We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Is the TV Licence fee worth it? Poll results/discussion
Options
Comments
-
Congratulations to Sigur for a glimpse of honesty. It's all about our self-appointed betters sponging off everyone else to fund their extremist propaganda. All for our own good, natch.
care to give me one example of 'extremist' propaganda?:dance:There's a real buzz about the neighbourhood :dance:0 -
No, that's not the same thing. Consumer markets work on a group-wide basis. You can't say what one person will do, but you can predict how a group will behave. An advert doesn't target me specifically, it targets everyone.
Likewise, on our own, you or I cannot influence how a large corporation behaves, but the unity of 100,000 MSE'ers can. To this extent, Martin Lewis personally wields a huge level of influence since a recommendation in his weekly email would have an incredible effect on people.
I don't say that we pay equally; clearly some will pay more than others (and I would concede that it's fairer since in general it will be in proportion to income, for the majority of people anyway). However I don't accept that we don't all to some degree pay towards advertising.
I agree it's a hard concept to understand, but you can put it quite simply - someone has to pay for advertising-led TV. You can certainly argue that advertising gives certain companies a larger slice of the pie and thus they can negotiate better deals, but all this is doing is squeezing profit margins - but all thus has to ultimately feed down the chain and sit with someone. And the consumer ultimately sits at the bottom of the chain.
Yes, you are right, someone has to pay for the funding of a commerical network (which is based on adverts).
But the main issue is, that someone has a choice to see if they want to pay for such funding if they feel strongly about it. If there is enough people who don't like an organisation paying too much adverts, the organisation either changes its way or doesn't. That's how consumer markets work. That's how MSE is alive. I think it works well - why? Because people is able to shop around for the lowest price.
Right now, the way BBC is funded means noone has the choice, regardless whether BBC is great value or not. People don't have a choice on if they pay or how much they pay.0 -
care to give me one example of 'extremist' propaganda?
Well I don't mind answering your question,BBC Feeds Terror Propaganda to Children
Britain's former spy chief accused the BBC of "parroting" Al Qaeda propaganda to children as young as six. Dame Pauline Neville Jones, who is also a former BBC governor, is infuriated at the stance the corporation's Newsround programme took on the September 11 attacks.
She accused the flagship children's news bulletin of feeding an "ugly undercurrent" which suggests the terrorist outrage was somehow justifiable. Newsround is aimed at viewers aged between six and 12.
On its website it answered the question concerning 9/11, "Why did they do it" by saying: "The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks."
After the public complained, the text was amended.
http://www.honestreporting.co.uk/articles/critiques/new/BBC_Feeds_Terror_Propaganda_to_Children.aspFury over BBC's plans to give extremists a platform
The BBC triggered outrage yesterday by calling for the views of extremists and fundamentalists to be given the same weight as those of mainstream politicians. The corporation's head of television news, Peter Horrocks, said groups such as the Taliban and the far-Right BNP need more airtime - at the expense of moderate opinion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=419738&in_page_id=1770The BBC funded a paintballing trip for men later accused of Islamic terrorism and failed to pass on information about the 21/7 bombers to police, a court was told yesterday.
The BBC paid Mr Hamid, an Islamic preacher who denies recruiting and grooming the men behind the failed July 2005 attack, a £300 fee to take part in the programme, Woolwich Crown Court was told.
It was alleged that Mr Hamid told a BBC reporter that he would use the corporation’s money to pay a fine imposed by magistrates for a public order offence.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3001102.ece
And of course I'd like to talk about the Balen Report too but the BBC spent £250,000 of TV Licence money to stop that report becoming public didn't they
0 -
But the main issue is, that someone has a choice to see if they want to pay for such funding if they feel strongly about it. If there is enough people who don't like an organisation paying too much adverts, the organisation either changes its way or doesn't. That's how consumer markets work. That's how MSE is alive. I think it works well - why? Because people is able to shop around for the lowest price.
Your theory would be perfectly sound but I don't think it's true that we can avoid it because of simple economic theory.
The companies which advertise most (or most cleverly, anyway) will, in general, get a larger share of the market and ergo have stronger buying power and push prices down. Yes, I can avoid these - you're right - but only by going to a company which doesn't advertise and therefore doesn't bring its prices down.
So my point is that I pay either way. I either pay higher prices directly or I pay a lower price at the point of purchase and higher prices elsewhere. The point is that the TV is not free, and I can't avoid paying for it.Says James, in my opinion, there's nothing in this world
Beats a '52 Vincent and a red headed girl0 -
The companies which advertise most (or most cleverly, anyway) will, in general, get a larger share of the market and ergo have stronger buying power and push prices down.
By Joe I think he's finally got it. Yes magyar the bigger buying power helps to drive the prices downSo my point is that I pay either way. I either pay higher prices directly or I pay a lower price at the point of purchase and higher prices elsewhere.
Damn spoke to soon he's done a 190 again and this is from a guy who doesn't even live in the UK.The point is that the TV is not free, and I can't avoid paying for it.
Not for us because we are forced to subsidise those in the UK who want eastenders paying for :rolleyes:
Say you said you aren't bothered about this anyway so why have you spent so much time on the topic ?0 -
Your theory would be perfectly sound but I don't think it's true that we can avoid it because of simple economic theory.
The companies which advertise most (or most cleverly, anyway) will, in general, get a larger share of the market and ergo have stronger buying power and push prices down. Yes, I can avoid these - you're right - but only by going to a company which doesn't advertise and therefore doesn't bring its prices down.
So my point is that I pay either way. I either pay higher prices directly or I pay a lower price at the point of purchase and higher prices elsewhere. The point is that the TV is not free, and I can't avoid paying for it.
Yes TV is not free.
Ok, let's go with your theory, everyone needs to pay costs to fund ITV. But, you also need to realise that the consumer markets are very competitive. The whole essence of MSE and a good consumer is to find the lowest price for the same quality. If that is the case, if the company wants still to advertise, it doesn't matter because the market driven pressure to sell at the lowest possible price to the consumer. (i.e. it is driven by the consumer) Therefore, if advertising will drive up product prices, consumer will not pay this.
Obviously, if you want to pay the higher price product (because of brand recognitiion maybe from adverts), you can, but that is your choice.
The way BBC is funded at the moment is not dictated by the consumer at all.0 -
Well I can see you have never been state side or you would know that their are the same amount of soaps and comedy so on and so forth for the US market/veiwers, and just as much is good/bad as over here.
You will find adverts over there just like here, and they are just as good/bad as here, so I dont know what your trying to get at but it clearly has no bearing on the licence fee as TV will only be as good or as bad as the viewer will find it, mind you at least the US (when I was there) didnt have last of the summer swine.
I interpret from that (and when I was watching TV in the US), is that you have the opening scene of a programme, then some ads. Then the theme music, then some ads. Then five minutes of the programme, then some ads, then another ten minutes of programme. Then some ads, then the final scene, more ads then the credits.
That is certainly what I fear will happen over here......:dance:There's a real buzz about the neighbourhood :dance:0 -
I interpret from that (and when I was watching TV in the US), is that you have the opening scene of a programme, then some ads. Then the theme music, then some ads. Then five minutes of the programme, then some ads, then another ten minutes of programme. Then some ads, then the final scene, more ads then the credits.
That is certainly what I fear will happen over here......
Just a note - as we do have commerical channels in the UK, I guess this should be happening in the UK already?0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards