All posts by Briantist
Below are all of Briantist's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Ian: Any chance you could possibly read Appendix A: The Price Elasticity of TV Advertising from https://reutersinstitute.….pdf ?
"Subscriptions already account for over 40% more revenue than
advertising.
Although the price elasticity of TV advertising is contested, all analysts
agree that a big increase in commercial exposures (e.g. resulting from
the removal of the BBC) would lead to relatively little - if any -
increase in advertising revenue.
Therefore, most of any increase in commercial revenues if there were
no BBC would have to come from consumer subscriptions"
| link to this comment |
MikeB: Thanks for your comments.
I've been looking at the various Ofcom and BBC Trust reviews of the regional services and it seems that people do "value" them.
However, I guess you would have got the same response about The Black And White Minstrel Show.
Your point "All politics is local', and so is TV" is really what I am going on about. The BBC doesn't deliver *local* (nor, to be fair, does ITV).
And people are going to complain (rightfully) about any changes.
I'm contesting that spending SO MUCH of the channel's budget on a half-hour weekday evening slot (plus a few updates at other times) is a relic of a bygone era and should been what the new DG selected FIRST.
| link to this comment |
Ian: On what grounds? I presume you have some alternative research you can point to? Is there a study that shows that increasing the number of ad slots to be watched will result in advertisers spending more?
I'm really interested to know of one.
It is interesting to note that no ad-funded broadcaster has EVER asked for the licence fee to be changed to advertising.
| link to this comment |
Aerialman: "Professionally presented by good anchors and backed up by
more than able journalists."
Really? It looks like a throwback to the 1970s. Apart from a new set nothing much has changed.
"For example there is a more in depth look at local sport,weather and items that sometimes affect in-directly the viewer."
So. £715m a year for a service that has things that sometimes affect you: indirectly? Local sport: easily done on local radio. Local weather: there's an app for that.
"This particular regional magazine has won industry awards. "
Which really proves my point: the best of a bad bunch. These services are outdated, turgid, barely relevant to the viewer and cost and absolute fortune.
I think it's a no-brainer. Scrap 40 minutes from the whole schedule and you get to DOUBLE THE BUDGET for everything else AND still have money left.
How good would BBC One be then?
| link to this comment |
Rob: Perhaps you could do that. But until the Silk Commission's recommendations are acted upon, such a service isn't required!
| link to this comment |
MarkAndrew: Thanks.
I don't really think that you could consider cutting back the regional news service, you would need to stop all to make the actual savings.
Saying "keep the 630pm programme" means keeping more-or-less everything.
If you get rid of the whole caboodle, you don't need expensive BBC studios sitting around in Cambridge,
Channel Islands, Norwich, Nottingham, Leeds, London, Newcastle, Southampton, Oxford, Tunbridge Wells, Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff, Nottingham and Hull.
That's how to cut a budget. Not "take BBC three online".
| link to this comment |
David Roberts: Please do join in.
If there was a Welsh Six, Anglophiles could always tune to the BBC News channel which would be carrying the English Six.
| link to this comment |
Aerialman: I can assure you and everyone else that no comments of yours have been deleted.
I have just checked the database and the logs.
| link to this comment |
CliveEA: To address your points
"1. Regional news gets consistently higher audience figures across the nation than most other programmes. "
That depends on the region.
2. It's a requirement under the Charter
The Charter is being renewed. As per my article.
3. Regional News operations are an essential part of the national news system
In your opinion.
4. Your "it's not very good" comment is not objective, you don't like it most of the audience do.
MOST people don't watch. If they did, the viewing figures would be 51% or more.
5. Audience research shows that people want regional/local news
So? People always want stuff and then don't want to pay for it.
As per my article anyway: what people want is LOCAL news.
Faux "regions" created by the BBC: less so.
| link to this comment |
Tuesday 11 March 2014 7:34PM
John Clemence: I've argued that all but a small service for Scotland and Northern Ireland should be retained.
That's the only way you're going to make savings. You need to be able to close down the regional studios and their staff entirely.
BBC local radio is the place for the BBC to do local news. Especially if the service gets put on Freeview and satellite - Are we going to get BBC local radio on Freeview in England? | Freeview news | ukfree.tv - 11 years of independent, free digital TV advice