So don't fill up at any station that runs the ads. Publish the address of the station, and we'll make a list.
Right on! I'm on board. See my Update, and thanks for the prod.
Dawg, I have issues (hell, I have a whole subscription) with 98% of the stuff I read at your site, but man oh man, I am so boycotting these gas stations - mostly because I'd be too tempted to turn the pump on the telescreen and light up.
Jeremy:
Well, you can't be wrong all the time... : )
What Jeremy said. Talk about giving the whole notion of a secret agenda a bad name!
C'mon, Dr. Dawg, admit it. This is causing you to rethink your position on handgun ownership.
LOL!
... and just when we thought filling up our tanks ($$$$) could not be any more painful along comes ... this noise pollution.
I guess I don't totally see what all the fuss is about. I mean, I hate negative ads, but I pretty much just tune them out now. I also don't see the point of boycotting the gas stations for running negative ads if you're not gonna boycott CBC and CTV and Global for doing the same thing. As I said elsewhere it's kinda like boycotting RC Cola for making tooth-rotting drinks while continuing to buy Coke and Pepsi.
Wouldn't the more effective strategy be for the other parties to run counter (hopefully not negative) ads at the stations? I just don't see the point of attacking one niche "broadcaster" (if you can even call them that) for doing something pretty much every other media company in the country does, and has done for decades.
Ah, I see the Liberals are getting ideas. : )
Well, LKO, the difference is simple. I can mute or simply switch channels when that nonsense appears on my TV. I don't even have to watch TV. But I have no such option here (other than boycott), because I do need to fill up my car. In other words, I am required to "turn on the TV," and I can't turn the ad off--I need to "switch channels," therefore, i.e., go someplace else.
Maybe the Conservatives are trying a new tactic.
The subtext of a captive audience gas station ad is simple: stop filling up your car and you never have to see us again!
So it's really a hidden environmentalist message. : )
LKO's idea is intriguing. It could be like starring in one of those ads where the fellow is getting conflicting advice from a devil in one ear and an angel in another. We could have the CPC oil blob urging us to fill up and enjoy a little carefree drag-racing down the street and then watch Elizabeth May chide us in that matronly way of hers for even owning a car instead of biking everywhere.
There are fossil fuels used to lube the chain on a bike...
that's why I walk.
Actually, no, but in other news anyone want to buy my bike?
Peter,
Yeah, that was kinda what I was thinking. A message aimed at the driver filling up his or her car, telling them they should buy a more fuel efficient car, becaue look at how ridiculously expensive what they're doing is! Or carpool. Or bike to work.
I wonder if the gas stations would play THAT ad!?!?
LOL
Oh, and I took Dawg's comment in the light-hearted manner in which it was offered, but let me just ask that nobody confuse me with "the Liberals" (a la "I see the Liberals are getting ideas"). For the record, not a Liberal, never have been, and didn't vote Liberal in either of the last 2 federal elections (NDP if anyone cares!)).
Arghhh! But there I go, being light-hearted. Welcome, Comrade! : )
This is brilliant! While Jack Layton (remember him?) is on TV talking about ten thousand workers who have lost their jobs, you are pushing your feather pens across the scrolls and parchments that will send over a hundred left leaning bloggers into a boycott of irritating electronic devices.
This must be the single most important issue that you can direct your full arsenal against! Run away from irritating Television screen! Eeeeek!
The earth trembles as your army of boycotters walks the earth, Caesar! The Gods of the Non-Christian Pantheon smile upon you from Olympius, Asgard, and Hades! Surely, you need not make any more effort than to move your mighty mouse across the face of your mighty desktop!
Well, it's marginally more important than the BCHRT hearings. : )
Come to think of it, it's a bit like the Telemarketer Menace--with you phoning them.
Ah, advance to fight the good fight, to struggle against the marginally important, leaving those problems larger, bigger, more important, and critical, to the some one else.
Let the ten thousand unemployed taxpayers rot! Only stop the scary whispers of The Harperites when I drive my auto to the refueling station. As activists, we have guaranteed jobs till we die, plus premium pensions and perks and low effort employment. Let the other, non-activist ten thousand worry about how to secure the existance of themselves and a future for their children.
Why don't you just put on womens clothing and run to the lifeboats, shouting 'Women and Children first!'. It worked on the Titanic. Infact, many of the hereditary social activists of our aristocracy are intellectually related to those brave performance artists who took a stand against convention on the Titanic.
how to secure the existance of themselves and a future for their children
Hmm. Are you missing a word?
Doesn't anyone think that this will just backfire on the Cons? I mean, think about it: You're at the station filling up at $1.44, and all you can hear (or see) is Dear Leader. Ya just want to run for the hills...or worse...
Good news everyone! The company is refusing to show the ads!
Dr. Dawg wrote:
"Look, guys, it's not like going for a fill-up isn't already painful enough these days--watching the numbers climb, hearing the gigantic sucking sound as money is rapidly transferred from my pocket (and yours) to the bursting vaults of Big Oil."
Annual net income of "Big Oil" companies as a percentage of annual revenue (most recent income statement):
Exxon Mobil - 10.89%
Chevron - 8.87%
ConocoPhillips - 6.66%
Valero Energy - 5.41%
Marathon Oil - 6.59%
Sunoco - 2.12%
Hess - 5.74%
Enterprise GP Holdings - 0.41%
Number of companies in the Fortune 100 list that had a higher net income as a %age of revenue...
Exxon Mobil - 24
Chevron - 31
ConocoPhillips - 43
Valero Energy - 56
Marathon Oil - 45
Sunoco - 77
Hess - 51
Enterprise GP Holdings - 72
Source: Fortune 100 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/
fortune500/2008/full_list/)
Exxon Mobil's net income history:
2007 - 10.04%
2006 - 10.46%
2005 - 9.75%
Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=...is?s=XOM&
annual
It's not "Big Oil" but your FARC-supporting OPEC buddy Hugo Chavez that is getting rich, Dr. Blawg.
Most recent blog post by Fenris Badwulf: a rant describing those critical of wasted food as equivalent to Hitler.
Really, Dawg, shouldn't you devote your attention to the big problems?
THI:
Your figures do seem to bear out my point. The oil companies are doing very nicely indeed.
I'm not overwhelmed by Exxon Mobil's telling us that they haven't really done all that wonderfully because the banks and Big Pharma are doing better. Well, I'm perfectly willing to concede the latter, while also noting that people can play around with measures of profitability as noted in my link (the source does try to balance the competing claims). In any case, comparisons of this kind are virtually meaningless.
The fact remains: Big Oil is doing very well these days (and that will continue into the next quarter, and the next). And we, the people, aren't. I don't think that this is Hugo Chávez's fault.
Most recent blog post by Fenris Badwulf: a rant describing those critical of wasted food as equivalent to Hitler.
Heh. I can hear the air coming out of that methane-inflated balloon at this very moment.
Dr. Blawg wrote:
"In any case, comparisons of this kind are virtually meaningless."
What the comparisons show is that despite record oil prices, there are 24 companies on the Fotune 100 list that are more *profitable* than most *profitable* "Big Oil" company, Exxon Mobil.
Dr. Blawg:
"I don't think that this is Hugo Chávez's fault."
Why? Obscene cartel profits are fine but Exxon Mobil's 11% or ConocoPhillips 7% is not?
In other words, Chevron's 9% is wrong but the Saudis' 2,500% is good?
Dr. Blawg wrote:
"...people can play around with measures of profitability..."
Dividing net income by revenue is hardly "play[ing] around with measures of profitabilty."
Is that the best you can do, Dr. Blawg? Seriously? Is it your point that Exxon Mobil really makes hundreds of billions more every year and they're lying about it?
Now if you were talking about "PDVSA," the company that doesn't even bother with accounting, I'd understand.
It's "Dawg," but no matter.
What makes you think I'm holding a brief for the oil cartels? They've been bleeding us all for years. I'm not blind.
And why do you think that your pointing to other companies (e.g., Big Pharma, with its grotesque profits) who do better than Exxon, somehow exculpates oil companies that are profitable, very profitable, and have raked in quite a bit during the recent period of speculation? Which was my original point?
Are you saying they're taking huge losses and lying about it?
Here's one of your oil guys, talking out of both sides of his mouth:
J. Stephen Simon, executive vice-president of Exxon Mobil Corp., said profits have been huge "in absolute terms" but must be viewed in the context of the massive scale of the industry.
He also said high earnings are needed "in the current up cycle" to pay for investments in the long term when profits will be down.
Good grief, which is it? "We aren't really making big profits--you have to look at stuff like the net income divided by revenue," or, "Yup, we're making big profits, but that's good, cuz there will be times when we don't."
Dr. Dawg wrote:
"What makes you think I'm holding a brief for the oil cartels?"
1. You wrote: "I don't think that this is Hugo Chávez's fault."
2. Venezuela was a founding member of OPEC.
3. You have a link to "Venezuela News, Views and Analysis" propaganda site on your home page.
4. OPEC countries have had captured nearly all of the profits from the rise in oil prices.
Dr. Dawg wrote:
"And why do you think that your pointing to other companies (e.g., Big Pharma, with its grotesque profits) who do better than Exxon, somehow exculpates oil companies that are profitable, very profitable, and have raked in quite a bit during the recent period of speculation? Which was my original point?"
How about the banking, insurance, technology and consumer goods companies on the Fortune 100 list that were more profitable than Exxon Mobil?
In the past 10 years, the inflation-adjust price/barrel of oil has increased 324%. In 1998, Exxon Mobil's profits were 4.9%. In 2007, there were 10.4%, an increase of 5.5%.
324% vs. 5.5%. It's not hard.
Dr. Dawg wrote:
"Here's one of your oil guys, talking out of both sides of his mouth..."
Why do you think that I'm holding a brief for "Big Oil?" Facts are facts.
Dr. Dawg wrote:
"Good grief, which is it? "We aren't really making big profits--you have to look at stuff like the net income divided by revenue," or, "Yup, we're making big profits, but that's good, cuz there will be times when we don't.""
It's both. Why is it difficult to understand that both statements are not mutually exclusive? Oil exploration is enormously expensive and risky. Earnings retained and prior years fund this activity in future years.
From the "related" link:
"The evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of gasoline retailers in these markets participated in the cartel,” the Competition Bureau said."
Exactly my point, Dr. Blawg. "Cartels" are illegal Canada.
So tell me again why you say "I don't think that this is Hugo Chávez's fault."
Check this out:
"Saudi Arabia's oil revenue is expected to reach $260bn this year, or nearly $70m per day, reported Khaleej Times citing a study by Jadwa Investment. During the 1990s, the kingdom's average revenue was $43bn per year, the report said. Total exports are now projected at $290bn, compared with just $39bn in 1998."
(Source: http://www.ameinfo.com/155864.html)
It's costs Aramco about $5 to fill a barrel full of oil. How much of that $260 billion is profit?
A 2,600% return is not bad comapared to Exxon Mobil's 11%.
Of course, we'll never know if it's 3,000% or merely 2,000%, because unlike Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Total, Shell and the rest of the evil "Big Oil" companies, Aramco and PVDSA won't tell you.
6 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
