It's a fact, actually. You commercialise the BBC and there will be more competition shared between the BBC and the other commercial companies.
So you'd only be making your free market suffer further.
If the BBC is doing better than the commercial channels, then it is the commercial channel's fault for not pulling their socks up.
If you want a real argument for attacking the BBC, then tell the commercial stations to vastly improve their output.
ITV and C4 used to provide some of the best TV in Britain, sometimes exceeding BBC standards.
Not so now because the commercial channels have got themselves stuck in a rut whereby they appeal to the lowest common denominator and therefore decrease their audience appeal- decreasing their overall audience and therefore decreasing their earnings.
Instead of ignoring the question (& members can see you doing it) why not tell us the figures BARB are using then.
What % of Sky, Freeview, Cable IPTV etc do they use in those 1500 households.
Ignore the question again and we have you bang to rights
It doesn't matter what those percentages are. If the sample selected is representative then the percentages of Sky households etc will, by default, be representative of the country as a whole.
They don't need to know what percentage of households have Sky to be able to select that percentage for their group.
If 10% of UK households have Sky and you pick 100 households at random then 10% of that 100 will have Sky.
If 50% of UK households have Sky then 50% of that 100 will have Sky. (Within usual margins of course, but that is mathematics that is widely accepted as accurate.)
It doesn't matter what those percentages are. If the sample selected is representative then the percentages of Sky households etc will, by default, be representative of the country as a whole.
They don't need to know what percentage of households have Sky to be able to select that percentage for their group.
If 10% of UK households have Sky and you pick 100 households at random then 10% of that 100 will have Sky.
If 50% of UK households have Sky then 50% of that 100 will have Sky. (Within usual margins of course, but that is mathematics that is widely accepted as accurate.)
I think it is more likely that they will weight the figures rather than have an exact copy of the ratio in the whole UK.
If 10% of households have Sky and your sample has 5% then you scale it up.
Lots of adjustments will be done to get the published figures to replicate ratio of Sky users (and possibly different levels of access to Sky), age, type of person etc etc.
It probably the same as opinion poll surveys and normally on election night most are close to the actual result (within their tolerance of a few percent) even though they are using similar or smaller sample sizes.
BARB are producing figures mainly for advertisers (directly or indirectly through TV companies), they are the ones who pay the bills and basically only interested in fairly accurate information on the number (and type) of bums on seats during adverts. If the figures were wrong then they would go elsewhere and BARB would go out of business.
No its a fact that those who give the public what they want will survive and others wont. Those who have special needs television though will find it on subscription for a small fee, less than the BBC TV Licence (Packages)
No it's not.
ONdigital and ITV Digital were both providing the public with what they want and they both went the way of the dodo.
Just as C&A, Zavvi and Woolworths were. And they went bust (at least C&A in the UK did - I've seen it on the European mainland though I don't know if it's owned by another company now).
And don't state that just because something is in the public sector that it will survive. Look at the number of cuts the government are making at the moment.
Public or private ownership has no relation whatsoever to whether something survives or not.
BARB are producing figures mainly for advertisers (directly or indirectly through TV companies), they are the ones who pay the bills and basically only interested in fairly accurate information on the number (and type) of bums on seats during adverts. If the figures were wrong then they would go elsewhere and BARB would go out of business.
Sky use their own ratings system to complement BARB's figures.
It uses a much larger sample of homes than BARB.
It was originally set up because smaller multichannels felt they were being unrepresented by BARB's small viewing base.
With dozens of different package combinations, it's almost imposiible to get accurate representation with a small panel.
If you don't like the Daily Mail then you don't have to contribute towards his salary by buying the newspaper.
Unlike the BBC
except its not about that.
its about, as has been said many times, whether or not people are paid above and beyond what the industry would consider reasonable, and the hypocrisy of any criticism of the BBC from the Mail on that issue.
Yes it is. The Daily Mail is a commercial company while the BBC is a public company. If you wish to go on about wages then they should abolish the BBC TV licence and no one can really complain, FACT
Some posters just CANNOT accept that the BBC is widely used - hence the disbelief about BARB figures.
"Oh my God, people do not agree with me, there simply MUST be a conspiracy going on here!!!"
I find the disbelief of the BARB figures odd, because its not like ITV does not get good figures (sometimes better than the BBC) from BARB, you just have to look at X-Factor etc to see that.
On the other hand, maybe Primeval isnt failing, its just that BARB isnt right.
I find the disbelief of the BARB figures odd, because its not like ITV does not get good figures (sometimes better than the BBC) from BARB, you just have to look at X-Factor etc to see that.
On the other hand, maybe Primeval isnt failing, its just that BARB isnt right.
