Re: Regulator promising more ads on tv
- From: "Carl Waring" <email@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:40:10 GMT
Arfur Million wrote:
On 24 Sep, 11:13, "Carl Waring" <em...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Krustov wrote:
<uk.media.tv.misc>
<Carl Waring>
<Sun, 23 Sep 2007 09:58:17 GMT>
<ZMqJi.48253$ph7.9...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Actually, I would have thought that the prospect of ad-free TV
would increase the popularity of the (already watched by the
majority of people) of the TVLF ;-)
Do you mean as in lets totally ignore any complaints we get and do
as want regardless if viewers like or dislike something .
Boohoo! They ignore one of your rants did they?
Do you mean lets pay £2,000,000 to a outside contractor to do some
station idents even though we have 50 years in the tv business .
The cost of business these days.
The cost of business when inefficiently run, knowing that revenue is
guaranteed come what may.
I cannot comment as I don't know enough about the subject.
Do you mean lets pay davina £7,000,000 to do a chatshow even though
she had never done a chatshow before .
Yep. They took a chance. They can do that, you know, precisely
because they don't have to worry about attracting advertisers.
Took a chance? You mean they thought they she would be lowest-common-
denominator popular but even got that wrong.
No. Took a chance on giving someone a chance to do something they different.
Fancy a go yourself?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newtalent/
Okay, this one didn't work out from what I heard. (I can't comment
on the show itself as I never watched it.)
However, remember "Life On Mars" that Channel 4 turned down because
they didn't think it would be a commercial hit? Nice one BBC!
I note you completely ignored this one. I can only assume you agreed with me
;-)
Do you mean lets hire a london westend cinema for the whole
afternoon for a 2 minute interview on watchdog .
The cost of business these days.
The cost of business when inefficiently run, knowing that revenue is
guaranteed come what may.
Again, I cannot comment as I don't know enough about the subject.
None of them worth the licence fee, either individually or
collectively. Most of them are complete and utter rubbish. They're
untrustworthy, too.
Well that maybe your opinion but it isn't shared by the *majority* of the UK
as the viewing/listening figures (and hits on the web site) prove.
All for about 35p per day.
A daily rate of just over 37p, actually. Not that that is relevant,
Hence the 'about' qualifier. I didn't work it out exactly.
since the LF has to be paid annually (12 month ends, to be precise)
No, but you can pay monthly and in a variety of ways.
and there is no option to pay on a day-to-day basis. The World Service
is paid out of general taxation, BTW.
D'oh! Sorry! Yes. I didn't see that there.
--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Freeview (free): http://getdigiguide.com/?p=4&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Regulator promising more ads on tv
- From: Arfur Million
- Re: Regulator promising more ads on tv
- References:
- Re: Regulator promising more ads on tv
- From: Stuart B
- Re: Regulator promising more ads on tv
- From: Krustov
- Re: Regulator promising more ads on tv
- From: Carl Waring
- Re: Regulator promising more ads on tv
- From: Arfur Million
- Re: Regulator promising more ads on tv
- Prev by Date: Re: Anyone watch the Sarah Jane Adventures tonite?
- Next by Date: kath and Kim, a guilty pleasure?
- Previous by thread: Re: Regulator promising more ads on tv
- Next by thread: Re: Regulator promising more ads on tv
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading