You have no answer. Apart from the usual "It's not relevant!" of course.
If the editor of the Daily Mail, or their shareholders (Lord Rothemere in effect) consider that paying £2.8m is reasonable pay for running the Daily Mail then it is totally hypocritical of that editor to criticise the far smaller pay of the BBC DG for running a far bigger and more complex BBC.
If a private company paid a plumber £20 an hour but the BBC paid £50 you'd be the first to say the comparison is valid and accuse the BBC of wasting money. Yet it appears that if the BBC paid £20 and the DM £50 you can only say "It's not relevant!"
As to the difference between funding, since the DM and many other commercial companies can offer shares as a performance bonus, which the BBC cannot do of course, you could argue that the BBC should pay more for its top execs to make up for the lack of share options!
(I'm not actually suggesting the BBC should do that. But if you start giving reasons why the BBC should pay less then don't be surprised if others come up with perfectly valid and reasonable arguments why they should be paid more.)
Good points, well made!
Also, as I pointed out earlier, commercial media outlets got £232m from the COI in 2008/9. So even if you don't buy a paper you are still paying for it! This is even worse than the licence fee. As has been pointed out you don't have to own a TV. If you are a taxpayer you have been funding other media organisations with "no" way of not paying.:eek:
Interesting thread. But I think salaries paid to execs is a side issue.
The debate should me more about power and influence.
I believe the news broadcasters in UK are subject to impartiality rules when it comes to politics and parties. Whereas the press is not.
How come the Broadcasters, in an election campaign, have to be seen to be impartial, when the press is allowed to effectively be very partial and choose sides? (Its the Sun wot won it)
So the DM or Sun, which are privately owned, can have an effect on the result of a General Election, depending on the views of their owners.
Given the UK Broadcasters cant do this, how is this fair? And how is this democratic?
So you are admitting the BBC wouldn't have enough people voluntary subscribing to prevent adverts.
Where did i say that??!!
That's an opinion. I personally think the abolition of the BBC TV Licence would help the commercial sector because the BBC would no longer have a huge & unfair advantage over them
It doesn't, the BBC HAS to fulfill it's PSB Quotas, it can't just junk them in order to make only populist TV.
It's also attacked all the time in the media by those with vested interests, some "huge and unfair advantage".
Well if people want it they'll pay for it but why should those who don't want it subsidise them
[/QUOTE]
What would be the point of a commercial BBC showing only commercial programmes?
With it's branding, and loyalty, it really would have a huge advantage, particularly as it would - surely - make more commercial programmes.
Heck, it could outbid Sky for the football thus taking away their leading sub-driver, it could outbid ITV1 for Simon Cowell.
It could, effectively, tear apart TV as we know it.
Now, at the moment, it can't - and wouldn't, do either of those two things, and it's fully committed to providing a range of programmes that commercial media won't on TV an Radio, and it costs less than subscription funded TV does.
So you are admitting the BBC wouldn't have enough people voluntary subscribing to prevent adverts.
No matter how many people signed up, they'd still chase the ratings in order to increase income. That is natural for any orginasation.
That's an opinion. I personally think the abolition of the BBC TV Licence would help the commercial sector because the BBC would no longer have a huge & unfair advantage over them
Two things. One, all the independent production companies want more BBC work, not the BBC scrapped. Since all these producers make content for the BBC and for ITV, Sky etc that helps the entire UK market and all viewers.
Secondly, the BBC is not in competition with ITV or Sky.
ITV's business is selling adverts. Sky's business is selling subscriptions.
The BBC could vanish tomorrow and neither ITV or Sky would see much increase in income or profit.
Would Sky sell more subscriptions? Since the BBC channels are by far the most watched on the Sky platform those channels vanishing might even hurt Sky sales.
And ITV would not see any increase in ad sales since all sales are calculated per viewer. Lets say ITV viewership doubled. Advertisers could halve the number of adverts they run but still have the same reach. Half the number of adverts at twice the price per advert is.....?
ITV and Sky compete with the BBC for viewers. But the BBC does not compete with ITV or Sky for their business.
Well if people want it they'll pay for it but why should those who don't want it subsidise them
Maybe ask every other country in Europe, amd most around the world. They have licence fee funded, or direct government funded from taxes, national broadcasters. Many in Europe have a TV Licence far higher than the UK. Several over £200 a year.
They all believe a national broadcaster is a vital national service. The BBC is not some strange UK oddity. It just happens to be very good. Not perfect, but very good.
So you are admitting the BBC wouldn't have enough people voluntary subscribing to prevent adverts.
Ofc they wouldn't have enough to keep operating on the same level without adverts. Even if 10% stopped paying that would be the budget of a good few programs or even a number of their tv/radio stations gone.
Give some people a choice and they will always choose not to pay, even if there are programs they want to watch. Its a given.
That would mean cutting services/programs which might cause others to not subscribe.
There would also need to be a price increase to keep the quality so that would probably put some off subscribing.
