The BBC

[Mervyn and Trish]

Maybe they'll decriminalise not paying income tax?

[Kendhni]

Let's hope your "friend" never listens to or watches BBC output then or is happy with what amounts to theft. I presume your "friend" wouldn't go to Tesco and sneak out without paying the "Tesco tax"?

I couldn't possibly answer on his behalf

[towny44]

I'd agree Lindsey but sadly it's financially unsustainable, as the government knew when they dumped the cost on the BBC. It would mean huge cuts. Not just fewer big names or more repeats. It would mean the loss of whole services in both radio and TV.

They could save quite a bit by not sending so many reporters, and their entourages, around the world to cover news stories. A voice over from the reporter working at home, on a bought in bit of TV footage would be more than adequate.

[Manoverboard]

I'd agree Lindsey but sadly it's financially unsustainable, as the government knew when they dumped the cost on the BBC. It would mean huge cuts. Not just fewer big names or more repeats. It would mean the loss of whole services in both radio and TV.

........ A voice over from the reporter working at home, on a bought in bit of TV footage would be more than adequate.

World News ... Yorkshire Style

[Mervyn and Trish]

I'd agree Lindsey but sadly it's financially unsustainable, as the government knew when they dumped the cost on the BBC. It would mean huge cuts. Not just fewer big names or more repeats. It would mean the loss of whole services in both radio and TV.

They could save quite a bit by not sending so many reporters, and their entourages, around the world to cover news stories. A voice over from the reporter working at home, on a bought in bit of TV footage would be more than adequate.

On that basis they would be highly praising Putin's Covid Vaccine because that's the story the bought in footage would be telling

[towny44]

I'd agree Lindsey but sadly it's financially unsustainable, as the government knew when they dumped the cost on the BBC. It would mean huge cuts. Not just fewer big names or more repeats. It would mean the loss of whole services in both radio and TV.

........ A voice over from the reporter working at home, on a bought in bit of TV footage would be more than adequate.

World News ... Yorkshire Style

Like everything else from Yorkshire, it is undoubtedly the best.

[Mervyn and Trish]

........ A voice over from the reporter working at home, on a bought in bit of TV footage would be more than adequate.

World News ... Yorkshire Style

Like everything else from Yorkshire, it is undoubtedly the best.

And who says the BBC is biased!!!!

[Manoverboard]

World News ... Yorkshire Style

Like everything else from Yorkshire, it is undoubtedly the best.

And who says the BBC is biased!!!!

Biased or not the Beeb doesn't have a News back drop of yesterdays washing up, copies of Dog Handler or ash trays

[Mervyn and Trish]

Like everything else from Yorkshire, it is undoubtedly the best.

And who says the BBC is biased!!!!

Biased or not the Beeb doesn't have a News back drop of yesterdays washing up, copies of Dog Handler or ash trays

It's a bit short on Whippet news though

[Kendhni]

If you think the BBC is value for money then pay the BBC tax, if not and you do not use it then you should not be forced to pay for it. There are many many alternatives these days and nobody should be forced to pay for something that they do not use. That would be like going into Tescos and finding they added £5 tax on for the fish counter when you didn't even buy fish ... 'well it was there for you to buy' is not a good excuse for adding taxes.

[Mervyn and Trish]

If you think the BBC is value for money then pay the BBC tax, if not and you do not use it then you should not be forced to pay for it. There are many many alternatives these days and nobody should be forced to pay for something that they do not use. That would be like going into Tescos and finding they added £5 tax on for the fish counter when you didn't even buy fish ... 'well it was there for you to buy' is not a good excuse for adding taxes.

But of course at Tesco they do add on an "ITV tax", as do all supermarkets, because you pay it every time you shop there whether or not you watch ITV!

You also pay taxes for libraries, the fire brigade, education, the railways and many more things even if you don't use them.

I agree the BBC funding system needs review but none of the alternatives are perfect.

Subscription technology is not there for terrestrial reception, which is how most people get it. It only exists on satellite and on-line. So there would have to be new kit and people would have to buy it. And the cost of a subscription would be higher than the licence fee.

