大象传媒

I cant really see any problems with this. I travel abroad a lot and watch 大象传媒 World and I dont feel that the adverts affect the journalistic values of the 大象传媒. Also CNN, Sky and almost all other international broadcasters carry advertising on their channels and sites. I cannot see how or why it will affect international readers of 大象传媒 News.

Your decision to include advertising is understandable in these days of rising costs, world angst and international troubles.

However, having to endure advertising and NOT be able to access videos and programming because I'm not a Windoze user is rather irksome.

Ian Brumell
Cloyne, Canada

I am really pleased at this announcement. UK licence fee payers fund this website.

It's only right that people who don't pay the licence fee see adverts (if that's the best revenue-generating model).

By showing adverts outside the UK, the 大象传媒 can generate extra revenue to continue doing what it does best, to the benefit of the UK.

When will the 大象传媒 go the whole hog and make it's iPlayer available for international users for a fee or with advertising?

Further, I'd happily pay some sort of 'license fee from abroad' to access mainstream 大象传媒 content via the web, which would include news and programming.

The 大象传媒 will always have it's critics when it comes to editorial neutrality, but for me, the quality is generally excellent (though gender research only ever seems to be reported from the field of evolutionary psychology, which is not the most sophisticated in their approach to gender).

Like those you surveyed I have no problem with this in principle.

But it's a slippery slope - with the best will in the world news sites supported by advertising are not seen to be as independent as news.bbc.co.uk.

You depend on your credibility. So the welcome words about making sure advertising doesn't compromise editorial independence will need careful watching!

And how long before it's proposed to have advertising (if only for 大象传媒 content) on the UK site? After all, 大象传媒 TV is full of internal advertising now, in the guise of programme trailers.

As a daily user of the 大象传媒 international news site I am saddened to hear about your plans to introduce ads. As has happened here in Australia (to SBS TV) when ads are introduced quality and usability drops 鈥� but far worse one can no longer trust the independence of the service. I would far rather pay to use the 大象传媒 international service that see any kind of advertising.
It will be tragic to see one of the last bastions of free-speech thus comprised. (And I am sure many at the 大象传媒 will agree with me.) So where do we turn now? To the bloggers? Lord help us!

A lot of us outside the UK get an excellent service from this website and we have no reason to object if it is to carry a few ads. I will resume this comment after these messages:

TIRED OF RUBBING AND SCRUBBING? WITH CILLIT BANG, ONE BANG AND IT'S GONE! TRY IT TODAY!

The 大象传媒's first loyalty is to its domestic licence-paying audience and I respect that. I only hope that the ads do not become too intrusive.

FREE CD OF THE BEST OF DEAN MARTIN - ONLY IN TOMORROW'S DAILY MAIL. DON'T MISS IT!

Best of luck and I hope you continue providing an excellent service.

I was recently overseas and loaded up a new summary from bbc.co.uk and was bombarded with an advert. Clearly I pay a license for the 大象传媒 throughout the year (not just when I am in the UK) so why should the service I receive be so diminished when I am outside of the UK? I would be happier if I were able to let the license fee collecters know when I out of the UK and have my payments frozen for that period - it would be fairer and reflect the service that I am losing out on when overseas. However I don't suspect that this will ever happen. Ho hum.

why is the license fee so cheap. if you add inflation and as a rough guide money doubles every ten years, then the license fee should be 拢160 by 2008. has anyone raised this issue?

As an overseas user, I am not adverse to adverts paying for my use but I only hope that your IT staff are up to the technical challenge. Your recent foray into advertising for video segments was badly done. Videos are now preceded by the ONE advert you apparently have (this gets annoying very quickly) and the main video frequently does not show. If it does, it still appears as a barely visibile tiny window. This is not my idea of broadband video.

I hope I am not the only loyal 大象传媒 listener/reader/watcher outside the UK that will feel somewhat aggrieved by this decision to advertise on the 大象传媒 website. It is one of the last bastions of non-commercial public information whose editorial basis was not swayed by monied interests, however well intentioned. Speaking as one who consciously avoids the new-for-profit media so prevalent in the West, I will be left wondering where to find non-partisan, balanced information delivered in a calm, professional manner such as I have grown accustomed to from the 大象传媒 external services.

I hope you are not putting profit before purpose.

I'm a UK citizen living abroad and the 大象传媒 website is a lifeline. I've no objection to advertising, as long as we can still access exactly the same content, not a watered down 'international' version.

I agree with Mark in post no 6. I'm a Brit living in Greece, and would pay an international licence fee to be able to access 大象传媒 programming online. In fact, I'd rather pay than have those irritating Delta/BA ads that another poster mentioned.
The 大象传媒 could make a lot of money allowing international access to its current, and back, catalogue. I wanted to listen to a radio 4 play from 2006 the other day. It's not available. Why not? It was recorded digitally, available on the website for a week, then taken down. All digital content, however old, should be available, and non-licence fee payers like me should have to pay to access it. I agree, though, that licence fee payers who are travelling abroad shouldn't have to pay. Not sure how that can be done, but there must be a way.

No web advertising for me!

I have the adblock plugin and don't have Flash installed, so I haven't seen any ads for nearly a couple of years, since the days of "punch the monkey and win a prize". Do they still have those?

Of course there are the Flash-based sites which I can't see, but I've discovered that those are relatively content-free, so it's no loss. Plus it's easy to boycott a company for having a Flash-based website when you can't buy anything from them.

I also used to watch very little TV as I find the ads irritating and intrusive, but my new Linux-based DVR allows me to easily snip out commercials. Yay for technology!

It would be nice if you left a switch adverts off option for those of us who do mind.

Kieran.

I have to say I have no problem with this, so long as they stay unobtrusive.

However, using this model, I see no reason for iPlayer content not to be available for international users as well. If it wasn't made available to international users, then I would begin to be annoyed about advertising.

Just don't let ads creep into the UK section.

The inclusion of advertising on the 大象传媒 website can only call into question the 大象传媒's much vaunted neutrality. What will happen if a news item reflects badly on an advertiser or their products ?

Also, although I am located in the UK, the corporate internet gateway I use when at work is in Germany - this already means that I have to put up with repetitive adverts if I wish to view video content. This has already dissuaded me from accessing such content.

I think most people here in the UK pay their license fee accepting that it will pay for TV and radio. The website is an 'added extra' and - as far as I'm concerned - should be entirely self-funding. I don't see the problem with placing ads on the UK version as well as for international visitors.

I am a British Citizen living in Japan. It seems that already, when I watch certain news video clips on the BCC website, that they are preceded by a short advert. This is so frustrating when one is used to a watching an advert free BCC.

The BCC is deeply respected in the world over and especially so here in Japan. The 大象传媒 is a symbol of good British values and freedom of speech.
The BCC cannot possibly keep its unbiased independence if it allows advertising.

I have no problem with advertising on the 大象传媒 sites as long as users from outside the UK will continue to have access to the full UK versions of the 大象传媒 News and 大象传媒 Sport Web sites.

Whoever said the 大象传媒 WASN'T a thoroughly commercial outfit? You advertise the Licence Fee enough...
Still, one more nail in our sticking up for the UK on the international scene.

Well, if the international website is going to end up as bad as 大象传媒 World (ie apparently immune from any sort of public scrutiny/ accountability while trading under the good name of the 大象传媒) I don't see this as a positive step. The distinction made between web content that is "UK" and "international" is just spurious and, dare I suggest, merely a device to enable the 大象传媒 to introduce such commercial measures. It's a fait accompli, so nothing can be done, but the reason the 大象传媒 is funded by a licence fee is to enable it to maintain editorial integrity and independence. That now seems to be ever-lower on the 大象传媒's scale of values, as its over-ambitious empire-building empties the coffers, and principles get sacrificed. Being no worse than the others is not the 大象传媒's selling point.

It's a bit hypocritical to offer overseas news, then, isn't it?

So has the day of the "big chop" has finally arrived? 2800 jobs eliminated, 1000 new jobs created for a net loss of 1800 jobs and who knows what's to follow a year or two down the road. It's never a happy time when the upleasant uncertainty of who will stay and who will go approaches. Rumors are everywhere and surprises are usually inevitable. I was in a company which had to make a similar decision and consequenty reorganize itself with those who remained to cover the workload. My office mate, a highly analytical man and well aware of the office politics had it all figured out for weeks and spared no one a deatailed explanation of what would happen. Of course when the real changes were announced, they bore no resemblance to his predictions.

How clever will management be at this? Will they engage in the easy no brain sport of meat axe budget cutting, each department allotted a quota of people to cut or will they carefully assess what their best options are? If experience is any guide, they will to one degree or another cut the meat, even the bone and keep some of the fat. If they were really clever, they never would have made it to management in the first place as being a popular flunky is often a prerequisite in large organizations to becoming a manager. It's that or get fired.

So by this time tomorrow or sometime soon, there will be a lot of long faces, those who will lose their collegues and those even longer faces who confront the prospect of unemployment possibly for the first time in their lives. It happens in most large private corporations sooner or later, now it's 大象传媒's turn. To those who remain, you will be working a lot harder picking up the slack your departed colleagues did no matter how little that was and you will get paid no more for it. IMO, you are likely overpaid as it is and will continue to be. And to those who are leaving, when they tell you this is an opportunity for you to find a new career, go down a new path in life, don't you believe it for one second. Unemployment by involuntary force reduction is never anything but worry and scrambling to find new employment as quickly as possible and often at jobs you would never have given a second look at. This is a dose of reality all Europe needs if it going to avoid going bankrupt, this and much much more. However even for 大象传媒, it could be too little too late. Its real strategy for survival may be to become a clone of a successful model, a CNN or FOX or MSNBC. A private commercial channel or two even appearing on US cable networks could be down the road. MS大象传媒, has a ring to it. Maybe a wholly owned subsidiary of a large American corporation like Encyclopedia Britannica and Cunard became. The 大象传媒 subsidiary of the Disney Corporation. There are a few I think I'd like to see in "mouse ears."

Hey, this should at least offset some of the cost of hiring another 700 'new media' staff. And sacking 2500 news and factual staff.

Maybe it'll be enough to fund a few extra repeats of engrossing 大象传媒 programmes such as Tittybangbang and Little Miss Jocelyn on 大象传媒3!

It is indeed unfair for Brits to be paying the license fee while we non-Brits enjoy 大象传媒 content for free. There is another alternative, though: subscription-based premium content. I suspect that there are quite a few people around the world that would be willing to pay a reasonable fee to access the full range of 大象传媒 content over the internet. Perhaps you could consider a dual model? Provide basic content for free with adverts, and extended content without adverts for a subscription fee.

I would suggest keeping the subscription low. Too many subscription-based internet content providers make the mistake of setting their fee too high. One pound from each of ten million subscribers will net you a lot more than will one hundred pounds from each of a thousand subscribers.

Please give this serious consideration.

Can we extend this and get advertising across the whole of the 大象传媒 for everybody, UK and overseas?

That way we can get rid of the television tax (which for some reason you consistently incorrectly call a "licence fee" - is is a tax not a licence fee).

In doing so it will hopefully encourage you to start targetting your core audience, rather than pumping out left wing propaganda to try and convert your right wing / centrist into your fluffist way of thinking.

That is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. When is the internet defined as international and domestic? We do not want to see adverts on the news pages, just so 大象传媒 can make more money than they alreadly are!!
And to justify placing adverts only proves how wrong yall are.

"I think the licence fee is far too low. I would willingly sell my house and all it's contents to pay for the 大象传媒." (Showing my age there...:-) Seriously, I'm about to become an expat & am looking forward to my new life down under, apart from having to watch Aussie TV! I would happily pay a fee to receive 大象传媒 content, particularly quality TV such as Spooks, Life on Mars etc. Much more preferable than adverts. Opportunity of a valuable source of 大象传媒 revenue here...

OK, I suppose it was only a matter of time, and as a Brit abroad who reads the 大象传媒 news online everyday I can get used to it. And, if the logic follows within the wider 大象传媒, I suppose it won't be long before we hear advertising on the 大象传媒 World Service radio either.

Brilliant news, hopefully this is the beginning of the end for the licence fee, which I resent paying currently, as I have no choice. Even if I watch no 大象传媒 content, I can't have a TV without it - how is that possibly fair? Advertising funds most TV and web activity across the globe, why are we stuck in some historical glitch from days when the 大象传媒 was the only service?

This is so short-sighted, and a huge compromise to journalistic impartiality.

At some point in our future, media will converge. Online, radio, tv... it will all be the same thing. Will advertising remain when this happens?

The 大象传媒 is respected and valued worldwide because its only imperative is to deliver objective reports.

I think if a brand is paying you millions in advertising revenue, it will have the might to lean on you not to report its activities (when bad), and to report (when it needs some PR).

Bad enough that you're sacking hundreds of journalists and encouraging 'user generated content' (ie, free, unreliable, content).

Advertising on top means you're no different to any other news outlet.

This is a terrible idea. No matter what you may believe now, advertising will over time will affect your editorial choices. This is inevitable and unavoidable.

It is absurd that the license fee cannot be used to benefit people outside the UK, many of whom as other posters have pointed out are UK citizens going abroad for one reason or another. The website is a window for the world into the UK and as such is of immense benefit to the UK. Adding adverts will reduce little by little people's trust, be intrusive, and make the reporting questionable.

This is a very sad day for the 大象传媒.

I agree with John (8.) maintaining Independence is extremely important. I fear that by introducing advertising the 大象传媒 will either directly or indirectly be at constant risk of conflicts of interest - I'd be interested to see your advertising policy?

Will you be allowing advertising by: oil companies, airlines, car manufactures, charities, political organisations, religious organisations.....

This decision is full of risk and may cost the 大象传媒 far more than any short term gains from advertising revenues.

Your decision to start earning some money from your foreign constituency is understandable.

Your lame explanation of your decision, however, reminds me of the anecdote about a Cuban politician in the '40s who, after having been a prominent bulwark of a certain political party for many years, sensed a strong wind of change and switched party affiliation (for strictly selfish reasons, I might add) in time for the next election campaign.

Knowing that the people were not going to be easily convinced about his motives, he attempted in one of his first campaign speeches to justify his switcheroo. "I know you all wonder why I changed parties after so many years..." -- he began in earnest.
He was promptly interrupted in mid-sentence by a cry from the audience: "Yeah, 'cause you sold out, you big SOB!"

Put ads on the UK site. I couldn't care less. If it irked me, I'd just Ad-Block them in Firefox.

Anything that subsidises costs (as long as it isn't ads on telly/radio) is fine with me. Would be a minor miracle to actually see the licence free drop one year!!

I never realized that UK citizens 'paid' for my use of your services in this way. Thank you for making it right for them.

Advertisement is a fact of life for online business. Bring it on.

What about 大象传媒 News on radio? I listen every day to the 大象传媒 World Service News via satellite radio. I hope that part of my subscription cost helps fund that, not the British people.

Absolutely disgraceful!

Peter, post 21 - "It doesn't cost any less to ship bits from London to Folkestone than London to San Francisco. I don't pay some sort of special fee when a website of mine is accessed from Bangalore or Paris"

I'm afraid it does cost more, and while you don't pick up the tab your service provider that is running your sites does (and factors those costs into the fee they charge you). The distances are sometimes less of an issue than where the places are and whose lines the content travels along - problems that are solved by the core providers who monitor and charge for what goes where on their networks.

I am currently based abroad, but am still paying my license fee back home as I have a house there.

I have absolutely no problem with generating revenue from non-license paying people. If fact I think the 大象传媒 gives away far too much for free to those who have made no contributions to its coffers.

But I will have serious objections if I, a license paying, British tax paying individual have to endure a degraded service.

I find it hilarious that people don't call the licence fee out for what it is: a TV Tax.

Given that the UK users are paying this tax they are effectively funding all of the 大象传媒. I don't see any reason why anyone outside of the UK should feel hard done by. After all, there isn't a call on their wallets! There are . At least the 大象传媒 is using only the fairly benign on-site ads rather than some of the shadier routes (like collecting your personal data and hawking it).

Sure, if you pay your tax in the UK but access the 大象传媒 from elsewhere you'll have to suffer the ads. Maybe you should apply for a part-refund of your TV Tax. And your Road Tax. And your Council Tax. Because, after all, you don't use those either when you are on holiday, do you?

I would have more sympathy if the 大象传媒 made some attempt to 'sell' its paid for services. In order to watch 大象传媒 Prime I have to send dollars from Morocco to Algeria (an impossibility) as there are no 大象传媒 agents here.

Rather than introduce adverts, a bit more marketing and availability of (cards for) your current international TV services might generate more revenue. Here in Morocco, those who wish to watch 大象传媒 Prime have to get pirate cards and decoders (the new TPS has now been broken quite effectively), not because we wish to defraud the 大象传媒, but because the 大象传媒 can't be bothered to make any arrangements to sell us legitimate cards.

Exploit your existing sources of revenue before introducing new ones, please!

Can we trust the 大象传媒 to stick to their principles of non-invading ad, monstruous pop-ups advertising useless products? We shall see in one year. If it were not for the usual outstanding quality and objectivity of 大象传媒 reports, I would have lost hope.

(Haven't read all the previous posts) Perhaps you could let us enter a serial number from our UK TV License to allow us to access an ad-free website internationally.

It's a great benefit to be able to access the 大象传媒 website when on trips or holidays abroad. I would hate for it to be compromised by ads. I too would happily pay a reasonable fee for an ad-free site. a pound a month say?

So many ill-informed comments here, just looking for an excuse to bash the 大象传媒.

The simple fact is that the 大象传媒 is prohibited from using licence fee funds to pay for services that benefits overseas users. That means that free access to the ad-free bbc.co.uk site CANNOT be continued. The decision the 大象传媒 had to make was HOW to continue to provide the service without reliance on the licence fee.

It could just barred access from overseas ... thus removing any potential accusation of losing independence because of the input of advertisers.

It could have charged a fee for access (and it would have had to be for ALL access, not just premium content, because of the bar on using licence funds to provide services to those overseas).

It could use advertising to pay for the service. Like it or not, this is the simplest and most effective solution. It allows all overseas users to continue to access the service free of charge and without having to register their details.

For licence fee payers temporarily overseas it is surely a minor inconvenience.

After all, when I go on holiday, I can't ask Sky TV to allow me two weeks refund on my payment to them because I wasn't at home to watch television.

Nor can I ask the government for two weeks refund on my income tax because I was out of the country and not using UK services.

Some attitudes to the licence fee are just utterly ludicrous.

I'm discouraged with this news, being an expatriate who in a former life, enjoyed a variety of worldservice shortwave programmes. Those broadcasts to the USA disappeared. Thank you for the years you shared them.

A portable cheap shortwave radio can go anywhere and uses minimal power. The demise of shortwave broadcasting mystifies me. It has led to the Balkanisation of news, information and more. The doctrine of unintended consequences at work?

Having now a computer and dial-up connection to the internet, I've learned to favour sites without advertising. 大象传媒.co.uk was one such site. It takes forever to download slick video advertising.

Will this change affect only the worldservice site, or all who attempt to visit bbc.co.uk from a computer not located on the British Isles?

Maybe a way could be devised for overseas listeners to subscribe to the 大象传媒, meanwhile I await the arrival of advertsing with trepidation.

Not only I do NOT complain, I am all but grateful for all this time without advertising on your site. I can not fathom how can anyone be -as you term- unhappy with this decision. It is rather obvious: you can't be blamed for wanting to fund your work, otherwise you won't be able to deliver us news with the quality the 大象传媒 has accustomed us (ppl. from all around the globe) to. Since we can't be charged with a licence fee for funding the 大象传媒 (it'd be quite preposterous, I reckon, not to mention that it'd also be rather difficult to implement), advertising seems like a very reasonable solution, and I son't see a real reason to complain... if you can still be independent in your treatment of news and big advertisers don't twist your wrist when you're writing. I think you get the idea. And I mean this even when I often don't agree with the perspective and points of view from which you treat and analyse the news (but I still have to concede that you excel in seriousness, in use of proper english, and even in that subtle sense of humour so difficult to find outside the ever-expanding empire*).



On the other hand, I think that Stefan Stackhous, on comment #33 has hit on a valid nail. It is, indeed, unfair that brits pay a licence fee so I, from abroad, not even a brit (I am argentine), can enjoy 大象传媒's site content happily (well, perhaps not always happily) paid from british citizens' pockets and wallets.



Well, that was it. I hope that english being not my native tongue hasn't shown too evidently.



Kind regards to the brits up there, whom I learned to like by own experience and (in no small proportion) through George Mikes' books.



*"ever expanding empire" was meant as a friendly ironic remark (as if it was necessary for me to clarify...).

Will this lead to a reduction in the UK content we can see? I don't mind adverts, but the existing site is a great window into our home country for many expats - it would be a real shame if we were restricted to a "大象传媒 PRIME" version of the website...

Jestyn

(For those in the UK, 大象传媒 PRIME shows a poor selection of repeats from 大象传媒 UK channels, months or years after they are shown in the UK. Unfortunately it is often the only 大象传媒 available on many people's cable systems...)

It's sad that it's come to this but I definitely understand. As a user of 大象传媒 Web services in the U.S., I don't pay the license fee, so I don't think it's fair that UK residents pay for the services that *I* use.

As long as the services maintain their high-quality, and we're getting the same top-notch, fair reporting that UK viewers/readers get, I'm fine with it.

Bring on the ads. Meanwhile the 大象传媒 might want to consider getting ahead of the game and refuse on moral grounds all UK license fees since these are not paid in voluntarily. Either way, they will soon have to enter the 21st century and understand that a monolithic government broadcast service has no place on a free network.

"a majority of those surveyed in the UK agreed with the principle of advertising for international users. "

Wow, that's excellent statistical research.
Why don't you bother ask those concerned with the ads abroad instead?

The only problem I have with this is when I access the 大象传媒 from work. I am a UK license paying citizen. I work in the UK for an American company who has an internet proxy running out of Germany. As such the 大象传媒 (and many other sites) seem to assume I am German, and treat me accordingly. Which for the 大象传媒 means I am currently getting adverts before all 大象传媒 video clips.

This annoys me no end.

I'd rather that users like me who are abroad could pay a subscription fee to get the same content as UK users, but advertising will do.

But I do hope that we will be able to watch clips from Newsnight, Panorama etc in broadband now, and maybe even watch the live stream of 大象传媒 news 24 in broadband?

CNN now manages to have live streams clips all in broadband quality all over its web site, (supported by advertising). I really hope the 大象传媒 will be able to do the same.

The effect of advertising on nuetrality that people are suggesting is ludicrous. The vast majority of 大象传媒 funding comes from a combination of the license fee, the sale of other 大象传媒 media like magazines and the sale of 大象传媒 TV and Radio abroad.

The amount of money from advertising on the website will be minimal and so advertisers would be in no position to apply pressure and the Beeb is a large enough organisation in a position to tell them where to go if they do.

I also think the Beeb can't justify having UK citizens subsidise foreigners access to the website, and also unfair competition with other news websites abroad (i.e. no adverts in the website). The beeb's remit is to serve the UK, apart from 大象传媒 World Service and simply make money where it can from abroad.

I absolutely agree with T. North (#14) - I too "consciously avoid the news-for-profit media" and loath advertising on 大象传媒 World television. Seeing the same extremely unintelligent advert about commodities I will never be able to buy six times in a row soon gets to my stomach, despite the excellent reporting.
It seems understandable the 大象传媒 asks its international audience to "pay" as well, but it is EXTREMELY deplorable the 大象传媒 has now fallen victim to global advertitis as well.
I hope the British public realizes what fantastic service the 大象传媒 provides and I sympathise with those who will soon be made redundant - let us hope this will not be repeated.

Those in the know will simply make use of their ad-blocker to ensure they never see any 大象传媒 commercials.

Those *really* in the know will spoof their IP address, as mentioned by Bill Thomson on this very site this week, in order to fool the 大象传媒 into thinking they are accessing from the UK and enabling them to go on receiving ad-free pages, the iPlayer, and any other UK-only content the 大象传媒 might choose to make available.

Richard, you simply cannot dictate a user's internet experience in the way you are trying do do!

I pay a monthly fee for 大象传媒 prime and 大象传媒 world TV via my Swedish cable TV provider, being a an ex-pat I can't live without my daily dose of British news and entertainment. One of the reasons I have always preferred the 大象传媒 for news over CNN or MSNBC is the fact that there are no adverts which are based upon cookies or keywords. Watching CNN on TV is a pain with adverts between every bulletin. I never visit the website as it is swamped with ads. Whilst I understand the economics and the problems that the BEEB is having financially, I must say that I am dismayed by the development of international 大象传媒 websites becoming commercial.

As an American, I count on the 大象传媒 to give me the "real" news, not the news the US media filters to us in true Hollywood fashion. Many times the 大象传媒 gives me news about my country that the US media gives me a day later. I am truly disappointed in this decision. The 大象传媒 has succumbed to US practices.

Thin end of the wedge. Slippery slope. Which ever clich茅 you prefer, they are all relevant in this case.

There is an absolute connection between the main 大象传媒 site and the news site. To me and others the news site is the 大象传媒 site.

大象传媒 news is held up as a beacon of impartiality. No other news organisation can claim to be so. There is either advertising or direct government control. The 大象传媒 has been consistently the one of the most trusted organisations in Britain and the world

As we have been told over and over "due to the unique way the 大象传媒 is funded etc... ", now it is no longer unique. The 大象传媒 did not have to pander to anyone. It did not endorse anyone (I remember wondering what the magical substance sticky back plastic was for years as a child watching Blue Peter) but that has now changed and it will be far harder to reverse this decision that to make it in the first place.

There is plenty of chaff to drop in the 大象传媒 that would remove the need for this. It is a nail in the coffin of the current funding structure that this has been willingly implemented.

Several have already made this point, but I would like to add my support. I am about to emigrate and see that the 大象传媒 website will become an essential part of my life (as it is now). Whilst, I won't mind unobtrusive ads, I would be prepared to pay a fee to access the content. Is this being considered for international users?

Funny. As a National Public Radio listener in New York I am listening to a pledge drive at this very moment that is telling me that my contribution is helping to pay for the 大象传媒 World Service. I am a bit offended that the 大象传媒 seems to think this support does not count.

Spot the Cat
New York City

It麓s a sad day for the world when the last bastion of unbiased news media goes the way of the likes of CNN and MSNBC.

Michael
Milwaukee, USA

I don't have an issue with advertising on the international site - I'm aware from 大象传媒 World that the 大象传媒 is particularly discrete when it comes to advertising and doubt it will be a hinderance. What does irk me a little (and I admit it is only a little) is the principle in the 大象传媒 Charter that licence fee funding should not be used for international audiences. I am a Brit living in Belgium. Even if I didn't pay money to the 大象传媒, I would consider that this particular audience should be taken into account in much the same way as the minority who do not have a licence in the UK but still use 大象传媒 services such as this website or the radio. In fact, however, I do help fund the 大象传媒 in my small way in that I, like the majority of Belgians, subscribe to Belgacom, the incumbent cable operator. This enables me to watch 大象传媒1, 大象传媒2 and 大象传媒 World, which the 大象传媒 happily profits from. It seems to me that my community is contributing as much as anyone else in the UK and doesn't deserve second class treatment.

I wonder what this means to viewers who are part of the British Forces overseas and the children who are educated in MOD funded schools outside the UK but are a full part of the UK education structure. The bbc.co.uk web site is used to access educational sites in these schools. Already it is not possible to access video materials when not in the UK but part of the forces community. How will this move change things, will the button on bbc.co.uk to change to the UK verison be no longer available?

Advertisments shouldn't be a problem, everyone else has adverts, as long as there are no "popups".

L.MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada

I would prefer to pay an annual subscription fee similiar to the Guardian fee.

I really like the uncluttered 大象传媒 international page to use as my home page.

I don't know how the numbers compare and maybe it would be best to offer both the free with adverts and a subscription basis.

Sincerely.

The 大象传媒's world coverage is part of the bigger picture: UK public diplomacy.

So why not funding the 大象传媒 News online the same way that World Service is funded, i.e. directly by the Foreign Office?

I am a UK licence fee payer

Can you tell me then why I get Delta Airlines adverts instead of the items I clicked on already and in the UK

And if I am abroad on a business trip, do I get some way of saying I have paid my licence and dont want the adverts?

My respect recently for the 大象传媒 has been going down. You are laying off thousands, now your advertising. Not to mention the change in your content since the white wash commision a few years ago. I wonder when you decided to run as a private corporation, corporatism/facism. A sliperry slope.

This house can only receive 大象传媒 TV 1 & 2 and no others. Why not extend you coverage to Ilkley in West Yorkshire from cuts in your other channels?

Is a subscription option been considered? I love this site and wouldnt mind paying a small subscription fee to access the contect ad-free.

The problem with adverts is that they are usually overly repetitive (same advert showing all the time) which is very annoying and worst still sometimes completely irrelevant. At least show me adverts that might be relative to me or my location.

Thanks
Alex

Personally the ads don't bother me as I'll never see them. Using ad and content blockers with Firefox, I haven't seen an online ad in two years. I do worry it will compromise your editorial integrity though. Having been an editor at two publications, I know all too well that, no matter how much you say it won't, having advertising will affect your bias. I can recall several incidences during my time in print journalism where negative stories about a company or product were killed because the company was a major advertiser. You can't bite the hand that feeds you.

Advertising has been displayed before videos for some days now.

I'm a UK user, but work for a global corporation. Our corporate web proxy is in another country and is therefore treated as being abroad and so we get adverts when we shouldn't.

Oh well. There goes the 大象传媒.

I understand the need for money. People have to eat and live.

The queen needs her money too!

Since people around the world respect the 大象传媒 and want to keep it the way it is, I would suggest the Sun rise back on the British Empire by all countries agreeing to the Queen and the English Royal Family being the head of the Royal World. Every country will then be obligated to pay a tax to the royals and with this tax will be included a percent to the 大象传媒. This way the adverts can be discontinued immediately.

God Save the 大象传媒!

At least give us the option of paying a subscription, rather than being forced to suffer yet more ads.

I've already noticed the ads before the video clips, and they are the same appalling ads we see on 大象传媒 World TV.

Ads are bad enough; but boring, insipid, global ad campaigns such as those found on international satellite news channels are even worse! They are so often for random multinational infrastructure companies you've never heard of, or else poorly produced tourist ads advertising various random countries.

Tell me how much of the UK license fee goes on the website, and I'll write you a cheque for my share right now!

As an American who has the 大象传媒 as my Homepage I would be happy to pay a subscription fee to the 大象传媒.

The news outlets here have become tabloid entertainment. The so called news, what there is of it, is biased and reflects more of the opinions of the talking heads inside the DC Beltway.

I rely on the 大象传媒 for news and know there are high costs to maintain the website.

how about allowing downloads of archive material for a small subscription, free to anyone who has already bought a tv licence? allowing advertising just brings in commercial pressure on content (even if you try to avoid it, it's still there..). and it's annoying. there should at leat be the option to subscribe.

And for us UK license payers who happen to be surfing the web whilst abroad? Not only are we not allowed to view streaming content (that we can see in the UK,) but we are also now forced to view advertising too. This really needs a password facility to allow the same access as in the UK for UK license payers.

I understand that this is one of the only ways to fund 大象传媒 for international viewers when you cannot use the domestic funding.

Unless... there is an unless here. Small, non-intrusive advertisements are not a problem for viewers of this website. But when ads become intrusive (like scrolling over the content, flashing in big images) or when more than 25% of the screen becomes ads viewing, the 大象传媒 loses it's viewers.

Also, there is a danger that the dependencies will overrule the newsbringing facts. When the 大象传媒 reports of fraud at company X while this company is one of the biggest spenders on adverstisement on the 大象传媒 there is danger that the 'facts' will need to be 'altered'.

But in general, many internet users use ad-blocking addons that are available for Firefox but also for Internet Explorer so when ads become the majority on a site or intrusive, users block all ads on a site, eg 大象传媒.com.

And of course, I am glad that you are producing a Flash based viewer to stream your archive content for Mac users, but we have the same rights as windoze users and as a state-funded organisation you have a moral duty to provide the SAME services to all major platform users. This means abandoning the MS DRM player and using one of the many alternatives available.

I notice that you mention that advertising is the logical way for international readers to contribute to the 大象传媒 costs. This really is incorrect. You are getting advertising money from the advertisers in their HOPE that we will buy their products. This has never worked on me with other sites that use this method. In fact, I abandoned CNN.COM for that very reason.

In Belgium we pay the 大象传媒 through fees paid to our cable tv providers so will you be giving us advert free news here? Also, are you going to explain one day why you stopped ceefax, except for programme listings, in Belgium? I did ask at the time but you couldn't be bothered to reply. Perhaps you did it for a laugh just to annoy us, knowing we have to keep paying you the same sum for less service.

I'll accept the advertising if you stop blocking TMC test commentaries to listeners outside the UK.

As an expat living in an Internet Third World (rural USA), I dread any potential threat to the rapid screen viewing I currently get of the 大象传媒 site via my dial-up connection. No joke, anyone more than 3 miles from a DSL hub and unwilling to pay the premium for satellite-based Internet is toast for broadband. Even the cable TV providers won't invest in broadband.
My browser (which I hesitate to update because it would take all night to download, by which time it will be out of date again) crashes when I try to visit many US news sites because it can't handle, I think, the ads, which, of course, always load first.
Videos? forget it.
If you must pay for the overseas news with advertisements, please ensure that a) the news content loads first and b) the ads don't subsequently destroy the experience by kicking me into the ether.
In my view, over the Internet, low tech is the best tech.
PS I'm on a Mac.

I have long suggested that all 大象传媒 domestic channels be made available on some sort of subscription basis worldwide either by satellite or the web. This may be in addition to taking modest advertising and would also enable domestic viewers in difficult-to-access places to be able to receive all the digital channels.

Thus ex-pats and others could watch all 大象传媒 channels around the world - and pay for them. I believe there would be a large market for the best broadcaster in the world (even if some of the journalistic standards have slipped recently).

The only problem is possible conflict with local channels that take 大象传媒 programs and non-大象传媒 programs that are strictly for UK only. These are programming problems that can be circumvented and the 大象传媒 could benefit from income that would render the present redundancies pointless.

It just requires some thinking out of the box and perhaps the limiting of the licence fee is a blessing in disguise.

I suppose you're in-between a rock and a hard place, eh? As a Canadian who daily accesses the wealth of information available from 大象传媒 websites, I'd like to thank you for keeping content accessible to int'l users. However, I'm duty-bound to advise that my browser is set to block ads, so it won't affect me a whit. Perhaps another method of profit-gathering is in order?

It is important that the 大象传媒 keep it's integrity and not even chance being influenced by the controlling antics of commercialization. Keep the advertising the out - the reporting and the site clean and it will be worth every penny. I live in the U.S. where we suffer at the hands of commercial influence in everything and as such the 大象传媒 is an oasis of genuine reporting. Please keep the advertisers out - they contaminate good reporting

Firstly, I'd like to point out that when I was a UK resident I used to access 大象传媒 online from a proxy server in the Netherlands. Now the authentication that you are talking about would render me as a foreign user, although I was sitting in Berkshire!

Also, now that I live aborad I access 大象传媒 news frequently to keep updated on issues at home. Actually no problem for me when it comes to adverts on the website, as indeed you need to generate money. But when you can't get ANY coverage of certain sports, and 大象传媒 Radio 5 Live is blocked because of broadcasting rights, it gets VERY frustrating. How can you solve that one?

Cheers

Why not introduce a third option: a subscription fee for non-UK users who want to access 大象传媒 without ads? I believe there are many people who would gladly take this option to avoid ads and have full access to all the site content.

I think I can handle 'unobtrusive' advertising - although if the ads are for products not available in my country, I might be a little amused.

I do however see the whole bbc website as a large advertisement for 大象传媒 products - especially since the bbc decided to no longer broadcast shortwave in North America - leaving us with little option in Canada but to subscribe to 大象传媒 World or 大象传媒 Canada to have non-internet access to one of the best news sources in the world.

In the USA I believe they regularly broadcast 大象传媒 Worldservice segments on the National Public Radio stations - which one can occasionally pick-up when very close to the border (not, however, in Toronto, e.g.).

I have little problem with the option for different access levels - so long as the news content and media content are about the same. I pay extra to my cable company so that I can see 大象传媒 on television. Why should that not also entitle me to UK-level access to 大象传媒 via the internet? If someone else doesn't pay for cable access, recouping some costs via reasonable advertising should be their 'free' option (without restricting actual content).

All that said - I agree with comments above about improving the video quality (if affordable). The CBC in Canada has rather high-quality video online and it does not resort (yet) to online advertising beyond advertising for its own TV shows and programmes. Like the 大象传媒 it is publically funded (however it does show a good deal of advertising on television).

Commenting as an overseas user and whilst completely understanding the need for the 大象传媒 to generate income, part of the appeal of the site is the fact that one is not bombarded with ads - which I find deeply irritating.

I would be more than happy to pay a subscription to use the site as I do on a daily basis. Could this not be considered as an alternative?

As there is not much difference in 大象传媒 programming compared with the commercial operators such as ITV, why not just drop the license fee and go commercial? On the other hand, if the 大象传媒 is supposed to be providing a public service based on what amounts to a TV tax, they don't need to chase ratings and follow the "dumb-down approach" so favoured in UK broadcasting. Other national public broadcasters seem to concentrate on promoting their respective countries, languages, cultures and ideals at home and abroad.

No problem if it helps maintain the existing service. However I would hope that the 大象传媒 looked into allowing international access to archive TV and sports audio/TV as part of an international subscription service as poster #33 Stefan Stackhouse suggests.

What's the big deal! Putting sticky back plastic over Kellogs logos never made Blue Peter more independent, it was just a philosophy that was rigorously enforced.

When I last looked at 大象传媒 World, there were plenty of adverts there. If 大象传媒 World's got problems, its not with its neutrality, its because it's output doesn't come anywhere near the World Service in terms of standards. Programmes like "Hard Talk" are too reverential to their subjects and just come off as poor cousins of Larry King. For my money, let 大象传媒 World reflect the best of 大象传媒2 output (I would pay anything to see University Challenge and its ilk) and 大象传媒 Prime can chase the 大象传媒1 mob with "Silent Witness" and endless repeats of "Eastenders".

Lastly, FiveLive international seems to have lost most of its content because of licensing problems (the loop "We are sorry but the current programming...." seems to feature more often than before), I would pay an annual fee to hear Alan Green and Ian Robertson. I'm not sure how a commentary can be legally restricted anymore than a newspaper correspondant stating that his report will not be circulated in certain regions

I will be horribly disappointed if this means that the full range of bbc news is not available to viewers outside the UK. It sounds like 大象传媒.com will have content geared to an "international" audience, but it's the local news from the UK that I'm interested in.

I hope you will clarify this point.

Advertising on 大象传媒 is not the best news of the day but in light of headlines reading "大象传媒 Trust approves plans to cut thousands of jobs, sell off its headquarters and reduce the number of programmes it makes" it's not all that bad.
I'd rather have 大象传媒news.com with ads than no 大象传媒 at all. It's a very small price to pay for such high quality news and information.

I would prefer to pay for advert-free access than have free access to adverts for products and services I have no interest in.

You can get 'Adblock Plus' as a plugin for the Firefox web browser which automatically replaces adverts on web sites with blank space. Very nice, reclaim your computer screen for yourself. As for the 大象传媒, it is odd that TV users must fund it, while radio and online users don't need to. How about funding it out of a general progressive taxation, does that sound fairer?

Please don't use those adverts that popup over the text. Banner ads on the side of the page are OK.

The internet is a world wide domain. This is the beginning of a decline if the bbc sees the need to place ads and worry about advertisers.It could only negatively effect the site.Please reconsider.

I would just like to add my voice to the many who say that it's understandable, but please do it right.

The site's video content has been more or less useless for non-Windows users for years. It seems to work now, but with horrendously invasive advertising (both the airline and the pointless 大象传媒 intro).

The 大象传媒's layout has always been a model of simplicity and elegance for a news site: quick and intuitive access to relevant information, relevant links, fast load times and minimal impact on the reader's machine.

Advertisers typically care little about user's bandwidth or ability to browse quickly, as long as you see their message.

The result is typical of almost all "other" news websites: sluggish browsing, hanging browsers, overuse of cookies from multiple domains (the advertisers want to know about you!), impact on bandwidth (especially for dialup users, who probably need the 大象传媒 most) and CPU hogging.

So while it's understandable, please PLEASE do it right.

I am a regular user of 大象传媒 News website and its Urdu edition and i would rather pleased to pay the fees for the quality news content.

Karachi

I have recently moved to the USA and I subscribe to 大象传媒 America and 大象传媒 radio 1 on Sirus radio. I am fine with adverts, but I want to be able to listen to football match commentary's. These are blocked out for "contractual obligations". This would be fine if there was an option to watch or listen to the match over here but there isn't. So by all means charge a fee, have advertising, but I want full access to everything on the 大象传媒 website.

Archaic decision. Welcome to the USA. 大象传媒 viewership has just declined, check your metrics in a year.

I live and work in the UK, but my company's Internet access point is located in France. As such all streams automatically default to the international versions. Whenever I start up a new browser it defaults to the international news page. I suppose that now I'll get advertising too. If there was support for user accounts that are linked to the TV licence number then UK licence fee payers could access the services regardless of how they connect.

As an overseas reader I have a certain sympathy with the position the 大象传媒 is in and accept that something probably has to be done to rectify the situation. It doesn't seem fair that UK licence fee payers pay for a site that is used by people all over the world.

A lot depends on how the advertising will be placed. If its just going to be scrollers embedded in the pages thats fine but if its going to be huge intrusive popup then I'll be turning on my ad blocking software which defeats the purpose of carrying advertising.

But I am more concerned about the idea that only part of the site will be available. Personally I don't see the justification for this. Its a bit of a double whammy. More advertising/Less content. I fear that if this is the situation I will just end finding another source of news information.

Roy in comment 11 complains that he can't get a rebate for the periods of the year when he's out of the country. Actually, he can do exactly that. Remembering that the licence fee is per household rather than per person, if nobody in a household is going to be there for a three-month period, you're perfectly entitled to a rebate. I agree that's not perfect - if you're only away for eleven weeks you get no discount - but it's better than nothing.

Great decision. Restricting 大象传媒 content to UK users defeats the whole point of the internet somewhat, but on the other hand it does seem somewhat unfair that international users are receiving free content for which we, the UK TV license payer must foot the bill.

You've struck a good balance.

As for the "does this mean I have to view adverts when abroad" brigade, well obviously yes. Just as you do with 大象传媒 World, 大象传媒 America, etc. This is looking for problems where they don't really exist.

Peter, post 21 - the 大象传媒 have servers distributed around the world to serve the content on this site simply because a single site could not cope with the amount of traffic. Those other servers cost the 大象传媒 more money and since the service they provide isn't of much benefit to license payers the 大象传媒 want to fund them separately.

The only fly in the ointment is license payers abroad will have to put up with advertising. However, this is just one of the problems of a dual funding model for broadcast media.

I applaud this decision. I am an expat who uses the 大象传媒 site a lot, and am perfectly happy to have ads displayed. International users like myself cannot expect to enjoy content at the expense of UK licence payers. I also hope that this will lead to an expansion of content available to international users, funded by either advertising or subscription.

I hope that this will not lead to the introuction of fees, etc. Many of those who access the 大象传媒 website outside the UK are British citizens who are, for whatever reason, away from the UK pro tempore, but who nevertheless pay the licence fee when at home.

If people are concerned about seeing ADs they can download an Adblocker, people still have a choice if the want ads or not.

I use the 大象传媒 site from Norway, watch 大象传媒 Prime, and listen to World Service when it's being broadcast on the local 'state' radio stations (our version of the 大象传媒).

A licence fee is paid to the latter (who I presume pay to broadcast WS?), and I pay extra for access to obtain access to 大象传媒 Prime, which I assume some part of goes to the 大象传媒 for the privilege.

So not all users abroad are being 'subsidised' by UK licence payers.

One reason I use the 大象传媒 site is the lack of advertising. Not a day I am looking forward to.

I guess this was all inevitable and hopefully won't adversely affect news reporting (don't want to upset the "sponsors" now do we).

However the biggest problem right now with the 大象传媒 is it's blinkered one-eyed decision to jump into bed with Microsoft and deny an awful lot of UK & world users the possibility of using iPlayer.

The "only 3% of users" is wildly incorrect so stop using it and there are plenty of cross-platform, non-MS solutions out there.

Can't help but giggle at some responses to this.

To the people complaining about the TV "tax" what exactly is your point? 30million people listen to 大象传媒 radio going into and home from work each day. For me, 拢150 is absolutely fine considering the 800+ hours of Chris Moyles I get to listen to every day - not even thinking about the quality programming on the telly as well!

Commercial radio - rubbish. Commercial tv - awful. Would you rather not pay the "tax" and have to endure ads every 5 minutes on the telly?

Quit yer moanin!

Anyway, 拢150 a year is worth is just to maintain the last bastion of British greatness - the 大象传媒.

I was however delighted to see that the 大象传媒 are willing to make foreigners pay to use their services - not because I dislike the notion of people getting the service for free, but because the extra income generated could in a few years make sufficient money to increase the quality of 大象传媒 reporting and programming!

Aaaaaghhh! No, please no!

This makes the 大象传媒 like any other. No reason to come here any more. Might as well call it bbcnn.com

Alex Martin
Brussels

Please reconsider.

Many users like myself have ISPs perhaps via work which seem to "track back" to some country outside of the UK.

Despite having lived in London my whole life, I am defaulted to the international version, directed to "google.de", and get german adverts on some sites.

You simply cannot reliably tell someone's location from the IP address. I do not want to see adverts on the 大象传媒!

I support this decision in principle as one who relies on the 大象传媒 website from Canada. I hope this will mean that all content is available too.

I appreciate the promise of keep the advertising from intruding on the content, and I'm sure the many international fans of the 大象传媒 will raise any concerns if you fall short!

Who cares? I have adblocker.

大象传媒 is a lifeline not only for UK citizens abroad, but for those of us in America who cannot trust our own media.

I support your decision to offset costs with advertising. However, I'd like the option to subscribe whereby I can continue to receive 大象传媒 content without those adds. They annoy me.

With a subscription model I can help offset the costs of my use more directly, and for UK citizens abroad I'm certain IT could make arrangements such that they can continue to receive the 大象传媒 content exactly as they do now.

Warm Regards,
Frankie

Already it is not possible for us overseas users to access everything on the 大象传媒 website (notably clips of TV shows etc), if adverts are now going to be inflicted on us then I will certainly be visiting the site much less and looking for alternative ways to keep up with life in Britain.

Showing ads is fair enough - I have a blog and nobody seems to mind that I have ads on it. But I am worried that 大象传媒 World TV is being cited as an example. Where I live, you have to buy it on cable and endure excruciating half hour infomercials.

It's a very poor replacement for real 大象传媒 news, and shows endless repeats. There's almost a complete black-out on live sports reporting. They're not able to give a half-time score or mid race report. The weather is a joke - this summer we were continually told it was raining (it rained twice). And someone please tell the weathermen about global warming. While poor Greece was in danger of burning to a crisp, day after day they chirpily declared 鈥渁nother lovely sunny day today in Greece鈥�. Don鈥檛 they understand that 鈥渟un鈥� does not always equal 鈥済ood鈥� in areas stricken by draught, desertification and fire.

I鈥檝e heard them refer to Taiwan as located in South East China, and rather than refer to Tibet as a country under Chinese occupation, they seem to avoid referring to it at all, other than in Chinese terms. They鈥檙e obviously terrified of losing the world鈥檚 potential number one customer. For that very reason I doubt this comment will be posted. If they follow the 大象传媒 World model, what is currently the best website in the world is heading for the trash can.

Calling one time..2 times..3 times..
SOLD - 大象传媒'S integrity.

As an American, I'm very saddened by this news. As an international user, I don't expect to reap the benefits of the 大象传媒 for free while UK citizens pay for it. But I know from watching news in the states, that quality, independence, and integrity go completely out the window when advertisers are brought on board. I've always thought of the 大象传媒 as a safe haven for independent news, and to that end, I wouldn't mind paying a subscription fee if that's what's necessary to keep the site available to international users. But I don't want to see the integrity of the 大象传媒 tarnished do to corporate meddling.

I can understand the motivation for this. Hopefully the ads will not occupy 60% of your page space.

However, I find that advertisements serve little purpose aside from being a source of annoyance.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO... IF IT HAS ADVERTISING IT IS NOT THE 大象传媒. IF IT IS NOT THE 大象传媒 I DONT WANT IT. so if you put advertising up i will not be using the 大象传媒.

I spend alot of time in the USA, and pay tax and license fee in the UK all year round. The broadcast news here is terrible, and the one haven against the unrelenting barrage of advertising is the 大象传媒 website.

The changes that Mark Thomson has outlined, I believe are the start of a slippery slope. Please dont allow this change to happen. We should have a referendum to see whether the public would rather pay more license fee or be subjected to advertising on the 大象传媒 website.

If it was a straight choice between the two I would gladly pay more license fee. I do feel that we are being dictated to a little here.

I know many Americans do also depend on the 大象传媒 website for an unbiased perspective on the world. So....

Why not make foreign users pay to use the 大象传媒 website and those of us that pay the license fee can enter their License number like some sort of pin...that way the 大象传媒 gets more money (from the foreign users) and us Brits abroad can continue to use the service without adverts and popups.

As a loyal reader who likes to hear a news perspective from outside the US (and its small group of people that have a lot of control over US media) I am very disappointed. However, I understand that the taxpayers in the UK should not have to pay to inform others.

A warning though--internet loyalty is not as strong as one might think, and if the site becomes annoying people will go elsewhere. I think abcnews.com in the US is learning this lesson.

Also, I am very curious who actually wants to advertise to the "everyone on earth except UK" market?

Another chauvinistic move: international and web readers are to carry the adverts and therefore the changing editorial independence of the 大象传媒 (example: how could the bbc report about some mishap in one of the advertisers companies? Blackwater for example?)
I agree with Alex Martin: read the news at any other website, since the bbc is protecting its main revenue payer: the UK license payer. See what I mean?

I've been reading the 大象传媒 site from abroad for several years and I've often felt a bit guilty that I have not been paying for it through a TV license. But I really do not want to have to wade through adverts.

Would it be possible for me to subscribe to this site (paying a fee proportional to the amount of the license fee that goes to maintaining the 大象传媒's web sites) and then get the same access as I would if I lived in the UK?

Sorry Jon(#61) but advertising will affect the impartiality even if it only in the perception. The problem is that its the perceived impartiality that is why the 大象传媒 is so well regarded around the world and attracts so many visitors. As an Brit in the USA I know people recognize this.

As for the License payers subsidizing the foreigners, what nonsense. If the site was blocked to everyone outside the UK the operating costs would not change one cent. Changing the site to show different versions in different locations will add cost, complexity to the operation of the site. The potential for bugs and other operational issues will increase. So in actual fact the 大象传媒 wants the foreigners to subsidize the License payer. If cost is really the issue then how come I can listen 大象传媒 Radio over the internet without adverts and that service does involve additional costs, or is that going to change too.

I visit the 大象传媒 site every day as my news source precisely because its the only site with no commercial intrusions. I don't visit CNN for that reason and I'm very disappointed that the 大象传媒 has chosen to do this.

It seems that I may be in the minority but I would much, much prefer to pay a small annual "membership" or registration fee to receive 大象传媒 web service than have to listen to inane adverts every time I click on something.

Much has been made of the advertizing approach in other countires etc - but the reason I use 大象传媒 is precicely because I can access quality information quickly and directly. I live in North America - for goodness sake do not follow this dumbed down model!

大象传媒 has the right to do so, but the reason they are showing non-UK readers are benefiting at the expense of UK license fee payers is some what not convincing. i don't think I'm on "bbc.co.in"

i think ads won't affect the quality of the content.

Personally i check sports page that too EPL & rugby stuff and news of major events in UK.

I don't think i would depend on 大象传媒 services for any news of my country or to the fact any other country excepting UK.
for me it's just a window to UK, nothing more than that. so I'm peeking into your space so u want a ticket for it, if there are sponsors for that why would i bother?

From a technical standpoint, it's perfectly possible for the 大象传媒 to serve page views for international viewers with and without advertising. Salon.com does it, for instance. Plainly a good number of people would be willing to take that subscription.

I'd be more inclined to subscribe if I could get access to current programming, especially radio commentary for international football games. The challenge of using the internet as a data channel is that it doesn't match well with territory-based sales of broadcasting rights. I'm willing to pay someone for radio commentary, why not the 大象传媒?

On the other hand, maybe I should be pleased I didn't have to listen to last night's debacle in Tbilisi. Some things don't change, alas.

I understand the economic realities of the situation, and while I'm disappointed that I'll have to view advertising to read 大象传媒 News, I can't see that it's fair to complain about it. It certainly is the truth that UK citizens are paying for your services, and I'm not paying a thing for them. I am from the U.S., and as you might imagine it was refreshing to find a news service that was uncluttered by advertisements, and whose integrity was showcased by its own prohibitions against advertising; however, the thing that has made 大象传媒 News into my primary source of news content is the quality of your reporting and your repeatedly demonstrated comittment to fairness.

I was prompted to post this comment because of one major concern: the bandwidth and processing requirements of the advertising you choose for your websites. Like most U.S. residents I have access only to a dial-up internet connection, and a rather poor quality one at that. I'm also using an outdated computer because of fairly ordinary financial restrictions. I'm poor by U.S. standards, but compared to the technology resources available in most other nations, I enjoy an abundance of speedy information access. And most of the mainstream news sources obviously forget about (or blatantly ignore) the technological limitations I and the vast majority of other people have.

On those very rare occasions I go to the websites of other large news organizations, I have found them to be literally unusable as a direct result of their advertising schemes. It seems the advertisers are not content to have simple, classy, still advertisements; everything is interactive, scripted, animated, soundtracked... on and on. One of these advertisments would be enough to increase the page's loading time five- or tenfold, but there are always at least two, and sometimes three or more, as sidebars, topbars, and interspersed throughout the text, sometimes for the same product (but all requiring their own load-times), usually for different ones. By the time the ads have loaded, I'm lucky if I can get my overworked processor to allow me to scroll down and read the content I actually wanted to see.

I understand that many people have better computers and connections than I do, but the simple fact is that most do not. I expect you're considering this all very carefully, so please, when you choose your advertising content do so with care, with an eye for bandwidth and processor requirements, and try to preserve the fast-loading, sleek 大象传媒 website I've grown to love.

I wish someone had thought to use public revenue to serve world-wide 大象传媒 audiencies, and have H.M. Govt. count it as part of UK Foreign Aid.

The best way to serve the world may be to give them something you are good at.

I live in Canada and the 大象传媒 news site is my homepage. I'm happy to endure advertisements, just as I do when I watch the 大象传媒 News on television, in order to continue to have access to this excellent service.

I have to agree with posts #65 and #134.

I can accept the funding issues. But, I'd rather pay for a subscription, thank you.

I am in the US and get my news first from the 大象传媒. In particular, I like the outside-looking-in viewpoint, as it is not so beholden to the commercial or political interests as our domestic news media are.

How long until the 大象传媒 becomes subservient to the advertisers? Welcome to the US, have a nice day.

As a Brit who has lived in the US for almost 30 years (with 5 years back in the UK over the millennium) I am used to seeing 大象传媒 World TV news with advertising on 大象传媒 World in the early evening, and - bizarrely enough - the same program without advertising 30 minutes later on my local PBS station here in Atlanta, although it is 'brought to you by....'.

I have no problem with the 大象传媒 website carrying advertising for overseas users. I access the Telegraph and Times websites every day, and they carry advertising.

So long as the advertising is viewed as a supplementary source of income to offset expenses, and the programming is the product being delivered, then fine. When - as is the case with most TV now - the product being sold is NOT programming to an audience, but the product being sold is an audience to an advertiser, then that is where the idea breaks down.

The question is - can the 大象传媒 maintain the former while resisting the financial temptations of the latter?

An international user, I would *gladly* pay a fee to have full access to the 大象传媒's UK-only web features, which are currently blocked by an IP sniffer. Especially if a drama or music archive is ever made available online, it would be well worth the money for international access and the funds raised could go toward artist and union fees. The 大象传媒 should strongly consider more fully exploiting its media assets.

I'm a British citizen living abroad, I pay a licence fee for the TV a keep at my London flat. Why should I have to view ads as well?

Please offer me a subscription-based alternative whereby I can pay an annual fee to "login" to the 大象传媒 website and be spared the commercials.

I treasure the 大象传媒 world service over the internet and view the prospect of advertising with unveiled disgust. I am more than willing to pay for the service WITHOUT the advertising. (cf Grauniad). Will this be available?

Boo! Hiss! Shame!

I truely enjoyed being able to visit the 大象传媒 news website without dancing shaddows telling me what a great mortgage rate I could refinance to. (We all see where that led to now don't we.) Do you really want to lower yourselves to this standard???

We in the U.S. can hardly get commercial free anything, which is why I was such a loyal reader of 大象传媒 News.com. I guess I'll have to go to PBS or NPR.org now. Alas, is nothing sacred :-(

I have Firefox and Adblock Plus, so no ads for me, thanks a lot.

I personally do not finding advertising a problem - like many other people have mentioned I'll just block it with my browser should I find it too intrusive.
I am however disappointed, as a Brit living in Canada I do like to keep in touch with life back in Blighty with the English perspective. - But aren't I already contributing with my watching the commercial filed channels 大象传媒 world and 大象传媒 Canada.
I do hope this is the start of the end of the UK's TV Licence , as stated many times here nothing more than a tax by another name.

There is always a countermeasure.

I can ALWAYS use a proxy server located in the UK, and you can't stop me. Or as mentioned earlier, I can really go through the trouble and spoof my IP address. And if I was gonna do that I'd make sure it was one of 大象传媒's own addresses.

Yet another case of a monster corporation trying to dictate who certain information goes to on a open global network. Look, China can't do it, Turner can't do it, Murdoch can't do it and neither can 大象传媒.

I'm not dealing with ads from you or anyone else. I dont use CNN/SABC/ABC/MSNBC and nearly every newspaper in the world's web pages because of the ads. I simply dont use them. If 大象传媒's journalistic quality starts to slip, ill stop using you too, why bother dealing with a proxy when the content sucks?

Both Google and Yahoo do advertising, and though Yahoo's ads are graphical, intrusive and annoying they lag Google in ads revenue.
I hope you will follow Google's model.

Best of luck

Saeed, Toronto

I live in the US. I can hardly stand all the adverts that you have to put up with just to have news online. I suppose that is why I have always gotten most of my news from other and exterior sources, such as 大象传媒 News. The reporting is above reproach. There has never been any political spin put on any of your articles or videos. I find out more about what is happening in the US when I view 大象传媒 than any of those American stations such as ABC, NBC, or CBS. But now I fear that you will go the same route as those corporations because they are at the mercy of their sponsers. They rely on those monies to fund their broadband and television medias and when the sponsers complain or pull funding they are in essence black mailing a corporate giant to roll over and play to their own political agendas.
It's really too bad you are joining this particular club

I'm an American who became a 大象传媒 addict while living in Poland and Hungary. The recently announced job cutbacks worry me much more than the adverts. After all, you need to raise more cash, and it is not really fair for people like me to sponge off the license fees from the UK.

I only hope your personnel cuts won't turn the 大象传媒 into another bottom-line focused news source. Please don't turn into an American-style medium!

