1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

It certainly doesn't cost *you* anything, unless you are a businessman
with poor commercial judgement.

Televison advertising either costs -

a) countless hours of the lives of the people who are persuaded
to watch it, or watch it through inertia

Good point.

or

b) countless millions of pounds wasted by advertsiers beaming adverts
to those who unlike in a) don't watch TV adverts at all. But go out of
the room make a cup of tea or whatever.

It isn't the latter. If it was wasted, they wouldn't do it (mind you, some
of it IS wasted - they just don't know which bit is wasted).

So either the audience are wasting their lives being forced to watch
advetisements, when they'd prefer to watch programmes

The "waste" of their time (if that's how you choose to see it) is the price
that viewers pay for the programmes they see on commercial channels. For
many, it's no big deal. TV commercials are sometimes said to be better than
the programmes. That is borne out by the fact that while millions will
instantly recognise the jingles for Esso Blue or Murray Mints (late
fifties), rather fewer would recognise the theme tunes for "the Larkins" or
"Our House" (two popular television comedies of the period, M'Lud).

Congratulations. You are the first one from your side of things to see that.

Or advertisers are wasting millions on adverts the audience isn't
watching.

Possibility. The trouble is, no-one knows which millions.

Its impossible to argue that advertisers can enjoy economies of
scale*, and thus lower prices accordingly by wasting millions of
pounds on adverts that nobody watches.

No. it isn't. It's very possible. They seek to maximise sales.

If it didn't work - if it hadn't been proven to work over 80+ years - they
wouldn't do it.

In which case, to pay for
such advertisements consumers pay in higher prices.

Except, of course, that they don't - and your premise is flawed.

Either you concede that point,

What point? You haven't made one.

or you admit that you're happy for
people to waste their lives being forced to watch adverts

Their choice *entirely*.

And who's to say that it's a "waste" of life to watch adverts as opposed to
(say) trash like "Big Brother" or "X Factor"?

- and
possibly be persuaded to buy the odd product, as a price of
watching TV.

That's the deal. No-one is forced to watch commercial channels. No-one is
forced to buy the advertised products. But millions do, just the same.

If only one could say the same for the licence fee.

JN (who remembers when the licence fee was £4 (about £60 in today's values)
and is genuinely in two minds about the licence fee).

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

That's the deal. No-one is forced to watch commercial channels. No-one is
forced to buy the advertised products. But millions do, just the same.

If only one could say the same for the licence fee.


Nope you've got it exactly the wrong way around.

Because of the Licence Fee, I can presently watch television
without having to watch adverts. While others can watch adverts
if they so choose to do. This is especially the case with
advertisements that interrupt programmes. Which is the big
difference from BBC trailers, which can be largely avoided
if the programmes run on schedule, and which don't actually
spoil the continuity of the programmes.

Quite possibly the idea that people such as myself are so
irritated by TV advertisements - ads that positively try to force
me to do something I don't choose to do in my own home -
that they'd rather not watch commercial TV at all - has
never ever ocurred to you ?

If they published shedules of TV adverts so that I could restrict
my viewing to the entertaining ones than that might be different.
Although it would be totaly inconvenient of course. I'm not
saying that all advetisements are rubbish, but that's not the point.
They don't publish the schedules - so you're in the dark unless
you're a media insider. So I never know which particular stupid
adverts they're going to try and force me to watch or sit through.

My time is too precious to me Mr Nugent, to be told what to watch
by other people, you included.

If the Licence Fee is abolished, you and your kind will have brought
about a situation where I would be forced to to watch TV adverts
against my will. Either that or leave the room. Well I can tell you
now, Mr Nugent that by that stage on principle I'll refuse. Adverts
can be just about bearable for so long as I know I have a choice.
And what's more I hold you and your kind personally responsible for
bringing about a situation which curtails my basic freedom of choice
in that way.

With a licence there is choice. Without a licence there is none.
It really is as simple as that.

And all so as to save some skinflints and tightwads, the princely
sum of £2.50 a week. I don't think so, somehow.

....


JN (who remembers when the licence fee was £4 (about £60 in today's
values)
and is genuinely in two minds about the licence fee).


For 2 channels in black and white, with no breakfast, or daytime TV
to speak of, and a closedown at 11.30 or 12.00 if they were really
pushing the boat out. And looking forward to Hancock (BBC), Arthur Haynes
(ITV*), Dixon of Dock Green on a Saturday evening (BBC), and Sunday Night at
the London Palladium (ITV*), as the highlights of the week. Jumpers for
goalposts, etc, etc, etc.

* IIRR Rediffusion or ABC

About a quarter of todays output in black and white but still at half
the price.

