|
|
Post by John Wall on Aug 10, 2024 22:49:50 GMT
For the record I believe that the licence fee is on the way out, although I don’t know when. However, it’s always important to be careful what you wish for.
I doubt I’m unique here in remembering when there were only two and half channels (BBC 2 was the half!), there was no Channel 4, breakfast TV, etc, etc. At that time an ITV franchise was pretty much a licence to print money and the most expensive advertising slot was in the middle of Coronation Street, whatever demographic you wanted to reach that’s where you’d find them.
It’s important to understand that the national advertising budget is fairly static, it grows/reduces with the economy and inflation. Every time another channel, etc comes along - such as when Channel 4 arrived - it takes a piece of the pie. Over recent decades with satellite, cable, digital and streaming that pie has been sliced into even more pieces - and then there’s online advertising.
Again I doubt I’m unique in remembering when TV audiences of 10, 15, 20 million were commonplace - and the population was less then! What’s a good audience now? A few million! Could ITV make a Brideshead or World at War nowadays? I doubt it as they wouldn’t get the audience - and advertising - to cover the costs, even with co-production deals.
It’s very easy to say that the licence fee should be abolished and the BBC should take advertising. The myriad of channels, etc now available to us are in various categories. Some, such as the streamers, tend to be subscription based, but might offer a reduced fee if you take adverts, some are subscription/adverts and some are pure adverts.
Let’s consider a few examples. Talk TV recently dropped their satellite/cable slots and became online only. GB News have racked up significant losses, despite getting some better audience figures than the BBC/Sky. They’ve now got a “membership” scheme but look like being a rich man’s hobby for the foreseeable future. TPTV, which gets a lot of support here, is advertising supported but, as some of us know, their advertising revenues have dropped since Covid. They run several weekend events every year - which must take a lot of work, sell branded items, etc through Reknown Pictures and TPTV, and have recently launched a monthly magazine - very risky nowadays.
Scrap the licence fee and put a “big beast” like the BBC into the advertising market and who goes?
Be careful what you wish for….
|
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Aug 11, 2024 7:46:21 GMT
For the record I believe that the licence fee is on the way out, although I don’t know when. However, it’s always important to be careful what you wish for. I doubt I’m unique here in remembering when there were only two and half channels (BBC 2 was the half!), there was no Channel 4, breakfast TV, etc, etc. At that time an ITV franchise was pretty much a licence to print money and the most expensive advertising slot was in the middle of Coronation Street, whatever demographic you wanted to reach that’s where you’d find them. It’s important to understand that the national advertising budget is fairly static, it grows/reduces with the economy and inflation. Every time another channel, etc comes along - such as when Channel 4 arrived - it takes a piece of the pie. Over recent decades with satellite, cable, digital and streaming that pie has been sliced into even more pieces - and then there’s online advertising. Again I doubt I’m unique in remembering when TV audiences of 10, 15, 20 million were commonplace - and the population was less then! What’s a good audience now? A few million! Could ITV make a Brideshead or World at War nowadays? I doubt it as they wouldn’t get the audience - and advertising - to cover the costs, even with co-production deals. It’s very easy to say that the licence fee should be abolished and the BBC should take advertising. The myriad of channels, etc now available to us are in various categories. Some, such as the streamers, tend to be subscription based, but might offer a reduced fee if you take adverts, some are subscription/adverts and some are pure adverts. Let’s consider a few examples. Talk TV recently dropped their satellite/cable slots and became online only. GB News have racked up significant losses, despite getting some better audience figures than the BBC/Sky. They’ve now got a “membership” scheme but look like being a rich man’s hobby for the foreseeable future. TPTV, which gets a lot of support here, is advertising supported but, as some of us know, their advertising revenues have dropped since Covid. They run several weekend events every year - which must take a lot of work, sell branded items, etc through Reknown Pictures and TPTV, and have recently launched a monthly magazine - very risky nowadays. Scrap the licence fee and put a “big beast” like the BBC into the advertising market and who goes? Be careful what you wish for…. You are not unique John, I remember just having two channels, BBC2 was out of reach of our console 405 line set in Birmingham and then three channels BBC1, BBC Scotland and Border when we lived at Carlisle between Feb 66 and July 71. (BBC2 only arrived in Cumbria after we left in Sept 71). |
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Aug 11, 2024 7:50:39 GMT
