Ever seen the credits for a BBC show? They give credit for 'Producers'.
What kind of a 'producer' would be a Government bureaucrat?
He's not risking his own or investor's money.
His financial state or reputation doesn't suffer if the show flops!
And of course he can't be fired, even if he loses $10,000,000!
Nobody gets fired from their featherbed jobs at the BBC.

There are various different types of producers in TV and film. Some have the original idea, and wrangle the money -- either finding it or supplying it.
The others wrangle the production process, overseeing budget, staffing, production and post processes with an eye toward realizing the creative vision.
It's a balance between the director and producer, but ultimately the producer has responsibility for control of the project. This all needs to happen in a corporate setting like BBC. If a BBC producer goes ten million over budget, he can certainly be canned -- or made "no longer a producer".

I'm guessing that the BBC also supports externally-funded business model (here's a show, we'll make it, you buy it and air it) sort of like most US TV.

Wiki probably has good descriptions, that I'll let you discover. Look at Producer, Executive Producer, Line Producer, etc.

Contributing writers, actors with decision making privileges or a significant financial stake, creative mentors who are "on call" (like Jon Stewart for Colbert's old and new show), and folks who did something for the production, but are not otherwise classified are given producer, co-producer, or assistant producer credits.

Chip

I used to work for the BBC and you do not know what you are talking about. The BBC is independent of government and funding is via the license fee and program sales.

The BBC have outsourced programs for many years. And if a producer flops then they get the sack (fired)!

The ones inside the BBC are the fakes; they don't fit the traditional free-enterprise definition of a Producer, and make a mockery of the challenges real Producers - in the real world - face.

The BBC is independent of government and funding is via the license fee and program sales.


Uh ... the license fee is a tax, so it is NOT independent of the government.
In the US NPR and PBS are the not quite same, as their government
funding comes from general revenue, and is funneled through a sham
intermediate.

NPR and PBS funds are decided by Congress. In the UK, the license fee is capped by government. The BBC is independent of government except by the license.

The BBC funding has always been limited. To suggest that a BBC producer is cradled is nonsense: if he doesn't make it, he gets the sack.

BBC programming quality is high and much cheaper to produce than US television. I remember we mused years ago that the cost of a 30 second spot in the last episode of MASH would have paid for at least two complete BBC costume dramas.

The BBC for more than a decade, has farmed out productions out of house as it is more cost effective. So you can't even say today that a BBC producer even works for the corporation.

Why don't you research the subject a bit more before making unqualified criticisms?

As for the broadcast unions, the ones in the US are far more militant and confrontational.

...NPR and PBS ...funding ... is funneled through a sham
intermediate.

You must mean the CPB, always thought strange and suspicious

. The BBC is independent of government except by the license.



"except by the license"? That's a big exception:
If you don't pay BBC-tax you can have Her Majesty's police at your door.
(see youtube "TV licence search-warrants").

Well, at least we have established that the discussion is about people with financial responsibility. In U.S. radio and TV, "Producer" is also used to denote a staff position that chases down source material, gets copyright clearances, wrangles guests, etc. etc., in other words makes sure the essential and auxiliary elements of the program are obtained and available. [Edit: I believe these producers often do not appear in the credits.]

Not to drift off topic.How collectors over in UK collect TV sets.Do they need a license certificate for each set dead or alive.

I agree .The producer is the person that oversees the production .I think it does not matter if station is state run or not.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_producer.

I love watching programming from over there.


BBC news behind the scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHG1DeoKqQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhGvGRlki64
Heres some BBC news blooper.WARNING These will have you LOL.............

Watch the robotic cameras going out of control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPdMTB7d2JY



https://youtu.be/0hkBAmn5yKo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpIty5Zb0S8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyA9gfUMuPs

The UK TV licence covers unlimited sets at an address, I have 5 TV's & 1 TV licence..

The UK TV licence covers unlimited sets at an address, I have 5 TV's & 1 TV licence..

Thanks for the tip.Thank goodness.We'll be broke if it was the other way around.

Don't pay it if you don't agree with archaic socialist television.
Let the Labour Party supporters pay this excise tax if they like it.

Don't pay it if you don't agree with archaic socialist television.
Let the Labour Party supporters pay this excise tax if they like it.

Trouble is if you get caught watching TV without a licence you can be fined & even go to prison, & you get a criminal record so cannot have visa free travel to USA & many other Countries..

FWIW .I think I rather pay for a licence for better TV programming then for the crap the states is dishing out for the last 25 years.

Most of our TV shows are getting hacked shorter for more adverts.We are now lucky to get 20 minutes of show on a half hour show .Plus station preempting regular shows for infomercials.

I always enjoy watching the UK shows on PBS.

I had an broadcast engineer friend working at BBC Television Centre who did not possess a TV. One day he was visited at his door after it was determined from records that he did not have a TV license. The inspector asked him why?

My friend told me that he replied it was because he did not have a TV set. He further asked if he was required to have a dog license if he did not have a dog?

Yes the licence cops are well known for hassling people who don't watch or record live TV. If you watch TV programs on you-tube, netflix or catch up services on BBC I-player, ITV hub, channel 4 on demand etc you don't need a TV licence, but they will still assume you watch live TV. You have to try & convince the judge that that you don't watch live TV, you have to sort of prove your innocence not them prove you guilty. & of course in the UK you have no right to remain silent..

..you get a criminal record so cannot have visa free travel ..

It's true

A Londoner once applied for a visa at Australia House
The first thing they asked him was
"Do you have a criminal record?"
to which he replied
"I didn't know it was still a requirement!"

It's true

A Londoner once applied for a visa at Australia House
The first thing they asked him was
"Do you have a criminal record?"
to which he replied
"I didn't know it was still a requirement!"

:lmao: It took me a while to remember that Australia was once Brittans' penal colony, and get that joke.

..if you get caught .. you get a criminal record ..

That is interesting though:
Who'd have thought they'd be so Machiavellian to turn you into a Felon
for skipping an outdated Socialist entertainment tax that funds - of all things -
a mere television network--one of thousands of choices in today's saturated digital media.

I can imagine the states PBS going out and shake up its viewer for more support.

Years ago when first I heard about UK TV licence .I was shocked when I read about people getting busted over watching TV and the first thing came to mind is corrupt dictatorship but as I read on and watch the better produced quality programming.I said to myself .Its worth spending the current £145.50 pounds color $US 204.15 dollars .

We throw away alot more money then that on the crap cable TV every year.

I wonder how many get the B/W TV licence .

My cousin got done. He'd lived in Australia for 27 years & moved back to England, he didn't know you still needed a TV licence & the BBC licence cops came to visit. He was fined 270 pounds plus a victim surcharge of 30 pounds, I can't think who the victim was though.. People get a lesser fine for DUI.

My cousin got done. .

Your clan are quite the rebels for even thinking of shafting Auntie Beebe.

My cousin got done. He'd lived in Australia for 27 years & moved back to England, he didn't know you still needed a TV licence & the BBC licence cops came to visit. He was fined 270 pounds plus a victim surcharge of 30 pounds, I can't think who the victim was though.. People get a lesser fine for DUI.

Oh my god.The DUI charges are lower then the TV fine.

As Draconian as their penalties are, it's actually quite difficult to achieve a conviction: In practice, the violator has to Confess - in other words, be a Sap.

There are heavy pockets of successful resistance in the major cities. When this reaches critical mass, the tax will collapse, like it has in a host of other countries.

As with any criminal offence the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offece occurred. I believe that most TV licence convictions are achieved by confession.

The TV licence has been debated for many years in the UK. It's not a good way to fund public service broadcasting but it's hard to come up with anything better. A bit like democracy, where Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

The BBC has been through good times and bad. It's made horrible mistakes (look at today's news about J***y S****e) and had huge triumphs. It's survived attacks from politicians of all colours. See comments about licence fee and democracy above.

The "monochrome only" TV licence is down to about 9000. I'm sure it will be phased out soon. I've appeared on radio and TV occasionally to talk about it. I wrote part of the last TV licensing press release on the subject. I believe that most of the B&W licence holders actually have colour sets but it's politically too sensitive to pursue them. Yes, you'd catch some offenders but you'd generate some bad publicity when you also hassle some poor old ladies and vocal enthusiasts. For the of sake about $1.5 million per year it's not worth it. Even when I had a quiet chat with the TV Licence peoople they won't directly admit this but it's pretty obvious.

