The BBC is a joke, first they cut 606, then give SKY the F1, now they are messing with their online services. It's only recently I've managed to be able to use I-Player properly. It's time to scrap the license fee, there is enough subliminal advertising as there is, maybe they can get companies to sponsor the hundreds of cooking shows they have on, that should cover the cost.
everything about is is awful. Whoever designed it should be sacked it falls into every trap that a website can.
The way I see it it's stupid to have a license fee when you can see specific companies products splashed everywhere anyway
I agree, Nick. By the way, everyone, I've got the live scores up and Sir Phil Brown is on there with Lawro and Chappers
The reason there's a licence fee and a ban on adverts on the BBC is to stop advertisers being able to control the programmes by threatening to withdraw funding. The fact you can see product names is irrelevent because the BBC still isn't allowed to receive money in return for them being there, so the programming still isn't being influenced by the wills of the companies. As an example, let's say there's a Coca-cola poster on the bus stop in Eastenders, all the BBC are allowed to receive is either a free poster from Coca-Cola to put there, or if they make the poster themselves a reimbursement of the costs involved. ITV on the other hand, and only since the change to allow advertising in the form of product placement last year can receive whatever Coca-Cola are prepared to pay them to do the same thing in Coronation Street, they just have to put a big P in the corner of the screen while the credits are running to show that there's been some product placement paid for within the programme. Personally I think the having to have a big P there is counter productive, it's supposed to be a "warning" to people so they don't automatically copy Ken Barlow and buy a Twix instead of a Dairymilk or something else you wouldn't normally notice or end up doing, but all I find myself doing is looking for products once I've seen the P to see how blatantly they've done it so it increases the effectiveness of the advertising.
I find that most British people are conservative (not in the political sense) at heart and don't enjoy change. Give it a month and you'll forget it was recently changed.
The license fee is an anachronism and they should get shot of it, also there is the question of bias in the coverage which wouldn't matter if there was advertising, you could have programmes that were clearly defined in terms of politics. I hated the coverage of the Royals last year where every single reporter on the Beeb were towing the line that it was such a great event, when in reality a big proportion would have negative feelings towards the monarchy, just one example.
I agree, and I don't have a TV licence because it wasn't worth paying for*. Just pointing out why the brand names plastered everywhere aren't contrary to the principle of having a TV licence fee. With the royal coverage though there was one really good thing, Nicholas Witchell or whatever he's called that they've made the Royal Correspondent, he doesn't like them and he wasn't hiding it. All his reports in the run up to the wedding really did come across as "oh we're on now are we, here they are shopping for a dress, I'm sure it's important for them but I couldn't give a ****, why am I stood here reporting on this, and who are these sad ****s I've got to interview, why've you come to stand for hours just to see them walk 10 foot from the car to the shop and then back again, you really need to get a life, right that answer was boring - back to the studio because I'm sick of talking about it now, I hate you all, good night" *Comments about watching TV relate to iplayer and when I'm round at other people's houses.
I think Nick Witchell was the one Prince Charles called a horrible little man, no wonder he doesn't like them!
oh ok. thanks. has anyone changed there views on the new BBC sports website ? mine still stand, its awful.