not hold down a job in private industry, is not in a position to make decisions which might impinge on my personal rights and discretion.

“I would suggest discretionary products should have an extra tax to pay for their inevitable consequences.”

I recall, back in the sales tax days of old, chocolate bars were taxed as “confectionary” and therefore, “discretionary” but cooking chocolate was taxed as a food product and thus, essential.

Typical of bureaucratic double-speak and double-standards.

Grandiose pronouncements to taxing “discretion” are inherently flawed by the very definitions.

“Instead the bottlers fight tooth and nail to ensure accessible to children. and that recycle fees like in SA don't go any further.”

That has nothing to do with advertising. For many years now, the cost of cleaning beer bottles has been so high, largely due to draconian Health Standards regulations which bottlers are forced to comply with, that “light-weighting” of glass bottles has developed to make “one-trip” bottles more affordable.

You cannot have it both ways, forcing product suppliers to conform to higher standards but deny them the right to promote / profit from their product.

That is the unacceptable face of the Nanny State.

“It seems to me that business should be able to sell their products but should be responsible.”

They are, if they wish to have a viable business in the future.

“as consumers we have to be responsible” and can choose not to consume that which we do not see as either value or healthy.

“As for the cost argument …rubbish! Consider their packaging and advertising budgets.”

They pay the advertising budget,

my taxes carry nanny regulations…

I have better things to do than buy a third rate nanny.

I have always thought that much advertising borders on the immoral as it raises everyone's expectations to an unattainable level. We are brainwashed to think we deserve something or that we are somehow disenfranchised if we don't have the latest or the newest. If even thought that Peter Foster who was convicted of misleading the public over the attributes of a certain tea that he was marketing was no worse than some of the claims made by well known manufacturers of well known household products. I am always suspicious of companies that claim their product is "scientifically proven to ......" or "doctors recommend...." They of course offer no formal recognition to any data.

I have three VCRs on which I automatically record everything I want to watch on a commercial station. I can then zap the advertisements when replaying. It saves so much time too. "60 minutes" is only about 44 minutes. I can also use the remote mute if watching "live"

Some advertisements do inform to an extent, and availability is probably the main thing, but if I want to buy any expensive item I get the advice of someone who hires a product, particularly electronic equipment, and that gives me an idea of serviceability. If I bought a car, I would talk to my local mechanic. I get advice from people that don't have an axe to grind. If supermarket items are advertised profusely, I will avoid them because I know the cost of the advertising goes onto the product. I am reliably informed that the contents of a hair spray can, for instance, only constitutes a very small fraction of the sale price. The rest is marketing. That of course goes for all cosmetics, soap powder, cleaners and dietary supplements. I never read advertisements in the print medium either, although I might miss out on the odd special, as I "horse trade' over most things I purchase.

With a bit of effort it's reasonably easy to avoid much of this irritating intrusion into one's life, but advertising obviously must work, otherwise people wouldn't be infected by it.

I fully agree Bronwyn. So much basic commonsensical stuff could be done to improve the advertising regime, without us a becoming a nanny state.

In the meantime, we all know that we should treat all advertising with a big grain of salt, that everything needs to be confirmed or clarified and that the espoused benefits of buying most stuff is at least only part of the story, is mostly exaggerated or misleading and is sometimes complete trollop.

Most advertising is avoidable. You don’t have to cop it on the teeve, in newspapers or on OLO. Just don’t look at it!

Jeez I hate going into a shop (such as the workshop where I went to get new tyres for my car recently) where there is some obnoxious commercial radio station blaring out manic advertising for about 50% of the time…that you just can’t escape…and totally crap music for the other 50%!

Regarding billboards; I noticed yesterday while driving back into town that most of the billboard advertisements were impossible to fully take in in the brief second or so that you have to look at them and be able to read anything that is written on them as you drive past. They can indeed create a quite considerable distraction. But then, I found that it was very easy to just not look at them.

Oops, my earlier post should have said "developing" countries, not developed.

As far as advertising goes, I really do feel quite immune to it.

I know people dispute these things, and point out the subconscious level and so on... but when I look at my possessions, I can't see that I favour any brand. The things I have bought don't appear in advertisements most of the time.
Of course, I see advertisements, but I really do tend to just ignore them. It can be done.

In relation to younger viewers etc - I guess I take a middle ground here. I think any and all cigarette advertising should be banned. A product that is addictive has no place being advertised, it's not a level playing field.
We can talk about different scales of addiction, etc, children finding cola addictive and so on... but I don't buy that. Nicotine is an addictive drug.

Everything else... is fair game. I feel pretty ambivalent about banning junk food advertising during children's programming. On the one hand, I don't like rules for rules sake, but I can see that this could really generate some positive effects for society, so I guess I'd support that, even if I wouldn't support more blanket restrictions for advertising in general.