Let's not forget the average age of users of most BBC channels is in the 60s. The older audience uses the BBC far more than a younger audience - they certainly don't need to aim older.
As others have said tastes vary hugely though and can be quite surprising. Remember a few years back catching my parents laughing their heads off at Jackass.
Both my parents loved The Young Ones, and C4's Comic Strip back in the 80s, they were then, the age I am now (mid 50s), both programmes were total 'whooshes' for most of my friends' parents at the time.
As others have said tastes vary hugely though and can be quite surprising. Remember a few years back catching my parents laughing their heads off at Jackass.
My 70 year old mother in law recently discovered and loved Naked Attraction (she had a bit of a habit of falling asleep in front of the telly of an evening so waking up and seeing that must have been a bit of a surprise)
It can go the other way though, I remember my parents loved Whose Line is It Anyway and I hated them liking it as it was my thing that I discovered... and if they were watching it with me I couldn't laugh at the more risqué jokes
As others have said tastes vary hugely though and can be quite surprising. Remember a few years back catching my parents laughing their heads off at Jackass.
My 70 year old mother in law recently discovered and loved Naked Attraction (she had a bit of a habit of falling asleep in front of the telly of an evening so waking up and seeing that must have been a bit of a surprise)
Ha, that reminds me. My mum was recently watching C4's Grand Designs, she fell asleep in the middle of it, only to wake halfway through the following programme, a documentary about a bloke who paints with his penis.
She said she went to bed, and couldn't get back to sleep !
That's one of the beauty's of British TV, completely contrasting programmes immediately following each other!
Happened to my mum once in the days of Bravo, watching Star Trek, leaving the room to make a cup of coffee, and coming back to a screen of jiggling boobs.
There is one idea (not mine, but someone at work whose parents are over 75 and won't be means tested so will have to pay from next year, and thankfully able to without really noticing it) but, when you read the rubbish sprouted over the last 24 hours from all outlets (including this thread), you'd think that once they had the free licence, their tv's were all de-tuned from receiving anything else other than the BBC.
His idea was simplistic (but rather problematic in practice) but get all the commercial broadcasters - who broadcast at least on FTA channel on Freeview as the benchmark - to chip as well, as the over 75's watch their services - along with the BBC and keep the free licence fee going.
If the BBC, ITV, 4, 5, Sky, Discovery, Sony, ect all paid eaqually into the pot, the actual amount paid by each wouldn't be more than £90-£100 million per year for each broacaster.
There is one idea (not mine, but someone at work whose parents are over 75 and won't be means tested so will have to pay from next year, and thankfully able to without really noticing it) but, when you read the rubbish sprouted over the last 24 hours from all outlets (including this thread), you'd think that once they had the free licence, their tv's were all de-tuned from receiving anything else other than the BBC.
His idea was simplistic (but rather problematic in practice) but get all the commercial broadcasters - who broadcast at least on FTA channel on Freeview as the benchmark - to chip as well, as the over 75's watch their services - along with the BBC and keep the free licence fee going.
If the BBC, ITV, 4, 5, Sky, Discovery, Sony, ect all paid eaqually into the pot, the actual amount paid by each wouldn't be more than £90-£100 million per year for each broacaster.
Its an unusual idea but it could work in theory and yes there would be issues.The channels would be paying to ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in society would still have access to tv. In a way it would be a social service.
There is one idea (not mine, but someone at work whose parents are over 75 and won't be means tested so will have to pay from next year, and thankfully able to without really noticing it) but, when you read the rubbish sprouted over the last 24 hours from all outlets (including this thread), you'd think that once they had the free licence, their tv's were all de-tuned from receiving anything else other than the BBC.
His idea was simplistic (but rather problematic in practice) but get all the commercial broadcasters - who broadcast at least on FTA channel on Freeview as the benchmark - to chip as well, as the over 75's watch their services - along with the BBC and keep the free licence fee going.
If the BBC, ITV, 4, 5, Sky, Discovery, Sony, ect all paid eaqually into the pot, the actual amount paid by each wouldn't be more than £90-£100 million per year for each broacaster.
Its an unusual idea but it could work in theory and yes there would be issues.The channels would be paying to ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in society would still have access to tv. In a way it would be a social service.
It might lead to squabbles between the various commercial broadcasters, about the share of the levy they each pay, and it might open a hornets' nest of questions and protests from the commercial broadcasters, claiming that
if the BBC can't live within its means, why should they help them out ?
RTE in Ireland is funded both by licence fee and by advertising. The Irish government permits RTE to receive funding from a compulsory licence fee which currently stands at €160 per year per household. In addition RTE is permitted to advertise on its channels, but there are severe restrictions in place on how much they can advertise.
For example, on a commercial channel, a one hour programme would normally have three commercial breaks in it. On RTE, a one hour programme would be limited to two commercial breaks.
The Irish government knew in 1961 when Telefis Eireann was being set up and ready to launch on 31st December 1961 that they simply could not last on a licence fee, as the number of people in Ireland paying it would be minute compared to the UK, so a limited form of advertising allowance was permitted ever since.
Would the UK government ever consider this? I doubt it.
RTE in Ireland is funded both by licence fee and by advertising. The Irish government permits RTE to receive funding from a compulsory licence fee which currently stands at €160 per year per household. In addition RTE is permitted to advertise on its channels, but there are severe restrictions in place on how much they can advertise.
For example, on a commercial channel, a one hour programme would normally have three commercial breaks in it. On RTE, a one hour programme would be limited to two commercial breaks.
The Irish government knew in 1961 when Telefis Eireann was being set up and ready to launch on 31st December 1961 that they simply could not last on a licence fee, as the number of people in Ireland paying it would be minute compared to the UK, so a limited form of advertising allowance was permitted ever since.
Would the UK government ever consider this? I doubt it.
In the 2016 financial year, RTE received €158 million from the advertising revenue permitted by the government. They received from the licence fee €179 million. So RTE received €337 million in the 2016 financial year altogether. Pittance compared to the billions received by the BBC of course, but of course two different broadcasters.
Imagine if the BBC were permitted to advertise on their channels, but in accordance with the RTE model of restrictions. Would it work?
