Commercial break backlash in the UK?

[Temis the Vorta]

Yeah I'm all like wait...what? too!

But foreigners pay something for the rights to show anything they import, some some quatloos are going back into the coffers to make more Walking Deads and Breaking Bads. For that to be only ad-based means it's not going to be a whole lot of money, vs suscription based, but every little bit helps I suppose.

Anyway, the shows I like on cable are not in danger of cancellation so it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Shows like Walking Dead, True Blood, Archer, Damages, Dexter, Rome, Tudors etc have all been shown on those free channels.

Hey that's not fair! Americans have to pay for every one of those! (All of those are on basic or premium cable channels).

Funny how you didn't list anything from a free channel. I suppose that says something too.

But to bring this thread back around to the point - there was a point around here somewhere - if you have to watch ads to see those shows, don't complain, because at least you're not watching ads and paying a cable subscription too! And you can always zap the ads.

Well the likes of Lost, Simpsons, Family Guy, Big Bang Theory, Glee, Smallville, Vampire Diaries, etc have all been on free channels too. My point was basically that a lot of the premium content over there ends up on free tv at some point here. Though Simpsons, is on Sky first and though Sky have done deals for shows like Lost and Glee to be Sky exclusive. Sky also recently did a deal to make all HBO content exclusive to them for 5 years at the cost of £5bn (I think it was), which you have to pay for and get ads too. Though some shows remain with other channels, True Blood for example, is with FX, who sell the secondary rights to Channel 4.

Personally I'm not complaining about the ads, I record everything and zap the ads anyway. Just there are rules about the amount of advertising they can display in 1 hour of television, and how much it averages out to over a day, if they're breaking the rules then it's only right there are complaints. Besides, I believe X-Factor now as a product placement deal anyway, so seems ridiculous to have more ads and product placement. Though I know that's nothing new in the US product placement has only recently been allowed here and shows have to have a logo displayed before they start telling you there is product placement.

 

[Rarewolf]

What? Did I read that right? Am I paying for someone in another country to watch The Walking Dead for free? What kind of a world is this?

But the channel screening it for viewers to see for free still has to pay for it. There's often a fierce bidding war for the hottest new American import.

(In reverse BBC Worldwide sells Doctor Who outside the UK, making money that goes back to the BBC, reducing the contribution of the UK licence fee payer. In truth the BBC couldn't afford Doctor Who without it.)

BBC2 had terrestrial rights to Buffy - originally ITV wanted it for early morning kids TV! But after Buffy became a huge success Channel 4 outbid them for Angel.

So Channel 4 had Angel - and didn't know what to do with it. I think they only showed the first season and heavily cut some to go out at 6pm before they gave up!

All the time Sky were laughing, they had first run digital rights. So a mainstream channel (BBC2) exposed a much larger audience (5-6 million) to the show, and if a quarter of them couldn't wait and saw them on Sky first, Sky had a hit with 1 1/2 million viewers.

It became a bit more aggressive around 2000, the main channels had their own smaller channels. Sky were less interested in giving their rival the BBC a hit show - Enterprise went to C4, but on the whole C4 don't obtain terrestrial rights unless they have digital too (for reruns and first runs) on E4.

Then you had Sky poach shows like 24 and Lost keeping them exclusive for a long time.

So that has let Channel 5 get hold of some shows like The Walking Dead.

Battlestar Galactica would have been a much bigger hit had Sky shared it - but as they were a financial partner they kept it to themselves.

So as a result the BBC don't have many imports these days. Heroes series 2 onwards they had 1st run rights, and that probably just worked in their favor, but only just. Thats the last major US SciFi Cult I recall watching on the BBC. ITV, I think had Supernatural, but got outbid. Having said that usually being bought by ITV was a fate worse than cancellation!

Ultimately viewers don't need them on the main channels these days, other alternatives are readily availible.

Co-productions are different. They are harder to steal!

 

[Bob The Skutter]

What? Did I read that right? Am I paying for someone in another country to watch The Walking Dead for free? What kind of a world is this?

But the channel screening it for viewers to see for free still has to pay for it. There's often a fierce bidding war for the hottest new American import.

