VOD : The future for linear TV channels

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Sorry OB, I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that.

10% opting out would reduce the budget dramatically.

The BBC are under so much financial pressure, and so much scrutiny, that they are already looking at cost cutting anyway. So don't expect that to contribute to a lower subscription cost in the distant future
.

The BBC are doing a lot more than looking at cost-cutting, they're doing it! £700m a year worth of cuts. Hence the end of Formula 1, reduction in BBC3's budget and move online, relocation to Salford. But they still need to save another £50m a year.

[denphone]

It is also looking likely that Radio Five might also go online only with a huge reduction of their sports rights as well and also there could be a savage cutting of large parts of their BBC news channel from what l hear.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Sorry OB, I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that.

10% opting out would reduce the budget dramatically.

The BBC are under so much financial pressure, and so much scrutiny, that they are already looking at cost cutting anyway. So don't expect that to contribute to a lower subscription cost in the distant future
.

There are still substantial cuts that could be made. They'd save a small fortune by working to the budgets of ITV, Channel 4 or Sky. I'm not saying that the budget should be the same, just that there is plenty of fat left. Don't ignore the size of the BBC bureaucracy or the rampant inefficiencies within the organisation.

A more commercial approach to the way the organisation is run by changing to a subscription model would sharpen resolve.

Sky has a very small proportion of the total audience share, and doesn't do such quality broadcasting, which is why they need commercials to bump up their finances.

You're making an argument for something that can't happen.

It makes no difference how therapeutic you think subscription would be for the BBC, the regulatory precedent and the very structure of the organisation says if it ever had to go commercial it would do so by being FTA with adverts - exactly the same as all its competitors.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

there is plenty of fat left. Don't ignore the size of the BBC bureaucracy or the rampant inefficiencies within the organisation.

.

And do you seriously think, that with the financial pressure and the scrutiny they are under, plus the fact that, to please their mate Rupert the Tories are trying to sabotage the BBC, they aren't looking at those things for cuts?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

You're making an argument for something that can't happen.

It makes no difference how therapeutic you think subscription would be for the BBC, the regulatory precedent and the very structure of the organisation says if it ever had to go commercial it would do so by being FTA with adverts - exactly the same as all its competitors.

Here we go again... it is as it is and nothing can ever be changed. Sorry, but this is poppycock. If the government of the day feels strongly enough about it, the law will be changed to abolish the existing licence fee system and introduce subscriptions. Whether or not that would also require advertising revenue (not a good thing in my book) would remain to be seen. If as I suspect most people would subscribe, I don't believe that will be necessary, although further changes to BBC services and elimination of waste would be.

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

And do you seriously think, that with the financial pressure and the scrutiny they are under, plus the fact that, to please their mate Rupert the Tories are trying to sabotage the BBC, they aren't looking at those things for cuts?

I don't think a lot of people realise how bloated this organisation is. There is plenty of room for improvement. The BBC must concentrate on both quality and efficiency, behaving in its attitude to financial management rather more like a commercial organisation.

Just because they may be secure in the belief that taxpayer's money gives them financial advantage over the private sector doesn't give them the right to waste our money.

---------- Post added at 10:45 ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Pretty sure that every household must use at least one BBC service be it radio, internet or TV and the BBC World Service is designed to help everyone by influencing thinking in unfriendly countries and putting across a positive face of the UK. Plenty of other services that I pay for eg schools that I don't use.

You and your family may not use schools, but you certainly benefit by having our kids educated. Without it, do you really think we would be able to benefit from the same level of services in future years?

You cannot legitimately compare essential services with entertainment services. I don't want to pay for others to be entertained, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Here we go again... it is as it is and nothing can ever be changed. Sorry, but this is poppycock. If the government of the day feels strongly enough about it, the law will be changed to abolish the existing licence fee system and introduce subscriptions. Whether or not that would also require advertising revenue (not a good thing in my book) would remain to be seen. If as I suspect most people would subscribe, I don't believe that will be necessary, although further changes to BBC services and elimination of waste would be.

Here we go again ... precisely.

You have extreme difficulty when it comes to weighing evidence. Your post is laden with ifs, suspicions and beliefs but you show no understanding of how broadcast regulations work, how legal precedent works or even how government and parliament works, especially in relation to the above.

Your beliefs are your own, and you're welcome and entitled to them. But in terms of taking this discussion forwards ... well, you simply aren't.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Here we go again ... precisely.

You have extreme difficulty when it comes to weighing evidence. Your post is laden with ifs, suspicions and beliefs but you show no understanding of how broadcast regulations work, how legal precedent works or even how government and parliament works, especially in relation to the above.

Your beliefs are your own, and you're welcome and entitled to them. But in terms of taking this discussion forwards ... well, you simply aren't.

But Chris, you are failing totally to acknowledge that things can change. Legal precedents do not apply to matters that have been changed by legislation.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has stated that he thinks the BBC should be at least partially funded by subscriptions. You can't just pass this off as one of a small number of MPs who favours such a move.

I don't believe that anyone who refuses to believe that change can happen is exactly engaging in a discussion, Chris!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But Chris, you are failing totally to acknowledge that things can change. Legal precedents do not apply to matters that have been changed by legislation.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has stated that he thinks the BBC should be at least partially funded by subscriptions. You can't just pass this off as one of a small number of MPs who favours such a move.

I don't believe that anyone who refuses to believe that change can happen is exactly engaging in a discussion, Chris!

