Aren`t the BBC meant to be impartial?

News, Banter and anything else non football!!
User avatar
terrya1965
Posts: 3824
Joined: Sun May 29, 2016 8:48 pm
x 351
x 239

Aren`t the BBC meant to be impartial?

Post by terrya1965 » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:35 pm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47678763

Out of any media outlet in the world,the BBC should NOT have an opinion.They are a broadcaster that is funded by the taxpayer that has no choice,but to be impartial .

Today,for example,they are all over it like a rash about the march against Brexit.We all know that is what they want.That is their agenda to keep us in the EU and brainwash the people that view.The BBC is run by liberals and if you watch BBC Breakfast in the morning,the majority of their news is all about what is going on in the rest of the world.If it is on the UK, it has to suit their liberal agenda and normally is something ethnical.
You never see them broadcasting,for example,the so called refugees(that have travelled over 2,600 miles to get there) burning,smashing,raping etc on their channel,do you?

If they do broadcast a Brexit march,it will try and put in has many negatives they can about.You can bet they will mention the far right wing "troublemakers" in their report.

They are not a political Party,they are there to broadcast the news and not their opinion.
1 x

User avatar
Newmarket
Posts: 10379
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 10:03 pm
x 470
x 276

Re: Aren`t the BBC meant to be impartial?

Post by Newmarket » Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:06 pm

Agreed . And you know what to do to stop them don’t you Tez .
0 x
I hate Thrush he’s an irritating Cunt .

User avatar
Gonzo
Posts: 6796
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 8:13 pm
x 507
x 323

Re: Aren`t the BBC meant to be impartial?

Post by Gonzo » Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:23 pm

I'd imagine the BBC will be gone soon Terry.

I'm 45 and grew up with them but I barely watch anything they do now such is the allure of Netflix & Youtube.

My eldest is 14 and almost never watches terrestrial TV and she's in a huge majority. When here age group are adults the very concept of a compulsory fee for something they never watch will seem ridiculous.

10 years at best I'd imagine and they'll be gone as with most of the newspapers but the Mail & Guardian will have an online presence.

If the Premier League have any sense they'll make their own Netflix style app, broadcast every game live and charge punters £10 per month which will piss all over their current deal.
1 x

User avatar
BillyDWhizz
Posts: 2918
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:34 pm
x 66
x 197

Re: Aren`t the BBC meant to be impartial?

Post by BillyDWhizz » Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:22 pm

Gonzo wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:23 pm
I'd imagine the BBC will be gone soon Terry.

I'm 45 and grew up with them but I barely watch anything they do now such is the allure of Netflix & Youtube.

My eldest is 14 and almost never watches terrestrial TV and she's in a huge majority. When here age group are adults the very concept of a compulsory fee for something they never watch will seem ridiculous.

10 years at best I'd imagine and they'll be gone as with most of the newspapers but the Mail & Guardian will have an online presence.

If the Premier League have any sense they'll make their own Netflix style app, broadcast every game live and charge punters £10 per month which will piss all over their current deal.
I only watch a couple of BBC programmes (soon to be less coz I'm not watching Top gear with a fat cricketer and date show host presenting it) and then only on the iplayer, so I'm pissed at having to pay an exorbitant fee to do so. Sooner Auntie dies off the better imo.

As for your Netflix type theory...that's a banging idea. Sign me up son.
1 x
Rounding to the nearest whole numbers makes them pointless.

User avatar
Gonzo
Posts: 6796
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 8:13 pm
x 507
x 323

Re: Aren`t the BBC meant to be impartial?

Post by Gonzo » Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:28 pm

BillyDWhizz wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:22 pm
Gonzo wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:23 pm
I'd imagine the BBC will be gone soon Terry.

I'm 45 and grew up with them but I barely watch anything they do now such is the allure of Netflix & Youtube.

My eldest is 14 and almost never watches terrestrial TV and she's in a huge majority. When here age group are adults the very concept of a compulsory fee for something they never watch will seem ridiculous.

