This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Why the hell should we pay to watch TV?
Isn't it about time that the BBC stood on its own feet without being financed by us through a licence?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4639706.stm
Isn't it about time that the BBC stood on its own feet without being financed by us through a licence?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4639706.stm
In reply to The Lemming:
bloody right. I'm with you there. You get sweet FA for your money. I dont watch BBC so why should I?
I havent paid it for over 10 years.
anarchy. lets riot....
bloody right. I'm with you there. You get sweet FA for your money. I dont watch BBC so why should I?
I havent paid it for over 10 years.
anarchy. lets riot....
In reply to The Lemming: Bloody annoying not having adverts sometimes! Last night I watched the last instalment of Five Days and suddenly realised (to my horror) there was no ad break to make a cup of tea in Having said that, those stupid shampoo adverts (every 2 minutes - well, *seems* like it) spoil my enjoyment of Desperate Housewives - and don't get me started on footie on ITV ("we'll be right back after the break") - though at least it's not as bad as Cyprus where they interrupt the game to show adverts (then thoughtfully show you replays of any goals scored while the ads were on!)
In reply to Marc C:
*hijack*
I fell asleep during a critical moment there, how did his mate end up being the killer?
*end hijack*
*hijack*
I fell asleep during a critical moment there, how did his mate end up being the killer?
*end hijack*
The BBC website, Radio2 and Radio4 together is worth the ~£140 alone. I don't think BBC1+2+3+4... are worth anything.
A few years ago they were suggesting a PC tax instead of TV license. Seems a good idea - apart from penalising students who are more likely to have a computer than a PC (in my experience).
A few years ago they were suggesting a PC tax instead of TV license. Seems a good idea - apart from penalising students who are more likely to have a computer than a PC (in my experience).
In reply to Queequeg: I dunno. I got over-excited when my prediction (see Nidderdale Boulderer's thread from 2 days ago) that he was the killer came true! The whys and wherefores didn't really matter much! My wife was watching somewhere else and said to her friends "Oh no, I bet that smug little bugger's dancing round the living room!"
In reply to The Lemming:
A first step could be to reduce the licence fee to a more reasonable amount, just enough to finance Radio, internet and some parts of the TV, or possinly one channel and require that the BBC found the finance for the rest... it would shake the "tired hacks" at the beeb up a bit and would be fairer both for all those that pay but never watch the BBC and for the other TV channels who get nothing from the licence fee.
A first step could be to reduce the licence fee to a more reasonable amount, just enough to finance Radio, internet and some parts of the TV, or possinly one channel and require that the BBC found the finance for the rest... it would shake the "tired hacks" at the beeb up a bit and would be fairer both for all those that pay but never watch the BBC and for the other TV channels who get nothing from the licence fee.
In reply to Marc C: Here, here, I mean, do all women orgasm during hair wash?
In reply to The Lemming:
compulsory payment of a licence is not a good thing.
However, I do think you get good value for money assuming you watch the channels and listen to the radio.
(2 different debates/arguments)
compulsory payment of a licence is not a good thing.
However, I do think you get good value for money assuming you watch the channels and listen to the radio.
(2 different debates/arguments)
In reply to ICE:
I suppose it depends which hair they are washing and for how long.
> (In reply to Marc C) Here, here, I mean, do all women orgasm during hair wash?
I suppose it depends which hair they are washing and for how long.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: TV licence works out at £2.70 per week, if you interact with more than 1 hour of BBC content (including internet, TV and radio) then this is pretty good value for money compared to other leisure services. Most people interact with considerably more content than 1 hour.
However agree that the licence fee should be trimmed (I worked on its costing for the BBC) and focus on areas the market wouldn't provide (e.g. current affairs, innovative formats)rather than lots of duplicate programming and channels (e.g. Radio 2, reality TV shows).
BBC News is worth a large amount IMHO, independant and focuses upon international news a lot more than other providers.
However agree that the licence fee should be trimmed (I worked on its costing for the BBC) and focus on areas the market wouldn't provide (e.g. current affairs, innovative formats)rather than lots of duplicate programming and channels (e.g. Radio 2, reality TV shows).
BBC News is worth a large amount IMHO, independant and focuses upon international news a lot more than other providers.
In reply to Wingman:
The thing is, you get infintely better value if you listen to the radio but don't watch any channels.
> However, I do think you get good value for money assuming you watch the channels and listen to the radio.
The thing is, you get infintely better value if you listen to the radio but don't watch any channels.
In reply to Wingman:
That's the problem, I bet the great majority of the general public never watch or listen to the BBC... with all the radio, cable, satellite stations, which don't get a penny from the present licence system.
> However, I do think you get good value for money assuming you watch the channels and listen to the radio.
>
>
That's the problem, I bet the great majority of the general public never watch or listen to the BBC... with all the radio, cable, satellite stations, which don't get a penny from the present licence system.
In reply to Marc C:
Oh well, well done.
He was so peripheral that I hadn't even noticed him really.
Must try harder.
Oh well, well done.
He was so peripheral that I hadn't even noticed him really.
Must try harder.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
yeah, I agree. which comes round to the should one have to pay it debate.
I would say no, but how on earth would you police it?
yeah, I agree. which comes round to the should one have to pay it debate.
I would say no, but how on earth would you police it?
In reply to Bruce Hooker: You would be wrong there, 95% of the UK population interacts with at least 15 minutes of BBC content everyday according to MORI research
In reply to jonfun21:
That's highly debatable! I've changed my opinion about the BBC (and the licence fee) since it's news services became so politically (and factually) dubious... I used to listen to the World Service or Radio 4 all the time but I never do nowadays... too biased and PC.
> BBC News is worth a large amount IMHO, independent and focuses upon international news a lot more than other providers.
That's highly debatable! I've changed my opinion about the BBC (and the licence fee) since it's news services became so politically (and factually) dubious... I used to listen to the World Service or Radio 4 all the time but I never do nowadays... too biased and PC.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: True it has taken a dive, Channel 4 has probably edged ahead, but is reliant on others for news gathering, few organisations have the BBC's reach + lack of commercial incentive regarding news.
That said room for improvement, BBC has become very PC and also dumbing down when we need the reverse.
That said room for improvement, BBC has become very PC and also dumbing down when we need the reverse.
In reply to The Lemming: As someone who hates commercial radio with a passion and is not too keen on the constant interuption of adverts on the TV, I am a fan of 'unique way in which the BBC is funded'. If I promise not to watch ITV, can I have 2p of a can of baked beans.
In reply to Enoch Root: ok so 2.3% off, I appologies to the 1.42m (thats quite a lot actually) I have accidentially included
In reply to jonfun21: In addition the new method of measuring sucess RVQI (Reach, Value, Quality and Impact) might stop some of the ratings chasing that has gone on at the BBC, hopefully
In reply to The Lemming:
The licence fee is the worst form of generating broadcasting revenue.
Except all the other methods.
Just look at ITV, Channel 4 and Five to see what it would be like if the Beeb had to rely on advertising.
And thank god for BBC radio, I've never come across better. La Greya listens to Classic FM a lot and I really worry that one day I'll have heard one too many adverts for BGR Bloomer (or even worse Smooth Classics at Seven - arrgggh!) and I'm going to flip and smash the radio to a pulp.
The licence fee is the worst form of generating broadcasting revenue.
Except all the other methods.
Just look at ITV, Channel 4 and Five to see what it would be like if the Beeb had to rely on advertising.
And thank god for BBC radio, I've never come across better. La Greya listens to Classic FM a lot and I really worry that one day I'll have heard one too many adverts for BGR Bloomer (or even worse Smooth Classics at Seven - arrgggh!) and I'm going to flip and smash the radio to a pulp.
In reply to jonfun21:
But as you work for the Beeb you may lack objectivity on this one, don't you think?
What does "interacts with at least 15 minutes of BBC content everyday" mean? They don't say watch the BBC, do they? If this were true one could also argue that they would have little difficulty in raising advertising revenue
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) You would be wrong there, 95% of the UK population interacts with at least 15 minutes of BBC content everyday according to MORI research
But as you work for the Beeb you may lack objectivity on this one, don't you think?
What does "interacts with at least 15 minutes of BBC content everyday" mean? They don't say watch the BBC, do they? If this were true one could also argue that they would have little difficulty in raising advertising revenue
In reply to El Greyo: Agree with you, however the BBC could arguable do a lot more with its money if it became more efficient and changed its ways of working. Delivering even more for licence fee payers and ultimately reducing the licence fee.
At its best it is one of the most creative places to work, at worst it exhibits the problems of a very bad public sector department.
At its best it is one of the most creative places to work, at worst it exhibits the problems of a very bad public sector department.
> (In reply to The Lemming)
>
> The licence fee is the worst form of generating broadcasting revenue.
>
> The licence fee is the worst form of generating broadcasting revenue.
It's probably doomed any way because in a few years time we will all have flat screen TVs which the detector vans can't detect and be receiving our TV programs over the internet so won't need a licence anyway.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: I don't work for the BBC, I did as an independant consultant, employeed by the BBC Governors.
Interact means, internet, TV, radio.....if I took all of them away from you / made you pay 10p everytime you use them I am guessing you / most people would notice. Removing funding for the BBC means everything not just BBC 1 (with the exception of the world service which is funded by the FCO)
I can be one of the BBC's strongest critics regarding the what it could deliver and actually does, but I wouldn't change the fundamental system
"little difficulty in raising advertising revenue" have you seen the decline in advertising revenue across the broadcasting and radio sector recently, companies like ITV and GCap are severly struggling
Interact means, internet, TV, radio.....if I took all of them away from you / made you pay 10p everytime you use them I am guessing you / most people would notice. Removing funding for the BBC means everything not just BBC 1 (with the exception of the world service which is funded by the FCO)
I can be one of the BBC's strongest critics regarding the what it could deliver and actually does, but I wouldn't change the fundamental system
"little difficulty in raising advertising revenue" have you seen the decline in advertising revenue across the broadcasting and radio sector recently, companies like ITV and GCap are severly struggling
In reply to Dolomight: Good point and one the BBC is struggling with, especially people watching BBC content via 3rd party sites. May require change in legislation to continue licensing though.
"we will all have flat screen TVs which the detector vans can't detect" I hope your joking, its the signal not the TV they detect, anyhow its all done by computer database (thats why you get asked for your address when you buy a telly from Dixons etc)
"we will all have flat screen TVs which the detector vans can't detect" I hope your joking, its the signal not the TV they detect, anyhow its all done by computer database (thats why you get asked for your address when you buy a telly from Dixons etc)
personally would keep the licence but much reduced e.g. £50 in order to keep the radio, news programming, eductional/documentary programming, some low budget entertainment (great stuff can be done on a low budget if dispense with name actors etc.)
out go expensively commissioning and shite dramas, hollywood blockbusters etc. etc. unless it can be sold on to other countries/networks and thus stand on it's own two feet.
a leaner, meaner more efficient higher quality beeb. out with the luvvies and institutionally ingrained public sector beaurocracy.
out go expensively commissioning and shite dramas, hollywood blockbusters etc. etc. unless it can be sold on to other countries/networks and thus stand on it's own two feet.
a leaner, meaner more efficient higher quality beeb. out with the luvvies and institutionally ingrained public sector beaurocracy.
In reply to erikb56: Nicely put, maximising the revenue of BBC Worldwide (commercial arm of BBC) should be targetted, they are aiming for £100m revenue which provides additional funding for the
However the licence fee funding dwarfs this, your list of things to keep seem sensible as does the costing + you could let the BBC do more stuff (e.g. entertainment) if it was able to raise commercial revenue for it. Channels will die away over the next 10 years, so as each piece of content is individual you could therefore choose if it was funded by adverts or not.
However the licence fee funding dwarfs this, your list of things to keep seem sensible as does the costing + you could let the BBC do more stuff (e.g. entertainment) if it was able to raise commercial revenue for it. Channels will die away over the next 10 years, so as each piece of content is individual you could therefore choose if it was funded by adverts or not.
In reply to jonfun21:
You don't need a license to own a telly, a flat screen monitor, a DVD player or a video player. You need a license if you receive broadcast TV programs via the airwaves or cable. I asked the BBC licensing department about this.
> "we will all have flat screen TVs which the detector vans can't detect" I hope your joking, its the signal not the TV they detect, anyhow its all done by computer database (thats why you get asked for your address when you buy a telly from Dixons etc)
You don't need a license to own a telly, a flat screen monitor, a DVD player or a video player. You need a license if you receive broadcast TV programs via the airwaves or cable. I asked the BBC licensing department about this.
In reply to Dolomight: You need a licence if you have equipment capable of recieving a TV signal according to the Wireless Telegraphy Act (unplugging the aerial is unclear)
Digital Switchover will be interesting as those who currently, and quite righly claim they only have a TV to watch DVD's etc can claim they are doing this if they don't have a set top box or DTV television.
Digital Switchover will be interesting as those who currently, and quite righly claim they only have a TV to watch DVD's etc can claim they are doing this if they don't have a set top box or DTV television.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
So who do you listen to ? France Inter ? PBS radio from the US ?
> That's highly debatable! I've changed my opinion about the BBC (and the licence fee) since it's news services became so politically (and factually) dubious... I used to listen to the World Service or Radio 4 all the time but I never do nowadays... too biased and PC.
So who do you listen to ? France Inter ? PBS radio from the US ?
In reply to jonfun21:
Not according to the BBC licensing department. I have checked up on this and have a number of letters from them on the subject. Many large plasma screen computer monitors which are used in office meeting rooms also are capable of receiving TV signals. But you don't need a licese for any unless you watch TV.
I believe that recent case law has changed the Wireless Telegraphy Act slightly but I'm not a legal expert.
> (In reply to Dolomight) You need a licence if you have equipment capable of recieving a TV signal according to the Wireless Telegraphy Act (unplugging the aerial is unclear)
>
> Digital Switchover will be interesting as those who currently, and quite righly claim they only have a TV to watch DVD's etc can claim they are doing this if they don't have a set top box or DTV television.
>
> Digital Switchover will be interesting as those who currently, and quite righly claim they only have a TV to watch DVD's etc can claim they are doing this if they don't have a set top box or DTV television.
Not according to the BBC licensing department. I have checked up on this and have a number of letters from them on the subject. Many large plasma screen computer monitors which are used in office meeting rooms also are capable of receiving TV signals. But you don't need a licese for any unless you watch TV.
I believe that recent case law has changed the Wireless Telegraphy Act slightly but I'm not a legal expert.
The BBC is garbage, and everything they produce is garbage.
Strong words? Maybe. But consider this: take a really popular BBC programme and see how many viewers it gets. Torchwood for example got 2.4 million viewers for its first episode.
Woo-hoo. Innovative, cutting edge programming, as evidenced by the phenomenal viewing figures?
Well...
Youtube gets over 100 million views per day. Last month over 2.5 billion videos were watched.
And that's small beer. MySpace gets 10,000 page views per second. Over 30 billion page views per month.
Let's face facts. TV is a dead duck, and the BBC is the deadest duck of the lot. It hasn't innovated or even just produced content people really wanted to watch in over 10 years. If it wasn't for the compulsory licence fee, it would be as bad a state as ITV.
Just as MP3s are gradually strangling a music industry that refused to innovate, so the web is slowly crushing the TV format, simply by giving people something they actually want to use instead of telling them tha they have to use what they're told to.
Strong words? Maybe. But consider this: take a really popular BBC programme and see how many viewers it gets. Torchwood for example got 2.4 million viewers for its first episode.
Woo-hoo. Innovative, cutting edge programming, as evidenced by the phenomenal viewing figures?
Well...
Youtube gets over 100 million views per day. Last month over 2.5 billion videos were watched.
And that's small beer. MySpace gets 10,000 page views per second. Over 30 billion page views per month.
Let's face facts. TV is a dead duck, and the BBC is the deadest duck of the lot. It hasn't innovated or even just produced content people really wanted to watch in over 10 years. If it wasn't for the compulsory licence fee, it would be as bad a state as ITV.
Just as MP3s are gradually strangling a music industry that refused to innovate, so the web is slowly crushing the TV format, simply by giving people something they actually want to use instead of telling them tha they have to use what they're told to.
In reply to Dolomight: I bow to your superior knowledge, hard to prove you watch TV I guess unless they get someone to sit and monitor you all week!
Monitoring internet accessing of content is actually probably easier to monitor in that case, via links with ISP's etc, though this got some (can't remember who) into trouble when they revealed usage to the authorities
Monitoring internet accessing of content is actually probably easier to monitor in that case, via links with ISP's etc, though this got some (can't remember who) into trouble when they revealed usage to the authorities
In reply to niggle: Interesting view point, couple of returns:
In the long term you right, though in the long term we are all dead!
"Youtube gets over 100 million views per day" for pieces of content that average 3 minutes? Not quite the same as longer programmes.
"or even just produced content people really wanted to watch in over 10 years" reach and viewing figures would counter this, doubt YouTube or Myspace hits 92.5% of the population in a week.
"TV is a dead duck, and the BBC is the deadest duck of the lot" TV is still the most common medium for video consumption and will remain so probably for the next 5 years. The launch of iPlayer (which will probably define digital rights management for the industry) also refutes this, no other provider (ITV, Channel 4) will be letting you download content and view / ammend for older stuff.
"It hasn't innovated" ok so who launched DAB / DTT (following ITV's spectacular f-up)?
It will take time for UGC to completely takeover from TV content, due to quality and funding issues. Also alot of UGC is spun off from existing TV/Internet ideas so there will always be a role for content producers (commerical, public and UGC) as well as content aggregators (You Tube, My Space, Google etc)
In the long term you right, though in the long term we are all dead!
"Youtube gets over 100 million views per day" for pieces of content that average 3 minutes? Not quite the same as longer programmes.
"or even just produced content people really wanted to watch in over 10 years" reach and viewing figures would counter this, doubt YouTube or Myspace hits 92.5% of the population in a week.
"TV is a dead duck, and the BBC is the deadest duck of the lot" TV is still the most common medium for video consumption and will remain so probably for the next 5 years. The launch of iPlayer (which will probably define digital rights management for the industry) also refutes this, no other provider (ITV, Channel 4) will be letting you download content and view / ammend for older stuff.
"It hasn't innovated" ok so who launched DAB / DTT (following ITV's spectacular f-up)?
It will take time for UGC to completely takeover from TV content, due to quality and funding issues. Also alot of UGC is spun off from existing TV/Internet ideas so there will always be a role for content producers (commerical, public and UGC) as well as content aggregators (You Tube, My Space, Google etc)
In reply to jonfun21:
Yes, the BBC's programmes are often longer. So what? That's just another example of how spectacularly out of touch they are with what people actually want to watch.
No, YouTube and MySpace still get hundreds and in many cases thousands of ties as many viewers. By all means make up and use a measure which is specifically designed to support your point.
AHAHAHA! AHA! HA! HA! Ha! ha! Hooooooo....
You call that innovation? Same rubbish delivered digitally? Again, just more evidence of how limited and small the minds at the BBC are.
> "Youtube gets over 100 million views per day" for pieces of content that average 3 minutes? Not quite the same as longer programmes.
Yes, the BBC's programmes are often longer. So what? That's just another example of how spectacularly out of touch they are with what people actually want to watch.
> reach and viewing figures would counter this, doubt YouTube or Myspace hits 92.5% of the population in a week.
No, YouTube and MySpace still get hundreds and in many cases thousands of ties as many viewers. By all means make up and use a measure which is specifically designed to support your point.
> ok so who launched DAB / DTT (following ITV's spectacular f-up)?
AHAHAHA! AHA! HA! HA! Ha! ha! Hooooooo....
You call that innovation? Same rubbish delivered digitally? Again, just more evidence of how limited and small the minds at the BBC are.
In reply to Doug:
Mostly French radio (France Info, Europe 1, France Culture) and the news on TV... I can't stand the smug biased way the BBC speakers hand out the news these days. The French news is probably no more objective but it's more about things that concern me living in France. Sometimes on cable tv I have a look at BBC, Euronews, now France 24, but rarely any US stations, I don't like the accent and it seems to be very local.
Mostly French radio (France Info, Europe 1, France Culture) and the news on TV... I can't stand the smug biased way the BBC speakers hand out the news these days. The French news is probably no more objective but it's more about things that concern me living in France. Sometimes on cable tv I have a look at BBC, Euronews, now France 24, but rarely any US stations, I don't like the accent and it seems to be very local.
In reply to jonfun21:
Thats what I meant in my original post. I think the BBC are doomed or at least the license fee is. With TV cards in many computers and TV receivers in many monitors plus cable internet boxes which also deliver TV signals into the home whether you watch them or not its really hard to define what is a TV and what isn't now.
So in practise they can only prosecute if they catch you watching. And they can't catch you if you have a flat screen TV because the detector vans pick up radiation from a cathode ray tube (I believe).
Add to that that fact that video is starting to be delivered on the internet so it even makes it hard to define what is TV content and what isn't. Is uTube? What if someone makes a weekly sitcom and posts it on uTube?
You suggest they could collect money if you visit certain web sites but content could be re-directed through proxy sites.
Thats what I meant in my original post. I think the BBC are doomed or at least the license fee is. With TV cards in many computers and TV receivers in many monitors plus cable internet boxes which also deliver TV signals into the home whether you watch them or not its really hard to define what is a TV and what isn't now.
So in practise they can only prosecute if they catch you watching. And they can't catch you if you have a flat screen TV because the detector vans pick up radiation from a cathode ray tube (I believe).
Add to that that fact that video is starting to be delivered on the internet so it even makes it hard to define what is TV content and what isn't. Is uTube? What if someone makes a weekly sitcom and posts it on uTube?
You suggest they could collect money if you visit certain web sites but content could be re-directed through proxy sites.
In reply to niggle: So, you feel all broadcast media should go for the average American's attention span.
Get stuffed. Some of us are capable of paying attention for more than 3 minutes at a time.
You Tube? A pile of dross with momentary interest value. I have NEVER looked forward to 'something on You Tube', where I have waited weeks for a new series of, say, The West Wing.
Plus, wherever I go that is 'commercial' I am bombarded by intrusive advertising. If I wanted to buy Product X, or Brand Y, I will go look for it. I do NOT want it interrupting what I'm trying to watch! Or listen to.
TTG
Get stuffed. Some of us are capable of paying attention for more than 3 minutes at a time.
You Tube? A pile of dross with momentary interest value. I have NEVER looked forward to 'something on You Tube', where I have waited weeks for a new series of, say, The West Wing.
Plus, wherever I go that is 'commercial' I am bombarded by intrusive advertising. If I wanted to buy Product X, or Brand Y, I will go look for it. I do NOT want it interrupting what I'm trying to watch! Or listen to.
TTG
In reply to Dolomight: They have a Database telling them who doesn't have a licence. There was a thread 3 months back on this subject, about folk with no TV getting threatened.
TTG
TTG
In reply to niggle:
a lot of which is in breech of copyright and, for those that arent, rely on the providers donating them for nothing.
and you even get free viruses from the badly managed ads.
> Youtube gets over 100 million views per day. Last month over 2.5 billion videos were watched.
a lot of which is in breech of copyright and, for those that arent, rely on the providers donating them for nothing.
> And that's small beer. MySpace gets 10,000 page views per second. Over 30 billion page views per month.
and you even get free viruses from the badly managed ads.
In reply to niggle:
ermm, yeah right.
Although you do have the point that a lot of the YouTube stuff is clips from the longer shows.
nope, it is relative. You are comparing page views against unique users.
Myspace is effectively a rebranded geocities, so not really pushing the boundaries. Youtube not a lot more but taking advanatge of technology.
> Yes, the BBC's programmes are often longer. So what? That's just another example of how spectacularly out of touch they are with what people actually want to watch.
ermm, yeah right.
Although you do have the point that a lot of the YouTube stuff is clips from the longer shows.
> No, YouTube and MySpace still get hundreds and in many cases thousands of ties as many viewers. By all means make up and use a measure which is specifically designed to support your point.
nope, it is relative. You are comparing page views against unique users.
> You call that innovation? Same rubbish delivered digitally? Again, just more evidence of how limited and small the minds at the BBC are.
As opposed to MySpace and YouTube.
Myspace is effectively a rebranded geocities, so not really pushing the boundaries. Youtube not a lot more but taking advanatge of technology.
In reply to niggle: "You call that innovation? Same rubbish delivered digitally?" you could equally say the same about you tube, all it is is a delivery mechanism. I for one don't fancy watching the top 10 happy slapping / pictures of my girlfriend singing for the rest of my life.
As others have said a lot of the highly viewed content on You tube is actually copied from other commerical and public providers.
"By all means make up and use a measure" its a measure which is appropriate for what you are trying to measure, the BBC is different to You Tube as it has a public service remit to deliver content everyone wants to watch. The problem we are having is we are measuring apples with pears, a broad range of services (BBC) with a one off service (You Tube)
Though if your interested:
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story513.shtml
"how spectacularly out of touch they are with what people actually want to watch." you keep saying this but viewing figures tell a different story
As others have said a lot of the highly viewed content on You tube is actually copied from other commerical and public providers.
