1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

Ian wrote:
In message , DAB sounds
worse than FM writes
From the BBC Annual Report:

http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/annrep...nualreport.pdf (6.1
MB)

page 33:

% of individuals that watch (weekly reach) the following:

BBC Television = 85.3% (86.6% in 2005)
BBC1 = 79.7% (81.9% in 2005)
BBC2 = 59.1% (61.4% in 2005)
BBC3 = 11.8% (9.4% in 2005)
BBC4 = 4.5% (3.0% in 2005)
CBBC = 4.2% (3.5% in 2005)
CBeebies = 6.4% (5.8% in 2005)
BBC News 24 = 5.4% (4.2% in 2005)
BBC Parliament = 0.2% (0.2% in 2005)

So 15% of people don't watch BBC TV, which is around 1 in 6 people.

And percentage reach for BBC1 and BBC2 has reduced by 2.2% and 2.3%
respectively.

Methinks that at this rate of decline, the BBC licence fee will *definitely*
be unsustainable by the next Charter renewal period in 10 years' time,
because there will be far too many people that just never watch the BBC,
which I think is by far the strongest argument against there being a
universal licence fee/tax.




I wonder how many of the 15% would scream blue murder if they didn't get
BBC channels.

If the BBC turned to subscription, no-one who considers the BBC good
value for mony would need to scream blue murder.

Regards,
Arfur

John Cartmell wrote:

JNugent wrote:
David Hearn wrote:

[snip]

How many of those people watch BBC TV programmes though (ie. through all
those channels which show old BBC repeats?)

That last is not a tremendously powerful argument. Firstly because the
UK-TV channels get their income from (voluntary) subscription and adverts
and secondly because they do pay the BBC for the right to show the
programmes - just like foreign TV stations do. In fact, if the argument
were taken to its logical conclusion, you'd say that all foreign viewers of
BBC programmes should pay the BBC licence fee.

But the effect of the argument is to destroy the BBC on behalf of Murdoch.

That's a huge leap from "let's not pay for what we don't want" (which is
all the anti-fee posters are saying, sometimes because they are also
incensed by the BBC's blatant political stance and do not wish to have to
pay for it - which is reasonable.

That would mean destroying all chance of today's programmes for tomorrow.

It might, it might not.

There might be other ways round it.

Pyriform wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Pyriform wrote:

Your point being?
Oh, wait - there won't be one. I recognise the name now. You're the
one who came up with the intellectually compelling argument that
advertising doesn't cost anyone anything.
Abandon all logic, ye who enter here..

It certainly doesn't cost *you* anything, unless you are a
businessman with poor commercial judgement.
Apologies for using so many words you don't understand in a single
sentence.

That's the problem, you see. I understand all the words you use. It's the
way you arrange them into nonsensical sentences I have trouble with.

I do not doubt that you fail to make sense of anything that requires
knowledge of business and microeconomics.

But that's your problem.

uk.media.tv.misc

Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:49:49 GMT


snip


In a lengthy thread like this one about the bbc licence fee - i've
started just to click on the next unread post rather than scroll down .

Who knows how many other people do this - but users are typing in and
posting words that x amount of people will never see or read because
those posters dont snip .

That type of poster is almost as futile and pointless as the actual bbc
licence fee itself .


--
Encrypted email address
www.emailuser.co.uk/?name=KRUSTOV

uk.media.tv.misc
John Cartmell
Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:21:24 +0100


It's up to those of us with a modicum of intelligence and foresight to
point out what we get for our money and the fact that we would lose it.

Which you haven't done, in this thread at least - you have just asserted
that you do find it good value for money.

Someone pointed out that half a dozen programmes on BBC 1 tonight weren't
worth the money.


Ross wont even say how much he earns .

Is that because the actual figure would probably shock most people ? .


--
Encrypted email address
www.emailuser.co.uk/?name=KRUSTOV

John Cartmell wrote:
In article om, Arfur
Million wrote:
It's up to those of us with a modicum of intelligence and foresight to
point out what we get for our money and the fact that we would lose it.

Which you haven't done, in this thread at least - you have just asserted
that you do find it good value for money.

Someone pointed out that half a dozen programmes on BBC 1 tonight weren't
worth the money. I gave a much longer list (but very small extract) from
today's offering from the BBC and no-one has suggested that they don't give a
small indication of the worth of the organisation. Apparently you seek to
simply ignore any evidence against your case.

I had missed that depressing list, to be honest. I went for a quick kip
and the thread size doubled! Yes, I would say that this list is typical
of the worth of the organisation, which is near-zero as far as I'm
concerned. The "Big Cat Week" is typical of the BBC's superficial and
popular approach to naitcher (although wildlife programmes are
generally at the better end of science output), their cricket coverage
is second-to-everyone and the rest is quite missable, or is available
in other outlets. I notice that you even include a cookery programme -
is this what the licence fee is for? I'm going out now, I haven't set
the VCR for anything. Enjoy your evening's viewing.