10 years at best I'd imagine and they'll be gone as with most of the newspapers but the Mail & Guardian will have an online presence.

If the Premier League have any sense they'll make their own Netflix style app, broadcast every game live and charge punters £10 per month which will piss all over their current deal.
I only watch a couple of BBC programmes (soon to be less coz I'm not watching Top gear with a fat cricketer and date show host presenting it) and then only on the iplayer, so I'm pissed at having to pay an exorbitant fee to do so. Sooner Auntie dies off the better imo.

As for your Netflix type theory...that's a banging idea. Sign me up son.


The app model is quite sound and all about subscribers.

Joshua, Canello, Usyk and many others are now fighting on something called 'The Zone' which is basically the same thing. The idea is to have a load of fighters signed-up and there will be no PPV's, just loads of fights and £9 per month.

It's surely the way everything will go. There will be Netflix for drama, film & documentaries then various other apps for your favourite sports and you'll be able to watch anything when you like.

The whole concept of the BBC releasing something like Luther or Casualty but drip-feeding the episodes each day or week has gone. Netflix recently released Ricky Gervais's new series and all 6 episodes were instantly available.... No waiting at all.

As for 'Premflix' (or whatever they might call it) they're revenues would be off the chart. At present the Premier League get £7-8 billion every three years. An extremely conservative estimate is 70 million subscribers globally which at £9 per month for all games would yield £7.5 billion every YEAR. They would treble their income and that's a very pessimistic forecast without including any advertising.

If the people at the Premier League, RFU, ECB and whoever else are not planning for this then they're hiring the wrong people. I guess they could host the games on Amazon or Youtube but why have a middle man when you can pay for the platform to be built and take 100% of the profits?

The beauty is that at £9 per month most people will buy rather than stream because it's reasonable and reliable. With Sky at £60 - £90 per month most of us will risk a dodgy stream with a shit picture because it's a lot of money saved.

Sky, BT, BBC and all the stuff we know and have been used to are Jurassic concepts in modern terms, they can't and won't survive.
1 x

User avatar
kingclyde
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:35 am
x 22
x 44

Re: Aren`t the BBC meant to be impartial?

Post by kingclyde » Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:39 am

Gonzo wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:28 pm

Sky, BT, BBC and all the stuff we know and have been used to are Jurassic concepts in modern terms
In what way Gonzo? Compared to what? I spent most of my adult career in the broadcast sector, and I'm not sure I understand.

Comparing the BBC, Sky and BT is like comparing apples, oranges and grapefruit. They are entirely different business models, with completely different approaches to funding, revenue, delivery, scope and commissioning. It is like trying to compare George Orwell, Random House, Waterstones and Amazon. They may all deal in the written word, but that does make them all susceptible to the same commercial criteria. So comparing them to YouTube, a delivery platform, is a tough one.

How do you think YouTube will monetize their service? Netflix can commission unique programme content because it charges 120 quid a year to anyone who wants access. How many of the kids looking at YouTube would continue to do so if that cost 120 quid a year? Their business model supports user-generated content which is not broadcast quality in either content or technical respects. It may generate content for You've Been Framed but that as far as it goes.

They are a delivery platform. They don't create or commission unique programme content like Sky, BBC or, indeed Netflix. And with their current model its difficult to imagine how they could.

Funding multi-million pound content is not achieved on the back of the revenue gleaned from gym freak influencers uploading 30 second videos about how great the new Nike trainers are in return for a couple of grand. You don't maintain a returning worldwide audience to a programme strand when its just a collection of fuzzy videos of cats falling off stools. Proper broadcasters commission and create unique content with longevity and decent production values. They may change how they do this - (subscription / direct funding via a licence fee (like half of Europe does) / advertising funded / sponsored content) but to suggest all of these will disappear in the face of YouTube is a bit of a stretch mate.
1 x

User avatar
Gonzo
Posts: 6796
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 8:13 pm
x 507
x 323

Re: Aren`t the BBC meant to be impartial?

