Is anyone else fed up with advertising on the BBC ??

hot-fuzz

Ex Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
6,087
Reaction score
590
Points
1,196
Age
47
Location
Hampshire/Surrey, UK
Now i dont pay my TV licence to have adverts shoved in my face and thats what is increasingly becoming more aparent.

It annoys the hell out of me so much. :mad:

For example. I was watching the snooker today and Ray Stubbs said on at least 2 occassions "Welcome to the 888.com World Snooker Championships".
Now correct me if im wrong, but i dont think he needed to say 888.com unless 888.com had paid someone money to do so.
And that in my eyes is advertising. Someone is paying the BBC (or someone connected to the BBC) money to advertise their product and i dont pay my licence for that. I dont think 888.com would pay anywhere near the amount of money they have in sponsorship to the BBC if they didnt think it would go out on the TV as the auditorium is only 300 capacity or there abouts.

On another more subtle level, football is full of it. I know most matches are not exclusive to the BBC, but when it is do i really have to watch hundreds of samll banners behind the players when they are interviewed?

Also, the BAFTAS "sponsored by Orange" was anothger example of obvious advertising.

I know this is a very minor niggle and alot of problems in the World are far greater, its just i get annoyed when we are played for fools, such as paying alot for a TV licence to not have adverts, but the BBC is full of em.

I would quite happily forfeit my TV licence and promise never to watch a BBC channel again.

Rant over.
:mad:
 
thats bad if they are showing them sorts of adverts. I don't watch the BBC because I think its crap but i'm forced to pay a TV licence anyways:mad: . If they are advertising then theres no way I should be forced to pay for something that I don't watch

I'd do the same as you dude, if the BBC was like Sky and you pay for what you watch then i'd not have the BBC and save my licence money. I watch the BBC like once a month if a good film is on if that.
 
:confused:

Do 888.com sponsor the championship or the BBC coverage of the championship? Big difference ;)
 
um......they've always announced the Snooker like that...

'and welcome to the Embassy World Championship'
or
'and welcome to the Benson & Hedges Masters' or whichever way around it was....

its the tournaments name, so your a bit late in jumping on the BBC for that sort of advertising....

however, I am noticing a lot more product placement, where in the past on TV or Radio they had to gloss over brand names, they seem less inclined to do so nowadays, not only that but they even get around it by making a joke out of it, particularly on the radio shows where someone 'accidently' mentions say a supermarket or product brand name and their counterpart will say 'oohh you mean one of those names we are not supposed to say' or something similar.....now to my mind that is suspect....if they did it once in a blue moon i'd believe it to be a genuine slip of the tongue, but it happens on an hourly basis lately :rolleyes:
 
Ummmmm...does it REALLY matter?
 
Advertising is on the BBC almost constantly, take virtually any chat show and every guest is there to plug their new whatever.
 
couldn't care less......it's a £100 or so a year!! and you get Dr Who, PLanet Earth, etc, etc How are they supposed to blank out sponsors of events?
 
couldn't care less......it's a £100 or so a year!!

I thought it was around £130. Big difference.


I've been getting annoyed listening to 5 Live and Radio 1. Radio 1 is ok for up to date chart music but the presenters keep swearing and nonchalantly mentioning certain brand names. I don't want to hear people being called t*****s on my drive to work.

5 Live keeps having people on for nothing other than to advertise their website. "We're joined by Norman Sedgebottom, owner of www.ihaveawebsite.org So tell us, how many people actually have websites?"
 
I thought it was around £130. Big difference.

it is? my point was that if they charged an amount you noticed there may be cause for complaint...but < &#163;11 a month, is it worth worrying about?
 
It's just the name of the event, nothing to do with BBC advertising. I don't think they'll be blurring out the ad boards during football matches anytime soon either.
 
Now i dont pay my TV licence to have adverts shoved in my face and thats what is increasingly becoming more aparent.

It annoys the hell out of me so much. :mad:

For example. I was watching the snooker today and Ray Stubbs said on at least 2 occassions "Welcome to the 888.com World Snooker Championships".
Now correct me if im wrong, but i dont think he needed to say 888.com unless 888.com had paid someone money to do so.
And that in my eyes is advertising. Someone is paying the BBC (or someone connected to the BBC) money to advertise their product and i dont pay my licence for that. I dont think 888.com would pay anywhere near the amount of money they have in sponsorship to the BBC if they didnt think it would go out on the TV as the auditorium is only 300 capacity or there abouts.

On another more subtle level, football is full of it. I know most matches are not exclusive to the BBC, but when it is do i really have to watch hundreds of samll banners behind the players when they are interviewed?

Also, the BAFTAS "sponsored by Orange" was anothger example of obvious advertising.

I know this is a very minor niggle and alot of problems in the World are far greater, its just i get annoyed when we are played for fools, such as paying alot for a TV licence to not have adverts, but the BBC is full of em.

I would quite happily forfeit my TV licence and promise never to watch a BBC channel again.

