The thread is about positive stories in Broadcasting, isn't it?
Yes, that's why I mentioned C4 and the Daily Mail (who have had many TV ventures).
I could also have mentioned that ITV paid it's CEO far more than the DG, again for running a smaller and simpler company, or that the head of Sky and part of News Corp (ie still not the top man) is paid vastly more than the DG for running a company similar to the BBC with a mix of broadcasting and publishing.
In those cases we're told "but that's not relevant! They're commercial companies!"
But as soon as the BBC get some credit now it's all "But what about commercial broadcasters?"
Strange how the "relevancy" changes depending on whether it shows the BBC in a good or bad light, isn't it?:rolleyes:
Strange how the "relevancy" changes depending on whether it shows the BBC in a good or bad light, isn't it?:rolleyes:
That'd be because different people have different agendas. And there is good and bad on both "sides".
Not that there are really "sides" any more, since so much BBC content is shown on commercial channels, and so many commercial companies are involved in making content for the BBC.
1) Not that there are really "sides" any more, since so much BBC content is shown on commercial channels,
2) and so many commercial companies are involved in making content for the BBC.
1) that is one issue, you have to wonder why the commercial channels are so unable to produce content that can be aired on a channel like Dave. Unless you wish to ban the BBC from selling repeat rights to its shows to the commercial sector, what more can you do? You could however ask how much BBC content is repeat on non BBC WW channels.
2) that is a different issue, we all know why licence fee money is wasted on profit for independent production companys, its not something of the BBC choosing. The BBC HAS to commission a certain % (a large %, one I dont recall at the moment) from independent production companys.
2) that is a different issue, we all know why licence fee money is wasted on profit for independent production companys, its not something of the BBC choosing. The BBC HAS to commission a certain % (a large %, one I dont recall at the moment) from independent production companys.
At least 25%. The DG has admitted that they have treated the 25% as a "limit" when it should be a "minimum" so they may well do even more.
The BBC was told to do this to help ensure the UK had a thriving independent production base, but of course it has led to situations like Jonathan Ross where people mix up the programme fee (the cost of making the whole show) with the presenters salary.
(The indie prodco does keep the rights for their shows but the BBC gets a cut of the sales forever so they do get some money back in the long term.)
1) that is one issue, you have to wonder why the commercial channels are so unable to produce content that can be aired on a channel like Dave. Unless you wish to ban the BBC from selling repeat rights to its shows to the commercial sector, what more can you do? You could however ask how much BBC content is repeat on non BBC WW channels.
I think the UKTV channels and the non-UKTV channels are two different issues. UKTV exists mainly for the purpose of monetising the BBC archives. Personally, I'm not convinced that's a good idea.
If non-UKTV channels want to buy ex-BBC programmes at market price, then I don't seem a problem with that.
Either way, it's a shame that content from the major broadcasters is endlessly recycled in this way, rather than creating more new content, but I guess that's what we're stuck with for the time being.
2) that is a different issue, we all know why licence fee money is wasted on profit for independent production companys, its not something of the BBC choosing. The BBC HAS to commission a certain % (a large %, one I dont recall at the moment) from independent production companys.
Yes, but it does show that the issue with lack of originality on the commercial channels is more about lack of money than lack of creativity. ITV Studios produced The Street for the BBC. In the past, Granada would have produced it for the ITV network.
I thought it was alot more than 25% but I could be wrong, but as you say it has caused a few problems, and maybe has had some other side effects, making the BBC look more commercial than it is.
I think the UKTV channels and the non-UKTV channels are two different issues. UKTV exists mainly for the purpose of monetising the BBC archives. Personally, I'm not convinced that's a good idea
.
Why not? who loses?
If non-UKTV channels want to buy ex-BBC programmes at market price, then I don't seem a problem with that.
Only got a problem the other way then?
Either way, it's a shame that content from the major broadcasters is endlessly recycled in this way, rather than creating more new content, but I guess that's what we're stuck with for the time being.
Why would they create new content? It costs more.
Yes, but it does show that the issue with lack of originality on the commercial channels is more about lack of money than lack of creativity.
Actually not, both Sky and ITV have enormous amounts to spend on programming, they do not choose to do it creatively though.
ITV Studios produced The Street for the BBC. In the past, Granada would have produced it for the ITV network.
It needs to be commissioned in the first place though, did ITV commission "The Street"?
NO.
Can you safely say with your hand on your heart that they would produce/commission something as uncommercial as this?
We do. We end up with endless repeats of ex-BBC material across Dave and all the other UKTV channels.
Only got a problem the other way then?
If there were only an open-market, I'd hope that the content would be more evenly spread around.
Why would they create new content? It costs more.
Exactly - so the BBC gets the best of both worlds. Take the creative high-ground, and deliver premium, new content on the main channels, and then soak up a proportion of ad revenue through UKTV.
Actually not, both Sky and ITV have enormous amounts to spend on programming, they do not choose to do it creatively though.
Okay - yes, there is more than just money and creativity at work - there is commercial appeal, too.
It needs to be commissioned in the first place though, did ITV commission "The Street"?
NO.
Can you safely say with your hand on your heart that they would produce/commission something as uncommercial as this?
In the past, there was plenty of similar stuff coming from ITV (usually from Thames or Granada). And C4 in its hey-day also made this kind of thing (and better) too.
I think the UKTV channels and the non-UKTV channels are two different issues. UKTV exists mainly for the purpose of monetising the BBC archives. Personally, I'm not convinced that's a good idea.
If non-UKTV channels want to buy ex-BBC programmes at market price, then I don't seem a problem with that.
you are not totally wrong.
I think you just have to look at the freeview channel Dave to see where UK TV channels can distort the market, most of Daves show are from the BBC, and profits from the ad revenue ends up back at the BBC.
If ITV were to say that the BBC was using Dave to distort the free to air ad market (its life blood), I would have a hard job saying that, this was not the case.
Of course if ITV was to say that, I could point out that BBCWW is currently supporting two its shows, so lets not pretend that ITV get nothing from it. To say nothing of the BBC shows they air and make profits from on ITV 3.
Either way, it's a shame that content from the major broadcasters is endlessly recycled in this way, rather than creating more new content, but I guess that's what we're stuck with for the time being.
I think this is true of anywhere in the world TBH, plenty of smaller US channels survive airing nothing but repeats of shows from the main networks, this isnt actually something unique to the UK.
Yes, but it does show that the issue with lack of originality on the commercial channels is more about lack of money than lack of creativity. ITV Studios produced The Street for the BBC. In the past, Granada would have produced it for the ITV network.
I think its also pretty telling that ITV Productions are able to make a drama about Corrie, but are not able to get ITV to commission it, so it ends up at the BBC.
We do. We end up with endless repeats of ex-BBC material across Dave and all the other UKTV channels.
How do we lose? We're not forced to watch Dave. Without that contend Dave would not exist, it has nowhere near enough income to produce more than a tiny amount of original content.
The BBC get income from old shows, without having to fill BBC1 and 2 up with repeats. So they make room for lots of original content while also allowing people who want to watch those older shows to watch them.
Who loses? The only people losing out would be other commercial broadcasters, but there are so many niche channels on Sky that it hardly makes a difference.
I think you just have to look at the freeview channel Dave to see where UK TV channels can distort the market, most of Daves show are from the BBC, and profits from the ad revenue ends up back at the BBC.
If ITV were to say that the BBC was using Dave to distort the free to air ad market (its life blood), I would have a hard job saying that, this was not the case.
The BBC does have a legal obligation to ensure it does not unfairly subsidise channels like Dave, that are 50% owned by Virgin Media BTW.