I was not suggesting BARB was wrong, I was making a joke about a show I like that is failing.
my point is that Primeval is failing, its not BARBs inability to count the shows viewers, as I dont object to the BARB ratings for Doctor Who, and ITV dont object to those for X-Factor.
I find the disbelief of the BARB figures odd, because its not like ITV does not get good figures (sometimes better than the BBC) from BARB, you just have to look at X-Factor etc to see that.
On the other hand, maybe Primeval isnt failing, its just that BARB isnt right.
Indeed, it's funny how certain poster CANNOT accept the figures are pretty accurate, particularly if it proves than certain broadcasters are the most watched!
Comments
A representative sample of course, that's how these things work.
Correct, on pretty much all counts.
I suggest you read "zz9's" post 155, it explains it better than i ever could.
It doesn't matter what those percentages are. If the sample selected is representative then the percentages of Sky households etc will, by default, be representative of the country as a whole.
They don't need to know what percentage of households have Sky to be able to select that percentage for their group.
If 10% of UK households have Sky and you pick 100 households at random then 10% of that 100 will have Sky.
If 50% of UK households have Sky then 50% of that 100 will have Sky. (Within usual margins of course, but that is mathematics that is widely accepted as accurate.)
I think it is more likely that they will weight the figures rather than have an exact copy of the ratio in the whole UK.
If 10% of households have Sky and your sample has 5% then you scale it up.
Lots of adjustments will be done to get the published figures to replicate ratio of Sky users (and possibly different levels of access to Sky), age, type of person etc etc.
It probably the same as opinion poll surveys and normally on election night most are close to the actual result (within their tolerance of a few percent) even though they are using similar or smaller sample sizes.
BARB are producing figures mainly for advertisers (directly or indirectly through TV companies), they are the ones who pay the bills and basically only interested in fairly accurate information on the number (and type) of bums on seats during adverts. If the figures were wrong then they would go elsewhere and BARB would go out of business.
No it's not.
ONdigital and ITV Digital were both providing the public with what they want and they both went the way of the dodo.
Just as C&A, Zavvi and Woolworths were. And they went bust (at least C&A in the UK did - I've seen it on the European mainland though I don't know if it's owned by another company now).
And don't state that just because something is in the public sector that it will survive. Look at the number of cuts the government are making at the moment.
Public or private ownership has no relation whatsoever to whether something survives or not.
Because it's none of your business?
Just as MI6 is funded by taxes, yet the government still don't tell us much about them.
Why? Because it's none of your business.
Why don't you subscribe to BARB and then you might find out.
If you don't like the Daily Mail then you don't have to contribute towards his salary by buying the newspaper.
Unlike the BBC
Sky use their own ratings system to complement BARB's figures.
It uses a much larger sample of homes than BARB.
It was originally set up because smaller multichannels felt they were being unrepresented by BARB's small viewing base.
With dozens of different package combinations, it's almost imposiible to get accurate representation with a small panel.
http://www.skymedia.co.uk/Audience-Insight/skyview.aspx
except its not about that.
its about, as has been said many times, whether or not people are paid above and beyond what the industry would consider reasonable, and the hypocrisy of any criticism of the BBC from the Mail on that issue.
Iain
Yes it is. The Daily Mail is a commercial company while the BBC is a public company. If you wish to go on about wages then they should abolish the BBC TV licence and no one can really complain, FACT
We shouldn't have too and I don't its accessible to those that do anyway. Anything constructive to add now ?
What is your issue with BARB, the figures are accepted by those who pay for them?
"Oh my God, people do not agree with me, there simply MUST be a conspiracy going on here!!!"
On the other hand, maybe Primeval isnt failing, its just that BARB isnt right.
So why do the industry continue to fund it?
my point is that Primeval is failing, its not BARBs inability to count the shows viewers, as I dont object to the BARB ratings for Doctor Who, and ITV dont object to those for X-Factor.
I'm sure BARB is very accurate for the main channels, because everyone receives them.
It's when you get a 1,000 rating for a BBC HD show, when the SD version gets 2m, they become incredulous.
Well why do the BBC wish to change how the viewing figures are done............Nothing to do with the end of analogue is it
I wasn't aware than any of the major broadcasters dismiss BARB like you do.
BARB still has a part to play in the BBCs +7 ratings.
I personal believe it would be easier and more accurate if they used the digital figures of Cable and Sky.
The Math of what 15 million people watch compared to 1500 households of BARB..............too simple perhaps ?
Indeed, it's funny how certain poster CANNOT accept the figures are pretty accurate, particularly if it proves than certain broadcasters are the most watched!