Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Considering the large deficit, isn't it time to use the BBC as a source of revenue by putting adverts on it, as all other television channels do? The outrage a few months ago regarding the large salaries of BBC chiefs did not seem to lead to a demand for the organisation to raise its own money. Nobody likes to watch adverts, but think how many public sector jobs could be saved with the money raised.

    My personal opinion is that some recent articles and programmes, such as "Is the Coalition really Maoist?" and a programme I can't recall the name of that was essentially stirring xenophobia and hysteria about China's economic growth, are a waste of taxpayers' money. There's no doubt that the BBC produces some quality media as well, but considering the hard times I really can't see why we can't do the obvious, efficient thing and let it pay for itself. Then it can publish tabloid-esque nonsense to it's hearts content.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I would hate to see this
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Stop ****ging the BBC off, its one of the only independent organisations left in the world; you would miss it if it was gone.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No because it would compromise their impartiality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    Considering the large deficit, isn't it time to use the BBC as a source of revenue by putting adverts on it, as all other television channels do? The outrage a few months ago regarding the large salaries of BBC chiefs did not seem to lead to a demand for the organisation to raise its own money. Nobody likes to watch adverts, but think how many public sector jobs could be saved with the money raised.

    My personal opinion is that some recent articles and programmes, such as "Is the Coalition really Maoist?" and a programme I can't recall the name of that was essentially stirring xenophobia and hysteria about China's economic growth, are a waste of taxpayers' money. There's no doubt that the BBC produces some quality media as well, but considering the hard times I really can't see why we can't do the obvious, efficient thing and let it pay for itself. Then it can publish tabloid-esque nonsense to it's hearts content.
    The BBC isn't allowed adverts however it's commercial arm can. It is shame that due to stringent regulations, it can't expand it's commercial arm (otherwise the from Daily Mail to the Murdoch clan- outrage).

    We already have three/four other PSBs that have adverts- ITV, Ch4 and Ch5. If the BBC were too have advert it would saturate the market further. Even ITV, Ch4 and Ch5 are considering alternative ways to expand their base and the advertising has become saturated and there isn't much money.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nooooo. I like it when the film I'm watching gets to a nail biting part and I'm not interrupted by 'Have a happy period'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously, the BBC has a binding responsibility to provide 'public service broadcasting' (programmes in the public good, however you define it, often referred to by Reith's motto of 'Inform, Educate, Entertain'). To that end organisations like the BBC Trust exist solely to monitor whether, and ensure that, it's doing this: and internally I imagine it's much the same idea. Let's not forget this is the content-provider for a plethora of other channels: Dave certainly springs to mind.

    So is it really in the BBC's interests to, as you say, 'let it pay for itself'? Well, product placement it already does, and this has eased the BBC's 'strain' on the license fee: whether it should go even further and outrightly advertise we'll all have our own opinions about. I myself wouldn't want it: I find ad breaks irritating, splitting a programme up and encouraging sensationalist cliff-hanger endings prior to each break. You don't, after all, want someone to switch over because the programme seems to have gone nowhere in its first 15 minutes.

    Plus we also need to be very careful when introducing such commercial values into the BBC environ: I think an understanding compromise needs to be struck between the duty of the BBC to 'inform, educate, and entertain', and the commercial (and political?) desire for it to pay for itself. Would its founding spirit of 'public service broadcasting' survive in its entirety? Probably not. Would it remain to an 'acceptable' degree? Hm. I wouldn't say so, but it's open for debate.

    For those of you wanting to be lulled by the (hopelessly-biased) Stephen Fry on this issue, he did a Podgram on it...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I like the sund of the BBC being allowed to accept advertising in the form of product placement on popular shows, like a massive board advertising a product as part of a scene in the background, but i'd hate to see 5 minutes of tedious adverts every half hour....unless they include cats with thumbs xD
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Despite the deficit I still think the BBC has ample amounts of revenue. We are going to see reporters or actors fired any time soon.



    A bit like how actors still make millions despite loosing money to piracy

    Plus it's the taxpayers channel. We technically pay for it through our taxes. So technically they aren't "loosing customers or subscribers"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AmroTT)
    Obviously, the BBC has a binding responsibility to provide 'public service broadcasting' (programmes in the public good, however you define it, often referred to by Reith's motto of 'Inform, Educate, Entertain'). To that end organisations like the BBC Trust exist solely to monitor whether, and ensure that, it's doing this: and internally I imagine it's much the same idea. Let's not forget this is the content-provider for a plethora of other channels: Dave certainly springs to mind.

    So is it really in the BBC's interests to, as you say, 'let it pay for itself'? Well, product placement it already does, and this has eased the BBC's 'strain' on the license fee: whether it should go even further and outrightly advertise we'll all have our own opinions about. I myself wouldn't want it: I find ad breaks irritating, splitting a programme up and encouraging sensationalist cliff-hanger endings prior to each break. You don't, after all, want someone to switch over because the programme seems to have gone nowhere in its first 15 minutes.

    Plus we also need to be very careful when introducing such commercial values into the BBC environ: I think we need to be very careful between the duty of the BBC to 'inform, educate, and entertain', and to pay for itself. Would its founding spirit of 'public service broadcasting' survive in its entirety? Probably not. Would it remain to an 'acceptable' degree? Hm. I wouldn't say so, but it's open for debate.

