Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

PBS kids is the kinda one refuge of “if you need to pull the screen lever, at least it’s safe”. We really don’t iPad except on planes or long car trips, but we uninstalled YouTube - you get them set up with whatever innocuous thing and then 2 seconds later who knows. On PBS Kids you can at least buy 20 minutes without someone trying to sell your 2 year old corn syrup.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

Pondering it a bit, PBS, being non-profit, is missing the profit incentives that make other media complete shit.

You could argue that private sector could/should produce such a thing on its own.  But the empirical "data" suggests otherwise.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
2 hours ago, Bojack said:

Ana had ever listened to 5 minutes of NPR, he'd realize he's a minor league both-sideser compared to them.

KUT is literally the only ota radio I listen to. Your assessment is absolutely laughable. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pondering it a bit, PBS, being non-profit, is missing the profit incentives that make other media complete shit.

You could argue that private sector could/should produce such a thing on its own.  But the empirical "data" suggests otherwise.

Bro, the shareholders would NOT accept a "not for profit" use of their money. Don't you know they're entitled to consistent quarterly growth at all costs?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Celery Man said:

If Ana listens to KUT in the car alone, does him explaining how much smarter he is than other people even make a sound?

I make the kids listen too, until sometimes the content is not age appropriate. 

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pondering it a bit, PBS, being non-profit, is missing the profit incentives that make other media complete shit.

You could argue that private sector could/should produce such a thing on its own.  But the empirical "data" suggests otherwise.

It's called crowding out. There is clearly a market for what is obviously a good product. How can a private sector entity compete for the same audience with an entity that gets a huge government subsidy? Government is the self licking ice cream cone. 

  • Haha 2
  • Fuck You 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

It's called crowding out. There is clearly a market for what is obviously a good product. How can a private sector entity compete for the same audience with an entity that gets a huge government subsidy? Government is the self licking ice cream cone. 

Why didn't the private sector generate Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street, etc?

And now we're concerned about private media having to compete with PBS?  Fucking hell.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

How can a private sector entity compete for the same audience with an entity that gets a huge government subsidy? Government is the self licking ice cream cone. 

Your argument is that PBS was crowding out the TV viewership market for wholesome programming? Please say more, and provide some supporting info

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
16 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

I can't tell if this thread has drawn in a weak troll or if there is a new candidate for dumbest motherfucker on this site.

New?

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Sawbonz said:


The new budget that was passed just gave the top 10 richest Americans on estimated $3 trillion over the next 10 years and not a peep from these fucksticks about it. 

1*txP9TNp3wvb3XxS7fk279A.jpeg

  • Like 1
Posted

In general, you can't have quality/educational for-profit kids television because you can't make a toy line from Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers that is going to be able to compete at any scale with GI Joe or Barbie or Transformers or Marvel or whatever else.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
36 minutes ago, safe sex said:

In general, you can't have quality/educational for-profit kids television because you can't make a toy line from Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers that is going to be able to compete at any scale with GI Joe or Barbie or Transformers or Marvel or whatever else.

The problem with american innovation. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

1*txP9TNp3wvb3XxS7fk279A.jpeg

I used to feel this cartoon was perfect but lately it bothers me that the rich man's cookie pile isn't way bigger for the sake of accuracy. If hard hat man's one cookie represented a net worth of $500,000, rich man's cookie pile would be at most $15 million. If rich man has a net worth of one billion, that's 2000 cookies. If that were Elon, Bezos, or Zuckerberg the cookie pile would be need to be between 450,000 and 800,000 cookies. Anyway, here's a picture of those 3 at the inauguration with some other rich pricks. Between those 3 people, they have about 1.8 million cookies if hard hat man's cookie represents $500,000 net worth.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSS8XmEhz54RxcO2l24TiA

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
  • Drool 1
Posted

Ah yes. NPR, which along with the Pentagon and defense contractors is famously the third pillar of the MIC. At least this will stop the revolving door of two and three stars to the Tiny Desk. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 4
Posted
5 hours ago, safe sex said:

In general, you can't have quality/educational for-profit kids television because you can't make a toy line from Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers that is going to be able to compete at any scale with GI Joe or Barbie or Transformers or Marvel or whatever else.

 

There’s a new toyco heading to Sesame Street. Just Play is replacing Hasbro as Sesame Workshop’s master toy licensing partner for North America, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa starting in 2023.

