Really? Any evidence of that? The BBC always cleans up at the awards ceremonies across a whole range of genres. You mention two soaps on the Beeb. EastEnders is one...which is the other?
It's not just the programming though is it...it is the overall 'service'. There is nothing more jarring than ads interrupting a show. They are intrusive, disruptive and a complete waste of time.
I'm not saying that everything the BBC does is to my taste or first rate, but generally speaking, if you want quality and variety, the BBC is the one-stop-shop really. I know this much, if it wasn't for the BBC forcing ITV to make some sort of effort, standards there would be even lower. If they could get away with just showing the test card, they would.
Your views are extreme, not watching commercial tv because its mentally draining, therefore you only watch the BBC will not be mirrored by the majority of the viewing public, that requires no evidence.
You're the one who just watches the BBC, surely you would have known the other soap is Doctors - it's even won awards..
The BBC always cleans up at the awards, keep dreaming, they won very little at the 2014 TV awards.
Are the production values so much better on the BBC that it justifies public funding? Celebrity talent shows on commercial television hardly have bits of studios falling down. Compare Graham Nortons chat show with Chatty Man or any other interview chat show. I'm sorry but the difference is negligible.
Yes we'll never know - but wasn't Britains Got Talent equally a punt? The return of Saturday night amateur talent shows sounded awful when proposed but it was enjoyed by a mass audience. Even I watched a series of that when the Scottish lady sang!
There's proof right there that commercial television produced drivel is a suitable alternative to drivel paid for through public funds.
Generally, and across a wide range of content, I'd say production values are often higher on the BBC compared to other FTA channels. Or to be fair, its probably fairer to say on the main terrestrial channels than other FTA digital channels.
I don't think BGT was as big a punt at all for a couple of reasons - it had Cowell behind it, an it was basically a format that has proven successful for as long as television. The thing that made Strictly more of a punt was the whole ballroom dancing thing.
The fact is that there is so much high quality content outside the BBC that is available to us. And what's more it's more exciting and more relevant than anything the snoozefest Beeb seem to broadcast!
Its not deluded at all.
The issue seems to be getting confused. It sounded as though you were saying there wasn't anything on the BBC that interested you, but now you seem to be saying that you are happy to watch stuff on channels other than the BBC. Which is fine, but not the same thing.
It does beg the question though - if there was something that on the BBC that you were interested in, why wouldn't you watch it? I would have though that most people watch programmes that interest them regardless of what channel it was on.
As for the soaps - As far as I can see the BBC and ITV both carry two soaps, so I don't know where you get ITV is full of soaps, well I can, it's just another one of your sweeping statements.
To be fair, in primetime ITV has at least twice as much Emmerdale and Corrie as there is Eastenders. And usually when BGT or IAC is on, there is very little on ITV primetime other than Emmerdale / Corrie plus BGT or IAC.
Which is understandable - ITV is reliant on ad revenue, and that formula brings in a load of revenue and enables them to do better stuff like the drama they do.
Would argue that its in the interests of broadcasting generally that the BBC isn't reliant on advertising in the same way. Plus if it was, ITV would see a decline in ad revenue. And from there its a vicious downward spiral.
I can accept that people don't want to pay the licence fee - I just wish people wouldn't try to argue that losing it would be in the collective interests of everyone.
Your views are extreme, not watching commercial tv because its mentally draining, therefore you only watch the BBC will not be mirrored by the majority of the viewing public, that requires no evidence.
You're the one who just watches the BBC, surely you would have known the other soap is Doctors - it's even won awards..
The BBC always cleans up at the awards, keep dreaming, they won very little at the 2014 TV awards.
It's a celebrity talent show, the celebrity meat parade is always populist. That's why they use celebrities.
Of course not. SCD at it's heart is a celebrity talent show. If it was a professional dance competition perhaps I could see where your coming from.
As an aside, do all threads that discuss the merits of funding for the BBC come down to a debate of if strictly come dancing is any good or not?
