Retirement

[MrGongGong]

On Monday at around 4.30pm on ITV3 during "You Only Live Twice" - a comedy series made in 1977-1981 and set in the fictional "Paradise Lodge Retirement Home" - I would expect to see perhaps eight commercials in the break of which six or seven will be medical. These may well begin with a harrowing scenes from a cancer operating ward, then it may be a private health insurance, something from a charity about a stroke or heart disease, one on diminishing eyesight, a further one on private health insurance, another on a stair lift at home and then finally a shorter one linking back to the first. That having been done, it's immediately back to the laughs although it would by then take a hyena not to feel gloom.

Several of the adverts will involve the most expensive telephone numbers to ring to donate a sum of "just £30" or to receive a home visit to provide advice on something that local services would provide for free. That is overkill - and it is wholly typical of that station at that time. Note that there could equally be a wide variety of adverts about a need for protection from terrorism and umpteen other horrors in the middle of a racy film at 10.30pm at night but there isn't and there never will be. A part of it is that older vulnerable people will not be watching those and the people who are should be less easily fleeced. Another part is that the old are increasingly seen as needing to be spoon fed. There is another aspect too. It takes a hell of a lot to explain to some elderly people - I am thinking of neighbours here, not so much family - that they should only engage on the telephone about financial matters when they themselves ring someone rather than being rung. The TV ads try to remove that security by conveying that unsolicited advice is to be trusted.

TV is not compulsory
and this is hardly a new phenomena (as many Victorian adverts show)
Without being "political" it does seem a little ironic that you are so offended by this and at the same time appear to be in support of those in charge of things who lack any empathy at all ?

[Lat-Literal]

TV is not compulsory
and this is hardly a new phenomena (as many Victorian adverts show)
Without being "political" it does seem a little ironic that you are so offended by this and at the same time appear to be in support of those in charge of things who lack any empathy at all ?

It isn't compulsory but it may be virtually so for the housebound and/or those who actually have a serious illness and look for areas which they assume will enable them to switch off from it as best they can for a short while. The last thing I would want in that situation, having located the one and only comedy slot - there are often three shows in a row there - is to be reminded of my situation in graphic detail. I don't think that is odd. Much of this stuff was properly regulated not so many years ago meaning that it just couldn't have happened. Now it is like California at its worst blasting in to every flat and terrace house - it is all sooooo American - and it's downright weird in its culturally jarring juxtaposition with old British comedy. I won't reply to your point about empathy for two reasons. But I find it surprising you appear to be in this regard only the champion of global corporations.

(I will clarify the regulatory point - the example you provided was printed, broadcasting rights have only in recent years permitted ads for most medical things, law, gambling etc)

[french frank]

On Monday at around 4.30pm on ITV3 during "You Only Live Twice" - a comedy series made in 1977-1981 and set in the fictional "Paradise Lodge Retirement Home" - I would expect to see perhaps eight commercials in the break of which six or seven will be medical.

What you seem to be worried about is the fact that there is such a thing as a "health industry" with many services being provided by private companies. If that weren't so there would be no point in advertising. Charities advertise because in many cases they are sponsoring research into disease.

If there is a specific issue with the advertising (other than a fundamental belief that all care for the elderly and sick should be provided by the state) then, on the other hand, there might be a case to take it to the Advertising Standards Agency. But you either have all care provided by the state or you will have some form of 'commodification'. Should that be controlled, and if so, how?

[Incidentally, it's what depresses listeners to Classic FM: https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_a...too-depressing ]

[Dave2002]

Much of this stuff was properly regulated not so many years ago meaning that it just couldn't have happened. Now it is like California at its worst blasting in to every flat and terrace house - it is all sooooo American - and it's downright weird in its culturally jarring juxtaposition with old British comedy.

I think you are behind the times. In the USA TV advertising is targetted down to the street level or even the individual houses. Different people get different adverts depending on demographics, and what marketeers will think they can sell to each individual or family.

It's still advertising though ....

Sadly, at least re internet delivered material, the UK is catching up, though would you rather have adverts which might be relevant to you, or others which are almost certainly not relevant at all?

