Another way the government is trying to get rid of the BBC perhaps?
Make it less and less palatable so they can see themselves as justified in shutting it down. Then their mate Murdoch will have complete control of the media in the UK.
Printable View
Another way the government is trying to get rid of the BBC perhaps?
Make it less and less palatable so they can see themselves as justified in shutting it down. Then their mate Murdoch will have complete control of the media in the UK.
Thats my thought, the BBC were given this crum as they were forced to pay for free licences for OAP, previously the Government paid for them. But as has been said, I cant see one extra license being purchased because of this, all it will do is stop more people watching, so pushing them closer to Mordoch.
The days of commercial broadcast TV are numbered anyway. Everyone fast-forwards through the adverts now, or watches on line at a time of their choosing. On line advertisements are notoriously unsuccessful, even when they are not being blocked. Soon there will not be the revenue stream to make new shows.
That will only leave the BBC to actually make new programmes and they are so wasteful and top-heavy only a fraction of the licence fee actually gets spent on production. That will get even worse once they become the only game in town.
While I agree with the rest you have said, google's numbers would question the aboveQuote:
On line advertisements are notoriously unsuccessful
"Google has announced its Q3 2015 earnings, showing strong growth in revenues and net income for the quarter compared to last year. Total revenues for the quarter were $18.7 billion, which is a 13 percent growth over 2014. Net income came in at $3.979 billion, up from $2.739 billion in 2014."
I could live with that level of unsuccessful :-)
Netflix has shown that it is possible to offer a subscription service without adverts and to make their own shows as part of the deal.
Amazon and sky seem to be thriving with their subscriptions too.
I'll just continue to get my TV programs and films via illegal means as I have for years anyway ;) I don't have a license as I watch so little TV anyway (90% crap for morons). Plenty of helpful people will capture the shows and upload them to torrent sites.... with all the "this program unavailable" when it's episode 2 of a 4 part series etc I often have to get them like this anyway! Programs from commercial channels I usually torrent as you can't fast forward the ads if you use the official catch up services...
I agree,
Most of whats on terrestrial TV is Bollox, perpetrated specificaly for the dumbing down of society!
Bloody soaps, reality shows, etc, etc.:rolleyes:
I realy hope people wake up soon :(
A...
Google derive their revenue from people paying to advertise with them, not from the adverts themselves. So Google's profit does not stem from directly from the success of the ads, rather their ability to convince advertisers to use their service.
Unless you advertise free with Google and only pay for the ads that generate sales, but I'm not aware that that is how it works.
You pay for the adds that get clicked on, so its in Googles interest to show relevant adds.Quote:
Unless you advertise free with Google and only pay for the ads that generate sales, but I'm not aware that that is how it works.
Why would the advertisers pay Google that much cash if it didnt generate sales for them?
And the irony is that this thread started with what is in effect an on line add.
I've tried to find a link to the study I read re the efficacy of on-line adverts but can't find it right now.
I'm sure that on line ads do result in sales however the cost/benefit ratio is what matters. No-one will pay big money for an ad that brings in only a few sales, consequently on-line advertising is very cheap compared to press or television.
That was the gist of it, anyway. Perhaps someone who is in marketing or advertising can elucidate?