The Impartiality Of The BBC.

[Car Boot]

I believe that people... can clearly see you've lost it, and undermined your claims in the Brexit thread at the same time!

 

Well done you!

 

This.

 

Magilla simply doesn't care about the poor.

 

101,000 women were criminalised by the BBC in 2016 for not being able to afford the TV tax. This means nothing to Magilla and the BBC.

 

Absolutely nothing.

[I1L2T3]

I think it is a rather warped way of viewing it.

 

Consumers will sometimes see something advertised on ITV and think 'that looks good, I want one of those' and go out and buy it.

 

The consumer is still getting a product out of it, and something that they have decided that they want to buy, and at the price that it is advertised.

 

Studies suggest that advertising can actually lower the cost to the consumer, as companies can benefit from economies of scale and cut manufacturing costs.

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1250354?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

https://www.adassoc.org.uk/advertisings-big-questions/does-advertising-increase-consumer-prices/

 

It’s not warped at all. It’s the way it works.

 

Advertising costs are passed to consumers. End of story.

[L00b]

But you DON'T think that people should be given a choice when it comes to paying the BBC TV licence fee?

Until such time as the UK does not own its domestic (geo-located) airwaves, and Parliament and the UK government are accordingly not tasked with administering that ownership, then neither the BBC have a say about levying, nor do people who wish to use broadcast-receiving equipment have a say about paying, the license fee.

 

People who know what the license fee actually is, understand that.

 

People who don't know what the license fee actually is, could consume bandwidth to educate themselves about it, rather than waste bandwidth proving their ignorance.

I think we all know the real answer why the BBC won't give people any choice in paying for its dumbed down content.

Do you? Let's see it then, and verify whether you belong to the first group or to the second group above Edited December 4, 2017 by L00b

[Robin-H]

It’s not warped at all. It’s the way it works.

 

Advertising costs are passed to consumers. End of story.

 

Apart from when they aren't..

 

Have you read the links that I posted? Evidence suggests that advertising lowers the cost to consumers, for the reasons explained.

[L00b]

Have you read the links that I posted? Evidence suggests that advertising lowers the cost to consumers, for the reasons explained.

The cost of which you and these studies speak, is only lowered

 

(i) if the economies of scale are achieved on the back of actual sales (moreover, sufficiently so to offset at least the cost which those adverts represent) and

 

(ii) if the costs reductions are not translated into profit taking instead

 

(iii) without factoring in all other incident costs on the business in question (such as e.g. a 15 to 20% uplift on importing costs due to FOREX since June 2016 ).

 

Lastly, in each case that's going to be company-dependent.

 

Until and unless such conditions are met (within a relevant timescale), the cost of TV advertising is part and parcel of the company's marketing budget in the annual accounts / P&L, which is a cost of doing business, and which accordingly dovetails into the total unit cost along with materials, processing costs, wages, etc, etc. Hence, passed to the consumer indeed (at any time at which the products are not sold on a loss-leading basis...but even then, those are balanced by full-profit periods anyway, to ensure the business breaks even at least).

Edited December 4, 2017 by L00b

[Robin-H]

The cost of which you and these studies speak, is only lowered

 

(i) if the economies of scale are achieved on the back of actual sales (moreover, sufficiently so to offset at least the cost which those adverts represent) and

 

(ii) if the costs reductions are not translated into profit taking instead

 

(iii) without factoring in all other incident costs on the business in question (such as e.g. a 15 to 20% uplift on importing costs due to FOREX since June 2016 ).

 

Lastly, in each case that's going to be company-dependent.

 

Until and unless such conditions are met (within a relevant timescale), the cost of TV advertising is part and parcel of the company's marketing budget in the annual accounts / P&L, which is a cost of doing business, and which accordingly dovetails into the total unit cost along with materials, processing costs, wages, etc, etc. Hence, passed to the consumer indeed (at any time at which the products are not sold on a loss-leading basis...but even then, those are balanced by full-profit periods anyway, to ensure the business breaks even at least).

 

So we agree that advertising can lower the costs to consumers, which is what I said. I didn’t say it always lowers costs, or even catergoricially state that it did actually lower costs at all. I said studies suggest that advertising can lower the cost of goods. It seems on that we agree.

[Car Boot]

If the BBC is such wonderful 'value for money' why are we forbidden from finding out just how many people are really prepared to pay for it on digital subscription?

 

As for the notion that the BBC plays no part in how the licence fee is imposed on the public, well this is simply untruthful and naive. The BBC spends a lot of time (and our money) lobbying government ministers and MP's on ensuring that the favoured licence fee method of funding is retained. When Charter Renewal comes around the BBC always strongly urges the government to keep the licence fee in place, warning that if it were abolished the BBC would lose core services...

 

It is bizarre in the extreme that anybody would seek to defend a payment method for entertainment that is imposed on people with the threat of fines and imprisonment (demanding money with menaces) if they do not pay. Yet the BBC and it's supporters do just this.

 

The answer as to why the BBC won't give people any choice in paying for its dumbed down content is because it has conducted detailed studies which show that anything but the licence fee would mean much lower revenues for the Corporation.

[melthebell]

So you believe that people SHOULD have the choice of purchasing alternative sources of news, such as a local newspaper. If that is their preference.

 

But you DON'T think that people should be given a choice when it comes to paying the BBC TV licence fee?

 

If people want to watch Sky News, and not the BBC, why must they pay the BBC for the privilege? If the BBC was paid for by subscription (such as Netflix which has a monthly fee) people could happily make the decision as to whether or not it is worth their money.

 

So if you, and the pampered metropolitan elite, are so confident the BBC is value for money then why not give people the option to subscribe or not? Why should people who want to watch ITV, but never watch the BBC, have to pay for it?

 

I think we all know the real answer why the BBC won't give people any choice in paying for its dumbed down content.

do you also have an interest in the earth being flat by any chance?

[L00b]

So we agree that advertising can lower the costs to consumers, which is what I said. I didn’t say it always lowers costs, or even catergoricially state that it did actually lower costs at all. I said studies suggest that advertising can lower the cost of goods. It seems on that we agree.

I don't have any problem agreeing that successful advertising which is proven to increase sales volume, could ultimately be associated with economies of scale that are achieved on the back of the increased sales volumes (because unit cost decreases by making more units, not by spending more or better marketing £s on advertising campaigns; and suppliers only give you discounts for buying more materials/components, again not for spending more or better marketing £s on advertising campaigns ). Subject to the advertising business meeting the conditions which I enumerated, of course.

 

All the same, I'm really not sure where that gets you in this debate about the license fee. For substantially the same reason as I previously put to Car Boot (the license fee itself has no commercial basis: it's an ownership tax) and which, as I can see, he is studiously ignoring with just more nonsensical and uninformed rants, instead of objective facts

 

TV license detractors make it sound like they have, or should have, a choice in the matter. Well, they certainly have the choice of subscribing to Sky, Netflix and such like or not. They also certainly have the choice to watch and/or listen BBC programs or not. But they don't have any choice about paying the license fee, if they choose to buy and own a TV, because it's a tax based on ownership of reception equipment, nothing to do with the content received. See here, and here for details of how it's set and spent.

 

Now, last I heard, the UK was still a Parliamentarian democracy, and a majority of British people wanted more democracy, sovereignty, control and whatnot. Not some sort of plebeian idiocracy wherein policies are decided and voted through by social media rent-a-mobs.

 

So, if you have a problem with the TV license, take it up with your MP -who has the power to amend legislation and curb or edit the relevant Royal Charter- for abolishing some or all of that Charter and/or its effects. Not with the BBC, which only exists as a result of that Charter and associated Acts and SIs, and which is administered (including the levying of the license) according to that Charter and associated Acts and SIs.

 

Thus, given that clear context, anyone still attacking the BBC about the TV license, just shows themselves up for what they are: either an imbecile, or an anti-democratic agitator.

 

Happy posting

Edited December 4, 2017 by L00b

[Magilla]

Magilla simply doesn't care about the poor.

 

Already addressed and debunked. If you weren't so busy editing the awkward bits out, you might have spotted it.