> 44000 Households TV Licence Fees spent on New Logos

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

BBC is still an incredible pipeline for British talent though. So many actors, writers, directors, musicians and, often overlooked, technical staff come through it. That is one of the reasons why there are so many British cultural exports and why we have so many new studios being built here for Hollywood and streaming content to be made, the U.K. has an abundance of talent.

I worry we'll just become another dumping ground for American homogenised content and nothing that is unique about British culture or comedy will be commissioned because it's easier to dump us with inoffensive and broad American exports.

Not to mention BBC Local Radio and BBC radio generally which is certainly not all commercially viable but just because BBC Radio Lancashire, for example, isn't profitable is not a reason to dump it. Things have more than a monetary value, something isn't pointless just because it doesn't make a profit for shareholders.

I am not sure if the licence fee can stay around forever but if not alternative public funding needs to be there for the BBC. It should remain publically owned and concerned with producing British talent and public service broadcasting, providing service beyond the bottom line of an accounting book.

Some people in Government seem to think their purpose is to slowly wind down Britain and chip away at the things we're good at and replicate them with multinational companies that make a profit for American venture capitalists in Califonia.

You give the BBC far too much credit for UK actors etc for Intenational success and studios being opened here.

It was the film industry through international releases which first put our actors out there not the BBC.

Any actor other than perhaps the headline one (and they've beeen replaced) has to go through casting, possibly via a show reel first but definately via an audition and there will possibly hundereds going for the same role.

All the BBC (or theare roles does) is give the actors the money to go to the US and sign uo with US agebts. If they suceed is down to the result of auditions they have.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

And here is a prime example of a troll. Joins into a conversation adding nothing of use to it but having a go at another poster

What do you actually think about the subject I posted about?

Of course wastage is bad but organisations do re-brand on a regular basis. The debate on if the sums spent are value for money is a subjective one. Many private sector companies spend much more than this on rebranding.

However this is not the point I was making: the Tory Press click bait headlines on "BBC wasting fee payers money" is just that, a distraction from the real issues that affect us in this country. I do not not see many threads on the 500 people dying every week in queues for emergency care, as a prime example.

It just shows what people really care about ...

---------- Post added at 17:36 ---------- Previous post was at 17:33 ----------

So this ..

Originally Posted by Damien

Some people in Government seem to think their purpose is to slowly wind down Britain and chip away at the things we're good at and replicate them with multinational companies that make a profit for American venture capitalists in Califonia.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Of course wastage is bad but organisations do re-brand on a regular basis. The debate on if the sums spent are value for money is a subjective one. Many private sector companies spend much more than this on rebranding.

However this is not the point I was making: the Tory Press click bait headlines on "BBC wasting fee payers money" is just that, a distraction from the real issues that affect us in this country. I do not not see many threads on the 500 people dying every week in queues for emergency care, as a prime example.

It just shows what people really care about ...

Have you started one ?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Have you started one ?

Again, missing the point.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Again, missing the point.

all mouth and no trousers aint ya? spout your crap about trivial posts highlight one you do not consider trivial yet still not bothered to post it

Originally Posted by pip08456

You give the BBC far too much credit for UK actors etc for Intenational success and studios being opened here.

The BBC (and Channel 4) commission a lot of television from new writers and actors. A lot of them either start there or at the National Theatre. Benedict Cumberbatch for example got his first serious roles on the BBC. Jesse Armstrong of Succession fame on the BBC and on Channel 4 with Peep Show. Which, along side the BBC Mitchell and Webb shows, also gave Oliva Coleman a bigger audience.

It was the film industry through international releases which first put our actors out there not the BBC.

Any actor other than perhaps the headline one (and they've beeen replaced) has to go through casting, possibly via a show reel first but definately via an audition and there will possibly hundereds going for the same role.

All the BBC (or theare roles does) is give the actors the money to go to the US and sign uo with US agebts. If they suceed is down to the result of auditions they have.

Past work gets noticed. Auditions are not purely speculative, past work is often leaned on for obvious reasons. It gives actors a showreel, it gives agents something to show casting directors and it gives the actors experience and name recognition. It helps get them agents in the first place.

They still need to audition but to get to the audition they often need something to be noticed. Otherwise casting directors have tens of thousands of speculative audition tapes.

Look at Daisy Edgar-Jones. Got a breakout role in Normal People then suddenly is cast in several Hollywood films. That isn't a coincidence, the work in Normal People noticed.

Long story short: The more British shows to be made in Britain that risk casting unknown British talent the more actors will get a chance to breakthrough.

[Pierre]

With all the subscriptions I have now, I hardly ever watch the BBC. Happy Valley is back on I watched that, that’s it.

I would be happy, if the BBC charged at a subscription rate, in line other providers, of around £7 per month.

I don’t think it’s value for money, compared to what’s out there.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

BBC is still an incredible pipeline for British talent though. So many actors, writers, directors, musicians and, often overlooked, technical staff come through it. That is one of the reasons why there are so many British cultural exports and why we have so many new studios being built here for Hollywood and streaming content to be made, the U.K. has an abundance of talent.

I worry we'll just become another dumping ground for American homogenised content and nothing that is unique about British culture or comedy will be commissioned because it's easier to dump us with inoffensive and broad American exports.

Not to mention BBC Local Radio and BBC radio generally which is certainly not all commercially viable but just because BBC Radio Lancashire, for example, isn't profitable is not a reason to dump it. Things have more than a monetary value, something isn't pointless just because it doesn't make a profit for shareholders.

I am not sure if the licence fee can stay around forever but if not alternative public funding needs to be there for the BBC. It should remain publically owned and concerned with producing British talent and public service broadcasting, providing service beyond the bottom line of an accounting book.

Some people in Government seem to think their purpose is to slowly wind down Britain and chip away at the things we're good at and replicate them with multinational companies that make a profit for American venture capitalists in Califonia.

BBC local radio they have more people working on the station than listening at some times, it wouldn't be so bad paying for it if it had an audience

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

BBC local radio they have more people working on the station than listening at some times, it wouldn't be so bad paying for it if it had an audience

7.8 million listen to BBC local radio each week.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...eners-reached/

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mr K

7.8 million listen to BBC local radio each week.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...eners-reached/

course they do, I suppose BBC radio scotland hasn't lost 180000 listeners, BBC Newcastle isn't in an audience slump and BBC london hasn't lost 31% of its audience or to put it another way, a million listeners. Their main stations are hemorrhaging listeners to, they don't do anything better than independent stations these days and frequently do it far worse

That's just the live radio listeners. A lot have moved to BBC Sounds: https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2022...ng-mini-budget

The above doesn't include people who use third-party podcast players like me.

[Halcyon]

What a waste of money!


Glad I stopped paying years ago.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

BBC london hasn't lost 31% of its audience or to put it another way, a million listeners.

So by your figures, BBC London alone still has over 2 million listeners?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

So by your figures, BBC London alone still has over 2 million listeners?

Over the course of a week, in terms of audience reach they've collapsed, like all their stations, yet interestingly the commercial stations that meet the regulators bare minimum requirements for local output have seen their audiences increase

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

all mouth and no trousers aint ya? spout your crap about trivial posts highlight one you do not consider trivial yet still not bothered to post it

Enough. If you want to keep posting in this topic, stop this.