I dont watch any tv services in Ireland....

MilanPan!c

NormanNicetouch wrote: »

Why should you have to pay for the soda and their ads when all you wanted was a soda? You get no benefit from the ads but are still forced to pay for them. At least with RTE you have the option of benefiting by using their services. It is you who chooses not to do so.

That's not even vaguely reasonable.

We live in a capitalist society where companies can spend how they see fit. Many of them spend in ads to make and retain customers.

You'd happily do away with that and allow governments sell their own soda and force non-soda drinkers subsidise it.

It's nonsense.

I should NOT be forced to pay for the creation of a consumer product - via a tax - on the off chance I might want to "benefit" from it at some point, especially when it's of relatively crap quality and only 25% of the people being forced to fund it think it's good enough to use.

STB

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Just so we're clear.

The broadcaster that all of us has to pay for, at best, gets one out of four viewers.

And people such as yourself consider this a roaring success.

What percentage of people in the UK watch the BBC?

No. Just so we are clear that is not the way it works. Before you come out with ridiculous statements ("people such as you") you should understand the difference between various terms for measuring audience measurement.

To put it into perspective for you this is the Channel Share for Ireland accross all platforms. ie Each channels viewing share for a particular time
period. The share is calculated by dividing the channel’s average audience by the average audience of all channels. Its conducted by Nielsen.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

About the same?

Just three years ago almost 100% of people in the UK consumed at least 15 of BBC TV broadcasting per week:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/pdf/audience_0711.pdf

Almost 70% listened to some BBC radio every week as well.

And here it's what? 25% for RTE?

Also tell me, what percentage of people in the UK watch RTE?

Edit:

Here's the figures from last year and surprisingly the percentage of viewers has actually increased since 2011:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/accountability/pdf/summary_audience_information_january_march_2013.pdf

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I should NOT be forced to pay for the creation of a consumer product - via a tax - on the off chance I might want to "benefit" from it at some point, especially when it's of relatively crap quality and only 25% of the people being forced to fund it think it's good enough to use.

You really need to read up on audience measurement because you do not know you arse from your elbow pal.

MilanPan!c

STB wrote: »

No. Just so we are clear that is not the way it works. Before you come out with ridiculous statements ("people such as you") you should understand the difference between various terms for measuring audience measurement.

To put it into perspective for you this is the Channel Share for Ireland accross all platforms. ie Each channels viewing share for a particular time
period. The share is calculated by dividing the channel’s average audience by the average audience of all channels. Its conducted by Nielsen.






You really need to read up on audience measurement because you do not know you arse from your elbow pal.

Right. So all of that and you don't actually contradict me at all.

The audience for the BBC in the UK is much higher than the audience for RTE in Ireland. The audience for RTE programming outside of Ireland is basically nil, while the audience for what the BBC creates is global.

Yes, it's true that that 2.5 out of 10 Irish people watch RTE, but soon 100% of Irish household will have to pay for content that 7.5 out of 10 Irish people do not value at all.

And this tax that puts an unfair burden on the majority that don't use it and don't benefit from the likes of Ryan Tubridy and his bloated salary, well the majority should just bow to the minority and be happy to subsidise it.

Yes?

Give. Me. A. Break.

Many many many amazing bits of commercial tele, in fact almost all tele and radio in the world that matters to the majority of people is paid for with commercial sponsorship, not taxes.

lertsnim

I have no children, why do my taxes pay for schools.
I never go to hospital, why do my taxes pay for hospitals.

No different to the argument about not watching RTE

Mr Pseudonym

lertsnim wrote: »

I have no children, why do my taxes pay for schools.
I never go to hospital, why do my taxes pay for hospitals.

No different to the argument about not watching RTE

It could be argued that RTE is an unnecessary public body...but I wouldn't do so.

Mr Pseudonym

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Right. So all of that and you don't actually contradict me at all.

The audience for the BBC in the UK is much higher than the audience for RTE in Ireland. The audience for RTE programming outside of Ireland is basically nil, while the audience for what the BBC creates is global.

Yes, it's true that that 2.5 out of 10 Irish people watch RTE, but soon 100% of Irish household will have to pay for content that 7.5 out of 10 Irish people do not value at all.

And this tax that puts an unfair burden on the majority that don't use it and don't benefit from the likes of Ryan Tubridy and his bloated salary, well the majority should just bow to the minority and be happy to subsidise it.

