TV Home Forum

If so many people support the Licence Fee...

(October 2009)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
NG
noggin Founding member
bilky asko posted:

How about an advert system? How can you expect the BBC to comment upon companies in an unbiased manner, if two minutes later, they are flogging their wares?


Very good point. ITV has never really had a hard-hitting consumer programme. Channel Four had a good one when they weren't directly funded by advertising, but when this changed...

There are huge benefits from the BBC being non-commercial - there are issues with competition and the wider market-place. However there are times when you have to take decisions that are not purely commercial.

I'm sure private health care providers and health insurance operators see the NHS as distorting the market place, but we as a nation have decided it is in the public interest to have an NHS.

The BBC isn't the same as the NHS - but it is a similar decision we take.

And Sky are in a very dominant position in commercial TV - operating both the major pay-TV platform AND running some major outlets which have very large amounts of movie and sports rights, which they have been accused of restricting. There is a strong argument that Sky have got too big for the market as well...
JO
Johnny83
Inspector Sands posted:
skyfan posted:

2) Other things are not comercially viable, because the BBC is dominating the market. That's why local commercial radio is badly suffering.


Well James, can I call you James, Mr Murdoch?
The fact is that many of the things that BBC radio does just aren't commercially viable full stop. If the BBC ceased to be today, the commercial stations with their diet of 'that was, this is' music presentation or phone-ins are not suddenly going to flip over to broadcasting dramas, specialist music, community affairs, comedy and everything else the BBC does.

The problems that commercial radio has is nothing to do with the BBC, it's due to years of underinvestment and a failure to be creative and take risks. What we're left with on the whole is a load of very bland independent radio stations.

The lack of advertising is also a factor, the main problem that commercial radio and tv has is that there's just not enough advertising. Google makes more money from advertising than ITV despite it being the most popular TV channel in the UK. That isn't going to change without a BBC, and of course if the BBC stations remained but started taking adverts it would suck even more advertising out of the system

It should also be noted that, as Private Eye pointed out recently, in the world of commercial radio news Sky are dominating the market. A station needs news and only has 2 choices now - do it themselves (expensive) or take Sky's.


Interesting, what's happened to Independent Radio News (IRN), I know that Capital used them for nighttime bulletins in the 1990's & Magic 105.4 used them about 3-4 years ago. Do they still exist or have they been absorbed into Sky?
BA
bilky asko
Johnny83 posted:
Inspector Sands posted:
skyfan posted:

2) Other things are not comercially viable, because the BBC is dominating the market. That's why local commercial radio is badly suffering.


Well James, can I call you James, Mr Murdoch?
The fact is that many of the things that BBC radio does just aren't commercially viable full stop. If the BBC ceased to be today, the commercial stations with their diet of 'that was, this is' music presentation or phone-ins are not suddenly going to flip over to broadcasting dramas, specialist music, community affairs, comedy and everything else the BBC does.

The problems that commercial radio has is nothing to do with the BBC, it's due to years of underinvestment and a failure to be creative and take risks. What we're left with on the whole is a load of very bland independent radio stations.

The lack of advertising is also a factor, the main problem that commercial radio and tv has is that there's just not enough advertising. Google makes more money from advertising than ITV despite it being the most popular TV channel in the UK. That isn't going to change without a BBC, and of course if the BBC stations remained but started taking adverts it would suck even more advertising out of the system

It should also be noted that, as Private Eye pointed out recently, in the world of commercial radio news Sky are dominating the market. A station needs news and only has 2 choices now - do it themselves (expensive) or take Sky's.


Interesting, what's happened to Independent Radio News (IRN), I know that Capital used them for nighttime bulletins in the 1990's & Magic 105.4 used them about 3-4 years ago. Do they still exist or have they been absorbed into Sky?


They still have a website: http://www.irn.co.uk/.

EDIT: Their website links to the Sky News reports.
JO
Jon
Johnny83 posted:
Inspector Sands posted:
skyfan posted:

2) Other things are not comercially viable, because the BBC is dominating the market. That's why local commercial radio is badly suffering.