"By all means make up and use a measure" its a measure which is appropriate for what you are trying to measure, the BBC is different to You Tube as it has a public service remit to deliver content everyone wants to watch. The problem we are having is we are measuring apples with pears, a broad range of services (BBC) with a one off service (You Tube)
Though if your interested:
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story513.shtml
"how spectacularly out of touch they are with what people actually want to watch." you keep saying this but viewing figures tell a different story
In reply to O Mighty Tim:
Oooh, the "I'm an intellectual" card! Well since you're so clever, you'll know that you don't have to watch YouTube. But I do have to have a TV licence, even if I don't watch the BBC.
For someone with a such a big attention span, you sure seem worried about getting distracted.
Oooh, the "I'm an intellectual" card! Well since you're so clever, you'll know that you don't have to watch YouTube. But I do have to have a TV licence, even if I don't watch the BBC.
> If I wanted to buy Product X, or Brand Y, I will go look for it. I do NOT want it interrupting what I'm trying to watch! Or listen to.
For someone with a such a big attention span, you sure seem worried about getting distracted.
In reply to Dolomight: Very true major issue, maybe the BBC will have to do content deals with the aggregators to continue to justify its presence, could be couple with a reduction in the LFee.
In reply to niggle: Bet you view some BBC content during an average month, need to remember its not just TV its also
- Radio
- Internet
- Orchestra's
- Books
Would be suprised if you didn't. Also probably when a major event hit, such as London Bombings as people tend to reply upon sources they can trust, with You Tube et al you have limited verification that what your are viewing is realy / verified
- Radio
- Internet
- Orchestra's
- Books
Would be suprised if you didn't. Also probably when a major event hit, such as London Bombings as people tend to reply upon sources they can trust, with You Tube et al you have limited verification that what your are viewing is realy / verified
In reply to jonfun21: Appologies that link is miles out of date, hit rate for BBC news is still pretty high though, probably doesn't match you tube though as is not global
In reply to jonfun21:
I can't even type the number of HA! HA! HA!s it would take to cover that screamer. I take it you believe that everyone wants to watch repeats, right?
Let's look at tonight's schedule. Friday night, prime viewing time, so we should see spadeloads of this "innovation" you claim the BBC are investing in, right?
Tonight on BBC1:
The News (government news agency tells us what to think)
A Question of Sport (30 year old format)
Real Story (documentary)
Eastenders (20 year old format)
River City (Scottish version of above)
Lilies (Drama)
More News (repeat)
Best of Chewin the Fat (repeat)
That was the Team that was (repeat)
Fim: Metro (repeat)
News 24 (repeat)
So, tonight, at one the week's peak viewing times, in 7 hours of broadcasting we have exactly 2 programmes which aren't either repeats or rehashes of decades-old formats.
And you think that paying a licence fee for that is fair?
> the BBC is different to You Tube as it has a public service remit to deliver content everyone wants to watch.
I can't even type the number of HA! HA! HA!s it would take to cover that screamer. I take it you believe that everyone wants to watch repeats, right?
Let's look at tonight's schedule. Friday night, prime viewing time, so we should see spadeloads of this "innovation" you claim the BBC are investing in, right?
Tonight on BBC1:
The News (government news agency tells us what to think)
A Question of Sport (30 year old format)
Real Story (documentary)
Eastenders (20 year old format)
River City (Scottish version of above)
Lilies (Drama)
More News (repeat)
Best of Chewin the Fat (repeat)
That was the Team that was (repeat)
Fim: Metro (repeat)
News 24 (repeat)
So, tonight, at one the week's peak viewing times, in 7 hours of broadcasting we have exactly 2 programmes which aren't either repeats or rehashes of decades-old formats.
And you think that paying a licence fee for that is fair?
In reply to niggle: No I don't and if you look at my previous posts I believe the LF should be reduced and repeats and copycat programming. Difficult though because am partial to the odd repeat of Yes Minister
The point is people still watch BBC 1, the figures are collated from viewing figures so they must have some utility to some people.
Also I don't believe everyone wants to watch BBC 1 tonight, we don't live in a communist state. The fact remains 92.5% of the population still interacts with BBC content, no one is holding a gun to their head to do this!
The point of public service broadcasting is it makes programmes others can't / wouldn't e.g. Planet Earth, cost of £8m, no Commercial Broadcaster would dream of making this and no one on You Tube unless related to Abramavich would make it. Result huge audience appreciation and viewing figures.
Oh and "News 24 (repeat)" how exactly?!!!!
Try being a bit less sensationalist and look at some of the facts.
The point is people still watch BBC 1, the figures are collated from viewing figures so they must have some utility to some people.
Also I don't believe everyone wants to watch BBC 1 tonight, we don't live in a communist state. The fact remains 92.5% of the population still interacts with BBC content, no one is holding a gun to their head to do this!
The point of public service broadcasting is it makes programmes others can't / wouldn't e.g. Planet Earth, cost of £8m, no Commercial Broadcaster would dream of making this and no one on You Tube unless related to Abramavich would make it. Result huge audience appreciation and viewing figures.
Oh and "News 24 (repeat)" how exactly?!!!!
Try being a bit less sensationalist and look at some of the facts.
In reply to jonfun21:
I did look at the facts, and the fact is that in 7 hours of programming on the BBC's premier channel, there are only two programmes which are not repeats or rehashes.
Yes, a lot of people watch it. They should, they're paying for it! Does that make it good? No. Innovative? No.
Tonight's lineup is a perfect illustration of what happens when you give a company colossal guaranteed income: they just stop trying.
The BBC is a financial black hole, and a creative desert inhabited by talentless leeches on astronomical salaries churning out the same rubbish year after year.
I can't believe you think that tonight's offering is anything like reasonable.
> Try being a bit less sensationalist and look at some of the facts.
I did look at the facts, and the fact is that in 7 hours of programming on the BBC's premier channel, there are only two programmes which are not repeats or rehashes.
Yes, a lot of people watch it. They should, they're paying for it! Does that make it good? No. Innovative? No.
Tonight's lineup is a perfect illustration of what happens when you give a company colossal guaranteed income: they just stop trying.
The BBC is a financial black hole, and a creative desert inhabited by talentless leeches on astronomical salaries churning out the same rubbish year after year.
I can't believe you think that tonight's offering is anything like reasonable.
In reply to niggle: I can't believe you can't read, how do you cope in todays world. I didn't say that, try reading again slowly
In reply to jonfun21:
Okay, so you don't think the BBC's offering is reasonable, but you think we should have to pay a licence fee?
Ouch, doublethink.
Okay, so you don't think the BBC's offering is reasonable, but you think we should have to pay a licence fee?
Ouch, doublethink.
In reply to jonfun21:
Or perhaps you're saying that the BBC's output isn't reasonable, but it's highly innovative with great programmes like Planet Earth?
Arg, doublethink again.
Or perhaps you're saying that the BBC's output isn't reasonable, but it's highly innovative with great programmes like Planet Earth?
Arg, doublethink again.
In reply to jonfun21:
No, maybe you're saying that the BBC's output is not reasonable, but we should have to pay a licence fee because lots of people watch it because they paid for a licence fee?
Wow, circular doublethink.
No, maybe you're saying that the BBC's output is not reasonable, but we should have to pay a licence fee because lots of people watch it because they paid for a licence fee?
Wow, circular doublethink.
In reply to niggle: Wrong again, the key point of a debate is to listen to what people say and respond accordingly, give it a try.
I have stated clearly that I believe the BBC makes good content but the LF at its current level is unsustainable and results in too much repeat programming and not enough landmark programmes. Its a hybrid / compromise between your two last posts, hop that clears things up.
However, I am not going to keep repeating myself if you can't be bothered to read what people write.
I have stated clearly that I believe the BBC makes good content but the LF at its current level is unsustainable and results in too much repeat programming and not enough landmark programmes. Its a hybrid / compromise between your two last posts, hop that clears things up.
However, I am not going to keep repeating myself if you can't be bothered to read what people write.
In reply to niggle: Don't be so daft, do you really believe people sit down and think, oh I have paid £140 must watch the TV tonight. Rather they back a decision based upon what they enjoy at that moment in time...following that logic through you would have people queuing outside council offices because they have paid for it so must use it!
In reply to jonfun21:
As I said, you have stated clearly that the BBC's offering is not good enough. So why would you support any kind of licence fee, when it's the licence fee that causes it to be so poor?
> I have stated clearly that I believe the BBC makes good content but the LF at its current level is unsustainable and results in too much repeat programming and not enough landmark programmes.
As I said, you have stated clearly that the BBC's offering is not good enough. So why would you support any kind of licence fee, when it's the licence fee that causes it to be so poor?
In reply to niggle:
or alternatively when they are forced to throw money into the alternate channels to try and hasten the move to digital.
wow, one channel.
As opposed to the various other radio/tv and internet services.
> Tonight's lineup is a perfect illustration of what happens when you give a company colossal guaranteed income: they just stop trying.
or alternatively when they are forced to throw money into the alternate channels to try and hasten the move to digital.
> I can't believe you think that tonight's offering is anything like reasonable.
wow, one channel.
As opposed to the various other radio/tv and internet services.
In reply to niggle: "Or perhaps you're saying that the BBC's output isn't reasonable, but it's highly innovative with great programmes like Planet Earth?"
Its not a discontinuous scale or applicable to everything, just because Planet Earth is good doesn't make "fix your house" any good, the same also replies in reverse.
Also just because one clip on you tube is good/bad doesn't make the whole thing worthless
Its not a discontinuous scale or applicable to everything, just because Planet Earth is good doesn't make "fix your house" any good, the same also replies in reverse.
Also just because one clip on you tube is good/bad doesn't make the whole thing worthless
In reply to jonfun21:
Now now, you're the one who says that the fact that people use it - 92.5% wasn't it that you were flourishing? - means it must be worth paying for.
They don't "back" the licence fee, they pay it or get fined £1000!
I'm saying, why does watching something you have to pay for mean that you should be forced to pay for it again regardless of how bad it is?
Now now, you're the one who says that the fact that people use it - 92.5% wasn't it that you were flourishing? - means it must be worth paying for.
They don't "back" the licence fee, they pay it or get fined £1000!
I'm saying, why does watching something you have to pay for mean that you should be forced to pay for it again regardless of how bad it is?
In reply to niggle:
At last you've said something I agree with... or was it just another niggle nudging in?
> The BBC is a financial black hole, and a creative desert inhabited by talentless leeches on astronomical salaries churning out the same rubbish year after year.
At last you've said something I agree with... or was it just another niggle nudging in?
In reply to niggle: Good point, I agree monthly subscription would be a great model, if you could enforce it (e.g. remove TV, radio and internet) from those not paying.
The BBC has been a very cheeky with Freeview as the standard box doesn't have a card reader enabling this kind of approach.
92.5% doesn't mean it is worth paying for, it means 92.5% of people use it, nothing more / nothing less. It doesn't imply value it implies usage, just as you tube / myspace hits do.
Willingness to pay is a nightmare to model and many with more experience that you or I have tried and failed (Human Capital/MORI etc). However we should keep trying as it would enable an accurate level of LF to be set.
The BBC has been a very cheeky with Freeview as the standard box doesn't have a card reader enabling this kind of approach.
92.5% doesn't mean it is worth paying for, it means 92.5% of people use it, nothing more / nothing less. It doesn't imply value it implies usage, just as you tube / myspace hits do.
Willingness to pay is a nightmare to model and many with more experience that you or I have tried and failed (Human Capital/MORI etc). However we should keep trying as it would enable an accurate level of LF to be set.
In reply to jonfun21:
I just had a look at the link to see where this 92.5% figure comes from... and as far as I can see these are figures from the BBCs own report... hardly an independent source! What it means is even more unclear as lower down they give these figures:
"All BBC Share
Total BBC TV & Radio share of viewing/listening = 42.7% (down from 43.1%)
Total BBC TV share = 34.9% (down from 36.2% last year)
Total BBC Radio share = 54.9% (up from 54.0% last year)."
Again these are from the BBCs report, but even these show that it's the radio that brings the figures up, TV is only 34.9%... not brilliant even if we accept them as being valid... hardly sufficient to justify 100% of the licence fee.
I'm sorry but I just can't accept that 9 out of 10 people in Britain "interact" with the BBC on a daily basis, unless this includes hearing it in a supermarket or zapping though when looking for something interesting in the evening.
I just had a look at the link to see where this 92.5% figure comes from... and as far as I can see these are figures from the BBCs own report... hardly an independent source! What it means is even more unclear as lower down they give these figures:
"All BBC Share
Total BBC TV & Radio share of viewing/listening = 42.7% (down from 43.1%)
Total BBC TV share = 34.9% (down from 36.2% last year)
Total BBC Radio share = 54.9% (up from 54.0% last year)."
Again these are from the BBCs report, but even these show that it's the radio that brings the figures up, TV is only 34.9%... not brilliant even if we accept them as being valid... hardly sufficient to justify 100% of the licence fee.
I'm sorry but I just can't accept that 9 out of 10 people in Britain "interact" with the BBC on a daily basis, unless this includes hearing it in a supermarket or zapping though when looking for something interesting in the evening.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: "I'm sorry but I just can't accept that 9 out of 10 people in Britain", ok MORI (independently commissioned by Ofcom) would disagree with you.
The reach analsyis is very insightful though and it does point to the BBC losing its way and not focusing on value to the end consumer. That doesn't mean the whole system is flawed though. Cut it back, reduce the LF, seperate governance from operation (the trust is a farce and regulation should have been handed to Ofcom), and set hard quantifiable measures to hit.
They have done trials where they took away all BBC content from users (tested on mainly "heavy sky users" who tend to be the biddet) by disabling it on their sets and in cars etc. Result was over half wanted it back with 2 weeks, do a survey during the week of how much you look at (including via third party sites) guessing you might be suprised how much you use it.
The reach analsyis is very insightful though and it does point to the BBC losing its way and not focusing on value to the end consumer. That doesn't mean the whole system is flawed though. Cut it back, reduce the LF, seperate governance from operation (the trust is a farce and regulation should have been handed to Ofcom), and set hard quantifiable measures to hit.
They have done trials where they took away all BBC content from users (tested on mainly "heavy sky users" who tend to be the biddet) by disabling it on their sets and in cars etc. Result was over half wanted it back with 2 weeks, do a survey during the week of how much you look at (including via third party sites) guessing you might be suprised how much you use it.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Total BBC TV share = 34.9% (down from 36.2% last year)
This is not the same as reach, you could have a 100% score for reach e.g. everyone in the UK watches something for 15minutes. But your share might be 2% as they all watch 5 hours of westwing on C4 as well.
RVQI should improve things
Reach: As per above
Value: Measured via WTP (though flawed) and survey analysis
Quality: Rates by expert panels
Impact: Causing people to do something (e.g. join a book club via the big read) talk about it with their friends.
This is not the same as reach, you could have a 100% score for reach e.g. everyone in the UK watches something for 15minutes. But your share might be 2% as they all watch 5 hours of westwing on C4 as well.
RVQI should improve things
Reach: As per above
Value: Measured via WTP (though flawed) and survey analysis
Quality: Rates by expert panels
Impact: Causing people to do something (e.g. join a book club via the big read) talk about it with their friends.
In reply to The Lemming:
if the BBC ran casinos we wouldn't need a licence fee
come to think of it, follwing the governments argument about regulating what people do anyway, maybe every hospital should run a casino-cum-vice-den
and if hard drugs were included in the package the criminals would be robbed of income AND the drug sales could finance your local health services
just a modest proposal, mind you
if the BBC ran casinos we wouldn't need a licence fee
come to think of it, follwing the governments argument about regulating what people do anyway, maybe every hospital should run a casino-cum-vice-den
and if hard drugs were included in the package the criminals would be robbed of income AND the drug sales could finance your local health services
just a modest proposal, mind you
In reply to Anonymous: Genius, I think a position at the treasury is calling!
In reply to jonfun21:
Eh? There's an easy way to test willingness to pay: make it optional. That means, "not enforced by colossal fines and prison sentences".
It's dead easy to enforce. Sky enforce it, so do Telewest and every other cable provider. You don't pay, you get cut off.
"Impossible to test" is just another way of saying, "let's face it, if it was optional, who's going to sign up for endless repeats? Let's pretend it's really complex, that'll fool them".
> Willingness to pay is a nightmare to model and many with more experience that you or I have tried and failed (Human Capital/MORI etc). However we should keep trying as it would enable an accurate level of LF to be set.
Eh? There's an easy way to test willingness to pay: make it optional. That means, "not enforced by colossal fines and prison sentences".
It's dead easy to enforce. Sky enforce it, so do Telewest and every other cable provider. You don't pay, you get cut off.
"Impossible to test" is just another way of saying, "let's face it, if it was optional, who's going to sign up for endless repeats? Let's pretend it's really complex, that'll fool them".