For the record I believe that the licence fee is on the way out, although I don’t know when. However, it’s always important to be careful what you wish for. I doubt I’m unique here in remembering when there were only two and half channels (BBC 2 was the half!), there was no Channel 4, breakfast TV, etc, etc. At that time an ITV franchise was pretty much a licence to print money and the most expensive advertising slot was in the middle of Coronation Street, whatever demographic you wanted to reach that’s where you’d find them. It’s important to understand that the national advertising budget is fairly static, it grows/reduces with the economy and inflation. Every time another channel, etc comes along - such as when Channel 4 arrived - it takes a piece of the pie. Over recent decades with satellite, cable, digital and streaming that pie has been sliced into even more pieces - and then there’s online advertising. Again I doubt I’m unique in remembering when TV audiences of 10, 15, 20 million were commonplace - and the population was less then! What’s a good audience now? A few million! Could ITV make a Brideshead or World at War nowadays? I doubt it as they wouldn’t get the audience - and advertising - to cover the costs, even with co-production deals. It’s very easy to say that the licence fee should be abolished and the BBC should take advertising. The myriad of channels, etc now available to us are in various categories. Some, such as the streamers, tend to be subscription based, but might offer a reduced fee if you take adverts, some are subscription/adverts and some are pure adverts. Let’s consider a few examples. Talk TV recently dropped their satellite/cable slots and became online only. GB News have racked up significant losses, despite getting some better audience figures than the BBC/Sky. They’ve now got a “membership” scheme but look like being a rich man’s hobby for the foreseeable future. TPTV, which gets a lot of support here, is advertising supported but, as some of us know, their advertising revenues have dropped since Covid. They run several weekend events every year - which must take a lot of work, sell branded items, etc through Reknown Pictures and TPTV, and have recently launched a monthly magazine - very risky nowadays. Scrap the licence fee and put a “big beast” like the BBC into the advertising market and who goes? Be careful what you wish for…. Agreed that it would be a risk to the smaller players, but is that really a reason to keep the licence? Personally I think it would struggle to survive on a subscription model as there’s a lot of dissatisfied folks out there with the BBC output who can’t be bothered with the hassle of catch up / no live TV / no iPlayer, who would not bother to subscribe & watch the alternative channels that would become, in effect tax free. |
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Aug 11, 2024 7:57:31 GMT
For the record I believe that the licence fee is on the way out, although I don’t know when. However, it’s always important to be careful what you wish for. I doubt I’m unique here in remembering when there were only two and half channels (BBC 2 was the half!), there was no Channel 4, breakfast TV, etc, etc. At that time an ITV franchise was pretty much a licence to print money and the most expensive advertising slot was in the middle of Coronation Street, whatever demographic you wanted to reach that’s where you’d find them. It’s important to understand that the national advertising budget is fairly static, it grows/reduces with the economy and inflation. Every time another channel, etc comes along - such as when Channel 4 arrived - it takes a piece of the pie. Over recent decades with satellite, cable, digital and streaming that pie has been sliced into even more pieces - and then there’s online advertising. Again I doubt I’m unique in remembering when TV audiences of 10, 15, 20 million were commonplace - and the population was less then! What’s a good audience now? A few million! Could ITV make a Brideshead or World at War nowadays? I doubt it as they wouldn’t get the audience - and advertising - to cover the costs, even with co-production deals. It’s very easy to say that the licence fee should be abolished and the BBC should take advertising. The myriad of channels, etc now available to us are in various categories. Some, such as the streamers, tend to be subscription based, but might offer a reduced fee if you take adverts, some are subscription/adverts and some are pure adverts. Let’s consider a few examples. Talk TV recently dropped their satellite/cable slots and became online only. GB News have racked up significant losses, despite getting some better audience figures than the BBC/Sky. They’ve now got a “membership” scheme but look like being a rich man’s hobby for the foreseeable future. TPTV, which gets a lot of support here, is advertising supported but, as some of us know, their advertising revenues have dropped since Covid. They run several weekend events every year - which must take a lot of work, sell branded items, etc through Reknown Pictures and TPTV, and have recently launched a monthly magazine - very risky nowadays. Scrap the licence fee and put a “big beast” like the BBC into the advertising market and who goes? Be careful what you wish for…. You are not unique John, I remember just having two channels, BBC2 was out of reach of our console 405 line set in Birmingham and then three channels BBC1, BBC Scotland and Border when we lived at Carlisle between Feb 66 and July 71. (BBC2 only arrived in Cumbria after we left in Sept 71). Although, for tech nerds in here, a transmitter engineer guy who lived down the road from us at Carlisle had some sort of microwave (I assume) reception gear & could get a colour picture for BBC2 with no sound from the transmission link broadcast overhead to Glasgow. That was the first colour broadcast picture I ever saw. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Aug 11, 2024 11:19:42 GMT