Sesame Workshop brands generate around US$1.2 billion in licensed product sales each year, according to the nonprofit.

https://kidscreen.com/2022/03/04/just-play-takes-over-sesame-workshop-toy-licensing

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, DaggerHorns said:

PBS was all made possible by Viewers Like You!

“This program was made possible with contributions by viewers like you.”

Edited by Willfully Horn
Posted

If you’ve never viewed any of the Crash Course series, they are really great. I always mean to use those in an annual resolution, or just start chunking through them until I’ve watched them all. This computer science one is particularly great for “non-technical” folks working in tech or tech adjacent roles.


https://thecrashcourse.com/courses/

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I wonder how many of the confused people in this thread who think public broadcasting (a purposefully non-profit enterprise) was funded for the same reason specific for-profit industries are subsidized (to help them get established so they can then become net providers of jobs, tax revenue, and general economic benefit down the road) think that the oil and gas industry should also be shut off from any subsidies.  They're pretty established at this point, don't you think?   Shouldn't we all agree that after decades of being pumped full of our tax dollars, they've had enough time to determine if there is a "real market demand for what they're doing"?

For those keeping track, public broadcasting receives about $535 million per year in federal funding. In contrast, the oil and gas industry receives over $15 billion in direct federal subsidies (in addition to billions more from states), and implicit subsidies are estimated to be well over $750 billion annually.

I assume the response from someone who defends these oil and gas subsidies would come in some variant of "it's much more nuanced than that", and I would agree.   The same is true for public broadcasting, which has never been funded for the same reason we subsidize specific industries at the state and federal level.   One might argue that we need the oil and gas industry to survive, that it's a defense issue as much as anything.  That's a reasonable argument.  But one could argue the same thing about public broadcasting.  There is no greater threat to our democracy than a poorly educated, disengaged population. There is a particular group of people working hard to ensure that this very thing comes to pass, however, and if one's head isn't entirely up one's ass, the reason for this is abundantly clear.  

Based on the numbers alone, anyone who will defend the subsidies for industries such as oil and gas, which are perfectly capable of running a massive profit with no assistance from the federal or state governments, should kindly shut the fuck up about the pittance that goes to public broadcasting.  I mean, those of us who enjoy fossil fuel-based products can surely just pay more to make up for the loss of billions in free money that industry receives, right?   

We can tackle the insurance industry next, if you'd like (hint: it's in the trillions annually and makes oil and gas look like child's play).   

You say you want to make significant cuts to federal spending that mean something and reduce waste?  You say that for-profit enterprises should be able to survive in the market without government assistance? Most people, regardless of their political affiliation, would likely be in favor of these things.   I've identified two industries in this post alone that would put trillions back in our collective pockets if they were forced to operate as truly capitalist enterprises.   There are plenty more.  But that's not what this is about, is it? It's time to stop hiding behind the complete bulllshit that this has anything to do with reducing spending.  The party of fiscal responsibility no longer exists, if it ever did, and everyone who isn't a bumbling fool knows it. The OBBBA passing alone should be all the evidence a functioning brain needs to understand this. Stop playing fiscally responsible dress up and just admit you enjoy authoritarianism and crushing your perceived enemies under your boot heel.  Why pretend otherwise?  To help you sleep at night?  Tough shit.  Twenty-two percent of this country voted for this, and every last one of them should be held accountable for it, even those who have already come to regret their choice.   The real blame, of course, lies in the hands of those who didn't vote at all and allowed such a small percentage of our population to destroy what has taken 250 years to build.  We can't get that mad at the fools for acting foolish.  It's the disengaged who are truly to blame, and now that we are getting rid of public broadcasting and getting rid of public education, there will be so many more disengaged Americans in the future to assist in the power grab.  Congrats, I suppose, but if there ever was a Pyrrhic victory, this is it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
7 hours ago, safe sex said:

In general, you can't have quality/educational for-profit kids television because you can't make a toy line from Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers that is going to be able to compete at any scale with GI Joe or Barbie or Transformers or Marvel or whatever else.

Tickle me Elmo says you are a dumbass

Posted

yeah but i need oil to make the smoke tune in my bro truck go brrrrrp. 

Real talk: in 2024, turnout was pretty darn high, something like 88% of registered voters voted, if the numbers I'm finding are correct.  About 64% of eligible voters voted. For the many eligible voters who are not registered, or the registered voters who chose not to vote, it's not clear to me that their vote would have changed the outcome.  This Pew Research article suggests that, of the nonvoting bloc, 44% of nonvoters preferred Trump and 40% preferred Harris.

I'd love to think that the problem is turnout, but I think the real problem is that people are malicious idiots.

 

 

 

Posted
Quote

 

or those keeping track, public broadcasting receives about $535 million per year in federal funding. In contrast, the oil and gas industry receives over $15 billion in direct federal subsidies (in addition to billions more from states), and implicit subsidies are estimated to be well over $750 billion annually.


 

Here's a summary of the revenue collected by the US and state governments from oil and gas:
1. Federal government
  • The U.S. federal government primarily collects revenue from oil and gas through royalties on production from federal lands and waters, as well as bonuses and rents on leases.
  • In fiscal year 2023, oil and natural gas leases on onshore federal lands generated $8.497 billion in revenue.
  • From 2012-2022, companies paid the federal government $74 billion in oil and gas royalties.
  • The federal fuel excise tax (on gasoline and diesel) also contributes to the Highway Trust Fund and is a significant source of revenue from the industry, totaling $36.4 billion in fiscal year 2016. 
2. State governments
  • State and local governments collect revenue from oil and gas production through a variety of sources, including severance taxes, local property taxes, state oil and gas lease revenues, and a portion of federal lease revenues.
  • On average, state and local governments collect roughly 10% of oil and gas revenue, though this can range from less than 1% to nearly 40% depending on the state.
  • Severance taxes are the largest source of state and local oil and gas revenue.
  • In 2021, state and local governments collected $11.8 billion in severance taxes.
  • State and local governments collected a combined $53 billion in motor fuel taxes in 2021. 
In Summary
  • Both the US federal and state governments collect substantial revenue from the oil and gas industry through royalties, taxes, and other mechanisms.
  • The federal government primarily relies on royalties from federal leases and fuel taxes, while state governments derive revenue from a wider range of sources, particularly severance taxes.
  • The specific amount collected by individual states varies significantly, depending on production levels and tax policies. 
 
 
 
US state and local oil and gas revenue sources and uses - ScienceDirect
Jan 15, 2018 — Highlights. • States and localities receive substantial revenue from oil and gas production. We quantify these revenues, and their uses, across 16 states for fi...
www.sciencedirect.com&client=AIM&size=12
ScienceDirect.com
 
 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Js1 said:

From the same “kids need less screen time!” Crowd, we now have “just go watch YouTube!”

To be fair, "quit your bitching, and let your shitty kids get hooked on YouTube like the rest of us" is pretty apropos of where we are as a country.

Edited by aggie08
Posted
6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Tickle me Elmo says you are a dumbass

Did you miss the "in general" that I started my statement with? Do you really think TME is putting up Hasbro numbers, 29 years after it was first released and is essentially the exact same toy year after year, while other toys change constantly (often multiple new lines for a type within one year), necessitating further purchases and generating many more times profit? Do kids starting building a Tickle Me Elmo collection at an early age and fill their rooms with loads of individual TMEs (or even general Sesame Street toys)?

Posted
7 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Did you miss the "in general" that I started my statement with? Do you really think TME is putting up Hasbro numbers, 29 years after it was first released and is essentially the exact same toy year after year, while other toys change constantly (often multiple new lines for a type within one year), necessitating further purchases and generating many more times profit? Do kids starting building a Tickle Me Elmo collection at an early age and fill their rooms with loads of individual TMEs (or even general Sesame Street toys)?

5 Marketing Lessons From The Craziest Holiday Fad Of All Time

 Summarize

Karlee Weinmann2011-12-10T16:16:00Z

By seandreilinger on Flickr

This article originally appeared at American Express OpenForum

Fifteen years ago, in all his giggly and shaky glory, Tickle Me Elmo took over.

The hottest toy of the 1996 holiday season caused shoppers to turn vicious, inspired a whole new kind of black market (the $35 dolls sold at a several-thousand-dollar markup) and sparked a salacious scandal. During Tickle Me Elmo's epic reign, Tyco—the toy company behind the mega-craze—saw its sales soar from $70 million to an astounding $350 million, all thanks to a simple plush toy.

