TV and Radio permalink
When is a product not a 'Product'
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Saturday, 4th September 2010
Why can GW name specific cultivars of plants and say that based on their simple tests and samples that they think some are especially good, yet not do the same for horticultural products such as composts and pest controls?
Nowadays newly bred plants are as much products as anything else, with controlled, mass production systems, limited supply channels and royalties returning to the breeder.
To be consistent, when showing a plant which remains under PBR licence, the cultivar name should be fuzzed out (there would of course be a riot). Alternatively (my preference) when the GW horticultural research team have selected a product for use - as with the nematodes - that research effort should be fully shared with the viewers and we should be told which product is being used and why. -
Message 2
Posted by jauntycyclist (U14199772) on Saturday, 4th September 2010
i remember when they did tests of mowers, composts etc every year. all gone.
-
Message 3
Posted by honestGreengrass (U11104227) on Saturday, 4th September 2010
Totally agree!! Going back to the Top Gear comparison, they could have an anonymous researcher wearing a white lab coat and a spray mask.... 'Some say that he has aphids on toast for breakfast and that he wears spider silk underwear...... BUG MAN!!!
-
Message 4
Posted by Colin (U2252951) on Saturday, 4th September 2010
Beechgrove this week has results of their compost trial. They Scots covered in one show a months worth of GW.
-
Message 5
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Saturday, 4th September 2010
Colin - were brands discussed in the Beechgrove compost trials?
The last time GW held a compost trial we were told that the home made mix of special Berryfields compost plus other stuff was the winner. Readily available in your local GC. -
Message 6
Posted by Amazing (U7102651) on Saturday, 4th September 2010
Trillium here is the fact sheet from Beechgrove, they did give the names of the compost. No holds barred on BG.
Here is a link to the program on iplayer.
-
Message 7
Posted by happytobyfan (U13663471) on Sunday, 5th September 2010
Colin - were brands discussed in the Beechgrove compost trials?Â
It's a couple of days ago since I watched Beechgrove, but I think I'm right in saying that, apart from the last (more expensive) one (Miracle Grow??), the one which came out as the clear winner was B & Q Peat Based Compost. It stuck in my mind because I remember thinking that, apart from the actual content of the programme, BG differs enormously from GW insosmuch as seeing GW using anything connected with peat would be like see the Pope at a seance
BG seems to be a bit more 'down to earth' - parden the pun
-
Message 8
Posted by happytobyfan (U13663471) on Sunday, 5th September 2010
Nowadays newly bred plants are as much products as anything else, with controlled, mass production systems, limited supply channels and royalties returning to the breeder.Â
A subject which I find isn't very well controlled, regarding new plants, is the description in catalogues. The most recent example of this is in Thompson & Morgan's Seed Catalogue. The Rudbeckia Cherokee seeds are described as 'Perennial'. I thought (although wasn't sure) that this was an 'annual'. I e-mailed T & M, to ask what they were. This was their reply:-
"I have spoken to our Horticultural Advisor and she has confirmed that the Rudbeckia Cherokee is in fact an Annual.". There was nothing from them to say it would be amended in their new catalogue. A couple of days later I was at Fryer's Garden Centre. I saw they had these plants on sale - and the label read 'Perennial'. The assistant 'confirmed' that they were. I wonder how many people have bought these, and will wonder next year where they have gone. This is the fourth time a similar thing has happened (not with T & M). -
Message 9
Posted by joanybird (U11052594) on Sunday, 5th September 2010
I wonder how many people have bought these, and will wonder next year where they have goneÂ
Ah, that explains where it went. I'd put it down to the cold winter
Jb -
Message 10
Posted by everhopeful (U11289037) on Monday, 6th September 2010
last year I bought minute seedlings of Rudbeckia from T and M cant remember which one, but they have come up again this year and spread and are still going strong. Whilst on the subject can anyone tell me if cornflowers will come back next year or do I need to sow them again.Pardon my ignorance
-
Message 11
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Monday, 6th September 2010
EH - if your cornflowers are the tall slim annual cornflower, Centaurea cyanus, then no, your plants will die. But if there is bare soil around they may self seed or you can collect the seed now to resow next year.
If they are the felty-leaved sort with bigger flowers, Centaurea montana, then they are perennial and will come back next year bigger and better.
Re the Rudbeckia, I planted Rudbeckia hirta 'Prairie Sun' in the garden three years ago. It's listed as an annual, but the original 5 plants are still going strong. -
Message 12
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Tuesday, 7th September 2010
Anyway, re the original topic, my policy on brand names would be something like:
- presenters can't advertise/promote horticultural products off the show.
- apparent or deliberate product placement on the show should be avoided (e.g. the repeated close ups of Toby's highly recognisable branded boots)
- where products are widely available and there is great choice and little chance of confusion, a brand need not be mentioned, such as tomato food.
- where a specific product has been chosen to do a specific job, this brand, or a selection, should be shown and explained why.
- most people source materials for gardening in a garden centre and there is always bewildering choice. The programme should introduce simple product trials, talk about usage, dosage, cost, etc. openly and give results. The industry may whinge, but I think it's what the public need and want from its flagship TV programme and honest public feedback has the potential to improve products on the GC shelves. -
Message 13
Posted by Sparky (U6716422) on Tuesday, 7th September 2010
I would certainly welcome that, Trillium!
-
Message 14
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Tuesday, 7th September 2010
Trillium,
To people like us this is common sense, it was what we asked for last year, some field trials on products to see how they fare in usage.
There is blatant advertising on a lot of programmes including GW, though for some reason the producers shy off testing products in case it offends the big suppliers.
They should publish the "Which" tests that apply to gardening but that may be too sensitive for the ones who fail to reach a standard.
We can only hope Trillium, whilst the very blatant advertising on GW continues.
Frank. -
Message 15
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Tuesday, 7th September 2010
While I'm on a roll, each week I would take a product range sold in GC's, turn them over and explain what the active ingredients on the back are and what they do.
We are all much more clued up about food ingredients now, but most people cannot make informed choices in GCs because they have no idea what the 'gobbledygook' on the back means.
I'm not being anti-product here, btw, not at all. I just feel that GW should help to educate its audience, share clear information and help consumers make appropriate selections.
If none of the current presenters feel confident differentiating between metaldehyde and ferric phosphate, or between glyphosate and dithane, then find someone who can!!! -
Message 16
Posted by michelle78 (U7007319) on Tuesday, 21st September 2010
right behind you on this one trillium.
The writing on the back of most products is relatively meaningless to anyone without a higher level RHS qualification or degree in plant science.
The only "trials" i've seen on GW were the one about the perennial prairie plants, which revealed little except some varieties are a bit flakey (which isn't new news) and the upside down tomatoes. Nothing that is really going to help me make informed decisions anyway.
The boot thing really annoys me. It makes me beg the question did Toby bring them from his seaside idyll or did my license fee buy them? -
Message 17
Posted by Bluedoyenne (U2341157) on Monday, 27th September 2010
In short, what you're advocating Trillium, is that GW do the same as Beechgrove. I'm pretty sure no poster would disagree with that. Beechgrove doesn't shy away from trialling branded products and showing the results clearly. Personally I think they are correct in this. What I don't understand is how Ö÷²¥´óÐã Scotland can do this and why Auntie down south baulks at doing it.
As for product placement (i.e. the presenters' clothing), I think they'd have to garden nude (perish the thought!) to avoid advertising something or other (and if they did garden in the buff, there'd probably be discussions on the quality of their skincare products, fake tans or whatever). Getting back to their attire, if it wasn't their shoes and boots, it would be their jackets, their gloves, their secateurs, their wheelbarrows, and the list goes on and on. All outdoor clothing and tools put the brandname where it will be seen. I like to see what they're using as anytime I've followed in their footsteps (Rachel's 'Rostaing' leather gloves, 'Felco' secateurs, MD's 'Viking' shredder, etc.) I've bought hard-wearing, quality products. Pretty impossible (IMHO) to avoid placement in this day and age (and personally, I think his boots are gorgeous
). -
Message 18
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Monday, 27th September 2010
Yes BD - I agree that complete brand avoidance can't be avoided and shots shouldn't be made awkward for that reason. And I rather liked Toby's boots too, though I prefer a 'beaten up around the edges' look for gardening. I think it was the frequency of the close-ups of them that became a bit troublesome for me.
Re the reason for my original posting (the nematode sequence), I spoke to the manufacturer of the specific product that I suspected was used at Four Oaks trade show. The company concerned confirmed this. What annoys me about GW is that the product that was used costs £4.95 - other posts on sites related to this topic have dismissed nematodes on the grounds of cost - citing prices of £15 or more. If GW had been more up-front about what they'd used, more people might have been willing to try it - they could have stalled some of the objections before they started! -
Message 19
Posted by Bluedoyenne (U2341157) on Monday, 27th September 2010
Nematones - absolutely right.
Why don't you tell the production team in person? They might listen to you. -
Message 20
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Monday, 27th September 2010
No need, Bd, they read these boards on a regular basis.
And I think the argument stands strong no matter who puts it forward. So far I note no dissenting comments - unusually for a gardening MB thread! -
Message 21
Posted by Gianttrowel2 (U14260213) on Friday, 1st October 2010
You could always subscribe to Gardening Which.
About this Board
Welcome to the new Gardening Board. If this is your first time, then make sure you check out the
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
Weekdays 09:00-00:00
Weekends 10:00-00:00
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.