Yes?

Give. Me. A. Break.

Many many many amazing bits of tele, in fact almost all tele and radio in the world that matters to the majority of people is paid for with commercial sponsorship, not taxes.

I'm not especially qualified to comment, but I'm aware that the share refers to television sets rather than viewers - ie the number of televisions which were on and tuned-in. Several people could be watching the same set. The "reach" as a percentage of adult population is likely much much larger.

I don't really understand your post. BBC audience would of course be bigger because it serves a larger population. Did you mean it's bigger in percentage terms? RTE provides content that unquestionably wouldn't be produced if it were replaced with a commercial operator.

MilanPan!c

lertsnim wrote: »

I have no children, why do my taxes pay for schools.
I never go to hospital, why do my taxes pay for hospitals.

No different to the argument about not watching RTE

The entirety of society benefits from a well educated population.

That's wildly different to the impact of RTE.

MilanPan!c

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I'm not especially qualified to comment, but I'm aware that the share refers to television sets rather than viewers - ie the number of televisions which were on and tuned-in. Several people could be watching the same set. The "reach" as a percentage of adult population is likely much much larger.

I don't really understand your post. BBC audience would of course be bigger because it serves a larger population. Did you mean it's bigger in percentage terms? RTE provides content that unquestionably wouldn't be produced if it were replaced with a commercial operator.

Much bigger percentage wise.

And re Nielsen:

Unless you think 100% of the population watches 25% of the TVs it's not much of a point. There's plenty of times when my household of four only has one person watching TV.

Elmo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Much bigger percentage wise.

And re Nielsen:

Unless you think 100% of the population watches 25% of the TVs it's not much of a point. There's plenty of times when my household of four only has one person watching TV.

Sorry Just got around to replying now I was talking about the average audience per day you will find those figures for bbc channels on barb.co.uk

However there are statistic statistics and damn lies.

STB

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Right. So all of that and you don't actually contradict me at all.

The audience for the BBC in the UK is much higher than the audience for RTE in Ireland. The audience for RTE programming outside of Ireland is basically nil, while the audience for what the BBC creates is global.

Yes, it's true that that 2.5 out of 10 Irish people watch RTE, but soon 100% of Irish household will have to pay for content that 7.5 out of 10 Irish people do not value at all.

And this tax that puts an unfair burden on the majority that don't use it and don't benefit from the likes of Ryan Tubridy and his bloated salary, well the majority should just bow to the minority and be happy to subsidise it.

Yes?

Give. Me. A. Break.

Many many many amazing bits of commercial tele, in fact almost all tele and radio in the world that matters to the majority of people is paid for with commercial sponsorship, not taxes.

I have explained it to you and you are still posting nonsense. I told you quite clearly that you dont know your arse from your elbow. Channel Share, Penetration and Reach are all diifferent measurement tools. You still do not seem to have grasped that, so I will spell it out for you.

The BBC's channel share is less in the Uk than RTE's is in Ireland!

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-total-viewing-summary

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Much bigger percentage wise.

And re Nielsen:

Unless you think 100% of the population watches 25% of the TVs it's not much of a point. There's plenty of times when my household of four only has one person watching TV.

BBC1 has a Channel Share of 22.7% in the UK. That does not mean that only one in five people watch it in the UK.

Similarily with RTE, where their Channel Share is 25+%, this does not mean that one in 4 people watch RTE. In Ireland the BBC1's Channel Share percentage is 4%. RTE's channel share for all RTE TV stations is 30%.

Reach is what measures if any one watches the channel at any stage.

Please stop embarrassing yourself posting inaccurate information based on your interpretation of something you quite clearly do not understand.

Mr Pseudonym

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Much bigger percentage wise.

And re Nielsen:

Unless you think 100% of the population watches 25% of the TVs it's not much of a point. There's plenty of times when my household of four only has one person watching TV.

Both points have been rejected by others, but I'll repeat.

RTE has a larger Share in Ireland than BBC has in the UK. Ofc, with more variety, that would be expected

And BARB data show that, in the UK, BBC One has a Share of 23% but a Reach of 81%.

MilanPan!c

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Both points have been rejected by others, but I'll repeat.

RTE has a larger Share in Ireland than BBC has in the UK. Ofc, with more variety, that would be expected

And BARB data show that, in the UK, BBC One has a Share of 23% but a Reach of 81%.

