BBC adverts

[anotheoldgit]

Why do we have to pay for a TV licence when the BBC are now screening more an more of their own product adverts in between programmes? Why can't they depend on consumer adverts for their revenue the same as other TV stations?

[luna-tic]

Especially when you think you've already bought the telly and after about seven years(depending on it's original price) with the Licence,you've payed for it again.
As from the end of next month my aerial is going in the bin and the BBC can shove their licence.

[Ethel]

Oh save me from commercial tv. Look at the commercial digital stations - repeats or phone in programmes.

And commercial breaks during live sport - that is not cricket!
Commercial advertising dumbs down television. I agree there are some excellent programmes on the main commercial channels, but the majority is dross.

The BBC also provides the World Service. A hugely important service. BBC News in 33 languages.

Radio is more popular now than it has been in the last 30 years - and it's the BBC stations that most people listen to.

Strange how people complain about a modest licence fee yet seem happy to pay much more than that for digital and satellite channels.

There is only so much advertising revenue to go round. If the BBC were to go comercial, most advertising revenue would dry up for the other channels.

[chazza]

Personally I would rather pay a TV licence than have to sit through 5 minutes of adverts for every 10 minutes of programme content, but I suppose it is all down to personal choice.

However I do agree that the amount of ads on BBC is set to rival ITV/C4 soon!

[Backdrifter]

It's usually people who don't care much about what they watch who complain about the licence fee. Whatever you might think about the BBC's output, it's way, way superior to the commercial channels. They can take more chances and produce edgier, better-quality programming. Yes, yes, yes, I know there's loads of cr*p in among the good stuff but there's still loads more good stuff than on ITV and the rest.

And it's wonderful to have somewhere you can avoid commercials. I admit I get annoyed by the plugs for other BBC stuff but they have 7 channels so they have to keep visibility for them all, and it's only between programmes rather than during them. I can't watch films on the commercial channels, they're cut to ribbons by the ad breaks and the sloppy edits in and out of them. If the BBC went down the commercial route, it would be diastrous for the reasons already given.

[anotheoldgit]

Ethel
Regarding the BBC World Service. Please explain why you think this is a hugely important service, also why should we fund something that the rest of the world gets for free? And who wants the BBC news in 33 languages, when almost all of the world speaks English?. Regarding advertising revenue drying up, this did not happen when all the additional ITV channels opened up.

[Backdrifter]

What a mean-spirited and ignorant post, anotheoldgit. Are you seriously begrudging the provision of news services to people in far-flung parts of the world in their own languages, for the sake of the 5p a week or whatever the individual contribution our licence fees make? And, while English is spoken in many different countries, that doesn't mean that every single citizen of those countries, who might listen to the World Service, speaks it.

Regarding advertising revenue, I question the confidence with which you say this wasn't affected when additional ITV channels started. ITV1 is currently struggling for revenue, and there are other factors that muddy the waters of your argument. Those additional ITV channels consist almost entirely of off-air time, ancient repeats and large blocks of time devoted to Quizmania-type rubbish, so they're hardly costly to run. And they give a idea of what to expect when commercially-based broadcasters have multiple channels.

If that doesn't bother you, fine, but it illustrates what I meant when I said that it's usually people who aren't bothered about quality who support abolition of the licence fee.

[anotheoldgit]

Backdrifter I take exception from a person that uses the word cr*p in their posts to call my post an ignorant post. Call it a mean-spirited post if you must, you are entitled to your opinion, but ignorant it defiantly was not.

Regarding ancient repeats the BBC is a prime example, peak-time repeats of programmes we have paid for over and over again, at least the commercial channels repeat programmes that one may have missed first time round, but no one can possibly admit to not seeing "Only Fools and Horses" at the least a dozen times.

As regards to begrudging the provision of a news service (that we pay for) to people in far flung parts of the world. When do other countries ever give us anything for nowt? For example, during World War 2 when we were on our own, our very good friends in the USA did help us out in weapons and food, but hey! after it was all over came payback time, and we have been paying ever since.