|
|
Post by Alan Jeffries on Jun 16, 2009 8:05:30 GMT
I just wanted to say how much I'm against this proposed top slicing of the license fee.
ITV have made their bed. I just randomly opened the Radio Times for next week.
Tues.
Emmerdale - soap
World's Best Diet - reality
Laddette to Lady - reality
News
Don't call me Stupid - reality
Three hours of prime time TV?
As for C4. Supporting themselves from going under by taking profits from BBC Worldwide? While they still produce things like Big Brother which has a zero potentiol for sale or repeat showings. When I pay my money for a BBC DVD, I expect at least some of that money to go into the BBC to produce more shows/DVDs whatever and NOT to broadcasters who constantly show Friends or the Nth repeat of Midsommer Murders, show little evidence of changing their ways and want us to pay for it!
And just where would the BBC make cuts?
Get used to less shows being archived/restored.
Rant stops! LOL
Alan
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Bradford on Jun 20, 2009 9:37:32 GMT
Could you tell us how much money ITV has asked for from the 'licence fee'? Better still, could you point us to any articles etc where ITV has asked for any money?
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg H on Jun 20, 2009 15:52:45 GMT
I read about this recently as well. I dont think the license fee should be divided. Simple as that. Im not much of a fan of modern telly really, but I would still rather see the cash reside with the BBC. There is a higher probability of seeing something decent on there. They may be very low on inovation these days, but they can still make a cracking nature documentary and the better comedy shows still tend to be from BBC and C4. ITV etc show adverts for revenue; if they have consistently produced televisual excrement as an offering to the public, then let them reap their own rewards I say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Jeffries on Jun 20, 2009 17:34:28 GMT
There's a link to the BBC news article here. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8103321.stmWith a second link in the right hand column to the original item. John Birt originaly suggested top slicing when he became an adviser to the government. 130 million does not seem a lot, but you know this will just get bigger and bigger........................... Alan |
|
|
|
Post by adriane17 on Jun 21, 2009 8:24:04 GMT
So much for commercial television being "a licence to print money" as George Thomson once said.
As an example of how ITV has gone down the pan I attended an evening of BS Johnson material at the NFT last Tuesday.
One item was BS Johnson On Samuel Johnson a 25 minute programme of Johnson talking to camera in Dr Johnson's house. This was compelling television - intelligent and witty - and was made by and shown on LWT one Sunday lunchtime in 1971.
Another was Fat Man On A Beach - 40 minutes of Johnson telling stories; reading poetry and generally fooling about on one of his favourite beaches in North Wales. This was made by HTV in 1973. Odd but again gripping.
It is inconceivable that ITV would even consider, let alone make, such programmes today...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2009 9:30:55 GMT
Yes, I tend to laugh out loud when someone actually questions the idea that ITV has been dumbed down and offering a narrower range of programming than in the past! As someone who witnessed the ITV of the '60s and '70s (and even '80s to an extent) in relation to the channel of today, this is self-evident. Intelligence in TV generally has slipped way down and the notion of providing any kind of public service broadcasting is derided.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Fryer on Jun 23, 2009 10:05:14 GMT
The threat seems to be that ITV will stop doing local news altogether and may even give up its public service remit when analogue TV goes.
One possibility is that the top-sliced funds may be ring-fenced, for example for putting documentaries in prime time. The problem there is that The World's Wildest Police Chases is a documentary - like the school district in the USA which legally had to provide fruit and veg with school dinners and tried to have tomato ketchup categorised as a fruit.
ITV has a backlog of drama unshown, such as episodes of Poirot and Miss Marple, but if they show them them the costs of making them show up on the balance sheet and from an accountant's point of view, why show the good stuff during an advertising recession? They are hanging on to them till there is an economic upturn.
Will ITV have any viewers left by then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Bradford on Jun 24, 2009 9:07:49 GMT
So this thread just turns into another opportunity to 'knock' ITV. I'll repeat my earlier posting:
Could you tell us how much money ITV has asked for from the 'licence fee'? Better still, could you point us to any articles etc where ITV has asked for any money?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Fryer on Jun 24, 2009 9:29:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by adriane17 on Jun 24, 2009 16:53:45 GMT
How exactly is ITV in a bad position partly due to factors outside its control? Haven't all broadcasters suffered from the internet; DVDs; games; etc; etc?
As someone who was born in 1958 I find almost all modern TV unwatchable. I've lived without a TV for several years now and although I've had the occasional tinge of missing a programme on broadcast - the revival of Doctor Who for one but then when I got to see it I thought it was OK in parts and now it is "event television" in the eyes of the media the thing is totallly over exposed - I don't really miss it at all. Family concerns elsewhere mean I often feel obliged to watch with others (I can't just go down the pub!) and even they say that ITV is ruined by the increased number of advert breaks.
Britains Got Talent vs Opportunity Knocks - I rest my case...
