> > But then, both of those methods still leave the > > question - > > how do you pay for the unpopular, but worthy, > >programming? > > PPV - you split the programme budget between the expected > >number of > > viewers. As such, EastEnders being a programme with many > > viewers, would > > cost less than a documentary on BBC Four.
> Wouldn't that drive an already small audience down even further? Depends on the programme. I suspect a lot of BBC Four viewers for example, would pay quite a lot for programmes on that channel. > If > you're going to make already unpopular programming even less popular, > why bother even trying to make it in the first place? And if you're only > going to make popular programming, then why would you need a public > broadcaster to do it? Ah well, there-in the problem. Lots of people would be very happy for the BBC to become subscription. Which begs the question - what's the point in a public broadcaster that doesn't provide a service to all. IMHO any subscription/PPV system would essentially destroy why BBC TV exists, and lines it up for privatisation. After all, why should the public own such a thing (this could be why Channel 4 decided to make all their digital channels free instead of subscription based) I didn't say PPV was a good idea - just that's one way of looking at it :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