Commercial advertising is not a bottomless pit so the BBC taking advertising would wipe out the weaker commercial tv and radio stations.

And the BBC does reach well into the upper 90s in percentage terms, so whatever critics may say to the contrary the vast majority of them do use it.

I have no answer for a better system. And I know that we would regret it if an inferior alternative reduced the wide choice we do have in this country.

[Stephen]

And who says the BBC is biased!!!!

Biased or not the Beeb doesn't have a News back drop of yesterdays washing up, copies of Dog Handler or ash trays

It's a bit short on Whippet news though

.....or as known locally...Dog End Weekly

[towny44]

If you think the BBC is value for money then pay the BBC tax, if not and you do not use it then you should not be forced to pay for it. There are many many alternatives these days and nobody should be forced to pay for something that they do not use. That would be like going into Tescos and finding they added £5 tax on for the fish counter when you didn't even buy fish ... 'well it was there for you to buy' is not a good excuse for adding taxes.

But of course at Tesco they do add on an "ITV tax", as do all supermarkets, because you pay it every time you shop there whether or not you watch ITV!

You also pay taxes for libraries, the fire brigade, education, the railways and many more things even if you don't use them.

I agree the BBC funding system needs review but none of the alternatives are perfect.

Subscription technology is not there for terrestrial reception, which is how most people get it. It only exists on satellite and on-line. So there would have to be new kit and people would have to buy it. And the cost of a subscription would be higher than the licence fee.

Commercial advertising is not a bottomless pit so the BBC taking advertising would wipe out the weaker commercial tv and radio stations.

And the BBC does reach well into the upper 90s in percentage terms, so whatever critics may say to the contrary the vast majority of them do use it.

I have no answer for a better system. And I know that we would regret it if an inferior alternative reduced the wide choice we do have in this country.

Merv, your loyalty to your old employer is admirable, and I quite agree with most of what you say above, and in the myriad of previous posts after we have pushed your loyalty buttons.
But I have to totally disagree with your view that we pay for ITV whenever we shop somewhere that advertises. That is clearly not how it works in big business, every company that advertises has a budget which is constantly reviewed to ensure it is giving value for money. However the final sales price is entirely down to competition, and is in no way influenced by the cost of advertising, which as a business expense will actually be born by the shareholders in reduced dividends.

[Kendhni]

If you think the BBC is value for money then pay the BBC tax, if not and you do not use it then you should not be forced to pay for it. There are many many alternatives these days and nobody should be forced to pay for something that they do not use. That would be like going into Tescos and finding they added £5 tax on for the fish counter when you didn't even buy fish ... 'well it was there for you to buy' is not a good excuse for adding taxes.

But of course at Tesco they do add on an "ITV tax", as do all supermarkets, because you pay it every time you shop there whether or not you watch ITV!

You also pay taxes for libraries, the fire brigade, education, the railways and many more things even if you don't use them.

I agree the BBC funding system needs review but none of the alternatives are perfect.

Subscription technology is not there for terrestrial reception, which is how most people get it. It only exists on satellite and on-line. So there would have to be new kit and people would have to buy it. And the cost of a subscription would be higher than the licence fee.

Commercial advertising is not a bottomless pit so the BBC taking advertising would wipe out the weaker commercial tv and radio stations.

And the BBC does reach well into the upper 90s in percentage terms, so whatever critics may say to the contrary the vast majority of them do use it.

I have no answer for a better system. And I know that we would regret it if an inferior alternative reduced the wide choice we do have in this country.

Following your logic then I should start demanding a Ken DIY tax from everyone whether or not they use my services (I have a hammer and will travel).

There is a simple answer and that is that the BBC comes into the 21st century and competes in a competitive market through whatever means it feels it has to. A subscription service? An advertising service? If that causes others to struggle then it is up to them to raise their game - or maybe we should apply the same logic to supermarkets and demand that others are not allowed in case Tescos loses revenue.

The BBC has lost a lot of integrity over the last few years with scandal after scandal and accusations of bias (although given such accusations come from both sides makes me think they are probably not too far away from the middle ground). If it can rebuild that lost integrity and becomes a proper commercial organisation (instead of paying over inflated salaries to dated and unnecessary staff) it could make itself a much better organisation.

