Bloomin' adverts!
 

Forgive me as I know there are lots of other threads about the licence fee but this is slightly different.

The Chelsea flower show started today and is being covered by the BBC, fair enough. However there was two and a half hours coverage of it today and lots more coverage all week, again fair enough if you like gardening.

What I was amazed at though was that every single time it is introduced and at the end of every programme the presenter says ' the RHS Chelsea Flower Show supported by Saga Insurance.'

Am I missing the plot here?

Although we are all used to covert advertising on the BBC such as at sporting venues, isn't the supposed absence of advertising on the BBC the reason we have to pay a licence fee?

Is it stipulated in their contract to cover the show that they have to advertise the sponsor?

Did Saga pay for this privilege?

Where did the money go?

What next?

'Welcome to the six o'clock news supported by Anadin.'

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

Hey, that's a good point Garinda,wondered that one meself, sure someone will come up with the answer for us.

Loved your punch line, tried to give you karma for it, but won't let me !! Said I have to spread it around a little. (never been advised to do that before :D )

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

I thought part of the remit of the BBC was it was supposed to produce quality programmes and was not supposed to advertise?

All they seem to do is copy successful independently produced programmes.

ITV have a hit with Pop Idol/X Factor and come up with the lame Fame Academy.:(

Granada has the world's longest serial drama in Corrie and the BBC tries to compete with Eastenders.:(

Channel 4 has a hit with Big Brother and the Beeb bounces back with Live from the House of Lords.;)

Perhaps some of the money will go towards Graham Norton's 15 million pound three year deal with thr BBC, or Jerermy Paxman's two day a week stint on Newsnight for which he gets paid £750,000 per year plus another quarter of a million for University Challenge.

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

Woah Woah Woah.

Norton gets paid more than Paxman?!!!!

It's an outrage I tells you!

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

agree with katex and rindy, its a good point, shame theres no responses hardly? what really cracks me up at this point there has been 93 responses to the big brother thread.:D :D :D :D :D

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

I also wondered about the overt advertising of Saga Insurance Services. Maybe because I have had a bad experience with them, and thought 'how on earth can those charlaton's support the most prestigious flower show in UK'. I would really like to know how much (or little) they are paying the BBC for this advertising. I suspect they are getting lots of free publicity, at our expense, as the licence payers.

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

The simple response is surely to shut down the BBC. The old Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain now wallow in a cesspit of exorbitant salaries, mediocre programmes, occaisional filth and third rate news - all financed by a variation of the poll tax. Get rid of it, asap.

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

not having swallowed a dictionary today i presume that means the BBC is crap.? if so i agree.:D

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

When are people going to get it into their collective heads that the license fee goes to the government and the government funds the BBC after taking their cut? The BBC also funds itself by producing and selling a variety of programmes worldwide and also buys programmes from other TV companies.

Quote:

Garinda - Although we are all used to covert advertising on the BBC such as at sporting venues, isn't the supposed absence of advertising on the BBC the reason we have to pay a licence fee?

No it isn’t. We pay a TV license fee so that we can receive video signals and watch TV from any source and on any equipment. It is no different to paying the Road Fund License in that we must have one to take our vehicle on the public highway. If you want to use a CB radio you need a license. If you want to become an Amateur radio enthusiast and to communicate with other hams you need a license. You even need a license to get married. We used to have a license to listen to the radio or wireless as it was called and at one time we even had to have a license to keep a dog. You need a license to sell alcohol. Even some businesses need a license to operate. In all cases the money raised goes to the government.

However to address the topic. BBC TV has always inadvertently advertised products when showing sporting events and today we have the xxxxxxx Premier Division and Match of the Day is introduced that way as well as Final Score.

The BBC does not advertise for gain although it does advertise it’s own programmes and sometimes to excess.

Excuse me but since when has Big Brother been a quality programme or Corrie or East Enders, and other soaps or much of the other dross that is shown as ‘entertainment’? It is all subjective but the BBC does have the edge over commercial TV in quality programmes. The awards received by the BBC establishes that quite clearly. But that doesn’t mean that ITV doesn’t have some quality programmes because it does but the quality is ruined by constant interruption with adverts for the same old products. Products that talk down to the average person. Adverts that show men to be drunken, uncaring football hooligans who are constantly being put down by a woman and ridiculed by them whilst at the same time pandering to the vanity of women by advertising make up and look glamorous products. And the women fall for them like a ton of bricks.

So if someone thinks that Big Brother and Corrie etc are quality programmes then that is their opinion. I happen to think that they are garbage. So who is right? Both and neither! We are all entitled to like and dislike what we want.

If the government did away with the TV license you could bet your sweet life that it would find some other way to extort money out of us to fund the BBC and invariably it would be more than the current cost.

