The PSB question

superdudeman007

But look at Australia's PSB, the ABC. It's commercial-free and there's no TV licence. They still run some great services.

flogen

superdudeman007 wrote:

But look at Australia's PSB, the ABC. It's commercial-free and there's no TV licence. They still run some great services.

I assume they get their money directly from the Government so? Much of a muchness there tbh and little difference between that system and the BBC's - their both paid for by public taxes, it's just that in the UK they're independent of the regular taxation system.

copacetic

superdudeman007 wrote:

But look at Australia's PSB, the ABC. It's commercial-free and there's no TV licence. They still run some great services.

It seems a bit off topic on this thread, but I have to ask what you mean?

ABC are directly government funded. It's not like they are making programmes out of thin air as you seem to imply. I think they get about $650m a year? More or less equivalent to what RTÉ get from license fee and commercial revenue.

Their model is just different and they are debating bringing in commercials and have cut drama production massively due to lack of funding. We could fund RTÉ to the same extent by doubling the license fee and getting rid of commercials is that what you think would be best? Or get rid of the license fee and have direct government funding which would still be out of the taxpayers pocket but could lead to less independence from RTÉ.

flogen

This discussion of PSB funding is off topic but at the same time, very interesting.

I've split it off into a new thread, in which people can discuss their opinions on the best way to fund a PSB, whether the ad & licence model is a failure or ideal, and even whether a PSB should exist in the modern media.

DMC

That would be the big issue of following the ABC model in Australia. Govenment fiddling. It would be a pawn of the government of the day. "you say anything bad, I'll cut your funding." Indeed it has been in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation#Politics

constitutionus

i reckon PSB should exist but it should be shorn of advertising and imported TVshows /films. RTE really doesnt give us that much for the money theyre getting off the license payer , TBH most of it seems to be going on inflated fee's for "star" presenters. if pat kennys worth 700k a year let him compete in the private sector and see what he gets. i'd rather the money was spent on supporting investigative reporting and political analysis with sports coverage of games of national importance and historical and educational programs on stuff like say the constitution. practically none of us were taught our basic rights in school so it'd be nice to see some resource for it.

will this get great ratings? no but thats not the point its about public service broadcasting. its not meant to make money its meant to help inform the public about things that matter. honestly stuff like RTE 2 should be made by the private sector and be totally self suficient and i'd shift the late late over on to that. RTE 1 should be totally public service and hence get the lions share of liscence fee with no adds and no overpaid presenters. you want big money, go to the private sector. this is about the national interest

DMC

The PSB ethos that RTÉ and others adhere to is the values atoned by John Reith so many years ago; "To inform, educate and entertain."

They have to make entertaining programmes. The ABC in Australia is often seen as a very dry place, making it a station that doesn't connected with the public. If, as you said constiutionus, historical and educational programmes dominated the prime time schedule, they would disconnect with people who are interested in the celebrity lifestyle shows etc. Then there would be uproar from the masses asking "why are we paying for this worthy shyte!"

Ratings isn't everything, definitely, but losing a connection with the public, upper and lower classes, is worse.

BBC 4. Great station, yet not a lot of your average soap watching public would bother their holes watching it. Thats why the BBC does Eastenders and Strictly Come Dancing, for example.

In saying that.... Its difficult to say weather or not we, as licence payers, actually pay the top earners in RTÉ their salary. Could they pay their way through advertising? As Gerry Ryan works almost exclusively on 2FM, a station that gets all its revenue from advertising, and is a net contributor to the RTÉ budget, makes me think that licence payers don't pay him a red cent.

That made me wonder, does everyone in that top 10 get revenue from advertising that's in excess of their salary? I would say in the Top 10, five of them would "pay their own way", i.e. get their income solely out of advertising on their programmes, TV and radio. The ones I reckon wouldn't would be all the news people, John Kelly and Marian Finucane.

If that is the case, and the RTÉ annual reports don't break those figures down like that, (I wish they did!) then I can rest easier in my bed at night

J.S. Pill

constitutionus wrote:

if pat kennys worth 700k a year let him compete in the private sector and see what he gets.

Amen

constitutionus wrote:

...historical and educational programs on stuff like say the constitution. practically none of us were taught our basic rights in school so it'd be nice to see some resource for it.

I take it CSPE came after your time. Better late than never i suppose.

constitutionus wrote:

RTE 1 should be totally public service and hence get the lions share of liscence fee with no adds and no overpaid presenters. you want big money, go to the private sector. this is about the national interest

I really don't see much point in getting rid of adds on PSBs. Adds are a fact of life, I think its ever so slightly pontifical to have a nice little sanitised add free zone. RTE already have a lot of leeway over the type of adds they have to show. RTE are fairly good for not advertising things like dodgy premium SMS and phone services whereas TV3 have their flagship breakfast show sponsored by one (but RTE will still have the smutty ones after midnight!).

Supposing we did have a model PBS airing minority interest programs like Bonzai gardening with Declan Nerney, I'm sure a lot of people would accept the rationale of a PBS but would probably begrudge the fact that they don't bother to try and claw back some revenue just so we watch Declan Nerny unimpeded.

constitutionus

oddly enough ive seen more historical stuff on TG4 than RTE. cant understand a word of it but their coverage of 1916 and the civil war around the time of the 90th anniversary was brilliant, not to mention mna na heireann who were basically written out . and they routinely interview artist and writers in a manner which is far more accessible than the main station (god i cant belive im trumpeting TG4, i only watch it for the weather girls )

dont get me wrong im not anti entertainment but people will pay for that. or at least advertisers will pay to be connected to it. though i will admit to being annoyed how many stations show the same bloody programs. i mean, what, friends in on three stations at anyone time? and dont get me started on the simpsons. so i'd prefer if RTE 1 was used to exclusivly fufill the PSB remit and drop the fecking waltons and some such and leave the revenue making side of it to RTE 2 (or whatever their gonna spend 4 million or so on in the future when they decide to rebrand it again )

in regards to J.S post, yeah i got out of school circa 1990 so if there's any programs covering civil rights politics and the constitution it started after i left. hell my history class went straight from 1916 to world war two. i only found out we became a republic in name in '48/'49 a few years ago and i wouldnt be surprised if most of my year still doesnt know so there is a market out there to have an irish version of "discovery". it actually saddens me to say this but if it wasnt for fecking DANA i wouldnt have known 4 councill can nominate a presidantial candidate and if i needed to slap a court injunction against a government body i havent got clue one how to do it with out paying one of macdowels cronies in the bar. if everyone has the right to stand for election or go to the courts to seek redress there really should be some easilly accesible forum to get that information. currently the only outlet seems to be the net. if politicians really are interested in fostering civic duty and participation in the democractic process then RTE should be used to do this. pretty much nothing more of a public service than facilitating our democracy.

funnily enough i dont reckon it will though

by the way, sorry this sounds so political but alot of public service stuff gets roped into that. which actually bring up a nice point. what would you guys think ranks as public service broadcasting? the terms so nebulous that alot of us are lost when thinking about it as it covers everything from individual rights to the green cross code !

superdudeman007

But there's so much choice on Australian TV that they don't have to pay for - even if the ABC is as trashy as RTE can be they get Seven, Nine, Ten, SBS etc and loads of radio stations for nothing.

Our only alternative to the licence fee + ad funded RTE is basically a simulcast of a British channel with cheap news and breakfast shows.

If RTE had to be run in the style as the ABC, maybe they'd learn that Gerry Ryan isn't worth half a million a year. And if we lose most of RTE we're probably going to get some commercial networks who'd need to make some kind of effort at decent programmes if they're going to stand a chance.

superdudeman007

J.S. Pill wrote:

I take it CSPE came after your time. Better late than never i suppose.

All I did in CSPE was homework from other subjects. Then in third year the teacher used to get us to watch the news and transcribe a typed action project. But I still got an A

constitutionus

ok now i feel really old, can someone tell me what the CSPE actually is ?

DMC

What us old timers used to call Civics

DMC

superdudeman007 wrote:

But there's so much choice on Australian TV that they don't have to pay for - even if the ABC is as trashy as RTE can be they get Seven, Nine, Ten, SBS etc and loads of radio stations for nothing.

And the Aussies complain that their commercial networks rely heavily on US imports and local variations of world-wide hits, such as Strictly Come Dancing and Big Brother. Its all they complain about on Aussie TV mailing lists and forums!

RTÉ has had competition from day 1, BBC and UTV were always widely available since the 1960's.

superdudeman007 wrote:

If RTE had to be run in the style as the ABC, maybe they'd learn that Gerry Ryan isn't worth half a million a year. And if we lose most of RTE we're probably going to get some commercial networks who'd need to make some kind of effort at decent programmes if they're going to stand a chance.

That won't happen, and you would be deluded to thing that was the case! Commercial TV without strong regulation is purely about making the most profit from the smallest outlay. ITV were once the standard bearers of regional TV, but once competition from Channel 4, five and deregulation occurred, they dropped regional programming like a hot snot.

constitutionus

DMC wrote:

What us old timers used to call Civics

lord i never even had that! i mustve grown up in an educational no mans land . still we had one class sexual eduacaton program, everything from sexual persuasions to STDs. constatantly amazes me when i hear stuff i learned 17to 18 yrs ago isnt on the curriculam of alot of schools now.

superdudeman007

constitutionus wrote:

lord i never even had that! i mustve grown up in an educational no mans land . still we had one class sexual eduacaton program, everything from sexual persuasions to STDs. constatantly amazes me when i hear stuff i learned 17to 18 yrs ago isnt on the curriculam of alot of schools now.

CSPE is Civic, Social and Political Education. If you saw the exam paper you'd laugh.

superdudeman007

DMC wrote:

That won't happen, and you would be deluded to thing that was the case! Commercial TV without strong regulation is purely about making the most profit from the smallest outlay. ITV were once the standard bearers of regional TV, but once competition from Channel 4, five and deregulation occurred, they dropped regional programming like a hot snot.

But it would be free and it's not like Irish TV has ever been fantastic anyway

flogen

superdudeman007 wrote:

But there's so much choice on Australian TV that they don't have to pay for - even if the ABC is as trashy as RTE can be they get Seven, Nine, Ten, SBS etc and loads of radio stations for nothing.

Our only alternative to the licence fee + ad funded RTE is basically a simulcast of a British channel with cheap news and breakfast shows.

If RTE had to be run in the style as the ABC, maybe they'd learn that Gerry Ryan isn't worth half a million a year. And if we lose most of RTE we're probably going to get some commercial networks who'd need to make some kind of effort at decent programmes if they're going to stand a chance.

But the job of all commercial broadcasters is to make a profit within the confines of the rules - TV3 are making a profit with their set up so RTÉ cutting costs wouldn't bother them and it certainly wouldn't force them to up investment... it could actually be argued that an RTÉ with less money would create poorer programming and as a result the bar would be dropped, allowing the likes of TV3 to get away with even more crap.

I do think that RTÉ, like anything state-owned, is inefficient, though, but I think any restructuring there should move the currently wasted money into production rather than remove a source of it altogether.

DMC

superdudeman007 wrote:

But it would be free and it's not like Irish TV has ever been fantastic anyway

No it wouldn't. You'd pay for it in other ways. The ABC in Australia is funded by the tax man, and funding depends on the Treasurer of the federal government of the day, depending on how well the economy is doing.

Its never been "fantastic" as you say, due to the high standards the UK are/were used to, and the level of competition RTÉ have had, and the comparison being always made to other English speaking countries.

As flogen said, RTÉ is in need of reform, but not to the cost of what we already have on screen.

J.S. Pill

flogen wrote:

and as a result the bar would be dropped, allowing the likes of TV3 to get away with even more crap.

how could they possibly be more crap!?

DMC

J.S. Pill wrote:

how could they possibly be more crap!?

Become Channel 6?

superdudeman007

But Channel 6 is a cheap cable channel - just look at SUMO TV in the UK if you want to see crap :rolleyes:

But if new broadcasters on the Irish FTA digital platform were regulated in the style of the old ITV (even with 3 or 4 franchises covering the provinces) we'd be guaranteed to get regional news and better programmes.

Who cares if RTE cuts its budget even further - we're not going to miss the morning news show we never had, Seoige and O'Shea, The Afternoon Show, Winning Streak, "Celeb" Jigs 'n' Reels, You're a Star for about 2 weeks then back to flipping burgers, Irish Paint Magic, EuroNews, Anything on 2fm, Eurovision etc etc

aidan_walsh

You mightn't. But you have to remember that its a national television station, not just "Keep Superdudeman007 Happy TV". Quite a few of the shows you mention are highly rated, so obviously that means quite a few people like them.

superdudeman007

aidan_walsh wrote:

You mightn't. But you have to remember that its a national television station, not just "Keep Superdudeman007 Happy TV". Quite a few of the shows you mention are highly rated, so obviously that means quite a few people like them.

They can see them for free a few years earlier with a dish - €50 in Aldi :rolleyes:

Seoige and O'Shea = Richard and Judy
Jigs & Reels = Strictly Come Dancing
Winning Streak = UK Lotto gameshows
You're a Star = American Idol, X Factor (just cheaper)

And we can't get proper news before 1pm.

No, it's not designed to impress me. But I shouldn't have to pay €150 a year for 2 channels I can live without

aidan_walsh

And whats wrong with RTE making their own versions of popular format shows?

Should Channel 4 cancel Deal or No Deal and Big Brother because people could watch them off Dutch television if they wanted to?

Should ITV and BBC cancel Come Dancing and Dancing on Ice because people can download episodes of So You Think You Can Dance?

Should Parkinson be cancelled because Leno has a job?

Perhaps Bosco and The Den should never have been aired because the BBC had childrens shows?

constitutionus

aidan_walsh wrote:

And whats wrong with RTE making their own versions of popular format shows?

