TV Licence article Discussion

Sorry could not resist Cornucopia wrote "... it has produced an improvement in the efficiency and profitability of the business at no cost to consumers. "

Sorry your logic is incorrect. Yes it is a benefit for the business but all the costs (including advertising) come from revenue i.e. sales that are a cost to the consumer.

Nobody has yet mentioned (AFAIAA) that some advertising (and sponsorship which is just another form of the same) can play on the weaknesses of individuals and some such ones have needed to be banned).

....end

Heedtheadvice wrote: »

Sorry could not resist Cornucopia wrote "... it has produced an improvement in the efficiency and profitability of the business at no cost to consumers"

Sorry your logic is incorrect. Yes it is a benefit for the business but all the costs (including advertising) come from revenue i.e. sales that are a cost to the consumer.

The logic is not "incorrect". The notional business has grown from zero advertising spend to "some" advertising spend at no cost to consumers. That is the whole point - it's fundamentally about economies of scale.

Nobody has yet mentioned (AFAIAA) that some advertising (and sponsorship which is just another form of the same) can play on the weaknesses of individuals and some such ones have needed to be banned).

I'm not sure that the need for advertising to be regulated is an argument against the entirety of commercial media - assuming that's what you're saying?

That's a bit like saying: some cats get stuck in trees, so we should ban cats... and trees.

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

They've increased their sales of baked beans by £1m.
For that to have happened, other baked bean companies have lost sales, as have other non-baked bean companies (e.g. tinned spaghetti companies). These companies are now running at reduced efficiencies (so balancing out the gains made by your company) or have had to fold (decreasing competition in the baked bean market and so driving up prices). So we're back to square one.

Overall, across the entire economy, perhaps. Or perhaps one of those companies has gone on to create a totally new product that has increased the overall size of the market? If we're going to have a capitalist economy and allow consumers to be fundamentally fickle, then company failures or "re-focusing" are an inevitable part of that - irrespective of the influence of advertising.

However, it has little or no bearing on the topic under consideration, I wouldn't have thought.

Or, what would probably happen, the other companies also feel the need to advertise to claw back £1m of sales. They do that, and the previous status quo is restored. Your company is back at 50% capacity and £2m sales. But they are down by the cost of the advertising. As are their competitors. So the price of baked beans goes up across the board to fund the advertising.
It's like a cold-war arms race. Each side needs to keep up with the other for fear of them getting too far ahead but nothing useful is coming out of it (for anyone other than the arms companies / advertising companies).

Does it work like that, though? Maybe for some market segments, but not for Baked Beans, I don't think, where a significant proportion of sales are driven by own-brand. Therefore if all the branded options get more expensive, a proportion of customers will defect to own-brand, which is not subject to that kind of pressure (assuming it exists in that way).

The only credible reference on this question that I've ever found suggests that the price-effect of advertising is broadly neutral - any tendency for advertising costs to increase the cost of goods is balanced both by economies of scale and the power of the market.

If there were a demonstrable effect to the contrary, I would have thought it would be obvious in academic research, popular memes and political manifestos. We'd be clamouring for advertising to be banned as the pointless, expensive thing it allegedly is... and yet, that's not happening here and now, and AFAIAA has never happened anywhere or at any time in human history (and advertising goes back a long, long way).

Heedtheadvice wrote: »

I do note however that within the debate for the 'funding model' there is plenty on negative sentiment and wonder if some comments are just anti-BBC rather than about the licence fee itself!

As a passing comment I note that a recent survey "Moneywise users brand TV licence unfair" actually 51% are supportive of a licence fee but perversely 6% thought it should not apply to catch-up services and another lot thought TV should be free. They should know there is 'no such thing as a free lunch'

So ends my contribution for the moment as things with a greater impact than the licence fee call!

Well you have it wrong for me, I sort of like the BBC but it is the licence fee and all the dodgy practice that is associated with it that I find unnaceptable.

I do not think that it is fair that you are presumed guilty because you do not have licence.

I do not like that Crapita teach their staff to lie and deceive the public on their front door.

I do not like that Crapita harass people over and over again, I do not think they should be allowed to come to your door at all.

I do not like the letters that are written to mislead people.

I do not like the hounding aspect of the letters "will you be in on the 30th April" shown on the outside of the envelope which can cause reputational damage.

There are aspects of the BBC as an organisation that I do not like, mostly it is that they have the disease of spending other people's money, then over the years instead of focusing on being the best they can be their primary focus is about protecting the damn empire that keeps them overpaid.

I do not like ads and I think there are parts of the BBC that need to be protected, but I no longer watch the BBC, I made the decision not to watch because I found my lifestyle was affected by being "fed" junk tv. I used to watch F1 but they sold that off to Sky, I was not going to pay Sky one cent so that was the end of F1 for me. Other than that there was nothing I really miss.

Thinking about it, I can't imagine any other organisation with whom I terminate my service getting away with the harassment that the BBC employ via Crapita.

Imagine if my mobile phone provider or broadband supplier did the kind of crap that Crapita do.

In my last letter from them they said they visit 10,101 addresses a DAY!!

That is harassment!

Hello everyone,
Just to double check something with you as receied some confusing info on whether to pay this rip-off fee or not...
This has been actually my first letter I've received, although in the letter they stated that they tried to contact me without any success... not true at all.

Secndly, I've been living in the UK for 4 ys, and have just moved to my new address. At my old place my rent basicaly covered everything, that's the reason why I've never heard of such a fee nor had to pay anything seperately via/to my landlord..
However after this "warning" letter I was a bit scared... I moved in a month ago and only set up a broadband accound with NOW TV, have no TV at all and never watched BBC programmes live...
Please could you tell me if I am "eligible" for this fee, do I need to worry about or just bin it? Can they really have the right to conduct any search in my premises?Thanks a lot for your advice!