For the record I believe that the licence fee is on the way out, although I don’t know when. However, it’s always important to be careful what you wish for. I doubt I’m unique here in remembering when there were only two and half channels (BBC 2 was the half!), there was no Channel 4, breakfast TV, etc, etc. At that time an ITV franchise was pretty much a licence to print money and the most expensive advertising slot was in the middle of Coronation Street, whatever demographic you wanted to reach that’s where you’d find them. It’s important to understand that the national advertising budget is fairly static, it grows/reduces with the economy and inflation. Every time another channel, etc comes along - such as when Channel 4 arrived - it takes a piece of the pie. Over recent decades with satellite, cable, digital and streaming that pie has been sliced into even more pieces - and then there’s online advertising. Again I doubt I’m unique in remembering when TV audiences of 10, 15, 20 million were commonplace - and the population was less then! What’s a good audience now? A few million! Could ITV make a Brideshead or World at War nowadays? I doubt it as they wouldn’t get the audience - and advertising - to cover the costs, even with co-production deals. It’s very easy to say that the licence fee should be abolished and the BBC should take advertising. The myriad of channels, etc now available to us are in various categories. Some, such as the streamers, tend to be subscription based, but might offer a reduced fee if you take adverts, some are subscription/adverts and some are pure adverts. Let’s consider a few examples. Talk TV recently dropped their satellite/cable slots and became online only. GB News have racked up significant losses, despite getting some better audience figures than the BBC/Sky. They’ve now got a “membership” scheme but look like being a rich man’s hobby for the foreseeable future. TPTV, which gets a lot of support here, is advertising supported but, as some of us know, their advertising revenues have dropped since Covid. They run several weekend events every year - which must take a lot of work, sell branded items, etc through Reknown Pictures and TPTV, and have recently launched a monthly magazine - very risky nowadays. Scrap the licence fee and put a “big beast” like the BBC into the advertising market and who goes? Be careful what you wish for…. Agreed that it would be a risk to the smaller players, but is that really a reason to keep the licence? Personally I think it would struggle to survive on a subscription model as there’s a lot of dissatisfied folks out there with the BBC output who can’t be bothered with the hassle of catch up / no live TV / no iPlayer, who would not bother to subscribe & watch the alternative channels that would become, in effect tax free. As I said earlier I think the licence fee is on the way out but I’m always worried about the law of unintended consequences. The BBC still makes popular shows so what would happen if, say, Strictly became available for sponsorship or had commercial breaks? That wouldn’t generate new advertising, just redirect it from elsewhere. Add a few other BBC hits and the smaller channels get squeezed more. The TV ecosystem we currently have is, effectively, predicated on the existence of the licence fee and were that to go there would be massive disruption to that system. I have a recollection that in the “good old days” senior ITV executives were very supportive of the licence fee continuing as they knew what a “commercial” BBC would do to their revenues. Moving the BBC to a (voluntary) subscription system, a bit like the streamers, might be the right move - although it can be argued that that’s happening! There’s a case to be made for the BBC doing less, but doing it better. |
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Aug 11, 2024 17:58:46 GMT
Agreed that it would be a risk to the smaller players, but is that really a reason to keep the licence? Personally I think it would struggle to survive on a subscription model as there’s a lot of dissatisfied folks out there with the BBC output who can’t be bothered with the hassle of catch up / no live TV / no iPlayer, who would not bother to subscribe & watch the alternative channels that would become, in effect tax free. As I said earlier I think the licence fee is on the way out but I’m always worried about the law of unintended consequences. The BBC still makes popular shows so what would happen if, say, Strictly became available for sponsorship or had commercial breaks? That wouldn’t generate new advertising, just redirect it from elsewhere. Add a few other BBC hits and the smaller channels get squeezed more. The TV ecosystem we currently have is, effectively, predicated on the existence of the licence fee and were that to go there would be massive disruption to that system. I have a recollection that in the “good old days” senior ITV executives were very supportive of the licence fee continuing as they knew what a “commercial” BBC would do to their revenues. Moving the BBC to a (voluntary) subscription system, a bit like the streamers, might be the right move - although it can be argued that that’s happening! There’s a case to be made for the BBC doing less, but doing it better. I think that we are about 90% in agreement John, the only small issue for me are the arguably unfair restrictions concerning watching other non BBC Channels like TPTV live without a licence. Granted, if TPTV Encore was better in terms of holding full series then I would probably care even less. Rugby matches I’m generally happy to find on YouTube after the event although I did used to enjoy watching them live. Ah well, there’s always the pub….. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Aug 12, 2024 7:36:59 GMT