(In reverse BBC Worldwide sells Doctor Who outside the UK, making money that goes back to the BBC, reducing the contribution of the UK licence fee payer. In truth the BBC couldn't afford Doctor Who without it.)

BBC2 had terrestrial rights to Buffy - originally ITV wanted it for early morning kids TV! But after Buffy became a huge success Channel 4 outbid them for Angel.

So Channel 4 had Angel - and didn't know what to do with it. I think they only showed the first season and heavily cut some to go out at 6pm before they gave up!

All the time Sky were laughing, they had first run digital rights. So a mainstream channel (BBC2) exposed a much larger audience (5-6 million) to the show, and if a quarter of them couldn't wait and saw them on Sky first, Sky had a hit with 1 1/2 million viewers.

It became a bit more aggressive around 2000, the main channels had their own smaller channels. Sky were less interested in giving their rival the BBC a hit show - Enterprise went to C4, but on the whole C4 don't obtain terrestrial rights unless they have digital too (for reruns and first runs) on E4.

Then you had Sky poach shows like 24 and Lost keeping them exclusive for a long time.

So that has let Channel 5 get hold of some shows like The Walking Dead.

Battlestar Galactica would have been a much bigger hit had Sky shared it - but as they were a financial partner they kept it to themselves.

So as a result the BBC don't have many imports these days. Nor do ITV. Viewers don't need them on the main channels.

Co-productions are different. They are harder to steal!

Yep, Sky are notorious for stealing rights to shows their rivals have made popular. Most recently Mad Men and Glee. They did it with House from Channel 5, and Lost from Channel 4. They will bid ridiculous amounts too. Apparently they just paid £24m for Glee, which isn't far off the entire budget of E4.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

But the channel screening it for viewers to see for free still has to pay for it.

Yeah I forgot, there's really no such thing as "free" TV in the UK. And part of the TV-owner fee does go back to the maker of any program that is aired when they're paid for the rights to it. I just like to kvetch.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

But the channel screening it for viewers to see for free still has to pay for it.

Yeah I forgot, there's really no such thing as "free" TV in the UK. And part of the TV-owner fee does go back to the maker of any program that is aired when they're paid for the rights to it. I just like to kvetch.

Well if you wanna get to that there's no such thing as free TV any where. Ads cost money which increase the price of everything you buy. Also it's not true, there are plenty of commercial TV channels in the UK which don't get any funding from the TV licence. Only BBC and S4C get licence fee funding, the rest are commercial, even Channel 4 which is a publicly owned, but commercially funded network.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

So everyone has to pay to have a TV, but not all the channels get a cut? That's not fair! If people are motivated to have a TV because of channel X, Y and Z, then they all should get a cut. In fact, they should demand that their cut be in proportion to the ratings they get, since ratings are the best possible indication of what is motivating people to have a TV in the first place.

In America, you could get true "free" TV by only watching the five networks and never buying name-brand products. It would be a challenge, but a truly dedicated cheapskate could do it.

 

[Sean Aaron]

I remember when Jail Break was on Channel 4 (or was it Five?) and the wife and I watched it through the 1st or second series and then Sky outbid them for it. That was the last time I bothered with serialised broadcast television. Now I either see it on DVD or do other things.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

So everyone has to pay to have a TV, but not all the channels get a cut? That's not fair! If people are motivated to have a TV because of channel X, Y and Z, then they all should get a cut. In fact, they should demand that their cut be in proportion to the ratings they get, since ratings are the best possible indication of what is motivating people to have a TV in the first place.

In America, you could get true "free" TV by only watching the five networks and never buying name-brand products. It would be a challenge, but a truly dedicated cheapskate could do it.

The point in the TV Licence is to fund the BBC. It funds 8 TV channels and numerous national and regional radio stations. Public service programming as well as entertainment. The remit was something along the lines of Educate, inform and entertain. There's also films funded by the BBC, as well as the website and various educational and public service schemes. It was also used to fund digital switch over and help for the elderly and vulnerable upgrading their equipment for digital, and the upkeep of the national transmitter network, but that was privatised a while back.
ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 have Public service remits, in return they get free transmitter space and guaranteed prime EPG channel slots.

