# Adverts on the BBC



## graduate_owner (15 Jan 2015)

Is it me or is the BBC just getting worse and worse when it comes to 'adverts', by which I mean adverting ad nauseam their forthcoming programmes. At the moment the one that's getting on my nerves is "The Voice". Not anywhere as bad as the true commercial channels of course.
Am I being a Mr. Grumpy here or do others feel the same way?

Once the temperatures improve I'll be back in the (unheated) workshop anyway, so less TV watching.

K


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Jan 2015)

The one for the voice isn't quite so irritating as the radio one for Kate whatever she's called with Cilla Black and Roger Moore.


----------



## dickm (15 Jan 2015)

I'm with graduate owner on this. Most BBC programmes which are suppposed to be 1/2 hour are down below 25 minutes now to accommodate the REALLY IRRITATING trailers. Definitely Mr Grumpy here.


----------



## wizard (15 Jan 2015)

its about time they got rid of the BBC and the TV licence,


----------



## MIGNAL (15 Jan 2015)

Yes, get rid of rubbish stuff like BBC 2, 3 & 4, Radio 3,4. Then we can all enjoy much more X factor and big brother.


----------



## n0legs (15 Jan 2015)

wizard":25ia543a said:


> its about time they got rid of the BBC and the TV licence,


 
Oh Yes !!! =D>


----------



## n0legs (15 Jan 2015)

MIGNAL":1rucdxuo said:


> Then we can all enjoy much more X factor and big brother.



Oh No !!! #-o


----------



## worn thumbs (15 Jan 2015)

When the BBC does the job properly they are a superb broadcasting company.Sadly they seem to have got hold of the idea that they have to compete for the highest numbers of viewers or listeners.Some real rubbish is the result and there are now so many channels that there can be virtually no unemployed presenters.I would mind a lot less if the current funding system wasn't so redolent of taxation without representation i.e. they demand my money but never ask what I would like them to do with it.


----------



## DiscoStu (15 Jan 2015)

I don't want to get rid of the BBC and actually I am not against the licence fee as I use bbc TV, Radio and websites. However I do agree about them advertising themselves. It's very frustrating. I too am fed up with the radio 2 ad with Roger Moore. I don't think it can work as I've heard it so much much but I can't tell you the name of the programme or when it is on! I'm not against the odd mention of new things but it has become overkill.


----------



## Higon (16 Jan 2015)

MIGNAL":1ll520lo said:


> Yes, get rid of rubbish stuff like BBC 2, 3 & 4, Radio 3,4. Then we can all enjoy much more X factor and big brother.




Get rid of Radio 3? That would be the end of civilisation as we know it! _Sir Humphrey Appleby GCB, KBE, MVO, MA (Oxon)_


----------



## bugbear (16 Jan 2015)

BBC license is excellent value. Just look what Sky charges for dross.

BugBear


----------



## Eric The Viking (16 Jan 2015)

In my day, the head of our production centre had a chaffeur-driven car.

The driver was a normal part of the transport department and he and the vehicle ran errands when it wasn't being used for official business. So I'd book it (him) for a run down to Temple Meads station to take our flightcases of (rented) radio mics back to the Red Star parcels office at the end of a studio day. Generally speaking, everyone in the building, including HNPC (the boss), would have been mortified if the facility had been used for, say, shopping trips. 

We had a small pool of estate cars for general purposes and our specialist vehicles, and that was it. Pretty much everything else was either hired in as needed or a staff-owned vehicle, or public transport.

About three months before I resigned, at the end of the 1980s, they started introducing leased company cars for middle managers. 

We couldn't understand why. The mileage rate was quite adequate - if you needed a car for work it covered the cost; if you didn't you could choose to own one and it was a handy subsidy for those rare occasions. I think it's fair to say that new cars were almost unknown in the car park, the exceptions being those of the news film crews (many of whom were freelancers anyway), whose vehicles had to be fairly fast and reliable (they did huge mileages).