Well James, can I call you James, Mr Murdoch?
The fact is that many of the things that BBC radio does just aren't commercially viable full stop. If the BBC ceased to be today, the commercial stations with their diet of 'that was, this is' music presentation or phone-ins are not suddenly going to flip over to broadcasting dramas, specialist music, community affairs, comedy and everything else the BBC does.

The problems that commercial radio has is nothing to do with the BBC, it's due to years of underinvestment and a failure to be creative and take risks. What we're left with on the whole is a load of very bland independent radio stations.

The lack of advertising is also a factor, the main problem that commercial radio and tv has is that there's just not enough advertising. Google makes more money from advertising than ITV despite it being the most popular TV channel in the UK. That isn't going to change without a BBC, and of course if the BBC stations remained but started taking adverts it would suck even more advertising out of the system

It should also be noted that, as Private Eye pointed out recently, in the world of commercial radio news Sky are dominating the market. A station needs news and only has 2 choices now - do it themselves (expensive) or take Sky's.


Interesting, what's happened to Independent Radio News (IRN), I know that Capital used them for nighttime bulletins in the 1990's & Magic 105.4 used them about 3-4 years ago. Do they still exist or have they been absorbed into Sky?


Sky News provide content for IRN now, for the last few years before it was ITN. The main difference now is it's Sky News branded were as in the ITN days it was generic.
BA
bilky asko
Jon Wells posted:
Johnny83 posted:
Inspector Sands posted:
skyfan posted:

2) Other things are not comercially viable, because the BBC is dominating the market. That's why local commercial radio is badly suffering.


Well James, can I call you James, Mr Murdoch?
The fact is that many of the things that BBC radio does just aren't commercially viable full stop. If the BBC ceased to be today, the commercial stations with their diet of 'that was, this is' music presentation or phone-ins are not suddenly going to flip over to broadcasting dramas, specialist music, community affairs, comedy and everything else the BBC does.

The problems that commercial radio has is nothing to do with the BBC, it's due to years of underinvestment and a failure to be creative and take risks. What we're left with on the whole is a load of very bland independent radio stations.

The lack of advertising is also a factor, the main problem that commercial radio and tv has is that there's just not enough advertising. Google makes more money from advertising than ITV despite it being the most popular TV channel in the UK. That isn't going to change without a BBC, and of course if the BBC stations remained but started taking adverts it would suck even more advertising out of the system

It should also be noted that, as Private Eye pointed out recently, in the world of commercial radio news Sky are dominating the market. A station needs news and only has 2 choices now - do it themselves (expensive) or take Sky's.


Interesting, what's happened to Independent Radio News (IRN), I know that Capital used them for nighttime bulletins in the 1990's & Magic 105.4 used them about 3-4 years ago. Do they still exist or have they been absorbed into Sky?


Sky News provide content for IRN now, for the last few years before it was ITN. The main difference now is it's Sky News branded were as in the ITN days it was generic.


Here's the latest report they have up: http://www.irn.co.uk/SkyAudio/news.mp3
TR
TROGGLES
When the BBC does well the complaints are that it undermines commercial activities.

When the BBC does badly the complaints are about value for money for the licence fee.

The choice argument is nonsensical as once the BBC was out of the way Murdoch would grab his monopoly and charge a fortune for TV & radio services.

I would much rather have a BBC public owned behemoth than a Murdoch one.
JO
Johnny83
bilky asko posted:
Jon Wells posted:
Johnny83 posted:
Inspector Sands posted:
skyfan posted:

2) Other things are not comercially viable, because the BBC is dominating the market. That's why local commercial radio is badly suffering.


Well James, can I call you James, Mr Murdoch?
The fact is that many of the things that BBC radio does just aren't commercially viable full stop. If the BBC ceased to be today, the commercial stations with their diet of 'that was, this is' music presentation or phone-ins are not suddenly going to flip over to broadcasting dramas, specialist music, community affairs, comedy and everything else the BBC does.