[P. G. Tipps]

On Monday at around 4.30pm on ITV3 during "You Only Live Twice" - a comedy series made in 1977-1981 and set in the fictional "Paradise Lodge Retirement Home" - I would expect to see perhaps eight commercials in the break of which six or seven will be medical. These may well begin with a harrowing scene from a cancer operating ward, then it may be a private health insurance, something from a charity about a stroke or heart disease, one on diminishing eyesight, a further one on private health insurance, another on a stair lift at home and then finally a slightly shorter one linking to the first. That having been done, it's immediately back to the laughs although it would by then take a hyena not to feel gloom.

Several of the adverts will involve the most expensive telephone numbers to ring to donate a sum of "just £30" or to receive a home visit to provide advice on something that local services would provide for free. That is overkill - and it is wholly typical of that station at that time. Note that there could equally be a wide variety of adverts about a need for protection from terrorism and umpteen other horrors in the middle of a racy film at 10.30pm at night but there isn't and there never will be. A part of it is that older vulnerable people will not be watching those and the people who are should be less easily fleeced. Another part is that the old are increasingly seen as needing to be spoon fed. There is another aspect too. It takes a hell of a lot to explain to some elderly people - I am thinking of neighbours here, not so much family - that they should only engage on the telephone about financial matters when they themselves ring someone rather than being rung. The TV ads try to remove that security by conveying that unsolicited advice is to be trusted.

You make some very valid points here ...

And it's not just the TV ads. On Sky Sports on a Saturday afternoon (it seems all way through the football season) the Presenter wears a truly hideous over-large badge of a male figure which purports to warn men of the dangers of ignoring symptoms which could indicate prostate cancer. Most of his fellow-contributors sport the same badge. On the surface a very laudable idea, despite the awful ' in yer face' insignia.

However there are plenty of men, many in retirement, who currently live with this disease and watch sport and other things to take their minds off the illness not to be constantly reminded of it! There is nothing wrong with, say, having an annual day dedicated to this warning, in fact that was the original intention, but current sufferers surely don't expect this to be rammed down their throats regularly on entertainment channels.

Highly inappropriate and insensitive and something that would have been recognised and never permitted by more thoughtful TV bosses not that long ago ?.

[Lat-Literal]

What you seem to be worried about is the fact that there is such a thing as a "health industry" with many services being provided by private companies. If that weren't so there would be no point in advertising. Charities advertise because in many cases they are sponsoring research into disease.

If there is a specific issue with the advertising (other than a fundamental belief that all care for the elderly and sick should be provided by the state) then, on the other hand, there might be a case to take it to the Advertising Standards Agency. But you either have all care provided by the state or you will have some form of 'commodification'. Should that be controlled, and if so, how?

[Incidentally, it's what depresses listeners to Classic FM: https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_a...too-depressing ]

Interesting.

The comments about Classic FM equally apply to most other commercial radio stations.

The change in the cultural tone in the 2000s has been the size of two large continents.

This is how it sounded in the 1970s - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WftOH5qDxT0

My point is not principally about a "health industry" with many services being provided by private companies. I occasionally go to Specsavers. My dentist is a private dentist. It is about a combination of the deregulation in advertising both in terms of content and the numbers of commercials permitted in any advertising segment; the huge rise of illness as entertainment (second only to terrorism) that has occurred principally with the broadening of broadcasting licences and expansion of 24 hour broadcasting so that demotivating content proliferates - the same occurs in any conversation between people who have nothing else to say; and especially extreme targeting in bunched advertising and broadly in modern culture so advertising content is often skewed towards profiting from the retired/vulnerable rather than being diverse and resembling any sort of normality in the round.

You make some very valid points here ...

And it's not just the TV ads. On Sky Sports on a Saturday afternoon (it seems all way through the football season) the Presenter wears a truly hideous over-large badge of a male figure which purports to warn men of the dangers of ignoring symptoms which could indicate prostate cancer. Most of his fellow-contributors sport the same badge. On the surface a very laudable idea, despite the awful ' in yer face' insignia.

However there are plenty of men, many in retirement, who currently live with this disease and watch sport and other things to take their minds off the illness not to be constantly reminded of it! There is nothing wrong with, say, having an annual day dedicated to this warning, in fact that was the original intention, but current sufferers surely don't expect this to be rammed down their throats regularly on entertainment channels.

Highly inappropriate and insensitive and something that would have been recognised and never permitted by more thoughtful TV bosses not that long ago ?.

Completely agree - especially if that occurs every week.

The messages need to be conveyed - they are more now than ever - but in appropriate contexts and with at least some understanding of balance. I could understand something of that nature in the context you mention being permitted once a year. Obviously people can wear badges on the streets whenever they wish - fine - that is an entirely different thing.