In reply to niggle: Ok how do you make people pay for the radio then, new radios all round. Doesn't mean we shouldn't move to this model.
Guess the internet is easier you all have to have a password, oh and the free content on You Tube (BBC doesn't prosecute as a rule as public has already paid for it) thats all copyrighted now I am afraid...result large law suite issued against You Tube and others + you as a user for downloading it.
There is also a societal value of the BBC, it provides content for those who can't afford Sky (natural history / discovery etc) and ensures they recieve quality content (e.g not ITV drivel) at a reasonable cost £3 a month vs. £39 a month.
Agree that the fines and prison sentences are ridiculous, more of a threat though average fine is £188.
Guess the internet is easier you all have to have a password, oh and the free content on You Tube (BBC doesn't prosecute as a rule as public has already paid for it) thats all copyrighted now I am afraid...result large law suite issued against You Tube and others + you as a user for downloading it.
There is also a societal value of the BBC, it provides content for those who can't afford Sky (natural history / discovery etc) and ensures they recieve quality content (e.g not ITV drivel) at a reasonable cost £3 a month vs. £39 a month.
Agree that the fines and prison sentences are ridiculous, more of a threat though average fine is £188.
In reply to niggle: "let's face it, if it was optional, who's going to sign up for endless repeats? Let's pretend it's really complex, that'll fool them"
Fair point, though interestingly consumers would disagree and value the BBC at a higher level than the current level (£160 per year). Personally I would be happy to pay £1 a week for news, current affairs, decent documentaries (as stated previously). Guess we could move to a differential model though where you choose
"sign up for endless repeats" there is a commitment to stop these in prime time on the main channels
http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?id=1023
Fair point, though interestingly consumers would disagree and value the BBC at a higher level than the current level (£160 per year). Personally I would be happy to pay £1 a week for news, current affairs, decent documentaries (as stated previously). Guess we could move to a differential model though where you choose
"sign up for endless repeats" there is a commitment to stop these in prime time on the main channels
http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?id=1023
In reply to niggle: Interesting document here, section three is good and suggests a lower level compared to MORI, so maybe the BBC is reaching the end of its claimed "value surplus"
http://www.theworkfoundation.com/Assets/PDFs/DCMS.pdf
http://www.theworkfoundation.com/Assets/PDFs/DCMS.pdf
In reply to niggle: Guess what? I disagree with you. 100%.
Bye.
Bye.
In reply to jonfun21:
Well, I'm really intimidated. No seriously, I'm crapping myself.
But there you are again: this is your idea of value and innovation? Tell people that they have to watch what you tell them to, and if they say otherwise, take them to court.
Dear oh dear. If the option was any good, would you really need to threaten people into using it?
> result large law suite issued against You Tube and others + you as a user for downloading it.
Well, I'm really intimidated. No seriously, I'm crapping myself.
But there you are again: this is your idea of value and innovation? Tell people that they have to watch what you tell them to, and if they say otherwise, take them to court.
Dear oh dear. If the option was any good, would you really need to threaten people into using it?
In reply to jonfun21:
Err, did you read tonights listings? All but 2 prorammes are repeats and rehashes.
Like I said, this is what you get when you gurantee the income of slobbering dumbos like Michael Grade and the revolting little shitweasels who make such pathetic childish attempts at "programmes" for the BBC: lots of talk and lots of repeats.
> "sign up for endless repeats" there is a commitment to stop these in prime time on the main channels
Err, did you read tonights listings? All but 2 prorammes are repeats and rehashes.
Like I said, this is what you get when you gurantee the income of slobbering dumbos like Michael Grade and the revolting little shitweasels who make such pathetic childish attempts at "programmes" for the BBC: lots of talk and lots of repeats.
In reply to niggle:
You have to be joking, right? The other broadcasters who aren't funded by the licence fee are just so much better than the BBC, are they? ITV, Channel Four and Five never show repeats, do they?
Take the example of quality drama. ITV have consistently demonstrated recently that they just can't do this, and have basically given up. There was quite a stir around Christmas when Sky (who must have vastly more money to play with than the Beeb, but seem to spend most of it on the right to broadcast football matches) managed to produce a vaguely serious dramatised adaptation of a fairly popular book and people thought it was actually quite good.
Or, if you want to compare schedules, let's look at ITV's from 6pm tonight:
First hour is news & current affairs
Then it's Emmerdale and Corrie, half an hour each (formats 34 and 46 year sold respectively)
20:00-20:30 DIY RIP: Tonight (documentary)
20:30-22:30 Midsomer Murders (10 year-old format)
22:30-23:00 More news
23:00:-00:00 Jack Osbourne: Adrenaline Junkie II
That's two programmes or 90 minutes of TV which isn't news, a repeat, or a "rehash of an old format" - the same as your assessment of BBC1 (and I think even Jack Osbourne may be a repeat as I think it aired on ITV2 first). And if you look beyond midnight, there's four hours of that pearl in the cultural TV crown: gambling telly (I won't dignify it with the description "quiz TV").
On another of your points: when comparing YouTube to BBC TV or in fact any mainstream TV channel in terms of viewing figures you should at least take in to account the reachable audience. That Torchwood first episode you cite was broadcast on a digital channel, which means that 30% of UK households didn't have the equipment to get it. 2.4 million viewers out of a potential 42 million compares quite well against 100 million out of probably around 2 billion people able to watch YouTube. Even then you're not comparing like with like because you're only looking at one fixed-schedule BBC TV channel out of four, and trying to compare it to people choosing the content they want out of a vast range immediately available. That's without considering the differences in technical quality of programmes available to view on YouTube compared to conventional TV. This isn't intended to diss YouTube - I enjoy watching some hard-to-find stuff on it from time to time (did anyone say "repeats"?) - just to point out that your attempted comparison isn't particularly valid.
> why would you support any kind of licence fee, when it's the licence fee that causes it to be so poor?
You have to be joking, right? The other broadcasters who aren't funded by the licence fee are just so much better than the BBC, are they? ITV, Channel Four and Five never show repeats, do they?
Take the example of quality drama. ITV have consistently demonstrated recently that they just can't do this, and have basically given up. There was quite a stir around Christmas when Sky (who must have vastly more money to play with than the Beeb, but seem to spend most of it on the right to broadcast football matches) managed to produce a vaguely serious dramatised adaptation of a fairly popular book and people thought it was actually quite good.
Or, if you want to compare schedules, let's look at ITV's from 6pm tonight:
First hour is news & current affairs
Then it's Emmerdale and Corrie, half an hour each (formats 34 and 46 year sold respectively)
20:00-20:30 DIY RIP: Tonight (documentary)
20:30-22:30 Midsomer Murders (10 year-old format)
22:30-23:00 More news
23:00:-00:00 Jack Osbourne: Adrenaline Junkie II
That's two programmes or 90 minutes of TV which isn't news, a repeat, or a "rehash of an old format" - the same as your assessment of BBC1 (and I think even Jack Osbourne may be a repeat as I think it aired on ITV2 first). And if you look beyond midnight, there's four hours of that pearl in the cultural TV crown: gambling telly (I won't dignify it with the description "quiz TV").
On another of your points: when comparing YouTube to BBC TV or in fact any mainstream TV channel in terms of viewing figures you should at least take in to account the reachable audience. That Torchwood first episode you cite was broadcast on a digital channel, which means that 30% of UK households didn't have the equipment to get it. 2.4 million viewers out of a potential 42 million compares quite well against 100 million out of probably around 2 billion people able to watch YouTube. Even then you're not comparing like with like because you're only looking at one fixed-schedule BBC TV channel out of four, and trying to compare it to people choosing the content they want out of a vast range immediately available. That's without considering the differences in technical quality of programmes available to view on YouTube compared to conventional TV. This isn't intended to diss YouTube - I enjoy watching some hard-to-find stuff on it from time to time (did anyone say "repeats"?) - just to point out that your attempted comparison isn't particularly valid.
In reply to niggle: "this is your idea of value and innovation? Tell people that they have to watch what you tell them to, and if they say otherwise, take them to court"
No you don't threaten to take people to court, but when something is not a public good anymore (e.g. commercially funded) then copyright issues and control of supply and demand become more prevelant, otherwise you don't make any money.
Therefore current laws make you pay for content you don't legally have the right to watch or listen to (example, suing of Napster).
I agree the model will change and your reference to what has happend in the MP3 market was very insightful. However as has been proven with the music market there is still a need for record lables to invest and launch new music, though as you righly state this is waining.