What I'm failing to do is to give any credence to your fantasies.

The contents of this thread alone is enough to show you really don't know what you're talking about - all you have done since it started is 'predict' that the future of TV would look pretty much the way you wish it would, based on the way you personally prefer to consume content.

Let's not forget that you started out making bold predictions about linear TV ending in 10 years or a little more, even though the evidence right before you was that the BBC was about to engage in a charter renewal process that would guarantee its functions for a decade, with no prospect of an abrupt end thereafter.

You may have noticed, regardless of the personal beliefs of any member of the government, the charter renewal process isn't examining a move to subscription. It's not even flagging up advance warning that the BBC should start researching it.

You have to learn to separate the noise and chaff of what individual politicians say (even the senior ones), and what is politically possible to achieve. Until you can do that, you are going to carry on making gaffes like this one, from a little over a year ago:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I appreciate that there are things that need to be sorted out first, such as giving everyone access to broadband at an appropriate speed, but I do think that this is about 10 years + away. I'm sure it will come, though.

... which was a thoroughly daft claim you could have avoided making, simply by weighing the real-world evidence over your desire to see TV delivered in the way you prefer it.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Chris

Exactly.

In truth it would have to be a lot higher than that, if the BBC were to try to maintain its current level of output and also avoid running adverts, because not everyone would subscribe.

Making the BBC a subscription service is an utterly brainless idea, touted by people who just can't get over the licence fee.

"Brainless" is making people pay for something they neither use or want.

and in other news today, ITV released its latest results which show that although profits are rising, numbers are down on their main channels.

Didn't some here say that ITV was getting stronger again and it was only during the last recession they had a blip. Foul...... They're going one way, downwards. Plus, the media are reporting that BT may make a bid for ITV soon.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don't think a lot of people realise how bloated this organisation is. There is plenty of room for improvement. The BBC must concentrate on both quality and efficiency, behaving in its attitude to financial management rather more like a commercial organisation.

.

If your income was reduced, would you not make cuts and prioritise certain areas of expenditure? Any sensible person would do so. Why do you think, the BBC would be stupid enough not to do the same? Additionally, the BBC are under massive scrutiny over spending and face the threat of a government that seems intent on destroying them. That would wake any organisation up to address spending. Times have changed, and the BBC gets it. Despite what I assume, the Daily Mail and Murdoch owned papers would like you to believe.

[denphone]

There are many other companies who would give their right arm to have a annual pre-tax profit of £641m...

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by denphone

There are many other companies who would give their right arm to have a annual pre-tax profit of £641m...

But that's based mostly on ad revenues and ad revenues are based on how many people are watching. As ITV themselves said, they are seeing less viewers watching their main channels. If this continue it will mean less ad revenues, means less dosh, full stop.

BUT

I don't disagree that they are a major cash cow which is why someone will make a bid soon.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

What I'm failing to do is to give any credence to your fantasies.

The contents of this thread alone is enough to show you really don't know what you're talking about - all you have done since it started is 'predict' that the future of TV would look pretty much the way you wish it would, based on the way you personally prefer to consume content.

Let's not forget that you started out making bold predictions about linear TV ending in 10 years or a little more, even though the evidence right before you was that the BBC was about to engage in a charter renewal process that would guarantee its functions for a decade, with no prospect of an abrupt end thereafter.

You may have noticed, regardless of the personal beliefs of any member of the government, the charter renewal process isn't examining a move to subscription. It's not even flagging up advance warning that the BBC should start researching it.

You have to learn to separate the noise and chaff of what individual politicians say (even the senior ones), and what is politically possible to achieve. Until you can do that, you are going to carry on making gaffes like this one, from a little over a year ago:



... which was a thoroughly daft claim you could have avoided making, simply by weighing the real-world evidence over your desire to see TV delivered in the way you prefer it.

I have merely speculated that with reducing advertising revenues as the nation moves to streaming instead of being hide bound by inflexible schedules and saturated by time wasting commercials, live broadcast TV will struggle to survive and that in 20 years' time, watching TV will be a completely different experience.

On the contrary to what you have said, and as I have clarified on more than one occasion, my prediction is not 'what I want' but how I think things may change to cope with the economics of it all.

You made it clear from the off that the status quo was what you were most comfortable with and it seems to me that you have turned your back on the suggestion of any change at all in your comfort zone. That's OK, but don't say you were never warned when the time comes. In the meantime, let's try to ignore what's happening all around us, like little inconvenient truths such as BBC going online only to save costs. The same sort of thing will almost certainly happen in respect of commercial TV when the bottom line so dictates.

In relation to the BBC subscription issue, despite the pronouncements of the Secretary of State, you are simply not engaging with what he has already said. There will be no subscription based BBC for the next decade, but when the next renewal time comes, this will be a serious consideration (if the Tories are still in power at that time).

By the way, given the scale of the cuts to the BBC, I am surprised that you think a major change to this much loved institution is 'politically impossible to achieve'. Oh, really?

[Horizon]

I have just switched on tv in the hope of actually watching something on one of the main channels. This is the choice:

BBC1: Traffic Cops
BBC2: The 100k House
ITV: Big Star, Little Star
CH4: Posh Pawn
CH5: GPs: Behind Closed Doors

With one exception of a poor quality "entertainment" show, ALL reality. Someone please explain how that is a genuine choice.

And some on here think that linear tv, in the current form, will continue.....