That company car scheme was the start of the rot - the creation of a middle and upper-management elite. It created envy, and separated managers out from the rest of us. Previously people often moved reluctantly from operational jobs into management. I had several friends who were asked to apply for management jobs but refused, and, to be fair, the lower rungs weren't well paid. Afterwards, management became popular with those who preferred self aggrandisement to making programmes.

It's been like that ever since. I still have many friends and relatives in the BBC. They all say the same thing: its management is now centralized, very powerful, very well remunerated, and they no longer feel part of a big, collaborative effort like we used to. They also all feel they're only paid to do a job, not contribute to a bigger goal.

The other big change behind the scenes is at the bottom end: the BBC like other unprincipled operators in the industry, expects people to work, literally, for nothing. 

"Internships" are a quite disgraceful concept. They are a legalized form of slave labour, they increase stratification and a them+us ethos, they allow wealthy people to 'buy' jobs by subsidizing their children, and above all else they give impressionable youngsters false hope. There are no jobs to move on to once an internship ends. The Meejuh Studies departments of schools, colleges and universities across the land have TEN TIMES the number of students enrolled, each and every year, than there are jobs in the UK broadcast industry in total (never mind vacancies). 

I fought hard to get and keep my initial, low-grade technical job in the BBC: initial tests, several interviews in succession, long technical training courses with weekly tests (pass mark to keep your job 90%), on-the-job assessment and regular feedback sessions with my boss. It was made clear I was joining an elite team and I had to be up to standard. And boy, were my colleagues and production teams people to live up to! I wasn't paid much, but I WAS paid. Even then, the ratio of applicants to entry-level jobs in engineering was something like 100:1. If you wanted to train, the only alternatives were the BBC and a very small operation (Ravensborne) run by the ITA. This made sense, as the training resources reflected the small number of jobs in the industry. 

Roll on 25+ years. I took one of my children to Bournemouth University a few years ago to look at a journalism course they were interested in. Bournemouth is one of the BBC's favourites, and has (had) a number of ex-BBC managers on its teaching staff. 

There were about two hundred families there for the open day, and we packed out the largest lecture theatre to hear presentations on what the courses offered. There was noticeably a lot of bling in the room: tanned, expensively-dressed parents and children. After the talks, they ran a video featuring (I think) three of their graduates, grinning to the camera about how good their courses had been. 

I was one of only two people who asked questions: what were the people in the video doing now and how many of their graduates went on to get jobs at the level for which they had been trained? Of the three, only one was still in the industry after two years, working as a production runner (had a degree qualification trained as a director/editor). 

Surely they had other success stories? After all, they were graduating over a hundred people a year... 
... silence fell, and, as we got up to leave, I could hear the non-answer being discussed by families around us.

Never mind the licence fee: why are British taxpayers paying for all these, pointless, media courses across the country? 

Back on topic, the issues are obvious: BBC simply does too much these days. The money is spread too thinly; it has an expensive, unaccountable and top-heavy management structure; the old, productive corporate culture has largely gone*; it has lost sight of its public-service remit; its standards in many areas have plummeted.

The public-service 'deficit' is particularly obvious in its regional and local services, now largely clones of London. Moving big departments to Salford (Manchester) is pointless if at the same time the system denies autonomy to local programme makers. Radio Bristol, for example, used to have a proudly local team of presenters. They're long gone, and their replacements have come from all over the place. "Local" radio isn't honestly local any more, and it's the same for TV. The BBC no longer genuinely reflects the diversity of the country, it mainly imposes London attitudes and standards on everyone else.

The unaccountable management, responsible for this sort of thing, is by far the BBC's biggest problem: it doesn't employ, and doesn't understand even middle-class Britain, let alone those who make up the majority of the population. And it doesn't care. 

I don't want to see the license fee go. For decades it gave us an independent voice in the nation - not beholden to commercial interests. But I struggle to see how the BBC could be restored to its former greatness.

