|We recognise that some users will be unhappy with this change. However in tests and surveys in advance of this change the majority of international users did not express a strong objection and a majority of those surveyed in the UK agreed with the principle of advertising for international users. |
Surveying in the UK on the issue of advertisement for international users, something seems wrong here. :)
I see so problem with the ads - I just hope they remove the awful Real Player videos and slap in the quick loading Flash player system... Sky News is a great example on how to do it...
Hmm. What chance of a reduction in the cost of the TV Licence then?
|We ... are taking significant steps to manage any potential conflict of interest between advertisers and editorial content to ensure our journalism is not compromised in any way. |
This is the core of the issue as I see it. Seeing an ad is a minor issue compared to whether the news source is beholden to some advertisers, and this would effect UK users whether we see the ads or not.
I wonder if this means that as an international viewer we will now be allowed to listen to live sport commentary on the BBC or watch online some of the BBC's programmes, comedies and such we currently only seem available to those in the UK.
I have nothing against the BBC making money, or the ads. BBC World has had them for quite a while.
But this could affect publishers as the BBC is surely to take a generous portion of worldwide advertising spend.
Are they going to do this by using geotargetting by IP address? What about all of the proxies? Or are they just thinking of putting ads next to the supposedly international content and putting it on the .com site, as though there's really such a distinction to be made?
I don't mind them using ads to subsidise their content if it will be effective in keeping costs down for license payers. So long as they do it accurately: somehow I don't think the BBC will manage this very well.
Oh and one other thing they neglect to mention is that while BBC World (TV) does have ads it is not free.
For example in Thailand and other countries it is part of a cable /sat subscription package, and normally not the cheapest.
Then if you want BBC Prime as well you have to pay even more.
They've been promising it for a while; I'm just disappointed by the lack of provision for those who are paying a U.K. license but are accessing the service from overseas. Something as simple as entering your name and license number should suffice; with simultaneous foreign uses leading to suspension of privilege.
|Oh and one other thing they neglect to mention is that while BBC World (TV) does have ads it is not free. |
Not free to the satellite network, or not free to you? There is a difference. You can, I believe, find it free from other satellites with a large parabolic dish - although you'd need to check local law.
I'd like to see the Beeb get this right. But it's a shame they aren't offering the ad service to loyal UK users.
On November 7 I posted a new thread but it was locked. Anyway the ads started to appear:
For the first time ever I am seeing ads on the BBC website. A leaderboard above the whole page, a massive banner to the right of all the content and ads in the left side bar and below the content.
It is quite in your face. Anyone else seeing it? What do you think?
On the computer I am now using there are no ads so perhaps it was just a test. Did you see the ads what were your thoughts?
|Surveying in the UK on the issue of advertisement for international users, something seems wrong here. :) |
No, nothing wrong - they were asking UK licence payers if they felt happy with international users continuing to receive BBC content for free at their expense or whether the service for international users should be advertising-funded (and thus, presumably, not paid for by UK licence payers).
Thanks Ronin, I do understand it better now.
[edited by: Habtom at 7:54 am (utc) on Nov. 11, 2007]
It's interesting they only ask questions when the answer suits them... for example, they never bothered to ask before scaling back World Service radio transmissions, and have never asked the UK public if they want the BBC to find ways to bypass China's firewall.
The BBC license fee in itself is a strange animal
1. It was conceived at a time when only the rich could afford a radio or TV, and only a small percentage of the population could afford to own a set.
2. Today virtually 100% own a set, but we still pay a fee.
3. The license fee is expensive to collect. £152 million (or $320 million devalued dollars)
4. Wikipedia quote "Collection is enforced by criminal law. People accused of license evasion are tried in a magistrates court. Violators can be fined up to £1000. Prior to 1991, the collection and administration of the UK license fee was the responsibility of the Home Office. Since 1991, the revenue has been collected on behalf of the Government by the BBC and paid into Government's Consolidated Fund. From 1991 the fee was collected more directly by the BBC and was called the TV Licensing Authority. Since then collection has been contracted out and is now collected and enforced by TV Licensing Ltd, which is operated by Capita. As a consequence of the change the force of law in enforcing the licence has weakened somewhat. By 1994, 57% of all female criminal convictions in Britain related to television license evasion
Once collected, the money is then passed to the BBC via the Appropriation Act(s) where MPs vote the amounts paid to the UK's public services. During the current Charter review process, concerns were raised as to the cost of collection (£152m for 2005-2006)."
5. In order to collect the tax, a vast computer network tracks every household in Britain. They assume everyone has a set, and if an address does not pay, then the heavies come knocking on that house's door.
6. It amounts today to a stealth tax, it would be much cheaper to pay from direct tax, but I doubt that any government would do so "merely" in order to save the vast cost of collection.
7. Most people in the UK have no idea of either the cost of collection, nor of the invasion of privicy involved in tracking payment.