For about $4.50 per week I think it represents pretty good value.

It's a long time since the golden age of Socialism (early 20th century) and BBC finds itself in a different world today. The tax, tolerated under Socialism, would be considered undemocratic - not to mention Regressive - now. And demographics are not helping, as White people, those who like BBC the most, will soon be an actual minority.

The Licence Fee is almost a poll tax, though it's levied per household not per head. As such it's regressive. But it's such a small amount for most people at $4.50 per week that it's not going to attract any mass protest. It's simply one of the costs of living in the UK and a pretty small one at that.

And what's socialism got to do with it? Even when Mrs Thatcher was PM there was no serious attempt to move to any other method of funding the BBC. Even in the US I don't think Mrs T would be considered socialist.

For more info about this turbulent time for the BBC I suggest Jane Seaton's book: "Pinkoes and Traitors". She picks up the BBC's history where Briggs left off. Seaton's style is very different to Briggs and much more readable.

I cant fuss with $4.50 a week.Probably some of us just pay that much and probably more for cable box rentals.

Now Comcast and other cable companies in the states are charging a broadcast TV fee of US$5.00 per month on the cable bill.

Why dont the stations jack up the advert fees instead of screwing the public with this BS charge.

... what's socialism got to do with it? ...

The BBC is the very essence of Socialism; it used to be Capitalist until a brutal government takeover in 1926.

Socialist BBC radio failed to give the kids what they wanted the most in the 1950s & 60s: Rock and Roll, (due to an Anti-American bias). Entrepreneurs filled the gap with Pirate Radio stations.

Sixty years later the BBC still does not deliver the media kids (Millennials) - and people of color - want. Yet they enforce $20/month from Millennial households when they would rather use the scarce money for smartphone web media.

The BBC is the very essence of Socialism; it used to be Capitalist until a brutal government takeover in 1926.

You'll find that the British Broadcasting Company became the British Broadcasting Corporation under the CONSERVATIVE government of Stanley Baldwin.

Suggest you also read Briggs, Volume 1 pp327 et seq for a greater understanding of this period of BBC history.

..British Broadcasting Corporation under the CONSERVATIVE government of Stanley Baldwin..

'No True Scotsman' Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman)

Your clan are quite the rebels for even thinking of shafting Auntie Beebe.

I felt quite guilty when my cousin got done as I gave him my old TV when he came back from Australia, I never thought to tell him he needed a licence for it..

....I gave him my old TV ..

It's a triumph of Capitalism that a good TV can now be bought for half a year's licence fees
that pay slobs on 6 & 7-figure salaries in the corrupt Socialist BBC.

Let's say a thrifty student in a dorm buys a cheap TV and naturally wants to tune across the channels.
He's already broken the law by connecting a piece of wire to the Belling-Lee connector on the back panel.
But with no wire he's okay.
Idea: Remove the back cover and run an internal short [UHF] piece of wire!

Sigh. If only there were a some sort of political forum where this angst would find a happy home...

Chip

Sigh. If only there were a some sort of political forum where this angst would find a happy home...

Chip

I have to agree that it is tiring listening to a fellow American ranting about a British institution. The BBC may be a wacky organization, but ranting against it after most conversation has faded on a niche site that caters to a primarily American audience serves little more purpose than randomly shouting into a cave. If you want to bug the beebe/talk to people who care about this perhaps you would be better served finding a British site dedicated to the BBC.:scratch2:

Part of me has been considering locking this thread, but I think that would be a bit too heavy handed at this point...

Well I've found it interesting and learned more about early 20th century Socialism and its connection to media.

Even Milwaukee was run by Socialists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hoan)at the time of the formation of the BBC!

Funny if you read Briggs, he describes how in 1925 none other than David Sarnoff visited John Reith the Managing Director of the British Broadcasting Company to study the funding model. You see in those days, it was thought crass to have selling on the airwaves.

The tide changed when RCA acquired the AT&T station WEAF in 1926 when NBC began. Then William Paley stepped into the picture and US broadcasting was forever changed.

As a crown corporation, the BBC maintained government independence, followed capitalist principles and yet secured a funding model which to this day eliminated crass and annoying on air advertising. It is a matter of culture, not socialism vs capitalism.

