Re: Advertising 31 Jul 1994 07:36:34 -0600 from <gintis@econs.umass.edu>

[Jim D <JNDF%LMUACAD.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 31 Jul 1994 07:36:34 -0600 Herbert Gintis said:
>Jim Devine says:
>>One basic principle of economics is: whoever pays the piper calls
>>the tune (which is modified by teh existence of monopoly and the
>>like). Given this, who pays for the "free" TV services we receive?
>>who keeps the price of a newspaper below $1?? who calls the tune?
>
>        I don't think it is this simple at all. Communications media
>must please both the customer who uses the service and the customer
>who advertises (can this spelling really be right???). The two want
>different things, and they may not be incompatible in general.
>
Of course it's too simplistic. I try to keep thins  things short and
thus simple when I send messages from home because I can't correct
typos easily.  But the combinew3d weight of "who pays the pipers"
(together with the orthe  other arguments that others have presented)
represents a massive *filter* that excludes dissenting voices and
non-commercial messages out of the commercial media.  The viewrers
also filter out things (by refusing to watch the shows).#  But the
shows have been pre-fit   pre-filtered.  Advertisiers also have a
more active and direct role in the process.

>advertisers go crazy. But to cavalierly say that the media's coverage
>of news events or treatment of social issues is determined by
>advertisers to me is just not reasonable.
>
I, for one, say "help determine" or "have the moste effect in
determining" when I have the ability to correct typos.

>>This complements Doug Henwood's anecdotal evidence (which could be
>>multiplied a thousant fold, I would guess).  Anecta  Anecdotal
>>evidence has its problems, but it's still evidence. The same can
>>be said for econometric studies, which are often misspecified or
>>leave out variables, etc.  If such studeies contradict personal
>>experience, which are we to believe?
>>
>        Let me explain why I have trouble with Doug's evidence.

I, for one, am f#amiliar with the problems of anecdotal evidence.
But #Doug's example was better than the normal.  If even PBS is
filtered by commercial interests, then the *profit-maximizing*#2
media that are totally dependent on advertising revenues are likely
to be even worse. Of course this is only a working hypothesis (as
are *all* conclusions in science) and needs further evidence and
argument.

sincerely,

Jim Devine
jndf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx or jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950