TV Licensing

[Mojo]

How much money does television advertising actually make? In addition to the BBC's commercial arm which sells DVDs, etc., is there scope for them to make money by perhaps swapping out one or two trailers between programmes for commercial adverts, or by putting adverts on their websites (many public bodies such as TfL already do this, as does the BBC website if viewed from abroad)? This might not make a huge difference, but could perhaps allow them to reduce the license fee slightly without any noticeable detriment in the enjoyment of the service to the user.

 

[NSEFAN]

One advantage of the BBC is that it effectively sets the limit for acceptable advertising time on other channels. If either the BBC closed down or started showing adverts, I would expect to see an increase in advertising time on other channels too.

 

[gordonthemoron]

whatever Rupert Murdoch says to the contrary, I doubt very much he would want BBC carrying adverts as it would reduce Sky's income

 

[Mojo]

One advantage of the BBC is that it effectively sets the limit for acceptable advertising time on other channels. If either the BBC closed down or started showing adverts, I would expect to see an increase in advertising time on other channels too.

The amount of time allocated to advertisements on television is already regulated by Ofcom.

A European Directive limits the maximum amount of advertising on television to 12 Min per hour. Ofcom limits for Channel 3, 4/S4C, and 5 is an average of 7 Min (8 Min between 6pm and 11pm) per hour, and 9 Min for other channels (12 Min of advertisements + teleshopping).

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/other-codes/tacode.pdf

Of course some operators may choose to make a commercial decision to not show as many advertisements, but I'm not sure how much that applies at the moment.

 

[CC 72100]

....or by putting adverts on their websites (many public bodies such as TfL already do this, as does the BBC website if viewed from abroad)? ....

Yep, BBC news from when viewed from abroad does have adverts. Also abroad my normal BBC homepage was replaced by BBC capital, a service that is only available outside of the UK. Trying to access BBC capital (a lot of the news stories that appear on BBC Mundo for Latin America are translations of these BBC Capital stories) results in a message saying how it isn't covered by the licence fee and so can't be accessed in the UK etc.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

....
I disagree as far as news goes there pretty good. But the thing that strikes me is that they seem to be accused of being biased by various different people in various different directions (accused of bias against the Greens by the left, of bias against the UKIP by the right, of bias in favour of Labour by the Tories and in favour of the Tories by Labour for example). In which case it strikes me that perhaps they are doing something right if all sides say their biased in favour of the other!

Source? (Honest question I'm interested in learning more).

That surely is down the law? And if the law says they can recover their costs why shouldn't they?

If people are watching it what's the problem? I don't especially enjoy reality TV shows so I don't watch them and instead watch shows the BBC commision that I do like.

Source? (As above I'm interested to learn more)

Why not watch the news an hour after it's broadcast? Not everyone remembers to set up a recorder or wants to watch things on IPlayer. +1 channels still appear to be popular as they can be found all over the place and again, if people are watching it why get rid of it?

I don't know that it's unfair. But certainly the way they pursue it is totally unacceptable and I'll happily consider supporting any motion that will see their collections contracter tone down their letters.

Urgh no thanks I prefer not having to fast forward through adverts. Also what's wrong with self-promotion? It's how I learn about loads of programs that I'm interested in but otherwise wouldn't see!


It's £145.50 per year which is not what I'd call a fortune...

The edited shows for broadcast overseas might be 45 minutes but the shows shown on our BBC are usually either 30 minutes or a straight hour. There are a few odd exceptions (Pointless for example) but the big ticket items (Top Gear for example) are either 30 or 60 minutes and then edited down for broadcast overseas.

Can't say I'd noticed but perhaps it's related to the projection angle? The 'camera' angle is tilted rather than straight down on most shots.

The BBC used "RIPA" terror powers accorfing to the independent last week.
BBC was reported on in the i newspaper early last year. It said around 55% of BBC2 and it said they had lots of old episodes. Look at the dates on Bargain Hunt this week. I've seen 2007 shown in usual BBC MMVII dates so people can't date it easy.

And 145 quid is a fortune! No where else pays that. And other costs are up too and incomes down.

And on the "it's the law so it's okay bit" if a law is unjust it is every citizens duty to not just ignore but to fight it. That's a famous quote from Washington.

