Jeremy Clarkson and the future of Top Gear

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That's fine, I'll happily pay £200 a year for there not to be adverts in the programmes I do watch. I've been watching IndyCar racing on American TV recently, and the races have advert breaks literally evert five laps throughout a 90 lap race. So that's roughly one advert break every five minutes - it's insane..

I wonder if my memory plays me false here, but can I ask if ITV ever missed out the very last couple of laps of a Grand Prix a good while ago, because they went over to an advertisement break? If so, can anyone say what year it was and which Grand Prix was involved.

 

[AM9]

And the major downside is that you are forced to pay for it whether you watch it or not - a choice with other channels is that you have the choice to watch the ads or not.

But you don't have much choice whether to pay for the advertisements, which on several occasions have been proven to cost more than the licence fee.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I wonder if my memory plays me false here, but can I ask if ITV ever missed out the very last couple of laps of a Grand Prix a good while ago, because they went over to an advertisement break? If so, can anyone say what year it was and which Grand Prix was involved.

Very nearly. San Marino 2005 I believe, Schumacher and Alonso were in close company with a few laps to go, ITV went into an advert break and came back 'to the action' with one lap to go, shortly after the race they went into another advert break, missing the drivers press conference.

 

[jon0844]

F1, football.. I think ITV has messed up lots of live events.

Can't imagine the advertisers actually like it either, given they'll get the blame from some viewers!

 

[CC 72100]

I wonder if my memory plays me false here, but can I ask if ITV ever missed out the very last couple of laps of a Grand Prix a good while ago, because they went over to an advertisement break? If so, can anyone say what year it was and which Grand Prix was involved.

The certainly missed a winning goal in extra time in an FA cup tie involving Everton a few years back.

 

[Clip]

But you don't have much choice whether to pay for the advertisements, which on several occasions have been proven to cost more than the licence fee.

indeed I dont however I have a remote control and also a kettle or bathroom or beer that I can go and do/get whilst an ad break is on.

Lets face it, people should not be forced to pay the license fee and they certainly not have constant letters through their door warning them of court action even after they have told the BBC that they dont watch live telly.

 

[AM9]

indeed I dont however I have a remote control and also a kettle or bathroom or beer that I can go and do/get whilst an ad break is on.

Lets face it, people should not be forced to pay the license fee and they certainly not have constant letters through their door warning them of court action even after they have told the BBC that they dont watch live telly.

I think you've missed the point that I made, i.e. adverts that provide funding for TV programmes on commercial channels are for products and services that most people have little alternative but to buy. For example, there are TV adverts for most makes of cars, most supermarkets, all electricity, gas and water companies, most rail companies, etc.. For the majority of the population, there isn't much chance of avoiding all of those suppliers that do advertise whether, they watch TV or not, so effectively they are paying a surcharge on all goods even if they never watch TV. That is far more unfair than a licence fee only for those that do watch TV.

 

[Clip]

But on the same tip people also advertise all over other media streams from the web to radio to billboards to ads in newspapers and some such so that isn't confined to the license fee issue and as such is a worthless point.

If we didn't have advertising or product placement then Im guessing we would still be buying everything in plain packaging down the local grocers.

 

[swj99]

If we didn't have advertising or product placement then Im guessing we would still be buying everything in plain packaging down the local grocers.

I'll vote for that. Preferably a shop with a till that goes 'ding' when they press the button to make the drawer open. Where do I sign ?

 

[yorksrob]

indeed I dont however I have a remote control and also a kettle or bathroom or beer that I can go and do/get whilst an ad break is on.

Lets face it, people should not be forced to pay the license fee and they certainly not have constant letters through their door warning them of court action even after they have told the BBC that they dont watch live telly.

To be fair, in law, nobody is forced to hold a television licence. It's just that if they do happen to make use of televisual entertainment, they are required to contribute to public service broadcasting.

 

[AM9]

But on the same tip people also advertise all over other media streams from the web to radio to billboards to ads in newspapers and some such so that isn't confined to the license fee issue and as such is a worthless point.

But TV is amongst the most expensive advertising medium, so why should those whose attention span is longer than 15 minutes, have to fund the banal entertainment offered every time they purchase basic commodities or services?

 

[meridian2]

Jeremy Clarkson had to go; he's ideals,k presenting style and demeanour was from a time that was incongruous to modern-day standards. The insults, the innuendo, the various storms-in-teacups are all attested to that fact.
As for Top Gear itself; the original concept was dated and its revival through Fifth Gear was misguided. I highly doubt that the producers of Top Gear are going to come up with a fresh perspective or fresh start for such a concept that was only successful through a stream of listeners that sympathised with Clarkson's POV, thus garnering its high-viewing figures.
It's got more in common with the Antiques Roadshow quite frankly, but at least one antique has been put out to pasture.

 

[pemma]

BBC3's schedule for this evening includes a repeat of Top Gear with special guest Chris Evans. Strange coincide.