?

because we pay them a liscense fee to come up with originals?

flogen

constitutionus wrote:

because we pay them a liscense fee to come up with originals?

Well that's not exactly true. The licence fee is there to fund programming that appeals to, informs and represents all people living in Ireland - irrespective of their ideals being in the majority or minority.

Obviously reality tv shows and chat shows should not be the only thing RTÉ make, but coming from someone who pays them no attention, I can appreciate that they're popular and serve a rather large portion of Irish viewers.

copacetic

flogen wrote:

I do think that RTÉ, like anything state-owned, is inefficient, though, but I think any restructuring there should move the currently wasted money into production rather than remove a source of it altogether.

why do you think that RTÉ is inefficient? of all state owned entities it's finances are the most strictly controlled, transparent, audited and every cent is accounted for every year publicly. Where is this 'wasted money'? It's had piles of redundancies over the last number of years and outsourced anything that could be. The license fee revenue is obviously limited to a fixed amount and ad revenue is budgeted for so RTÉ just can't afford to run over budget. It's massively expensive to produce your own programming no matter what way you do it, hence the lack of such programming on other irish channels.

constitutionus

over paid "stars". look at what the top ten earners in RTE are getting ! its ridiculous, if pat kennys worth 700k then shake his hand say thanks very much and let him see what he'll get off TV3 . i mean what world are we living in where turbidy is worth more than mirriam o callaghan !?!
its the civil servant jobs for the boys mentality thats got these people on the wages their on. if you sacked everyone of em and drafted a bunch of students in to do the job i'd wager you'd still get the same viewing figures and save yourself a fortune in the process.

honestly what method is used to decide pat jerry brian joe marrion mirram charlie and tommy are worth what theyre on? because you can bet your hole they wouldnt get a tenth of it in the private irish broadcasting sector and they sure as hell arent being benchmarked against that !

superdudeman007

aidan_walsh wrote:

And whats wrong with RTE making their own versions of popular format shows?

Should Channel 4 cancel Deal or No Deal and Big Brother because people could watch them off Dutch television if they wanted to?

Should ITV and BBC cancel Come Dancing and Dancing on Ice because people can download episodes of So You Think You Can Dance?

Should Parkinson be cancelled because Leno has a job?

Perhaps Bosco and The Den should never have been aired because the BBC had childrens shows?

No, definately not.

Yes, lots of Channel 4 shows come from the Netherlands, but people in the UK can't be expected to watch Dutch TV. So these shows are still fresh and new to a British (& Irish) audience. 90% of the Irish population have access to the UK terrestrials and most of them also have Sky One etc. When we see something on RTE that's already been done in the UK it looks stale and boring because we've already seen it, not to mention cheap in comparison to a production by the Beeb.

The Panel is based on an Australian show. But I don't care because I don't watch/want Australian channels. RTE would get on fine if all of their shows were based on continental broadcasters. It's the fact that I've already seen a much better version of a show 2 years ago that wrecks my head.

American, Australian and other European formats would be fantastic on RTE. But they should decide not to try something if a UK channel (except five, but that would be crap anyway ) has already done it.

copacetic

constitutionus wrote:

over paid "stars". look at what the top ten earners in RTE are getting ! its ridiculous, if pat kennys worth 700k then shake his hand say thanks very much and let him see what he'll get off TV3 . i mean what world are we living in where turbidy is worth more than mirriam o callaghan !?!
its the civil servant jobs for the boys mentality thats got these people on the wages their on. if you sacked everyone of em and drafted a bunch of students in to do the job i'd wager you'd still get the same viewing figures and save yourself a fortune in the process.

honestly what method is used to decide pat jerry brian joe marrion mirram charlie and tommy are worth what theyre on? because you can bet your hole they wouldnt get a tenth of it in the private irish broadcasting sector and they sure as hell arent being benchmarked against that !

i don't think you are right there, why would 'civil servants' want pat kenny earning 20 times what they do? It's commercial sense to pay big names relative to what the earn you. Pat Kenny brings in millions in advertising revenue every year for the late late and his radio shows which more than pays his wages and many others too. The the same for all the 'big' names. Getting rid of them would lose RTÉ a fortune not save a penny.

You see these kinds of threads on boards all the time, but it betrays a lack of understanding of how RTÉ as a commercial PSB needs to operate.

You keep comparing to what they would earn in TV3 when they don't produce any big home TV shows. As for the radio names, that market is much more competitive and private sector stars earn similar salaries to RTÉ, why do you think the likes of Ray Darcy and Ian Dempsey work in the private sector?

superdudeman007

But there's no need to waste that kind of money on him when there's no danger of anyone else offering him more :rolleyes: He wouldn't be happy with the pay cut but he'd still be earning more than he would on Newstalk

copacetic

superdudeman007 wrote:

But there's no need to waste that kind of money on him when there's no danger of anyone else offering him more :rolleyes: He wouldn't be happy with the pay cut but he'd still be earning more than he would on Newstalk

well thats a more sensible opinion, rather than saying the license fee is paying for him. Why is it a 'waste' of money? In business you need to spend it to make it. Are you rolling your eyes at me in particular? Why? Considering Kenny does a lot of radio and a weekly high ratings TV show I wouldn't call him overpaid. If he went to today fm say for a radio show and TV3 were to do a dunphy type live show again he would prob get the same off them for it. I don't watch the late late or listen to his radio show, but they are clearly extremely popular based on listener and viewer figures.

superdudeman007

Public services shouldn't be out to make money and they keep raising the cost of the TV license whilst paying 700k a year to someone doing a job that volunteers on community stations can do equally as well. He may be popular but it doesn't mean he's worth it.

copacetic

superdudeman007 wrote:

Public services shouldn't be out to make money and they keep raising the cost of the TV license whilst paying 700k a year to someone doing a job that volunteers on community stations can do equally as well. He may be popular but it doesn't mean he's worth it.

why do you feel the need to shout? I see you are on loads of threads slagging off RTÉ so I guess you have an agenda rather than interested in a discussion.

You also seem to consistently either get your facts wrong on purpose or just not know them. RTÉ don't make any money, they need to produce commercial revenue to pay for their remit as the license fee doesn't cover the cost. All profits are put straight back in to production of programmes.

They also don't 'keep raising the license fee'. Don't tell me you don't even know how the system that you are on your high horse about works?

You seem to equate what you think to fact but you appear to simply not understand how our PSB system works.

flogen

copacetic wrote:

RTÉ don't make any money, they need to produce commercial revenue to pay for their remit as the license fee doesn't cover the cost. All profits are put straight back in to production of programmes.

I would put a more refined point on what he's trying to say and suggest that a PSB should not be seeking to make money but should be seeking to produce the best quality produce it can - naturally RTÉ is in a far different position to, say, the BBC and I have no problem with them turning a profit as long as it's completely re-invested in the station.

As for the changes I think need to be made in RTÉ - well I do think some people are over-paid (Pat Kenny must be on at least €1 million by now). I take your point that they probably produce more than that for the station (no way to be sure but I'm willing to believe it in many cases) and I don't exactly see the point that RTÉ should only pay what a commercial station would because that's completely subjective and impossible to gauge (there is no commercial TV personality wage scale).

On top of the wage issue I think that the semi-commercial nature of RTÉ hasn't helped it to become to adventurous and while a fair few people's favourites are par for the course I don't think there's enough minority interest programming by any stretch - rarely do I see much imagination in what RTÉ are doing with new shows (e.g. Junior Doctors was an interesting programme if one based on a very stale fly-on-the-wall format - they've now followed it up with a show about surgeons - and I think before JD there was a show about new barristers). Likewise I would have thought that a show like Seoige and O'Shea would replace The Afternoon Show as they're broadly covering the same housewife-friendly light entertainment section - or at least alternate between the two on each season like they've done for You're A Star and Jigs and Reels. I think a bigger portion of RTÉ programming should be made without any consideration for the interest of advertisers - let the big programmes subsidise the smaller ones.

I also believe that there's a level of synergy to be brought to some of their operations - for example I don't see why the newsroom for RTÉ.ie/Aertel needs to be completely seperate to the RTÉ TV and RTÉ Radio newsroom (it's in a different building even). There are obvious arguments for combining the three and having sections within the one large environment - that way each arm of RTÉ's news output can be kept up to date about everything the other is covering and dedicated teams can then produce content for their respective media.

superdudeman007 wrote:

Yes, lots of Channel 4 shows come from the Netherlands, but people in the UK can't be expected to watch Dutch TV. So these shows are still fresh and new to a British (& Irish) audience. 90% of the Irish population have access to the UK terrestrials and most of them also have Sky One etc. When we see something on RTE that's already been done in the UK it looks stale and boring because we've already seen it

What Dutch imports have RTÉ picked up, because I seem to have missed Irish Big Brother and Irish Deal or No Deal...

RTÉ's job is not to be innovative in everything it does - nor is the BBC's job to do that either - RTÉ are just unfortunate enough to live in the shadow of another station that is putting out standard-issue programming - it's a situation few PSBs find themselves in and any comparison is completely unfair.

