On 27/09/2023 11:30, charles wrote:
> When MT set up an investigation (The Peacock Committee) into how the BBC
> should be funded, ITV were horrified that the BBC might take
> advertising. There wouldn't be enough for them.

I can remember that time, BBC and ITV were easier to compare with
initially only one channel each then just BBC2 on UHF and BBC had the
radio services.

I seem to remember that ITV cost a lot more than the BBC even though the
BBC had more services and a more extensive transmitter network at that
time.

On 27/09/2023 13:09, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Who has? Local media was already waning well before the rise of internet
> media. Our local rag was acquired by Trinity Mirror three decades ago
> and subsumed. In many other case it is just consolidation - The Times is
> now mostly online and a web site can hold far more information,
> including more local information, and be kept more up to date than a
> printed paper (notwithstanding the 1,000_ pages of the New York Times in
> the 80's). Of course media companies do not always help themselves - for
> instance we used to take the Times, but James Murdoch decided that even
> if you bought a paper copy then you would have to pay again to access
> the online copy the same day - so now I don't buy either. Similarly
> Trinity Mirror sites are absolutely plagued with pop ups, response boxes
> and other Java tricks making the frenetic site almost not worth using
> unless you have a very good reason (e.g. local public transport break down).

I thought local newspapers tried to blame the BBC for the drop in
circulation which resulted in some cooperation with BBC Local Radio.

But their main problem was online advertising which was in its infancy
but a whole range of things were already being mainly advertised online.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 27/09/2023 13:09, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> Who has? Local media was already waning well before the rise of internet
>> media. Our local rag was acquired by Trinity Mirror three decades ago
>> and subsumed. In many other case it is just consolidation - The Times is
>> now mostly online and a web site can hold far more information,
>> including more local information, and be kept more up to date than a
>> printed paper (notwithstanding the 1,000_ pages of the New York Times in
>> the 80's). Of course media companies do not always help themselves - for
>> instance we used to take the Times, but James Murdoch decided that even
>> if you bought a paper copy then you would have to pay again to access
>> the online copy the same day - so now I don't buy either. Similarly
>> Trinity Mirror sites are absolutely plagued with pop ups, response boxes
>> and other Java tricks making the frenetic site almost not worth using
>> unless you have a very good reason (e.g. local public transport break down).
>
>
> I thought local newspapers tried to blame the BBC for the drop in
> circulation which resulted in some cooperation with BBC Local Radio.
>
> But their main problem was online advertising which was in its infancy
> but a whole range of things were already being mainly advertised online.
>
>
Exactly, my point is the online advertising has all gone to USA based
outfits. Vast sums are being sucked out of the UK daily.

On 27/09/2023 13:41, JMB99 wrote:
> On 27/09/2023 11:30, charles wrote:
>> When MT set up an investigation (The Peacock Committee) into how the
>> BBC should be funded, ITV were horrified that the BBC might take
>> advertising. There wouldn't be enough for them.
>
>
>
> I can remember that time, BBC and ITV were easier to compare with
> initially only one channel each then just BBC2 on UHF and BBC had the
> radio services.
>
> I seem to remember that ITV cost a lot more than the BBC even though the
> BBC had more services and a more extensive transmitter network at that
> time.

ITV cost a lot more because it was 15 separate companies, all with
significant production centres, (particularly the major 5 ITV companies)

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Mark Carver wrote:

> C4 has never received a penny of licence fee money.

It did come close to getting a few million though ...

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7750501.stm>

On 27/09/2023 13:09, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 September 2023 at 09:58:10 UTC+1, Tweed wrote:
>> Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:28:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
> SNIP
>>>
>> The advertising spend isn’t diminishing (plus minus variations due to the
>> state of the economy). The big change is it is all heading to the USA into
>> the coffers of Alphabet and Meta. They’ve already more or less killed off
>> our local press and local commercial radio is retrenching.
>
> Who has?
>
> Local media was already waning well before the rise of internet media. Our local rag was acquired by Trinity Mirror three decades ago and subsumed.
>
> In many other case it is just consolidation - The Times is now mostly online and a web site can hold far more information, including more local information, and be kept more up to date than a printed paper (notwithstanding the 1,000_ pages of the New York Times in the 80's).
>
> Of course media companies do not always help themselves - for instance we used to take the Times, but James Murdoch decided that even if you bought a paper copy then you would have to pay again to access the online copy the same day - so now I don't buy either. Similarly Trinity Mirror sites are absolutely plagued with pop ups, response boxes and other Java tricks making the frenetic site almost not worth using unless you have a very good reason (e.g. local public transport break down).

Setting up your own DNS solves the plague of popups, response boxes etc
and also NoScript add on

In article <ueurt9$2i87l$1@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

> The only way to avoid is buying unbranded low quality goods that do not
> advertise.

However even 'white pack' items may be made by a large company that uses TV
ads to promote their branded items.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <e9s5hih7l07rgmrqgsb2ct1b6psnt5pq2s@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >You just pay extra for goods - the 'Advertising Tax'!
> >
> >Not seen the costs analysed for a long time (they do not like admitting
> > how much it costs) but it must be a very inefficient way to fund
> >anything.

> We can choose what goods we buy.

It becomes difficult to live without food, etc, though. Many also find they
'need' things like, e,g, a car, as well. And when you buy things that
*aren't* advertised on TV the people who supplied it may need to buy from
companies that *do* advertise on TV. Even if you choose a retailer that
doesn't buy TV ads, their suppliers, etc, might.

So choosing what you buy may not mean you find it easy to not pay anything
towards the ad biz and its TV arm.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5aea01f805bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ueurt9$2i87l$1@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

> > You pay for the adverts whether or not you buy the product or whether
> > or not you watch the programme.

> How do I pay for Mazda adverts if I don't buy a Mazda car?

Via the number of people in the companies that make and sell what you buy
having themselves bought Mazda cars. Plus the similar choices made by the
companies and people subcontracted or employed in the them, recursively.
Including the vehicles used for carring items from the makers to the shops.
Wholesalers, Storage warehouses, etc, all can come into this.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5g85hile2vma86at68p3egktbbipdmaars@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> The wares of large media corps are not paid for out of public money.

Have you ever looked at the way 'large media corps' get paid subsidies and
given nice tax breaks to make films in a country. Often paid lots to end up
*not* making an actual film.

The books "Taxtopia" by 'A Rebel Accountant" does a nice job of detailing
examples of this, exposed by his work as an insider. Well worth a read as
it may surprise people.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5aea60e87cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
> something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
> quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that myself.

> If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing round
> the block to advertise on this prestige channel.

But then would almost certainly influence the type of content. As you can
see from the existing commercal ad funded channels. Thus removing the point
that the BBCs content *is* different, and that is why it is loved by many.

> Same is true for the subscription model, if its that good it will sell.

For some definitions of "good" that may differ from that under your first
statement.

You can't always have the Bun *and* the Sixpence.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <phn7hit9gnkennlh08luip5khf0bcamfnj@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> If there's a diminishing amount of money for something, doesn't that
> indicate a diminishing demand for it? As long as people can choose to
> pay for what they want, an increase or decrease in demand will result in
> an increase or decrease in the amount of money available to supply it.
> This seems much fairer than a constant amount of money extracted by
> legal compulsion from everybody whether they want it or not.

"As long as..." and "can" don't always return TRUE in mere reality.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5aea696f69noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5aea01f805bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > In article <ueurt9$2i87l$1@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

> > > You pay for the adverts whether or not you buy the product or
> > > whether or not you watch the programme.

> > How do I pay for Mazda adverts if I don't buy a Mazda car?

> Via the number of people in the companies that make and sell what
> you buy having themselves bought Mazda cars. Plus the similar
> choices made by the companies and people subcontracted or employed
> in the them, recursively. Including the vehicles used for carring
> items from the makers to the shops. Wholesalers, Storage
> warehouses, etc, all can come into this.

:-)

By that extreme stretch I also pay for everything in the UK. I must
be richer that I thought.

Bob.

In article <5aea6d8678noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5aea60e87cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the
> > BBC is something we love and is much needed. we are told of the
> > value and quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed
> > with that myself.

> > If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be
> > queuing round the block to advertise on this prestige channel.

> But then would almost certainly influence the type of content.

Bonus! It may then become more neutral and balanced. It may then not
have totalitarian POV on subjects and may have the decency to allow
other POVs.

I may then feel safe to watch a science program about the very small
and the very large and not find the propaganda bastards manage to get
their climate change subversion into even that.

If it wasn't an activist propaganda outlet I may well subscribe
myself.

> As you can see from the existing commercal ad funded channels. Thus
> removing the point that the BBCs content *is* different, and that
> is why it is loved by many.

If so many love it as you say, let them pay for it. That would ensure
that the content loved by "many" continues as the same "many" are
paying for it.

I don't expect anyone to pay our Netflix sub.

> > Same is true for the subscription model, if its that good it will
> > sell.

> For some definitions of "good" that may differ from that under your
> first statement.

May be for the better.

> You can't always have the Bun *and* the Sixpence.

????

Bob.

In article <5aea68b33cnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <e9s5hih7l07rgmrqgsb2ct1b6psnt5pq2s@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > >You just pay extra for goods - the 'Advertising Tax'!
> > >
> > >Not seen the costs analysed for a long time (they do not like admitting
> > > how much it costs) but it must be a very inefficient way to fund
> > >anything.

> > We can choose what goods we buy.

> It becomes difficult to live without food, etc, though.

Indeed, would mind telling the idiots that want to stop farming that
please. Thanks.

> Many also find they 'need' things like, e,g, a car, as well. And
> when you buy things that *aren't* advertised on TV the people who
> supplied it may need to buy from companies that *do* advertise on
> TV. Even if you choose a retailer that doesn't buy TV ads, their
> suppliers, etc, might.

Stretching again Jim, your argument is beginning to look a bit
desperate.

Bob.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 08:53:13 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> If there's a diminishing amount of money for something, doesn't that
> indicate a diminishing demand for it?

Not necessarily. It just indicates that there are more freeloaders
who want to get something for nothing off the backs of other people
who don't do that.
See also: the rampant rise in shoplifting as reported by the media.

You have such a simplistic shallow view of things.

On Thu, 28 Sep 23 09:00:12 UTC, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>> We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
>> something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
>> quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that myself.
>
>> If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing round
>> the block to advertise on this prestige channel.
>
>But then would almost certainly influence the type of content. As you can
>see from the existing commercal ad funded channels. Thus removing the point
>that the BBCs content *is* different, and that is why it is loved by many.

Fair enough. Then maybe the people who love it should pay for it.

And leave the rest of us to make our own choices.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 23 09:00:12 UTC, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>> We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
>>> something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
>>> quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that myself.
>>
>>> If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing round
>>> the block to advertise on this prestige channel.
>>
>> But then would almost certainly influence the type of content. As you can
>> see from the existing commercal ad funded channels. Thus removing the point
>> that the BBCs content *is* different, and that is why it is loved by many.
>
> Fair enough. Then maybe the people who love it should pay for it.
>
> And leave the rest of us to make our own choices.
>
> Rod.
>

You can already make your choice. Pull out your aerial lead and watch
everything via the Internet other than anything BBC. Do you hand on heart
not watch or listen to anything from the BBC?

On 28/09/2023 11:25, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <5aea68b33cnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <e9s5hih7l07rgmrqgsb2ct1b6psnt5pq2s@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> You just pay extra for goods - the 'Advertising Tax'!
>>>>
>>>> Not seen the costs analysed for a long time (they do not like admitting
>>>> how much it costs) but it must be a very inefficient way to fund
>>>> anything.
>
>>> We can choose what goods we buy.
>
>> It becomes difficult to live without food, etc, though.
>
> Indeed, would mind telling the idiots that want to stop farming that
> please. Thanks.
>
>> Many also find they 'need' things like, e,g, a car, as well. And
>> when you buy things that *aren't* advertised on TV the people who
>> supplied it may need to buy from companies that *do* advertise on
>> TV. Even if you choose a retailer that doesn't buy TV ads, their
>> suppliers, etc, might.
>
> Stretching again Jim, your argument is beginning to look a bit
> desperate.
>

OTOH we know it's possible for an economy to operate without commercial
advertising. North Korea's does.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 28/09/2023 16:24, Robin wrote:
> OTOH we know it's possible for an economy to operate without commercial
> advertising. North Korea's does.

It has happened in the UK during strikes, I don't think it affected sales.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 11:26:52 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 23 09:00:12 UTC, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
>>>> something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
>>>> quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that myself.
>>>
>>>> If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing round
>>>> the block to advertise on this prestige channel.
>>>
>>> But then would almost certainly influence the type of content. As you can
>>> see from the existing commercal ad funded channels. Thus removing the point
>>> that the BBCs content *is* different, and that is why it is loved by many.
>>
>> Fair enough. Then maybe the people who love it should pay for it.
>>
>> And leave the rest of us to make our own choices.
>>
>> Rod.
>>
>
>You can already make your choice. Pull out your aerial lead and watch
>everything via the Internet other than anything BBC. Do you hand on heart
>not watch or listen to anything from the BBC?

Currently I still occasionally watch something on the BBC, but so
little that it's becoming harder to justify paying £13 per month for
it when all the subscription channels are cheaper. I wouldn't have to
give up much to ditch the licence legally, and I keep telling myself
it's only a matter of time before I do. If they put the price up that
may be what eventually provokes me to do it.

I don't need a licence to listen to the radio of course, and I reckon
there's zero chance of any attempt to implement such a scheme, and I
don't listen to it much anyway.

Rod.

In article <uf18m2$339pl$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly, my point is the online advertising has all gone to USA based
> outfits. Vast sums are being sucked out of the UK daily.

Big internet+content companies spring to mind here...

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 11:26:52 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 23 09:00:12 UTC, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> We are constantly told by many devotees on this group that the BBC is
>>>>> something we love and is much needed. we are told of the value and
>>>>> quality of its output. Honestly, ten years ago I agreed with that myself.
>>>>
>>>>> If that's really the case then surely advertisers would be queuing round
>>>>> the block to advertise on this prestige channel.
>>>>
>>>> But then would almost certainly influence the type of content. As you can
>>>> see from the existing commercal ad funded channels. Thus removing the point
>>>> that the BBCs content *is* different, and that is why it is loved by many.
>>>
>>> Fair enough. Then maybe the people who love it should pay for it.
>>>
>>> And leave the rest of us to make our own choices.
>>>
>>> Rod.
>>>
>>
>> You can already make your choice. Pull out your aerial lead and watch
>> everything via the Internet other than anything BBC. Do you hand on heart
>> not watch or listen to anything from the BBC?
>
> Currently I still occasionally watch something on the BBC, but so
> little that it's becoming harder to justify paying £13 per month for
> it when all the subscription channels are cheaper. I wouldn't have to
> give up much to ditch the licence legally, and I keep telling myself
> it's only a matter of time before I do. If they put the price up that
> may be what eventually provokes me to do it.
>
> I don't need a licence to listen to the radio of course, and I reckon
> there's zero chance of any attempt to implement such a scheme, and I
> don't listen to it much anyway.
>
> Rod.
>

I grant you that a licence is not required for BBC radio, but if you do
listen to it don’t you think you should pay for it?

On 29/09/2023 09:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 11:26:52 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>> You can already make your choice. Pull out your aerial lead and watch
>> everything via the Internet other than anything BBC. Do you hand on heart
>> not watch or listen to anything from the BBC?
>
> Currently I still occasionally watch something on the BBC, but so
> little that it's becoming harder to justify paying £13 per month for
> it when all the subscription channels are cheaper. I wouldn't have to
> give up much to ditch the licence legally, and I keep telling myself
> it's only a matter of time before I do. If they put the price up that
> may be what eventually provokes me to do it.

You do realise though that, to remain legal if you don't have a licence,
you may not watch *any* channel's broadcasts live, even over the
internet, not just the BBC's? And that the BBC iPlayer is totally out
of bounds too?

What, out of interest, do you currently watch?

On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:02:41 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>I grant you that a licence is not required for BBC radio, but if you do
>listen to it don’t you think you should pay for it?

Why? Nobody is asking me to pay for it.

Rod.