You appear to be suffering from what's called "selective memory" there,
if I'm not totally mistaken, Mr Nugent.



michael adams

....

michael adams wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" i.e. Steve the parasitic spam planting
scumabag wrote - ( in order to evoke a response and so obtain a
pretext to plant some more of his spam
wrote in message ...

Bye Bye Spam-Boy


michael adams

This is a Public Service Post which is intended to serve as a warning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to anyone who gets entangled with a spammer.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You can never win! Spammers such as Steve here will happily post any
old
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
crap simply to generate a response.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Michael, I realise you're not the brightest person on Usenet, but the name
of the game with spam is to get as many people to see the spam as possible,
because by getting, say, a few thousand people seeing some spam some donut
will click on the spam link or whatever and earn the spammer some money.

Contrast that with me posting on Usenet.

1. I quite often, as has been the case here, ended up in a discussion /
argument where I spend a long time arguing about whatever.

2. uk.media.tv.misc is a relatively busy newsgroup as Usenet groups go, but
you still recognise the same names posting over and over. Conclusion: there
ain't that many people that post here, and you'd expect that there will be
regular or semi-regular lurkers as well, and you wouldn't expect there to be
thousands of them.

Basically, if I was trying to spam I am doing the most pathetic job in
history - even worse than Sven in the World Cup, because for the "effort"
expended in "spamming" is grossly disproportionate to the number of clicks I
would get from people that click my sig.

Also, I can see my website traffic records, and I'm 100% positive that the
amount of traffic I get to my website from Usenet is bugger all. My traffic
records show, for example, how many people go to my website from Google
Groups, and it's about 20 in the last month. And you have to take into
consideration that the.the number of people that actually earn me any money
is very low as a proportion of the total number of visitors, so 20 people is
very likely to earn me nothing at all.

Also, you single me out as being some kind of spammer because I have links
in my sig to price comparison pages on my website. Firstly, you ignore the
fact that ****loads of websites run by private individuals contain affiliate
links in the hope that someone goes to buy a product and earns the website
owner a few quid - you're not talking a lot here, you're talking 2% of the
sale price for most retailers, which isn't a lot for DAB radios or Freeview
receivers.

And Dom's website has affiliate links on it, so why have you singled me out?

I look upon the very meagre income I get from my website as a bit of
compensation for the literally hundreds of hours I've spent writing articles
since I started it in 2002 that are meant to be informative for consumers -
and if you actually looked at my website, which you probably haven't other
than to click the links in my sig and begin fuming, you will find that I've
written ****loads of info on my website.

Have a look at these pages for example:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ec...bh_drmplus.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dvb-h_dab_dmb.htm

Look at all the Tech pages I've written (look at all the pages in the Tech
menu on the left hand side):

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/audio_advice.htm

Look at all the news articles I've written in the Archives:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ar..._Feb_March.htm

A spammer attempts to make money by doing the least amount of work possible.
I've spent ****ing ages writing my website, aand I'm proud of it and what
it's achieved in terms of informing people, and it is the absolute opposite
of a spammer's website.

Getting back to posting on newsgroups, I do not post on Usenet with the
intention of making money. I post on Usenet if I'm interested in a topic
that's being discussed. If I wanted to spam I would do what spammers
actually do, and start a new thread, post it to multiple newsgroups and
never take part in any discussion.

Seriously, I honestly don't know how you can be so oblivious to how spammers
actually operate seeing as you post regularly to a Usenet newsgroup. Their
MO is always the same, and yet you're calling me a spammer. It's ridiculous.

Anyway, I've removed the links to my price comparison pages in my sig just
to show you that I don't post on Usenet in order to spam, in case you still
just don't get it even after I've tried to slowly explain things to you.

--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

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

And Dom's website has affiliate links on it, so why have you singled me
out?

Robinson has kill-filed me, spam-boy.

Something none of the rest of you wimps has ever managed to get
him to do.

I also kill-filed Robinson, except he posts under slightly different
ID's, maybe from home and work.

Robinsons constant whingeing is also an easy score, so there's no need to
bother with his spamming.

....

Anyway, I've removed the links to my price comparison pages in my sig just
to show you that I don't post on Usenet in order to spam, in case you
still
just don't get it even after I've tried to slowly explain things to you.

....

You'll be pleased to know that I snipped all that without even bothering
to read it. True.

Your comparison pages are ****e anyway as they ignore the £27 Tesco
Digilogic freeview box, presumably because Tesco wouldn't bung you.


michael adams

....



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

That's the deal. No-one is forced to watch commercial channels. No-one is
forced to buy the advertised products. But millions do, just the same.
If only one could say the same for the licence fee.

Nope you've got it exactly the wrong way around.

You are forced to watch commercial channels, are you?

Who forces you?

Because of the Licence Fee, I can presently watch television
without having to watch adverts. While others can watch adverts
if they so choose to do. This is especially the case with
advertisements that interrupt programmes. Which is the big
difference from BBC trailers, which can be largely avoided
if the programmes run on schedule, and which don't actually
spoil the continuity of the programmes.

None of that militates against what I said. I am not attacking the BBC.

Quite possibly the idea that people such as myself are so
irritated by TV advertisements - ads that positively try to force
me to do something I don't choose to do in my own home -
that they'd rather not watch commercial TV at all - has
never ever ocurred to you ?

It has. That's why I emphasised that you are NOT forced to watch commercial
TV channels.

If they published shedules of TV adverts so that I could restrict
my viewing to the entertaining ones than that might be different.
Although it would be totaly inconvenient of course. I'm not
saying that all advetisements are rubbish, but that's not the point.
They don't publish the schedules - so you're in the dark unless
you're a media insider.

In the past, I have tried to find out when a particular ad was booked
because I wanted to tape it. The regional ITV company were unforthcoming -
but they referred me to the (correct) advertising agency (who were very
helpful about their bookings).

So I never know which particular stupid
adverts they're going to try and force me to watch or sit through.

My time is too precious to me Mr Nugent, to be told what to watch
by other people, you included.

No-one tries to tell you what to watch. You must make up your own mind up
on that. The top people, of course, claim to watch no TV at all (they're
too important for that).

If the Licence Fee is abolished, you and your kind will have brought
about a situation where I would be forced to to watch TV adverts
against my will.

Rubbish - I have not argued against the licence fee and you cannot show
that I have done so. I have merely commented on both sides of the argument.

Either that or leave the room. Well I can tell you
now, Mr Nugent that by that stage on principle I'll refuse.

That's your choice. It's a free country.

Adverts
can be just about bearable for so long as I know I have a choice.

"Choice". A good word.

Those on the opposite side of the fence from you say they want a choice
about the licence fee, as well as about the time they have to donate in
watching adverts.

Who knows? Perhaps you are right and perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps you
should have all the choices you want while they should have none of the
choices they want. But if that is the case, you have failed to show why it
is the case.

And what's more I hold you and your kind personally responsible for
bringing about a situation which curtails my basic freedom of choice
in that way.

You seem to have a very simple attitude to these issues; you must have what
you want and others must be denied what they want.

Again, perhaps you are right. But the mere fact that it is you who is
expressing these desires and requirements (for others to pay so that you
can watch cheaply than would otherwise be possible) would not be what made
you right (if you were right) - would it?

With a licence there is choice. Without a licence there is none.

Some would say (just as compellingly) that the situation is the opposite
way round.

It really is as simple as that.

I fully accept that you can't see any more complications in it than you
choose to see.

And all so as to save some skinflints and tightwads, the princely
sum of £2.50 a week. I don't think so, somehow.

Why did you add the superfluous words "so, somehow" to the end of that last
sentence?

JN (who remembers when the licence fee was £4 (about £60 in today's
values) and is genuinely in two minds about the licence fee).

For 2 channels in black and white,

For ONE channel in black and white, actually. Plus three radio channels.

What makes you think that there aren't people (and plenty of them) who
can't afford to pay for any more than that on a licence fee basis?

with no breakfast, or daytime TV
to speak of, and a closedown at 11.30 or 12.00 if they were really
pushing the boat out.

You DO know that there was a legal limit on broadcasting hours and that the
commercial stations wanted longer hours, do you?

And looking forward to Hancock (BBC), Arthur Haynes
(ITV*), Dixon of Dock Green on a Saturday evening (BBC), and Sunday Night at
the London Palladium (ITV*), as the highlights of the week. Jumpers for
goalposts, etc, etc, etc.

* IIRR Rediffusion or ABC

You remember wrong (again). Both were on ATV (London weekends). The
regional ITV stations were a class act in those days. Mostly.

About a quarter of todays output in black and white but still at half
the price.

What makes you think that there aren't people (and plenty of them) who
can't afford to pay for any more than that on a licence fee basis? Why
should they pay more so that you have more? There may be an excellent
reason why people poorer than you should subsidise your viewing, but you
haven't made that case - have you?

You appear to be suffering from what's called "selective memory" there,
if I'm not totally mistaken, Mr Nugent.

But you are mistaken.

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

If you wanted to make your comprison page in any way useful you
should consider the following question.

Given that people don't know much about them, what are the features
users might find most useful, and which boxes include those features.

So first off list all the features, and what they can do.

One useful feature - an LED display on the set top box which displays
the channel number. It's not 'til after you've bought one that you realise
this can prove useful in certain situations.