Rant over.
:mad:

it's not the bbc's fault, they have tight rules that control this stuff. it's not advertising, they are simply introducing the name of the event, which is called the www.888.com cup or whatever because they have sponserd the event. the sponsors get a namecheck, but not an advert. if you don't already know the sponsors name and what they do, it wouldn't really have much affect in advertising would it? if it was called the placebo cup and you didn't know what placebo did, you'd be non the wiser. if they didn't sponsor it, someone else would, and it would be called the cadburys cup or something else instead. if there was no sponsorship or advertising allowed, many of the events simply wouldn't take place. as you say, there are only 300 people watching in person, and the bbc is limited to what it can pay to broadcast events. without sponsorship, the even might rely on the bbc having to pay more out of license payers money. it's a similar thing with a show being sponsored by some company, they can only say that so many times. but what would you prefer, they increase the license fee so the bbc can pay for more events and shows so they don't need sponsoers, or you hear them say the www.999.com cup a few times? or would you just prefer they make less programs, keep the fee the same, and given money to snooker so you don't need to hear www.999.com?

as for the bafta's, it's the event itself thats sponsored, not the tv show. most awards ceremonies are. what you didn't realise what the show itself is just a feature long backslapping advertisement to promote the films they are honoring. why should it be on the tv in the first place?

to avoid it, just do what i do, don't watch any sport at all, not that i consider snooker or darts a sport, or anything else you can play whilst smoking fags and drinking beer. anyways, snooker on tv has never been much fun since the introduction of colour tv
 
Actually they long since banned booze and fags in snooker. Those days were before my time, so I have no idea whether I'm missing out anyhow :)
 
well they out right banned tobbaco adberts on tv years ago. My family has a poster of Ian Botham - "Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet".

Hamlet-Botham-0703.jpg
 
Now i dont pay my TV licence to have adverts shoved in my face and thats what is increasingly becoming more aparent.

It annoys the hell out of me so much. :mad:

For example. I was watching the snooker today and Ray Stubbs said on at least 2 occassions "Welcome to the 888.com World Snooker Championships".
Now correct me if im wrong, but i dont think he needed to say 888.com unless 888.com had paid someone money to do so.
And that in my eyes is advertising. Someone is paying the BBC (or someone connected to the BBC) money to advertise their product and i dont pay my licence for that. I dont think 888.com would pay anywhere near the amount of money they have in sponsorship to the BBC if they didnt think it would go out on the TV as the auditorium is only 300 capacity or there abouts.

On another more subtle level, football is full of it. I know most matches are not exclusive to the BBC, but when it is do i really have to watch hundreds of samll banners behind the players when they are interviewed?

Also, the BAFTAS "sponsored by Orange" was anothger example of obvious advertising.

I know this is a very minor niggle and alot of problems in the World are far greater, its just i get annoyed when we are played for fools, such as paying alot for a TV licence to not have adverts, but the BBC is full of em.

I would quite happily forfeit my TV licence and promise never to watch a BBC channel again.

Rant over.
:mad:

Highlander1 has advertised 888.com four times in his post, I demand a refund on my Avforums licence fee!! ;)
 
I've been getting annoyed listening to 5 Live and Radio 1. Radio 1 is ok for up to date chart music but the presenters keep swearing and nonchalantly mentioning certain brand names. I don't want to hear people being called t*****s on my drive to work.
Perhaps you're too old for Radio 1 ... I know I am :D ;)

On topic ... I get fed up with the trailers/adverts for ChavEnders, or when some muppet presenter says "download our podcast to your MP3 player" ... you don't bloomin' download it to your MP3 player, you download it to your computer!!!
 
stop watching tv ...you can get all the stuff worth watching online with the breaks removes

yes, everyone stop watching TV immediately and download....er....what do you download when nobody is making programs anymore as one of the main revenue streams in the industry is the advert :rolleyes:
 
It's just the name of the event, nothing to do with BBC advertising.

It may well be the official and full title of the event but that doesn't mean that BBC have to use the title in full.

An example is the Barclaycard Premiership which is known to everyone else just as "The Premiership" but which the Beeb feels obliged to name in full.

A quick search of the sports forum here returns a blank for the word "Barclaycard" but 287 threads containing the word "Premiership"
 
People pay £60 per month for sky, which has worse quality programming, and also adverts.

I just can't fathom why they would complain then about the bbc?
 
A point to think on, the BBC is invited to the event by the sponsors not the otherway around. I bet there will be a clause is small letters somewhere that the event has to be announced in full. Football does not need the BBC at all as proved in the past. All in all out of the ad. overload we suffer the Beeb do a good job.
 
snooker on tv has never been much fun since the introduction of colour tv

Those were the days. Watching snooker in b&w with my late dad. You've just brought back a boat load of memories.

Regarding sponsorship/advertising on the Beeb, it doesn't bother me too much. I find it much worse on the commercial stations. As well as the adverts you also get wrap around sponsorship on individual dramas and shows. The ads are bad enough but the sponsors trying to sell you insurance or whatever ruin the mood totally.

Like kirsh my gripe with the BBC is over countless ads for Eastwhingers.

All the best
Bri
 
What about football teams should the BBC ask teams to have not logos on the kits, London Marathon as runners not to have signs or logos most of the big concerts.....I could go on and on.

The fact is if you go to any of these events that is what you will 'see' in front of you, so why should the BBC's coverage be any different ? :confused:
 
People pay &#163;60 per month for sky, which has worse quality programming, and also adverts.

I just can't fathom why they would complain then about the bbc?
Probably because we have to fork out for a license fee, and if I discover that the beeb are receiving a single penny from 888 or Barclaycard etc, I will be demanding a refund of &#163;8.88 and they can pay my credit card bill whilst they're at it too!:devil: :)
 
Mmm.. I agree with the OP slightly. Like when Gary Lineker advertises FA Cup Game the next week, he always goes "F.A. Cup Sponsored by E.on".... but then again the League Cup is called the Carling Cup and it is always called that...
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom