1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

Carl Waring wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
I can see your argument, but I can also see the counter argument. You
either have to take the stance that the BBC should provide
output to appeal to a fair cross-section of the population, or that
it should cover only those minority interests inadequately covered
by other broadcasters. The trouble with the former approach is that
the BBC

Yes. It's called "damned if they do and damned if they don't'.
Basically, they can't win!


So why not change it so that they don't have to be obsessed by viewing
figures, which they currently are, and that's what causes all the dross to
be shown on BBC1/2.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

John Dean wrote:
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?


85% of people watch BBC TV for at least *15 minutes per week*. Therefore,
there's going to be a sizeable minority that hardly watch BBC TV at all but
they're included in that 85% figure just because they've watched for more
than 15 minutes.



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

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
I've already told you I do not support Murdoch, and yet what have
you done now, you've accused me of the same thing yet again.

You do support Murdoch. Whether you appreciate what you're doing or
not is another question.


For the 3rd time, I do not support Murdoch. I happen to think that changing
to a subscription-based service would improve BBC programming by severing
the link between having to pander to the lowest common denominator.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Nigel Cliffe 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)

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

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.


A few minor observations:

a) I'd fall into the 15% for many weeks; it means watching less than
a certain number of minutes of TV each day or week. However, it
would be rare that I don't listen to BBC Radio services (the ones
which are not commercially viable, such as Radio 3 or Radio 4), or
use the BBC internet services.


Radio and the Interenet are different arguments, because you pay for a TV
licence, so you could use these services without having to pay for them -
how they would otherwise be funded is also a separate argument.


b) Channel 4 is also part-funded by the license fee. So, any
"abolish the license fee" arguments needs to include Channel 4 and
its subsiduary channels in the calculations.


No, AIUI, C4 isn't funded at all from the licence fee, but they've been
asking for part of it.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Because then they would be obsessed by subscription sales, and there's not
single example of a subscription-based organisation successfully providing
Public Service Broadcasting in this country.

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

So why not change it so that they don't have to be obsessed by viewing
figures, which they currently are, and that's what causes all the dross to
be shown on BBC1/2.

Java Jive wrote:
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.


Smokers pay through the nose in tax on cigarettes (£5 per packet of 20
cigarettes), and from what I've read it more than covers the cost to the NHS
from smoking-related treatment, because the tax has gone past the level
where it merely pays back the cost of NHS treatment and the tax is now meant
to also encourage people to give up for their own health.


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.


I'm not against the public service parts of the BBC being funded directly
from the public purse, and I could envisage that they have a free-to-air TV
channel devoted to public service content. The rest can be
subscription-funded, IMO.



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

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Java Jive wrote:
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.

And all our energy should be reserved for getting the BBC to improve
its output


The BBC always ignores the views of listeners and viewers. You should know
that by now.


and not fighting yet another war with yet more people who
have swallowed the Murdoch pack of lies.


There you go again with your nonsense.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

Java Jive wrote:
Because then they would be obsessed by subscription sales, and
there's not single example of a subscription-based organisation
successfully providing Public Service Broadcasting in this country.


I've already used the example of the US satellite digital radio services
that are subscription-based and provide content that is not provided by
ad-funded radio. And I've also mentioned that Jazz FM ceased to exist in the
UK, but I would bet that if a subscription-based radio system were launched
there would be a jazz station.

I believe that if they were obsessed by subscriptions it would focus their
mind on providing better programming. If you've got guaranteed income,
where's the pressure to come up with adventurous programming?

I saw you mention science programmes in this thread, and Horizon is a
perfect example of something that's dumbed down for the masses - that's
happened because the BBC wants to make it more accessible, because it has to
appeal to everybody. If it was subscription-funded I think it would be more
daring and provide less accessible programming without having the worry of
being criticised by the media for only getting X thousand viewers to certain
programmes, which it currently does get stick for.

The BBC is obsessed by ratings, which for a public service broadcaster is
wrong, and it leads to all the ****e that they do provide. If they were
subscription-funded then they could take a more holistic view to
programming, so that those of us that want to be stretched intellectually
can be. Like you, I can't even remember the last time I was stretched
intellectually by watching a programme. No, I tell a lie, it was a programme
on C4 about M-Theory in physics - not even on the fking BBC! The BBC is crap
when it comes to things like this.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

In article ,
Carl Waring wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:
missable, or is available in other outlets. I notice that you even
include a cookery programme - is this what the licence fee is for?

So, people who like to cook and who pay their LF aren't allowed to have any
programming on their fsvourite subject?

Even better is the fact that he is basing his criticism on the name of the
programme and in total ignorance of the content and benefits of "Big Cook
Little Cook" which go a touch beyond cookery. ;-)

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Carl Waring wrote:
Arfur Million wrote:
missable, or is available in other outlets. I notice that you even
include a cookery programme - is this what the licence fee is for?

So, people who like to cook and who pay their LF aren't allowed to
have any programming on their fsvourite subject?


One would be good, tens of the buggers is too much. Same with house
makeovers, DIY, gardening, insert nonsense genre.

You really are a total idiot! ;-))

Keep rambling. Then find out why "Big Cook Little Cook" does not fit in with
tens of the buggers ...

BTW The *only* options available for you at this stage a

1. Silence whilst you slink away with your tail between your legs; or
2. Your posting saying "I was a stupid bugger, wasn't I?"

No other options will be accepted. ;-)

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing