FrancieBrady wrote: » Fair question: Why spend 10,000 on something that could easily be seen by anyone with an interest in it.
tikkahunter wrote: » Because the viewing figures justifies the price they charge for advertising during the program. Same as taking an add out in a newspaper closer to the front or back pages will cost you more likewise on Tv the more popular the program the more expensive for the advertising slot . Maybe they thought the 10,000 was justified as the advertising revenue would exceed that .
FrancieBrady wrote: » You could justify showing anything that way. Noi big deal, it should be questioned though just like any expenditure should.
jh79 wrote: » It is a big thing all over the world so it seems reasonable that it would attract extra revenue on ads. There is a commercial side to RTE after all.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Do you have figures? I saw a tweet last night saying RTE should have sold ads for it...was there actually any ads? In the week that RTE axed a show that highlights Irish football, I think it perfectly correct to question decisions like this. Why be so afraid of a question?
jh79 wrote: » At 10k, there are more pressing issues with RTE. It was shown all over the world so the demand was there. Why would RTE be any different to any other TV station in the world?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Exactly...why the need for RTE to show while axing Irish content that licence payers have an expectation to see. Its a question. Let's see how they answer.
jh79 wrote: » But why single out this interview as opposed to lets say the Grammys or Oscars?
blanch152 wrote: » Because it is something the Irish public are interested in? You seem very out of touch.
“I think there is a wider issue here about how RTÉ spends its resources,” she said. “In February, we got the news that the Soccer Republic programme, the match-highlights programme for the League of Ireland, was to be axed due to scarce resources. “So, it is a little bit of a kick to those who support League of Ireland and want to see greater coverage of soccer in this country to see money being spent on the airing of this interview tonight.” Cost-cutting Senator Sherlock said the decision is harder to understand given RTÉ is currently going through a cost-cutting programme – including wage cuts, an €8.3m cost reduction plan and “a wider concern about the commissioning of arts content and other content” in Ireland. She said the key problem with the decision is the “message it sends out.” “Yes, as a once-off tonight, they might generate additional revenues but there has to be a wider question for the public service broadcaster in this country of their responsibility with regards to home-grown content, commissioning new content and how money is used.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The Irish public are interested in many things I dare say. I'd agree with the idea there is a wider issue here:
blanch152 wrote: » If RTE spend 10k on a programme (Soccer Republic) and get 1k ad revenue, RTE have a problem If RTE spend 10k on a programme (Harry and Meghan) and get 19k ad revenue, SF supporters have a problem, but RTE might be able to fund Soccer Republic. However, I would guess that it costs an awful lot more than 10k to produce Soccer Republic.
FrancieBrady wrote: » That was a Labour Senator I quoted. RTE is a National Broadcaster with a remit that is not always about profit. The majority who watched this have a prurient interest in the British royal family tearing itself apart, should the national broadcaster be pandering to that? No, in my opinion, that is a remit that better fits TV3.
James Brown wrote: » I'd imagine because there's often heavy Irish involvement for nominees and/or work made in Ireland etc.. The subject matter (the saxe-coburg-gothe) is kind of interesting but RTE shouldn't be spending tax payer money on programs can be seen elsewhere IMO. I'd have general issue with RTE on that though.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Same here, vast swathes of what happens here in sport, arts, culture and local activity is ignored by the national broadcaster. Lowest common denominator prurient nonsense like this shouldn't be having money spent on it (whatever profit it makes) while the other goes ignored.
Natterjack from Kerry wrote: » I would be critical too of RTE and don't think they should be transmitting one sided interviews that put the Queen and the monarchy in a bad light, and fair dues to SF for standing up for the monarchy and criticing this gutter and mudslinging type 'journalism'.
blanch152 wrote: » This is just so DeValera's Ireland. We should have a weekly Saturday evening programme featuring comely maidens dancing at crossroads. Interchange with the local pub where a ballad group plays Up the Ra songs.
walshb wrote: » I knew you'd be straight onto this. Their objection is based purely and simply on the fact that this was about a Royal couple....British based, or were Many many people all over the world wanted to watch...Makes perfect sense that RTE would tap into this.. It was utter sensationalist nonsense, granted, but this is the world we live in... There has been far worse broadcasted on RTE without anyone jumping in like SF here.
wicklowstevo wrote: » gas to see the usual party shills getting panties in a twist over some Germans and a Canadian without even knowing why
James Brown wrote: » Vital that you took the time to come in and post about it. Thanks?
FrancieBrady wrote: » The people who watched? Yeh, strange fascination, whether you are royalist or if you are watching for car crash value. Have no interest in it, tbh.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Of course you do. You are here to protect the royals from criticism. What else are you doing here otherwise?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
