we pay far too much money for the cr*p we receive in return, you get more for your money with sky, but still have to pay for bloody licence.
2006-10-21 02:24:35 · 33 answers · asked by Dr Doom 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television
richard, i agree with you. although i hate ads, the advertising revenue it provides would cover the costs and still generate enough profit. even if adverts are a waste of space, anyway. yet if we want to buy or purchase a product or service, we should be able to do that in other ways, other than having adverts. though its not just the licence fee that is the problem, what about the lack of quality in tv shows on the bbc? its a utter rip-off and these days its all reality tv, as well as boring, dull shows and crappy sitcoms. therefore, tv these days is crap. i don't watch much of it; seeing as i am not missing out on anything in particular and as there are other channels, with better and interesting programmes which'll keep me glued to the screen, rather than bbc1, 2, 3,4 etc.
but in regards to the licence fee, it should be rid of immediately and if i was running the country, i'd remove it without fuss and straightaway too
2006-10-22 02:51:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
This is a question that many people get very wound up by, but here is what would happen if the BBC reverted to advertising...
It is very expensive to buy a primetime, 30 second TV slot for advertisers (sometimes up to £250,000 ). If ,for example, Doctor Who and the X-Factor were on at the same time, the advertisers would buy the slot on the programme with the most viewers, leaving the other with nothing. Over the course of a few months, this would mean less money for the companies to make new programmes and we'd all end up watching a diet of re-runs, cheap imports, and low quality programmes, if we bothered to tune in at all.
The BBC is not without fault, but on average advertising costs you 3 times more each year than a TV license. If Asda have a new expensive ad campaign then they might put an extra 1p on a bag of carrots, HMV doing a new promotion they put up the price of something else in the shop, and so on and so on.
It is foolish to think that the BBC is poor value for money considering how appalling programming on ITV is!
The Beeb is a National Treasure - not afraid to take risks, produces the most stunning wildlife programmes on earth, commission new comedy like no other broadcaster on the planet, has numerous TV channels, Radio Stations, informative magazines etc.
I realise some people at the Beeb are paid well but other TV presenters (stand up Carol Vorderman, Fern Britton) are paid much more than anyone at the BBC. It is a cut-throat business they work in and the incentive (usually greed) has to be there.
One last thing, you may get more choice on Sky but at twice the price a year compared to a TV licence before you even start on their subscription only channels, I think you'll find Rupert Murdoch is ripping you off and lining his pockets more than the BBC is!
p.s. - You pay for Sky AND it has adverts!
2006-10-21 02:50:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I totally agree. If the licence meant getting rid of all advertisement then fair enough but just for one broadcaster its pointless. Considering that the BBC are trailing behind the other channels in producing real quality shows it's stupid. You should at least have the option of not paying for a licence if you don't want to watch BBC. Anyone who thinks its worth paying the license because they are 'sick of adverts' should get out more.
2006-10-21 02:36:58 · answer #3 · answered by * * Princess * * 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I hate advert breaks, they thoroughly destroy maximum programmes. i could extremely pay the television licence. i do no longer know why people kick up a fuss approximately it, it extremely is not a extensive volume of money once you pay month-to-month. additionally, people seem to underestimate how lots the licence covers (BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, the information channel, all the BBC Radio channels, and the interior reach radio BBC channels). And if it have been to be classified ads basically, then the programmes being made could be merely comparable to ITV - p!ss undesirable.
2016-11-24 21:02:37 · answer #4 · answered by muhammad 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think your argument doesn't stand up. The BBC is amazing and has the best content in the world. Examples? I'll pick some obvious ones. I'm sure other people will name their own faves.
Drama: Dr Who
Documentary: Trials of Life
Music: Proms
Kids: The entire CBBC & Cbeebies channels (and I DONT want advertising on those)
News: Newsnight
Radio: Radio 2 is the most popular in the UK
Web: They web-cast loads of programs
Comedy: Little Brittain
Soap: Eastenders (although I hate it it's v popular)
It's no secret that reality progs like x-factor, or get-me-out-of here get massive audiences. I don't want to watch them, so I want an alternative. But if content is dictated by viewing figures, cost to make, and advertising appeal then the lowest-common-demonitor wins out. Meaning there will be more low-quality-cheap-to-make-dumbed-down programs on tv.
No thanks.
90% or more of my families viewing is BBC based - even though we have cable. So we're paying twice. We've talked about getting rid of cable, but the package is bundled with phone, tv, and internet so altogether we don't think a lot of money is going out the door for what we're getting.
If a decision was forced on me, then I'd loose the rest and keep my licence and tv and stick with Aunty.
Is the licence fee very expensive? When you break it down on a per day basis, it's nothing. Cheaper than fags. Cheaper than a lot of mobile phone contracts.
Is it a tax? Kind of. But we have all sort of taxes and we have to pay them like it or not.
It's a revolutionary idea, but if you think that there's nothing on tv worth watching and you object to paying for it then get rid of the telly. It isn't mandatory.
2006-10-21 03:09:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
It's the only channel you can watch without adverts, I get so fed up with all the rubbish adverts on every two mins, but I reckon if they did start to show adverts the government would still charge for a TV licence.
2006-10-21 02:29:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I used to think that way but then at the end of the day it makes me mad when the ads come on. Probably better to pay x amount per month if you wish to watch it like sky . What i dont like about the licence fee is that you still have to pay it even if you dont watch bbc.
2006-10-21 02:52:57 · answer #7 · answered by bogstandard 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'm 100% behind you and everyone who backs getting rid of the licence, it's totally wrong that someone who's unemployed pays the some as a wealthy person with 20 TV's in their mansion. It has become yet another money making scam.
2006-10-21 02:44:35 · answer #8 · answered by LondonNick 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The Licence fee keeps the BBC independant. If you take Adverts then the advertiser gets to call the shots. I.E a car manufacturer got very annoyed when one of their cars got slagged off by Top Gear, He ordered his underlings to tell the program maker to withdraw what was said, or he would withdraw his adverts from the channel. Bet his face was a picture when he was informed it was a BBC program, and that the BBC don't run ads!. Let's keep it free and indendant. What's £2 a week, won't get you 10 fags or a pint of beer!
P.S
To Pink 8 million watched Cleb come dancing, BBC still has viewers, and don't forget the radio.
2006-10-21 02:35:24 · answer #9 · answered by Gazpode55 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The TV licence is a rip off.
The only advantage of BBC over Sky is that BBC do actually make original programmes - Dr Who, Torchwood, Jane Eyre, the new Robin Hood (I know its crap but at least its original). All you get from Sky is American imports and crappy "celeb" reality shows.
I still think the licence fee is a rip off though. I think they should scrap it and fund themselves another way.
2006-10-21 02:44:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