The BBC news bit is biased. Once they were reporting on a vintage race taking place in Birmingham and the newscaster said "racing isn't something you'd associate with the Midlands but..".
If something happens they ignore much of the worst if it happens in Muslim areas but it wouldn't be ignored if it happened in Australia or America. The weathermap includes Plymouth, Portsmouth and Norwich and misses out much bigger Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, why? They always say what government figure's say as fact rather than looking at Independent sources.
Like we always get the "the economy is booming" nonsense when in my region and others people in work is down and businesses are down. They should always say all sides of a story and sgop promoting government schemes all the time.
They asked the Labour Party a question of how they'll fund welfare increases, they got an answer but said "you're not going to answer".
The same happened at the Scottish referendum.
Nick Robinso falsely claimed Salmond never answered his question.
I always use multiple sources on news, I watch Euronews, RT and BBC among others.

 

[Tetchytyke]

£145 is not a lot of money for what the BBC offers- the cheapest Sky package is £22 per month. Ireland's TV licence is EUR160, and the Irish state broadcaster has adverts too.

That doesn't make the BBC good- I object to the lack of choice- but they are not expensive.

 

[Kite159]

Get rid of the license fee and have the BBC funded by adverts and you could probably say goodbye to a lot of the programs on BBC4 which are made for niche audiences and hence don't always have the greatest viewing figures, but are good value. Example being some of the science programs, not as dumbed down as they would be on BBC 2, or programs focusing on a particular musical band

 

[infobleep]

There was a good series on called Map Man. Nicolas Crain took some famous maps and explained them. He went out into the countryside and towns to use them. It was so good a second series was commissioned. Around this time, 2007/08, I asked the production company if the programmes would be released on DVD, as I'd missed some. I was told no. So my only option was to wait until they were broadcast again, if that ever happened. It did but I still missed some. Clearly the BBC don't advertised this type of programme on BBC 1 or on the radio. I find usually it's high profile shows that get cross promotion.

I'm happy to pay my licence fee for programmes such as this and Doctor Who became I love that. Call the Midwife is good and The Musketeers is also great. I guess that latter could be made commercially.

I choose not to pay for Sky because you can't choose what to pay for. With the BBC I pay for all channels they make. With Sky you can't choose to just pay for channels Sky made or perhaps channel by another owner. No you have to take their agreed packages. If you want the Sport then you have to pay for channels you might not be interested in.

I pay £3.99 a month to subscribe directly to Eurosport over the Internet. I have an app on my phone and TV. I do that to watch the Skiing. I find it good value and I just pay for the channels I want to watch

I am very glad German TV is free to air because I enjoy watching some of the programmes on their regional channels. Were it scrambled I would not be able to. These programmes are not usually sold in the UK and nor would they be broadcast by a UK broadcaster. In fact I doubt some of them would even make it onto DVD.

For example Bayern Fernsehen (BR) had a programmes entitled Weihnatchssingen [Christmas singing] on Christmas Eve. It featured a choir; brass band; folk singers and folk bands. I love that type of music, amongst my varied interest in different musical styles. Without access to free to air German TV in the UK, I wouldn't be able to enjoy this.

Stick that and our state TV channels behind subscription models and I and others would miss out. I would happily pay towards the German licence fee if I had to but they don't offer such an option and I doubt they ever would.

European satellite systems has given greater access to some TV from around Europe but a lot of it still reminds country restricted due to being scrambled and they don't offer away for people outside the country to contribute. Yes there are ways around this but those are routes I'm sure they wouldn't want you to use either.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

£145 is not a lot of money for what the BBC offers- the cheapest Sky package is £22 per month. Ireland's TV licence is EUR160, and the Irish state broadcaster has adverts too.

That doesn't make the BBC good- I object to the lack of choice- but they are not expensive.

We get Sky for £21.50 a month. But why do we have to pay BBC aswell.
It's like some mediaeval fiefdom where we we have to pay tribute.
I always see dozens of court cases in the local paper about non-paynent. How much does that cost?

 

[Busaholic]

Perhaps but it's an interesting discussion and until Busaholic reports back with news about his bank statement (drinks on them?) we might well discuss the wider issues of the TV Licence

Right, apologies, work intervened. The situation is that I couldn't be absolutely sure whether I had paid by credit or debit card, the reason being that my car tax was due on the same day and I'd done one after the other, knowing there was only enough in my bank account at the time for one or the other. In fact, because DVLA charges extra for use of a credit card, I'd paid that one by debit card. As an aside, may I recommend their automated phone system for this, as long as you have the reminder ref it's all straightforward.