Post by Gonzo » Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:05 pm

kingclyde wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:39 am
Gonzo wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:28 pm

Sky, BT, BBC and all the stuff we know and have been used to are Jurassic concepts in modern terms
In what way Gonzo? Compared to what? I spent most of my adult career in the broadcast sector, and I'm not sure I understand.

Comparing the BBC, Sky and BT is like comparing apples, oranges and grapefruit. They are entirely different business models, with completely different approaches to funding, revenue, delivery, scope and commissioning. It is like trying to compare George Orwell, Random House, Waterstones and Amazon. They may all deal in the written word, but that does make them all susceptible to the same commercial criteria. So comparing them to YouTube, a delivery platform, is a tough one.

How do you think YouTube will monetize their service? Netflix can commission unique programme content because it charges 120 quid a year to anyone who wants access. How many of the kids looking at YouTube would continue to do so if that cost 120 quid a year? Their business model supports user-generated content which is not broadcast quality in either content or technical respects. It may generate content for You've Been Framed but that as far as it goes.

They are a delivery platform. They don't create or commission unique programme content like Sky, BBC or, indeed Netflix. And with their current model its difficult to imagine how they could.

Funding multi-million pound content is not achieved on the back of the revenue gleaned from gym freak influencers uploading 30 second videos about how great the new Nike trainers are in return for a couple of grand. You don't maintain a returning worldwide audience to a programme strand when its just a collection of fuzzy videos of cats falling off stools. Proper broadcasters commission and create unique content with longevity and decent production values. They may change how they do this - (subscription / direct funding via a licence fee (like half of Europe does) / advertising funded / sponsored content) but to suggest all of these will disappear in the face of YouTube is a bit of a stretch mate.

Well there is a lot to reply to there mate but I think you're misunderstanding the whole YouTube phenomenon for starters.

Firstly I believe that the Premier League should create their own app as detailed above, I don't think it is something that YouTube will get involved with. Youtube is the most watched media platform in the world and considering it's owned by Google probably the richest but they don't make any of their own content.

However the fact that it is not 'broadcast quality' is irrelevant to be honest. You need to think of it as occupying peoples attention rather than creating a masterpiece and YouTube are completely successful at it. McDonalds is not really 'cuisine quality' or something that anyone should have on their plate but it's hugely successful.

You can have the opinion that YouTube is just Nike trainers and cats videos but you'd be as wide of the mark as someone who thinks football is 22 blokes chasing a bag of air. People are very engaged on the platform and there is a hell of a lot of political and social discourse on there which gets millions of views.

Like all of the platforms they are competing for sections of peoples attentions and it's algorithms are very clever at offering up videos that it knows will engage the user. My feed does not offer me any cat videos or the latest trainers but it does have hours of content that engages me. Photography tutorials, boxing & mma podcast with current and former fighters. It offers me The Who at the Isle of Wight, documentaries on Orcas, Rugby Union analysis with Stuart Barmes & Laurence Dallagio as well as a plethora of other things that engage me.

Of course the real broadcast extravaganza content that requires film crews, lighting, CGI, numerous actors and everything else is still alluring but I can view that on Netflix. Let's be quite honest, aside from the Peaky Blinders (which is produced by Tiger) the BBC is offering little these days anyway.

Sky's growth was built on the foundations of Premier League football which people are increasingly watching on streams now anyway. They bid less for the moss recent rights package because their revenues are dwindling. When it eventually does lose it's main attraction it will be the beginning of the end because nobody will pay £50 pm for F1, Cricket, Sky News and old films.

I even think we've seen the last Hollywood mega star in Tom Cruise so that industry will have to adapt too. I watched a very interesting interview (on YouTube) with George RR Martin where he was saying the age of the box-set has liberated script writers. No longer do they have to shoe-horn a narrative into a 2-3 hour film when Netflix will allow them season after season and pay them handsomely.

In fact it's not just Netflix who pay handsomely. There is a bloke known as 'The True Geordie' who was asked to host a Soccer Saturday type show for Channel 4. He turned it down because he earns more on YouTube and in fact he probably earns considerably more than Jeff Stelling.

Times and in particular viewing habits are changing at an unprecedented rate. Time will tell of course but unless Sky, BBC and whoever else change their models drastically the next generation will consider them irrelevant and certainly not pay for them.
0 x

User avatar
kingclyde
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:35 am
x 22
x 44

Re: Aren`t the BBC meant to be impartial?

Post by kingclyde » Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:47 pm

Hello mate. Happy Sunday.

I think to be honest you are perhaps making some generalisations that, in the wider broadcast business, don't really add up. That someone can attract advertising revenue from a YouTube channel is correct, but it does not necessarily scale up to running a subscription-based broadcast network commissioning original content in a strategic manner. Which is what TV is. YouTube is not TV. It is platform for the sharing of user-generated content. They are not the same thing. I am relatively informed about the whole YouTube and influencer phenomenon - I had to be for a long time and one of my boys is now directly involved in that particular business. And it is the wild west. Nobody truly knows what is going to happen. But there are incontrovertible issues - like cost (fixed and variable) and revenue - which remain the same regardless of whose name is on the banner.

I think that maybe you are extrapolating a little too much. Lets use Netflix as an example.

Sky has around 10m subscribers in the UK. The same as Netflix (roughly)

But let’s do some sums for the sake of argument. Because it’s something I’m interested in and have a little experience of.

Now, it follows that not all Netflix subscribers in the UK would pay additional sums for premier league football. There is no correlation between people signing up for a platform because it shows boxed sets of fucking Twilight and those seeking live football.

Sky, for example, has a total of 12m subscribers in the UK. But Sky Sports is a tiny, tiny part of this. Sky are notoriously shy about providing subscriber numbers for individual channels, maybe because the Premier League would be shocked at how few people are actually viewing live football. But a look at the Audience Numbers which are pretty reliable and collated by an independent body is interesting.

In Feb 2019, so the middle of the footy season, Sky Sports Football’s audience share was 0.18%.

Compare that to say BBC1, with a 22% market share.

To put it in perspective, the mighty Dave channel achieved viewing figures FIVE TIMES those of Sky Sports Football in Feb 2019.

So, we’re not talking huge take-up here were it offered on a platform like Netflix.

But, let’s assume that the uptake in the UK for Premier League package is 2 in 10 subscribers across the whole Netflix audience. That’s pretty optimistic, but we’ll go with it.

That’s two million subscribers. At 108 quid a year (your figures).

That’s 648 million quid over three years.

But that is Netflix’s income. Not the Premier Leagues.

So let’s assume a modest 20% margin for Netflix, with the other 80% going directly to the Premier League.

So Netflix keeps 130m, the Premier league gets 520 million

Where is the other 4.5 billion quid coming from for the Premier League to even maintain its income level at today’s levels?

So, what WOULD Netflix have to charge then?

The Premier League needs to achieve an annual income of 1.6 billion a year to stand still.

So Netflix, to achieve their 20% margin, needs additional revenues of around 2 billion.

Divide that by our 2 million subscribers and you have 1000 quid a year per subscriber.

But let’s not be too pessimistic.

Let’s say that Netflix can, by offering this package to its worldwide subscribers, double its uptake. The cost per subscriber now drops to around 500 quid a year.

Which is starting to look suspiciously like a Sky Sports type figure isn’t it?

There is a good reason subscriptions to Sky are so fucking expensive. Because they started a price war and paid ludicrously inflated amounts for the rights in order to shut terrestrial TV out. It is Murdoch who is to blame entirely for the lack of access to premier league football. And for the current costs of the rights.

Sky charge what they charge not to make billions, but to distribute the ludicrous costs they are responsible for creating.

The funding of the Prem League rights is a nightmare. The BBC’s entire income from the licence fee is 3.7 billion per annum. So the costs of Prem League rights (NOT including those of filming, recording and distributing – just the cost of rights) equate to around half the entire licence fee income.

