Is the BBC SPOTY becoming an anachronism?

[towny44]

As the Beeb withdraws from another major sport, Formula 1, leaving only Wimbledon and shared coverage of the World Cup, Olympics and the 6 Nations as their remaining live sports content, are they in danger of becoming a sport free station?

Channel 4, also a public service broadcaster, with a revenue of less than £1bn are able to pay the F1 rights figure of £20m a year, but the BBC with an annual revenue of £5.2bn cannot. The Beebs revenues are over double those of ITV covering a similar number of station; apart from radio the only other major difference to ITV are the news channels which IMO are grossly over staffed, along with just about every other BBC department.

Is it about time that we allowed the BBC channels to accept advertising and finish with the license fee, and maybe then ultimately sell it off so that it can (try) to compete with the other media channels on a fair and equitable basis.

[Silver_Shiney]

I have never understood the mindset of the BBC

They put sports broadcasts on and then, sometimes without warning, switch channels for the coverage which causes chaos for people trying to record it. Many is the time that the Lady C has set up the video recorder for the tennis only to lose half the match because they switch channel.

They''ll move programmes from BBC1 to BBC2 to make room for a sports broadcast. Why not just broadcast the sport on BBC2 to start with?

There are too many over-paid talking heads discussing whatever sport or game is on - if they reduced the numbers (and the salaries to sensible levels), they'd probably be able to continue paying for broadcasting rights.

The licence fee goes to the BBC even if I never watch their channels but watch other channels instead. How can that be right? It's time to cancel the fee.

[barney]

Google BBC Executives pay and you'll see why there isn't enough money for sport

[Mervyn and Trish]

I’m not sure where you get your figures Towny but they’re not quite right.

For the money we pay to the BBC we get a similar number of TV channels to ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 put together, plus radio and a comprehensive website.

Your figure for BBC revenue is correct but from the latest figures available (and they’re much harder to find than the BBC’s) ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 together cost more than the BBC but provide no radio. Commercial radio costs more again.

And Shiney, we pay for the commercial channels too, every time we go shopping, even if you don't own a TV. And around 20% of what you pay goes straight in the shareholders' pockets and nowhere near the screen. And when you reach 75 you pay nothing for the BBC but continue paying for ITV until you’re in your box. In fact even after that if the Co-op buries you!

And Barney try also googling ITV executive pay and you’ll find their Chief Exec got over £8 million last year. That’s almost 18 times what the BBC Director General gets. At the BBC on average you'd get 65 senior executives for that!

On BBC TV you get around 57-59 minutes of actual programmes every hour, the balance being future programme promotions and other continuity items. On ITV, if you're lucky, you get around 45 minutes of programmes every hour, with the rest being advertisements.

The BBC exists to produce radio and television programmes for its listeners and viewers. Commercial TV and radio exist to make as much money as possible for their owners and shareholders.

And what if the BBC was instead funded through advertising? There is only so much money in the advertising pot and if the BBC started competing for it a number of existing commercial companies would quickly go out of business – you can be sure ITV executives don’t want the BBC fishing in their pond.

But back to the original post. I’m not personally bothered there is less sport on the BBC, because I’m not a great fan, but I agree with Shiney that it is irritating when because of a major sport event channels chop and change. That was relevant years ago when the only channel everyone (or most at least) could get was BBC1. With the advent of digital if you can get that you can get 2, 4 and 4 too, so why muck about?

But the blame for less sport on the BBC doesn’t rest with them, it is firmly with Sky who have pushed prices ever higher in a bidding war the BBC can’t win, with the aim of forcing more and more fans to take out TV packages at costs that make the licence fee look like small change.

[towny44]

I assumed you would be along to defend your former employer Merv, however some of your data is also a bit dicky.
I don't agree with your sums on TV channels, on mainstream channels BBC have 4, soon to be reduced to 3, ITV have 6, 1,2,3 and 4 Encore and ITV Be, Channel 4 has four, Ch4, E4, more 4 and 4/7, as well as film four, and even Channel5 has four, Ch 5, 5USA, *5 and Spike.
For children the Beeb has 2 whilst ITV only has 1, and then the Beeb has the bloated News channel which also feeds their News bulletins on BBC One.
As for funding I took Wiki data, which may be dubious but their estimates in total fall far short of the Beeb revenue.
Since I watch most of my TV on Sky+ I am not too bothered about hourly content, at 12X or 30X ffwd its easy to whip through the adverts, however I would dispute your 57-59 mins per hour, check it out and you will find its well below 55mins.
Regarding the programme quality, I suspect commercial TV has far more incentive to ensure it provides what viewers genuinely want, if it doesn't and it loses ratings its shareholders will be quick to demand a shake up at the top. Unlike the Beeb where twerps like Yentob waste millions on programmes no one wants as well as making very dubious choices about their charity work.
And don't get me started on the Beebs support for global warming, or its left wing political bias.
There are lots of things the Beeb does well but it appears to be grossly overstaffed and does not give good value for money. Strangely in the past one of the BBC's strongest platforms was the quality of its sports coverage, and if it no longer intends to compete in this area I firmly believe that it needs radical surgery to reduce its operating costs in line with those of its commercial competition.
Whether this means a change in the funding model or not I leave to the poilicians.

[Onelife]

I would rather them double the TV licence fee than go down the line of revenue from advertising......adverts every few minutes are a pain in the buttocks

[Mervyn and Trish]

My financial figures Towny came from the respective companies Annual Reports, possibly more accurate than Wiki. As for the channels perhaps I should have specified original output. Yes the main channels have some repeats but the various secondary ITV, 4 and 5 channels are almost entirely rehashes. Even the name Encore gives you a clue. And now the BBC has less sport I'd happily pay more for it. The god of sport does nothing for me.

[gfwgfw]

I cheat and record my favourite progs on my trusty Tivo, thus saving several hours per week by fast winding trailers adverts etc

Not cheap . . . but \I am well pleased with my Virgin Media package

Methings that the Beeb is a tad archaic

[Quizzical Bob]

I cheat and record my favourite progs on my trusty Tivo, thus saving several hours per week by fast winding trailers adverts etc

Not cheap . . . but \I am well pleased with my Virgin Media package

Methings that the Beeb is a tad archaic

Methought so too

[Silver_Shiney]

I cheat and record my favourite progs on my trusty Tivo, thus saving several hours per week by fast winding trailers adverts etc

Not cheap . . . but \I am well pleased with my Virgin Media package

Sky - believe in better

Virgin - believe in best

[towny44]

I cheat and record my favourite progs on my trusty Tivo, thus saving several hours per week by fast winding trailers adverts etc

Not cheap . . . but \I am well pleased with my Virgin Media package

Sky - believe in better

Virgin - believe in best

Your quote is of course correct Shiney, Sky+ only records 2 progs to Virgins 3, but both fulfill the same function and we would not want to go back to having to watch TV live, except of course for Sport and News.

[ITWA Travel Writer]

I have to heartily agree with all that Merv has said.

Having been on both sides of the fence, as a listener and having worked for both the BBC World Service and Forces Broadcasting in my youth, I do acknowledge the massive service that our un-commercialised broadcasters provide.

To compare executive salaries of commercial providers with that of a non for profit service provider, without considering shareholder and company profits, is tantamount to stupidity.

If you have at any time been stuck in the back end of some outlandish outpost, anywhere in the world, you will more than appreciate the work that the BBC does.

As for sport, or indeed any other specifically targeted programme genre, the BBC does indeed have to compete with the Murdoch empire and other such financially rich organisations in what for the BBC is not a level playing field.

If all you have to worry about, at your time of life, is what’s on the TV then just take the blue pill, roll over and make more space for the next complainer to come along.

This type of argument really gets up my nose!!

[Quizzical Bob]

I have to heartily agree with all that Merv has said.

Having been on both sides of the fence, as a listener and having worked for both the BBC World Service and Forces Broadcasting in my youth, I do acknowledge the massive service that our un-commercialised broadcasters provide.

To compare executive salaries of commercial providers with that of a non for profit service provider, without considering shareholder and company profits, is tantamount to stupidity.

If you have at any time been stuck in the back end of some outlandish outpost, anywhere in the world, you will more than appreciate the work that the BBC does.

As for sport, or indeed any other specifically targeted programme genre, the BBC does indeed have to compete with the Murdoch empire and other such financially rich organisations in what for the BBC is not a level playing field.

If all you have to worry about, at your time of life, is what’s on the TV then just take the blue pill, roll over and make more space for the next complainer to come along.

This type of argument really gets up my nose!!

Just one innocent question..

If you've taken the blue pill, how can you then roll over?

[anniec]

I have to heartily agree with all that Merv has said.

Having been on both sides of the fence, as a listener and having worked for both the BBC World Service and Forces Broadcasting in my youth, I do acknowledge the massive service that our un-commercialised broadcasters provide.

To compare executive salaries of commercial providers with that of a non for profit service provider, without considering shareholder and company profits, is tantamount to stupidity.

If you have at any time been stuck in the back end of some outlandish outpost, anywhere in the world, you will more than appreciate the work that the BBC does.

As for sport, or indeed any other specifically targeted programme genre, the BBC does indeed have to compete with the Murdoch empire and other such financially rich organisations in what for the BBC is not a level playing field.

If all you have to worry about, at your time of life, is what’s on the TV then just take the blue pill, roll over and make more space for the next complainer to come along.

This type of argument really gets up my nose!!

Just one innocent question..

If you've taken the blue pill, how can you then roll over?

Marvellous! Thank you

[Mervyn and Trish]

I have to heartily agree with all that Merv has said.

Having been on both sides of the fence, as a listener and having worked for both the BBC World Service and Forces Broadcasting in my youth, I do acknowledge the massive service that our un-commercialised broadcasters provide.

To compare executive salaries of commercial providers with that of a non for profit service provider, without considering shareholder and company profits, is tantamount to stupidity.

If you have at any time been stuck in the back end of some outlandish outpost, anywhere in the world, you will more than appreciate the work that the BBC does.

As for sport, or indeed any other specifically targeted programme genre, the BBC does indeed have to compete with the Murdoch empire and other such financially rich organisations in what for the BBC is not a level playing field.

If all you have to worry about, at your time of life, is what’s on the TV then just take the blue pill, roll over and make more space for the next complainer to come along.

This type of argument really gets up my nose!!

Just one innocent question..

If you've taken the blue pill, how can you then roll over?

...without risk of pole vaulting out the window....

[towny44]

Hmmm maybe bedroom gymnastics could be something the Beeb could consider to replace some of their lost traditional sports coverage.

[Solent Richard]

I cheat and record my favourite progs on my trusty Tivo, thus saving several hours per week by fast winding trailers adverts etc

Not cheap . . . but \I am well pleased with my Virgin Media package

Methings that the Beeb is a tad archaic

Not just archaic.

It has been renowned for its political bias for years: so much so that I have come to recognise it as the broadcasting wing of the Guardian newspaper.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Funnily enough when I worked there it was often accused of right wing bias, certainly by Alistair Campbell. I think it is actually anti-establishment and generally challenges the government in power. After all they're the only ones actually making decisions which can be challenged.

But politics apart I saw a top 20 of the year's programmes today. The BBC had 7 in the top 10 and another three in the next 10. ITV had one in the entire 20.

The reality is we will never all agree. The BBC has critics, who are very vociferous, and also many fans who are less so. I do think its funding mechanism needs changing, but not to advertising, subscription or sponsorship. That pool is overfished already.

If anything the licence fee is too transparent. Many of us regard it as good value, but the knockers can easily hit at it as being something one has to pay even if one never watches the BBC. Actually independent viewing figures show there are very very view tv watchers who never use the BBC. ITV has a signifcantly smaller share of the viewers across its channels, but ITV funding is invisible so no-one picks up on it though none of us can avoid it either, and in pence per viewer per day it is more expensive (as is the Daily Wail, but that's another story!)