Also, you can have a TV and not pay the licence fee. You just have to not watch live TV at all. No streaming live TV, but if you watch all DVDs and streams of catch up and VOD no licence is required.

I remember when Jail Break was on Channel 4 (or was it Five?) and the wife and I watched it through the 1st or second series and then Sky outbid them for it. That was the last time I bothered with serialised broadcast television. Now I either see it on DVD or do other things.

Yeah, it was Channel 5, as was House. Surprised they didn't nick CSI too.

 

[ITL]

The whole license fee thing may seem a bit iffy, but if you have Freeview/Freesat you get loads of channels with no subscription charges - and you get to thumb your nose at Murdock. So if you're happy with the channels you do watch, it's not so bad. You can watch TV all year round with no payments to anyone bar the BBC. If there was no license fee, I have a feeling that other payment systems would take it's place anyway.

And IMO, the BBC is still the best UK broadcaster by far - I don't have digital TV, so I can only watch online services - but as I mainly watch BBC shows (and listen to BBC radio), I don't begrudge the license fee one bit.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The point in the TV Licence is to fund the BBC.

Then only people who watch the BBC should pay it. The technology exists to tell who watches what now. If I were running one of those other channels, incentivizing people to have a TV yet not profiting from the license fee they are forced to pay, I'd be kicking up a shitstorm and demanding my fair share.

And if I never watched the BBC, I sure wouldn't pay any fee that goes only to that one place. I'd demand that my money go only to those who make things I want to watch. I'm already annoyed enough that I can't get a la carte cable pricing. If I don't watch ESPN, Lifetime or Spike, why should they get a penny from me? But at least I have the option of owning a TV and not paying anyone if the cable pricing system annoys me too much.

If there was no license fee, I have a feeling that other payment systems would take it's place anyway.

Definitely. There's no free lunch, after all. But if you watch Channel A 80% of the time, Channel B 15% of the time, Channel D 5% of the time and everything else 0% of the time, why shouldn't your cable/satellite subscription (which is really what it is) go to each of those channels in exactly that proportion? They should be rewarded for doing a good job of giving people what they want. Those who don't get as good a job should get proportionately less of a reward.

So if the other channels get no license fee, does that mean they must pay their own way solely by ads? If so, that would give them a reason why they'd have to run more ads. If they got their fair share of the pie, maybe they could reduce the ads. And that in turn might address the original problem posed by the OP.

 

[Savage Jaw]

The whole license fee thing may seem a bit iffy, but if you have Freeview/Freesat you get loads of channels with no subscription charges - and you get to thumb your nose at Murdock.

Freeview - For most people yes, but if you live in an area like I do where you are not served by one of the main transmitters, but by a relay transmitter, you only get a cutdown Freeview service consisting of the BBC multiplex, the ITV/C4/C5 multiplex, and the HD multiplex, missing around 20 of the extra Freeview channels.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

"Freeview" is a lie anyway. I think the OP is right, the BBC will be forced to play on a level playing field eventually, because this system doesn't look sustainable. It lacks the essential fairness of a feedback loop between ratings and profit.

Why should the BBC go ad-free and starve other channels of revenue that they are actually earning through their popularity, forcing them to stuff tons of ads into shows and annoy the hell out of everyone? Just divide the license fee fairly and have everyone make up the difference as needed via ads. (Which anyone with a brain can figure out how to zap anyhow.)

If the BBC really does earn its share of the loot, then why not make that the rationale for divvying the profits, instead of basing it all on some bureaucrats paternalistic notion of what is "good for people."

 

[Bob The Skutter]

The point in the TV Licence is to fund the BBC.

Then only people who watch the BBC should pay it. The technology exists to tell who watches what now. If I were running one of those other channels, incentivizing people to have a TV yet not profiting from the license fee they are forced to pay, I'd be kicking up a shitstorm and demanding my fair share.

And if I never watched the BBC, I sure wouldn't pay any fee that goes only to that one place. I'd demand that my money go only to those who make things I want to watch. I'm already annoyed enough that I can't get a la carte cable pricing. If I don't watch ESPN, Lifetime or Spike, why should they get a penny from me? But at least I have the option of owning a TV and not paying anyone if the cable pricing system annoys me too much.