That’s why the BBC cannot afford to show live Prem League football. It’s out of its league.

And if a platform such as Netflix gets sole Premier League rights, they will not be 9 quid a month. Not even close. They will be Sky Sport level subs, because that is the cost+ result of the rights costs.

Nobody is making billions out of this except the Premier league. So there is no room for someone to come in and drastically reduce the annual fee to the consumers without either increasing uptake by many times, or reducing the cost of the rights.

It is also the reason why the Premier League would be mad to go it alone. They increase their costs (both in staffing and the enormous costs of infrastructure) and risks enormously, and then assume responsibility for finding the revenue, from a start point of zero, which was previously not a worry for them because that was Sky's and B's' problem. They'd be mental.
0 x

User avatar
Gonzo
Posts: 6796
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 8:13 pm
x 507
x 323

Re: Aren`t the BBC meant to be impartial?

Post by Gonzo » Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:17 pm

kingclyde wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:47 pm
Hello mate. Happy Sunday.

I think to be honest you are perhaps making some generalisations that, in the wider broadcast business, don't really add up. That someone can attract advertising revenue from a YouTube channel is correct, but it does not necessarily scale up to running a subscription-based broadcast network commissioning original content in a strategic manner. Which is what TV is. YouTube is not TV. It is platform for the sharing of user-generated content. They are not the same thing. I am relatively informed about the whole YouTube and influencer phenomenon - I had to be for a long time and one of my boys is now directly involved in that particular business. And it is the wild west. Nobody truly knows what is going to happen. But there are incontrovertible issues - like cost (fixed and variable) and revenue - which remain the same regardless of whose name is on the banner.

I think that maybe you are extrapolating a little too much. Lets use Netflix as an example.

Sky has around 10m subscribers in the UK. The same as Netflix (roughly)

But let’s do some sums for the sake of argument. Because it’s something I’m interested in and have a little experience of.

Now, it follows that not all Netflix subscribers in the UK would pay additional sums for premier league football. There is no correlation between people signing up for a platform because it shows boxed sets of fucking Twilight and those seeking live football.

Sky, for example, has a total of 12m subscribers in the UK. But Sky Sports is a tiny, tiny part of this. Sky are notoriously shy about providing subscriber numbers for individual channels, maybe because the Premier League would be shocked at how few people are actually viewing live football. But a look at the Audience Numbers which are pretty reliable and collated by an independent body is interesting.

In Feb 2019, so the middle of the footy season, Sky Sports Football’s audience share was 0.18%.

Compare that to say BBC1, with a 22% market share.

To put it in perspective, the mighty Dave channel achieved viewing figures FIVE TIMES those of Sky Sports Football in Feb 2019.

So, we’re not talking huge take-up here were it offered on a platform like Netflix.

But, let’s assume that the uptake in the UK for Premier League package is 2 in 10 subscribers across the whole Netflix audience. That’s pretty optimistic, but we’ll go with it.

That’s two million subscribers. At 108 quid a year (your figures).

That’s 648 million quid over three years.

But that is Netflix’s income. Not the Premier Leagues.

So let’s assume a modest 20% margin for Netflix, with the other 80% going directly to the Premier League.

So Netflix keeps 130m, the Premier league gets 520 million

Where is the other 4.5 billion quid coming from for the Premier League to even maintain its income level at today’s levels?

So, what WOULD Netflix have to charge then?

The Premier League needs to achieve an annual income of 1.6 billion a year to stand still.

So Netflix, to achieve their 20% margin, needs additional revenues of around 2 billion.

Divide that by our 2 million subscribers and you have 1000 quid a year per subscriber.

But let’s not be too pessimistic.

Let’s say that Netflix can, by offering this package to its worldwide subscribers, double its uptake. The cost per subscriber now drops to around 500 quid a year.

Which is starting to look suspiciously like a Sky Sports type figure isn’t it?

