Options
BBC is out of touch with the people
linkinpark875
Posts: 29,706 Forum Member
✭✭✭
*The dated TV licence they refuse to change or adopt adverts or subscription.
*The Clarkson incident they probably never expected the large support there has been.
*BBC Three which has improved in the past few years, a recuse package was mentioned and they are not interested in selling the brand ect..the channel looks set to be axed regardless.
What will be next? It's high time a commercial broadcaster took over the BBC.
I reckon if it keeps up BBC will be a shadow of it's former self within a couple of years with only news and BBC 1/2 left.
*The Clarkson incident they probably never expected the large support there has been.
*BBC Three which has improved in the past few years, a recuse package was mentioned and they are not interested in selling the brand ect..the channel looks set to be axed regardless.
What will be next? It's high time a commercial broadcaster took over the BBC.
I reckon if it keeps up BBC will be a shadow of it's former self within a couple of years with only news and BBC 1/2 left.
0
Comments
So much fail in such a small post.
(1) Funding is not the BBCs decision to make. Government makes that. The BBC has no choice.
(2) Suspending someone accused of assaulting a junior colleague is what would happen in any company, and rightly so.
(3) Why should they sell BBC3? They're putting it online. Being online hasn't done House Of Cards on Netflix any harm...
If there was no viewers there wouldn't be a BBC. People can vote with there remotes.
Closing BBC3 goes against what the pubic want.
There is far, far more to the BBC that BBC3 and Clarkson.
What would a commercial broadcaster want with, for example, some of the smaller BBC local radio stations?
quick build a bullet proof bunker
Your opinion doesn't necessarily equal public opinion, unless you have data to back it up.
No entity can be in touch with all the of the people.
Why would a commercial broadcaster be any better, or as in touch?
Point 1 - *The dated TV licence they refuse to change or adopt adverts or subscription.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/02/bbc-licence-fee-10-years-director-general-tony-hall
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31644256
So that's point 1 destroyed then.
And as Wikipedia goes on to state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Three#History
And of BBC Four, it states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Four#History
And for BBC Knowledge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Knowledge#History
Interestingly, that same Wiki piece for BBC Knowledge then goes on to say this:
Actually all threads are welcome as long as they are grounded in evidence.
Notice how the OPs points 1 and 2 were answered by somebody else, but the OP didn't respond. Very weak.
Maybe you need to do your homework and see what has happened to ABC in Australia and what has happened to PSB there as a result of paying for it out of general taxation.
By the way, the premise of this thread is a nonsense with so many errors in its opening lines. The person who started it obviously has limited if any knowledge of what they are talking about, and there also several other threads on this forum which cover all the topics that were thrown chaotically into the mix by the OP.
And yeah, sadly people hate taxes, for lots of reasons. Some fair, some absolutely stupid. So I wouldn't like to see that happen.
A repeated thread deserves a repeated answer.
Sky is a different model and could only gave been formed as the BBC was there in the first place, if the BBC had taken ads when Sky would gave started there would have been a price war, an advert war, and supply of ads outstrip demand prices and income plummet and a different broadcasting place than today.
Sky has just paid 83% more for football rates its subscribers are going to pay a hefty increase on subscriptions very soon.
The LF if you had read the other threads running you would know keeps costs cheap just 40p per household per day, or for a family then 10p a day for the average 2A2C. Pensioners and people can afford it who are on low incomes, everyone paying means we all get a world recognised broadcasting service that only a few in the UK do not like but reach is in the high 80's %, do most of the public use it and respect it.
So let's say the BBC takes Adverts next month.
(1) Companies advertising budgets neutral no increase no decrease.
(2) Increase in advert slots so supply outstrips demand.
(3) Price battle between ITV and BBC for adverts and prices fall.
(4) Income falls for the main channels.
(5) ITV asks to be allowed to remove its PBS commitments.
(6) Ch4 or CH5 or both loose income, and are taken over by a USA broadcaster.
(7) Sky / BT get less Advert income increase their subscriptions.
(8) People cancel subscriptions as they cannot afford it.
(9) BBC radio looses star names as they can't afford it loose listeners, go commercial, - many who love advert free radio loose out.
(10) people like Murdoch provide news BBC news looses funding we are under the control of the Murdoch press and its connections to one government party only.
Summary we go thorough a massive change loose a world class broadcasting service the envy of the world, loose independent quality news, pensioners and low incomes loose put, subscriptions increase, quality falls like USA, foreign ownership of our TV More ads, less PSB commitments, more reality shows, and more government control.
So be very very careful what you wish for....do research first read other threads, as what you wish for will ruin our broadcasting, yes a few will be alright Jack, But the majority suffer because the few can pay ££££ for Sky.
Can the Mod not paste this at the end of every single Licence Fee thread and then Lock IT!
22,670 posts and practically every single one of them sheer garbage. Incredible!
Yes, I see what you mean! Utter rubbish
If the BBC follows what you suggest it will be a shadow of it's former self...as will the rest of the industry. As for the rest of your post...I disagree strongly.
That's a really flawed argument, Netflix can push House of Cards on their service as much as they want, they've also given it a massive multi-platform ad-campaign. Will the BBC be advertising BBC Three shows wide enough for them to get a good audience? Perhaps, but probably not.
Also, House of Cards costs $50m a season (roughly 12 hours worth), BBC Three's content budget will be £25m or $37.44m a year, for their entire output. If people are expecting House of Cards type production values, they're going to be disappointed.
To be honest if people are expecting any type of reasonable production value they're going to be disappointed.
The truth is, this move is going to be a disaster for BBC Three, and it's probably going to be the beginning of the end for the rest of the BBC too, it's perhaps best not to piss off the people that will financing your organisation in the future.
The BBC has shot itself in the foot, and we'll probably all get the pleasure of watching it slowly bleed to death...
In a letter to Jon Thoday and Jimmy Mulville who had proposed a buyout of the channel he states this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/b19391ea-4522-43ba-9c0e-c3ab44af36da
So that's linkinpark875's third point addressed and refuted.
The BBC is out of touch with public opinion= The BBC has done something I don't agree with.
But there ARE viewers - it consistently gets more than other broadcasters.
I am a member of the public and I don't give a flying fart about BBC 3.
Try again.