Around the World: What ads have been banned in different countries and how much do advertising bans work?

Audio by Bill Fisher, Man-Chung Cheung, Ethan Cramer-Flood, and Matteo Ceurvels | Sep 30, 2024

Episode Transcript:

Speaker 1 (00:00):

Let Emarketer analyze your data. Our customer reports marry original survey data with your company's proprietary data and perspective to create branded analyst score reports for your marketing campaigns. Lead the narrative around key topics. Visit emarketer.com/advertise to learn more.

Bill Fisher (00:20):

Hello, everybody. Welcome to Behind the Numbers Around the World, an Emarketer podcast. It's Monday, September the 30th. I'm your host, Bill Fisher, and it's my pleasure, as it always is, to welcome you all to Around the World. And this month we're talking about advertising bands.

(00:44):

Welcome, folks, to a Behind the Numbers show that takes you around the world looking at what various countries are doing in the worlds of commerce, media, and advertising. Each month we have our three in three global news recap. Then we have the Roundtable, where my guests and I have an open discussion about the main theme for today's show. And we finish it all off with my recap stats quiz. Again, all related to the topic at hand. This month we will be asking, do advertising bands work?

Man-Chung Cheung (01:12):

Obviously we know that ad does trigger something in your brain, right, to signal, you got to have this now. So in this case, I think it has some benefits to it, but obviously it takes a much more holistic approach just to sort of promote healthier diets.

Bill Fisher (01:28):

What's the economic cost of these bands?

Matteo Ceurvels (01:31):

Overall these bands do have an impact on consumer behavior. Now, will tobacco companies get smarter and find ways to try and circumnavigate that overall band? Most likely yes, because they are in the business of selling.

Bill Fisher (01:44):

And why do certain regions ban certain ads from certain industries?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (01:49):

Both societies and governments in terms of their approach to that kind of big brother trying to help with problems. And we know in the United States we're not real big on that, right? Almost nothing here is banned.

Bill Fisher (02:08):

Okay, I have three experts to help me out with today's show. Let's get them involved. First up, we have our researcher for Asia Pacific. It is, of course, Man-Chung Cheung. Hello Man-Chung.

Man-Chung Cheung (02:20):

Hey, always a pleasure to be here, Bill.

Bill Fisher (02:21):

Welcome to the show. Next. He's our forecasting analyst extraordinaire and I've been struggling to get him on the show, but he's finally here. It's Ethan Cramer-Flood. Hey, Ethan.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (02:31):

Bill, it is good to be back. Yeah, my fault, my fault. I've been busy, but I miss you guys.

Bill Fisher (02:35):

Partly my fault as well. And finally, he's our principal analyst for Latin America and Spain. It is, of course, Matteo Ceurvels. Hello, Matteo.

Matteo Ceurvels (02:43):

Hey, Bill, great to be back.

Bill Fisher (02:45):

Great to have you back. Okay, before we get into the episode proper, let me introduce you to this month's culture shock. And we're looking at currency. Any ideas what the oldest currency still in use today is?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (02:58):

That's a good one.

Matteo Ceurvels (02:59):

I saw a YouTube video on this a couple of months ago now I can't remember.

Bill Fisher (03:03):

Let me tell you.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (03:04):

I mean the American dollar is pretty old.

Bill Fisher (03:05):

It is pretty old. It's going to get a mention, but it's actually the British pound.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (03:09):

Oh, there you go.

Bill Fisher (03:10):

So called because in 775 AD, if you can believe it, in Anglo-Saxon England, one pound in weight of sterling silver was used to fashion 240 coins. Hence, the names pound and sterling. Next on the list is the Serbian dinar.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (03:28):

Really?

Bill Fisher (03:28):

That's been around since 1214.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (03:28):

Wow.

Bill Fisher (03:30):

The Russian's rouble can be traced back to the 13th century. Also, it was the first currency to be decimalized incidentally in 1704, and then it was the US dollar. It came along in the 18th century. The dollar sign was adopted in 1785, but it only became the official currency in 1792. The dollar sign,, out of interest was likely formed by an amalgamation of the letters P and S from the American Spanish-American figure for pesos. Any idea what the youngest currency in the world is or where it comes from?

Matteo Ceurvels (03:30):

Bitcoin.

Bill Fisher (04:01):

Harder than the first question.

Matteo Ceurvels (04:02):

Bitcoin.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (04:02):

Yeah, does crypto count?

Bill Fisher (04:06):

I'll give you a clue. It's an African country.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (04:07):

Does South Sudan have their own currency now? They're one of the youngest countries.

Bill Fisher (04:11):

Close. It's the Zig short for Zimbabwe Gold. It was introduced in April this year.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (04:20):

Oh.

Matteo Ceurvels (04:20):

Wow.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (04:20):

That's cheating. They already had a currency. So they're doing that to address their inflation situation.

Bill Fisher (04:24):

They had a currency, then it went to the US dollar, then it went back to the currency and they decided it's not working. They're trying the zig. I don't think that's going to work either. But anyway, enough of this. Let's get onto our new segment, something we call three in three.

(04:39):

I have three interesting and related new stories. I'm going to introduce in turn, one story to one guest and they're going to give me their take. Between the two of us, we're going to do it all in a minute. So three stories in three minutes. The timer is set. Let's go.

(04:54):

Story one is for Ethan and the Dutch come down on fossil fuels. Earlier this month, the Hague in the Netherlands became the first city in the world to pass a law banning ads promoting fossil fuels. It will prohibit all display advertising within the city that promotes petrol, diesel aviation and cruise ships. Ethan, could this be a sign of things to come elsewhere around the world?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (05:14):

Yes, it definitely can be because even in that article it referenced how this is just the next step in a pattern that has already begun. This is just the most authoritative one. My question though is not so much whether there'll be more of this, particularly I think in Europe, maybe around the rest of the world. This will probably not be an issue in the United States. My question is more about the significance of it. Is this a political stunt or is this going to matter? Because what they've really only done is banned public out of home, outdoor display. So billboards, subways, buses, et cetera. That is a very, very, very small percent of actual advertising. So if they want to get serious, it's going to have to be more than this.

Bill Fisher (05:50):

Very good. That was our first story. Thanks, Ethan.

(05:52):

Story two is for Matteo. And Spain, mulls e-cigarette restrictions. The Ministry of Health in Spain drafted a bill earlier this year that will aim among other things to restrict the sale and consumption of e-cigarettes among young people, as well as the advertising of these products. However, 23% of people in the country aged 15 and older currently smoke. So how will these restrictions go down, Matteo?

Matteo Ceurvels (06:15):

I mean there'll probably be a battle. I mean it's Europe after all, everyone smokes in Europe. But I would say at first, the human nature is to be resistant to change but I as a, going back to my days of college classes with political theory, I always think of the social contract. You as a citizen of society have a contract to live in a peaceful society with others and not inflict harm. So there are those negative effects from secondhand smoke and we in this modern day and age, we know the harmful effects of it.

(06:49):

So yeah, I would say for the smoking population it will definitely be a resistance to change. But overall, when you think long-term for people's health and behavioral change and trying to change people's attitudes towards a habit, I think in the long run it'll be good.

Bill Fisher (07:04):

Excellent. Thanks Matteo. That was story number two. And final story, story three is for Man-Chung. And junk food bans in the UK foreshadowed in Singapore. The new Labour Government in the UK has confirmed it will go ahead with a plan to ban advertising for foods and drinks high in fat, sugar and salt, dubbed HFSS. This is something that Singapore has had in place, for sugary drinks at least, since 2020. Man-Chung, any learnings for the UK on this one?

Man-Chung Cheung (07:31):

So just to highlight, this is a little bit different from the UK ad ban, right? Because it's only banning sugary drink. And to provide some context, Singapore has been one of the advanced economies with one of the lowest obesity rates. But nonetheless, you're seeing obesity rate creeping up year after year recently. So it's sort of like a wider strategy to promote healthier diets such as requiring front of package labeling, sugar taxes and public education campaign. I did a little bit of research on my end and I look at some data. So sugary drink consumption has gone down slightly, but if you look at the statistics, actually they track the obesity rate in Singapore, it has gone up slightly from 10.5% in 2019 to 11.6% in 2022. And more recently, data is still lacking. So I would say the result is still inconclusive.

Bill Fisher (08:26):

Interesting, thanks Man-Chung. And that wraps up our three in three for this month, and now it's time for the main part of the show, what we call the round table. This is where we dig a little bit deeper into today's topic and build on the stories that we've just been talking about. That were very interesting stories but how significant are they? And I wanted to kick off actually building on the comment you just gave Man-Chung, right?

(08:53):

So you ban ads, do they work? Is the question. It seems that in Singapore, the obesity rate has gone up a little bit. Do they work? Is there any point in implementing these bans? I mean clearly sometimes they do over the long term if we look at smoking bans and so on. But what are we looking at? Are we looking at instantaneous results? Do we need to wait awhile or do we need to bother with them at all? What do we think?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (09:15):

It's complicated, right? Because for instance, the smoking ban that probably we would all agree, seems like that was a positive and seems like it had the desired effect. That was layered in with a whole bunch of other policy moves also and education and sort of socio-cultural transitions. But mainly, at least from thinking of this in the point of the US, where there's been bans on tobacco for decades and decades for advertising.

(09:41):

And indeed we can now say smoking is and has been at an all-time low and continues to be at an all-time low every year. But meanwhile, they jacked up the taxes on cigarettes so outrageously and overwhelmingly that it also became too expensive for young people to even take up. So decades ago you could buy a pack of cigarettes for a buck or a couple of bucks. Now it's like 20 bucks. So the average high school kid isn't going to be able to have a habit. So to what do we credit the decline of smoking? Is it because we banned the ads or is it... I mean it's all of it, right? They all deserve credit.

(10:17):

But in this case, if you want to stop people from eating junk food, you might need to have 400% tax on the candy bar the way you did with the cigarettes. Otherwise, I don't know.

Man-Chung Cheung (10:28):

To sort of second what Ethan has said, I think it needs to have a comprehensive approach, changing people's habit, education campaign or whatnot. But I think that for the UK law specifically, the ban of junk food after 9:00 P.M., that would work quite well I think to some degree, at least for minors or teenagers. Because for example, my daughter, she was scrolling through TikTok the other day at 10:00, 11:00 P.M, and she saw an effort Wingstop. And she'd be like, "Can I have Wingstop?" I'm like, "It's late at night, it's past dinner time." And she could just easily, teenagers, could just order it through Uber Eats.

(11:09):

So I think that obviously we know that ad does trigger something in your brain to signal, "You got to have this now." So in this case, I think it has some benefits to it, but obviously it takes a much more holistic approach just to sort of promote healthier diets.

Bill Fisher (11:26):

So it sounds like ads as part of a bigger approach to improving health appers and things like that. What about the European angle on smoking then? Matteo, we spoke about the front, the Spanish ban for example.

Matteo Ceurvels (11:40):

I mean I do advertising has the ability, really a great ability of influencing us whether for better or for worse. But at least when it comes to smoking, the World Health Organization has conducted studies that have shown that countries that have implemented advertising bans have seen reductions in the number of people that start to smoke and also continue to smoke. So I think in the US where there was one that said, I think overall smoking declined by about 15% as a result of that as well.

[NEW_PARAGRAPH]So there are positive impacts to that. And I think especially in this day and age of social media where you have viral influencers influencing behaviors, whether it's trying to make smoking cool or not cool. But overall these bans do have an impact on consumer behavior. Now, will tobacco companies get smarter and find ways to try and circumnavigate that overall ban? Most likely yes, because they are in the business of selling. But as a broader society, I take the stance that they do have an impact on making people stop and start smoking.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (12:43):

There's a lot of contradictory evidence out there. I did a little research before this to see what other kind of bans there are in the world beyond just tobacco. Tobacco seems to have a lot of bans in a lot of countries, that's pretty common around the world and has been for a long time. But there's other types of approaches. So like in Russia, there's severe restrictions on alcohol advertising, which a lot of countries don't really have any restrictions on advertising for beer, liquor, wine. They've got huge restrictions because obviously Russia, they've dealt with alcoholism problems for a long time.

(13:14):

This doesn't seem to be doing anything, right? It's not improving the situation. So it's according to what I'm reading here, of course I can't verify with my own eyes, but they're not advertising for alcohol in Russia and they haven't been for a while. It's not really having much of an effect. But you can find the reverse example.

(13:29):

I find it interesting when we take a look at industry ad spending around the world, and I am perennially reminded that the United States is one of the only places in the world that does not have restrictions on prescription drug and pharmaceutical advertising. Many or maybe even most other countries have some or severe restrictions on that. And that probably does have some kind of an impact because the United States is the most over-medicated country in the world. So we allow these kinds of ads to infiltrate through everyone all the time everywhere. And indeed it does result in people asking about pharmaceuticals and then getting prescriptions, where in other places it doesn't. That's different because that's not the same as just going buying a beer or buying a pack of cigarettes. But this can go in a whole bunch of different angles.

(14:14):

Does that mean that the ban on pharmaceutical advertising is effective? That's not a public health... It's not trying to get people to stop eating candy bars. It's different kind of goal, but it clearly has an effect.

Bill Fisher (14:28):

There are always vested interests as well, and the health and pharma lobbyists will not want that to change in the US Of course, it's interesting in the UK with the junk food ban being suggested to come in next year, it's been put off for a number of years and every time it raises its head, the industry body, the IAB UK kicks up quite a fuss and talks about why such a band would be a bad idea.

(14:54):

They always point to the economic impact because the ad industry brings a lot of money into the country. Can we put any kind of figures on the economic cost that some of these bands have? That's a difficult question, I realize.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (15:10):

I can't.

Bill Fisher (15:12):

Beyond just the economic impact, it is not just the digital ad industry. So one of the reasons why the UK government is so keen to implement this ban is because of, you may have heard that the NHS is in a little bit of a mess at the moment over here. And the idea is that if we can reduce things like obesity, that the smoking bans of old reducing lung cancer and things like that, it helps a country's bottom line essentially. I mean, again, we're talking about a more holistic wide-ranging reason for banning ads for particular things. Is there an easier way to put this question? What's the economic cost?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (15:51):

I mean that's just profoundly aspirational and that sounds good. But I mean, it reminds me of what the Dutch are doing with attempting to ban a fossil fuel-related advertisements in as much as, okay, we're going to aspirationally eliminate travel ads and therefore Dutch people are going to no longer be tempted to go to the beach in Mediterranean. I don't think so, right? It's not going to work. But if you're Holland, you're like, climate change is an existential problem for us and our own people contribute to it by getting on planes and cruises.

(16:30):

And then in some of the other articles we're even talking about cities that were trying to ban advertisements for cars, non-EV cars, which that would obviously be a tremendous shift. So that's almost even more holistic in as much as the threat of climate change is and will cost us so much that it's better off to take this hit now by not only reducing the economic impact of the advertising industry, but indeed reducing the economic prosperity of travel and transit, which is hugely important for every country. But that seems to be the goal if you're essentially telling Dutch people stop getting on planes and stop getting on cruises because it's so bad for the environment. That's a tough ask.

Bill Fisher (17:11):

Yeah. Is some of this aspirational stuff dependent on where in the world we are? Because it's interesting that we have all this fossil fuel stuff coming from the hay from Europe, maybe not from the US just yet, or China just yet. Can we make direct links as to why certain countries are banning certain ads for certain industries?

Man-Chung Cheung (17:35):

Yeah, I mean it could be industry driven a lot of times, like you mentioned about EV. Yeah, it depends on the government policy. Sometimes they're trying to grow a certain sector in the country, so those are little strings they could pull to kind of send a signal to the industry.

Matteo Ceurvels (17:52):

I mean I think it really depends. It has to be a bit of a coordinated effort. If you're really going to try and change behaviors. Let's use EV for example. I am all for reducing those emissions from cars, having cleaner air to breathe. We'll take the US for example, if you don't have that charging infrastructure, people may want to buy an EV and they may want to go on contribute to a better society. But if you don't have say that charging infrastructure or the time to charge takes so long, then you can have all the best advertising in the world for it to influence the behavior. But then if the other part of the industry doesn't react and evolve, then you're catch-22.

(18:29):

Same with fossil fuels. I would love to travel more sustainably, but if the only way to get from New York to Spain is flying and say the airlines don't find ways to make a more sustainable... It has to be a bit of a joint effort from all parties involved to make sure that you're thinking through the impacts of that.

(18:47):

And even with smoking too, if you convince people to stop smoking, the tobacco company may have a hit on their bottom line, but that $10, 10 euros you're spending on cigarettes, you'll use it for something else. Maybe for food or maybe for whatever you're going to reallocate that spending to. So there are pluses and minuses with it, but I think when these things need to be thought out, if you're really going to try and change behavior, you need to have really all the stakeholders involved to make sure that your ban is also, there's cohesion across all the parties involved.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (19:20):

And so there's just different political cultures around the world, different both societies and governments in terms of their approach to that kind of big brother trying to help with problems. And we know in the United States we're not real big on that. Almost nothing here is banned. The tobacco thing stands out because it is sort of the exception that proves the rule, nothing else is banned really. Actually is kind of amazing how much momentum there is now to address advertising to kids on social media because we haven't even done anything about that until now.

(19:51):

But everything else is wide open. Pharmaceuticals, junk food, even gambling. When I was doing research, I saw that in many countries advertising for gambling is illegal. I'm like, that makes a lot of sense. That's an obvious vice. But in this country, when the wave of sports betting apps started to become legalized over the past few years, you just saw ads everywhere. We didn't restrict it at all. And the ads come with a little warning, if you have a gambling problem, please call this number. But nonetheless, there's ads for gambling all over our TV and internet.

(20:21):

So we don't really stop anything in the US as opposed to in other countries where there's probably a little bit more of a consensus that, let's all get together as society and with the government and see if we can address some of these problems by sort of enforcement and restrictions.

(20:34):

But Bill, I want to hit your question about economics of it and the economic impact. So like the CPG, the consumer packaged goods industry, in the US spends like 50 billion a year on advertising of which a significant proportion comes from the food section. And we all know that that's going to be heavily leaning into the sort of junk food and unhealthy stuff, right? Something like 30%. It's the leading subcategory within CPG. So that is if they attempted some sort of ban on the equivalent of what's being discussed elsewhere in the world, that would be a monumental hit. And the travel industry spends an enormous amount of advertising. This is our bailiwick talking about digital media and advertising, but it's not just that the travel industry itself is such a huge part and tourism is such a huge part of economies all over the world. But in the media and ad space, these are major... I mean automotive, imagine trying to ban ads for fossil fuel cars. That's another 20 billion out the door here.

(21:30):

And if we have numbers like this for France and Germany, and some of them are a little lower, particularly healthcare and pharma, is a little lower in some of the European countries. But CPG is a huge advertiser everywhere. So if you try to take away the junk food, those junk food ads, that's going to have a effect hitting lots and lots of interested parties.

Bill Fisher (21:47):

Yep, great points and great discussion. But that is all we've got time for because now it's time for the recap stats quiz. This is where we recap today's theme with a few related stats, questions... Or maybe not stats. It's more history lesson today. There's no prize, yet, Man-Chung. Although we may change that if Stuart will agree to spend any money. It's just bragging rights for now.

(22:13):

There are only three questions, multiple choice, so it's nice and quick. I'm going to ask each of you to send me your answers privately so there's no room for influence or anything like that. So open all the social channels, ready to give me your answers. And we'll get straight on with the history lesson, with question one. The US government introduced the public health cigarette smoking act banning the advertising of cigarettes on TV and radio in what year? And this is the year that it came into effect. And these are your options. We have 1969, 1970, or 1971.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (22:47):

Oh, come on. Those are way too close together.

Bill Fisher (22:49):

I know it's supposed to be devilishly difficult.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (22:53):

I was hoping you're going to say something in the '50s, something in the '70s, something in the '90s.

Bill Fisher (22:57):

That would be too easy. Okay, so we have a consensus here. If you'd have said 1969, which none of you did, that would've been incorrect. That was when it was introduced to Congress. 1970, that was when the act was passed into law. 1971, was the correct answer. That was when the ban started. Virginia Slims was the last ad shown at 11:59 P.M, on January the 1st. The ban came into force at midnight. So well done everybody.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (23:27):

We all got it.

Bill Fisher (23:27):

Everybody got that answer right. So we've got a three-way tie. I don't think that's ever happened. Well done everybody all to play for. As we move on to our second question. And I'm sticking with history, there's a bit more of a gap in the years this time, you'll be pleased to hear, Ethan. Not much so. I'm sticking with history and the UK. And the HFSS ban, the high fat salt and sugar ban in the UK might finally be coming into force, as we said in October next year. But when was it first proposed? 2016, 2018 or 2022.

(24:01):

This is really interesting. We've had consensus again.

Matteo Ceurvels (24:02):

What? Oh, I just kind just picked eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (24:02):

Are we right again?

Bill Fisher (24:11):

Well, let me walk you through it. 2022 would've been incorrect. This was when restrictions were first supposed to come into force, in April of that year. So we're already talking about being three years out, three and a half years out on that. 2016, which is what you all said, that is incorrect as well. That is when a soft drinks tax levy was announced, aka the sugar tax. That was announced by David Cameron's conservative government in 2016. And that's now in force, came into force in 2018. Which is the correct answer, 2018 is when the HFSS laws in their current form first emerged under Theresa May's conservative government.

(24:50):

So because we've got consensus, we've still got a three-way tie. So this is really exciting. The most exciting I think we've ever had it. Are we going to get a winner with our final question? And I'm moving away from history into an altogether different direction. I don't know how I'd describe this. Our final question, we're in Malaysia. And which of the following are you unlikely to see on advertising in the country? And your options are ponytails, yellow clothes or black cars. Which of those three are you unlikely to see on ads in Malaysia? Ponytails, yellow clothes or black cars.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (25:26):

Wow, good one.

Man-Chung Cheung (25:28):

Interesting choices.

Bill Fisher (25:30):

Okay, we haven't had consensus. Which is exciting. Are we going to have an outright winner? If you'd have said ponytails... Did any of you say ponytails? No. In Iran, Western hairstyles including ponytails are prohibited. So you will not see that on advertising in Iran. But in Malaysia it's fine. Black cars is also incorrect. In Turkmenistan in 2018, black cars were prohibited due to the color being deemed unlucky. The correct answer is yellow clothes. This is based on protesters in 2016, flooding the streets of Kuala Lumpur demanding the prime minister's regulation, and they were all wearing yellow, so it was then immediately banned. You couldn't be seen in yellow clothes in public, so you don't see it on ads. And I think that's still the case. So be careful if you're on holiday in Malaysia. Right, as I say-

Ethan Cramer-Flood (26:19):

I got that right, but I had no idea why.

Bill Fisher (26:22):

You did get it right, but you weren't the only one to get it right, because Matteo also guessed yellow clothes. Unlucky Man-Chung, you are out of the running. We now have a tiebreak.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (26:32):

No.

Matteo Ceurvels (26:33):

Oh, no.

Bill Fisher (26:33):

I always love it when we have a tiebreak. So this is an open-ended answer. I'm just looking for a number, the closest wins. The world's first ever TV commercial. Do you know what it was? Anyone?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (26:44):

No.

Matteo Ceurvels (26:44):

Marlboro Cigarettes?

Ethan Cramer-Flood (26:45):

Oh my god. Can you imagine? The first ad ever was cigarettes.

Bill Fisher (26:50):

It was aired in the US in 1941 by watchmaker Bulova. How much did they pay for the honor? How much did they pay in dollars?

Matteo Ceurvels (27:01):

Current prices or back then?

Bill Fisher (27:04):

Back then. I'm going to give you a conversion.

Matteo Ceurvels (27:07):

All right.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (27:08):

I have no idea. Then my guess is through-

Matteo Ceurvels (27:11):

Let's try this number.

Bill Fisher (27:12):

Okay, the answers are in and we do have a clear winner. It was very low, which means that Ethan is the winner. You guessed $50.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (27:23):

I did.

Bill Fisher (27:26):

And the correct answer is $9, in fact.

Matteo Ceurvels (27:27):

What?

Bill Fisher (27:29):

Yeah, in 1941, it cost a Bulova $9. I think the ad was like six seconds. It was an image of a Bulova clock face on a world map. And I can't even remember what they said. America runs on Bulova time, I think. And that was it. That was the ad. $9.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (27:46):

You would have a hard time charging a lot for an ad back then because there was no way... There weren't that many people watching and there was no way to guarantee the effectiveness of the ad. And it was all very experimental. So if you had come to these people asking for hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars, they'd be like, "No, why would I do that?"

Bill Fisher (28:02):

Exactly, which is why it was so low. And allowing for inflation, this probably equates to around $180 in today's money or 0.43 pounds of sterling silver. You like the link there?

(28:17):

Okay, so we have a winner. We always end the show with a winner, and it is time to end the show, unfortunately. And the winner is Ethan. Well done.

Man-Chung Cheung (28:25):

Congrats.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (28:25):

I'm so glad I don't have to split the non-existent prize with Matteo.

Bill Fisher (28:31):

We never split a prize because there's always a tiebreak. Anyway, as I say, that is the end of the show. Congratulations Ethan, and thanks for joining us today.

Ethan Cramer-Flood (28:39):

My pleasure. Let's do it again soon.

Bill Fisher (28:41):

Matteo, thanks as ever for joining the show. And unlucky.

Matteo Ceurvels (28:44):

That's all right. Always a pleasure to be here though, either way.

Bill Fisher (28:47):

And Man-Chung next time you're going to win, mate.

Man-Chung Cheung (28:51):

Next time.

Bill Fisher (28:52):

Next time. Thanks for being on the show.

Man-Chung Cheung (28:53):

Thank you.

Bill Fisher (28:54):

And thanks to all of you for listening in today to Around the World an Emarketer podcast. Tune in tomorrow for The Daily Show hosted by Marcus. If you want to ask us any questions, you can of course email us at podcast@Emarketer.com. I hope to see all of you next month for another edition of Behind the Numbers Around the World. It promises to be another sterling Show. Bye for now.