Even via a direct model bands etc, will still want money for their content (hence You tube announcement to pay users when their content is viewed). UGC is very much a cottage industry at the moment, this will change and Joe Bloggs will want to charge you (and righly so) for viewing their latest single / cool video etc once the market mechanisms are in place.
No you don't threaten to take people to court, but when something is not a public good anymore (e.g. commercially funded) then copyright issues and control of supply and demand become more prevelant, otherwise you don't make any money.
Therefore current laws make you pay for content you don't legally have the right to watch or listen to (example, suing of Napster).
I agree the model will change and your reference to what has happend in the MP3 market was very insightful. However as has been proven with the music market there is still a need for record lables to invest and launch new music, though as you righly state this is waining.
Even via a direct model bands etc, will still want money for their content (hence You tube announcement to pay users when their content is viewed). UGC is very much a cottage industry at the moment, this will change and Joe Bloggs will want to charge you (and righly so) for viewing their latest single / cool video etc once the market mechanisms are in place.
In reply to niggle:
If Sky style programming is what would result from an attempt to remove the license fee from the BBC, I'd very quickly start shouting for it to be returned. The quality of the likes of Sky and ITV is completely dire, and I wouldn't give a shit if they went under; I would be rather more peeved if the BBC became any more like these channels.
Ironically because of people like you whinging that the BBC isn't appealing to people, the BBC has started going for more dumbed down populist programming to boost ratings, which then brings it more in line with the other channels, meaning the same people then argue for the abolishment of its method of funding. I think the BBC could do with a government and DG who turns around and sticks two fingers up to ratings, and using its unique position of not having to fall to its knees when sponsors/advertisers come knocking to create some truly innovative programming. Alas I think the people who would need to do this have been castrated and so just sit there quivering before the God of ratings.
I'd say if you want to reduce the license fee, less find the funds by siphoning it off the other channels. Let's make them pay a 'crap tax' - a coefficient based upon just how dire the commercial channels programming is!
> (In reply to jonfun21)
Sky enforce it, so do Telewest and every other cable provider. You don't pay, you get cut off.
>
If Sky style programming is what would result from an attempt to remove the license fee from the BBC, I'd very quickly start shouting for it to be returned. The quality of the likes of Sky and ITV is completely dire, and I wouldn't give a shit if they went under; I would be rather more peeved if the BBC became any more like these channels.
Ironically because of people like you whinging that the BBC isn't appealing to people, the BBC has started going for more dumbed down populist programming to boost ratings, which then brings it more in line with the other channels, meaning the same people then argue for the abolishment of its method of funding. I think the BBC could do with a government and DG who turns around and sticks two fingers up to ratings, and using its unique position of not having to fall to its knees when sponsors/advertisers come knocking to create some truly innovative programming. Alas I think the people who would need to do this have been castrated and so just sit there quivering before the God of ratings.
I'd say if you want to reduce the license fee, less find the funds by siphoning it off the other channels. Let's make them pay a 'crap tax' - a coefficient based upon just how dire the commercial channels programming is!
In reply to niggle: Did you not read the link, guessing not given your past history, it is a commitment but TV programmes don't make themselves overnight.
"childish attempts at "programmes" for the BBC" ok who else produces better content, and please don't say you tube as it simply isn't true
"childish attempts at "programmes" for the BBC" ok who else produces better content, and please don't say you tube as it simply isn't true
In reply to Liam M: "get's make them pay a 'crap tax' - a coefficient based upon just how dire the commercial channels programming is!" great idea
In reply to All: A couple of nights of Australian commercial TV and believe me, you would happily pay double the current license fee to keep the Beeb going.
In reply to jonfun21:
Uh, the BBC isn't dependent on supply and demand to make money, remember? We pay or we go to court.
There are many working models of content creation and supply which don't require the police to enforce them in order to make money.
Saying that there can only be one way - direct charging for goods and services - is straight out of the dark ages and frankly a mindset that the internet is helping us gratefully leave behind.
> when something is not a public good anymore (e.g. commercially funded) then copyright issues and control of supply and demand become more prevelant, otherwise you don't make any money.
Uh, the BBC isn't dependent on supply and demand to make money, remember? We pay or we go to court.
There are many working models of content creation and supply which don't require the police to enforce them in order to make money.
Saying that there can only be one way - direct charging for goods and services - is straight out of the dark ages and frankly a mindset that the internet is helping us gratefully leave behind.
In reply to niggle:
can you please demonstrate the innovation shown on YouTube and Myplace, well apart from getting people to contribute the content.
Also doesnt much of the YouTube content (primarily that copied from tv) count as repeats?
> But there you are again: this is your idea of value and innovation? Tell people that they have to watch what you tell them to, and if they say otherwise, take them to court.
can you please demonstrate the innovation shown on YouTube and Myplace, well apart from getting people to contribute the content.
Also doesnt much of the YouTube content (primarily that copied from tv) count as repeats?
In reply to niggle: How about we get the same shite as the States? Just about every person I know who's lived out there misses the BBC. They couldn't avoid the adverts.
Go away, so you don't like th eBeeb, I think we've worked that out by now.
TTG
Go away, so you don't like th eBeeb, I think we've worked that out by now.
TTG
In reply to niggle: You really do struggle with future and comlex concepts don't you
I was talking about the future, under your scneario where we subscribe to the BC, it would be subject to supply and demand requirements. Hence would clamp down on You Tube et al alot more.
There isn't only one way and I think we should explore others, however their does remain a societal benefit to the BBC, albeit funded by a regressive taxation system.
"rankly a mindset that the internet is helping us gratefully leave behind" really, you are clearly a bit nieve, the internet makes money via advertising and payment for services (subscription to Napster), google via advertising, in what way does this differ from traditional markets....case of the emperors new clothes for you I think
I was talking about the future, under your scneario where we subscribe to the BC, it would be subject to supply and demand requirements. Hence would clamp down on You Tube et al alot more.
There isn't only one way and I think we should explore others, however their does remain a societal benefit to the BBC, albeit funded by a regressive taxation system.
"rankly a mindset that the internet is helping us gratefully leave behind" really, you are clearly a bit nieve, the internet makes money via advertising and payment for services (subscription to Napster), google via advertising, in what way does this differ from traditional markets....case of the emperors new clothes for you I think
In reply to jonfun21:
Who said that? I don't advocate that, I advocate closing the BBC completely so I can laugh at the talentless wankers who used to work there but couldn't make it in the private sector as I pass them begging in the street.
Perhaps I could stop and urinate on a few as I remember the hunders of pounds I was forced to pay them to produce bullshit i didn't even want to watch.
Naive? Well, not really. I'm guessing that I know a lot more than you about making money on the web. Your ideas are.. well, they're primitive. Primitive as in old, out of date and a bit funny. You're about 10 years behind what's actually happening.
Guess what I do for a living?
> was talking about the future, under your scneario where we subscribe to the BC
Who said that? I don't advocate that, I advocate closing the BBC completely so I can laugh at the talentless wankers who used to work there but couldn't make it in the private sector as I pass them begging in the street.
Perhaps I could stop and urinate on a few as I remember the hunders of pounds I was forced to pay them to produce bullshit i didn't even want to watch.
> rankly a mindset that the internet is helping us gratefully leave behind" really, you are clearly a bit nieve, the internet makes money via advertising and payment for services (subscription to Napster), google via advertising, in what way does this differ from traditional markets....case of the emperors new clothes for you I think
Naive? Well, not really. I'm guessing that I know a lot more than you about making money on the web. Your ideas are.. well, they're primitive. Primitive as in old, out of date and a bit funny. You're about 10 years behind what's actually happening.
Guess what I do for a living?
In reply to niggle:
Ah, so it's for this sort of footage you want YouTube!
> (In reply to jonfun21)
>
> Perhaps I could stop and urinate on a few
>
> Perhaps I could stop and urinate on a few
Ah, so it's for this sort of footage you want YouTube!
In reply to niggle: Fair enough, I don't know what you do for a living...enlighten me
In reply to niggle: Oh actually let me have a guess, p*rn star?
In reply to niggle:
"I advocate closing the BBC completely"
Well in that case your previous point it definetly wrong, it wouldn't be subject to supply and demand, get with the programme
"I advocate closing the BBC completely"
Well in that case your previous point it definetly wrong, it wouldn't be subject to supply and demand, get with the programme
In reply to Liam M:
Hey, I could make a game show out of that mate.
