The BBC

[towny44]

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

David, if a company cannot make a profit at a competitive price then it will very quickly be out of business. But nothing you are saying contradicts my assumption that advertising costs are never attributed to selling prices.

[Mervyn and Trish]

However the detail of the accountancy works the advertising costs do not come out of thin air. They are part of the price so everyone who buys anything advertised on TV is paying the cost of that advertising.

[towny44]

However the detail of the accountancy works the advertising costs do not come out of thin air. They are part of the price so everyone who buys anything advertised on TV is paying the cost of that advertising.

Too simplistic by far, you need a few hours with my old economics tutor, advertising is the lifeblood of consumer selling, its essential for every successful business, and if had no TV we would have to invent something else to advertise on.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Semantics John. It doesn't matter what the alternatives are. ITV does exist. It gets its income from advertising. Those advertisers get their income from the consumers of their products. So the consumers pay for ITV. Or have you found Jezzers magic money tree?

[Kendhni]

I know I will never win this argument with some of you and don't expect to.

It's not about winning, it is a discussion.

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.

Personally I think that is a very defeatist attitude. If the BBC thinks it offers value for money and great programming then why would it be killed off? We heard the same arguments about privatisation of the Post office but (despite email, social media and other electronic forms of communicating these days) it has reinvented itself and modernised the services it offers and continues to increase year-on-year trading profit.

PS: Only brain dead thick as two short plank idiots believe much of what the Daily Fail has to say - it isn't really for news, it is just an adult comic designed to whip 'Outraged from Tunbridge Wells' into a frenzy of faux indignation.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I said kill it off as we know it.

Royal Mail has been killed off as we knew it. One delivery per day at best instead of two. Reduced collections. Emphasis on profit over service. Modernised equals reduced.

And the Daily Mail is now the biggest newspaper in the UK. It is not without influence. Let's not forget it single handedly made us vote Brexit!

[towny44]

Semantics John. It doesn't matter what the alternatives are. ITV does exist. It gets its income from advertising. Those advertisers get their income from the consumers of their products. So the consumers pay for ITV. Or have you found Jezzers magic money tree?

Not semantics Merv but economies of scale, which I assume you knew anyway. Advertising is what makes that viable and more than covers the cost of the advertising. In fact advertising enables you to sell 10s, 100s and thousands of times more gizmos, and economies of scale reduce the unit cost massively and produces your magic money tree.

[Mervyn and Trish]

You still haven't explained who you think is paying the cost of the advertising if it's not you.

[towny44]

You still haven't explained who you think is paying the cost of the advertising if it's not you.

If you dont understand how economies of scale reduce unit costs Merv, then you will not appreciate that the advertising costs are more than covered by the massive increase in profits. I agree they do still reduce the bottom line, and still need to be paid, but in these circumstances they do not need to add anything to the selling price.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I understand it well John. But it still comes out of your pocket. If you think you get ITV free you are deluded. You seem to think that, taken to extreme, spend enough on advertising and the costs of production become nil. If you were right, why at the moment are companies cutting advertising budgets? Because believe me commercial tv and radio are feeling the pinch.

[towny44]

I understand it well John. But it still comes out of your pocket. If you think you get ITV free you are deluded. You seem to think that, taken to extreme, spend enough on advertising and the costs of production become nil. If you were right, why at the moment are companies cutting advertising budgets? Because believe me commercial tv and radio are feeling the pinch.

Merv, your's is the age old argument put forward by BBC supporters to defend the license fee, personally I don't know of a better way of funding the Beeb, and I agree that having them compete for a finite, or even shrinking, TV advertising spend would not be a good way. But please stop insulting my intelligence by perpetuating the false claim that we have to pay for ITV because advertising increases the price of products, I stress again that the only factor involved in pricing is competition, which is why unique products are so expensive, until someone else pops up to offer competition.

[Manoverboard]

PS: Only brain dead thick as two short plank idiots believe much of what the Daily Fail has to say - it isn't really for news, it is just an adult comic designed to whip 'Outraged from Tunbridge Wells' into a frenzy of faux indignation.

That applies to most if not all Newspapers.

I'll also have you know that the DM runs a Giant Crosword on Saturday plus a fine Footy Review on Mondays.

[Stephen]

We only buy the Saturday Mail purely for the TV pullout because we like the clear layout of the scheduling for the week. I find the tv mags a nightmare to follow with their minute print.

[Manoverboard]

We only buy the Saturday Mail purely for the TV pullout because we like the clear layout of the scheduling for the week. I find the tv mags a nightmare to follow with their minute print.

Agreed, the best of the lot as far as we are concerned

[Kendhni]

PS: Only brain dead thick as two short plank idiots believe much of what the Daily Fail has to say - it isn't really for news, it is just an adult comic designed to whip 'Outraged from Tunbridge Wells' into a frenzy of faux indignation.

That applies to most if not all Newspapers.

I'll also have you know that the DM runs a Giant Crosword on Saturday plus a fine Footy Review on Mondays.

I did say 'much of', since I don't read the sports pages of any newspaper, I am happy to concede that only the front partof the Daily Fail (from page 1 to the start of the sports section ... and maybe the 'Whats on TV' and cartoon sections) are for brain dead thick as two short plank idiots.

[Manoverboard]

PS: Only brain dead thick as two short plank idiots believe much of what the Daily Fail has to say - it isn't really for news, it is just an adult comic designed to whip 'Outraged from Tunbridge Wells' into a frenzy of faux indignation.

That applies to most if not all Newspapers.

I'll also have you know that the DM runs a Giant Crosword on Saturday plus a fine Footy Review on Mondays.