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Bradford on Jun 24, 2009 17:12:39 GMT
In neither article does ITV ask for any of the BBC licence fee. They do however confirm that ITV is in favour of a contestable element of the BBC licence fee. ITV isn't in a 'bad' position, if it were not for the current global economic situation - financially it would be doing quite well. Contrary to other broadcasters, ITV is actually increasing its share of audience and nett advertising revenue (NAR). Its all in the annual report on the ITVplc website. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Fryer on Jun 25, 2009 11:44:13 GMT
Peter, I fail to see the difference - I doubt whether ITV are in any position to flat out ask for some of the licence fee, we are simply not far anough advanced in discussions about the the subject yet for them to ask for anything. The following quote from the second link by an ITV spokesman shows that they are certainly not against the idea:
“Like Ofcom, the Lords Communications Committee recognises that further solutions such as contestable funding are needed to address the problems confronting commercial public service broadcasting.”
ITV would continue without top slicing, but it might well be an ITV with no children's programming, which is the stage we're nearly at now (banning the advertising of almost everytging aimed at chiildren wasn't a smart move in that regard by the government) and no local content.
I think we need to look at whether we want there to be a market in public service broadcasting, or if it's acceptable for it all to be done by the BBC. We don't live in 1970 and there's no point in complaining that commercial broadcasters won't make programmes that are too expensive to be commercial.
The first thing I'd do about the situation is replace the useless 'light touch' regulator Offcom with a proper body with teeth, like the old IBA before even thinking about chucking public money at commercial broadcasters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Bradford on Jun 25, 2009 19:46:32 GMT
ITV have said that they are quite happy to donate the necessary broadcasting time to allow a third party to produce local news programming on the 'ITV' channel. It does not want to do it itself - it cannot make it pay, neither does it want any money from a top-sliced licence fee to do it either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Jeffries on Jun 26, 2009 8:43:59 GMT
I understand that ITV have not asked for the money, but rather it's the government wanting to push this through. Although I can imagine some execs in commercial TV rubbing their hands in glee. I just don't agree with the top slicing principle. I'll use this as an example. C4 gets a piece of the cake. Big brother is on for 3-4 months (I have no idea). According to figures it only is attracting 2 million viewers. There is no resale or rescreening value in the show and so C4 has nothing 'archived' to show again as this now becomes dead airtime. I would hope, given extra money that they produce something that has a resale value and make back money from sales. To get the top sliced cash I would hope that the stations have to prove that they are changing the was they operate, but looking at the way the banks have operated, I think that's unlikely. But that's just the way I think. I could be wrong, probably am.  And just to add another point, I believe Ian is quite right about Ofcom, but I would go as far as saying that is true of nearly all the regulators. very few seem to have teeth and in the end companies do as they please in the most part. Finally, there's one thing that does puzzle me. I understand the fact that drama is expensive, but why would ITV axe popular dramas like the Royal and Heartbeat which bring in viewers (who watch the ads) and have a resale value to other stations and potential DVD sales, but keep making stuff like the Jeremy Kyle Show? Is the return not big enough to warrent the expense? I have no idea. Alan |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Fryer on Jun 26, 2009 9:57:17 GMT
Finally, there's one thing that does puzzle me. I understand the fact that drama is expensive, but why would ITV axe popular dramas like the Royal and Heartbeat which bring in viewers (who watch the ads) and have a resale value to other stations and potential DVD sales, but keep making stuff like the Jeremy Kyle Show? Is the return not big enough to warrent the expense? I have no idea. Alan Something strange certainly seems to be going on with regards to ITV and drama. They've just renewed Law and Order UK (a perfectly decent show, from what I've seen of it) for another 13 episodes, but still have half of the first season waiting to be screened. As I mentioned earlier, I've a pretty good idea ITVs internal accounting procedures have something to do with their keeping a backlog of drama unscreened, as is the advertising recession. It is an understandbale stragetgy for them to hold back some os their potential big hitters until they can get better ad revenues for them. This is also a dangerous game, as the longer the ITV schedules are filled with cheap reality shows and the like the more audiences for quality drama will get out of the habit of watching ITV. To reply to an earlier point someone made, I personally don't have a problem with stuff like Britain's Got Talent - it's not cheap to make and is simply an updated version of Opportunity Knocks. The people who win have so far been genuinely talented (Paul Potts is now a global star) and audiences have proved refreshingly resistant to being cattle-prodded into voting for who they are 'supposed' to. As soon as it turned out Susan Boyle could only actually sing the one song (from the onscreen evidence) she lost to a team of very talented dancers. I remember Op Knocks from at least the back end of its run in the seventies and it was often embarrasing to watch - hardly evidence of the golden age of telly which even I like to hark back to. So lets give ITV the benefit of the doubt for a change - at least they are still commissioning new drama. |
|