Since that mania a decade and a half ago, Tickle Me Elmo remains the benchmark for products' must-have status. And there's a few things you can learn from the genius marketing behind the frenzy.

Do your homework

Tyco knew that Sesame Street was the most-watched kids' television program. Among its highly-recognizable cast of fuzzy, quirky and otherwise silly characters, research showed Elmo was the favorite. And so, the toy company settled on the friendly red muppet as the centerpiece for its huge holiday campaign.

The takeaway? It's important to avoid making assumptions, particularly when you're developing products and services. When possible, allow yourself the time, resources and energy to conduct focus groups or survey potential consumers or clients. Their insight matters on two levels: first, as the service or product distributor, you are too immersed in ideas and their development to have a truly objective understanding of them. And second, these are the people who will dictate the success (or failure) of your new items. So who better to listen to?

Don't do media outreach willy-nilly

Mass emailing is a game that's hard to win. Publications receive stacks of generic press releases every week, so it's absolutely crucial to distinguish your product or idea from the heaps of uninteresting or irrelevant information. Rather than adopting the spaghetti-on-the-wall strategy, the Tyco team got specific. It came up with a list of editors of toy trade publications and other journalists they figured would help decide the must-have toys that season. Tyco hosted a hands-on preview event for those writers (and, more important, their children). Tickle Me Elmo went on to win several awards from top trade publications, which can rightly be attributed to both its quality and Tyco's thorough outreach.

The takeaway? It might be tempting to rapid-fire a news release at every journalist in your market, but remind yourself that investing time in figuring out the key players will likely yield a greater return for you. If you can tailor your e-mails to the individual journalist you're trying to reach, he or she will be more likely to open it, read it and consider following up. Be sure to explain why your news item is worthwhile, relevant and different. You probably don't have the robust resources that Tyco had for its outreach efforts, but you probably don't need them either.

Seek out prominent partners

Perhaps Tyco's best move to get Tickle Me Elmo into the spotlight was to bring him into thousands of living rooms every day. Back before people lost interest in the first incarnation of comedienne Rosie O'Donnell's talk show, Tyco outfitted her staff with 200 of the dolls to use in promotions. Producers devised a "secret word" contest during which audience members could win one of the toys, an effective way to build hype leading up to the holiday shopping rush. Tyco also distributed the toy to other popular outlets, including national morning news programs and other talk shows.

The takeaway? People trust the famous faces they see on television, in movies and around town. Even if you don't have the kind of pull a giant company like Tyco does, you can still find innovative ways to partner with well-known figures. Start out by considering the audience you're trying to reach. What do they do? What do they watch? Who do they trust? If your business is localized to a specific community, network with on-air news personalities or hometown athletes. If your company's focus is a bit broader, seek out industry leaders or experts to endorse your products and boost your reputation.

Narrow your focus

Tickle Me Elmo's popularity inspired Tyco to pursue a whole line of Sesame Street toys geared toward preschool-aged children. In 1997, one year after Tyco's monstrous Elmo craze, offshoot toy Sing and Snore Ernie became the holiday season's top seller. Instead of trying for a multitude of successful products at once, Tyco instead invested its resources into perfecting a single one and later building on that successful campaign. That move kept Tyco at the forefront of toy manufacturing for the Tickle Me Elmo demographic, because it has established its ability not only to compete, but to dominate by offering the hottest item.

The takeaway? Keep it simple. If you try to do too much at the outset, it'll lead to mediocrity all around. Commit to executing one project well—even if your long-term vision is to expand that effort—and you've got a more viable shot at success, both immediately and later.

Know your actual audience

Tickle Me Elmo's target demographic, youngsters between 18 months and 4 years old, are surely the ones who enjoyed the toy most. But Tyco didn't advertise to them as much as they did another group: the parents, grandparents and other caregivers who ponied up for the toy. Creating a desire among kids to have the toy is a component of the strategy, but convincing the older group that the doll is one their children and grandchildren would enjoy spurs much more significant benefits. Especially because toddlers simply can't make their own purchasing decisions, going after those who make those calls for them is crucial.

The takeaway? Think critically about the groups you must actually rely on to see your brand, product or idea take off, and prioritize accordingly. Be aware of any and all intermediaries between you and your ideal consumer or client.

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...