 

[ExRes]

Jeremy Clarkson had to go; he's ideals,k presenting style and demeanour was from a time that was incongruous to modern-day standards. The insults, the innuendo, the various storms-in-teacups are all attested to that fact.
As for Top Gear itself; the original concept was dated and its revival through Fifth Gear was misguided. I highly doubt that the producers of Top Gear are going to come up with a fresh perspective or fresh start for such a concept that was only successful through a stream of listeners that sympathised with Clarkson's POV, thus garnering its high-viewing figures.
It's got more in common with the Antiques Roadshow quite frankly, but at least one antique has been put out to pasture.

Top Gear was 'incongruous to modern-day standards' and 'at least one antique has been put out to pasture'

Strange then that the viewing figures were so high, the income garnered by the BBC was so high and the studio audience had such a high percentage of young people, very odd indeed

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Top Gear was 'incongruous to modern-day standards' and 'at least one antique has been put out to pasture'

Strange then that the viewing figures were so high, the income garnered by the BBC was so high and the studio audience had such a high percentage of young people, very odd indeed

Maybe it is not the case of one antique being put out to pasture (seems to suggest a herbivore), but with antiques in mind with a programme that the BBC TV already cater for with their mid-day "flagship programme" for the vast numbers of "watching antiques", there is always "Bargain Hunt" to watch which caters for the less discerning of those appreciative of that particular subject...:roll:

 

[swj99]

Jeremy Clarkson had to go; he's ideals,k presenting style and demeanour was from a time that was incongruous to modern-day standards............

Only if you believe what the pc brigade want you to believe.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Only if you believe what the pc brigade want you to believe.

I turn off whenever someone mentions the PC Brigade. They're from the same regiment of boogeymen as the 'Elfin Safety Brigade.

 

[AM9]

I turn off whenever someone mentions the PC Brigade. They're from the same regiment of boogeymen as the 'Elfin Safety Brigade.

And everything that those who dismiss respect (PC Brigade) and health and safety push is, 'common sense', which means absolutely nothing outside their self-serving opinions.

 

[DownSouth]

But you don't have much choice whether to pay for the advertisements, which on several occasions have been proven to cost more than the licence fee.

That's the whole point, that advertising brings in revenue and allows more money to be spent on raising the production value of that program or on cross-subsidising unprofitable programming which the management finds valuable for other reasons (e.g. a news division).

Advertising is also an industry in its own right, money spent on advertising is not 'lost' as it keeps circulating in the economy. Many production techniques are first developed in the advertising world before jumping over to the film/TV side of things, which is also an advantage.

I think you've missed the point that I made, i.e. adverts that provide funding for TV programmes on commercial channels are for products and services that most people have little alternative but to buy. For example, there are TV adverts for most makes of cars, most supermarkets, all electricity, gas and water companies, most rail companies, etc.. For the majority of the population, there isn't much chance of avoiding all of those suppliers that do advertise whether, they watch TV or not, so effectively they are paying a surcharge on all goods even if they never watch TV. That is far more unfair than a licence fee only for those that do watch TV.

For a company which does not a monopoly in its sector, the only thing more expensive than advertising is not advertising.

If a company does not advertise, they lose market share and instead of paying a 'surcharge' for advertising their customers pay a 'surcharge' for inefficiency as they lose their economy of scale.

Unfortunately, that is now a fact of life and the genie will not go back in the bottle.

Top Gear was 'incongruous to modern-day standards' and 'at least one antique has been put out to pasture'

Strange then that the viewing figures were so high, the income garnered by the BBC was so high and the studio audience had such a high percentage of young people, very odd indeed

And, uniquely for a motoring-based show, a large portion of its viewership were women.

It was far from dead, and if we keep with the horse analogies it was clearly still a few years away from the point where the BBC would have been tempted to keep on flogging a dead horse for the money it was bringing in.

 

[AM9]

That's the whole point, that advertising brings in revenue and allows more money to be spent on raising the production value of that program or on cross-subsidising unprofitable programming which the management finds valuable for other reasons (e.g. a news division).

Advertising is also an industry in its own right, money spent on advertising is not 'lost' as it keeps circulating in the economy. Many production techniques are first developed in the advertising world before jumping over to the film/TV side of things, which is also an advantage.


For a company which does not a monopoly in its sector, the only thing more expensive than advertising is not advertising.

If a company does not advertise, they lose market share and instead of paying a 'surcharge' for advertising their customers pay a 'surcharge' for inefficiency as they lose their economy of scale.

Unfortunately, that is now a fact of life and the genie will not go back in the bottle.

All this is moving away from my point, i.e. much of the argument about the TV licence funding model is that it isn't fair on those who watch TV but never watch any BBC broadcast as (legally) they have no option but to pay it. The same argument applies for advertising in that whatever the impact on the organisations whose products and services are advertised is, customers who never watch any commercial TV or even those who watch no TV ever, have no choice. This idea that highly paid ad men benefit everybody is not necessarily so for every industry, take the utilities in the UK. I water better value in one area because thecompany spends a lot on TV advertising, (in the UK, consumers don't have much choice as to which company to supply them). Advertisments cost a lot and provide relatively few people a very lucrtative reward. It's just perpetuation of a very expensive rat race.
If BBC World wants to sell programmes to TV companies overseas who are prepared to lower standards of viewing with advert breaks, that's fine by me as it is an export with a net gain to the UK, but here, it just provides net gain for the few.

 

[D6975]

Jeremy Clarkson had to go; he's ideals,k presenting style and demeanour was from a time that was incongruous to modern-day standards. The insults, the innuendo, the various storms-in-teacups are all attested to that fact.
As for Top Gear itself; the original concept was dated and its revival through Fifth Gear was misguided. I highly doubt that the producers of Top Gear are going to come up with a fresh perspective or fresh start for such a concept that was only successful through a stream of listeners that sympathised with Clarkson's POV, thus garnering its high-viewing figures.
It's got more in common with the Antiques Roadshow quite frankly, but at least one antique has been put out to pasture.

You'll just love Frankie Boyle...

 

[AM9]

You'll just love Frankie Boyle...

I do. He says things that many think but wouldn't dare to say. That's his act and (almost) everybody who sees him knows that.

 

[Clip]

To be fair, in law, nobody is forced to hold a television licence. It's just that if they do happen to make use of televisual entertainment, they are required to contribute to public service broadcasting.

To be fair people still get letters threatening court action even if they have told the BBC they don't watch live TV. Every single year they get one - two if they are really lucky.

Maybe not everyone wants to watch or pay for public service broadcasting - ever think about that?

But TV is amongst the most expensive advertising medium, so why should those whose attention span is longer than 15 minutes, have to fund the banal entertainment offered every time they purchase basic commodities or services?

So you never watch anything on any other channel apart from the beeb then? And you look down on those who may watch other channels because of your superior attention span? Right you are.

Lets face it - some of the most popular TV shows of the last 10 years(soaps not included) have been shown and created by channels that have adverts and to be perfectly honest with you, in most cases totally outshines the stuff the BBC do - apart from probably period drams which I never watch.

In fact its so bad at the BBC that most of these very popular shows they never buy for their channels yet they are some of the most talked about shows everywhere. Sounds about right.

 

[jon0844]

To be fair people still get letters threatening court action even if they have told the BBC they don't watch live TV. Every single year they get one - two if they are really lucky.

So what? Nothing will happen if they don't watch live TV. Just bin the letters or keep them in a nice folder to laugh at later on.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Does anyone have the feeling that a correlation between the national database of all addresses and the database of television licence holders is used to show addresses where no licence is shown to be in existence and letters could well be generated to those addresses without a licence on the principle of "Guilty until proved innocent".

I know of one particular religious sect called "The Exclusive Bretheren" who neither use television or computers either at home or in their workplaces. There may well be more of these sects.

 

[Clip]

So what? Nothing will happen if they don't watch live TV. Just bin the letters or keep them in a nice folder to laugh at later on.

Because its bullying. plain and simple. Unless the owners/renters of the address change - one letter to the beeb should be enough to call of their dogs.

 

[ExRes]

I do. He says things that many think but wouldn't dare to say. That's his act and (almost) everybody who sees him knows that.

I'm not quite sure why a 'comedian' who tells 'jokes' about such topics as cerebral palsy, suicide, disabled children, Downs syndrome, Jimmy Savile and the kidnapping of a child is worthy of any praise whatsoever, to say that it's just his act is a pretty poor excuse

Perhaps he should use some of his comedy genius to tell a few side splitters about gays or muslims, now that would bring some headlines I'm sure

 

[jon0844]

Because its bullying. plain and simple. Unless the owners/renters of the address change - one letter to the beeb should be enough to call of their dogs.

Personally I'd ignore the letters and not lose any sleep over them, or tell someone at my front door to **** off, as I did when I moved in and someone knocked on my door being quite threatening because his printed list didn't show I'd already transferred my licence. I was suitably rude back to him.

I wouldn't feel threatened or bullied. It's a standard letter generated by computer. They have almost no power to do anything, so let the letters come and just throw them in the bin. It's as easy as that.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I'm not quite sure why a 'comedian' who tells 'jokes' about such topics as cerebral palsy, suicide, disabled children, Downs syndrome, Jimmy Savile and the kidnapping of a child is worthy of any praise whatsoever, to say that it's just his act is a pretty poor excuse

Perhaps he should use some of his comedy genius to tell a few side splitters about gays or muslims, now that would bring some headlines I'm sure

Well said!

 

[radamfi]

If you don't like the licence fee, how about direct state funding? Another option is for the BBC to carry adverts on its main channels, for example BBC One and Radio 2, but that would face objections from other broadcasters for splitting ad revenue, especially Channel 4 which is also a public service broadcaster and a not for profit corporation, albeit fully funded by advertising.