But that isn't the point. Everyone pays for the BBC and the BBC is supposed to provide something for everyone. It isn't like you're paying for one channel you're paying for a wide range of channels from popularist to art and culture to news and politics. There are people who complain and don't pay the licence, if you don't you risk up to £1000 fine but it is what it is and a majority of people support the BBC.

The money you're paying isn't supposed to incentivise anything, the commercial channels are commercial, the BBC is the BBC. Though of course there are people who don't care what good shows the BBC make, or if they make anything they want to watch, they just get pissed off they have to pay.

If there was no license fee, I have a feeling that other payment systems would take it's place anyway.

Definitely. There's no free lunch, after all. But if you watch Channel A 80% of the time, Channel B 15% of the time, Channel D 5% of the time and everything else 0% of the time, why shouldn't your cable/satellite subscription (which is really what it is) go to each of those channels in exactly that proportion? They should be rewarded for doing a good job of giving people what they want. Those who don't get as good a job should get proportionately less of a reward.

So if the other channels get no license fee, does that mean they must pay their own way solely by ads? If so, that would give them a reason why they'd have to run more ads. If they got their fair share of the pie, maybe they could reduce the ads. And that in turn might address the original problem posed by the OP.

Doesn't work like that. The licence fee only brings in £3.5bn a year, you slice that between 100s of channels and you have fuck all left, it wouldn't fund anything worthwhile. So you either increase the licence fee to make it worth while or you allow everyone else to work on a commercially funded basis and have the BBC there to do the job it was created for. If it was all advertising funded the BBC would take the lion's share of ads based on viewing figures, and there'd be nothing left.
ITV the biggest commercial operator in the UK makes around £2bn from ads. Then Channel 4 around £800m, if you added the BBC in and split those ad revenues even further there wouldn't be enough money to support the second largest TV industry in the world that we have now.

The whole license fee thing may seem a bit iffy, but if you have Freeview/Freesat you get loads of channels with no subscription charges - and you get to thumb your nose at Murdock.

Freeview - For most people yes, but if you live in an area like I do where you are not served by one of the main transmitters, but by a relay transmitter, you only get a cutdown Freeview service consisting of the BBC multiplex, the ITV/C4/C5 multiplex, and the HD multiplex, missing around 20 of the extra Freeview channels.

Which is what Freesat was invented for.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

"Freeview" is a lie anyway. I think the OP is right, the BBC will be forced to play on a level playing field eventually, because this system doesn't look sustainable. It lacks the essential fairness of a feedback loop between ratings and profit.

Why should the BBC go ad-free and starve other channels of revenue that they are actually earning through their popularity, forcing them to stuff tons of ads into shows and annoy the hell out of everyone? Just divide the license fee fairly and have everyone make up the difference as needed via ads. (Which anyone with a brain can figure out how to zap anyhow.)

If the BBC really does earn its share of the loot, then why not make that the rationale for divvying the profits, instead of basing it all on some bureaucrats paternalistic notion of what is "good for people."

It's the way it is because it's always been this way, the BBC has always had a licence fee. It has worked for over 50 years. The BBC is popular, a majority of the population don't mind paying for it. Sky has a far higher cost and runs ads. The UK doesn't have as large a population as America. And yet has a TV industry second only to you. Your way isn't the only way.

 

[Rarewolf]

"Freeview" is a lie anyway. I think the OP is right, the BBC will be forced to play on a level playing field eventually, because this system doesn't look sustainable. It lacks the essential fairness of a feedback loop between ratings and profit.

And it will be a sorry day when that happens. The whole point of the BBC is in theory they don't have to chase massive audience figures which appeal to advertisers, in practice they do just to justify their existance. But they can also risk making shows for smaller audiences.

A commericial led BBC is the last thing ITV would want. 2 popular channels competiting for the advertisers money? They'd lose out.

Freeview is the successor to OnDigital. An ITV led company that was unsustainable. The point of Freeview was you didn't need a dish, or have to pay an ongoing charge. Except the licence fee which you were paying anyway! OnDigital did have a fee for some of the Sky Channels.