They then have to pander to getting subscribers so it becomes more commercial, so again could see viewers watched.
Then how do you police the subscription. You would need some kind encryption which would mean many users would need a new box to view it. So thats further cost so people won't subscribe.
Then you end up needing ads, when you have to worry about selling ads it becomes about viewing numbers and being careful to not put anything on that could commercially be detrimental to the ad sales. That changes the programming output and people who like the bbc now may not like the new output
That's an opinion. I personally think the abolition of the BBC TV Licence would help the commercial sector because the BBC would no longer have a huge & unfair advantage over them
Except the channels themselves have all pretty much said they don't want a commercial BBC. Its only Sky who feel they would benefit from a loss of the licence fee who want the BBC to lose the fee. Ad revenue is spread thinly already without the BBC taking out of the pot
well, according to the aforementioned mathematics, its accurate to within +/- 1.4%.
is that accurate enough for you?
Iain
Rubbish and you know it. In order to make your math work you need a good and accurate formula and I don't believe BARB are giving those details are they :rolleyes:
that still does not explain why two equal jobs should be paid differntly in the public and private sector.
We have commercial alternatives so if you are worried perhaps you should set the public free to choose and then your friends at the BBC can pay themselves what they wish
We have commercial alternatives so if you are worried perhaps you should set the public free to choose and then your friends at the BBC can pay themselves what they wish
not just talking about the BBC, talking about the public sector generally.
Why are skills and work deemed to be of less worth if they are used in the public sector.
The cost of a degree to get those skills will have been the same.
If we are meant to take a charitable appoarch to working within the public sector, will the income tax of those chartiable people, be more chartiable?
I am also not aware that it isnt within my power, to make the BBC commercail, I had no idea that I and I held that power.
That's an opinion. I personally think the abolition of the BBC TV Licence would help the commercial sector because the BBC would no longer have a huge & unfair advantage over them
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.
Rubbish and you know it. In order to make your math work you need a good and accurate formula and I don't believe BARB are giving those details are they :rolleyes:
the formula to work out the margin of error is :
The margin of error in a sample = 1 divided by the square root of the number of people in the sample
Rubbish and you know it. In order to make your math work you need a good and accurate formula and I don't believe BARB are giving those details are they :rolleyes:
Please explain using accepted facts of statistics and sampling.
We have commercial alternatives so if you are worried perhaps you should set the public free to choose and then your friends at the BBC can pay themselves what they wish
And as I asked another forum member on here not so long ago, if voluntary subscription is the holy grail and the best thing since sliced bread for public service broadcasting, why does no other country, even the United States or tax havens, apply a voluntary subscription model to their core PSB broadcaster(s)?
The margin of error in a sample = 1 divided by the square root of the number of people in the sample
The formula needs the correct % of Sky, Cable, Analogue etc viewers in order for it to work and you and the rest of the BBC support base wont give those figures yet are happy to tell everyone its correct :rolleyes:
It's a fact, actually. You commercialise the BBC and there will be more competition shared between the BBC and the other commercial companies.
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)
The formula needs the correct % of Sky, Cable, Analogue etc viewers in order for it to work and you and the rest of the BBC support base wont give those figures yet are happy to tell everyone its correct :rolleyes:
I assume you mean the sample, rather than formula.
But yes, BARB do use as representative sample as possible.
Although I suppose they could be in on some communist conspiracy...
well, according to the aforementioned mathematics, its accurate to within +/- 1.4%.
is that accurate enough for you?
Iain
How do you know it is accurate to that margin ? First you would need to know what the 60 million were actually watching and then compare the BARB figure.We know BARB underestimates audiences for big events because it cannot compute people watching in pubs and other public places (I'm thinking of big football matches, big and sudden news stories).
Comments
Good points, well made!
Also, as I pointed out earlier, commercial media outlets got £232m from the COI in 2008/9. So even if you don't buy a paper you are still paying for it! This is even worse than the licence fee. As has been pointed out you don't have to own a TV. If you are a taxpayer you have been funding other media organisations with "no" way of not paying.:eek:
The debate should me more about power and influence.
I believe the news broadcasters in UK are subject to impartiality rules when it comes to politics and parties. Whereas the press is not.
How come the Broadcasters, in an election campaign, have to be seen to be impartial, when the press is allowed to effectively be very partial and choose sides? (Its the Sun wot won it)
So the DM or Sun, which are privately owned, can have an effect on the result of a General Election, depending on the views of their owners.
Given the UK Broadcasters cant do this, how is this fair? And how is this democratic?
Or maybe I'm missing something.
Where did i say that??!!
It doesn't, the BBC HAS to fulfill it's PSB Quotas, it can't just junk them in order to make only populist TV.
It's also attacked all the time in the media by those with vested interests, some "huge and unfair advantage".
[/QUOTE]
What would be the point of a commercial BBC showing only commercial programmes?
