Surely the BBC would save more money by simulcasting the News channel on BBC2 (as they have in the past) rather than setting up a completely new programme with all the expense that entails ? If - as they say - the target is on-line then they should limit it to on-line.
The point is I think they want to get rid of the News Channel, so I think they are quite deliberately trashing the brand so no one watches.
If you want 'My partner is gay' type discussion you are going to tune in to Kyle on ITV. You are never going to think of looking at the News Channel for that type of viewing, so it is guaranteed you will not gain any new viewers, and guaranteed you will lose people who want news to Sky.
A bit like when a train company wants to close a service, but isn't allowed- so schedules two trains a day- one at 6.30 am, and the other at 11 pm, then says 'No one uses this service. Please can we close it?'
They ( the BBC ) want a news channel, but they are having to put up with massive budgetary cuts that have been imposed on them, intentionally, by the government.
The license fee was frozen in 2010, what remains is being top-sliced so they have to give a significant percentage to rival broadcasters and yesterday it was announced that the BBC will have to pay for the tv licences of the over 75s. The over 75s thing alone will cost them £750,000,000.
It's coming at them from all angles, to cut them off at the knees, in order to make them less relevant.
That appears to be what the government want to do and they are determined to succeed.
They are only paying for the ''free'' licence for two years - the Tory pledge expires in 2020 and there is no commitment beyond then (unless the BBC volunteer to pay it which seems unlikely). Don't forget they will have an increased TV licence from next year and save £15 million a year on the broadband roll-out (which should never have involved BBC money as it's a commercial operation).Tony Hall is arguing that financially the BBC will actually be better off - that's including his 1,000 job cuts of course.
They ( the BBC ) want a news channel, but they are having to put up with massive budgetary cuts that have been imposed on them, intentionally, by the government.
The license fee was frozen in 2010, what remains is being top-sliced so they have to give a significant percentage to rival broadcasters and yesterday it was announced that the BBC will have to pay for the tv licences of the over 75s. The over 75s thing alone will cost them £750,000,000.
It's coming at them from all angles, to cut them off at the knees, in order to make them less relevant.
That appears to be what the government want to do and they are determined to succeed.
Anything that strangles them and reduces their unfair dominance is a good thing. Lets see how popular the BBC is if it had to fend for itself. Or better still, let their fans pay for it and let us who don't need/ want it keep our money.
Anything that strangles them and reduces their unfair dominance is a good thing. Lets see how popular the BBC is if it had to fend for itself. Or better still, let their fans pay for it and let us who don't need/ want it keep our money.
The BBC is not dominant at all...and as for subscription, that is a non starter and you know the many reasons why.
Anything that strangles them and reduces their unfair dominance is a good thing. Lets see how popular the BBC is if it had to fend for itself. Or better still, let their fans pay for it and let us who don't need/ want it keep our money.
I think we know how popular the BBC's TV channels will be with advertisers if it is, indeed, forced to 'fend for itself'. I think we also know how much damage that would cause ITV.
Meanwhile, about 90% of current commercial radio stations would be wiped out overnight if Radios 1, 2, 4 & Five Live were allowed to run ads.
I think we know how popular the BBC's TV channels will be with advertisers if it is, indeed, forced to 'fend for itself'. I think we also know how much damage that would cause ITV.
Meanwhile, about 90% of current commercial radio stations would be wiped out overnight if Radios 1, 2, 4 & Five Live were allowed to run ads.
I think we know how popular the BBC's TV channels will be with advertisers if it is, indeed, forced to 'fend for itself'. I think we also know how much damage that would cause ITV.
Meanwhile, about 90% of current commercial radio stations would be wiped out overnight if Radios 1, 2, 4 & Five Live were allowed to run ads.
In terms of the BBC and its funding, it's like asking a vegetarian to put meat in their mouth. Why should I have to pay for it, if I don't want it? and don't bring on the argument of tax etc, because that's a totally different matter.
The BBC, in this day and age is just a luxury (for some).
What works for some, doesn't work for others, and I'm not happy with funding other people's telly watching.
I think we know how popular the BBC's TV channels will be with advertisers if it is, indeed, forced to 'fend for itself'. I think we also know how much damage that would cause ITV.
Meanwhile, about 90% of current commercial radio stations would be wiped out overnight if Radios 1, 2, 4 & Five Live were allowed to run ads.
That's what is constantly overlooked when people call for the BBC to show adverts and axe the licence fee. If that happens just be prepared to lose most free TV channels and commercial radio stations
That's what is constantly overlooked when people call for the BBC to show adverts and axe the licence fee. If that happens just be prepared to lose most free TV channels and commercial radio stations
I remember reading a report some years ago that said there was not enough money in the economy to support a commercial BBC and ITV and ITV would lose out because most advertisers would want the prestige of being on the BBC.
