In March of this year, an Ofcom investigation was announced looking into claims that the SNP influenced the programming of the STV. The particular focus was on Homecoming Scotland.
It was good to see therefore that the Homecoming Scotland arrangement was found to be satisfactory and STV was given a minor slap on the wrist for short programmes of 1 to 4 minutes long
A wider question as to whether Homecoming Scotland should be advertising on Scottish television seems to have been overlooked. I guess it wasn't within Ofcom's remit but one can't help but think of preaching to the undispersed.
An even wider question to ask is what business does any Government have to indulge in advertising anyway? I have always galled at the fact that some of my taxes go towards telling me not to be racist or to eat my 5-a-day on giant billboards. I appreciate that a clever person somewhere has worked out that a Goverment spending £x millions in advertising will lead to a benefit of £y millions with y hopefully being greater than x.
However, it would make more sense (to me) if funding for anti-racism drives came from extended fines for racially-aggravated crimes and healthy eating adverts came from (a long overdue) 'fat tax'.
Homecoming Scotland was a great idea and a great event. Sponsorship from it of sport trophies and TV programmes was never really taking the high road and nor did it fit the bill.
Claims of SNP TV though? Quite ridiculous now that Ofcom has reported and partically ridiculous given that Scotland suffers from, at least at the worst of times, Unionist Newspapers.
5 comments:
Watched both BBC Scotland and STV News last night. STV said they'd been cleared by OFCOM, apart from the short items. BBC said STV had been reprimanded by OFCOM, with no other explanation!
Impartial BBC my mars bar.
the BBC web site in the entertainment section is lying by by saying the STV is in trouble for party political broadcast adverts
Entirely agree that government and public body advertising represents a huge waste of money.
Much of it is at a puerile level; witness the ad which appeared on many blogs for weeks with an elephant showing what could be recycled. How many 4-year olds read blogs?
Also those unending campaigns about how to save energy. How many times are we supposed to turn the thermostat down by one degree?
I can see the argument against governments paying for advertising for events like Homecoming.
But I think it is a tad bizzarre to argue against the government funding public health and other campaigns.
There would be little point in reccomending that people eat 5 portions of fruit and veg a day if this was not rammed home to us again and again and again by every means possible. That's how it gets into our heads.
I agree it can be annoying. The Go Compare guy is annoying but he is in your head isn't he?
That's how advertising works.
The problem is not that advertising is not a relevant tool for governments to use, it is the method of advertising that must be questioned.
The skill in advertising is to hit your target market for as little money as possible. The problem is that governments feel the need to be seen to be doing something about a problem by the general public. Therefore they choose to use mass media such as TV to promote something that is relevant to perhaps a very small proportion of the viewers who could be targeted better using a different and cheaper method.
Preventative advertising works, no matter the doubts. Whether for flu jags for the elderly, or wearing condoms for the young, investing in advertising can save the state millions down the line, especially in health care costs and should not be regarded entirely with suspicion.
Post a Comment