Is the TV Licence fee worth it? Poll results/discussion

magyar

ronben wrote: »

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 used to live in Buffalo for while actually so I'm certainly familiar with watching US TV (I was trying to get across the difference between the quality of US shows - which I think is usually excellent - and the actual experience of watching them on US TV - which I think is dire).

To answer the point about why would it get better/worse over here if the BBC was scrapped, I think the point is that by scrapping the BBC you remove a fundamental point of 'advert-free TV'. Even subscription-based services like Sky still need advertising revenue. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any channels which rely solely on subscription?)

So once you've abandoned advert-free TV, you have no counter balance. At the moment I believe that if ITV was filled with as many advertisements (and to the same level of obtrusion) that you get in the USA, then viewers would quickly start switching to the advert-free BBC. If the BBC didn't exist then - as has happened in the USA - there's virtually no limit to how much commercials can intrude upon the actual programmes.

magyar

Schwade wrote: »

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.

Yes, I do have that choice, but the point I've been making all along is that the choice is not linked to watching ITV.

Your point about the Licence Fee is that you pay for the BBC even if you only watch ITV.

My point is that if I buy a pair of Levi jeans then I'm subsidising ITV even if I don't even have a television.

magyar

ronben wrote: »

You can get subscription only channels, Certain Sky Films.

OK point taken on that one.

Regarding advertisement regulation, then - well, maybe it would happen maybe it wouldn't - it certainly hasn't happened in the USA.

If we could promise a world where we get advertisement-led TV where the adverts weren't allowed to intrude on the programmes too much then the irony is people just wouldn't watch the adverts.

As a side note (and I get enough trouble for going off-topic ) is advertising-based TV going to be viable in the long term? I have Sky+ for example and can't remember the last time I sat through an advert...

Are we going to end up with subscription being the only viable option? In which case do you end up with basically Sky vs ANOther (e.g. a 'subscription based BBC'?) - all of which might end up costing people more than they currently pay?

Defiant_3

TNG wrote: »

That is certainly what I fear will happen over here......

Another opinion from the all knowing BBC people

Schwade wrote: »

Just a note - as we do have commerical channels in the UK, I guess this should be happening in the UK already?

Spot on but I doubt he will admit his opinion is wrong

TNG wrote: »

not to that extent. Opening scene then some ads before the opening credits? don't have that here yet......

And if you stopped trying to put your opinions as fact you'd already know this is governed by Ofcom :rolleyes:

ronben wrote: »

But if you do have advertised channels and no BBC you would hardly notice as long as advert times are regulated and films should run straight through, no adverts or news at ten :rolleyes:

But the BBC do advertise & here's some of the most recent,

Deals made

Children in Need

Sponsors last year BT, HSBC, Boots
Presenters Sir Terry Wogan, Fearne Cotton
What sponsors got “Contractual verbal and visual credits on BBC One” “Staff VIP tickets to TV studio show” “Licence to feature Pudsey on products”

Saving Planet

Earth Sponsor HSBC
Presenter Alan Titchmarsh
What it got “Contractual visual and verbal credits on BBC One on the appeal night” “Licence to feature campaign logo and trails in awareness-raising activity in branch” “VIP hospitality invitations”

Sports Personality of the Year

Sponsor Robinson’s
Presenters Gary Lineker and Sue Barker
What it got “Contractual visual and verbal credits on BBC One and Radio 5 Live” “Branding at preand postshow VIP parties” “Sponsor ticket promotions”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article3508207.ece?Submitted=true

Defiant_3

magyar wrote: »

Are we going to end up with subscription being the only viable option?

We have that now magyar. You have to pay the BBC TV Licence subscription fee or face a fine/prison

bunking_off

Schwade wrote: »

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.

Really? Not broken down by advertising medium, but HM Government is the third largest advertiser. Sounds like commercial TV is tax-payer funded, albeit via a less overt route...

Schwade

bunking_off wrote: »

Really? Not broken down by advertising medium, but HM Government is the third largest advertiser. Sounds like commercial TV is tax-payer funded, albeit via a less overt route...

And that's why I don't like government wasting money on advertising, just like us having to pay for the BBC.

Defiant_3

bunking_off wrote: »

Really? Not broken down by advertising medium, but HM Government is the third largest advertiser. Sounds like commercial TV is tax-payer funded, albeit via a less overt route...

And is the government forced to advertise or are they providing the public with genuine public service related information Iain which you wouldn't know about otherwise?

Wonder why the BBC are so scared of paying for the mighty BBC by themselves if its so good

exprog

bunking_off wrote: »

Really? Not broken down by advertising medium, but HM Government is the third largest advertiser. Sounds like commercial TV is tax-payer funded, albeit via a less overt route...

What are the chances that if it were broken down it would mostly be advertising in the Guardian for teaching posts, other worthwhile jobs, and a vast number of highly over-paid non-jobs in the public sector for leftoids to get paid for using State funds to promote left-wing propaganda?

ShelfStacker_3

After reading this thread through the only conclusion I've been able to come to is that anyone using the term "liberal left" as a pejorative probably has trouble tying their own shoelaces without arguing with them.

The BBC makes many good programmes which clearly millions of people enjoy, £11 a month for said good things seems worth the money to me. If you don't watch them then tough, that's the point of collective funding. I pay for education, benefits and the military through my taxes (I'm more than happy to in fact), but derive no direct benefit from them.

Frankly I'm grateful for the BBC if only because without them, ITV would probably give up on standards altogether.