'Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?' poll discussion

kcm_2

Ladies and gents, are some of you seriously saying you'd rather the BBC was free and so had to get money through heavy product placing and constant adverts??

I'd pay MORE to the BBC to avoid Rupert Murdoch style TV and I'm not rich by any means! I do agree it should come down a bit if poss - certainly not rise for the next two years as it is quite expensive but have you guys watched american tv?? The ads are longer than the programmes! It's horrendous, ITV, C4 and C5 are bad enough but it will get worse in time. New product placement codes guarantee as much (which was a dreadful idea).

As a woman I'm sick to death of seeing adverts forcing me to buy crap products cos apparantely I'm worth it (their products aren't), explotation of women, enhanced products that don't do what they say on the tin (and they say as much using the "enhanced in post production" one liner basically meaning the product you're seeing isnt actually true!) and please god I don't want this toot on the BBC! They have on the whole a great variety of programmes and good quality journalism and people really should back off them. If you all keep on sniping at them and we were to lose them to become like ITV (which I don't watch because it's so rubbish) you would all be the first to complain! ITV try to maintain standards to keep up with the BBC so if they didn't have to TV as we know it would become as awful as most of the crap we all flick past on Sky!

Dr Who would never have been made on ITV and the BBC do not constantly re-run Bond films or Carry On.. films etc etc every week to bore us to tears. They constantly produce quality dramas not all of which are my cuppa but that doesnt mean they are bad. I'm not sure I've watched anything on ITV other than a replayed film once or twice in a year that I've liked - and ITV just pay to show them - they aren't even made by them! Plus they take an hour longer to watch!

They aren't perfect but they are a damn sight better than the alternatives out there.

Gareth_Lazelle

It's always worth considering how the Quality of the BBCs output forces other channels to up their game,

Or to put it another way, imagine how bad Sky, ITV et al might be if their output didn't have to compete with ad-free BBC output...

Even if you never ever watch (or listen to, or visit the website) the BBC, you still benefit from that,

Paul_Herring

kcm wrote: »

Ladies and gents, are some of you seriously saying you'd rather the BBC was free and so had to get money through heavy product placing and constant adverts??

Since the BBC already do those things, I'm failing to see the objectionable difference.

Just this morning, BBC news was plugging the website.

Not "for more details of $X, see our site at http://bbc.co.uk/news/whatever.html" - it was just "And finally, don't forget we have a website. At http://bbc.co.uk. And here's John with the weather..."

Cleany

kcm wrote: »

Ladies and gents, are some of you seriously saying you'd rather the BBC was free and so had to get money through heavy product placing and constant adverts??

I have Sky+ and don't mind adverts, same for other people who have different PVRs (hard disk video recorders). Even when I have to watch them they're not that bad and I can make a cup of tea of initiate some relievement in the bathroom.

Personally I'd put up with some adverts on channels I rarely watch to save myself nearly £150 a year.

kcm wrote: »

I'd pay MORE to the BBC to avoid Rupert Murdoch style TV and I'm not rich by any means! I do agree it should come down a bit if poss - certainly not rise for the next two years as it is quite expensive but have you guys watched american tv?? The ads are longer than the programmes! It's horrendous, ITV, C4 and C5 are bad enough but it will get worse in time. New product placement codes guarantee as much (which was a dreadful idea).

As a woman I'm sick to death of seeing adverts forcing me to buy crap products cos apparantely I'm worth it (their products aren't), explotation of women, enhanced products that don't do what they say on the tin (and they say as much using the "enhanced in post production" one liner basically meaning the product you're seeing isnt actually true!) and please god I don't want this toot on the BBC!

You can resist!!

kcm wrote: »

They have on the whole a great variety of programmes and good quality journalism and people really should back off them.

No they don't. They use ratings to measure their programming just like the commercial channels, and there's just as much rubbish on there as anywhere else. I suggest you watch TV Burp, or some Charlie Brooker to widen your perceptions.

kcm wrote: »

If you all keep on sniping at them and we were to lose them to become like ITV (which I don't watch because it's so rubbish) you would all be the first to complain! ITV try to maintain standards to keep up with the BBC so if they didn't have to TV as we know it would become as awful as most of the crap we all flick past on Sky!

There are hundreds of channels on Sky so of course there's more crap, but there's also more good programming on the Sky channels. There's simply more, in fact a LOT more for your money that you get with the BBC.

kcm wrote: »

Dr Who would never have been made on ITV and the BBC do not constantly re-run Bond films or Carry On.. films etc etc every week to bore us to tears. They constantly produce quality dramas not all of which are my cuppa but that doesnt mean they are bad. I'm not sure I've watched anything on ITV other than a replayed film once or twice in a year that I've liked - and ITV just pay to show them - they aren't even made by them! Plus they take an hour longer to watch!

You may think the BBC make "quality" drama and programmes, I don't. Ill the directing is the same focusing on people's facial expressions, and cameras behind objects rubbish. And what about the comedy? I just watched a glimpse of the new comedy thing with the old men the other day, good god it was pathetic. What happened to the original programming of the and early 80s, the young ones and stuff like that? We'll never see the likes of that stuff again because it's all politically correct, focus group run, boring, and unoriginal rubbish that nearly 5 billion pounds is WASTED on every year.

kcm wrote: »

They aren't perfect but they are a damn sight better than the alternatives out there.

They're no better than any alternative, paid for or free. In fact it's probably the worst value or choice for your money on the entire planet. 4 Channels for over £12 a month. Basic Sky has hundreds of channels for as little as £18.50 a month, then there's the free ones. Then there's the radio channels and websites. I don't want to pay for them, I want to choose.

CHOOSE

C H O O S E ! !

greymatter

A better method of keeping the BBC ad-free would be via a monthly prescription. That way, people can watch Sky etc without paying for a licence and the huge cost of collecting the licence fee could be saved.

The BBC would then have to enter the real world to a. pay their employees and luvvies at a more realistic level (8million for Ross and half a million for 'directors' is ludicrous) and b. produce programs that people want to sign up for (less repeats!).

rapido

. .

dirtywork

The Licence Fee is incredibly good value - it's worth it for Radio 4 & the BBC website alone! And you're not constantly interrupted with irritating ads ..

Those who argue that the BBC supplies a lot of stuff they're not interested in & therefore shouldn't have to pay the full whack, forget that if you subscribe to Sky - you also get a lot of stuff you'll never watch., and have to pay extra if you want sports, movies etc

The BBC doesn't do itself any favours though - the furore over the Ross/Brand episode for example ...

If you've ever lived outside the UK and watched/listened to other national public service broadcasters you soon realise what a gem the BBC is. OK - it's not perfect, but still light years ahead of anything else ...

davejong

It splits the vote of those who support the license fee, so makes the "scrap the license" position appear to be the dominant view.

rapido

. .

Paul_Herring

rapido wrote: »

Well the difference is that these are cross promotions for other non commercial BBC services, not advertisements.

You appear to making a distinction where there is none. Self-promotion is advertising. The only patent difference is no money is changing hands for it to happen.

admittedly they seem to do it a bit too often

They do it any time there isn't a programme on, and - the news is the worst culprit for doing this - actually during programmes.

• John Humphries: "Casualty actor Sunetra Sarker today opened a supermarket in Frumpton-upon-Puddle...."
  
• [ Banner across the bottom of Dr: Who during a tense moment - "Watch Grahame Norton in 'Dorothy's got Talent'" ]*
  
• Fiona Bruce: "Eastenders is, this year, enjoying their 127th anniversary...."
  
• "And finally, don't forget we have a website. At http://bbc.co.uk. And here's John with the weather..."

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which of these actually happened and which may contain a smidgen of hyperbole.

* Who says the BBC doesn't make anything but Quality programming?