Regards,
Arfur

Do you use the Health Service? Last time I had major cause I was covered by
my firm's Health Insurance and so went private. Now, I visit a doctor about
once a year or two at most. Yet I don't complain about all the idiots who
wreck their health by smoking taking up a disproportionate slice of NHS
resources even though they pay the same NI Contributions as I do.

I am doubtful about the country's involvement in Iraq, but I don't withhold
the percentage of my taxes needed to pay for them (though many Americans did
just that in protest against Vietnam).

Do you use local libraries? If not, why aren't you complaining that Local
Government funding has to cover them?

Generally, there are many things that come out of the general purse that we
don't all of us agree with or use all the time, but that's part of living in
an egalitarian society. There may be, probably is, a serious argument for
making such taxes more *accountable*, but it would be a serious change to
our society to say that for any or all of them, people who don't agree or
use them should not have to pay for them along with everyone else.

Particularly, with regard to the licence fee, I've always looked to it to
provide the sort of intellectual content the BBC used to provide very well,
but increasingly over the last 10-15 years or so seems to be failing to
provide. Consequently, I am hesitant on the issue, but I am even more
hesitant looking at the alternatives.

I see no evidence at all that subscription channels provide better
value for money, let alone any primary content I would wish to watch -
that content currently on them that I *would* wish to watch is almost
entirely repeats of what was created for and has already been shown on
terrestrial channels. And why should I have to pay a subscription *AND*
watch adverts that are an insult to my intelligence, just to watch output
consisting entirely of terrestrial repeats? Surely the first reason for
paying a sub is to get original programming, and the second is to avoid
advertising?

Nor do I see much improvement when I look across at the commercial channels.
The only thing I watch on ITV1/2 is 'F1' and 'Creature Comforts' repeats,
ITV3 is 'Survival' and 'Raging Planet' repeats, and on ITV4 the 'Volvo Ocean
Race' and a single dramatisation about Brinks Matt (and anyway I think I've
seen most or all of the ITV repeats now). As for Ch4, 'Time Team' and its
repeats continue to be good, as an ex farm-worker I've always liked
'Scrapyard Wars', and there is the odd good documentary (series), eg: those
fronted by Bettany Hughes. Channel Five seems occasionally to show some
quite good wildlife documentaries, though many are also repeats and none
compare with any of the BBC's major wildlife programming, and they also
hosted the RI Christmas Lectures last year.

But that's about it. By comparison, there is usually *something* on a BBC
radio or TV channel *every* day of the week.

So although compared with former years I don't think the BBC is doing a very
good job with the licence fee, they could certainly be doing worse.

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

So 15% of people don't watch BBC TV, which is around 1 in 6 people.

And percentage reach for BBC1 and BBC2 has reduced by 2.2% and 2.3%
respectively.

Methinks that at this rate of decline, the BBC licence fee will
*definitely*
be unsustainable by the next Charter renewal period in 10 years' time,
because there will be far too many people that just never watch the BBC,
which I think is by far the strongest argument against there being a
universal licence fee/tax.

"Stewart Smith" wrote in message
...

Maybe, but the recent "Century that made us" season has been excellent
stuff.

Well some of it, particularly good to see Culloden again, as well as some of
the other stuff like the Gilbert White documentary.

Apart from docs, BBC4 also has Never Mind the Fullstops which
has been very entertaining

Well, I admit I haven't seen it, because it's just another panel game, which
itself is probably enough for it to be inappropriate on BBC4.

and they've just started showing the b&w
Avengers with Mrs. Peel. Catsuitastic!

Which I and like-minded people thought was crap the first time it was shown,
if memory serves, on *ITV*!

Seriously though, there's
usually at least a couple of things on there every week that I watch.

Likewise, but there are usually quite a few things that just don't belong
there either:
The Prisoner
The Avengers
The Mark Steel Lectures
The League Of Gentleman
All these would be better placed, say, on BBC3.

Call me an intellectual snob if you like, but I have a good brain and a good
education, and it would be just as much an under achievement for me not to
use them as it would be for a national team not to play at its best. I just
don't think there are any longer enough people in control at the BBC, maybe
even anyone, who can remember or otherwise knows what an
intellectual/arts/science channel should look like.

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

BTW, where's the US equivalent of the BBC? Where do we buy a lot of the
best
programmes on TV from?

Certainly not from the US. There's *nothing* made for US TV that I watch.
the nearest I come to it is joint-funded ventures made by the BBC.

No, advertising increases the likelihood that you'll get lowest common
denominator ********, whereas subscription increases the likelihood that
you
will watch fantastic programmes.

Looking at the current subscription alternative(s), where is your
evidence for that?

JNugent wrote:
I do not doubt that you fail to make sense of anything that requires
knowledge of business and microeconomics.

But that's your problem.

It is true that my academic background is in proper science, rather than
dismal science - but I find it equips me to sniff out bull**** wherever it
is being excreted. And you are full of it!