If the BBC "gave" a programme (or sold it at way under fair market value) to Dave there would be hell to pay. ITV and the rest would sue the BBC in a heartbeat. Not to mention all the writers and actors who are paid a percentage in royalties. They'd be losing out hugely and would sue as well.
The BBC does have a legal obligation to ensure it does not unfairly subsidise channels like Dave, that are 50% owned by Virgin Media BTW.
that is a fair point. It is hard to know what Virgin brings to Dave however, other than cash funds and protecting the BBC from criticism. Seriously I think BBC WW could run Dave without Virgins involvement.
It is I think worth discussing if UKTV channels should be free to air?
I think Dave showing BBC repeats is a great idea. If they showed that many repeats on a BBC channel people would complain, but it would be a shame for such a quantity of enjoyable programming to languish in a tape-library...
We do. We end up with endless repeats of ex-BBC material across Dave and all the other UKTV channels.
but that's what pay TV is though, endless repeats, at least with the UK TV channels we can see show good British programmes.
Exactly - so the BBC gets the best of both worlds. Take the creative high-ground, and deliver premium, new content on the main channels, and then soak up a proportion of ad revenue through UKTV.
It helps the BBC do what they do without increasing the LF to silly levels.
Okay - yes, there is more than just money and creativity at work - there is commercial appeal, too.
Exactly, it's WHAT THE BROADCASTERS DO WITH THE MONEY.
In the past, there was plenty of similar stuff coming from ITV (usually from Thames or Granada).
Key words: "IN THE PAST"
And C4 in its hey-day also made this kind of thing (and better) too
And, again, that's in the past and did they REALLY ALWAYS "do it better", is this another "Corny"Beeb bash - you can't seem to help yourself!:)
that is a fair point. It is hard to know what Virgin brings to Dave however, other than cash funds and protecting the BBC from criticism. Seriously I think BBC WW could run Dave without Virgins involvement.
It is I think worth discussing if UKTV channels should be free to air?
The BBC get a good deal in at least one way. If UKTV makes a profit, the BBC gets half and Virgin get the other half. If UKTV makes a loss, Virgin have to pay the lot....
The BBC get a good deal in at least one way. If UKTV makes a profit, the BBC gets half and Virgin get the other half. If UKTV makes a loss, Virgin have to pay the lot....
Strange, when people here criticise the BBC and others point out examples of commercial broadcasters that make the BBC look good (like C4 having TWO people paid more then the BBC DG!:eek: Or the Daily Mails paul Dacre being paid twice the DG for running a company a fraction of the size and complexity!) the anti BBC crowd always bleat "It's not relevant!"
Comments
Yes, that's why I mentioned C4 and the Daily Mail (who have had many TV ventures).
I could also have mentioned that ITV paid it's CEO far more than the DG, again for running a smaller and simpler company, or that the head of Sky and part of News Corp (ie still not the top man) is paid vastly more than the DG for running a company similar to the BBC with a mix of broadcasting and publishing.
In those cases we're told "but that's not relevant! They're commercial companies!"
But as soon as the BBC get some credit now it's all "But what about commercial broadcasters?"
Strange how the "relevancy" changes depending on whether it shows the BBC in a good or bad light, isn't it?:rolleyes:
Not that there are really "sides" any more, since so much BBC content is shown on commercial channels, and so many commercial companies are involved in making content for the BBC.
1) that is one issue, you have to wonder why the commercial channels are so unable to produce content that can be aired on a channel like Dave. Unless you wish to ban the BBC from selling repeat rights to its shows to the commercial sector, what more can you do? You could however ask how much BBC content is repeat on non BBC WW channels.
2) that is a different issue, we all know why licence fee money is wasted on profit for independent production companys, its not something of the BBC choosing. The BBC HAS to commission a certain % (a large %, one I dont recall at the moment) from independent production companys.
At least 25%. The DG has admitted that they have treated the 25% as a "limit" when it should be a "minimum" so they may well do even more.