I stand to be corrected but your guide makes no mention of such a feature
and which boxes have it. Some have dark panels, but that may merely be the
design.

The Tesco box features both now and next for the selected channel,
plus a guide featuring the next five(?) programmes for all
channnels which can be scrolled through on a menu. With a detailed
programme description at the foot of the page. Apparently
there are weekly guides on some boxes as well. No mention is
made of all these specific possibilities on your site - just
vague mentions. Again totally unsatisfactory IMO.




michael adams

....



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

michael adams wrote:

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:

If you wanted to make your comprison page in any way useful you
should consider the following question.

REPEAT:
"If you wanted to make your comprison [sic] page in any way useful you
should consider the following question".

Given that people don't know much about them, what are the features
users might find most useful, and which boxes include those features.

So first off list all the features, and what they can do.

One useful feature - an LED display on the set top box which displays
the channel number. It's not 'til after you've bought one that you realise
this can prove useful in certain situations.

I stand to be corrected but your guide makes no mention of such a feature
and which boxes have it. Some have dark panels, but that may merely be the
design.

The Tesco box features both now and next for the selected channel,
plus a guide featuring the next five(?) programmes for all
channnels which can be scrolled through on a menu. With a detailed
programme description at the foot of the page. Apparently
there are weekly guides on some boxes as well. No mention is
made of all these specific possibilities on your site - just
vague mentions. Again totally unsatisfactory IMO.

Where's the question?

JNugent wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:


If you wanted to make your comprison page in any way useful you should
consider the following question.


REPEAT:
"If you wanted to make your comprison [sic] page in any way useful you
should consider the following question".

Given that people don't know much about them, what are the features
users might find most useful, and which boxes include those features.


So first off list all the features, and what they can do.


One useful feature - an LED display on the set top box which displays
the channel number. It's not 'til after you've bought one that you
realise
this can prove useful in certain situations.


I stand to be corrected but your guide makes no mention of such a
feature and which boxes have it. Some have dark panels, but that may
merely be the design.


The Tesco box features both now and next for the selected channel,
plus a guide featuring the next five(?) programmes for all
channnels which can be scrolled through on a menu. With a detailed
programme description at the foot of the page. Apparently
there are weekly guides on some boxes as well. No mention is
made of all these specific possibilities on your site - just vague
mentions. Again totally unsatisfactory IMO.


Where's the question?

My mistake.

There is a question there, though it is not punctuated as a question.

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
John Dean wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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.

That shows a remarkable popularity.


You couldn't be more wrong.

85% of the population watch a particular broadcaster and you don't think
that represents popularity? What's your definition then? Who are the popular
broadcasters and what percentage of the population wathces them?
--
John Dean
Oxford

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

That's the deal. No-one is forced to watch commercial channels. No-one
is
forced to buy the advertised products. But millions do, just the same.
If only one could say the same for the licence fee.

Nope you've got it exactly the wrong way around.

You are forced to watch commercial channels, are you?

Do you normally take sentences out of context ? When its fairly obvious
that the subsatnce of the argument is in what follows ?

Sorry Mr Nugent I don't really have the time to indulge you in your
singular debating style

snippage

"Choice". A good word.

Those on the opposite side of the fence from you say they want a choice
about the licence fee, as well as about the time they have to donate in
watching adverts.

....

If the licence fee is abolished they will have no alternative but
watch advertisements. And then if the advertisements prove ineffective
and advertsers go elsewhwere then the TV Stations will have
no income and be forced to close down.

Once the licence fee is abolished, there is no choice for anyone.

....


And looking forward to Hancock (BBC), Arthur Haynes
(ITV*), Dixon of Dock Green on a Saturday evening (BBC), and Sunday
Night at
the London Palladium (ITV*), as the highlights of the week. Jumpers for
goalposts, etc, etc, etc.

* IIRR Rediffusion or ABC

You remember wrong (again). Both were on ATV (London weekends). The
regional ITV stations were a class act in those days. Mostly.

....

The Arthur Hayes show was on Tuesdays or Wednesday evenings I believe.

However it was indeed ATV on Sundays.

I prefaced mine with an IIRR. You were cetain and you are decidely
wrong about the Arthur Haynes Show.

....


About a quarter of todays output in black and white but still at half
the price.

What makes you think that there aren't people (and plenty of them) who
can't afford to pay for any more than that on a licence fee basis? Why
should they pay more so that you have more? There may be an excellent
reason why people poorer than you should subsidise your viewing, but you
haven't made that case - have you?

....

I would imagine that the TV licence fee is among the basic requirements
which are included in the basic living costs on which basic State
Benefits are calculated. And that anyone unable to afford a TV licence
is probably wasting their money on cigarettes or other non-essentials
instead.


michael adams