The problems that commercial radio has is nothing to do with the BBC, it's due to years of underinvestment and a failure to be creative and take risks. What we're left with on the whole is a load of very bland independent radio stations.

The lack of advertising is also a factor, the main problem that commercial radio and tv has is that there's just not enough advertising. Google makes more money from advertising than ITV despite it being the most popular TV channel in the UK. That isn't going to change without a BBC, and of course if the BBC stations remained but started taking adverts it would suck even more advertising out of the system

It should also be noted that, as Private Eye pointed out recently, in the world of commercial radio news Sky are dominating the market. A station needs news and only has 2 choices now - do it themselves (expensive) or take Sky's.


Interesting, what's happened to Independent Radio News (IRN), I know that Capital used them for nighttime bulletins in the 1990's & Magic 105.4 used them about 3-4 years ago. Do they still exist or have they been absorbed into Sky?


Sky News provide content for IRN now, for the last few years before it was ITN. The main difference now is it's Sky News branded were as in the ITN days it was generic.


Here's the latest report they have up: http://www.irn.co.uk/SkyAudio/news.mp3


Thanks all for the info, shame IRN is owned by Sky these days.

TROGGLES posted:
When the BBC does well the complaints are that it undermines commercial activities.

When the BBC does badly the complaints are about value for money for the licence fee.

The choice argument is nonsensical as once the BBC was out of the way Murdoch would grab his monopoly and charge a fortune for TV & radio services.

I would much rather have a BBC public owned behemoth than a Murdoch one.


Absolutely agree with you, with the exception of Sky Sports News & Braniac, I can't think of much that is decent that is made by Sky anyway. The BBC does make crap from time to time but when they make something good it's really good.

Quite frankly I have no sympathy for the state that ITV is in, Mr Allen is partially to blame for their current predicament anyway.
MS
Mr-Stabby
What I don't understand is why the likes of ITV and Sky think they have the right to have a cry about the BBC and the way it is funded.

BBCtv was setup to provide TV services back in the day, and you paid your license fee, that's how it worked. The commercial companies chose to exist, they chose to start broadcasting with an advertiser funded structure. They knew that relying on advertising could be a risky business and that in times of recession, there would be a lack of it. They knew that only the BBC got license fee cash, and they ran perfectly well for 50 years without complaining about it. It's only now they're in a bit of money trouble thanks to their own lack of business acumen that they're demanding license fee cash.

It's not as if the BBC, ITV and Sky were all originally commercial companies running at the same time and then the BBC were handed the license fee. The license fee existed before commercial television. Just because the advertising market is crap at the moment doesn't give the commercial companies a right to say that the BBC doesn't deserve the license fee or that it should be shared. They're just throwing their toys out of the pram.
JO
Johnny83
Mr-Stabby posted:
What I don't understand is why the likes of ITV and Sky think they have the right to have a cry about the BBC and the way it is funded.

BBCtv was setup to provide TV services back in the day, and you paid your license fee, that's how it worked. The commercial companies chose to exist, they chose to start broadcasting with an advertiser funded structure. They knew that relying on advertising could be a risky business and that in times of recession, there would be a lack of it. They knew that only the BBC got license fee cash, and they ran perfectly well for 50 years without complaining about it. It's only now they're in a bit of money trouble thanks to their own lack of business acumen that they're demanding license fee cash.

It's not as if the BBC, ITV and Sky were all originally commercial companies running at the same time and then the BBC were handed the license fee. The license fee existed before commercial television. Just because the advertising market is crap at the moment doesn't give the commercial companies a right to say that the BBC doesn't deserve the license fee or that it should be shared. They're just throwing their toys out of the pram.


Absolutely agree with everything you say there. ITV ran perfectly well for 40 years & true the TV horizon has changed a lot since 1995 but ITV's current state is not just related to the extra channels available, ITV Digital is one of the main reasons they're in the state they are now.

Newer posts