BBC/Camelot
John Clifford Hole
new contract,with Camelot,and are offering to give them £20,000 of our
licence fee money each time that they broadcast the lottery results.
As there are at least two draws a week that works out to,at the
minimum,£2,080,000 of licence fee money that could be used,instead,to make
some decent programs.
Why are the BBC paying Camelot to advertise their National Lottery Draw
when,I would have thought,it should be Camelot who should be paying them to
advertise their product ?
Commercial broadcasting companies don't pay advertisers,so that they can
show adverts for their products,they are paid,by the companies,to broadcast
them.
What makes Camelot different from all the other companies trying to generate
interest in selling their product ?
John Clifford Hole [MVP] of Enfield Middlesex
Chris Parrott
to have a back hand with the government.........
Chris
"John Clifford Hole" <john....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a04q76$r1l$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
DiskKoppy
they were rejected!
DK.
"Chris Parrott" <kevin_...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3c25e...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Johannes H Andersen
John Clifford Hole wrote:
>
> According to today's Daily Mail the BBC are in the process of negotiating a
> new contract,with Camelot,and are offering to give them £20,000 of our
> licence fee money each time that they broadcast the lottery results.
>
> As there are at least two draws a week that works out to,at the
> minimum,£2,080,000 of licence fee money that could be used,instead,to make
> some decent programs.
>
> Why are the BBC paying Camelot to advertise their National Lottery Draw
> when,I would have thought,it should be Camelot who should be paying them to
> advertise their product ?
>
Quite right. I'm not interested in the program and have switched it off long
time ago since it just hooks you for the numbers. If the numbers were drawn
in the beginning of the program, then I guess many viewers would switch
over. However, the NL needs to show the draw live in some way.
Maybe it has something to do with the word "National". The National Lottery
and National Telly. My head is spinning - I also don't get it...
> Commercial broadcasting companies don't pay advertisers,so that they can
> show adverts for their products,they are paid,by the companies,to broadcast
> them.
>
> What makes Camelot different from all the other companies trying to generate
> interest in selling their product ?
>
Something to do with Camelot is just the provider, contracted by the guv for
doing the NL, and NL is a public service?
Johannes
The Manual
"John Clifford Hole" <john....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a04q76$r1l$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
a
> new contract,with Camelot,and are offering to give them £20,000 of our
> licence fee money each time that they broadcast the lottery results.
>
> As there are at least two draws a week that works out to,at the
> minimum,£2,080,000 of licence fee money that could be used,instead,to make
> some decent programs.
>
initially really glad to get the draw on BBC1. The BBC doesn't need to do it
EXCEPT to put a star vehicle chat/game show around it (and they've without
exception been lousy).
But it sounds like yet another reason why the BBC is going to go down the
tubes, and sooner rather than later.
Richardr
@btinternet.com says...
> Why are the BBC paying Camelot to advertise their National Lottery Draw
> when,I would have thought,it should be Camelot who should be paying them to
> advertise their product ?
The BBC feel that the ratings justify it, and presumably other
broadcasters are interested.
The BBC do also give the pools information, when they could just give
the football results, and also the betting (and tote) information
following horse races, rather than just give the 1,2,3.
The Manual
"Richardr" <myn...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16900c8db...@news.cable.ntlworld.com...
But do they pay for that?
Mark
of license payers money to get their crap shit show televised, well
there really is something seriously wrong here.
The BBC should tell Camelot to get stuffed and for that matter so
should any other broadcaster.
More to the point, it would not suprise me if other broadcasters have
told Camelot to get stuffed and in actual fact there is some sort of
'Under the table game' going on between Camelot and BBC bosses that is
facilitating this foolish behavour and allowing it to go on.
Still we just pay the fucking license fee and we don't get to say how
it is spent.
Richardr <myn...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.16900c8db...@news.cable.ntlworld.com>...
John Clifford Hole
> The BBC do also give the pools information, when they could just give the
football results, and also the betting (and tote) information following
horse races, rather than just give the 1,2,3. <
Do they have to pay whoever supplies them with these as well ?
John Clifford Hole [MVP] of Enfield Middlesex
"Richardr" <myn...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16900c8db...@news.cable.ntlworld.com...
The Reverend Bob
meandering on 23 Dec 2001 10:12:31 -0800:
>Camelot make absolutely shit loads of cash,
Ackshirley, compared to the revenues that the Lottery generates,
Camelot don't make that much money. About £50m a year IIRC. Doesn't
excuse how they got the franchise in the first place, or their
relationship to the bribing, fraudulent bastards at G-Tech
(manufacturers of the terminals) who were routinely alleged to have
bribed key politicians in the US to get appropriate law changes
allowing lotteries to be run across the States, as well as other
changes to anti-gambling legislation, and several senators were
investigated on corruption-related charges involving themselves and
G-Tech which is why Richard Branson's allegations were hardly
surprising.
Disclaimer: Camelot no longer have any association with G-Tech (who
were a 20% shareholder in the Camelot Group IIRC), and no individual
has ever been convicted in association to allegations involving
G-Tech.
Note: Disclaimer included because we're talking about the sort of
dubious gits who would sue over such statements as made eariler
regardless of whether they are true or not. UK libel laws are nasty as
it is, but the US allows for contentious tort whereby making a true
allegation can result in losing a case and massively increasing
potential damages - it can be cheaper to make a false allegation. I
don't have a contractual relationsip with G-Tech AFAIA, but i'd wager
that some smart-ass lawyer would argue that having played the lottery
would allow contractual tort to come into play even on areas unrelated
to the game itself. They'd lose that argument, but i couldn't afford
to fight it.
> for them to charge £20,000
>of license payers money to get their crap shit show televised, well
>there really is something seriously wrong here.
If broadcasters pay money for something then they generally believe it
to be worth it. £20k per show is cheap for license rights, and the
show itself can't cost much. £40k tops anyone? AFAIA, this is about
the average cost for a game show in the UK compared to a possible
£300k for an original drama. This explains why game shows are so
prevalent esp. in the US where an original drama can easily cost in
excess of US$2m per show.
Why do you think 'reality' programming has become so common-place?
Because it's dirt-ass cheap. The ratings might not be as high, but it
still generates a reasonable audience allowing you to charge
advertisers a premium and consequently you maximise your profits.
Whether they should be paying for what is essentially advertising is
another matter, although the Beeb probably want to use the show as
feeder to draw audience into subsequent shows in which case it
probably justifies its cost.
>The BBC should tell Camelot to get stuffed and for that matter so
>should any other broadcaster.
The Beeb maybe should, but i don't see why others should. They're
commercial enterprises (even C4 which is state-owned *and* normally
makes a profit for the treasury), and should be able to spend their
cash any way they please.
However, the Beeb has an interesting problem, If it doesn't get good
enough ratings then there are calls to kill its (effective)
state-funding as it isn't serving enough people to justify its
continued state support. If it does chase ratings then there are calls
to privatise it because it's not interested in public service
broadcasting. It's a circle that can't be squared.
Personally, i'd rather the licence fee were made optional and that if
you didn't want the beeb then you didn't get it if you didn't pay the
licence fee which is do-able on the digital systems. This could even
be extended to selling licences to overseas viewers and the Beeb would
make a lot of money out of this - there are many overseas viewers who
would pay for the Beeb if they could.
--
contact: rev...@hotmail.com
"Space sucks and gravity gets you down... What ya gonna do?"
Mark
Thanks Bob for simplifying the issue for us all.