    For those of you wanting to be lulled by the (hopelessly-biased) Stephen Fry on this issue, he did a Podgram on it...
    Addtionally I think the BBC should merge with ITV, and Ch4 as they are free to air channels as well as this, it should create a paywall and provide it's own digitial box, buy sports and film and US show rights etc....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    Addtionally I think the BBC should merge with ITV, and Ch4 as they are free to air channels as well as this, it should create a paywall and provide it's own digitial box, buy sports and film and US show rights etc....
    Really? I like the Beeb and ITV's joint ventures like FreeSat, good idea; and the ITV-/i-Players have been trendsetting, but mergers? How? Why?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AmroTT)
    Really? I like the Beeb and ITV's joint ventures like FreeSat, good idea; and the ITV-/i-Players have been trendsetting, but mergers? How? Why?
    The way tv is going - sky is becoming dominant due to less regulations. Sky is now producing good stuff and competing with BBC and ITV slowly but surely.

    We need to redress the balance.

    The BBC merged with ITV and Ch4 would increase revenue for this one merged organisation but it will allow this organisations to act competitively. It would help them to expand nationally and internationally. Freesat is success and so will Youview (their latest venture). However the BBC is regulated too heavily, the same thing with ITV. By allowing a bigger organisation- we would get more competition in the area instead of monoply that is Sky.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The BBC, especially TMS, Radio 4 and some of the nature/wildlife programmes, is part of the uniqueness of the UK. Let's not go the way of the US, or even of ITV and pander to some commercial god.

    Some of its remit could change for the better, but please no adverts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    The way tv is going - sky is becoming dominant due to less regulations. Sky is now producing good stuff and competing with BBC and ITV slowly but surely.

    We need to redress the balance.

    The BBC merged with ITV and Ch4 would increase revenue for this one merged organisation but it will allow this organisations to act competitively. It would help them to expand nationally and internationally. Freesat is success and so will Youview (their latest venture). However the BBC is regulated too heavily, the same thing with ITV. By allowing a bigger organisation- we would get more competition in the area instead of monoply that is Sky.
    Mmm, I wouldn't count on Murdoch's dominance just yet. The UK isn't the US, and I'd be very surprised if our media ended up much the same. However, logistics. How on earth are you going to simply merge ITV, Channel 4, and the Beeb together? You do realise they're all in the midst of relocation projects at the moment? The three organisations are actively growing and competing against each other today, simply lumping them all together would have to be a political act, and one lacking public support at that.

    Secondly, is Sky really that much of a threat? Sky's speciality, however Virgin Media is trying to challenge it, is in the distribution of the content: Sky+, the modularised system of 'Sky Movies', 'Sky Kids', 'Sky [Whatever]'. Just take the example of Setanta, contracts between content providers and distributors can shift very rapidly, Sky's strength is not primarily in its TV channels but its set-top boxes. So why, if they aren't really competing in this sense, should the BBC & co. fight them?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samconly)
    Stop ****ging the BBC off, its one of the only independent organisations left in the world; you would miss it if it was gone.
    I didn't **** the BBC off, I picked up on a couple of pieces which I thought were poor. If you'll notice, I acknowledged that it also produces quality media.

    When did I insinuate that I would compromise the BBC's independence, or indeed that I want to get rid of it?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    Addtionally I think the BBC should merge with ITV, and Ch4 as they are free to air channels as well as this, it should create a paywall and provide it's own digitial box, buy sports and film and US show rights etc....
    Are you serious? The BBC, ITV and Channel4 merging into 1 big super pay-tv provider is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard in this area...

    I guess it would result in Channel 5's viewership rocketing, they'd certainly support it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    For the love of god - no!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't watch the BBC. It is undoubtedly one of the most biased peices of crap on the Box. And its televiion programes are mostly ****.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AmroTT)
    Mmm, I wouldn't count on Murdoch's dominance just yet. The UK isn't the US, and I'd be very surprised if our media ended up much the same. However, logistics. How on earth are you going to simply merge ITV, Channel 4, and the Beeb together? You do realise they're all in the midst of relocation projects at the moment? The three organisations are actively growing and competing against each other today, simply lumping them all together would have to be a political act, and one lacking public support at that.

    Secondly, is Sky really that much of a threat? Sky's speciality, however Virgin Media is trying to challenge it, is in the distribution of the content: Sky+, the modularised system of 'Sky Movies', 'Sky Kids', 'Sky [Whatever]'. Just take the example of Setanta, contracts between content providers and distributors can shift very rapidly, Sky's strength is not primarily in its TV channels but its set-top boxes. So why, if they aren't really competing in this sense, should the BBC & co. fight them?
    Part of Sky's success is the fact it holds HBO rights, US show rights, Sports Rights and Film rights as well being dominant in paywall market. It far bigger than BBC, ITV and Ch4 together anyway.

    I advocate less regulations for the BBC, ITV and Ch4. Ch4 is losing money and now relying on money from the BBC worldwide's profits as a result the Labour government forcing this. The BBC doesn't own Ch4 at the moment. They are separate organisations. That seems daft. Why should CH4 rely on BBC's profits to keep going? Merging the two would make sense. ITV is slowly expanding it's programming but is finding it difficult to get money from advertising. BBC and ITV have worked together before and proved a very successful relationship. A BBC and ITV and CH4merger could allow it to compete for rights and compete with Sky on television.

    I agree with you- it is not the USA. The BBC looking internationally to expand. BBC and ITV already share facilities. The two organisations are working together. Why not cement the bricks?
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.