I did say 'much of', since I don't read the sports pages of any newspaper, I am happy to concede that only the front partof the Daily Fail (from page 1 to the start of the sports section ... and maybe the 'Whats on TV' and cartoon sections) are for brain dead thick as two short plank idiots.

Pray tell .... which paper do you superior types read ?

[Ranchi]

Must say I agree with Kendhni about The Mail but think it’s a step too far to make inferences about its readership. I would place it a rung above The Express (Diana & weather!.)
In terms of TV guides we were subscribers to The Telegraph and thought their Saturday pull out to be first rate.They also used to have excellent sports coverage, both in range and in writers (this dropped with the ‘loss’ of Henry Winter & Jonathan Liew.) They also have a good crossword ( well, at least one we can have a decent stab at. )We however ditched The Telegraph in the run up to Brexit as we found its stance seriously distasteful. We also felt there was a lack of interest in the north and Scotland.
In the intervening months we have subscribed digitally to Times and Independent but settled with The Guardian & Telegraph. The stance of the Telegraph has changed recently and Michael Deacon’s political sketches hit the spot with unerring accuracy. Matt can also raise a smile.
One thing I did notice though was that the articles that I selected to read in either paper varied depending upon whether I was using the print or the digital edition. To me this demonstrates the importance of layout and advertising (not apparent in digital editions) in the directing of readers eyes.
In terms of tv, we have hundreds of channels but rarely watch probably>98% of them. One point though; despite having DVD box sets of say, ‘As Time Goes By‘ or Rumpole we never watch them but if we spot them in the listings then it is an event and we will tune in. There is something about transmission tv that DVDs don’t satisfy. We do use our tv box recorder as that allows skipping through the adverts. BBC iPlayer is also good for regional output (Usually drama or documentaries) that may not be screened nationally.
In response to MoB’s intervening post, I don’t see superiority having any relevance. It’s just preference. Cleese, Barker and Corbett were many weeks that were ago. I would hope.

[Manoverboard]

... In response to MoB’s intervening post, I don’t see superiority having any relevance. It’s just preference. Cleese, Barker and Corbett were many weeks that were ago. I would hope.

I of course was responding to Ken's condescending manner towards all the idiot Members of this Board should they dare to read any part of the Daily Mail ... it was not a swipe at anybody who simply has a different taste or preference in this regard.

Specifically ... " PS: Only brain dead thick as two short plank idiots believe much of what the Daily Fail has to say - it isn't really for news, it is just an adult comic designed to whip 'Outraged from Tunbridge Wells' into a frenzy of faux indignation "
.

[towny44]

PS: Only brain dead thick as two short plank idiots believe much of what the Daily Fail has to say - it isn't really for news, it is just an adult comic designed to whip 'Outraged from Tunbridge Wells' into a frenzy of faux indignation.

That applies to most if not all Newspapers.

I'll also have you know that the DM runs a Giant Crosword on Saturday plus a fine Footy Review on Mondays.

I did say 'much of', since I don't read the sports pages of any newspaper, I am happy to concede that only the front partof the Daily Fail (from page 1 to the start of the sports section ... and maybe the 'Whats on TV' and cartoon sections) are for brain dead thick as two short plank idiots.

Guilty as charged yer 'onour.

[Kendhni]

That applies to most if not all Newspapers.

I'll also have you know that the DM runs a Giant Crosword on Saturday plus a fine Footy Review on Mondays.

I did say 'much of', since I don't read the sports pages of any newspaper, I am happy to concede that only the front partof the Daily Fail (from page 1 to the start of the sports section ... and maybe the 'Whats on TV' and cartoon sections) are for brain dead thick as two short plank idiots.

Pray tell .... which paper do you superior types read ?

Us superior types read proper news outlets that offer news rather than low brow rabble rousing claptrap

[Onelife]

Chat forums would die a slow death were papers such as the Daily Mail not be available for tickle tackle ‘forum’ discussions.

I think the essence of Ken’s post was that you would be as ‘thick as two planks’ if you believed all that you read from a paper that most of us have decried over the years.

I stopped reading papers when they got rid of page three of the Sun….now that’s what you call sick thick.

[Kendhni]

Must say I agree with Kendhni about The Mail but think it’s a step too far to make inferences about its readership. I would place it a rung above The Express (Diana & weather!.)

I made no inference about the readership ... I only commented on those that "believe" the garbage in the Daily Fail. Treat it for what it is, gutter journalism at its worst to be laughed at rather than considered as serious reporting - I have read it my self, purely if someone has left it behind in the local chinese (as I wait for my order) - there is no way I would pay for that garbage ... it is good to laugh at the pathetic and amateurish attempts at journalism as they spin and lie their way through every story.
Express, Mail, Sun, Star, Daily Fail - all peas from the same pod. Gutter media. Al probably sit below Viz when it comes to serious journalism.

[oldbluefox]

Oddly enough no left wing rags in that list so I presume they report proper news?
Most laughable of all is The Independent which is anything .but independent.

[Kendhni]

Oddly enough no left wing rags in that list so I presume they report proper news?
Most laughable of all is The Independent which is anything .but independent.

Curious that, and yet I would (politically speaking) be considered right of centre - it shows just how bad the right wing media at the minute - gutter rages in a true race to the bottom to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[oldbluefox]

The same could be said about the sensationalist, exaggerated reporting from the left which appeals to the socialists and Boris haters.
My advice is to take anything written in a newspaper with a huge pinch of salt. If you are lucky you may discover an unbiased article presenting a rational, circumspect argument as opposed to the usual bias of the resident reporters.
How long until the BBC report the news instead of trying to create it? Sometimes I cringe at just how rude and objectionable their so-called reporters can be.