Why is this a BBC top story? (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
| steve1984 17 Dec 18 12.29pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Harborough Eagle
I love BBC dramas as that is my thing but.. Drama is a lot more expensive per hour to produce than soap and it doesn't bring in such high audiences. Or at least it's a lot more risky. Audiences for soaps are reliable. News is the biggest loss maker. Expensive to produce and limited returns. Last year the BBC's share of TV viewing was 31.6% on revenues of £5bn. ITV's was 21.7% on revenues of £3.1bn.* For each % share point ITV generated revenues of £143m. The BBC produced each % share point for £158m. The BBC spent 10% more per point than ITV which were it a commercial venture could be readily justified by it's market leading position. If the BBC were selling ads in the same way that ITV does then it would command at least a 10% price premium vs ITV per 1,000 viewers reached. *but of course herein lies the difference. ITV produce audiences to realise revenues whilst the BBC incurs costs to produce audiences. Edited by steve1984 (17 Dec 2018 12.32pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Badger11  Beckenham 17 Dec 18 12.32pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steve1984
Drama is a lot more expensive per hour to produce than soap and it doesn't bring in such high audiences. Or at least it's a lot more risky. Audiences for soaps are reliable. News is the biggest loss maker. Expensive to produce and limited returns. Last year the BBC's share of TV viewing was 31.6% on revenues of £5bn. ITV's was 21.7% on revenues of £3.1bn. For each % share point ITV generated revenues of £143m. The BBC produced each % share point for £158m. The BBC spent 10% more per point than ITV which were it a commercial venture could be readily justified by it's market leading position. If the BBC were selling ads in the same way that ITV does then it would command at least a 10% price premium vs ITV per 1,000 viewers reached. Edited by steve1984 (17 Dec 2018 12.31pm) Edited by steve1984 (17 Dec 2018 12.31pm) Interesting. Of course ITV has to go out and find its revenue whilst the BBC....
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| steve1984 17 Dec 18 12.33pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Interesting. Of course ITV has to go out and find its revenue whilst the BBC.... You beat me to it I'm not sure cos I didn't check but it's possible that the BBC also funds radio from that £5bn. Edited by steve1984 (17 Dec 2018 12.44pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 becky over the moon 17 Dec 18 2.15pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steve1984
Drama is a lot more expensive per hour to produce than soap and it doesn't bring in such high audiences. Or at least it's a lot more risky. Audiences for soaps are reliable. News is the biggest loss maker. Expensive to produce and limited returns. Last year the BBC's share of TV viewing was 31.6% on revenues of £5bn. ITV's was 21.7% on revenues of £3.1bn.* For each % share point ITV generated revenues of £143m. The BBC produced each % share point for £158m. The BBC spent 10% more per point than ITV which were it a commercial venture could be readily justified by it's market leading position. If the BBC were selling ads in the same way that ITV does then it would command at least a 10% price premium vs ITV per 1,000 viewers reached. *but of course herein lies the difference. ITV produce audiences to realise revenues whilst the BBC incurs costs to produce audiences. Edited by steve1984 (17 Dec 2018 12.32pm) They could save a great deal of money if they put aside the need to send a reporter and camera crew to stand outside of empty buildings, in snowy streets, or on windswept seafronts to do an 'over to you xxxx' report on virtually every news item, instead of someone simply reading the facts from the autocue at the studio desk with an appropriate location photo in the background. Delivery from outside an empty and dark building adds nothing to the information being provided.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Stuk Top half 17 Dec 18 4.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Jimenez
....but,but. We must pay top salaries to attract top talent. I also saw the other day they are spending 27 Million on doing up the Eastenders set !! No, that's the amount it's over budget. Try £87 million!
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steve1984 17 Dec 18 4.47pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
They could save a great deal of money if they put aside the need to send a reporter and camera crew to stand outside of empty buildings, in snowy streets, or on windswept seafronts to do an 'over to you xxxx' report on virtually every news item, instead of someone simply reading the facts from the autocue at the studio desk with an appropriate location photo in the background. Delivery from outside an empty and dark building adds nothing to the information being provided. Except that we'd maybe expect the BBC to be on hand to provide coverage if that empty building was suddenly the scene of a terrorist attack. It's always possible to cut costs but doing so will inevitably put your news show at a disadvantage vs your competitors which will show in the audience results - which as we can see the BBC is winning quite handsomely. ITV wouldn't buy news from ITN unless it was obliged to do so by the terms of it's broadcast license. If it was just a commercial decision then they'd drop it for more soap or love island. That's why we have a public service broadcaster. PS and the reporter standing outside the empty building is the journalist who put the story together. He's there anyway. Edited by steve1984 (17 Dec 2018 4.50pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 17 Dec 18 4.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
They could save a great deal of money if they put aside the need to send a reporter and camera crew to stand outside of empty buildings, in snowy streets, or on windswept seafronts to do an 'over to you xxxx' report on virtually every news item, instead of someone simply reading the facts from the autocue at the studio desk with an appropriate location photo in the background. Delivery from outside an empty and dark building adds nothing to the information being provided. And they would never over embellish things...
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steve1984 17 Dec 18 5.05pm | |
|---|---|
|
I normally go to the bbc for the weather.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 17 Dec 18 5.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steve1984
I normally go to the bbc for the weather. I find they're far less accurate since they stopped using the Met office.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 17 Dec 18 5.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
I find they're far less accurate since they stopped using the Met office. I only watch the weather if Lucy Verasamy is doing it. What a little cutie. Shame about ITN 'news'.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 17 Dec 18 5.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
At the moment I only watch the BBC for MOTD highlights....and that's only if Palace win or draw. And then I have to look at that Gary Lineker.....whose's made himself overtly political over at Twitter.....And I'm being made to contribute towards his wages.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steve1984 17 Dec 18 5.56pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
I find they're far less accurate since they stopped using the Met office. do they not use it anymore? I didn't know that.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.