BBC self-advertising and general quality

BunnyKillBot · 19 Dec 2010 at 20:32

[DOD]Asprilla;18036624 said:
Ah yes, because ITV using an adfunded model and Sky using an ad and subscription model (generating a budget vastly in excess of the BBC's) regularly produce TV of the quality you've mentioned above.

Oh no, they don't, do they? My mistake.

Ah so its a British thing. We are just useless

FoxEye · 19 Dec 2010 at 20:32

The BBC must have plenty of money. They can afford all those fancy ads for iPlayer, can't they?

I wonder how much they spent on that advert where a bunch of people run around a pink world, chasing pink CGI swirls, and then explode in a bunch of pink glitter?

Crap like that normally involves an ad agency, and that costs $$$.

And how many millions are they paying Jonathan Ross these days? They're not short of money.

[DOD]Asprilla · 19 Dec 2010 at 20:44

FoxEye said:
And how many millions are they paying Jonathan Ross these days?

Nothing, the contract expired and wasn't renewed.

As I've mentioned in countless other threads on the BBC the £16m Ross was being 'paid' was actually a contract with his production company to deliver a number of hours of TV and Radio each year. Out of those funds Ross had to pay all his staff and cover the costs. It was actually pretty good value for money.

The BBC does waste money (as do all large organisations) but this isn't an example, regardless of what the Daily Mail keeps saying.

[DOD]Asprilla · 19 Dec 2010 at 20:47

BunnyKillBot said:
Ah so its a British thing. We are just useless

Economics; smaller market means less money.

Kelt · 19 Dec 2010 at 20:54

I begrudge having to pay a license fee, down to the last smegging penny.

Brian8bit · 19 Dec 2010 at 20:57

KelticDaz said:
I begrudge having to pay a license fee, down to the last smegging penny.

Then don't. Just stop watching any programming that receives money from the license fee and shut the **** up.

Kelt · 19 Dec 2010 at 21:21

Brian8bit said:
Then don't. Just stop watching any programming that receives money from the license fee and shut the **** up.

Yeh, and you can go and do one. Didn't ask for your opinion, you ignorant ****.

Kenai · 19 Dec 2010 at 21:23

I don't think the BBC is the best target for poor general quality of broadcasting considering I just saw an ad saying Channel 4 are spending most of Christmas Day broadcasting live births :/

dazzerd · 19 Dec 2010 at 21:27

I don't think the point is whether or not the BBC does some quality TV, it does. My issue is the principle of having to pay the license fee whether or not I choose to watch the BBC.

Last time I checked if you have any "tv equipment" you need to have a TV license even if you can prove you do not watch the BBC.

[DOD]Asprilla · 19 Dec 2010 at 21:32

Considering the licence fee pays for maintaining (and upgrading to digital) the terrestrial broadcast transmitters then it's hardly surprising you have to pay even if you don't watch the BBC.

dazzerd · 19 Dec 2010 at 21:40

Well why not call it what it is then: a digital tax!

When I pay for sky I know I am paying for the upkeep of the satellite network and the hiring of the equipment.

[DOD]Asprilla · 19 Dec 2010 at 21:47

Would you be happier about paying it if they change the name?

chriscpritchard · 19 Dec 2010 at 22:47

dazzerd said:
I don't think the point is whether or not the BBC does some quality TV, it does. My issue is the principle of having to pay the license fee whether or not I choose to watch the BBC.

Last time I checked if you have any "tv equipment" you need to have a TV license even if you can prove you do not watch the BBC.

nope, if you "watch live tv" - you can own TV equipment, but not watch telly (IE, hook it to a games console, DVD player etc)