So, I'd used a credit card, one of two, to buy the TV licence and as I have relatively recent bills I could check that neither had been debited by the middle of January. It had crossed my mind that this could be some sort of scam as the letter sent to me seemed such a general letter, seemingly not knowing whether I had used a debit or credit card, not giving any reference number and signed 'Customer Services Team' (ha bloody ha) until I realised by its slightly threatening tone, implying that somehow if not my fault it certainly wasn't theirs and it was up to me to sort it out, yes, it could only be the genuine article. By the way, a part of the letter I didn't copy because it didn't seem relevant at the time was their statement that they were fully entitled to do all this under the Communications Act,2003. Now, I do not easily feel threatened, having transferred my knowledge in the social housing sector in Inner London to retraining as a Probation Officer and being quite au fait with courts, albeit some while ago now, so I could say 'see you in court' but I won't. I have emailed them to express my surprise at receiving the letter and its tenor and have received an acknowledgement. I am intent on receiving an apology in writing, with an explanation of how this could have happened and an assurance it won't be repeated. Then, at my comparative leisure, I shall send them a cheque by 2nd class post (come to think of it, they can send me a SAE). If anyone on here expresses interest I'll report on further developments, but thanks for the words of encouragement so far.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How much money does television advertising actually make? In addition to the BBC's commercial arm which sells DVDs, etc., is there scope for them to make money by perhaps swapping out one or two trailers between programmes for commercial adverts, or by putting adverts on their websites (many public bodies such as TfL already do this, as does the BBC website if viewed from abroad)? This might not make a huge difference, but could perhaps allow them to reduce the license fee slightly without any noticeable detriment in the enjoyment of the service to the user.

Thinking to the future, as I would imagine most TV within 10 years, if not all, will be on demand, and channels other than rolling news will be collections of programmes for viewing with new episodes added each week[1], I imagine you could choose between having advertisements and paying a subscription or fixed fee to remove them, just as you can with a good many Android apps. I'd pay as I hate disruptive advertisements, but those who don't mind them can choose to have them and not pay.

I'd also imagine there will be more option to buy TV directly from the producers rather than via a channel. Want the latest series? Buy it online from the company making it.

[1] A lot of people are shouting about the BBC3 channel closing and it becoming an online collection of programming instead - but I do strongly believe that is the future of television; it's already how I consume it pretty much exclusively, and I think it will be the case for more and more people in future. Why faff with PVRs and the likes when you can simply select what you want to view when you want to?

Neil

 

[jon0844]

On Demand is certainly the future, but I do think some live channels will remain - if only for live events/news - for some time.

We are some way off having the ability to receive on demand content in as many places as you could receive television/radio over terrestrial or satellite broadcasting.

Those channels you have on Sky that are probably never watched, and some people will have filtered out by using favourites, will surely die one day.

What we need going forward is a shake up of how TV and film makers sell/license their material, such that Sky might have a movie for nn months, with the rights to only show nn number of times. Then Netflix buy the rights for nn months, before it disappears and may or may not turn up somewhere else.

I'd like to see (but doubt I will) it becoming more like Spotify where, with few exceptions, once music is available it remains available. And then the rights to show these films and TV series will be available for 'sale' to multiple content providers. And, by rights, the good stuff that gets watched will generate more revenue.

I know it can't work as content is sold in packages. 'Take this blockbuster for £nn but only if you also take this dross.' - perhaps not such an issue for the music industry.

One thing is for sure, we're going to see big changes in the years ahead one way or another. Who knows if a TV licence can survive, but if we end up with only the programmes that appeal to advertisers, and for people with short attention spans, then erm, hey, Kim Kardashian just showed her a*se!

 

[Butts]

The BBC is the finest Broadcaster by a huge margin, at least within the UK.

When you consider the Licence Fee has been frozen for a few years now I don't know how they do it.

Television Channels, National and Local Radio Stations, I-Player, Online News and other Websites, World Service et al.

All for less than the cost of a Basic Sky Subscription.

The variety and breadth of choice across the Network is unrivalled or surpassed.

I can remember when BSB and SKY first started in the eighties - where the dishes appeared first gives a clue to it's plebeian origins and target market.

It needs the Licence Fee to maintain it's Independence and ability to produce a Flagship Service for the whole of the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On Demand is certainly the future, but I do think some live channels will remain - if only for live events/news - for some time.

Yes, I'd think 24-hour rolling news channels will remain (but probably streamed rather than broadcast). I would imagine radio will also largely remain as-is as it is similarly not[1] programme-based in most cases, more intended to be left on in the background.

[1] Radio 4 is the exception, and it's perhaps notable that I pretty much exclusively consume the content from that in the form of downloads/podcasts as well.

We are some way off having the ability to receive on demand content in as many places as you could receive television/radio over terrestrial or satellite broadcasting.

True, but 10 years is a long time in IT. 10 years ago some people were still using modems (almost nobody is now). I think it's realistic to say that in 10 years almost every home will have a fast broadband connection if they want it, possibly except very rural locations which might have a problem with TV reception (other than satellite) anyway.

Those channels you have on Sky that are probably never watched, and some people will have filtered out by using favourites, will surely die one day.

They do from time to time anyway.

I'd like to see (but doubt I will) it becoming more like Spotify where, with few exceptions, once music is available it remains available. And then the rights to show these films and TV series will be available for 'sale' to multiple content providers. And, by rights, the good stuff that gets watched will generate more revenue.

Agreed. You can I suppose just rent from iTunes which is almost that model, though I think the prices of TV content might need to drop a bit.

One thing is for sure, we're going to see big changes in the years ahead one way or another. Who knows if a TV licence can survive, but if we end up with only the programmes that appeal to advertisers, and for people with short attention spans, then erm, hey, Kim Kardashian just showed her a*se!

I think that's actually less likely to be the case, as if the possibility to pay for content directly exists, then that content will be made available if it makes money, and smaller production companies might be able to take less money.

As for the BBC, I'm not sure. I wonder if its future role should just be rolling news and local radio, those being the sort of services that aren't really economic to provide commercially to the sort of quality[1] needed, plus an online repository of public service programming of the kind often found on BBC2/Channel 4. Then just fund this much reduced BBC from income tax. But I don't know. I do get a lot from the BBC but I recognise that it's not necessarily fair that those who don't, pay for this.

[1] I don't use the term "quality" in connection with biased Murdoch news, though others could of course set this kind of thing up.

Neil

 

[ainsworth74]

If anyone on here expresses interest I'll report on further developments, but thanks for the words of encouragement so far.

Please feel free to do so. I always enjoy stories of TV Licensing getting their comeuppance.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

perhaps we should move to the German model of every home requiring a TV licence whether you have a TV or not? (At least that was better than the previous arrangement whereby every TV and radio required a licence)

B"$"$£%s, perhaps not!

I don't watch TV so I don't need a licence and therefore don't have a TV licence. Nice collection of threatening TV Licencing letters though. As someone didn't quite say, it makes the rail industry seem quite cuddly!

Why should I pay anything, at all, towards the BBC! What benefit does it offer me, it's not as though they are exactly efficient with the money they do receive - £11m per episode of Wolf Hall!!!!!!!!!, multi-million pay-offs to former executives, multi-million fees to 'celebrities', wasted IT projects in the £100 millions and so much much more.

OK, I pay through general taxation (or perhaps I don't here in Monaco ) for things that I don't directly receive (or perhaps want) but there is a general good to society by having everyone else's kids edurcated (sic) etc.

No taxation without representation - if it becomes some form of compulsory levy, I want a proper say on how much BBC bosses get paid, what programmes they produce etc.

 

[ainsworth74]

No taxation without representation - if it becomes some form of compulsory levy, I want a proper say on how much BBC bosses get paid, what programmes they produce etc.

In the same way you have say on teachers salaries or head teachers salaries or nurses or doctors or soldiers?

 

[bb21]

I don't watch TV so I don't need a licence and therefore don't have a TV licence. Nice collection of threatening TV Licencing letters though. As someone didn't quite say, it makes the rail industry seem quite cuddly!

I am making a lovely collage of all the threatening letters soon, after trawling through all the "investigations" they have apparently opened. They must have several lever arch folder full of paperwork on me by now.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

In the same way you have say on teachers salaries or head teachers salaries or nurses or doctors or soldiers?

You choose these examples badly or deliberately?

From the knowledge I have, the above do not earn multi-million salaries, thus I have no problem with their rates of remuneration. They also perform a useful role in society - all being public sector activities. Doctors (GP's) and headteachers are, perhaps, a bit toppy, whereas teachers, nurses and soldiers - pay them more, tomorrow. And the binmen. Finally, double the minimum wage so people can actually afford to live in this country.

Not sure broadcasting meets a public service role in this day and age. If it did I may have a different opinion on the licence fee / levy regardless of whether I watch their product.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am making a lovely collage of all the threatening letters soon, after trawling through all the "investigations" they have apparently opened. They must have several lever arch folder full of paperwork on me by now.

Have you done the full circle and gone back to the first letter?

 

[bb21]

Have you done the full circle and gone back to the first letter?

More than a handful of times I reckon

 

[Busaholic]

Please feel free to do so. I always enjoy stories of TV Licensing getting their comeuppance.

TV Licensing announce (by e-mail) they take 4 to 8 days to respond to e-mails, so that's another 4 to 8 days they're not getting (re)paid for. When/if I get their apology/explanation I shall hang it next to the VAT Inspector's similar missive in my loo.