ACTUALLY.

RTE, who's share is dropping year on year, especially with kids, gets a share of 27.7.

BBC in the UK, gets a share of 28.6.

If you look at radio the difference is even more stark:

BBC radio has a 68% reach: http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php

RTE radio has a 34% reach: http://www.bai.ie/?page_id=142

And of course, some of the most popular shows on RTE, aren't created by RTE, or are sports broadcasts, which are not in fact original content of RTE.

For example, of the top 50 shows of 2013, HALF were either sports or US/UK imports, or shows shown on TV3, etc.

When you say RTE is getting a 25% share remember that it's 10th most popular broadcast OF THE YEAR was a Toy Story movie.

In other words, it's as important as a DVD player in many cases.

7upfree

Elmo wrote: »

The TV Licence doesn't just cover TV. It also pays for national institutions like the concert orchestras.

If you have a TV you need to pay for a TV licence, if you don't watch TV then you have no requirement for a TV.

It pays for elitist institutions for which there is little, or no, demand. If people want this stuff then pay for it. Don't expect the rest of us to.

MilanPan!c

Sure, there's a very easy solution to the dispute:

If you want RTE pay for it, but adjust your license fee up by 300% to cover the 75% of people that don't use it's services.

The rest of us, who don't use it can't simply stop paying for something we don't use and everyone wins...

I'm sure all the RTE fanatics will have no probs paying close to €400 for their TV license.... and the rest of us will stop complaining about you robbing our tax money for **** we don't use.

7upfree

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Sure, there's a very easy solution to the dispute:

If you want RTE pay for it, but adjust your license fee up by 300% to cover the 75% of people that don't use it's services.

The rest of us, who don't use it can't simply stop paying for something we don't use and everyone wins...

I'm sure all the RTE fanatics will have no probs paying close to €400 for their TV license.... and the rest of us will stop complaining about you robbing our tax money for **** we don't use.

You're spot on. If people want to watch this endless drivel then let them pay for it.

MilanPan!c

7upfree wrote: »

You're spot on. If people want to watch this endless drivel then let them pay for it.

It seems like people are scared that the majority that don't watch RTE are gonna take their money and run, meaning the end to such "gems" and Mrs Brown's Boys and Fair City.

Imagine paying €400 a year for access to Fair City... [shudders]

Sure the way that HBO gets people to pay is by producing amazing TV... maybe if RTE did that, people wouldn't complain... nah I'm just kidding, that'll never happen.

Elmo

Suppose we should just close down all the museums, national parks, arts, libraries etc sure they are only for the elites.

In relation to bbc radio local radio was traditional made up of local bbc stations unlike here where local radio is the domain of private companies such as UTV and Communicorp. Unlikely that rte would be allowed have local radio stations.

Mr Pseudonym

MilanPan!c wrote: »

ACTUALLY.

RTE, who's share is dropping year on year, especially with kids, gets a share of 27.7.

BBC in the UK, gets a share of 28.6.

If you look at radio the difference is even more stark:

BBC radio has a 68% reach: http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php

RTE radio has a 34% reach: http://www.bai.ie/?page_id=142

And of course, some of the most popular shows on RTE, aren't created by RTE, or are sports broadcasts, which are not in fact original content of RTE.

For example, of the top 50 shows of 2013, HALF were either sports or US/UK imports, or shows shown on TV3, etc.

When you say RTE is getting a 25% share remember that it's 10th most popular broadcast OF THE YEAR was a Toy Story movie.

In other words, it's as important as a DVD player in many cases.

First, I don't know where you got your figures for Audience Share: they are different from what was in STB's post and the BARB data I posted. It is true that all four of BBC's TV channels (excluding, ofc, News, Parliament, etc) combined have a larger Share, but I would argue that it's only appropriate to compare RTE's two-channel Share with that of the combination of BBC One and Two. By that comparison, RTE's Share is still larger. You would expect, with there being more competitors in the UK, BBC to have a smaller Share, but it should also be considered that having such a diversity of programming, as the BBC does, increases its Share in comparison.

Again, it's inappropriate to compare the reach of the whole of BBC's Radio offering with RTE's. RTE Radio 1 (24%) compares well with it's closest BBC equivalents: R4 (21%) and R5L (13%).

Have you got a link to the top-50 shows?

