We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Advertising allowance bill of 2140
Details
Submitted by[?]: Malivia Democratic Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2141
Description[?]:
Allows the freedom to advertise. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on advertising
Old value:: All advertising is prohibited.
Current: All advertising is permitted.
Proposed: Only advertising that meets certain set standards is permitted.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 14:51:47, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2140 |
Message | It has been pointed out by Libcom that all private TV stations are pay-per-view now. Normally, advertisments pay for television programming, however as the PP, Libcom, and others are so insistent on ignoring the fundamental needs of any business..personal or otherwise.. to exist is through advertising their products, maybe this will convince others why the current law is a bad bill. Every television channel with the exception of the one government sponsored one, is paid for now by the consumers. Not a very fair deal for Malivias citizens to see their favorite shows which were originally sponsored by the advertising that the PP and Libcoms so hate..to have the costs passed on to TV owners. Not very socialist, or capitalist either.. really.. for that matter. Just dumb.. really. |
Date | 14:54:00, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2140 |
Message | I'll point out the same thing applies to radio and the newspaper. I expect with the ban on advertising, that the cost of a newspaper has jumped quite a bit, since no longer do advertisements pay a large portion of the cost to produce the paper. |
Date | 16:03:21, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2140 |
Message | Actually very capitalistic. The consumer pays for the product they want without others not related to the transaction carring some of the cost. The price of products also goes down since a large portion of many products cost is devoted to ads. Previously the cost of the programs was carried by not those who watched the programming rather by consumers when they purchased a new car, toy or soft drink. Now if a person who does not have children is no longer supporting a kids network unless they want to buy it. Same with newspapers. Why should a person who never reads the paper, yet shops at the stores that would advertise in the paper, subsidize the printing of the paper. How is this not a market economy? |
Date | 20:36:10, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2140 |
Message | You're forgetting every transaction carries costs not necessarily involved in the making of the product, and you cannot possibly hope to change a market economy to reflect pure product costs. Your argument is a bit hypocritical on the person who doesn't read the paper... one can equate that to taxes. Why should a person pay taxes that don't benefit that person? Because things are usually done for a personal benefit, and most don't mind paying for them. And it isn't a market economy because it is unduly influenced on a negative level by unnecessary government regulations that place an impossible burden not just on small start up companies, but on the private individual seeking to buy or trade in the classified section of the local newspaper. How can one claim a market economy when the means to promote any market has been driven underground? |
Date | 22:26:02, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2140 |
Message | We would support a move to ban taxes and have services paid for by those who use them. We disagree that this is a valid comparison however, one side has a private business being financed by citizens who do not use the products of the industry, the other is the financing of a institution which all citizens are members in and have a voice in, and are thus able to provide input toward where their money goes. If you don't like how your gonvernment spends your money vote someone else in, compared to not knowing how a private business even spends the money you gave it. Without ads a new company could actually have an easier time entering a market as there is less brand awareness. The methods avaiable for making a choice have been outline several times to provide equal exposure to all businesses in an unbiased manner. They included referral services from professional organizations, reviews, consignment stores among others. We are removing one of the barriers of entry into a market and are therefore promoting a free market. We did not mean to imply that production costs are the only costs (and don't see where we did), rather the elimination of advertisement could reduce the cost of a product as well as distribute the cost directly on those who wish the product. |
Date | 23:44:58, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2140 |
Message | But there is already brand awareness though years and years of word of mouth, which is the biggest advertisement possible. And already established companies have a huge leg up over start ups. Furthermore, I doubt the PP is going to throw people in jail for wearing shirts that have a logo on it.. which is a form of advertisement and still a benefit to already established companies. Moreso.. the PP is forgetting a huge thing that is added to the cost of a product that is paid for by consumers.. and that is profit. If the PP wants everyone to only pay the cost of the product and nothing else related, will it ban profit? Because that is a substantial addition to the cost passed onto the consumer. And, the PP is still forgetting that its proposed method is still a form of advertisement.. regulated by the government, and beneficial again to already established large companies. I'm not convinced that the PP has really thought this out fully. Perhaps the PP can point to an OOC nation where its suggested methods have been implemented and working. I am not aware of any nation either IC or OOC that has tried to do what the PP proposes.. simply because, well, it just isn't realistic. |
Date | 02:53:19, November 15, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2140 |
Message | OOC: never said it has been done, real life nations come with more baggage then the game IC: where is the advertisement that the MDP continues to insist exist in our proposed method. We have never before heard of reviews being considered advertisement, generally ads are viewed as when there is payment by a company to have what they want appear in media and that is the definition we have been working on. We never said anything about profit, for without profit there is no reason for a private company to produce the product, however profit is price minus cost and in a competitive market, the price is as low as you can make it while still making a profit, thus reducing costs reduces price. eliminating ad budgets reduces cost leading to cheaper prices in the market. And removing ads helps reduce products to commodities where price is everything, further eroding the ticket price. As for new vs established buisnesses. Our method provides the easiest entry into the market by providing equal opportunity for new products to be reviewed and their benefits weighed. No longer will they need to compete against the established business in advertising Py's where the advantage goes to the establish company with the larger pocketbook. Yes an established business that is doing everything right still has the edge, but that is always the case as people follow their past experiences. We are not eliminating the gap mearly working toward shrinking it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes |
Total Seats: 173 | ||||
no |
Total Seats: 128 | ||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Cultural Protocols should generally be reflective of RP conducted within the nation and should not significantly alter or modify the ethnic, religious or linguistic composition without considerable and reasonable role-play or other justification. |
Random quote: "Cruel leaders are replaced only to have new leaders turn cruel." - Ernesto "Che" Guevara |