The other channels are beholden to advertisers and only produce profitable content regardless of its value.

Also the BBC salaries for the most part are on-par with ITV and C4.

The whole point of the TV tax is that the BBC can take on projects that are "worthy" but not commercially viable. Why does it have big-name stars at all? Why is it competing for ratings at all? They want to have their cake and eat it is why.

Working for the BBC is a privilege; one of the few cases where people really should be doing it "for the exposure" and not paid at all.

Disclaimer: I am employed by the BBC, but not in PR, hence the throwaway

> The whole point of the TV tax is that the BBC can take on projects that are > "worthy" but not commercially viable. Why does it have big-name stars at all? > Why is it competing for ratings at all? They want to have their cake and eat > it is why.

No, the BBC has to compete against commercial content, and therefore has to pay to hire talent that is competitive with the talent hired by commercial broadcasters. There are good reasons for this:

- Making popular content that is of high quality increases the quality of commercial offerings, as it has to compete for viewers.

- If the BBC did not make popular content that most people want to watch, it would not be perceived as good value for money, and therefore you would lose the benefits of having a strong public broadcaster.

This is made clear in the charter:

"The BBC should provide high-quality output in many different genres and across a range of services and platforms which sets the standard in the United Kingdom and internationally."

> Working for the BBC is a privilege; one of the few cases where people really > should be doing it "for the exposure" and not paid at all.

Working for the BBC is a privilege, but if it did not pay its staff, it would not have any. There is a balance to be struck -- people are willing to work for less than they could be paid elsewhere, but if the difference is too big then they will leave.

The amount being paid to talent and execs is high, but at least in some cases is a lot lower than people are being paid on commercial channels, and therefore it is possibly justified.

Blair made it about ratings precisely to make the BBC an empty shell.

You should not have to compete for viewers. I agree with the other poster - the point is to have a guaranteed revenue stream so you can, frankly, make unpopular content. By definition if it is popular the private sector can fund this via advertising.

The charter is there to neuter the BBC. It has worked.

> the point is to have a guaranteed revenue stream so you can, frankly, make unpopular content

That is one point, and that is currently being done. If the BBC were only to make unpopular content, it would be unpopular, and people would not want to pay for it. It is supposed to be balanced in a way that benefits the public the most.

I can see the argument that the balance between making popular and unpopular content is not currently as good as it could be, but the model when looked at as a whole seems quite sensible.

IMO if the BBC has the most viewers it's "failing", if it has no viewers it's also failing. Talk of "unpopular" content misses the point, clearly content should be popular it just doesn't need to be mainstream or most popular (perhaps "popularist" was meant?).

BBC should provide high quality alternatives - if commercial stations show the football they show something else, if commercial stations are showing singing/dancing BBC should show something else, etc..

If a talk-show host wants a large six-figure sum they should go look in the commercial sector, if they can't get it the BBC should happily give them a reasonable wage (and not through some shell production company either), or give someone else a chance.

I imagine where the conflict arises is that BBC wants popularist shows to sell through BBC World.

For things like F1 BBC should only be stepping in if no commercial station will take it as FTA, the cost/benefit is very slim fit such things if ITV would show it and BBC prop up the price by bidding against them for UK rights.

mainstream vs. special interest is probably better, I.e. content that appeals to lots of people but has low value to the average person vs. content that only appeals to a few people, but has a higher value to the people that enjoy it. Of course nobody goes out of their way to make unpopular content, but content that is less mainstream is less popular.

I basically agree with your point about providing a high quality alternative. That's what the charter says the BBC should do, however it is supposed to be a balance, in order to provide a service that people want to pay for.

> If a talk-show host wants a large six-figure sum they should go look in the commercial sector

Yeah, there needs to be a balance. The BBC should use its position to grow new talent, but equally it needs to be able to pay close to market rates in order to make high quality output.

> For things like F1 BBC should only be stepping in if no commercial station will take it as FTA

I agree that it must push up the price, but I'm not sure by how much. The BBC doesn't dominate sports coverage (there seems to be a change to what is shown every year), so I don't see why the market rate with/without the BBC would be that much different.

People like watching watching sports on the BBC, because the coverage is good and there are no adverts. I don't watch sports myself, but I find value in the BBC output in other ways, so it balances out.

I think it was better before Blair hobbled it. Too much of it is childish nonsense now. A sad end.

It should be BBC 1 and 2, and Radio 1-4, and that's it.

Radio 4 is so bad now. On hearing the Canadian equivalent having moved over here it reminds me of Radio 4 about 15 years ago. BBC1 should not be publicly funded at all, it's wall-to-wall garbage.

On the BBC the only content produced that could not be satisfied by commercial ventures is BBC4 and Radio3/6.