The reason the TV licence is so unpopular here is compulsion, as Centralradio says it's cheaper than a US cable TV subscription. But no one in the USA is forced to have cable, over the air TV through an antenna is free. Over the air antenna TV in England is not free, even if you never watch the BBC you are forced to pay for it. Bit like doing your shopping in Albertsons & having to pay Walmart some money as well..

..Crown corporation..BBC..eliminated crass and annoying on air advertising. It is a matter of culture..

Voluntary subscription - HBO, A&E.. - can also offer advertising-free.
It's a False Dilemma (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white)to imply Government needs to get involved.

The reason the TV licence is so unpopular here is compulsion, as Centralradio says it's cheaper than a US cable TV subscription. But no one in the USA is forced to have cable, over the air TV through an antenna is free. Over the air antenna TV in England is not free, even if you never watch the BBC you are forced to pay for it. Bit like doing your shopping in Albertsons & having to pay Walmart some money as well..

I understand what you mean but some TV viewers here including me in the states now have no choice but get cable to receive channels since the new DTV coverage is useless to them.Went from all local channels down to nothing here.Thats why I'm hot about it.If they did more studying with reception and crank up the power or better transmitting antennas and built TV sets with better tuners .I wont be fussing about it.Again Thanks to the telecommunications corps for screwing up everything for us and make the wireless freaks happy.

Heard about terrestrial DTV coverage not covering areas that were covered by terrestrial analogue TV in the USA. In UK the terrestrial DTV (Freeview) coverage is if anything even better than the analogue terrestrial TV coverage was, in the few areas where they cant get good DTV reception (we couldn't get a good DTV signal in Norfolk in the caravan) they use Freesat or Free-cable instead as that carries most of the Freeview channels. A lot of people in nearby European Countries have Freesat. I myself have Freeview & Free-cable from the phone/broadband company (Virgin Media)...

Voluntary subscription - HBO, A&E.. - can also offer advertising-free.
It's a False Dilemma (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white)to imply Government needs to get involved.

Yes, I agree. That is why terrestrial broadcast is still successful in Europe and Asia and is such a mess in the US and Canada. The North American governments should listen more to the public interests rather than selected business groups.

Just a thought. Is there anything like Freesat or Free-cable in USA? Or do you always have to pay a subscription? When I was in USA (Miami) 20'odd years ago I had a rabbit ears antenna on top of the TV, almost perfect pictures (apart from a bit of ghosting) on the VHF channels, all UHF ones were fuzzy..

Just a thought. Is there anything like Freesat or Free-cable in USA? Or do you always have to pay a subscription? When I was in USA (Miami) 20'odd years ago I had a rabbit ears antenna on top of the TV, almost perfect pictures (apart from a bit of ghosting) on the VHF channels, all UHF ones were fuzzy..

Nothing is free in North America except over the air. And even then the content is mostly mind numbing and is riddled with advertising. And to add to the discomfort, most North American viewers accept the model of paying a provider (satellite or cable) to allow them to watch the increased advertising dribble.

The number of minutes of advertising has progressive gone up and the quality of programming has gone down. This is because there is less advertising revenue to go around. In the old days a successful program had a 60% or more market share. Today a smash hit is anything above 5% if that. The television world has changed whereas the US revenue model has not.

That is why I believe the revenue model in the UK is still okay. OTA choice may be limited but there is still better stuff to be found to watch on the BBC and ITV channels and no advertising on the BBC.

Just a thought. Is there anything like Freesat or Free-cable in USA? Or do you always have to pay a subscription? When I was in USA (Miami) 20'odd years ago I had a rabbit ears antenna on top of the TV, almost perfect pictures (apart from a bit of ghosting) on the VHF channels, all UHF ones were fuzzy..

IIRC there is free to air satellite in north America, but the programming is mostly garbage that is below OTA programming quality (IIRC it's used mostly for remote broadcast links between stations and remote program trucks/facilities)....Almost no one knows it exists and even fewer actually watch it.

Yes, I agree. That is why terrestrial broadcast is still successful in Europe and Asia and is such a mess in the US and Canada. The North American governments should listen more to the public interests rather than selected business groups.

I agree 100 percent.

I probably mentioned before.Don't forget the $5 dollar broadcast TV fees the cable company tacks on our monthly bills.

Maybe the broadcasters can soak their advert clients for more cash instead of its viewers.I agree with Penthode on adverts .We get soaked with the 5 minute adverts in the programs every 8 minutes.The programs are getting shorter with more ads inserted in them.The killer is that we get stuck paying them $5 bucks a month on top of it.

Back to the original topic of producers.

With the crap that airs today here.There is not much producing going on with these reality shows.Just set up the cameras and let them roll.Cheaply made productions with some those shows will make the local access cable channel productions look like top pro productions.

Better off to watch amateurs on Youtube then what is produced on the networks.The sitcoms suck and not funny.The classic game shows like Jeopardy,the Wheel and The Price is Right are still good to watch.Drama shows like the CSI collection and other cop type drama shows are good but getting cropped for more ads..

Without addressing subjective quality issues, the average reality TV show is a bear to produce. Instead of having a written, presumably efficient plan that cast and crew follows, reality TV relies on multi-camera coverage to the extreme. This over-shooting results in tons of footage that has to be screened and logged (by producers -- the non-financial, non-decisionmaking kind ) in order to be edited together to produce the desired story line. (The story line is not left to chance as much as would be expected.) Reality show low-level producers are subject to extremely long hours with very low average pay, as there is always someone standing by in the wings to take their place as a "producer on a national network TV show". I would guess that reality shows shoot and log at least four times as much footage as a scripted multi-camera show does.

Chip

Without addressing subjective quality issues, the average reality TV show is a bear to produce. Instead of having a written, presumably efficient plan that cast and crew follows, reality TV relies on multi-camera coverage to the extreme. This over-shooting results in tons of footage that has to be screened and logged (by producers -- the non-financial, non-decisionmaking kind ) in order to be edited together to produce the desired story line. (The story line is not left to chance as much as would be expected.) Reality show low-level producers are subject to extremely long hours with very low average pay, as there is always someone standing by in the wings to take their place as a "producer on a national network TV show". I would guess that reality shows shoot and log at least four times as much footage as a scripted multi-camera show does.

Chip

Thanks Chip for the info and explaining it .Yes .OK Low paid producers.I'm surprise with the unions they can get away with it. I figure they had to sort of hours of video in order to edit the show together.Theres room for error for wrong scene call ups.I wonder how many hours of the Kardashian's over shoots on the cutting room floor.

Yes with script shows.Everything is organized with the script and the storyboard.The cast should cruise through it with a couple of takes.

Speaking of UK TV shows.I enjoy these shows.Post other when I think of them.


Keeping Up Appearances (S15 E5)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFBuA4aCibU

As Time Goes By Season 7 E03 The New Neighbors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee0zrEbYDzw

These are will produced shows and very funny.

BBC Licence used to be 10/- ($1) a year!
CPB (usa) gets 100X the Fed money it got in the late-60s!
Why are Bankrupt countries throwing money at Broadcasting?
(Bankrupt: borrowing just to pay the interest on Debt)
(which both countries are doing)

CPB more likely is getting less Fed dollars today then years ago.I have notice PBS is having more pledge drives in the resent years.

Running programs on TV is not cheap after everybody gets their cut with the royalties it makes.I have no idea how much does PBS have to pay for a classic movie or series like Sesame Street ,Nova and other popular shows.The inside shows are probably cheaper but the outside shows are more likely expensive.


Maybe somebody here in the biz can shed some light on it.Thanks.

We need to put a Scotsman in charge - But not John Reith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reith,_1st_Baron_Reith)!

10/- was $2 in 1925. For many years it was $4 to the pound.

This website is invaluable for working with historic amounts of money in both the US and the UK. Their methods are well researched and use the best available data sets. Some comparisons are available back to the 13th century!
https://www.measuringworth.com

Putting in 10/- (ten shillings = 50 pence in current usage) and getting today's value gives a set of numbers from £25 to over £200 depending on which comparison method you use. If you look at the income comparison, a good measure of affordability, it's £143, close to the present day licence fee. You get rather more for your money from the BBC now than then.

The Pound was way more 'Sound' than I thought;
4:1 would have given England very strong purchasing power for imports.
Shows you how decimated the US Dollar has been by a century of [Gov-engineered] inflation!
The worst is yet to come after they discover their latest desperate maneuver -
- GDP-expansion-by-immigration - fails to deliver growth & deceive creditors.