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Sure the way that HBO gets people to pay is by producing amazing TV... maybe if RTE did that, people wouldn't complain... nah I'm just kidding, that'll never happen.

HBO has 30m subscribers and $3bn+ in revenues. RTE's total license fee allocation to TV is €110m. Also, RTE's commitments are not just Drama and Entertainment.

MilanPan!c

Elmo wrote: »

Suppose we should just close down all the museums, national parks, arts, libraries etc sure they are only for the elites.

In relation to bbc radio local radio was traditional made up of local bbc stations unlike here where local radio is the domain of private companies such as UTV and Communicorp. Unlikely that rte would be allowed have local radio stations.

Here we go again, comparing parks and libraries to pop radio and Fair City...

We all know HOW CRUCIAL Fair City is to us as a nation...

And imagine an Ireland that didn't give Ryan Tubridy €750K of our tax dollars every year, why - would it even be Ireland any more?!?

As for local radio, there's alternatives to the BBC in pretty much every city in the UK... same as here... just that, in the UK people choose to listen to the BBC in much higher numbers because it's of a much higher standard.

MilanPan!c

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

First, I don't know what you've got your figures for Audience Share: they are different from what was in STB's post and the BARB data I posted. It is true that all four of BBC's TV (excluding, ofc, News, Parliament, etc) channels combined have a larger Share, but I would argue that it's only appropriate to compare RTE's two-channel share with that of the combination of BBC One and Two. By that comparison, RTE's Share is still larger. While you would expect, with there being more competitors in the UK, BBC to have a smaller Share, but having such a diversity of programming benefits BBC on that measure.

Again, it's inappropriate to compare the reach of the whole of BBC's Radio offering with RTE's. RTE Radio 1 (24%) compares well with it's closest BBC equivalents: R4 (21%) and R5L (13%).

Have you got a link to the top-50 shows?

HBO has 30m subscribers and $3bn+ in revenues. RTE's total license fee allocation to TV is €110m. Also, RTE's commitments are not just Drama and Entertainment.

Of course you would argue that, as it suits you. Whether or not it's fair to argue it is a whole different story.

As for the list of shows, they're in the Nielson data.

As for choosing what radio stations you want to comapare, well... it's pretty obvious that you'd like to compare what suits you, but again, it's certainly not accurate, is it?

We're talking about what one gets for their license fee and how many people use that service, not how well one RTE station does compared to one BBC station...

Though if you would like to compare BBC Radio 1 to RTE Lyric FM, sure, lets.

Once you make honest comparisons the failure of RTE is pretty clear...

But don't let that stop you from demanding that I subsidise Fair City.

Mr Pseudonym

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Of course you would argue that, as it suits you. Whether or not it's fair to argue it is a whole different story.

As for the list of shows, they're in the Nielson data.

As for choosing what radio stations you want to comapare, well... it's pretty obvious that you'd like to compare what suits you, but again, it's certainly not accurate, is it?

We're talking about what one gets for their license fee and how many people use that service, not how well one RTE station does compared to one BBC station...

Though if you would like to compare BBC Radio 1 to RTE Lyric FM, sure, lets.

Once you make honest comparisons the failure of RTE is pretty clear...

But don't let that stop you from demanding that I subsidise Fair City.

I think it is entirely appropriate to compare RTE's offering with the equivalent of BBC. Obviously, the more diversity offered, the higher the likely Share: if RTE could afford a children's channel, for instance, attracting an entirely disengaged demographic would increase Share!

MilanPan!c

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I think it is entirely appropriate to compare RTE's offering with the equivalent of BBC. Obviously, the more diversity offered, the higher the likely Share: if RTE could afford a children's channel, for instance, attracting an entirely disengaged demographic would increase Share!

It's not appropriate at all.

The comparison is what people get for their money.

I know it's nice to make comparisons that help your position, but they're not exactly fair.

Maybe if RTE offered less but it was of much higher quality, maybe it'd be fair, but... offering less, of lesser quality, and making everyone pay through the nose, all the while only getting a 25 share - which is itself declining... and on top of that, some of RTE's most popular programming is cheap to produce stuff like Sport, the Toy Show, Eurovision and US kids movies...?

Gimme a break.

Mr Pseudonym

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It's not appropriate at all.

The comparison is what people get for their money.

I know it's nice to make comparisons that help your position, but they're not exactly fair.

