Originally Posted by HeidiB:
“I think that a boycott is a really good idea and just what the BBC deserves. However, realistically, most people won't be prepared to miss a program they have previously loved. Others will want to see how well Alesha performs, or how anodyne her comments will be.
Another solution would be to watch the program but refuse to vote as a protest against a judge with practically no knowledge of dance. I wasn't pleased when the BBC removed the element of money for 'Children in Need' from our votes without informing us of the change. Now it all goes to the BBC. So why not boycott the program by refusing to vote and so deprive the BBC of the money they don't deserve?”
Originally Posted by memmh:
“When they stopped giving money from the phone voting to Children in Need, the cost of the calls went down. Apparently the costs now only cover the operating charges and nothing goes to the BBC, although I could be wrong on that.”
Definitive answer to the phone vote question (which is currently cropping up every two days). Feel free to copy and paste...
Originally the cost of the vote had two elements; the operating costs and the donation to charity. However, when the whole phone vote scandals blew up at ITV (who were making a profit out of the votes), the BBC were forced to drop the charity part of the phone cost as it could been seen as a "forced donation". ie people who wanted to vote for Strictly but didn't want to make a donation to charity had no options.
Since then (series 5 I think) the cost of the call is just operating charges (and mobile network charges). The vote is administered externally.
The BBC has never made a profit from any phone vote. It is against their charter.
Please feel free to quote the above next time people accuse the Beeb of profiteering.