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

Simple, the BBC should stand or fall in the market place just like every other broadcasting company, and it is financed by the licence fee whatever you say.

I make it that Alan Titchmarsh will say 'hello/goodbye from the RHS Chelsea Flower Show supported by Saga Insurance' twenty two times this week.

Priceless.

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

Since the BBC isn't self financing, even if they got a load of money from Saga, at least we all can enjoy the 4 million pounds they spent on commissioning public works of art with money that came from the licence fee.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...m?id=470282006

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

Whether the BBC should stand or fall in the market place is another topic but going commercial won’t stop the license fee. Stop paying your TV license garinda and then explain to the magistrates that you don’t need a license because you don’t watch BBC TV. Disable your TV’s from receiving BBC TV transmissions and it won’t make any difference, your plea will fall on deaf ears and you could be up to £1,000 worse off.

Have it your own way garinda, if you want to live in ignorance of the facts then that is your choice.

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

I'm more than happy to pay a licence fee that funds the regulatory bodies and infrastructure that is needed for broadcasting, what I do object to is paying towards an extravagant monopoly.

If I'm ignorant please explain how the BBC is funded if not directly from the licence fee via the government?

I'm waiting.:)

I can't wait all day for you to educate my ignorance.

I shall look forward to reading your reply later.:)

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

But you already pay towards an extravagant monopoly garinda. Taxes many and various to the government and there is no one more extravagant than them. But I agree with you the BBC like the NHS and many other organisations ARE extravagant and far too much money is spent on management rather than product/service.

I never said that you were ignorant. Do try and read and understand what was written. I stated:
“Have it your own way garinda, if you want to live in ignorance of the facts then that is your choice.”

The BBC negotiated an annual funding level until I believe 2010 when the funding and even existence of the BBC in its present form comes up for negotiation. In between times a Quango collects the license fees on behalf of the government. Whether the amount collected is enough to cover the BBC’s annual funding or not is irrelevant, the BBC will still get the agreed annual amount. There is no way that you can call that direct funding.

I wasn’t aware that I was supposed to sit at my computer to await your majesty’s reply.

Sheeeesh! Talk about delusions of self importance.

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

Try to stick to the thread, not take it personal or attack others views.

The license is a waste of money. Why should I pay for someone in Africa to listen to BBC World Service?

As for adds, they sneak adverts into everything, just watch and see.

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

You say I live in 'ignorance of the of the facts' ergo I am ignorant of the facts in your opinion as I stated, though I will get back on thread and not argue semantics with you.

Thank you for your reply. I disagree with it and still think it is wrong for the BBC to blatently advertise Saga Insurance considering how the Corporation is supposed to be funded.

As for your majesty jibe please retire backwards from my presence whilst performing a sweeping bow.:D

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

I am not. Any company wishing to broadcast a TV channel should have to pay into a 'pot' to fund an independant regulatory body. As far as infrastructure is concerned they should be paying whoever owns the transmitters/repeaters etc for broadcasting the channel as Sky pay ASTRA for using their satellites.

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

I agree with you garinda, if the BBC is funded from public funds then there should be no commercial advertising at all. But if that happened there would be no sport on TV, films and outside broadcasts would have to be vetted to ensure that no corporate logo appears. East Enders and other soaps and sitcoms could not be broadcast because they are full of advertising in the background. The simple truth is that advertising is all around us whether we like it or not but at least on the BBC the programmes are not broken up with ads for whiter than white washing powder or whatever and that makes the BBC unique. I don’t see anything wrong in the BBC advertising its future programmes between programmes though.

Retiring backwards as ordered and also showing you that I can still use a longbow with either hand.:p

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

yes, I agree with you jb but isn't this sponsorship the first step to the bbc having adverts. It is in effect an advert. no licence fee ever goes directly to what the licence is associated with. No tax does either. they don't have pots that say tv licence fee, same as they don't have refuse collection, council house repairs.etc

You two make me laugh.
I'd love to see you two with tealeaf in the big brother house.

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

That pool would be red now and I'd be sat rocking in the corner holding a knife.:D

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

I know that there is a great deal of debate as regards the license fee but so far as I am concerned Doctor Who alone makes the fee well worth while.

In fact, I would sell all have (except of course my tv) just to keep Doctor Who.

Doctor Who is a wonderful, timeless (no pun intended) work of art. A must for any tv viewer!

Long live Doctor Who, the greatest BBC production of all time!

Re: Bloomin' adverts!
 

yes it's great but its old, and it take next to nothing to make, they hardly had to push the boat out to bring it back did they. They asked a few people realised it would be watched by a few and threw it together, hey presto quality program on a shoe string budget, and it was watched by ten times more people than they expected.