Just because UK TV have game shows, chat shows, movie review shows etc. etc., does that mean Ireland should think of something completely unique instead? There's the point to be made that as a PSB they need to serve information in these areas from an Irish PoV, so I'd never suggest that RTÉ shouldn't be doing something just because BBC, ITV or C4 is doing something similar.

The Panel is based on an Australian show. But I don't care because I don't watch/want Australian channels. RTE would get on fine if all of their shows were based on continental broadcasters. It's the fact that I've already seen a much better version of a show 2 years ago that wrecks my head.

So why is it that UK channels can base their programming on continental shows, but RTÉ can't? Tough luck, RTÉ, because the TV behemoths at BBC and ITV and put out high quality programming in pretty much every conceivable genre... you should probably just give up.

American, Australian and other European formats would be fantastic on RTE. But they should decide not to try something if a UK channel (except five, but that would be crap anyway ) has already done it.

Why not? I'm not a fan of The Late Late Show, but in its early days it was extremely culturally significant and played a huge role in forcing issues into the minds of the Irish viewer - should that have been scrapped in the face of a BBC equivalent? Jeremy Beadle did the whole "hidden camera setup" thing a decade or more ago, so should we knock Naked Camera on the head despite it being one of the better Irish comedy programmes in recent years?

superdudeman007

Copacetic wrote:

RTÉ don't make any money, they need to produce commercial revenue to pay for their remit as the license fee doesn't cover the cost. All profits are put straight back in to production of programmes.

Flogen wrote:

I have no problem with them turning a profit as long as it's completely re-invested in the station.

Copacetic said that in business you had to spend money to "make" it. If that involves giving Pat Kenny 700k a year I suggest RTE be run as a subscription service.

Flogen wrote:

Jeremy Beadle did the whole "hidden camera setup" thing a decade or more ago, so should we knock Naked Camera on the head despite it being one of the better Irish comedy programmes in recent years?

The BBC was hardly the first to do a hidden camera show and at least the ideas on Naked Camera are original most of the time.

Flogen wrote:

What Dutch imports have RTÉ picked up, because I seem to have missed Irish Big Brother and Irish Deal or No Deal...

I didn't say they had to be Dutch....

It's just annoying to see that RTE is so heavily based on the BBC. I never said they couldn't use a news pres style from France for example - I just don't like seeing my money spent on a cheap attempt at something they're just not able to do.

superdudeman007

Anyone here familiar with sarcasm by the way?

flogen

superdudeman007 wrote:

Copacetic said that in business you had to spend money to "make" it. If that involves giving Pat Kenny 700k a year I suggest RTE be run as a subscription service.

You do - and that money you make is called profit and I have no issue with RTÉ posting a profit as long as it's re-invested in the PSB. I already agreed with you that some wages seem excessive but at the same time I don't begrudge anyone earning extremely well where deserved, in private or public enterprise.

The BBC was hardly the first to do a hidden camera show and at least the ideas on Naked Camera are original most of the time.

I never said they were, I'm just using your logic of RTÉ copying a format already used in the UK - you're criticising RTÉ for doing something that works in their own way and seem to suggest that just because the BBC did such a good job of it for their viewers, RTÉ shouldn't bother because they won't live up to that standard... oh, and all of the shows you've criticised here are just as original in their use of a standard format as Naked Camera - Jigs and Reels (as much as I hate it) is not a copy of Strictly Come Dancing IMO etc. etc. etc.

I didn't say they had to be Dutch....

It's just annoying to see that RTE is so heavily based on the BBC.

When do they base themselves on the BBC, any more than can be expected between two broadcasters producing PSB content for not-too-dissimilar audiences?

I never said they couldn't use a news pres style from France for example - I just don't like seeing my money spent on a cheap attempt at something they're just not able to do.

Have you watched BBC News compared to RTÉ News lately? They use completely differing styles.

Anyone here familiar with sarcasm by the way?

Yes - and you?

copacetic

flogen wrote:

I also believe that there's a level of synergy to be brought to some of their operations - for example I don't see why the newsroom for RTÉ.ie/Aertel needs to be completely seperate to the RTÉ TV and RTÉ Radio newsroom (it's in a different building even). There are obvious arguments for combining the three and having sections within the one large environment - that way each arm of RTÉ's news output can be kept up to date about everything the other is covering and dedicated teams can then produce content for their respective media.

some good points above flogen, just picked this one as short on time and it's the one I disagree with most!

I think with the new site there is massive leverage of news and tv/radio content on the website, there is more content getting online every day. The issue of reporters working directly on .ie is a bit different as they are entirely commercially funded. For this reason they can't really just be put in with the rest of news. Although I'm not sure what potential for synergy as there are 100s in news and only a handful in .ie.

flogen

copacetic wrote:

some good points above flogen, just picked this one as short on time and it's the one I disagree with most!