E.

*In the late 1970s/early 1980s the BBC was extremely proud of being the most efficient broadcaster in Europe, in programme hours per staff member, per pound of income, and per studio facility. That was achieved by doing almost everything in-house, with its own engineering and technical Directorate, with a very lean management structure, and by staff who were proud to be as productive as possible.


----------



## Harbo (16 Jan 2015)

Having a PVR makes watching TV much more enjoyable.
We very rarely watch live TV and therefore hardly ever see adverts.
We do however also have a Sky Now TV Box where I'm appalled by the amount of repeats being shown on their channels so give me Freeview anytime.
You've only got to spend time in the States to see how bad a fully commercialised TV system is. You certainly don't want to go down that path!

With regard to BBC adverts, are they not making programme times to suit other countries where they might sell the programmes to - allowing for advert slots?

Rod


----------



## mindthatwhatouch (16 Jan 2015)

Eric,
What a very interesting and informed post.

The BBC was on my list of companies that I applied to for engineering/technical positions when leaving school. 
I ended up doing an apprenticeship (remember those, now strangely back in fashion, but not in the correct format, but that's a whole other topic) with what was then British Telecom, I was lucky enough to be on the receiving end of some excellent training, (non telecommunications) like you the colleagues were something to look up to and aspire to.



Eric The Viking":1cleajnh said:


> Never mind the licence fee: why are British taxpayers paying for all these, pointless, media courses across the country?



It's not just media courses, why are we paying for everyone to go to University? When I left school the clever bods went on to do A levels and then maybe the top few percent went on to University, if the family could afford to support them. If you give everybody a degree then surely that qualification becomes worthless.


----------



## MIGNAL (16 Jan 2015)

How much do we pay each year for independent TV and Radio? Obviously it's not a direct payment but it's payment whether one likes it or not. They aren't giving us free radio and TV channels because they happen to be very kind people. It takes the form that is more akin to indirect taxes. You kind of know that you are paying for them but you don't always _feel_ as though you are.


----------



## mseries (16 Jan 2015)

mindthatwhatouch":1yemjdjh said:


> ...., why are we paying for everyone to go to University? ....



so they can earn higher salaries and pay more tax


----------



## Sheffield Tony (16 Jan 2015)

dickm":2dfvhpn1 said:


> I'm with graduate owner on this. Most BBC programmes which are suppposed to be 1/2 hour are down below 25 minutes now to accommodate the REALLY IRRITATING trailers. Definitely Mr Grumpy here.



Is it in part that they are making programmes that will be padded out with adverts when sold to commercial channels, so the programmes end up being awkwardly short when shown without the ads ? Hence the extra padding bit on the end of most wildlife programmes about how they filmed it Or large amounts of self promotion.

The thing that annoys me is how on a quite news day, the news website is filled up with pseudo news stories which are in fact just adverts for their upcomming documentaries.


----------



## AndyT (16 Jan 2015)

If anyone wants to make their views about the BBC heard beyond a bunch of chatty woodworkers, the BBC Trust is recruiting for its Audience Council

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/who_we_are/audience_councils/england/

They also want people to respond to specific questionnaires from time to time. These are in the same part of the website using links at the foot of the page I linked to.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Jan 2015)

mseries":2sahmhcr said:


> mindthatwhatouch":2sahmhcr said:
> 
> 
> > ...., why are we paying for everyone to go to University? ....
> ...


I worked with people who had degrees in history, English, journalism, media studies, microbiology - they were receptionists, waiters and barmen...


----------



## MIGNAL (16 Jan 2015)

Add to that 2 Chemistry Grads, one a Phd. Both in menial jobs. It's a little like the mantra about getting a very high quality CV done. Works on an individual level but in itself it doesn't really create any new jobs, it just means the lies get better.


----------



## DiscoStu (16 Jan 2015)

I think I'm missing something - to my knowledge grants have been done away with and students have to find the degrees now? So the tax payer isn't paying for them. 

Actually I don't have an issue with paying for students to go to uni. I think the average graduate wage is around £24k and graduates generally rise up the salary scale quite quickly. So therefore they are also paying the most tax. 

I know there will be students who don't do so well and people that don't go to uni that do very well etc. but as a general rule graduates will pay a lot more in tax over their life time than someone who leaves school at 16. The higher the level of education the better the country should perform and therefore the better for all of us.


----------



## JohnPW (16 Jan 2015)

I don't really mind the trailers in between the the programmes, they can be easily ignored, although they are annoying and there seems to be more of them now. 

What I find really annoying and stupid are the announcements over the end credits of programmes and films. I switch the sound off as soon as the credits start to roll or change to another channel.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Jan 2015)

Stu - many graduates will not earn enough to pay back their loans, so the taxpayer does pay for them. Blair wanted 50% of people to be graduates. The best comment I read ages ago was from someone who said that when "O" levels were introduced in the '50's they were deemed suitable for the top 20% of the population - now degrees are deemed suitable for the top 50%. Human intelligence hasn't changed any significant amount in 60yrs, so something else has.
Besides which there are few jobs that actually require graduates, so kids are doomed to chase them - my nephew has a very good first degree, but has accepted that he needs a masters if not a doctorate to get a job in his field. (and that's environmental sciences - in NZ :shock: )


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Jan 2015)

Sorry... I expect the OP would like his thread back...


----------



## graduate_owner (16 Jan 2015)

Would I like my thread back? Not at all. There has been a very interesting range of responses, and the idea of padding out programmes to allow for exporting to other countries makes a lot of sense ( although still irritating). I too make a great deal of use of a PVR so as to fast forward through the dross when watching non-BBC channels. Perhaps I should do the same for BBC as well. We often have a cup of tea and delay the start of a live broadcast so as to watch it while being able to skip the adverts.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to respond.

Just another thought - do people feel that documentaries are suffering from a considerable level of dumbing down? Lots of repeated statements and irrelevant video? Grumble, grumble. And I readily determine this inferno preemptive typing on my table.

K.


----------



## mindthatwhatouch (16 Jan 2015)

graduate_owner":2pvkzd1s said:


> Just another thought - do people feel that documentaries are suffering from a considerable level of dumbing down? *Lots of repeated statements *and irrelevant video? Grumble, grumble. And I readily determine this inferno preemptive typing on my table.
> 
> K.



My pet hate, a recap of the program straight after the adverts, 
"Janet and John are attempting to build a house with no experience and an unrealistic budget" 
I know what is going on I just watched it, then 10 minutes later another recap "Janet and John are attempting to build a house with no experience and an unrealistic budget" and then at the end they talk about *'the journey'* that they've been on. (hammer) 

Rant over, as you were.


----------



## AndyT (16 Jan 2015)

Dumbing down? Yes, definitely. I watched "The Wonder of Britain" last Tuesday (9 pm, ITV1) as I had seen a trailer for it (!) saying it was about industrial heritage.

It was nothing but a collage of pretty pictures, with a bland and superficial commentary, darting about from place to place, sometimes without even bothering to say where they were. No engagement with the subject beyond saying 'look at this, now look at that.'


----------



## lanemaux (16 Jan 2015)

As to how the BBC is run and whether or not there are too many "commercials" , I have no opinion as we get little of your program content , and that comes second hand to Our Canadian or (shiver) American stations. I can say that I actively seek out British programs when I can as the content otherwise is so abysmal . The vast majority of our programs are dumbed down to such a low standard as to make even those of moderate intelligence (myself ... hopefully) cringe. reality programs that are so obviously scripted that proffesional wrestlers wonder how the public swallows them are a backbone item on the "specialty" channels. These are channels set up for learning for the most part at their inception, specific to an interest and aimed at those who want to know more about that interest. An example is the OLN or outdoor living network, once a group of programs on ...outdoor living , and activities pertaining to the outdoors. Not for long though, as now it is about the lives "in reality" of people that should be kept outdoors to avoid messes on the carpet. 
The Food network was once a place for those who wish to learn about cooking. Not for long though. Now one of the flagship productions takes Gordon Ramseys cook or I'll cut you type of competition and adds sabotage and bribery to the fun. I could run through the list of 50 or so "specialty stations , but they all follow the same pattern of lowest common denominator thinking. Explosions ... check , heartbreak ... check , paint it purple ...check, but no learning for god 's sake ... double check. Must go now and brew a cuppa and watch an episode of Doctor Who to bring the blood pressure back to a measureable level. I may not learn anything , but since that is not the intent of the show , that's OK. Just good silly fun ... as advertised ...check.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Jan 2015)

Stop moaning, and go watch the ice hockey...


----------



## lanemaux (16 Jan 2015)

Them thar's fightin' words hearbouts boy . I is set to come get me some if you wuzn't ribbin me.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (16 Jan 2015)

First - I agree completely with DiscoStu regarding student funding. But back to the BBC ...



AndyT":12g3pjwj said:


> Dumbing down? Yes, definitely. I watched "The Wonder of Britain" last Tuesday (9 pm, ITV1) as I had seen a trailer for it (!) saying it was about industrial heritage.
> 
> It was nothing but a collage of pretty pictures, with a bland and superficial commentary, darting about from place to place, sometimes without even bothering to say where they were. No engagement with the subject beyond saying 'look at this, now look at that.'



The trouble is that even the documentaries on subjects that I ought to like (e.g., anything to do with making stuff, or archeology), are made boring by stretching out an idea that could have been presented succinctly in 10 minutes into a 1 hour epic. Either by running over well trodden ground, repeating the same material several times for the sieve minded, unneeded and cringeworthy re-enactments, or - worst of all - buiding up for the revelation of that one new idea in the whole programme using that intense, melodramatic tone of voice that so winds me up. It is nearly as bad as the pregnant pause with human heartbeat sound effects before any winner or loser of any form of competition can be announced ...

There. Got it out of my system.


----------



## harryd (16 Jan 2015)

This is quite an interesting thread. I was a secondary English teacher for many years, then became a teacher trainer. One of the spin-offs was that I also became a Media Studies lecturer. I was initially sceptical - I'm an English teacher - but I really enjoyed it, simply because it was a subject that had taken over the criticality, the questioning, that had been at the core of A Level English teaching, and which just isn't there any more. In terms of teaching young minds to question and to challenge, there was nothing to match it.

However. This more or less coincided with the last government's ambition to see 50% of the age group in higher education. That was bonkers. 50% of that age group aren't going to benefit from education at that level. 10% might. One of the downsides was the creation of Mickey Mouse courses in areas like Refuse Management or Golf, simply to cater for the less able.

A degree, in anything, should be an opportunity to learn how to think and how to communicate. It is not a passport to a good job, as so many kids have found out, to their and to their parents' cost.

The other downside is the devaluation of the apprenticeship. I was lucky enough - this is 20 years ago - to have had a short secondment to Rover, before they were asset-stripped. They were very much in bed with Honda at the time, so there was lots of TQM )Total Quality Management), and it was all very positive. For example, every employee was given cash to spend on learning. It really didn't matter if, as some did, you wanted to spend the money on learning fly-fishing. The point was, they were encouraging people to learn.

That was supported by terrific educational opportunities within the company. You could start as an apprentice, but, because the assumption was that you would succeed if you could show that you were a learner, there was a pathway that led to a Warwick University accredited degree - open to all. Some of the research was fascinating - using light and polymers to create utterly accurate casting patterns, for example - that would match work in many university departments.

The other telling point was what one apprentice manager said. This was when D & T became more about designing packaging than about learning to cook and working with 'Resistant Materials' (how wrong-headed is that as a term?). Yes, he said, we have robots now, but we still need people who can file square, because someone has to fit them.

(One of the nicer features of the robotised assembly line, which all visitors were shown, was a giant plastic spider on a string. When visitors were being encouraged to display awe and wonder at the cleverness and precision of the spot-welding robots, the spider would be lowered into their eyeline. Nicely subversive.)

I like this forum. It's a good corrective to most of the very dodgy values that kids are asked to accept as normal nowadays. 

And, yes, I am one of Jacob's fans. Long may he continue to promote the kind of commonsense that rooted in experience and in the rejection of passing fads.


----------



## graduate_owner (16 Jan 2015)

Yes exactly, the Janet and John scenario is exactly what I had in mind. Repetition, repetition, and yet more repetition, and the information was not that good in the first place. 

AND

It seems Canadian and American television must be truly awful.

K


----------



## lanemaux (16 Jan 2015)

Hi Graduate , and yes , for the most part it is horrible. I do not wish to say that it is all muck though. There have been some bloody brilliant bits in fact. Breaking Bad is well thought of by many , Big Bang Theory can be very funny and many like the series Vikings. But the writing is clearly on the wall that good programs will continue to be a shrinking minority. Mental pablum with a side of outright insultingly stupid sells product and therefore will prevail. Sorry to rant but this is sort of a button issue for me as health keeps me indoors more than I'd like. Even the basement shop is subject to fewer hours as our hydro-electric company makes running even a scrollsaw a think twice moment during peak hours. the charge is 1.8 times higher during peak . Good thing I have the UKW lot for conversation and my hand tools and PBS for diversion. Still using electrickery , but the flow is low.


----------



## graduate_owner (17 Jan 2015)

Well I am very glad I started this thread, I wasn't sure anyone would be interested - how wrong I was. I have to thank Eric the Viking in particular for sharing with us his first hand (and first rate) insight into the BBC. That is the sort of information you just don't come across normally.
Interesting also to read about the cost of electricity in Canada. I have never really considered what it costs to run my kit, although I certainly would not entertain the idea of heating my workshop by electricity.

As an ex secondary school teacher myself (not in the craft disciplines) I agree with the comments about university for the masses. I don't wish to sound elitist here but I do think that higher education is not the way forward for the proposed 50% of our youngsters. It's almost like setting them up to fail, then saddling them with a huge debt to repay for the privelege. Provide the opportunity for those who can benefit from it by all means but the appropriate opportunity does not have to be a university education.

Thanks to all who submitted posts, and keep 'em coming.

K


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jan 2015)

You are right about the electricity - I have no option at the moment but use it for household and water heating - it's like wiping your behind with £10 notes.


----------



## lanemaux (17 Jan 2015)

I actually heat with oil , so it ain't the heating , it's the SAD or seasonal affective disorder. My shop is my happy place in more than one way you see. During the short days I use a powerful battery of lights in the basement to simulate daylight and combat a sort of creeping depression (that's the SAD bit). My wife ,being the supportive type she is ,went whole hog here . We run 3 flourescent 125 watt bulbs (a foot long if they are an inch) and a 600 watt lamp of the type found in shops that specialize in glass smokeware and tye-died T-shirts to supply a sunlike component. All this lights up the downstairs like a stadium night game, and works wonders. Keeps me a jolly oaf rather than a sociopathic troll all winter. Sort of funny where a thread on the BBC can lead , ain't it? :lol: And now , back to our regularly scheduled program.


----------



## RogerS (17 Jan 2015)

Higon":21fbkasm said:


> MIGNAL":21fbkasm said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, get rid of rubbish stuff like BBC 2, 3 & 4, Radio 3,4. Then we can all enjoy much more X factor and big brother.
> ...



They already have. Ever since Roger 'Wrecker' Wright took over as Controller (thankfully he has now gone) he's dumbed down the station to the very pits and it should be renamed ClassicFM-Lite.


----------



## RogerS (17 Jan 2015)

graduate_owner":3qq8d2e7 said:


> .....
> Just another thought - do people feel that documentaries are suffering from a considerable level of dumbing down? Lots of repeated statements and irrelevant video? Grumble, grumble. ...
> 
> K.



Totally agree with you. Not just the BBC either. You can take most Channel 4 documentaries...for example the current execrable Food Unwrapped series...actual relevant content 30 seconds....the rest is puff and rubbish.


----------



## RogerS (17 Jan 2015)

harryd":1bme8832 said:


> .....because it was a subject that had taken over the criticality, the questioning, that had been at the core of A Level English teaching, and which just isn't there any more......



Hah! And they said that 'A' levels weren't dumbed down ! 

My missus used to be a Scale 4 Departmental Head and History as her own subject. She taught her students how to question and debate, to research as much as possible. These days, as far as she can gather, it's all pretty pictures and zero questioning of sources.


----------



## MIGNAL (17 Jan 2015)

I'd gladly pay the licence fee for the Radio stations and the beeb website alone! and I'm skint. Plenty of folk blow that amount (and much, much more) on the forlorn hope of the lottery. Crazy 'bit of fun' if you ask me. Makes the licence fee seem an absolute bargain. 
Mostly they can keep the TV, I watch little anyway but _some_ programmes are certainly worth watching.


----------



## doorframe (17 Jan 2015)

MIGNAL":3o2taof1 said:


> Yes, get rid of rubbish stuff like BBC 2, 3 & 4, Radio 3,4. Then we can all enjoy much more X factor and big brother.




It's ok, I know you're only joshing.

BBC4 is excellent. Very late night music progs are great. Record and watch at another time.


----------



## DiscoStu (20 Jan 2015)

I think the BBC does do some things brilliantly well and they are possibly programmes that no other channel would make. Things like coverage of the Remembrance service and events such as New Year eve fireworks. They also make programmes such as "documentaries" about the Lancaster etc that I doubt anyone else would make. I also think their wildlife filming is brilliant although I'm not a wildlife programme person I can appreciate the quality of the production. I also think they produce some good drama. 

I am with Mignal though, I use the BBC website and radio stations far more than anything else.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 Jan 2015)

The BBC forgot long ago that it is not its main purpose to sell itself to the pondlife.


----------



## whiskywill (20 Jan 2015)

Sheffield Tony":19gycsnd said:


> The trouble is that even the documentaries are made boring by stretching out an idea that could have been presented succinctly in 10 minutes into a 1 hour epic.



I recently watched Walking through history on More 4, I think. It began with Tony Robinson telling us that his journey was going to be to A, B, D, E, F, G, H etc.

At the end of the first part he said "Today we have been to A, B and C. Tomorrow we are going to D, E and F". During the programme it was "I am now leaving A and am heading for B". At the beginning of the second part he said "Yesterday we went to A, B and C and today we are going to D, E and F" At the end of the second part..........

This continued throughout the whole programme. I still have a sore throat caused by shouting "I know!" at the television.


----------



## mailee (20 Jan 2015)

I have to admit that that is one of the reasons I don't subscribe to any of the Tv channels as there is so much rubbish on them. I can't even understand why we need things like the Tivo box to record programmes as they repeat them every couple of days on each of the channels. As for the BBC and the TV licence it is one of the better channels but only occasionally do they broadcast any decent programmes. But considering how much we pay for this service and the service we get they should be paying us to watch it! Take Christmas for example, just how many of the programmes were repeats? most of them! I may write a letter to the BBC and notify them I shall repeat my TV licence this year! :evil:


----------



## petermillard (21 Jan 2015)

TiVo boxes and the like let you watch the programs that interest you at *your* convenience, rather than the convenience of the broadcaster; they also let you 'sample' a series without a major time commitment - we record all manner of shows that look interesting, but if they aren't immediately engaging then they're abandoned, we move on. And just what constitutes a 'decent' program? I suspect that everyone has a different opinion but, like obscenity, we know it when see it even if we disagree wildly about what *exactly* it is!

