Options
Believe in ......
gladysbach
Posts: 107 Forum Member
✭
Middle of this week's Radio Times - quote "TV is taking over the world " unquote and then the Ad rabbits on about new programmes on -guess what- Sky. Humility personified. Typical!!! Come on BBC and ITV where are all your new progs!
0
Comments
"Sky Entertainment Special in association with RadioTimes"
So I guess that it's a relatively expensive bit of promotional advertising from Sky designed to showcase its programming.
Should both ITV and the BBC spend such sums on a similar promotion? I'm not convinced (even though they do have new programmes).
Seeing as it is no longer owned by BBC Worldwide, and seeing as it has to attract advertising in order to keep a reasonable cover price and to survive, I really cannot blame them. And after all, Sky is a major broadcaster (and features quite heavily in the listing pages).
I don't like it being referred to as "Hot New TV" on the Radio Times cover, either. That again suggests editorial endorsement and doesn't make clear the pull-out is an advert.
Again, as has been explained. It is not owned by the BBC, but a private company. They can put whatever they want on the cover(within reason) and endorse whatever they want.
Its a Sky paid for advert insert, anyone can see that, and the BBC cant waste money like Sky on advertising in papers. Its worth Sky doing it as they get very low viewing figures, and need viewers to gain advertising income.
Call the Midwife, Silk, Musketeers. Jonathan Creek, Death in Paradise. George Gently, We have just had Sherlock, Silent Witness. etc etc etc.
Yes, if you believe in better and that not all tv is created equal then the place you go to isn't Sky.
Do you mean brand new programmes ? I mean there are new series of existing programmes which are popular and there are new ones as well, they cannot have just new ones.
They carry advertising
a) to plunder the 'pot' on which others depend almost entirely, and thus weaken their FTA competitors
and
b) to 'fill' more than 15 minutes of every hour and thus reduce the programme acquisition costs, substantially.
What's your opinion on the Licence Fee funded BBC being involved in FTA broadcasting that carries advertising? I believe BBC Worldwide owns 50% of 4 channels currently on Freeview.
Are you asking me if I have an opinion about the BBC having subsidiary commercial ventures that are separate from the Licence funded activities?
I have many and varied opinions on those subsidiary commercial activities that are not subsidised by the Licence Fee but help to supplement its income.
I have strong views on the prime minister and her lap-dog DG who pushed the Corporation in the commercial direction which resulted in such activities as 'out-sourcing' and BBC Ventures.
I equally have a view that Michael Grade needs to do a little catching up, as, it seems, does the current DG.
I see, thanks.
I found it interesting you didn't quote my words relating to BBC Worldwide but of course that's your prerogative
Personally I have no objection to BSkyB selling advertising, or BBC Worldwide's commercial free to air ventures either.
Most broadcasters rely on more than one source of income. eg ITV relies on a mix of advertising, sponsorship, programme sales and....oh yes subscription income from Sky!
Same goes for Channel 4 and Channel 5.
It is similarly just one form of income for Sky, if not their main one. Without it those subscription costs would be higher.
Would you suggest that other broadcasters be limited in where they can draw their income from (eg the BBC can only have licence fee income but not income from BBC Worldwide's commercial ventures or other merchandising or rights etc etc) or is it just the usual myopic anti-Sky nonsense.
However, as an external (and very buoyant) market exists (and as very often, overseas commercial entities are also involved in joint ventures), and as the LF-funded BBC cannot participate in that market, then there has to be some commercially-active entity that does. Hence BBC Worldwide.
But how has this once-innocent thread seemingly morphed into yet another BBC/LF funding discussion?
I think it unnecessarily repetitive.
Not really when the income from such commercial activities is channeled into a licence fee funded operation and in particular into the highest funded free to air channel in the UK in BBC One.
The poster I asked the question to objected to a subscription television broadcaster running commercials as it damages existing commercial FTA services whose only income comes from advertising. If that is objectionable then dosen't it follow that a licence fee funded broadcaster shouldn't benefit from the income of commercial FTA services as that too is surely damaging to commercial FTA services whose only income is from running adverts?
I would have thought so, personally. But as I said I don't object to BSkyB or BBC Worldwide running commercials on their channels.
why is it 'myopic' to report on that?
It isn't but then you weren't alleging or reporting such "dirty tricks".....unless you think that Sky carrying advertising fits that description.
So any form of income is fair game for PSBs but not for subscription channels? Even though they are perfectly entitled to draw income from advertising as well as subscription in the same way that newspapers can draw income from advertising etc in addition to their cover price.
Channel Four Television Corporation's single PSB service and Five (or whatever its called this week) -
they are the targets, in my 'myopic' view, of subscription broadcasters, by a long way.