B94villa Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Yeah you're right, they will forgive anything for ratings. Remember reading somewhere that the budget they get is astronomical compared to other programmes because it brings viewers in. Which is fine, but but that faux antiestablishment crap really annoys me, especially when people lap it up. If he really thinks the organisation is run by disabled Asian lesbians who fleece the licence payer, he should give his fee back and piss off to Channel 5. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 He begged forgiveness after the 'eeny, meeny' footage and was meant to be on a final warning for offensive behaviour. That apology looks a little empty now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 (edited) Never really get the issue people have with a TV license, it costs what, £12 a month? For that you get BBC1, BBC2, various other channels plus all the radio stations including Radio 5. I can't see what anyone doesn't get their money's worth from that. unless you never watch BBC1/BBC2 or listen to BBC Radio. I basically only watch American series, films. with a bit of E4, ITV2, CH4, More4, music channels, and sports. MOTD & Top Gear may be the only 2 interactions with the BBC i ever have, both watched on catch-up (never live). i really shouldn't bother having a tv licence should i? Yes. It is irrelevant how frequently you watch it, you watch it and that requires a license. It is like saying you don't need car insurance because you only drive now and then. Yes I know the two things are vastly different but the principle is the same, its a requirement for accessing the service so regardless of how frequently you access it then yes you should have to pay. What I am against its the lack of choice. If you choose to only watch the other channels and not BBC then you shouldn't be forced to pay a license fee. Basically if you buy a tv you are required to give your address and the tv licensing people will come after you. I'm not saying the BBC don't offer a good service but its a bit of an outdated institution going back to the days when you could only get BBC and ITV. Edited October 5, 2014 by PaulC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted October 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 5, 2014 “Twenty-five per cent of the licence fee is collected in the Midlands but only 2.5 per cent is reinvested. It’s a taxation without representation.” 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2014 What I am against its the lack of choice. If you choose to only watch the other channels and not BBC then you shouldn't be forced to pay a license fee. Basically if you buy a tv you are required to give your address and the tv licensing people will come after you. I'm not saying the BBC don't offer a good service but its a bit of an outdated institution going back to the days when you could only get BBC and ITV. I don't really disagree but until such time as technology can completely control access to TV and Radio to those who pay their license then it will remain an imperfect system but one that I for one am more than happy to contribute to. I generally feel that a lot of objectors to the license fee significantly down play or under estimate the amount which they access BBC content (TV, Website and Radio) in a year. To me its good value, its a national institution and one I think everyone should contribute to and help sustain. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 So you're happy to watch the products but want to exploit a loop hole to avoid paying anything to contribute to them being made. More than happy thanks. If the BBC vanished there is very little I'd miss. For a supposedly 'impartial' channel the news is virtually unwatchable. I use the sport website but no shortage of alternatives. I'd miss maybe 2 or 3 programs. If I had to pay for these I wouldn't bother, but while they're free I'll watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 What I am against its the lack of choice. If you choose to only watch the other channels and not BBC then you shouldn't be forced to pay a license fee. Basically if you buy a tv you are required to give your address and the tv licensing people will come after you. I'm not saying the BBC don't offer a good service but its a bit of an outdated institution going back to the days when you could only get BBC and ITV. I don't really disagree but until such time as technology can completely control access to TV and Radio to those who pay their license then it will remain an imperfect system but one that I for one am more than happy to contribute to. I generally feel that a lot of objectors to the license fee significantly down play or under estimate the amount which they access BBC content (TV, Website and Radio) in a year. To me its good value, its a national institution and one I think everyone should contribute to and help sustain. Yes it does represent great value for money when you consider all the radio stations as well as the diversity of coverage and no annoying adverts as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 I'd much rather have ads on the BBC and save £150 a year thanks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 I'd much rather have ads on the BBC and save £150 a year thanks. id rather pay Sky and not have ads ...oh wait !! adverts are bloody annoying , cant even watch a youtube clip or the news now without Lionel Messi trying to flog your something 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 The no adverts thing, radio 1 is full of adverts, but it's adverts for other bbc stuff so that doesn't count? I'm that accustomed to them now they don't bother me, the biggest problem with adverts is the fact that they are usually dire, especially during the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 (edited) Ads = toilet break, make a brew, check my phone. They don't bother me as I don't watch them. Simple. I'd much rather do something else for 3 minutes during a BBC show than pay the licence fee. Edited October 5, 2014 by Ingram85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 The no adverts thing, radio 1 is full of adverts, but it's adverts for other bbc stuff so that doesn't count? I'm that accustomed to them now they don't bother me, the biggest problem with adverts is the fact that they are usually dire, especially during the day Radio 1 is just noise for teenagers. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Ads = toilet break, make a brew, check my phone. They don't bother me as I don't watch them. Simple. I'd much rather do something else for 3 minutes during a BBC show than pay the licence fee. It's not just adverts, it pays for the higher quality of programming... at least compared to other channels. Television has taken a bit of a dip in recent years but still, the licence fee is well worth it for 2 series of Have I Got News For You every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Buy them on DVD and save over a hundred quid then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Would if they were and it pays for new episodes to be produced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Whilst Clarkson is clearly a word removed, I doubt he's personally responsible for acquiring said numberplate. He's a presenter. It'll be one of the 'researchers/execs' etc working on the show, thinking it'll be funny. It will, to a spotty 14 year old boy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Didn't Robson Green have trouble with the natives when he went to Ushuaia as well ? Probably just don't like out of towners ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B94villa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Whilst Clarkson is clearly a word removed, I doubt he's personally responsible for acquiring said numberplate. He's a presenter. It'll be one of the 'researchers/execs' etc working on the show, thinking it'll be funny. It will, to a spotty 14 year old boy. I get what you're saying, even if he didn't have any input he's still free to say no. Plus I doubt they'd even suggest it if someone else was presenting the show. They're just pandering to the word removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I can completely imagine it playing out, they'd have kept quiet about it until right at the end. Then one of the locals would be pointing at it and looking less than impressed. Jeremy and co would give it the full OMG treatment before being hilariously ran out of town. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post kidlewis Posted October 6, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 6, 2014 I would suspect that ITV and C4 are bricking themselves if the BBC ever went commercial. 1. the BBC (regardless of your opinion) has serious weight and all ITV and C4 brand building can do jack to help that. Aside from their shows like Downton which get global audience. 2. We all know what happens when other terrestrial channels get things like football coverage. 3. BBC Worldwide alone brought in nearly 50% of the entire revenue the ITV group did last year. So with only trying a little bit, the BBC only commercial arm got 43% of the way to matching revenue for ITV. 4. BBC would be able to cut spend without impacting too much on the real quality shows. 5. Based on public website statistics, (and they already do this for people accessing their websites from abroad) that if they simply put RTB inventory across their web network and added pre roll adverts to their iplayer (multi platform) that purely on it's own would hit over £250m, and that's being conservative. Add to that the potential for utilising the absolute monster database of consumer information both from license information and people downloading and engaging with apps and other BBC applications, they could make a F Ton of money. Now why would ITV etc really care about that? well the TV operator with the largest share of the terrestrial channel market, across the times of the day and days of the week would open up their inventory to advertisers. Knowing every single advertiser on the other channels books, not only had the largest audience but now multiple channels in which to operate, would have to split their marketing budget across those channels too. Essentially ITV, C5, Sky and you name it would lose millions each and collectively close to £1bn in advertising revenue, which would go to the BBC. I have ranted with the cretins at FUBAR radio about this and the Ban the BBC campaign. People are saying it would be a good thing for the consumer it would be, saves many £150 per year but expect the fact that other channels spend and therefore shows would get crapper, re-runs would get even more utilised as fillers in between a shrunken state of new material and the overall product would decrease. That said, with marketing spends generally (particularly online) increasing all the time, you could say eventually things would even themselves out. You only need to look at other giants who moved into a slightly different market and see that it can seriously shake things up. I remember when Xbox first launched and the then head of Sony (cannot remember the name) in short laughed off the suggestion that Microsoft could rival them in the games console business...... who's laughing now... Adverts are changing, they themselves need to be great content which engages people. It's not about flashy ads, it has to be targeted and relevant to the consumer on an individual basis. Sky themselves are running personalised advertising programs based on what is recorded on your sky box and what is marked as reminders, they link together online behaviour on their website activity (for example if you are on the sports website, fully expect sky sports adverts if you don't already have it) Within two years the BBC could scrap the license fee, and move into the commercial arena, and essentially ruin the advertising revenue streams of every other player in TV. Fact. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts