Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy
I've seen some of the output when it comes to commercial channels, mostly I've seen the rubbish when I visit relatives. I prefer to watch the likes of Discovery or Nat Geo.
|
So you like that stuff you watch that is on commercial channels that is produced by the BBC?
Those commercial channels wouldn't buy that stuff unless they were able to sell advertising space and that means they'd only buy stuff that if it's proven to be in high demand within their key demographic. They play safe within their own defined part of the market but it takes the BBC to produce it first, show it to great acclaim for them to be interested in buying it.
The BBC leads and the rest follow and you must at least give them a little acknowledgement for that. Your licence fee funding is going toward
the production of programmes you like that others don't, it's now our fault you wait until a commercial broadcaster buys up the rights to the repeats.
Quote:
|
So you'd have no problem with the BBC being subscription only? (My preferred option) If the BBC is so wonderful it'll have no trouble raising the cash else it should wither on the vine
|
Yes I do have a problem with the BBC being subscription only, as it is at the moment it HAS to cater for everybody because everybody contributes to it. Under a subscription model it'd be going for highest common denominator and it'd remove it's current tendency to take risks with programming that isn't considered to be "marketable".
The licence fee is the best way to ensure the BBC continues to take risks and continues to ensure everyone has something to watch.