Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    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 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...
    I don't quite grasp how advert breaks would compromise the ability of the BBC to inform, educate and entertain. The public is exposed to a great amount of advertising already. Nobody just watches the BBC all day.

    I find product placement interesting because most people seem to support it and yet raise concern that the BBC would be "selling out" and compromising its independent nature by having conventional adverts. Doesn't product placement already do both of those things, by the same logic? That leads me to think that the only reason people are reluctant for the BBC to include conventional adverts is because adverts are an inconvenience.

    However, they are an extremely profitable inconvenience. Think how much money more advertising could raise. This would free up a lot of government money, and it could well help to preserve hundreds of jobs.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I'll defend the BBC or the NHS to the death.

    AWAY WITH YOU.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    But then who the hell would do uninterrupted F1 coverage?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Is the Coalition really Moaist?, when was that on? :eek3:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    I find product placement interesting because most people seem to support it and yet raise concern that the BBC would be "selling out" and compromising its independent nature by having conventional adverts. Doesn't product placement already do both of those things, by the same logic? That leads me to think that the only reason people are reluctant for the BBC to include conventional adverts is because adverts are an inconvenience.
    But the BBC isn't going to have product placement, only the commercial broadcasters.
    Offline

    7
    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.
    Why should we use one of the great things that still makes us a great country, to help with the deficit in which they played no part in making. In my opinion the BBC needs to remain independent and I'd hate to see the day it relinquishes what it has!
    If anything I'd happily pay that little extra for a tv license every year to help with the deficit just keep the BBC as it has been for its life!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I approve on the condition we finally remove the TV Licence and cut it off.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It isn't the British broadcasting corporation anymore. I refuse to get my news and opinion from other races, and I know I'm not alone.
    Offline

    8
    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.
    Considering it's self-funded by the TV license rather than Government funding, switching revenue to advertising won't have any effect on the deficit.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    They can either have adverts or the licence fee. But not both.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Viewing the website from Canada, it's full of adverts. They make a lot of dough from this. Same if you listen to audio or watch videos on it...has an advert before it plays.

    Ads in the UK though? Piss off.
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    19
    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.
    It'd be far more independent if it didn't have to rely on constantly taking the begging-bowl to a government minister.


    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Considering it's self-funded by the TV license rather than Government funding, switching revenue to advertising won't have any effect on the deficit.
    It would cut the tax burden on individuals - one of the most regressive taxes out there, no less. This could very easily be used to offset other tax cuts.

    If you don't own a telly though, that'd be a bit of a bugger.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It would cut the tax burden on individuals - one of the most regressive taxes out there, no less. This could very easily be used to offset other tax cuts.

    If you don't own a telly though, that'd be a bit of a bugger.
    Sure, but that's a different argument. It won't affect the deficit in any shape. Whether the BBC and the TV license exist or not won't make a jot of difference to the deficit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I would welcome one or two adverts (not millions like ITV and C4) - would give time for a toilet break and also give them some cash.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    :nooo:.
 
 
 

2,385

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.