It is a genuine concern of the BBC to provide value to payers of its often politically controversial licence fee.

I am generally very happy to defend this often maligned institution’s existence, having grown up, like many, with many hours of enlightening and enjoyable material.

In an attempt to justify itself to an often hostile media, the BBC has often brought in executives and their ideas from the world of commercial broadcasting in order to boost ratings.

It is certainly true that, whether public or private sector, a talented manager is an asset to any organisation.

But a problem crops up when the radically different business objectives are ignored.

A commercial broadcaster produces entertainment to generate the greatest commercial revenue from advertisers. The higher the ratings, the higher the business’s earnings.

A public service broadcaster has a social aim instead – to provide entertainment that is informative and educational. Somewhat ironically, a good TV programme in this respect might be one that encourages viewers to switch off the set and do something for real, such as take up a hobby or start a business.

My point is advertisers will pay for guaranteed ratings success, so copying a commercial channel’s winning formula is using my licence fee to pay for what advertisers would have happily paid for instead of me.

Because it is not a commercial organisation, if the reverse was true and the BBC came up with a show copied by the commercials, that would actually provide better value as my money would have paid for a real idea, not an expensive photocopy.

How much more choice and variation would we see in TV and radio, if all the licence payers’ money was spent on the areas least covered by commercial equivalents? New ideas often cost less, yet involve more people.

A R Wainwright
Upper Fenn Road
Halstead