The BBC was told to do this to help ensure the UK had a thriving independent production base, but of course it has led to situations like Jonathan Ross where people mix up the programme fee (the cost of making the whole show) with the presenters salary.
(The indie prodco does keep the rights for their shows but the BBC gets a cut of the sales forever so they do get some money back in the long term.)
If non-UKTV channels want to buy ex-BBC programmes at market price, then I don't seem a problem with that.
Either way, it's a shame that content from the major broadcasters is endlessly recycled in this way, rather than creating more new content, but I guess that's what we're stuck with for the time being.
Yes, but it does show that the issue with lack of originality on the commercial channels is more about lack of money than lack of creativity. ITV Studios produced The Street for the BBC. In the past, Granada would have produced it for the ITV network.
Why not? who loses?
Only got a problem the other way then?
Why would they create new content? It costs more.
Actually not, both Sky and ITV have enormous amounts to spend on programming, they do not choose to do it creatively though.
It needs to be commissioned in the first place though, did ITV commission "The Street"?
NO.
Can you safely say with your hand on your heart that they would produce/commission something as uncommercial as this?
Down with positivity.
If there were only an open-market, I'd hope that the content would be more evenly spread around.
Exactly - so the BBC gets the best of both worlds. Take the creative high-ground, and deliver premium, new content on the main channels, and then soak up a proportion of ad revenue through UKTV.
Okay - yes, there is more than just money and creativity at work - there is commercial appeal, too.
In the past, there was plenty of similar stuff coming from ITV (usually from Thames or Granada). And C4 in its hey-day also made this kind of thing (and better) too.
I think you just have to look at the freeview channel Dave to see where UK TV channels can distort the market, most of Daves show are from the BBC, and profits from the ad revenue ends up back at the BBC.
If ITV were to say that the BBC was using Dave to distort the free to air ad market (its life blood), I would have a hard job saying that, this was not the case.
Of course if ITV was to say that, I could point out that BBCWW is currently supporting two its shows, so lets not pretend that ITV get nothing from it. To say nothing of the BBC shows they air and make profits from on ITV 3.
I think this is true of anywhere in the world TBH, plenty of smaller US channels survive airing nothing but repeats of shows from the main networks, this isnt actually something unique to the UK.
I think its also pretty telling that ITV Productions are able to make a drama about Corrie, but are not able to get ITV to commission it, so it ends up at the BBC.
How do we lose? We're not forced to watch Dave. Without that contend Dave would not exist, it has nowhere near enough income to produce more than a tiny amount of original content.
The BBC get income from old shows, without having to fill BBC1 and 2 up with repeats. So they make room for lots of original content while also allowing people who want to watch those older shows to watch them.
Who loses? The only people losing out would be other commercial broadcasters, but there are so many niche channels on Sky that it hardly makes a difference.
The BBC does have a legal obligation to ensure it does not unfairly subsidise channels like Dave, that are 50% owned by Virgin Media BTW.
If the BBC "gave" a programme (or sold it at way under fair market value) to Dave there would be hell to pay. ITV and the rest would sue the BBC in a heartbeat. Not to mention all the writers and actors who are paid a percentage in royalties. They'd be losing out hugely and would sue as well.
It is I think worth discussing if UKTV channels should be free to air?
However how much of the BBC library is being used, Dave just shows the same hand full of shows again & again.
but that's what pay TV is though, endless repeats, at least with the UK TV channels we can see show good British programmes.
It helps the BBC do what they do without increasing the LF to silly levels.
Exactly, it's WHAT THE BROADCASTERS DO WITH THE MONEY.
Key words: "IN THE PAST"
And, again, that's in the past and did they REALLY ALWAYS "do it better", is this another "Corny"Beeb bash - you can't seem to help yourself!:)
The BBC get a good deal in at least one way. If UKTV makes a profit, the BBC gets half and Virgin get the other half. If UKTV makes a loss, Virgin have to pay the lot....
Do you think Mr Dacre's renumeration is bad?