TV license email BBC vs 28 July 2017 at 3:07PM in TV MoneySaving 20 replies 2.9K views

I'm_not_going_into

I have just received an email from the TV license people asking me to change over from paper licenses to email.

It has got me thinking about a few things -

Why if they are saving money from not sending out paper licenses are we not saving money?

Wouldn't it be a good idea to scrap the TV license and put adverts on the BBC that way they would surely get themselves more money?

Obviously it would be very annoying to sit there with an advertisement break while watching a programme but I for one could really do with saving £145.50 a year?

Please note, By posting this I do not intend to start an argument but it was just something I thought of that's all.

Neil_Jones

The problem with moving the BBC to an advertising base is the fact it would distort the market greatly, that and the fact commercial TV can often be seen of as lowest common denominator programming where the need to chase viewers to watch the adverts often results in quality of programming dropping through the floor.

Don't forget your fee not only funds BBC One and Two but also the other BBC channels, the national BBC radio stations, the local BBC Radio stations, the website and some other stuff as well.

I'm_not_going_into

Yes, hadn't thought of that Neil good point. Doubt my tiny comment would have made much of an impact on how they operate but I agree with you regarding the radio etc.

Neil_Jones

The BBC is one of those things that we'd miss if it went from its current operation. We all probably complain about the number of adverts on TV today, an average of 12mins per hour so the average length of a 60min commercial programme without them only runs for about 47 minutes, so you'd be loosing that amount of programming time if the BBC went down the ITV route for example.

There's some figures here about what portion of the total income goes on what services:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/14/how-does-the-bbc-spend-its-5bn-in-licence-fee-money/

I'm_not_going_into

That's brilliant, thank you very much Neil. Yes hadn't thought of the time value of a programme that's on for an hour! Kudos to you!
I shall have a look at the link tomorrow. You have certainly confirmed in my mind that the BBC needs to stay the way it is.
I used to think as a child how amazing it would have been when SKY was introduced to have a purely 'advert channel' but these days as an adult it would be an absolute nightmare!!

iniltous

Slightly off topic, but the 12 mins of adverts in an hour can be averaged over a 24 hour period, so that's not necessarily 12 mins every hour, so for example if they so desired a commercial broadcaster could show 3 mins of adverts in the hours 02.00 - 06.00 when hardly anyone is watching, and adverts are 'cheap' and cram in the 'saved' 36 mins when they wanted, say between 18.00 and 22.00 when its peak time and adverts cost more to the advertiser, obviously the broadcaster can adjust these timings to suit themselves as long as the average isn't exceeded

brewerdave

I'd (almost) be happy to pay to fund the Beeb - IF they got some control over their costs. But the fact remains that they are still wasting money hand over fist eg the ridiculous salaries being paid to presenters (£600K to John Humphries -really ??) and the obsession with live presenting of news which adds absolutely nothing eg when they sent a crew/presenter to stand outside the apartments where Maddy Mac Cain "disappeared.
The argument of "having to pay the market rate" is unsustainable with a publicly funded broadcaster.

victor2

iniltous wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but the 12 mins of adverts in an hour can be averaged over a 24 hour period, so that's not necessarily 12 mins every hour, so for example if they so desired a commercial broadcaster could show 3 mins of adverts in the hours 02.00 - 06.00 when hardly anyone is watching, and adverts are 'cheap' and cram in the 'saved' 36 mins when they wanted, say between 18.00 and 22.00 when its peak time and adverts cost more to the advertiser, obviously the broadcaster can adjust these timings to suit themselves as long as the average isn't exceeded

But advertisers pay premiums to be shown at peak times and during popular shows. The revenue for the TV companies from adverts shown in the wee hours would be peanuts compared to peak times.
With so many "catch-up" services now (many of which don't allow you to fast forward through the commercials), I would imagine the advertising fees are programme based much more than broadcast times.

I'm_not_going_into

The only time you cannot fast forward something on 'catch-up' is when the programme hasn't fully downloaded yet. We have found this quite a lot of late (but we are impatient)!
When we watch the dreaded coronation street on catch-up they cut to the commercials but it doesn't actually show them it then goes straight into the second part of the show.

brewerdave

Again off topic - but there was a discussion some time ago, on another forum ,when it was alleged that, in future, the new Sky Q boxes could be programmed to prevent fast forwarding thru advert breaks:eek:

I'm_not_going_into

Oh gawd! That's not good is it!! Why on earth would SKY even try to implement that? Surely that's the whole point in having SKY+ HD Q? You fast forward the ad's!! ����