There is a good reason subscriptions to Sky are so fucking expensive. Because they started a price war and paid ludicrously inflated amounts for the rights in order to shut terrestrial TV out. It is Murdoch who is to blame entirely for the lack of access to premier league football. And for the current costs of the rights.

Sky charge what they charge not to make billions, but to distribute the ludicrous costs they are responsible for creating.

The funding of the Prem League rights is a nightmare. The BBC’s entire income from the licence fee is 3.7 billion per annum. So the costs of Prem League rights (NOT including those of filming, recording and distributing – just the cost of rights) equate to around half the entire licence fee income.

That’s why the BBC cannot afford to show live Prem League football. It’s out of its league.

And if a platform such as Netflix gets sole Premier League rights, they will not be 9 quid a month. Not even close. They will be Sky Sport level subs, because that is the cost+ result of the rights costs.

Nobody is making billions out of this except the Premier league. So there is no room for someone to come in and drastically reduce the annual fee to the consumers without either increasing uptake by many times, or reducing the cost of the rights.

It is also the reason why the Premier League would be mad to go it alone. They increase their costs (both in staffing and the enormous costs of infrastructure) and risks enormously, and then assume responsibility for finding the revenue, from a start point of zero, which was previously not a worry for them because that was Sky's and B's' problem. They'd be mental.
A merry sunny Sunday to you too sir.

I feel a bit bad saying this because you've provided a fantastic breakdown of why it wouldn't be prudent for Netflix to host football on their platform . . . . I agree and don't believe they would feature it. If anyone would do so it would be Amazon who are more than happy to subsidise their TV venture with the huge profits made by the shop.

If you think that Sky are secretive with their viewing figures then you should take a look at the way Amazon shroud theirs. Basically they are commissioning projects worth small fortune that nobody is watching and they certainly have enough for Premier Lg rights.

As for the the Prem going it alone, I take what you are saying about infrastructure. However the prospect of turning £7b every 3 years into more than that each year is surely alluring enough to recruit 10 film crews and the associated staff.

I think Sky will continue in some form or another because they have a broadband platform and some will retain the set-top box. But they will find it hard to charge more than £20 pm if they don't have Premier Lg football.

They may well have a number of subscribers who are not purchasing the sports package but the customers with the big subscriptions (£80-100 pm) are most certainly football fans.

Time will tell I guess the rate of change has been so rapid I doubt we'll have to wait long to find out. In fact unless they can counter the live game streaming I wouldn't mind betting that Sky will be priced out of the next deal.
0 x

User avatar
BillyDWhizz
Posts: 2918
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:34 pm
x 66
x 197

Re: Aren`t the BBC meant to be impartial?

Post by BillyDWhizz » Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:43 pm

kingclyde wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:39 am
Gonzo wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:28 pm

Sky, BT, BBC and all the stuff we know and have been used to are Jurassic concepts in modern terms


How do you think YouTube will monetize their service? Netflix can commission unique programme content because it charges 120 quid a year to anyone who wants access. How many of the kids looking at YouTube would continue to do so if that cost 120 quid a year? Their business model supports user-generated content which is not broadcast quality in either content or technical respects. It may generate content for You've Been Framed but that as far as it goes.

They are a delivery platform. They don't create or commission unique programme content like Sky, BBC or, indeed Netflix. And with their current model its difficult to imagine how they could.

Just for the sake of argument I C&P that bit above - I get what you're saying but doesn't You Tube Premium kind of put the kibosh on the point you're trying to make?

They do indeed commission their own content and with the financial might they have behind them I can see them being quite easily able to dip their toes in to the world of streaming sports...Not just football, just about anything they decide to put their mind to in all honesty.

I'll admit You Tube Red or Premium, or whatever incarnation it's in now hasn't been wildly successful but it has shown that You Tube can easily diversify when it wants to. I'd guess it's only a matter of time before some bright spark in San Bruno suggests they have a pop at live sports and I'd suspect they wouldn't be afraid to throw a few billion dollars in to such a project.
0 x
Rounding to the nearest whole numbers makes them pointless.

Post Reply

Social Media