In terms of the BBC and its funding, it's like asking a vegetarian to put meat in their mouth. Why should I have to pay for it, if I don't want it? and don't bring on the argument of tax etc, because that's a totally different matter.
The BBC, in this day and age is just a luxury (for some).
What works for some, doesn't work for others, and I'm not happy with funding other people's telly watching.
I don't have any kids- but I still have to pay for local schools through council tax..
I don't use the local library, so I don't think I should pay for that either.
I don't go swimming at the council pool, so why do I have to pay for that?
Don't go out after dark- so why should I pay for the street lighting?
And i'll take my rubbish to the tip myself- so why should I pay for the dustmen?
Quite rightly we all have to pay for things we never use for the greater good.
Remember- even if you don't watch the BBC a high percentage of ITV stars (past and present) originally made their names with the BBC, who invested time and money training them up to a standard where they became so popular ITV got their cheque book out, as they don't appear to have any home grown talent of their own.
I remember reading a report some years ago that said there was not enough money in the economy to support a commercial BBC and ITV and ITV would lose out because most advertisers would want the prestige of being on the BBC.
If there was ONLY bbc1, 2 and 4 there would be enough advertisers for all.
This thread is going off topic. VD programme - is it going viewers?
Has anyone seen any ratings recently - the figure of 39,000 on the News channel was being quoted a few weeks ago. Apparently the channel's usual audience in that slot was about 100,000.
Comments
The point is I think they want to get rid of the News Channel, so I think they are quite deliberately trashing the brand so no one watches.
If you want 'My partner is gay' type discussion you are going to tune in to Kyle on ITV. You are never going to think of looking at the News Channel for that type of viewing, so it is guaranteed you will not gain any new viewers, and guaranteed you will lose people who want news to Sky.
A bit like when a train company wants to close a service, but isn't allowed- so schedules two trains a day- one at 6.30 am, and the other at 11 pm, then says 'No one uses this service. Please can we close it?'
The license fee was frozen in 2010, what remains is being top-sliced so they have to give a significant percentage to rival broadcasters and yesterday it was announced that the BBC will have to pay for the tv licences of the over 75s. The over 75s thing alone will cost them £750,000,000.
It's coming at them from all angles, to cut them off at the knees, in order to make them less relevant.
That appears to be what the government want to do and they are determined to succeed.
Anything that strangles them and reduces their unfair dominance is a good thing. Lets see how popular the BBC is if it had to fend for itself. Or better still, let their fans pay for it and let us who don't need/ want it keep our money.
Well, for a start they wouldn't be taking threads off-topic with their ant-BBC posts
I would have a cup of tea. Nothing the BBC produce is essential to my life.
Treating people like criminals and having detector vans was very draconian.
Especially when you see them treat people like VD as though they deserve all the pay they get.
The BBC is not dominant at all...and as for subscription, that is a non starter and you know the many reasons why.
If local papers are going down the pan because they're poor and turning into advertising rags it's not the BBC's fault.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayURys9txY
I think we know how popular the BBC's TV channels will be with advertisers if it is, indeed, forced to 'fend for itself'. I think we also know how much damage that would cause ITV.
Meanwhile, about 90% of current commercial radio stations would be wiped out overnight if Radios 1, 2, 4 & Five Live were allowed to run ads.
And...?
Far better than a bout of VD.
I agree.
In terms of the BBC and its funding, it's like asking a vegetarian to put meat in their mouth. Why should I have to pay for it, if I don't want it? and don't bring on the argument of tax etc, because that's a totally different matter.
The BBC, in this day and age is just a luxury (for some).
What works for some, doesn't work for others, and I'm not happy with funding other people's telly watching.
That's what is constantly overlooked when people call for the BBC to show adverts and axe the licence fee. If that happens just be prepared to lose most free TV channels and commercial radio stations
I remember reading a report some years ago that said there was not enough money in the economy to support a commercial BBC and ITV and ITV would lose out because most advertisers would want the prestige of being on the BBC.
I don't have any kids- but I still have to pay for local schools through council tax..
I don't use the local library, so I don't think I should pay for that either.
I don't go swimming at the council pool, so why do I have to pay for that?
Don't go out after dark- so why should I pay for the street lighting?
And i'll take my rubbish to the tip myself- so why should I pay for the dustmen?
Quite rightly we all have to pay for things we never use for the greater good.
Remember- even if you don't watch the BBC a high percentage of ITV stars (past and present) originally made their names with the BBC, who invested time and money training them up to a standard where they became so popular ITV got their cheque book out, as they don't appear to have any home grown talent of their own.
If there was ONLY bbc1, 2 and 4 there would be enough advertisers for all.
This thread is going off topic. VD programme - is it going viewers?
Dearie me.
What is this to do with the Victoria Derbyshire TV programme?