If the BBC believes (even remotely) that it is currently a 'superior alternative' then the simplest acid test would be to make the license fee optional - people will pay what they think it is worth. Time they put our money where their mouth is.

[david63]

The thing that is totally wrong with the TV licence is that you have to have a licence to watch live TV but the income from the licence goes solely to the BBC - none of the other channels, as far as I am aware, get a cut.

Using the supermarket analogy it is like saying that I have to pay Sainsbury's £150 a year even though I want to go to Tesco (other supermarkets are available!)

[Manoverboard]

.... That is clearly not how it works in big business, every company that advertises has a budget which is constantly reviewed to ensure it is giving value for money.

But ... that budget is agreed in advance of the operating year, it is measured against prediction then actual profit rather than simply coming up with a number that will become a bonus or a hit for Johnny shareholder.

[Stephen]

I'm no expert on budgets and such like, so are we all talking actual facts or just surmising.

[towny44]

.... That is clearly not how it works in big business, every company that advertises has a budget which is constantly reviewed to ensure it is giving value for money.

But ... that budget is agreed in advance of the operating year, it is measured against prediction then actual profit rather than simply coming up with a number that will become a bonus or a hit for Johnny shareholder.

Constantly can be annually when talking in the longer term.

[david63]

Business advertising budgets, as with all other budgets, are built into the total operating costs for the business, which in turn are reflected in the price of the product. It becomes immaterial as to whether the product is subject to competition as the base price includes the costs - also competition reductions are also built into the overall costs.

[Manoverboard]

Business advertising budgets, as with all other budgets, are built into the total operating costs for the business, which in turn are reflected in the price of the product. It becomes immaterial as to whether the product is subject to competition as the base price includes the costs - also competition reductions are also built into the overall costs.

Exactly

[Mervyn and Trish]

I know I will never win this argument with some of you and don't expect to. But let me again bust the high salary myth. Big salaries are driven by, not moderated by the competition. ITV pays far more for its top people on and off screen than the BBC. You just never hear it because of "commercial confidentiality". But go ahead with your demands that the BBC compete commercially. The reality is that will kill the BBC as we know it as well as much of the existing competition. Which is exactly why the Daily Mail is a leader among the BBC opposition. They don't want it improved. They want it gone.. If they win we all be poorer for it.

[david63]

I know I will never win this argument with some of you and don't expect to. But let me again bust the high salary myth. Big salaries are driven by, not moderated by the competition. ITV pays far more for its top people on and off screen than the BBC. You just never hear it because of "commercial confidentiality". But go ahead with your demands that the BBC compete commercially. The reality is that will kill the BBC as we know it as well as much of the existing competition. Which is exactly why the Daily Mail is a leader among the BBC opposition. They don't want it improved. They want it gone.. If they win we all be poorer for it.

I, for one, cannot disagree with that but the problem of funding still remains a thorn in the side. By your own admission you agree that the current model is not ideal, and that in reality there is little other option - other than disbanding the BBC and then we would end up with the shambles that other countries have - take the USA for example, or worse still New Zealand!

[Manoverboard]

The worst TV we have ever watched, albeit a goodly while ago, was in South Africa. The programs would alternate between English and Afrikaans

[towny44]

Business advertising budgets, as with all other budgets, are built into the total operating costs for the business, which in turn are reflected in the price of the product. It becomes immaterial as to whether the product is subject to competition as the base price includes the costs - also competition reductions are also built into the overall costs.

I disagree David, especially for consumer goods, advertising is essential but price is determined by competition. The cost of advertising has to be a write off against the turnover, whilst the simplistic view is that it has to be added to the price, in reality it simply reduces the profit.

[david63]

I disagree David, especially for consumer goods, advertising is essential but price is determined by competition.

Presumably you have never been a cost accountant. Price is certainly determined by competition but not at the expense of loosing money. There will be times when one product is a "loss leader" but when that happens another product in the catalogue will pick up the shortfall.

Any company that bases its prices on "market forces" and totally ignores operating costs will not be in business very long