Close the BBC and get line all the out of work writers, producers and so on who couldn't get a job in the private sector because their work stinks and could only be paid for by a compulsory tax, and line them up against a wall. they'll be happy to comply, after all it would be totally unathical for them to collect unemployment benefit after living off the taxpayers for their whole careers, right?
We could all text in which wanker we want to see violently assaulted, and if a contestant with a baseball bat guesses which one gets the most votes, they get to viciously attack them while we text whooping support, which incidentally pays for the programme. The luckless outcasts could have cash strapped to their bodies, and as they're beaten, the contestants can recover their license fee.
The winner who makes it through several rounds of fun gets to spend 30 minutes live in a room with Michael Grade and a hammer drill.
It's got hit written all over it.
Hey, I could make a game show out of that mate.
Close the BBC and get line all the out of work writers, producers and so on who couldn't get a job in the private sector because their work stinks and could only be paid for by a compulsory tax, and line them up against a wall. they'll be happy to comply, after all it would be totally unathical for them to collect unemployment benefit after living off the taxpayers for their whole careers, right?
We could all text in which wanker we want to see violently assaulted, and if a contestant with a baseball bat guesses which one gets the most votes, they get to viciously attack them while we text whooping support, which incidentally pays for the programme. The luckless outcasts could have cash strapped to their bodies, and as they're beaten, the contestants can recover their license fee.
The winner who makes it through several rounds of fun gets to spend 30 minutes live in a room with Michael Grade and a hammer drill.
It's got hit written all over it.
In reply to jonfun21:
Oh I wish!
No, I'm the creative director of a web design agency. I'll flatter myself that I know a bit about making money on the web then.
Oh I wish!
No, I'm the creative director of a web design agency. I'll flatter myself that I know a bit about making money on the web then.
In reply to niggle: No its got Chav written all over it
In reply to niggle: So you get paid for designing websites, bit like a graphic designer really....hardly a radical discontinuity in the economy is it. We always assume we live in "radical times" in reality we don't
In reply to jonfun21:
So who said it was?
I'm just pointing out that to a professional, your ideas about how money can be made on the web - well, they're a bit comical, and waaaaay out of date.
> hardly a radical discontinuity in the economy is it.
So who said it was?
I'm just pointing out that to a professional, your ideas about how money can be made on the web - well, they're a bit comical, and waaaaay out of date.
In reply to niggle: Good point, I am intrigued, give me an example or two, be useful to learn something!
In reply to jonfun21:
Ah, now you want free consultancy?
Have a look at what Google are doing for a start, then go look at the freemium model and referral marketing. There are loads of successful models, in fact banner ads are now on the decline as a less successful one.
Ah, now you want free consultancy?
Have a look at what Google are doing for a start, then go look at the freemium model and referral marketing. There are loads of successful models, in fact banner ads are now on the decline as a less successful one.
In reply to niggle: Thanks will do & thanks for the debate always interesting
Free Consultancy: I used to work in consultancy, well aware there is no such thing!!
Free Consultancy: I used to work in consultancy, well aware there is no such thing!!
In reply to niggle:
"freemium model"
Guess Flickr is a great example of this, mind you there are similarities to quite old non internet models, for example Gym memberships being offered for free etc.
Referal marketing looks interesting too, though again principles not unique to the internet.
I guess my point is there is a lot of hype about the net and money generation, but the fundamental economic models are not dissimialar from the old "bricks" economy
"freemium model"
Guess Flickr is a great example of this, mind you there are similarities to quite old non internet models, for example Gym memberships being offered for free etc.
Referal marketing looks interesting too, though again principles not unique to the internet.
I guess my point is there is a lot of hype about the net and money generation, but the fundamental economic models are not dissimialar from the old "bricks" economy
In reply to The Lemming: we are ripped off in UK; public transport wise, and license wise; oh and not to forget tax wise.. In the US etc they aren't so ripped off.. yes they get taxed but not to the extent we all do here.. and that is why I am off; goodbye UK.. wayhay!
In reply to The Lemming:
I understand that to police pirating and those who forgot/had'nt the £, they've (BBC) got blokes that drive round in vans with scanners looking for folks to cite; and the fine is hefty. Is this true?
Cheers
I understand that to police pirating and those who forgot/had'nt the £, they've (BBC) got blokes that drive round in vans with scanners looking for folks to cite; and the fine is hefty. Is this true?
Cheers
In reply to belaybev:
I'll trade ya citizenships.
I'm outta here too but not because of any particular disastisfaction with the states.
Yeah Brits are more heavily taxed but you've got socialized medicine for starters; not to mention a decent cuppa which you'll have to go a long way to find here if at all.
And of course theres no good chipshops here.
School kids pass through metal detectors to get to wood shop.
etc.
But we DO have better petrol station coffee!
mmmmm.
I'll trade ya citizenships.
I'm outta here too but not because of any particular disastisfaction with the states.
Yeah Brits are more heavily taxed but you've got socialized medicine for starters; not to mention a decent cuppa which you'll have to go a long way to find here if at all.
And of course theres no good chipshops here.
School kids pass through metal detectors to get to wood shop.
etc.
But we DO have better petrol station coffee!
mmmmm.
In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:
Check the link I posted, they've got off road vehicles and motorbikes too.
I couldn't leave old blighty, I'd miss the revoulution. Its comming I can feel it in the air. Once everyone stops whinging in chat rooms and forums and actually gets up and stands for what hey feel. Besides after spending lots of time in the states, one thing you cannot find anywhere is cask conditioned ale.
Check the link I posted, they've got off road vehicles and motorbikes too.
I couldn't leave old blighty, I'd miss the revoulution. Its comming I can feel it in the air. Once everyone stops whinging in chat rooms and forums and actually gets up and stands for what hey feel. Besides after spending lots of time in the states, one thing you cannot find anywhere is cask conditioned ale.
In reply to Regis Von Goatlips:
Yes and no... It's about £1000 (or maybe more now!), but it's a contracted out collection agency that does all TV licence stuff.. Which is why they're much heavier now - there's a profit to be made!
> they've (BBC) got blokes that drive round in vans with scanners looking for folks to cite; and the fine is hefty. Is this true?
Yes and no... It's about £1000 (or maybe more now!), but it's a contracted out collection agency that does all TV licence stuff.. Which is why they're much heavier now - there's a profit to be made!
In reply to The Lemming:
I like this value for money arguement. I've tried telling people that when a train is delayed and you're stuck between stations on a stationary train for 20 minutes, then you're getting value for money. Doesn't seem to wash, either.
I like this value for money arguement. I've tried telling people that when a train is delayed and you're stuck between stations on a stationary train for 20 minutes, then you're getting value for money. Doesn't seem to wash, either.
In reply to The Lemming:
thread to long to go thru - sorry if this has been said, but..
go to america
watch tv that has to be paid for by ads
see how bad the ads are already getting here
still want to get rid of the bbc ???
ad - taster- ad - opening credits - ad - 7 minutes of prog - ad - etc., etc.,
downloaded hour long show of The Unit, - it runs for 43 minutes inc titles!!!
thread to long to go thru - sorry if this has been said, but..
go to america
watch tv that has to be paid for by ads
see how bad the ads are already getting here
still want to get rid of the bbc ???
ad - taster- ad - opening credits - ad - 7 minutes of prog - ad - etc., etc.,
downloaded hour long show of The Unit, - it runs for 43 minutes inc titles!!!
In reply to PJay:
Its already here. I don't watch films on ITV1 anymore. Two and a half hours for a ninety minute film. Includes 4 ad breaks an hour and a break for the news. Even the 30min news breaks for ads. AND Stopping for the news makes the last 15mins of the actual film last 1 hour!
Who on earth would pay for Sky when you are already paying for it when you buy the products they advertise. No wonder they can afford to pay so much for the football, and everyone complains the footballers get paid too much! AND Don't get me started on designer clothes. Why buy a shirt that costs more than normal and then display their logo advertising what you are wearing to everyone and not get paid for being a mobile advetising hoarding. Worlds gone MAD!
Its already here. I don't watch films on ITV1 anymore. Two and a half hours for a ninety minute film. Includes 4 ad breaks an hour and a break for the news. Even the 30min news breaks for ads. AND Stopping for the news makes the last 15mins of the actual film last 1 hour!
Who on earth would pay for Sky when you are already paying for it when you buy the products they advertise. No wonder they can afford to pay so much for the football, and everyone complains the footballers get paid too much! AND Don't get me started on designer clothes. Why buy a shirt that costs more than normal and then display their logo advertising what you are wearing to everyone and not get paid for being a mobile advetising hoarding. Worlds gone MAD!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...