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

Mosquito46

We take the BBC for granted and fail to see what an asset it is, warts, errors and all. And also what value for money it is too.

I did some research on this in 2007, so the figures relate to then, but doubtless the ratios and principles remain the same. Searching around on the Ofcom website, I found that that total commercial TV advertising revenue is running at about £4 billion a year. Total retail spending in the UK runs at about £264 billion a year. (Retail Consortium, thisismoney.co.uk).

So of that £264 billion, £4 billion goes to pay for commercial television. That's about 1.5%. So 1.5% of every shopping basket on average is what you pay for commercial television. To match the current licence fee for the BBC at that level, you would have to spend £8,766.66 a year. Or another way, if you spend less than £8,766.66 then the BBC is costing you more than commercial television, if you spend more than £8766.66 a year, and most people do, commercial television is costing you more than the BBC, especially if on top of retail spending, you are paying again through subscription fees.

But that is not the end of the story.

Commercial TV however costs most people far more than the licence fee, and is hidden and unaccountable.

Commercial TV is financed by the sale of advertising, which ultimately comes from the consumer. The total advertising income of commercial TV in the UK is about £4 billion a year. Retail spending in the UK amounts to roughly £264 Billion annually. Therefore of the £264 billion a year spend in the shops by ordinary people, £4 billion, or about 1.5% goes to the Commercial TV companies. But that is not the end of the cost to the consumer. The £4 billion is only what the TV companies charge, not what it costs other companies to hire an advertising agency to run a campaign and make TV adverts.

Let's take not just any advert, but an M&S advert. They hire an agency to create a series for broadcast. Suppose the TV companies charge £100K to screen it. But on top of that £100K, M&S have had to pay the agency their fees, the production costs etc. amounting to several times the £100K. So rapidly the 1.5% of the shopping basket reaches more like 5%.

5% of most peoples annual spending comes to far more than the licence fee, and then many people are also conned to paying again to watch it through subscription and Pay TV! No wonder commercial TV was described as a licence to print money! A BECTU study has even put the cost as high as 13% of consumer spending. But there is no outcry because this most inflationary and hidden 'tax' is unnoticed.

trevorpayne1

The BBC license is incredible value for money - if you use the service. It includes 5 excellent TV channels, over 7 radio channels (3 of them indispensible) and a fantastic website, plus a lot more.

We pay Sky something like £750 per year for effectively 3-6 channels we really like. It's nowhere near the value the BBC offers but we can't get the restricted service Sky offers any other way.

If pressed I wouldn't mind a subscription service for the BBC as long as those who can't afford it get it free. I would abandon Sky to pay for it.

But NO ADVERTS please. They destroy the mood and continuity of the very programmes they fund. I never watch ITV or Channel 4 because of them.

As far as the license fee is concerned we won't know what we had until we have got rid of it. The license funded BBC is an exquisitely British institution which we should cherish.

Trevor Payne

Cleany

rapido wrote: »

Umm... no, for the £19 Variety Pack, it seems to be about 25 channels according to:

http://www.sky.com/shop/tv/entertainment-packs/variety-pack/

That includes gambling channels Sky Poker and Sky Vegas!

It also includes Dave, Quest, Sky 3 and Virgin 1, i.e. what are free on Freeview.

So let's make it 19 exclusive non-gambling channels for £19 a month.

All with many adverts and colourful on screen symbols.

No thanks.

-rapido

you obviously dont have sky. there are hundreds of channels on the sattelite which you also get. there's a lot of foreign ones, and a lot of rubbish, but also a lot of good stuff, and independant and specialist programming.

and as you mention freeview, it's not free, because you have to pay the BBC even if you dont watch bbc channels.

at least with sky you have a choice. you can pay and have it, which includes a free pvr (of which a decent quality one costs at the very least £100), or not pay. you can even not pay for the priviledge of looking down your noses at people who do have it, now that's value!

i think we should all be able to choose what tv channels we pay for. you obviously like the bbc service and think it's worth the money. but remember that's just your opinion, and it's so inexpensive because millions of others are forced to pay for it, subsidising your viewing and listening.

trevorpayne1

I wish I had read Mosquito's reply before I wrote my own. Brilliant.

ambyuk

I absolutely don't believe in the license fee, and do not have a TV signal because of it. We have a small TV that we use for DVD's and Wii, but it's not connected to any antenna or anything.

I think it's criminal... public TV in the States (where I used to live) is made free by fundraising telethons, I'd rather that or ads.

I don't necessarily object to people paying to support the BBC, but I think it's really wrong that you are FORCED to support them if you want to watch TV legally. If I could choose to have a TV but not get BBC without paying, I would do so.

payitforwardeddie_2

lucylucky wrote: »

If she does not need a licence fee then she has no need to pay it. Save some money for goodness sake. No one will fine her for anything as she is doing no wrong.

From Citizens Advice Bureau.

Who needs a television licence

You need a TV Licence to use any television-receiving equipment to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV. These include programmes on the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, cable and satellite television. Television-receiving equipment includes:

• TV sets
• set-top boxes
• DVD recorders
• video recorders
• computers
• mobile phones or other battery-operated devices.

You don't need a television licence if a TV set cannot receive TV programmes and is used only:

• for close circuit monitoring
• for watching pre-recorded videos or DVDs
• as a computer monitor – see under heading You don't use your television set or other device to watch or record broadcast programmes.

You don't need a TV licence to watch catch-up services, like BBC i-Player, that let you watch programmes after they have been broadcast.


A television licence allows the person named on it and any member of their household to use one or more television sets or video recorders.
If you only have a black and white television, you only require a black and white television licence. If you have a colour television, a DVD recorder or video recorder, you will require a colour television licence. This will apply even if the DVD or video recorder is used with a black and white television set.

So there you have it. Watch your favourite programmes on iPlayer.
ITS FREE.

hitatotatus

Even though on a tight budget, I would continue with the licence. The programmes have deteriorated over the years (eg.hole in the wall, wipeout - RUBBISH. Where are the great productions - Brideshead, Pride and Prejudice, Martin Chuzzlewit??
I hate having to sit through the adverts on other channels, which seem to go on forever now and they synchronise them, so even if you change to another commercial channel - they are now showing there aswell!! I just mute when that happens . It does annoy me that the BBC advertises their own programmes with endless trailers too.
However, I find their websites an excellent resourse for general information and especially for the children's research and general learning. Also their Schools programmes on BBC helped teach my then three year old to read and spell (he is now 13 and spells ANY word you ask accurately) - Words and Pictures, Storytime, etc. At the moment, they are using the Bitesize touch typing programme to learn to type, although this skill will probably be obsolete in their working lifetime. :think:

Also, forgot the radio. Constantly tuned into Radio 2 and 4 in ours - no ads - great.

So if going commercial risked these services, I would definitely be against replacing the licence with advertising.

rapido

. .

payitforwardeddie_2

mosquito46 wrote: »

we take the bbc for granted and fail to see what an asset it is, warts, errors and all. And also what value for money it is too.

I did some research on this in 2007, so the figures relate to then, but doubtless the ratios and principles remain the same. Searching around on the ofcom website, i found that that total commercial tv advertising revenue is running at about £4 billion a year. Total retail spending in the uk runs at about £264 billion a year. (retail consortium, thisismoney.co.uk).

So of that £264 billion, £4 billion goes to pay for commercial television. That's about 1.5%. So 1.5% of every shopping basket on average is what you pay for commercial television. To match the current licence fee for the bbc at that level, you would have to spend £8,766.66 a year. Or another way, if you spend less than £8,766.66 then the bbc is costing you more than commercial television, if you spend more than £8766.66 a year, and most people do, commercial television is costing you more than the bbc, especially if on top of retail spending, you are paying again through subscription fees.

But that is not the end of the story.

Commercial tv however costs most people far more than the licence fee, and is hidden and unaccountable.

Commercial tv is financed by the sale of advertising, which ultimately comes from the consumer. The total advertising income of commercial tv in the uk is about £4 billion a year. Retail spending in the uk amounts to roughly £264 billion annually. Therefore of the £264 billion a year spend in the shops by ordinary people, £4 billion, or about 1.5% goes to the commercial tv companies. But that is not the end of the cost to the consumer. The £4 billion is only what the tv companies charge, not what it costs other companies to hire an advertising agency to run a campaign and make tv adverts.

Let's take not just any advert, but an m&s advert. They hire an agency to create a series for broadcast. Suppose the tv companies charge £100k to screen it. But on top of that £100k, m&s have had to pay the agency their fees, the production costs etc. Amounting to several times the £100k. So rapidly the 1.5% of the shopping basket reaches more like 5%.

5% of most peoples annual spending comes to far more than the licence fee, and then many people are also conned to paying again to watch it through subscription and pay tv! No wonder commercial tv was described as a licence to print money! A bectu study has even put the cost as high as 13% of consumer spending. But there is no outcry because this most inflationary and hidden 'tax' is unnoticed.

brilliant. Couldn't have put better.

Skeenfleent

1) BBC has no ads, it may seem unaccountable, but you don't get the propaganda / programme control that advertisers demand - i.e. if a programme is too controversial, it gets pulled as no advertiser wants to be associated. Controversial programmes are in the public interest.
Also, no worries about your kids being brainwashed with ads to buy this rubbish fad toy or this unhealthy fad snack, etc.

2) Sky shows more ads than commercial terrestrial TV, as far as I noticed (check how long the total programme schedule is per programme+ads). This gets really annoying.

3) You actually PAY Sky to show you this TV with the ads. Same with Virgin. It costs VERY little to broadcast the content, it costs to buy the content from content producers, but then can't the ads pay for this?
I find it ridiculous to pay twice for the same thing. The BBC can't be accused of that, whatever the perceived value-for-money of the licence fee may be.

4) Sky have an aggressive right-wing agenda, and are trying to expand their media ownership. Not healthy, regardless of your political persuasion, as it's ultimately anti freedom-of-speech to have one person/group controlling so much.

5) Sky are in my opinion heavily responsible for the separation of football and footballers from the common man. Sure, a lot of people watch it on TV, and are proper fans, but footballers' wages are ridiculous, and where do the clubs have to get funding for that from? Charging Sky, and the circle goes back around... If the money wasn't there, footballers would have to take whatever they were given, and that would still be a good salary for sure. Sky charge(d) how much for Sky Sports? Last time I checked, it was tens of pounds per month. That would basically buy one live match attendance per month and how many do Sky show of any given team per month? Not many.

Footballers didn't used to earn much, and were likely a lot more humble. They seemed to do it more for the kudos alone, all else being equal. Sky isn't entirely to blame for this, but I see them as helping harm the culture in this country. Look at our national team for another possible example of how it's been harmed.

6) Fox News. Education FAIL. Enough said!

7) As for funding TV with ads, once more, do you really want more ads in your life? The internet used to be better when there were less ads and spamming sites, a google search was much easier, etc. Just one example. Sure, ads can fund some great content, too, but once again, how much space does your brain have for learning real things if it's full of advertising blurb? Whatever your IQ, it's less space.