As I said earlier I think the licence fee is on the way out but I’m always worried about the law of unintended consequences. The BBC still makes popular shows so what would happen if, say, Strictly became available for sponsorship or had commercial breaks? That wouldn’t generate new advertising, just redirect it from elsewhere. Add a few other BBC hits and the smaller channels get squeezed more. The TV ecosystem we currently have is, effectively, predicated on the existence of the licence fee and were that to go there would be massive disruption to that system. I have a recollection that in the “good old days” senior ITV executives were very supportive of the licence fee continuing as they knew what a “commercial” BBC would do to their revenues. Moving the BBC to a (voluntary) subscription system, a bit like the streamers, might be the right move - although it can be argued that that’s happening! There’s a case to be made for the BBC doing less, but doing it better. I think that we are about 90% in agreement John, the only small issue for me are the arguably unfair restrictions concerning watching other non BBC Channels like TPTV live without a licence. Granted, if TPTV Encore was better in terms of holding full series then I would probably care even less. Rugby matches I’m generally happy to find on YouTube after the event although I did used to enjoy watching them live. Ah well, there’s always the pub….. A lot of it is historical precedent - based on the then technology! If the BBC went to a (voluntary) subscription is there a way of making sure than only subscribers can access content? |
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,910
|
Post by RWels on Aug 12, 2024 9:39:48 GMT
There are definitely aspects that we'll miss, if some day they won't be there anymore. Youtube these days puts TWO advertisements in front of every video, and some more afterwards. "What you gonna do?" That sort of thing.
By the way, those who think the BBC is much too concerned with diversity, probably won't fare any better on netflix.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Aug 12, 2024 15:10:55 GMT
By the way, those who think the BBC is much too concerned with diversity, probably won't fare any better on netflix. In global terms, diversity and inclusion aren't , perhaps, rated very highly. The trend is, I think, towards (socially conservative) uniformity of religion, one-party states, oppression of women and those deemed sexually deviant.. Apart from a flicker of dissent in the West, this seems the likely picture for a very long time, not least because the West discredits itself, and argues that its values are oppressive. |
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Aug 13, 2024 12:43:31 GMT
There are definitely aspects that we'll miss, if some day they won't be there anymore. Youtube these days puts TWO advertisements in front of every video, and some more afterwards. "What you gonna do?" That sort of thing. By the way, those who think the BBC is much too concerned with diversity, probably won't fare any better on netflix. True enough, but it’s easier to cancel a Netflix subscription without consequences as is currently the case with the BBC, (no live TV regardless of provider). |
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Aug 13, 2024 12:45:24 GMT
I think that we are about 90% in agreement John, the only small issue for me are the arguably unfair restrictions concerning watching other non BBC Channels like TPTV live without a licence. Granted, if TPTV Encore was better in terms of holding full series then I would probably care even less. Rugby matches I’m generally happy to find on YouTube after the event although I did used to enjoy watching them live. Ah well, there’s always the pub….. A lot of it is historical precedent - based on the then technology! If the BBC went to a (voluntary) subscription is there a way of making sure than only subscribers can access content? No, but no other supplier really bothers, a level playing field would help I think. |
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Sept 29, 2024 18:19:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Oct 19, 2024 15:13:42 GMT
For the first time in years, I've been asked to confirm that I don't watch BBC iplayer or any live TV. Frankly, who would watch that?
|
|
Kev Hunter
Member
The only difference between a rut and a groove is the depth
Posts: 625
|
Post by Kev Hunter on Oct 19, 2024 16:22:23 GMT
Maybe I'm out of step with most people here (it's never bothered me before, not in life or anywhere else) but I really don't understand the endless carping about the licence fee. I think it's a pretty good deal, considering what we get for it. Give me that over adverts any day. And I do watch current things - again, it seems as if I'm in the minority here - I can't think of anything much more boring than watching endless TV from a past era, as I quite like living in the present. Maybe I've missed the point but as discussions go, this one is getting incredibly tedious. Just saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardwoods on Oct 19, 2024 18:47:17 GMT
Maybe I'm out of step with most people here (it's never bothered me before, not in life or anywhere else) but I really don't understand the endless carping about the licence fee. I think it's a pretty good deal, considering what we get for it. Give me that over adverts any day. And I do watch current things - again, it seems as if I'm in the minority here - I can't think of anything much more boring than watching endless TV from a past era, as I quite like living in the present. Maybe I've missed the point but as discussions go, this one is getting incredibly tedious. Just saying. Actually I’m quite enjoying it, but we are all entitled to our opinion. Rather like the old counter argument to Mary Whitehouse types back in the day, if you don’t like it you could always…. (substitute switch it off or watch something else for not read it any more). |
|