Maybe if RTE offered less but it was of much higher quality, maybe it'd be fair, but... offering less, of lesser quality, and making everyone pay through the nose, all the while only getting a 25 share - which is itself declining... and on top of that, some of RTE's most popular programming is cheap to produce stuff like Sport, the Toy Show, Eurovision and US kids movies...?

Gimme a break.

I commend you on conveying your bluster with your prose!

I believe it to be appropriate. RTE is shackled by having a budget overwhelmingly smaller. The more diverse a station's offering, the larger the Share will likely be.

My comparisons help my position, but were not false. If you believe RTE should match BBC, with its income of £3.5bn, you're an idiot! I imagine you don't believe that, though; you accept that RTE can only compete in some areas. I compared those areas!

What you say about it being fair if their content were of much higher quality completely contradicts your criticism of my comparison!

evilivor

MilanPan!c wrote: »

some of RTE's most popular programming is cheap to produce stuff like Sport.

Sports is very expensive to acquire and produce - probably the most expensive.

MilanPan!c

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I commend you on conveying your bluster with your prose!

I believe it to be appropriate. RTE is shackled by having a budget overwhelmingly smaller. The more diverse a station's offering, the larger the Share will likely be.

My comparisons help my position, but were not false. If you believe RTE should match BBC, with its income of £3.5bn, you're an idiot! I imagine you don't believe that, though; you accept that RTE can only compete in some areas. I compared those areas!

What you say about it being fair if their content were of much higher quality completely contradicts your criticism of my comparison!

No.

If RTE can't offer something comparable they should either change or be forced to shut the doors.

You talk about their budget woes, but BBC only pays Jeremy Clarkson, who makes the BBC millions with his Top Gear brand, it only pays him £1M. Tubridy makes €750K.

Like so much, the Irish overpays for RTE by an astonishing amount, and gets almost nothing in return save for sports coverage and clones of UK TV shows and licensed int'l shows and radio that can't even compete in many regional markets.

RTE is a waste of money. It's quality is fairly shocking and it's reach is declining and for good reason.

If you want it, start a petition to have it become a pay channel like HBO. See how many Irish people would be willing to pay their fair share for it if the rest of us were allowed to stop..

Mr Pseudonym

MilanPan!c wrote: »

No.

If RTE can't offer something comparable they should either change or be forced to shut the doors.

You talk about their budget woes, but BBC only pays Jeremy Clarkson, who makes the BBC millions with his Top Gear brand, it only pays him £1M. Tubridy makes €750K.

Like so much, the Irish overpays for RTE by an astonishing amount, and gets almost nothing in return save for sports coverage and clones of UK TV shows and licensed int'l shows and radio that can't even compete in many regional markets.

RTE is a waste of money. It's quality is fairly shocking and it's reach is declining and for good reason.

If you want it, start a petition to have it become a pay channel like HBO. See how many Irish people would be willing to pay their fair share for it if the rest of us were allowed to stop..

Tubridy no longer earns that much - he now earns €495k. Still too much, but less than you said. Clarkson had a joint share in the commercial revenue of Top Gear.

Mr Pseudonym

@MilanPan!c: I have been unable to find the Nielsen top-50 list that you mentioned. Please could you link it?

Dozen Wicked Words

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I think it is entirely appropriate to compare RTE's offering with the equivalent of BBC. Obviously, the more diversity offered, the higher the likely Share: if RTE could afford a children's channel, for instance, attracting an entirely disengaged demographic would increase Share!

Enjoying reading this thread, no great opinion on it which helps not get irate at either side of the argument. Just wondering though if you had forgotten rte does have a children's channel. RTE Jr.

MilanPan!c

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

@MilanPan!c: I have been unable to find the Nielsen top-50 list that you mentioned. Please could you link it?

http://www.agbnielsen.com/Uploads/Ireland/TVCONSUMPTIONREPORT2013.pdf

Mr Pseudonym

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Enjoying reading this thread, no great opinion on it which helps not get irate at either side of the argument. Just wondering though if you had forgotten rte does have a children's channel. RTE Jr.

Thank you - I wasn't aware of that! I knew only of the digital radio station.

However, it is clearly a fringe operation, and one which is only targeted at 2-6 y/o's. I think my point - that the more variety a broadcaster offers the likelier their Share is to be larger - still stands and is self-evident.

Have you run out of popcorn yet?!