 

[richw]

I find TV Licensing a nightmare to deal with, especially for my poorer clients. They charge £2 a month for the privilege of paying by direct debit, which in this day and age is shameful given that it's the poorest people who will need to pay by instalment.

Just in the interest of accuracy they do not charge £2 a month for the privilege.

If you buy it as a lump its £145.50 a year. By direct debit its £12.18 for April and then £12.12 for the other 11 months which totals £145.50. Looks the same price to me.

They do insist for the first year on overpaying to get 6 months in credit but that is possible to opt out of. It means you have a buffer if something unexpected happens you don't need to suddenly stop watching TV.

Personally I only pay it for watching live Sport (I only have freeview, so FA Cup, 6 nations, champions league etc). When the champions league moves to Sky I will reconsider.
I watch nearly everything else through the on demand services on my Smart TV.

 

[CC 72100]

Personally I only pay it for watching live Sport (I only have freeview, so FA Cup, 6 nations, champions league etc). When the champions league moves to Sky I will reconsider.
I watch nearly everything else through the on demand services on my Smart TV.

Champions league is moving to BT sport - as it stands it is half and half (for the English teams) between Sky and ITV.

I do trust that the sky bill will be reduced as a result of them losing the rights. I highly doubt that it will be. :roll:

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Who remembers BBC TV on Saturdays and the excitement that the "Grandstand" programme engendered in the early afternoon when sport held sway.

What does BBC1 now feel that it can offer to its Saturday sports audience? Last Saturday, the early afternoon schedule was:-
1300-1400...Bargain Hunt (The BBC1 flagship programme)
1400-1500...Escape to The Country
1500-1600...Homes Under The Hammer

Happy days...enjoy...

 

[ainsworth74]

From the knowledge I have, the above do not earn multi-million salaries, thus I have no problem with their rates of remuneration. They also perform a useful role in society - all being public sector activities. Doctors (GP's) and headteachers are, perhaps, a bit toppy, whereas teachers, nurses and soldiers - pay them more, tomorrow. And the binmen. Finally, double the minimum wage so people can actually afford to live in this country.

Not sure broadcasting meets a public service role in this day and age. If it did I may have a different opinion on the licence fee / levy regardless of whether I watch their product.

So you issue is more that you don't feel that the high paid employees at the BBC are not worth their salary? Fair enough. Personally I don't really feel placed to comment on how much the Director General of the BBC should be paid or how much Richard Hammond should be paid.

Though I don't disagree that a large number of public sector jobs (like the one's I mentioned) are underpaid to at least some extent. But then who would pay for it?

I feel that broadcasting does have a public service role but I'm willing to accept that others might disagree

 

[Tetchytyke]

richw, I was mistaken, they charge £1.25 per quarter for paying by direct debit if you choose to avoid paying double for the first six months.

As for BBC salaries, it depends how you judge it. Clarkson, for instance, earns a fortune yet his programme actually makes the BBC money.

 

[jon0844]

A lot of money. I am sure it also boosts the reputation of the BBC around the world too. Top Gear is sold bloody everywhere.

I'm quite bored of it now but know I am in the minority.

 

[Kite159]

A few years ago Top Gear was one of the only programs which made money for the BBC, just look at the new series being shown world-wide on the same day, although so-far the current series hasn't quite ticked the same boxes as it previously had.

 

[SS4]

A few years ago Top Gear was one of the only programs which made money for the BBC, just look at the new series being shown world-wide on the same day, although so-far the current series hasn't quite ticked the same boxes as it previously had.

They seem to be in a position to Scrapheap Challenge where they ran out of sensible ways to test cars in (almost) real life conditions instead going down the outlandish and OTT angle. It's why I stopped watching a few series ago.

On Demand is the future for TV services although I do wonder if broadband will be able to keep up. I get a connection of roughly 2Mbps which is enough to stream SD but not to stream HD and definitely not enough to stream 4k. IIRC 2Mbps is the target the government has for everyone.

With a PVR what's yours is yours forever. I still have my recording of 2012's series of The Tube - would I be able to do so with streaming or would DRM prevent it (either by making the file unplayable or, more sinisterly, deleting the file from the hdd)? We've seen in the music industry that you do not own the tracks and they can be taken from you at any time and when amazon rather ironically deleted Orwell's 1984 from Kindles albeit with refund.

But I digress, the TV licence is generally a good thing. I see them as a counterweight to the dross put out by other channels reliant on advertising (lowest common denominator).