With it's branding, and loyalty, it really would have a huge advantage, particularly as it would - surely - make more commercial programmes.
Heck, it could outbid Sky for the football thus taking away their leading sub-driver, it could outbid ITV1 for Simon Cowell.
It could, effectively, tear apart TV as we know it.
Now, at the moment, it can't - and wouldn't, do either of those two things, and it's fully committed to providing a range of programmes that commercial media won't on TV an Radio, and it costs less than subscription funded TV does.
Secondly, the BBC is not in competition with ITV or Sky.
ITV's business is selling adverts. Sky's business is selling subscriptions.
The BBC could vanish tomorrow and neither ITV or Sky would see much increase in income or profit.
Would Sky sell more subscriptions? Since the BBC channels are by far the most watched on the Sky platform those channels vanishing might even hurt Sky sales.
And ITV would not see any increase in ad sales since all sales are calculated per viewer. Lets say ITV viewership doubled. Advertisers could halve the number of adverts they run but still have the same reach. Half the number of adverts at twice the price per advert is.....?
ITV and Sky compete with the BBC for viewers. But the BBC does not compete with ITV or Sky for their business. Maybe ask every other country in Europe, amd most around the world. They have licence fee funded, or direct government funded from taxes, national broadcasters. Many in Europe have a TV Licence far higher than the UK. Several over £200 a year.
They all believe a national broadcaster is a vital national service. The BBC is not some strange UK oddity. It just happens to be very good. Not perfect, but very good.
Ofc they wouldn't have enough to keep operating on the same level without adverts. Even if 10% stopped paying that would be the budget of a good few programs or even a number of their tv/radio stations gone.
Give some people a choice and they will always choose not to pay, even if there are programs they want to watch. Its a given.
That would mean cutting services/programs which might cause others to not subscribe.
There would also need to be a price increase to keep the quality so that would probably put some off subscribing.
They then have to pander to getting subscribers so it becomes more commercial, so again could see viewers watched.
Then how do you police the subscription. You would need some kind encryption which would mean many users would need a new box to view it. So thats further cost so people won't subscribe.
Then you end up needing ads, when you have to worry about selling ads it becomes about viewing numbers and being careful to not put anything on that could commercially be detrimental to the ad sales. That changes the programming output and people who like the bbc now may not like the new output
Except the channels themselves have all pretty much said they don't want a commercial BBC. Its only Sky who feel they would benefit from a loss of the licence fee who want the BBC to lose the fee. Ad revenue is spread thinly already without the BBC taking out of the pot
that's right - based on universally accepted mathematics.
Iain
well, according to the aforementioned mathematics, its accurate to within +/- 1.4%.
is that accurate enough for you?
Iain
what are you talking about?
Iain
so, having established that the role at the Mail can command a salary of £2.8m...
and the comparable role at the BBC is paid a fraction of that, to run a larger organisation...
...remind me how exactly it can reasonably be argued that the role at the BBC is excessive?
i don't think there was any condemnation of the £2.8m, but of the hypocrisy in criticising the BBC for paying what it does.
Iain
Rubbish and you know it. In order to make your math work you need a good and accurate formula and I don't believe BARB are giving those details are they :rolleyes:
The BBC isn't the only one either however they are the only ones who can force money from the public to do it
We have commercial alternatives so if you are worried perhaps you should set the public free to choose and then your friends at the BBC can pay themselves what they wish
Why are skills and work deemed to be of less worth if they are used in the public sector.
The cost of a degree to get those skills will have been the same.
If we are meant to take a charitable appoarch to working within the public sector, will the income tax of those chartiable people, be more chartiable?
I am also not aware that it isnt within my power, to make the BBC commercail, I had no idea that I and I held that power.
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.
the formula to work out the margin of error is :
The margin of error in a sample = 1 divided by the square root of the number of people in the sample
survey sample sizes
so if the number of people in the sample is 5,000 (its actually more than that, as its 5,000 households.
so the square root of 5,000 is 70.7.
1 divided by 70.7 = 0.014, or 1.4%.
Iain
They're the only ones who can fulfil their PSB quota and do it far better than the terrestrial commercial channels.
Please explain using accepted facts of statistics and sampling.
That is a matter of opinion
The formula needs the correct % of Sky, Cable, Analogue etc viewers in order for it to work and you and the rest of the BBC support base wont give those figures yet are happy to tell everyone its correct :rolleyes:
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)
I assume you mean the sample, rather than formula.
But yes, BARB do use as representative sample as possible.
Although I suppose they could be in on some communist conspiracy...
Iain
Which is why is often daft when people read a lot into a change of a couple of percent in the figures for a particular programme.
why do commercial broadcasters not share your suspicion?
Iain
How do you know it is accurate to that margin ? First you would need to know what the 60 million were actually watching and then compare the BARB figure.We know BARB underestimates audiences for big events because it cannot compute people watching in pubs and other public places (I'm thinking of big football matches, big and sudden news stories).