Not at all. My point is that BBC should be doing a show like Strictly because the content is not commercial. Some people go, oh that show is getting lots of viewers therefore the ITV could do it, forgetting of course that it wouldn't have been commissioned at all if it hadn't been for the Beeb and the licence fee because in most cases, the content wouldn't have been commercial enough.
Generally, and across a wide range of content, I'd say production values are often higher on the BBC compared to other FTA channels. Or to be fair, its probably fairer to say on the main terrestrial channels than other FTA digital channels.
I don't think BGT was as big a punt at all for a couple of reasons - it had Cowell behind it, an it was basically a format that has proven successful for as long as television. The thing that made Strictly more of a punt was the whole ballroom dancing thing.
Your comments on production values had me thinking. Part of the reason could be that BBC attracts better talent for a variety of reasons, I.e prestige, final salary pensions, employment security etc.
if the talent that supported the type of broadcasts we're talking of had to move to the other channels, then perhaps they'd improve production values?
Your 2nd paragraph, I seem to recall it being called risky at the time, it was a departure from Cowells normal rubbish.
How have they faired at, say, the BAFTAs over the last 10 years?
No idea I'm afraid, I just looked at the last TV awards for winners to see how the BBC faired, as it was claimed they always cleared up, I didn't have to look far to dispell that claim.
I'm sure the BBC have won their fair share of awards, just as other channels do, to make out they are the be all and end all of tv entertainment is frankly ridiculous.
Your views are extreme, not watching commercial tv because its mentally draining, therefore you only watch the BBC will not be mirrored by the majority of the viewing public, that requires no evidence.
You're the one who just watches the BBC, surely you would have known the other soap is Doctors - it's even won awards..
The BBC always cleans up at the awards, keep dreaming, they won very little at the 2014 TV awards.
I stand by my comment about the ad-channels. They are a chore to watch and completely draining. I accept that not everyone has the same take, but given that since 2001 (and for the first time in it's history) BBC1 is the most watched channel. I would put that down to the fact that the channel has a variety of programming all uninterrupted coupled with declining standards on ITV.
Yeap...ok Doctors... sorry, I thought we were talking about prime time. The BBC only has EastEnders during peak time against Emmerdale and Coronation Street daily (for obvious reasons) on the other side.
Your comments on production values had me thinking. Part of the reason could be that BBC attracts better talent for a variety of reasons, I.e prestige, final salary pensions, employment security etc.
The BBC has not had a final salary scheme for almost 9 years now ...
And the " civil service like" scheme " old benefits closed in 1996 ....
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/currentmembers
No idea I'm afraid, I just looked at the last TV awards for winners to see how the BBC faired, as it was claimed they always cleared up, I didn't have to look far to dispell that claim.
I'm sure the BBC have won their fair share of awards, just as other channels do, to make out they are the be all and end all of tv entertainment is frankly ridiculous.
The BAFTAs would probably be a better indicator as they're not limited to light entertainment, and they're not simply a public voted popularity contest.
I could be wrong, but I would bet that looking at the BAFTAs over a decade that the BBC would have won a disproportionately high number.
The BBC has not had a final salary scheme for almost 9 years now ...
And the " civil service like" scheme " old benefits closed in 1996 ....
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/currentmembers
Your comments on production values had me thinking. Part of the reason could be that BBC attracts better talent for a variety of reasons, I.e prestige, final salary pensions, employment security etc.
if the talent that supported the type of broadcasts we're talking of had to move to the other channels, then perhaps they'd improve production values?
Your 2nd paragraph, I seem to recall it being called risky at the time, it was a departure from Cowells normal rubbish.
Not necessarily if it was in part due to budget. One fundamental difference between the BBC and commercial channels is that the BBC doesn't exist to make a profit for shareholders.
BGT was not as big a risk as Strictly for the reasons already given. Its not as though "tv talent show" was uncharted territory. And yes, I know Come Dancing was a big show in the 70s, but by the time it was axed it was airing in a midweek graveyard slot and was deeply unfashionable.
Your comments on production values had me thinking. Part of the reason could be that BBC attracts better talent for a variety of reasons, I.e prestige, final salary pensions, employment security etc.
if the talent that supported the type of broadcasts we're talking of had to move to the other channels, then perhaps they'd improve production values?
Your 2nd paragraph, I seem to recall it being called risky at the time, it was a departure from Cowells normal rubbish.
I would certainly say that prestige would have something to do with it...with some stay on at the Beeb along with a certain amount of security. Salary on the other hand is certainly not an incentive. It's why a lot of BBC talent ends up at ITV like Ant and Dec and Susannah Reed, for example. I liked her on the BBC. Shame she left.
Not necessarily if it was in part due to budget. One fundamental difference between the BBC and commercial channels is that the BBC doesn't exist to make a profit for shareholders.
BGT was not as big a risk as Strictly for the reasons already given. Its not as though "tv talent show" was uncharted territory. And yes, I know Come Dancing was a big show in the 70s, but by the time it was axed it was airing in a midweek graveyard slot and was deeply unfashionable.
I remember Come Dancing with Angela and Terry. How not to dispel the image that ballroom dancing isn't cool ay.
Strictly is clever really...introducing to the nation to niche interest dancing via celebs, professional dancers and judges qualified to judge. Brilliant...just brilliant.
The BAFTAs would probably be a better indicator as they're not limited to light entertainment, and they're not simply a public voted popularity contest.
I could be wrong, but I would bet that looking at the BAFTAs over a decade that the BBC would have won a disproportionately high number.
I stand by my comment about the ad-channels. They are a chore to watch and completely draining. I accept that not everyone has the same take, but given that since 2001 (and for the first time in it's history) BBC1 is the most watched channel. I would put that down to the fact that the channel has a variety of programming all uninterrupted coupled with declining standards on ITV.
Yeap...ok Doctors... sorry, I thought we were talking about prime time. The BBC only has EastEnders during peak time against Emmerdale and Coronation Street daily (for obvious reasons) on the other side.
Timeshift and fast forward through the ads or watch catchup, why would anyone boycott commercial TV and miss things that could be of interest. Some drama on ITV is just as highly regarded as those on the BBC, ie. Broadchurch, Downton Abbey, Whitechapel, at the end of the day you are the one missing out.
I'm sure most people find films entertaining. So the BBC shouldn't show any films?
Are documentaries entertaining? I'm sure some may be, for whatever reason. So the BBC can't show documentaries now; under your idea.
If there's alternative with more or less the same offer, why should the state provide a competitor?
Well for a start it will be 25% longer
Tell me what's special about light entertainment that it needs to be funded by the tax payer when there's a perfectly suitable alternative being offered by multiple providers in the private sector.
I'm sure most people watch TV to be entertained; and as most people pay for their TLV then why should the BBC not provide them with entertaining programmes?
I know - I'm not sure why people often seem to compare the two as though they are the same.
To be fair (and I always try to be fair) the comparison is usually TFX v The Voice.
But even then The Voice is the better show if for no other reason that it doesn't belittle or denigrate those taking part and they can at least all sing to some degree as there are pre-auditions to weed out those who can't.
Plus there's up to 25% more content per hour
It raises another point though - which is the question of whether the commercial channels would make all the programmes they do if similar stuff hadn't proven popular elsewhere first.
BBC Strictly -> ITV Dancing On Ice
BBC Who Do You Think You Are -> ITV You Don't Know You're Born (Though lasted less than 1 season)
BBC Top Gear -> Channel 5 Fifth Gear
If you can't find anything here that interests you then you then ... well, I don't know what, to be honest.
The fact is that there is so much high quality content outside the BBC that is available to us. And what's more it's more exciting and more relevant than anything the snoozefest Beeb seem to broadcast!
And yet BBC1 and BBC2 are, even in multi-channel homes, the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster. So that puts your thoughts into context
Thankfully your views/opinions are not shared by the majority of the viewing public.
See my above comment re most-watched channels.
As for the soaps - As far as I can see the BBC and ITV both carry two soaps, so I don't know where you get ITV is full of soaps, well I can, it's just another one of your sweeping statements.
I voted no ads on the BBC, but thinking about some ads might be OK - eg. between shows, during natural breaks in sports events, in popular entertainment shows like Strictly and reality shows, but I wouldn't want them in films or drama as it spoils the continuity.
When compared to the programming the cost of the channel is comparatively little. THAT is a fact and is what I was referring to.
Strange how you didn't get that but most other people (at least, the ones who posted about it) did. Well, not so much "strange" as "par for the course" with you.
When compared to the programming the cost of the channel is comparatively little. THAT is a fact and is what I was referring to.
Strange how you didn't get that but most other people (at least, the ones who posted about it) did. Well, not so much "strange" as "par for the course" with you.
As I said, you dismissed the cost of a channel, what £5M? as relatively unimportant.
To be fair (and I always try to be fair) the comparison is usually TFX v The Voice.
But even then The Voice is the better show if for no other reason that it doesn't belittle or denigrate those taking part and they can at least all sing to some degree as there are pre-auditions to weed out those who can't.
I enjoy the Voice, but without checking I couldn't name all the winners, and to be honest I can't recall any of them making it big, now the X Factor is a completely different story.
Of course sh!t Factor is a different story, Cowell buys them instant success, cant have the winner of his talentless freak contest getting beaten in the charts by talented musicians/singers!
Comments
You're the one who just watches the BBC, surely you would have known the other soap is Doctors - it's even won awards..
The BBC always cleans up at the awards, keep dreaming, they won very little at the 2014 TV awards.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_National_Television_Awards
Generally, and across a wide range of content, I'd say production values are often higher on the BBC compared to other FTA channels. Or to be fair, its probably fairer to say on the main terrestrial channels than other FTA digital channels.
I don't think BGT was as big a punt at all for a couple of reasons - it had Cowell behind it, an it was basically a format that has proven successful for as long as television. The thing that made Strictly more of a punt was the whole ballroom dancing thing.
Its not deluded at all.
The issue seems to be getting confused. It sounded as though you were saying there wasn't anything on the BBC that interested you, but now you seem to be saying that you are happy to watch stuff on channels other than the BBC. Which is fine, but not the same thing.
It does beg the question though - if there was something that on the BBC that you were interested in, why wouldn't you watch it? I would have though that most people watch programmes that interest them regardless of what channel it was on.
To be fair, in primetime ITV has at least twice as much Emmerdale and Corrie as there is Eastenders. And usually when BGT or IAC is on, there is very little on ITV primetime other than Emmerdale / Corrie plus BGT or IAC.
Which is understandable - ITV is reliant on ad revenue, and that formula brings in a load of revenue and enables them to do better stuff like the drama they do.
Would argue that its in the interests of broadcasting generally that the BBC isn't reliant on advertising in the same way. Plus if it was, ITV would see a decline in ad revenue. And from there its a vicious downward spiral.
I can accept that people don't want to pay the licence fee - I just wish people wouldn't try to argue that losing it would be in the collective interests of everyone.
How have they faired at, say, the BAFTAs over the last 10 years?
Not at all. My point is that BBC should be doing a show like Strictly because the content is not commercial. Some people go, oh that show is getting lots of viewers therefore the ITV could do it, forgetting of course that it wouldn't have been commissioned at all if it hadn't been for the Beeb and the licence fee because in most cases, the content wouldn't have been commercial enough.
Your comments on production values had me thinking. Part of the reason could be that BBC attracts better talent for a variety of reasons, I.e prestige, final salary pensions, employment security etc.
if the talent that supported the type of broadcasts we're talking of had to move to the other channels, then perhaps they'd improve production values?
Your 2nd paragraph, I seem to recall it being called risky at the time, it was a departure from Cowells normal rubbish.
No idea I'm afraid, I just looked at the last TV awards for winners to see how the BBC faired, as it was claimed they always cleared up, I didn't have to look far to dispell that claim.
I'm sure the BBC have won their fair share of awards, just as other channels do, to make out they are the be all and end all of tv entertainment is frankly ridiculous.
I stand by my comment about the ad-channels. They are a chore to watch and completely draining. I accept that not everyone has the same take, but given that since 2001 (and for the first time in it's history) BBC1 is the most watched channel. I would put that down to the fact that the channel has a variety of programming all uninterrupted coupled with declining standards on ITV.
Yeap...ok Doctors... sorry, I thought we were talking about prime time. The BBC only has EastEnders during peak time against Emmerdale and Coronation Street daily (for obvious reasons) on the other side.
The BBC has not had a final salary scheme for almost 9 years now ...
And the " civil service like" scheme " old benefits closed in 1996 ....
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/currentmembers
The BAFTAs would probably be a better indicator as they're not limited to light entertainment, and they're not simply a public voted popularity contest.
I could be wrong, but I would bet that looking at the BAFTAs over a decade that the BBC would have won a disproportionately high number.
I didn't know that
Not necessarily if it was in part due to budget. One fundamental difference between the BBC and commercial channels is that the BBC doesn't exist to make a profit for shareholders.
BGT was not as big a risk as Strictly for the reasons already given. Its not as though "tv talent show" was uncharted territory. And yes, I know Come Dancing was a big show in the 70s, but by the time it was axed it was airing in a midweek graveyard slot and was deeply unfashionable.
I would certainly say that prestige would have something to do with it...with some stay on at the Beeb along with a certain amount of security. Salary on the other hand is certainly not an incentive. It's why a lot of BBC talent ends up at ITV like Ant and Dec and Susannah Reed, for example. I liked her on the BBC. Shame she left.
I remember Come Dancing with Angela and Terry. How not to dispel the image that ballroom dancing isn't cool ay.
Strictly is clever really...introducing to the nation to niche interest dancing via celebs, professional dancers and judges qualified to judge. Brilliant...just brilliant.
The BBC won very little in the 2014 BAFTA's.
http://awards.bafta.org/award/2014/television
2015 looks disappointing too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32215563
The BBC show some good programming, but so do the other channels.
Timeshift and fast forward through the ads or watch catchup, why would anyone boycott commercial TV and miss things that could be of interest. Some drama on ITV is just as highly regarded as those on the BBC, ie. Broadchurch, Downton Abbey, Whitechapel, at the end of the day you are the one missing out.
I'm sure most people find films entertaining. So the BBC shouldn't show any films?
Are documentaries entertaining? I'm sure some may be, for whatever reason. So the BBC can't show documentaries now; under your idea.
Well for a start it will be 25% longer
I'm sure most people watch TV to be entertained; and as most people pay for their TLV then why should the BBC not provide them with entertaining programmes?
Not at all. As proved by some of the posts following mine, I was actually being pretty accurate.
True. Because that's what you do when anyone disagrees with you and/or proves you to be wrong.
To be fair (and I always try to be fair) the comparison is usually TFX v The Voice.
But even then The Voice is the better show if for no other reason that it doesn't belittle or denigrate those taking part and they can at least all sing to some degree as there are pre-auditions to weed out those who can't.
Plus there's up to 25% more content per hour
BBC Strictly -> ITV Dancing On Ice
BBC Who Do You Think You Are -> ITV You Don't Know You're Born (Though lasted less than 1 season)
BBC Top Gear -> Channel 5 Fifth Gear
Not in the slightest.
If you can't find anything here that interests you then you then ... well, I don't know what, to be honest.
And yet BBC1 and BBC2 are, even in multi-channel homes, the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster. So that puts your thoughts into context
True. But which broadcaster usually wins most of those awards and viewing figures?
See my above comment re most-watched channels.
ITV has three.
Wildly inaccurate, "You said channels cost nothing."
Collectively, fifty of us on here could retire on the "nothing" you said channels cost.
Get your facts right.
Strange how you didn't get that but most other people (at least, the ones who posted about it) did. Well, not so much "strange" as "par for the course" with you.
As I said, you dismissed the cost of a channel, what £5M? as relatively unimportant.
Same attitude to taxpayers' money as the BBC?
That figures.
Let it go. I'm not interested.
So yes; it's a pretty insignificant cost.
Can't think what that could be.