In trying to satisfy as broad a population as Britain, I think it's inevitable that a chunk of the BBC's programming won't be of interest to me, but I'm happy to pay the license fee as it's extremely good value - on par with what we pay for just two channels of BT Sport and a fraction of what we pay for Sky. Of course, if you don't feel it's good value, then you have the choice not to pay - or to pay, but not to watch the shows that don't interest you.

Got to go - there's a new episode of 'My cousin slept with my wife's sister in a storage locker down the scrapyard' on... :shock: 

Pete


----------



## DiscoStu (21 Jan 2015)

Whiskywill - on a similar note I find programmes that tell you what is coming up after the break and then after the ads you get the "before the break" I'd like to think I can remember what happened 3 minutes ago and if the programme hasn't been good enough in the first part to entertain me, then telling me what is coming up after the break isn't going to retain me. 

It's just a way of making programmes cheaper as far as I can tell. Keep using the same footage. I used to really like scrapheap challenge and they were terrible for it.


----------



## bugbear (21 Jan 2015)

DiscoStu":3459ghlr said:


> I used to really like scrapheap challenge and they were terrible for it.



Worst part was that in the intro they'd show you some of the the end-of-ep testing !!

BugBear


----------



## n0legs (21 Jan 2015)

DiscoStu":25m47yyk said:


> scrapheap challenge .



YESSSS !!!

Let's get a campaign going to get it back =D> =D> :lol:


----------



## Eric The Viking (21 Jan 2015)

Noooo!

I don't want it back. I just want access to some of their scrapheaps!


----------



## whiskywill (21 Jan 2015)

DiscoStu":2k8it7u7 said:


> Whiskywill - on a similar note I find programmes that tell you what is coming up after the break and then after the ads you get the "before the break" I'd like to think I can remember what happened 3 minutes ago and if the programme hasn't been good enough in the first part to entertain me, then telling me what is coming up after the break isn't going to retain me.
> 
> It's just a way of making programmes cheaper as far as I can tell. Keep using the same footage. I used to really like scrapheap challenge and they were terrible for it.



Have you noticed that this has even crept into news programmes? They sometimes say "coming up" etc. before reading a completely unrelated bit of news.


----------



## graduate_owner (21 Jan 2015)

You are right about the News, Whiskywil - they tell you a series of brief facts to whet your appetites, without giving you any details so you have to watch all the news to find out what it actually was that' 'coming up later in the programme'. A bit like supermarkets that cleverly spread all the essentials around so you have to 'shop the whole shop'. But then I don't pay a license fee to enter a supermarket (well, apart from my car license that is). And on that subject - I changed the car last summer for a Renault Megane diesel. It is nippy, roomy, comfortable, does 57mpg and costs £30 a year road tax. I think that is pretty good. Now, I have hijacked my own thread. 

Back to TV - we stopped paying out to Sky about 3 years ago (although I do love the Sky organisation dearly !!!) and bought a set top box (Humax). Slightly different mix of available channels but a totally free system once the box is bought, and I would never go back to Sky, especially paying extra for the Sky Movies channel which repeated filme over and over again for the whole month. 

K


----------



## bugbear (21 Jan 2015)

graduate_owner":vvxowr4o said:


> Back to TV - we stopped paying out to Sky about 3 years ago (although I do love the Sky organisation dearly !!!) and bought a set top box (Humax).



Freesat or freeview?

BugBear


----------



## graduate_owner (24 Jan 2015)

It's a freesat box. It uses the same satellite dish leads and connectors as the Sky box, just swap them over to the Humax and wait for the Humax to find it's channels. It will search automatically and store the available channel details in it's EPROM (sounds complicated but it does it all by itself) and you can select and watch. It does not improve the quality of the prodrammes being transmitted unfortunately - they are mostly as rubbishy as Sky.

K


----------