I think you are behind the times. In the USA TV advertising is targetted down to the street level or even the individual houses. Different people get different adverts depending on demographics, and what marketeers will think they can sell to each individual or family.

It's still advertising though ....

Sadly, at least re internet delivered material, the UK is catching up, though would you rather have adverts which might be relevant to you, or others which are almost certainly not relevant at all?

I'd prefer most advertising to be about suggesting what people might like to buy rather than seeking to hype up anxiety at every turn and offering a product to solve it. The main point as I have indicated is bunching. Just as town planners used to try to ensure that six shops were not all estate agents, so regulators used to ensure eight adverts were diverse.

All this is common sense. An old man leaves his house to get into his car. His wife says "don't have a serious road accident will you". He drives to the next road and asks someone he knows if he would like a lift. As the person gets in he says "don't have a serious road accident will you". On the next road there is a road marking. It says "don't have a serious road accident will you". And just past the big sign on the next road that says "don't have a serious road accident will you", his confidence is so shot to pieces he crashes the car.

[Lat-Literal]

It might be worthwhile providing a link to Mature Times which shows the contrast between a non-profit making approach and a profit-making one. It is much more positive in outlook and diverse in content and being called "The Voice of Our Generation" that could imply it is largely produced by people of a certain age. It is not that young people are the problem but rather the systems in which they are required to work now. From the perspective of one who is middle aged, I think those systems are often increasingly sinister:

http://www.maturetimes.co.uk/

I'd still be interested to hear if anyone has any thoughts about any issues raised in "The Real Marigold Hotel". I tried to raise this topic on another board but there were no replies. Also, has anyone acquired role models in later age including older age? To my surprise - I didn't expect it to happen after 20 - I am finding new identification with Inspector Morse.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'd prefer most advertising to be about suggesting what people might like to buy rather than seeking to hype up anxiety at every turn and offering a product to solve it.

That's capitalism for you - applying to all advertising - and admitted as such by its apologists. If you're not persuaded to buy something we're plugging, and which you don't currently need (if ever), you're deluding yourself, because the market you believe in, to be successful, depends on your purchasing potential, and uses psychological pressure to make you feel you really must buy, either by the anxiety-promoting messages you've described, or by telling you you really don't belong because you're not keeping up with the Joneses who've got the latest unsustainable product, and are just a sad old codger (like me) who's saving for when he might have to go into a private profiteering staff exploiting care home.

But I certainly agree when you mention ad bunching - in the old days there'd be a break between ads, signalled by some kind of flashing symbol; nowadays you turn your back and we find ourselves in some different ad. Sometimes the next part of the programme enters unannounced. I'd be lost with my pause button recording old-style VHS's!

[Lat-Literal]

That's capitalism for you - applying to all advertising - and admitted as such by its apologists. If you're not persuaded to buy something we're plugging, and which you don't currently need (if ever), you're deluding yourself, because the market you believe in, to be successful, depends on your purchasing potential, and uses psychological pressure to make you feel you really must buy, either by the anxiety-promoting messages you've described, or by telling you you really don't belong because you're not keeping up with the Joneses who've got the latest unsustainable product, and are just a sad old codger (like me) who's saving for when he might have to go into a private profiteering staff exploiting care home.

But I certainly agree when you mention ad bunching - in the old days there'd be a break between ads, signalled by some kind of flashing symbol; nowadays you turn your back and we find ourselves in some different ad. Sometimes the next part of the programme enters unannounced. I'd be lost with my pause button recording old-style VHS's!

The UK actually has tighter advertising restrictions than what is permitted under a EU Directive which seeks to ensure that advertising doesn't have a harmful or similar effect on the viewing and listening experience. But the early ILR (Independent Local Radio) Handbooks show in various charts how there was originally half the advertising in local radio under 1970s' law with specific rules for each segment and there were far greater restrictions on the types of advertising allowed. There have been parallel changes in television.

Younger people do not know about these changes. Older people have often forgotten. In the systemic organisation as a whole, there is a mindset that isn't easy to comprehend. Charities seeking money from people of all ages for serious illness target Channel 4 stations especially at breakfast time (is it still a Public Service Broadcaster? - if so it actually has greater leeway) while the full hour of C4 news at 7pm carries virtually no advertising. The cynical part of me sees the first phenomenon as an order to people to get serious ahead of the working day and the second as designed not to distract viewers from news content principally focussed on terrorism - another way of ensuring people are ordered.

Recently, one serious contributor - a journalist - claimed there were more deaths in the US last year from toddlers misfiring guns on kitchen tables than by terror groups. If true, media distortion is huge across the spectrum. All I am saying is there is a generational economic lever driving advertising content towards the older generations who are viewed not wholly wrongly as unusually privileged in historical terms. And that it has psychological undertones that are at best two faced and at worst may be deliberately mind-altering.

[Lat-Literal]

S-A, You also mention care. There is a fascinating moment in The Real Marigold Hotel where Sheila Ferguson of the Three Degrees talks with Paul Nicholas. She explains she moved to a Spanish island about a decade ago to escape the celebrity baggage and can often go for an entire week without speaking to anyone. The socializing with other people is more of a challenge for her than having been plonked with them all in India. She says to Nicholas that he has been in a long term marriage. How did it work? He replies that it has worked on the basis that his wife doesn't know mostly where he is. There is a brief pause and both say together "and she cares even less". This is followed by much laughter. Both of them - especially him - are quite light. But it is moments like that which really get one thinking. Another is in Bill Oddie's movements given that he is known to suffer from depression. A third - when it all got too much for poor Lionel Blair and at the age of 87 he decided the answer was another cigarette. Better than any other show of that kind I feel.

At the local level, ie this road, two recent developments. One, our 88 year old woman friend had been enjoying the 70 year old man who is restless and always wanting something to do taking her out to garden centres. However, she has put a stop to it on the grounds that his wife might believe she fancies him. In truth, his wife is exactly like Mrs Nicholas. She has a lot of activity in her own life and doesn't care what her husband does as long as he is out of the house. Two, my parents get on extremely well with an Indian neighbour, 62, but my father has suddenly concluded she is a lesbian on the grounds that she divorced after 15 years, didn't have children and mainly talks to my mother rather than him. I did time the moment when she arrived at the door and spoke only to him. It was fully 25 minutes with barely a pause on each side. Sometimes I feel the world has gone strange.

The main point is one about security. Everyone other than the movers and shakers seems so insecure. I have to put the blame on the movers and shakers. It's a systemic problem.

[Sir Velo]

... And of course 'botanising the asphalt'.

So you're the chap who does the floral displays on roundabouts!

[vinteuil]

So you're the chap who does the floral displays on roundabouts!

... ho ho ho!!

https://eastofelveden.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/botanising-the-asphalt/

[Dave2002]

Recently, one serious contributor - a journalist - claimed there were more deaths in the US last year from toddlers misfiring guns on kitchen tables than by terror groups. If true, media distortion is huge across the spectrum.

Very likely to be true. See this which gives a graph showing deaths by terrorism in the USA since 2001 - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/03/us...-gun-violence/

Actually guns in the US are a problem - but the deaths by suicide from gun use are similar (in relative terms) to other countries. It is homicides where the US has a much higher rate than other countries with more constraining gun laws.

[Lat-Literal]

Very likely to be true. See this which gives a graph showing deaths by terrorism in the USA since 2001 - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/03/us...-gun-violence/

Actually guns in the US are a problem - but the deaths by suicide from gun use are similar (in relative terms) to other countries. It is homicides where the US has a much higher rate than other countries with more constraining gun laws.

Yes indeed - and that data is really striking.

Deaths by Terrorist Attack in Western Europe - 1970-2015

http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015

Anyhow, when the media and politics become fantasy football, it feels more sane to stay on the original pitch.

To tie this back to retirement, all of the elderly people over decades scared to leave their houses when it was young men who were always the most likely to be killed.

(But note the peaks during the 2000s such as they have been directly coincide with (a) the expansion of the the EU and (b) Brexit discussion, namely massive changes in Europe of whatever kind. ie A Europe that is stable and recognizable equals stability among the edgy - so if there has to be a new order it will benefit everyone not to turn it into a big fight).

[teamsaint]

a very good article in the Guardian here, which addresses a lot of key issues.
I do wish that Journalists would stop swallowing this " Half of us are going to live to 100 " line from the DWP, ( there is data available if you look around that shows life expectancy around the world flatlining around the age of 85), but that aside, a really good piece, which mentions and revisits some good ideas.

I would have liked to have seen a little more on the associated issue of low wages and high rents and house prices for the young, ( touched on at the end) but it is well worth a read.