I think with the new site there is massive leverage of news and tv/radio content on the website, there is more content getting online every day. The issue of reporters working directly on .ie is a bit different as they are entirely commercially funded. For this reason they can't really just be put in with the rest of news. Although I'm not sure what potential for synergy as there are 100s in news and only a handful in .ie.

Fair point - I can see that being a problem (Although how does it work for 2FM? I assume the people doing their news are the same as the people doing Radio 1's news?).. I suppose my issue is with the lack of communication caused by the separation. It seems to me that those working in .ie have to watch the 6.1 with the rest of us to see if RTÉ have a fresh story - and I imagine they rely largely on news agencies for copy because they don't have their own reporters around the country.

I don't think it should be the case that Charlie Bird and Co. write for .ie; I'd much rather they focus on the jobs they have, but I do think it's odd that one section of RTÉ doesn't seem to have access to the same resources as another, even though they're doing the same kind of job albeit in a different medium.

That said, I do agree that the new site has been a bit of an improvement but I still don't think they're taking full use of it and even having the .ie team working in the same room as the TV or radio news team could improve that somewhat.

superdudeman007

flogen wrote:

You do - and that money you make is called profit and I have no issue with RTÉ posting a profit as long as it's re-invested in the PSB. I already agreed with you that some wages seem excessive but at the same time I don't begrudge anyone earning extremely well where deserved, in private or public enterprise.

Pat Kenny's pockets aren't a PSB...

flogen wrote:

When do they base themselves on the BBC, any more than can be expected between two broadcasters producing PSB content for not-too-dissimilar audiences?

Why be indentical when they don't have to be?

flogen wrote:

Have you watched BBC News compared to RTÉ News lately? They use completely differing styles.

Yeah, they've been monitoring the TV Forum :rolleyes:

But look at RTE News presentation in the 90s:



And tell me it wasn't inspired by the BBC:

DMC

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel when your have to shore up your argument with links from the past.

But why argue with a fool? :rolleyes:

flogen

superdudeman007 wrote:

Pat Kenny's pockets aren't a PSB...

You're either being a troll or you're completely ignorant to how business, broadcasting and PSBs work. I'm going to go with the former.

Pat Kenny, just like anyone else who works for RTÉ, is part of the public service being provided. You may think he (and others) are overpaid, and I happen to agree with you to some extent but by your logic RTÉ should not be paying wages at all.

RTÉ need to continually invest in many areas, including personnel.

Why be indentical when they don't have to be?

They're not identical, not even nearly identical, so your point is invalid.

Yeah, they've been monitoring the TV Forum :rolleyes:

But look at RTE News presentation in the 90s:



And tell me it wasn't inspired by the BBC:

So you're pulling up links from a decade ago to prove your claims that RTÉ is copying the BBC? Great stuff. Well done.

And besides the faux-glass logo I can't see any major similarities between the two, bar the standard news-delivery methods of the time.

Maybe you can tell me how the 6.1 of today copies from the BBC 6 O Clock news - you might be able to justify your case if you can.

flogen

DMC wrote:

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel when your have to shore up your argument with links from the past.

But why argue with a fool? :rolleyes:

Attack the post, not the poster etc.

No need to get personal, no matter what you really think of the person in question.

aidan_walsh

flogen wrote:

And besides the faux-glass logo I can't see any major similarities between the two, bar the standard news-delivery methods of the time.

The camera angles are similar, with RTE preferring the 7 o clock position to the BBC's 4 o clock one.

Also, both of them have the cameras directly facing the news presenters at the same angle. Clearly RTE should differentiate themselves by showing only the backs of the anchors heads.

superdudeman007

aidan_walsh wrote:

The camera angles are similar, with RTE preferring the 7 o clock position to the BBC's 4 o clock one.

Also, both of them have the cameras directly facing the news presenters at the same angle. Clearly RTE should differentiate themselves by showing only the backs of the anchors heads.

If the BBC hadn't used a huge virtual set we could have had a decent RTE one

constitutionus

just out of interest anyone have the figuers for the late late when gay was doing it and for pat now?

accounting for population it should be a good indication as to whether having any old muppet do the show would make any difference.

thats what i meant when i was saying pats not worth 700k (down 200 from last year ) the late late's a juggernaut. the gammy eyed bloke off the news could present that and it'd still bring in the viewers. were all just presuming he's worth what he's on but if his rating dont go down when he's on holidays then theres a good reason to assess if he's not just being overpaid. afterall this is our money so why are we giving more of it to an individual who'll do it for less because no one'll match it outside RTE, goodwill? not exactly the way to run a business but unfortunetly exactly the way you'd expect a semi state to operate.:rolleyes:

the civil servent remark was a dig at its "goverment tv/fm" roots back in the sixties. correct me if im wrong but i bet the way it was set up then is still the way its run now in terms of promotion and management structure all the way up to the board of directors which is why its so scared of the government and vested interests as an entity. just look at the appalling state of our comedy. little chance of the powers that be getting a good slagging from the state station. this is a sector TV3 could really stick them with but alas , no.

