Much has been made in these pages on the case for advertiser-funded programming (AFP). The prophets emphasise the growing ineffectiveness of traditional TV advertising. It's expensive, and it has become increasingly difficult to plan campaigns because of the way audiences have fragmented. The same prophets point towards technologies like the personal video recorder, which they say will encourage consumers to screen out advertising.

It's enough to make most advertising chief executives run around like Private Frazer in Dad's Army, "doomed, we're all doomed".

Well are they? Not a bit of it. Here's why. First, the prophets' case is based upon oft-repeated inaccuracies. Second, even if the case was accurate, the messenger (in many instances) has ulterior motives.

Lets tackle the inaccuracies. The first is the high cost of TV advertising. This has slumped in the UK over the past nine months. As one senior advertiser put it to me, "don't bother me with all this clever, clever stuff when I can buy airtime at rates I haven't seen for years".

Second, advertising really benefits from scale economies. One good ad can be screened hundreds of times over, a TV programme can't (apart from Dad's Army).

The second inaccuracy, is the fallacious PVR argument. Tivo's sales in the UK suggest that this is just not relevant to people except in a few warehouse flats in Farringdon.

Even if you reject these points, think about the next one really carefully. Who is it that is banging the drum about advertiser-funded programming?

A tenner to the first one who mentions television production companies. Recessionary times mean that a lot of TV producers are sitting around with time on their hands, so advertiser-funded programming seems like a good way of keeping a roof over the house in the south of France. So take TV producers talking about the benefits of advertising-funded programming with a pinch of salt.

So is it a no-no? Not a bit of it. The keen reader will have spotted that I have ducked one important point made by the prophets. Planning TV campaigns for advertisers has become increasingly complex - there is no doubting that. Hence AFP is a potentially interesting way of getting to consumers traditional advertising fails to reach.

But advertisers need to think about advertiser-funded programming much more carefully. First, it isn't for everyone: it is perhaps most useful for category leaders. An often-used example is B&Q's sales following an edition of Changing Rooms. That is great for B&Q. However, if you are a third-tier DIY specialist and you make great programme on home decoration it will definitely B&Qit for B&Q, but not for you.

Advertisers need to question the hype, the messenger and whether they, rather than their rivals, will benefit. Then you start to get to the heart of the real case for advertiser-funded programming.

david.muir@ogilvy.com

David Muir is managing director at futureOgilvy

Tivo turnaround?