On 8/16/17 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:46:59 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


Are you out of range of all the great FM stations in the Boston area,
including the non-commercial ones? I'm really at a loss to figure out
why SIRIUS is popular, especially since you have to pay for it and FM
radio is free to the listener. And I'm sure you have a iPod or iPhone or
similar device on which you can store the music you like. I have 20GB of
music on mine, about 4000 "songs," including all nine of Beethoven's
symphonies in orchestral and piano versions, a lot of Mozart, Schubert,
all sorts of folk and rock, even a little (forgive me) bluegrass. So,
what's the deal with SIRIUS?

I know advertising is music to your ears but most people find it to be
oppressive.


The non-commercial stations don't play auto, food, bank, et cetera,
commercials. Oh, and the music on my iPhone is also commercial free.
I don't mind the commercials if I am listening to a commercial radio or
TV station...the commercials pay the bills. Without advertising, every
piece of 20-year-old stuff you own would have been more expensive.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:52:11 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I don't mind the commercials if I am listening to a commercial radio or
TV station...the commercials pay the bills. Without advertising, every
piece of 20-year-old stuff you own would have been more expensive.

Bull****.
If you compare the price of heavily advertised products to products
that seldom advertise, the advertised product is always more. Someone
needs to pay for those ads and it is not like we would stop using
toilet paper if they did't have that bear on TV telling us to.
Another example is beer. Most people could not tell the difference
between Budweiser and Busch if it was served in a glass. Both come
from the same brewery, using essentially the same ingredients but the
Bud is a couple bucks more expensive, because of that frog.

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:52:11 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I don't mind the commercials if I am listening to a commercial radio or
TV station...the commercials pay the bills. Without advertising, every
piece of 20-year-old stuff you own would have been more expensive.

Bull****.
If you compare the price of heavily advertised products to products
that seldom advertise, the advertised product is always more. Someone
needs to pay for those ads and it is not like we would stop using
toilet paper if they did't have that bear on TV telling us to.
Another example is beer. Most people could not tell the difference
between Budweiser and Busch if it was served in a glass. Both come
from the same brewery, using essentially the same ingredients but the
Bud is a couple bucks more expensive, because of that frog.


Sell that to your libertarian buddies. I know better.

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:20:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:52:11 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I don't mind the commercials if I am listening to a commercial radio or
TV station...the commercials pay the bills. Without advertising, every
piece of 20-year-old stuff you own would have been more expensive.

Bull****.
If you compare the price of heavily advertised products to products
that seldom advertise, the advertised product is always more. Someone
needs to pay for those ads and it is not like we would stop using
toilet paper if they did't have that bear on TV telling us to.
Another example is beer. Most people could not tell the difference
between Budweiser and Busch if it was served in a glass. Both come
from the same brewery, using essentially the same ingredients but the
Bud is a couple bucks more expensive, because of that frog.


Sell that to your libertarian buddies. I know better.

What part is wrong? BTW that is not a libertarian issue at all but I
know it is your go to brain fart

On 8/16/17 3:33 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:20:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:52:11 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I don't mind the commercials if I am listening to a commercial radio or
TV station...the commercials pay the bills. Without advertising, every
piece of 20-year-old stuff you own would have been more expensive.

Bull****.
If you compare the price of heavily advertised products to products
that seldom advertise, the advertised product is always more. Someone
needs to pay for those ads and it is not like we would stop using
toilet paper if they did't have that bear on TV telling us to.
Another example is beer. Most people could not tell the difference
between Budweiser and Busch if it was served in a glass. Both come
from the same brewery, using essentially the same ingredients but the
Bud is a couple bucks more expensive, because of that frog.


Sell that to your libertarian buddies. I know better.

What part is wrong? BTW that is not a libertarian issue at all but I
know it is your go to brain fart


Your belief that advertising does not lower prices for products and
services.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/16/17 3:33 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:20:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:52:11 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I don't mind the commercials if I am listening to a commercial radio or
TV station...the commercials pay the bills. Without advertising, every
piece of 20-year-old stuff you own would have been more expensive.

Bull****.
If you compare the price of heavily advertised products to products
that seldom advertise, the advertised product is always more. Someone
needs to pay for those ads and it is not like we would stop using
toilet paper if they did't have that bear on TV telling us to.
Another example is beer. Most people could not tell the difference
between Budweiser and Busch if it was served in a glass. Both come
from the same brewery, using essentially the same ingredients but the
Bud is a couple bucks more expensive, because of that frog.


Sell that to your libertarian buddies. I know better.

What part is wrong? BTW that is not a libertarian issue at all but I
know it is your go to brain fart


Your belief that advertising does not lower prices for products and
services.


===

It depends on the product or service. Yes, if advertising increases
market share and leads to economy of scale (assuming the savings get
passed along), no otherwise. In the case of Budweiser it has led to
increased market share for an inferior product, at no obvious cost
benefit.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 17:36:56 -0400,
wrote:


It depends on the product or service. Yes, if advertising increases
market share and leads to economy of scale (assuming the savings get
passed along), no otherwise. In the case of Budweiser it has led to
increased market share for an inferior product, at no obvious cost
benefit.

I would contend that ads create a demand for items that are
overpriced, not the other way around. Cosmetics may be the best
example of that. They take a nickels worth of animal fat, color and
scent, advertise the hell out of it and sell it for $40 an ounce.

I defy Harry to name anything that advertising made cheaper than it
would be if it wasn't advertised.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

What part is wrong? BTW that is not a libertarian issue at all but I
know it is your go to brain fart


Your belief that advertising does not lower prices for products and
services.

How does that work?
I add a large line to my expense column and somehow I can lower prices
and still make a profit.
It is clear you never actually looked at a P&L statement or owned a
business. Ads may generate more business but it is still a cost of
doing business that gets passed on to the customer.

On 8/16/17 9:02 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

What part is wrong? BTW that is not a libertarian issue at all but I
know it is your go to brain fart


Your belief that advertising does not lower prices for products and
services.

How does that work?
I add a large line to my expense column and somehow I can lower prices
and still make a profit.
It is clear you never actually looked at a P&L statement or owned a
business. Ads may generate more business but it is still a cost of
doing business that gets passed on to the customer.


"Ads may generate more business but it is still a cost of
doing business that gets passed on to the customer. "

Think that through for a while and get back to us.

On 8/16/2017 9:02 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:34:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

What part is wrong? BTW that is not a libertarian issue at all but I
know it is your go to brain fart


Your belief that advertising does not lower prices for products and
services.

How does that work?
I add a large line to my expense column and somehow I can lower prices
and still make a profit.
It is clear you never actually looked at a P&L statement or owned a
business. Ads may generate more business but it is still a cost of
doing business that gets passed on to the customer.


That's not always the case Greg. Advertising can simply be to increase
market share ... or simply compete for business in the first place.

The idea that all business costs are "passed on" to the customer is
simply not true.