P.s if im right about the pat kenny thing then i reckon RTE should sack him and stick in grainne seoige. despite a high profile headhunting campaign to get her from SKY news the woman doesnt even show up in the top ten earners. it'd save us a fortune

just for god sake dont give us brian "my shows nothing like "the tonight show"" turbidy . some fates are worse than death.

Deflector

Yes, The Late Late Show up until 1999 achieved around 700,000 viewers a week on average, while Kenny Live circled about the 600,000-650,000 mark. The same audience figure for Kenny Live has largely been carried over to the Late Late, an impressive feat given the decline in television viewership generally since then; almost everything has declined substantially since. Remember Glenroe was achieving a million viewers on a Sunday night as late as the mid-90s. A large portion of the recent population increase is also irrelevant given the enormous influx of foreign nationals who do not watch Irish television services.

In terms of Pat's ability to pull in viewers over that of somebody else, it is fair to deduce from relatively recent schedule changes that he holds a drawing power greater than most broadcasters in Ireland. When Saturday Live replaced Kenny Live in 1999-2000, we saw an immediate drop down to 400,000 viewers, and less. Mary Kennedy and Bibi Baskin drew similar figures for their respective shows on Saturdays, while even today Tubridy and Miriam O'Callaghan can only pull up to 500,000, the rare high profile peak aside. Pat consistently pulls in 500,000 as a base figure every week, hitting 600,000 most nights, and regularly far beyond. Whether anybody else could achieve that on a Friday night is difficult to guage - possible, but probably with greater inconsistency. It is not just his audience share that is significant, but also his consistent and loyal demographic - this is what advertisers pay for, and incidentally who are paying him, not the licence payer, in spite of the PSB character of his programmes.

Pat's salary has not declined by €200,000, rather last year's payment of €900,000 included a back-payment from a previously undervalued contract year, so it continues at €700,000 as of the new contract.

In terms of his 'value' in broadcasting, as with many fields, one is not simply paid a lump sum for all services tendered, but rather is paid per production and the success or otherwise of each. As a result, Pat like everyone else, is (rightly) paid seperately for each production he works on, which are completely seperate entities. Even Derek Mooney, who is the highest paid staff member in RTÉ, is paid by way of his seperate programmes of Mooney on radio, and Winning Streak on television. Similarly Miriam O'Callaghan's Prime Time and Saturday programmes are assessed seperately, as with Seán O'Rourke, Ryan Tubridy, Gerry Ryan and Joe Duffy who both do occasional television work, Mary Kennedy, Bryan Dobson, etc etc. Pat is no different: the fact that he just happens to present two of the highest profile programmes in Ireland is irrelevant.

As such he gets paid a comparitively modest €400,000 or so for The Late Late Show, and €300,000 for his Today radio programme. Entirely reasonable figures for the profile of said productions, the specialised professional services tendered, and the level of work done, and more than compatible with the commercial sector. Indeed commercial radio pays considerably higher than what RTÉ pays its radio presenters.

And not intending to make this into a pro-Pat mantra, his Late Late alone pulls in around €13 million a year in advertising, excluding the circa €1 million sponsorship deal with Halifax and the wider benefits accrued to the broadcaster by its transmission. One show alone virtually pays for the services of its host.

flogen

Deflector wrote:

Pat's salary has not declined by €200,000, rather last year's payment of €900,000 included a back-payment from a previously undervalued contract year, so it continues at €700,000 as of the new contract.

Without going into your post too much, I would like to point out that the more recent salaries available for RTÉ staff is from 2004 - I'm willing to bet that things have changed significantly since then (and I think the 2005 figures are due out next month).

Also, as an interesting aside, I think 9 out of the top 10 earners of 2004 get paid into their own production/holding companies... I can only guess that this has some kind of taxation implications.

Deflector

They do get paid into their own companies, but what they do with the funds is up to them, as with any invividual. Some include: Pat Kenny Media Services Ltd. of Pat Kenny, Balcom Management Ltd. of Gerry Ryan, Claddaghgreen Ltd. of Joe Duffy, and Montrose Services Ltd. of Marian Finucane.

The latest figures as posted above were for 2005, and if I recall are at least three-year deals.