Do We Expect Too Much For Free / Would You Pay More for the BBC

[Deleted member 18588]

I don't think a large proportion would at all - the majority of people in the country watch BBC or listen etc throughout the year - their programs reach 20 million viewers for some of them

Eastenders for example is one of the two most popular programs on the telly - more watch that that on a daily basis than all other programs - the BBC is popular

I think there must be nearly double that watch that one program compared to who has Sky ( think they are around 10 mil customers )

The BBC is popular - their radio shows are popular but they have in recent years suffered from budget costs which has meant a cull on paying big wages to some presenters and some programs being lost

The figures you are quoting do not appear to tally with those of BARB.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Other broadcasters seem to be able to make distinctive programs. Certainly no worse than the BBC. The BBC make plenty of niche programs that the majority have little interest in and panel shows filled with comedians earning silly amounts of money.
At the end of the day it comes down to choice. Being forced to fund the BBC is what's wrong. How many people, given the choice would ditch the BBC if it meant no licence fee? A large portion of the public I would imagine.

The BBCs mission is to inform, educate and entertain. Is it not to make programs that just appeal to the widest possible majority. Yes they need to have programs that are popular, but they also need to produce programs that push the boundaries, that try out new things that are not run through some focus group approved by the sponsor. There are countless comedies that are now relatively mainstream that started out as niche programs on the BBC, plenty of bands that got their first exposure on niche BBC radio when no one else would play them. Without the BBC the cultural and media landscape in this country would suffer greatly.

As for comedians earning silly amounts of money, then any proof that they earn more on BBC panel shows shows then they do on a commercial TVs panel shows?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The figures you are quoting do not appear to tally with those of BARB.

Apologies it was over 20 mil over the week peeking at over 10mil with a 44% of the share of the viewers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/eastenders-20-million-viewers

The only programs that have knocked it down over the last couple of weeks have been the Euro's giving it around 6-8 mil per episode

 

[Tashyboy]

An outdated organisation that answers to who?

pays far to much for mediocre presenters eg, Chris Evans Top gear.

Does not charge for advertising, why ? It is a nationalised industry when all overs have been sold off. If it was put up for sale there would be enough buyers. If it could advertise as every other TV station does in this country and maybe the world fees would not have to go up.
Do the people that run the BBC not realise how much it could raise by having adverts when Eastenders is on ?

 

[MarkE]

The BBCs mission is to inform, educate and entertain. Is it not to make programs that just appeal to the widest possible majority. Yes they need to have programs that are popular, but they also need to produce programs that push the boundaries, that try out new things that are not run through some focus group approved by the sponsor. There are countless comedies that are now relatively mainstream that started out as niche programs on the BBC, plenty of bands that got their first exposure on niche BBC radio when no one else would play them. Without the BBC the cultural and media landscape in this country would suffer greatly.

As for comedians earning silly amounts of money, then any proof that they earn more on BBC panel shows shows then they do on a commercial TVs panel shows?

You're having a laugh surely. If the bbc was to disappear overnight, their space would just be taken by a commercial enterprise, with no cultural hit.
As for wages, a commercial station will pay what someone is worth. But it won't be our money handed to them through a licence fee.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

I think it's the attitude in society right now, cheap holidays, cheap lager deals, cheap garden furniture etc most people want everything cheaper than its current cost.

Obviously I'd like to see more live sport on terrestrial TV but I think that ship has sailed.

Whatever they do, I hope they don't put adverts in between Eastenders.....

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Itv pay far higher wages than the BBC, it's why people jump ship there.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

An outdated organisation that answers to who?

pays far to much for mediocre presenters eg, Chris Evans Top gear.

Does not charge for advertising, why ? It is a nationalised industry when all overs have been sold off. If it was put up for sale there would be enough buyers. If it could advertise as every other TV station does in this country and maybe the world fees would not have to go up.
Do the people that run the BBC not realise how much it could raise by having adverts when Eastenders is on ?

Tashyboy speaks complete sense:rofl: except no adverts for Stu_C during Easties:thup:

 

[Golfmmad]

I think the BBC is vastly underrated. It's not just TV, what about all the radio programmes which are made and broadcast all over the world. Look at all the cultural choices on DAB radio.

I thought they made a fantastic effort with the 2012 Olympics - I could watch every single sport on the red button and didn't miss anything.

Take last nights highlight programmes on both Sky and BBC.
I came in late last night from a hard days golf and my brother in law was watching Sky - so I sat down and started watching, and they went to the studio and started talking - I wanted to watch the golf! Then they went to an ad break!
So I switched over to BBC and watched the rest unfold without any interruptions!

Yes, at the right price point I would pay extra.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The BBC is an outdated white elephant that while capable of some stunning drama and documentaries has sold out to sport a long time ago. I assume (I don't know so asking) that at some point Wimbledon TV rights will be up for renewal. Will they really bust a gut to match a bid from another broadcaster. It seems that see some value to send a huge army of presenters and reporters to cover events like the Euros's. Was that necessary.

 

[Papas1982]

I think the BBC is vastly underrated. It's not just TV, what about all the radio programmes which are made and broadcast all over the world. Look at all the cultural choices on DAB radio.

I thought they made a fantastic effort with the 2012 Olympics - I could watch every single sport on the red button and didn't miss anything.

Take last nights highlight programmes on both Sky and BBC.
I came in late last night from a hard days golf and my brother in law was watching Sky - so I sat down and started watching, and they went to the studio and started talking - I wanted to watch the golf! Then they went to an ad break!
So I switched over to BBC and watched the rest unfold without any interruptions!

Yes, at the right price point I would pay extra.

its great that the bbc can sell their product worldwide. But who pays for all the failed shows that don't make a profit. Us?
for every good show there's plenty that suck.

As to the highlights package. Sky had full coverage. So we're showing analysis, both shows catering for different people.

 

[cliveb]

Sport has changed. It is now a multi billion pound global industry with huge costs to put on events, pay players, pay prize money and to produce the sort of high tech coverage that we now expect.

The implication in your comment is that because sport is now a multi billion dollar industry, TV needs to stump up for the rights to show it.

Well yes, but you've got the cause-and-effect back-to-front. Sport is now a multi billion dollar industry BECAUSE pay TV came in and offered silly money for the rights. And it's only been able to do that because it has a customer base that's prepared to pay a lot of money for it. The idea of paying nearly £30 a month for the few sports I want to see (golf, F1, a bit of cricket) and then have to suffer adverts as well is just outrageous.

Sky makes a massive profit despite the fact that it pays eye-watering amounts for TV rights to major sporting events. And I would expect the same holds true for other pay TV broadcasters. It's only because of this that the likes of Wayne Rooney, Lewis Hamilton and Rory McIlroy are being paid obscene sums for doing something that's frankly of no importance - while teachers, nurses, etc are exploited for their dedication and paid peanuts. There's something seriously wrong with the world's priorities.

 

[larmen]

I am OK with the current level of the license but wouldn't like to pay more. I rather they axe some programs which aren't necessary. And stop getting into bidding wars to show events which we could see for free on C4 or ITV.

I understand the need for an independent broadcaster for news, but everything else is a surplus.

 

[Hobbit]

No.

The Beeb can't win in this respect. If I want a crime thriller I'll watch Alibi. If I want something a bit raw and close to the edge I'll watch Sky Atlantic. If it's sport, or a movie, I'll watch a dedicated channel.

The Beeb can't do that unless it rakes in an extra fortune. And would anyone pay another £50 on top of the £1++, plus their Sky subscription? No they wouldn't.

The Beeb has, sadly missed the boat, and will continue its downward spiral to an even smaller niche market.

 

[Slab]

As someone who doesn’t pay the license fee at the moment...

I use the BBC website regularly, it has ads because it redirects to the international version. Same goes for the BBC news & Sport apps and the 2 or 3 BBC tv channels I get in my subscription tv pack, they all have ads

No problem with that because internationally they can show/host ads and get this revenue, but they are then just another one of dozens (if not hundreds) of sources where the same information/entertainment can be found meaning their product quality has to be worth using that supplier over one of the alternatives... and it sometimes isn’t, but sometimes it is

I don’t see the international BBC services as a market leader in any area I use, but they’re far from the worst. When I paid the tv license (& before I ever used international versions) my view was scrap it and let them stand on their own feet financially/commercially (if they can) and after having a taste of what that might be like I see nothing to change that view

They'd do fine with whatever slimmed down version they end up as after trimming the fat across the board

 

[Fish]

Keep the BBC as we know it now as a basic package with the licence fee (change it description) as its fee but with the option to opt out, then have BBC Premium, a monthly pay for channel that shows bigger, better programmes (not only sport) that they can buy and show, you must have the basic package though to buy the Premium, possibly even have the Premium as day, weekly and monthly passes to compete with NowTV.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

As an old cynic [that may surprise some] I thought the Sky golf coverage was excellent this year.
I paid £10.99 for the week and thought it very good value.
In a like for like Open coverage situation I would gladly pay the extra not to have Alliss boring the socks off me.

BBC Scotland is a dead duck.
The government should allow us to have our own service instead of stealing 50% of our money to prop up England and Wales.

 

[Jimaroid]

It's funny.

The media services that are declining and failing are the ones that are funded wholly through advertising.
The current trend is for subscription based on demand services that deliver unique content without an advertising model. E.g., Netflix, Amazon and, drum-roll the BBC.

If it ain't broke... I'd happily pay more for the BBC. As I've said elsewhere, £12 a month is an absolute bargain and I'd be happy to pay that for Radio4 alone.

 

[Crazyface]

Get rid of the license fee and make the thing commercial...

Oh phew this saved a lot of bother.

THIS !!! I rarely watch BBC, utter rubbish.

 

[Fyldewhite]

It represents good value for money at the moment IMHO. I use the website every day, radio without adverts almost always when driving and TV when there's stuff on I'm interested in, all for around £12/Month. I do have Sky, do watch more Sky but also pay around £65/Month for the privilege. I'm prepared to pay it but don't think it's as good value.

The biggest factor for me is the way the BBC sets the bar in terms of free to air viewing. It IS the reason that ITV, Channel 4, Sky 1 etc are much much better than free to air offerings in other countries. That's a massive plus but because it isn't tangible in a monetary sense is often overlooked. How many calling for commercialisation of the BBC have actually seen the choice in (say) the US without a subscription? Shopping and God channels mostly with a bit of rolling news....riveting stuff. Commercial pressures would see a drop in overall quality as it would be forced to produce for the lowest common denominator. I'm not saying that all mass audience programmes are rubbish but conversely, just because programs are not popular doesn't mean they are bad......and these would disappear quickly.