BBC licence fee poll.

[TTwiggy]

Cotty said:

if it was quality stuff it would be self funding.

Have you hit upon a business model that has so far eluded ITV, C5, Sky, Netlix, Amazon...?

[Cotty]

TTwiggy said:

Cotty said:

if it was quality stuff it would be self funding.

Have you hit upon a business model that has so far eluded ITV, C5, Sky, Netlix, Amazon...?

Self funding in that they could support themselves via adverts or sales of the series via subscription or DVD's i.e. not requiring funds received from a licence that other companies do not receive.

[C70R]

TTwiggy said:

Cotty said:

TTwiggy said:

No, it relied on Fox to produce it from the money they get from advertising. They then sold it to Amazon who charge you to watch it. Running a download service is very different to producing original content however. Netflix and Amazon are now moving into this arena but it's tiny steps compared to the BBC's current output.

Well perhaps if they stopped paying people stupid money they could produce more original content that people would be willing to pay for.

Eh? They produce loads of original content. And the money they pay presenters is small beer compared to other costs. Salaries are also market led - I'm not sure if it's been mentioned on this thread but when Susanna Reid moved from the BBC to ITV her salary went from circa £250k to over £1million.

You're just not going to win this one. Give up.
He doesn't watch (BBC) TV, and can't imagine why anyone would, in spite of acknowledging that they make some content that he actually pays for.

[C70R]

Cotty said:

TTwiggy said:

Cotty said:

if it was quality stuff it would be self funding.

Have you hit upon a business model that has so far eluded ITV, C5, Sky, Netlix, Amazon...?

Self funding in that they could support themselves via adverts or sales of the series via subscription or DVD's i.e. not requiring funds received from a licence that other companies do not receive.

Is that really your best shot at an alternative?

Advertising: Abandoning one of their major USPs, and having to create content that sells adverts? As with all other commercial channels, it results in less of the awesome, niche content (that you are a fan of).
Sales of series: They already do this via BBCWW and DVDs. Are you really suggesting that this can support all of the diverse services that the BBC offers?
Subscription: It's not going to cut the mustard. None of the subscription services are making enough money from one country to cover the cost of BBC creating and providing content across all of their platforms.

Until a sensible alternative is provided, I am happy to pay the licence fee. I'm not even a huge consumer of BBC services (half an hour of radio a day, 6-7hrs of TV a week), let alone a huge advocate of the service - but even I can see that it's worth the limited expense.

[Cotty]

C70R said:

Is that really your best shot at an alternative?

Im not an expert, its not my field. As a consumer I pay for what I watch, if that is not viable for a producer I don't have an answer.

[anonymous-user]

They keep threatening me, I keep waiting for them but they never show.

[Cotty]

Raygun said:

They keep threatening me, I keep waiting for them but they never show.

I have had the letters and notes though the door to say "we visited but you were out". If they had evidence I was watching live TV they would take me to court, they haven't because I don't so it's pointless.

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[chris watton]

Lord Marylebone said:

I cannot believe it either.

I know TV watching habits have changed rapidly over the past few years, and I have even posted about it myself previously, but I still find it a stretch to believe that there are so many people who absolutely never watch any form of live TV from any provider.

I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I just find it a bit of a stretch.

I do - the only programme right now that I record live (according to our SKY planner) is Game of Thrones, so we must pay the BBC licence. As said before, given the choice, I do not think I would subscribe to the BBC, not with its current news and current affairs output. however, even then, the bias permeates to a lot of standard programming which I notice when watching box sets I buy for my wife (Silent Witness being one).

I am relatively politically neutral (the only party I have never voted for in the past is Green), I distrust/dislike all of them more or less the same, but the left/one-sided bias is incredibly apparent. More so if you stop watching for a time and go back to it. It feels as if it is run for and on behalf of the Labour/Green Parties and targeted at those in the public sector. This is probably why those of a left disposition and/or work in and/or around the public sector defend it the most, I don't think it's no coincidence.

The fee isn't the issue for me so much, it is the bias that needs addressing. If this was sorted, I would agree that it is VFM (even though none of us genuinely do not watch any of the BBC channels - but once in a while, there is something that is worth watching, but this is getting rarer (Night Manager was the last thing we watched, I think). In the meantime, I resent paying it

[technodup]

C70R said:

Subscription: It's not going to cut the mustard. None of the subscription services are making enough money from one country to cover the cost of BBC creating and providing content across all of their platforms.

You realise that's part of the problem? The BBC has too many platforms, too many channels, too many radio stations and a behemoth of a website.

The other issue is that because the BBC are all over every platform out there, smaller providers can't compete. So we don't get the choice we otherwise might.

The BBC website is the most popular in the UK. Is that because it's the best? Or it it because of it's inbuilt competitive advantage gained by nearly a century of being the 'state' broadcaster?

[Cotty]

Raygun said:

I don't, with Youtube and Vimeo helping me out with music, sad as it is music is my main interest and watching films, cookery programmes and Strictly Dancing bores me stless.

Let me just take one of your examples being cookery programmes. Even if someone were into cookery programs, there are thousands of hours of content on Youtube

To pick a somewhat popular "TV chef" Jamie Oliver he has his own Youtube channel containing hundreds of hours of content.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpSgg_ECBj25s9moC...

Someone who has never been on TV Scott Rea from his Youtube channel The Scott Rea Project. Proper hands on butchery. I can quite happily watch him butcher a whole pig, sheep, cow etc. and show how to cook traditional dishes
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs_t4Om5siqqFtVGd...

Al's Kitchen showing you how to cook proper curry at home.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC95tDLezE8WD3p3tB...

Trevor James The Food Ranger. Showing street food around the world
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiAq_SU0ED1C6vWFM...

Gordon Ramsey
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIEv3lZ_tNXHzL3ox...

This is just from the channels I watch. I can't see this stuff on TV and there is more than enough content outside of cooking shows to keep me occupied without paying a licence.

[alock]

I think the BBC should move to a position like English Heritage and state funded museums.

Government funding (either from a broadcast tax or general taxation) to maintain and make available historic radio/TV assets of importance as well as creating new content of long term importance. E.g. their nature documentaries and many of the special interest BBC 4 programs. Their mandate needs to change to one of documenting and preserving information like a museum does.

All dramas, news, political, reality, sport programs should move to a comercial arm. This can be funded by subscription or adverts.

They would then not be competing with comercial radio stations so wouldn't needs to pay people £500k/year to read the news or £2m/year to talk about football.

[mybrainhurts]

Cotty said:

To pick a somewhat popular "TV chef" Jamie Oliver he has his own Youtube channel containing hundreds of hours of content.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpSgg_ECBj25s9moC...

Please stop doing things like that.

I might have accidentally opened it and reacted by disembowelling myself.

You really ought to be more responsible with your posts.

[Nothingtoseehere]

[redacted]

[Hosenbugler]

[redacted]

[Cotty]

[redacted]

[technodup]

[redacted]

[chrispmartha]

technodup said:

C70R said:

Subscription: It's not going to cut the mustard. None of the subscription services are making enough money from one country to cover the cost of BBC creating and providing content across all of their platforms.

You realise that's part of the problem? The BBC has too many platforms, too many channels, too many radio stations and a behemoth of a website.

The other issue is that because the BBC are all over every platform out there, smaller providers can't compete. So we don't get the choice we otherwise might.

The BBC website is the most popular in the UK. Is that because it's the best? Or it it because of it's inbuilt competitive advantage gained by nearly a century of being the 'state' broadcaster?

Eh? The point is the BBC caters for everyone and it should all over every platform, surely that means it is good value for money.

As for the website it probably is the best all round website in the UK, you seem to be framing that as a bad thing?

[Cotty]

mybrainhurts said:

Cotty said:

To pick a somewhat popular "TV chef" Jamie Oliver he has his own Youtube channel containing hundreds of hours of content.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpSgg_ECBj25s9moC...

Please stop doing things like that.

I might have accidentally opened it and reacted by disembowelling myself.

You really ought to be more responsible with your posts.

I did say somewhat popular and put his name its not like i Rick Rolled you.

Here is an interesting BBQ vid to calm your nerves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39ii9LvnDoE