Having adverts on 大象传媒 websites is a bad idea. Director General Mark Thomson and Sir Micheal Lyons should resign immediately.

I don't mind advertising -- I use Firefox to block obnoxious (video, flash, etc.) ads, but text and other non-obtrusive stuff doesn't bother me in the least: sometimes I even click on ads, when they seem to sell something I actually want. Conversely, I think I've had pop-up blockers installed for three or four years by now. And the likelihood of individual advertisers impacting the journalistic integrity of the news service can be easily combated with basic ethical guidelines you should have anyway.

I'd just love to see the 大象传媒 content international viewers don't have access to. I can see commercial television from here in the US on the broadcaster's website: when I miss an episode of Heroes or Lost it's no big deal (and I doubt that Honda is forcing re-writes of the shows they stick their ads in front of -- and if they did, there are dozens of other potential advertisers in the background: for anything that doesn't violate communal norms, advertiser pressure shouldn't have a substantial impact.) But if I want to see Torchwood, I need to upgrade my cable service at a cost of hundreds of dollars a year, because it's not available online. Similarly, I hope that all the same stories I can see now, are still online. The internet is already international: restricting or changing content arbitrarily based on the user's IP address is silly.

I completely agree with comment 143.

As an international user, I don't expect to reap the benefits of the 大象传媒 for free while UK citizens pay for it. But I know that quality, independence, and integrity go completely out the window when advertisers are brought on board. I've always thought of the 大象传媒 as a safe haven for independent news, and to that end, I wouldn't mind paying a subscription fee if that's what's necessary to keep the site available to international users. But I don't want to see the integrity of the 大象传媒 tarnished do to corporate meddling.

For me, it's either a subscription fee, or addblocker plus!

This is a bad short sighted penny pinching decision. I am English but I read the 大象传媒 online from America where I live.

The 大象传媒 is one of the best pieces of UK projection. And the bbc wesbite not carrying adverts is one of its best features.

UK licence payers should take a broader and longer view and keep it ad free for the whole world.

Not all public space needs to be commerialised. Inevtiably trust and traffic will suffer.

Reconsider.

Chris Smith

We in the US come to the 大象传媒 because the product is (sigh, has been) unfettered by the vague influences of advertising, and because 大象传媒 provides an enlightened perspective not found elsewhere (many are sick to death of 'faux' news and the like).

Please consider a fee-based membership for those of us who would like to skip the ads. There are many in the US who would be happy to pay, and it is possible that could not only save some jobs and programs at the 大象传媒, but also might keep 大象传媒 from sliding down that slippery advertising slope.

I'm ready with my PayPal account when you are!

This is a terrible decision by the 大象传媒. The internet an open international platform and politicians should not be allowed to interfere with content that is broadcast on such a global medium. I'm not saying that the 大象传媒 is as bad as Google, agreeing to restrict search terms such as 'Democracy' and 'Tiananmen Square' for the internet users of China, but this sends bad signals worldwide. The 大象传媒 is one of the most highly respected web sites on the internet and has always set an example of how things should be done. The 大象传媒 should continue to publish the same content to all internet users - as they do for listeners of 大象传媒 World Service radio.

will we non UK users now be able to have access to the UK only content?

Agree with #173. I am English but living in Europe and would happily pay a reasonably-priced subscription to avoid seeing ads.

Until that becomes possible I will use a UK-based proxy service to appear to the servers as if I am in Britain, as I suspect will many others.

Sadly I will no longer be able to recommend the 大象传媒 News website as the best online news provider after this development though. Ads suck, and look awful.

So long as I am not re-routed to 大象传媒.COM, the 大象传媒 can have as many adverts as the page can hold. But if I get re-routed, then goodbye, 大象传媒. Pleasure knowing you.

Count me in! Anything that helps keep real journalism coming to the public is worth it, to me anyway.

This is a terrible change. The 大象传媒 was one of the last few bastions one could rely on for reasonably impartial cover of world events.

If I wanted to see or read corporate-dominated news, I would have been using any of the myriad of american news sources. (CNN, etc.)

Likely it is way too late to do anything about this, but I hereby mourn the passing of the only news source I still continued to read regularly.

PS: Do kindly put me in under "international users did INDEED express a strong objection"

Have to say, I wont be coming here so often if its plastered with ads..... (I'm a Brit, living outside GB)

Down here in Sydney, I've started to receive the airline ad. After 50 years of life with the 大象传媒 I'm disappointed. I believe you've surrendered part of something that cannot be measured in or replaced by dollars. Sad, sad day.

Result: 大象传媒 is dependent on the income from the adverts + advertisers withdraw ads when disagree with 大象传媒 coverage = the quality and objectivity of the news WILL BECOME MORE & MORE DILUTED - that's how it always works, you Brits are not so special that it won't happen to you....

I will gladly donate money to the 大象传媒 each month to prevent this from occurring.

I'm a UK Citizen now living in Canada. I would rather pay a subscription fee than have to see Ads on the 大象传媒.

The 大象传媒 is such a valuable British gift for the world. Please don't cut it back.

I notice there are ads on the 大象传媒 world service television channel now. They appear to be high quality 'corporate' marketing but I would rather not have to be distracted by them. They do 'lower the tone'.

Will I need to invest in software that fakes a UK IP address so that can receive the traditional 大象传媒 quality ?

I would rather invest directly in the 大象传媒 by way of a subscription.

Ads? Please, no! I have always been attracted to the 大象传媒 web pages because of their cleanliness. When I visit the web pages of your rivals, it takes a while for me to locate the actual story amidst all the clutter that they call advertising. I know the entire right half of the 大象传媒 web pages are blank but I think it's better that way instead of having the reader bombarded with graphics and moving pictures that will inevitably distract the reader from the news

Washington, DC

I'm kind of sad to hear there will be ads on the site.

As an American, I don't pay a license fee for the 大象传媒, but I still read it regularly as it's really the only good source of news in America.

One of the big problems with the media over here is that they all have to answer to various corporations for their content, which limits what they can report on considerably. I hope never to see the same on the 大象传媒.

Too bad you can't just tax America. That would be preferable to losing our last source of objective news.

At one stage it looked like free UK Museums would die out, and places started to charge. However, it was not just the economics that defeated it, it was the sense of who we are. In the end we ask for donations, and hope that those who believe in what we stand for will see the benefits of contributing.

The 大象传媒 with adverts is not the 大象传媒. In the end hopefully sense will prevail and the only adverts will be, if you believe in what we do please contribute.

What really saddens me is it shows that the 大象传媒 (and perhaps the nation at large) has lost a sense of who it is and why it exists. I hope that it will regain it soon.

Reading these comments, I am more confused than ever. As an ex-pat, I was DELIGHTED that choosing the digital option on my cable service gave me access to more 大象传媒 channels.

I already live with a horrendous amount of advertising on various European commercial channels.

大象传媒 World has advertising, not much and not overly intrusive, and I don't think it influences programming. Personally, if I get the programmes, I will put up with the adverts. Kept in proportion.

It would be extremely sad and a loss to the whole world if the true excellence of 大象传媒 productions were to be lost.

I can't even start to mention the programmes which are sold to other stations around the world.

If it takes a few adverts to keep that going, maybe that is the price we all have to pay.

In passing, the 大象传媒 World Service has probably done more for democracy than anyone else. Information at grass root levels is the key.

I am sorry that the 大象传媒, which has always had a great news website has taken the first step on the slippery slide greased by profit motives.

I predict that in 2 years this site will look exactly like msnbc.com

Too bad, you had a really great website.

Bye Bye

Jim

Washington State, U.S.A

As an ex-pat now living in Canada I rely on the 大象传媒 News website both for keeping in touch with home and for the best coverage of worldwide news there is. It's only when you leave Britain to live elsewhere that you truly discover what a truly superb service the 大象传媒 offer. Almost every colleague I know at work defaults to the 大象传媒 for quality multi-perspective journalism. This is my home-page for crying out loud. The idea that this is going to be sullied by advertising truly appalls me. I would be happy to pay a monthly fee (within reason) to keep this advert free. Better still charge me a fee and give me access to all your current progamming for download as well. Maybe the 大象传媒 is missing an opportunity here to make up for the loss of licence fee funds. Please please do not descend the slippery slope to commercialism.

I guess all good things must come to an end. It's a bit of a sad commentary that my family, being from the U.S. have had to turn to the 大象传媒 website for our world news. Yet, it's been a thoroughly enjoyable, enlightening, and truly exceptional media experience. Frankly, we feel we are in no position to complain having been the beneficiaries of your good efforts for so long and so we can only thank you and wish you the best of luck. Certainly, you don't need us to point out that one of the characteristics that makes your site so refreshing is the absence of commercialism. When we have on occasion tried to visit US news services we inevitably encounter some sort of advertisement, and, having been 大象传媒 devotees for so long, it has always struck us quite literally, as obscene. We hope you can find a way to manage your situation in a way that will enable you to remain distinguished.

I understand the commercial realities, I just hope the advertising will not result in a watered down content, similar to that now found on the broadcast 大象传媒 World television - the content of this channel is terrible - the content and actual broadcast time has declined in the past 10 years, partly as a result of advertising slots. There was a time when I would not dream of watching CNN, and that the 大象传媒 was the Holy Grail, not any more I am afraid. Sad.

For those worried about annoying adverts.

Install Firefox as your browser.

Add 'Adblock' and 'Flashblock' as ad-ons and you'll never see an advert again.

If only this worked on all the incredibly irritating adverts currently infesting the 大象传媒's output for its own services.

So sorry 大象传媒 is succumbing to the dark side.

If 大象传媒 is making me pay by watching advertising, I'll expect a better product. Today it has seemed as though the 大象传媒 website was under a denial of service attack. Even trying to access the low graphics web pages has not been 100% successful. Your advertisers won't think too highly of you if you can't display their ads. Hunh. I guess that means that you'll be spending some of your new found money keeping the advertisers happy.

I guess I'll just have to access the website for un-americanized news.

I can't believe the attitudes of some of the comments on here. Pretty much every web site I go to has adverts, it has got to the stage that I pretty much ignore them and don't even notice them.

A large section of the people who read the 大象传媒 web site do not contribute to it's running costs, and now when the 大象传媒 are putting in minor measures to help cover it's costs they moan because their free lunch is over.

As a personal choice, I prefer adverts to the choice of option subscriptions. Several of the sites I used to use daily moved to a model giving users the choice of "free with adverts" or "monthly subscription" - after a few months more and more content ended up in the "subscription" area which resulted in the free part of the site being only ads and teasers for the content in the full site.

This model is flawed as most people move else where - there is a great deal of competition in terms of content on the web, loyalty doesn't count for much out there.

oh come ON, a 拢2bn shortfall to 'fill' according to 大象传媒? lol, there is no way in a zillion years advetising will even fill a 1,000,000th of that amount. web advertising doesnt pay that much.

I think it's about time - currently, the UK's license fee payers are subsidising one of the best (factual or otherwise) websites for the rest of the world. As long as the software supporting this is reliable, and UK-based users don't get the advertisements, this is a logical plan.

If you do not live in the UK, then for the last 9 years or so you have been getting all this content gratis. If, now, you have to see a few adverts as you're not having to pay for the current content through the licence fee, forgive me if I don't feel too sorry for your plight.

And iPlayer content will only ever be (legally) available in the UK, because the 大象传媒 only owns the rights to show that content in the UK.

This is a mistake and a false economy

The 大象传媒 continues to be the most effective and most cost effective tool of international diplomacy the UK has.

As a Brit working in the US for a UK business, I was appalled to see an ad for citi bank preceding a news video clip.

It's a slippery slope - what next? viagra?

US news coverage is in freefall - CNN has followed Fox news. As a result, US decision makers and the intelligensia rely on the 大象传媒 - online and through National Public Radio.

You couldn't pay to reach these people.

The 大象传媒's reputation for impartiality should be sacracant.

大象传媒.com should be the worldservice for the 21st century, not a clone of partisan commercial news.

Phil Taylor asks:

"It also seems UK citizens will have to view advertising when accessing the bbc website from abroad - this seems to go against the license [sic] fee principle - how is this being resolved?"

Good question. May I make a suggestion? How about having a membership system, where licence-fee payers link their licence number to their website account - and then when they log in, they get the UK version of the site.

In this manner, members who are accessing the site from abroad will still be able to enjoy the benefits of an advertising-free website - and since such accounts can only be enabled in conjunction with valid licence serial numbers, non-fee-payers abroad could not get around it.

Please pass my suggestion to the relevant people.

I am unsure why people claim that people from outside the UK get the 大象传媒 for free.

The Netherlands has 大象传媒1 and 大象传媒2 as part of the standard package of programmes that we pay for, that means we are paying for the 大象传媒, so any other argument is not valid.

As part of my cable package I pay more to also receive 大象传媒3, 大象传媒4 and 大象传媒 Prime, this also gives me 大象传媒 World (which is wiithout doubt the worst news channel ever) and SKY news.

I feel it is unjust to inflict adverts on me when I view the 大象传媒 website, I calculate that I pay around 100 pounds a year for the benefit of receiving these 大象传媒 sites.

Even though I pay for these sites, I am deprived of Ceefax, any sports broadcasts on-line and many other UK specific services, so I would imagine that on balance I pay as much as any other UK based person.

I have no problem paying to receive 大象传媒, I would willingly pay a seperate subscription to receive an add-free and full UK version of the 大象传媒 website.

Although I am no computer expert, I am sure that my Mac can stop any pop-ups or other advertisment showing on my computer so this advert based version of the website seems rather illogical, and I doubt will earn much revenue for the 大象传媒.

Personally I could not be without the 大象传媒 in some form or other, the 大象传媒 is not perfect, the 大象传媒 has a left wing bias and a strange fetish towards reporting minority views at the expense of the majority.

Yet even though it requires reform it is without doubt the best of any of the broadcasters, and that would not be the case without people paying a license fee of some sort, I understand people saying that the 大象传媒 should be subjected to commercial forces, however, the 大象传媒 is as much a part of the UK's fabric as fish and chips and we would be much the poorer if it was forced to become the same as all the others.

The rationale for introducing advertising on the 大象传媒 website for international users at first blush looks unassailable: only UK users pay the licence fee, and they should not have to fund international users (and indeed cannot under the new charter).

But take another look. UK users, who pay the licence fee, not only have access to the 大象传媒 website, but also to a whole range of services that are not available to those outside the UK, including multiple television and radio services, and a truly massive volume of programming content.

We benighted souls abroad, if we are lucky, may receive, as part of a commercial subscription service, 大象传媒 World, 大象传媒 Prime and 大象传媒 Food - channels that (apart from World, which is heavy on news and current affairs, and already carries advertising) broadcast only a tiny portion of the 大象传媒's domestic licence-fee-funded content, and tend to repeat the series we do get over and over and over again, with the odd new (to international viewers; but usually a year or more old, if not two or three) programme at any given time.

The simple fact is that international users do NOT enjoy anything like the benefits fee-paying domestic UK users do; nor indeed are we likely to make use of many areas of the 大象传媒 website that are concerned with local areas in the UK.

The 大象传媒 news website is the source of choice for many of us because (1) it offers the widest content and is truly international in coverage, (2) is fast and has one of the least cumbersome designs, (3) can be relied upon to be available most of the time and not to shift content around at the drop of a hat, and (4) comes from an internationally respected source.

It is also about the only news site that is reliably accessible to those (the majority in developing countries) who still rely on dial-up or slower broadband services.

If these features are removed, reduced or diluted, the value of the 大象传媒 website to international users - and the very advantages that have given it the pre-eminent position it currently enjoys - will be lessened. This will harm the 大象传媒 brand, making it simply another of many commercial sources, with no particular advantage to users. It may even, as many have noted, raise questions about editorial independence. That, in turn, will inevitably harm the very revenue streams the 大象传媒 is hoping to tap by this move.

I'm UK based, but spend a lot of time in the US, and it's clear that it's the lack of ads that is at least partly responsible for the high regard in which the 大象传媒's content is held across the Pond. And no, Al-Jazeera, whilst a refreshingly unbiased source of news concerning the Islamic world, is nowhere near as strong on other stories - and besides, it's clear which site they've based their news front page on!

We really do live in a world saturated with advertising, spin, marketing and sloganeering - I can even see a gigantic hoarding from my front windows - and against this backdrop of constant pressure to buy things we don't need I don't think the 大象传媒 realises quite what an oasis of calm it provides, or how important this is to many of its users. I understand the forces which have driven you to this decision - though I was under the impression web advertising was in major decline anyway - but surely there has to be another way, even if as Ed (#194) suggests, it involves a PayPal button "keep the Beeb ad-free by donating here" or whatever.

And of course another problem with flashy Java-based graphical / banner ads is that they take time to download - they can slow even relatively recent machines down to a crawl and even crash browsers. In the UK and US we take modern computers and fast connections for granted but there are huge parts of the world where this is not and probably never will be the case; and it would be a real pity if, for instance, users of the One Laptop Per Child project were denied reliable access to your pages because their machines lacked adequate memory to run some graphics-heavy banner ad.

Well, I know that all this is in vain - the decision has already been taken, and the 大象传媒 at a structural level is not a democracy however much individual sections may try to engage with their audiences. So may I leave you with one final plea - think very carefully about the type of adverts you accept, and whereabouts on the site you choose to display them. Some people have suggested Google-style 'targetted' ads but I actually think this would be disastrous - I'd rather not see the Health pages disfigured by, for instance, the endless dieting and Viagra commercials which have found their way onto every other site; adverts for loans and credit cards on financial stories or for that matter those promoting gambling, adult services etc on any part of the site.

Believe me, you're not that desperate.

I'm in the USA and don't care how many ads the 大象传媒 place - as long as I and other overseas users can have live Test Match Special and Premiership radio feeds. If by having the ads overseas readers are contributing to the costs, then whay can we not have the aforementioned service?

Unlike many others here, I for one do not object to the ads. Somehow you just learn to accept them for what they are and ignore them. Also, I don't feel comfortable with the idea of UK taxpayers paying for what I read free of charge (we have a similar "license fee" for our national television here and it's daylight robbery). However, what scares me is the prospect of a "大象传媒.COM". Does that mean I will not be able to access news on the "bbc.co.uk" site? Will my version be a diluted international one? Because if this is the case, I think I shall be taking my business elsewhere. I truly enjoy the 大象传媒 as a source of news about the UK; I am a translator and your site really helps me stay in touch. But if international news is all I can hope to have on this site, I won't bother to visit anymore, thank you very much.
A Voice from Serbia

I agree with a number of expat posters here - it makes me weep that I cannot get 5Live or Radio Scotland for live broadcasts because I live in America. I would gladly subscribe and pay to have access to these quality outputs.

Whilst many resent the license fee I don't think many people in the UK appreciate just how global and brilliantly unique the 大象传媒 is! The 大象传媒 is one of the few things that make me proud to be British. For those who decry the 大象传媒 just wait until all you have is commercially driven news. There is no news on regular US TV, only sponsored opinion.

I'm an expat living in Amsterdam, with most of my news coming from 大象传媒.co.uk, and really appreciate the radio and ListenAgain features.

I wanted to inject some numbers in to the debate (a few minutes of research only - feel free to correct me). 大象传媒 budget per year is around 拢4bn (from Wikip). In 2006 web was just under 4% of total 大象传媒 expenditure. Web spending this year will be 拢400m (from

World Service radio budget is funded mainly from UK Foreign Office at around 拢250m - probably seen as by the government as a low cost way of marketing UK Plc (I think so too). World Service listeners: 163m per week.

So how much does the 大象传媒 need to raise on non-UK web visitors to keep critics and internal goverance happy? I suggest that a contribution of 拢50 - 100m would fund a "World Service Web".

In my opinion, the Foreign Office should stump up 50% (or say, 拢50m) as way of spreading "Britishness" around the globe. (FYI: Planned spend for the UK on countering terrorism will be 拢3.5bn a year by 2010, Or you could be less political, and say that is probably earned in a few days from tourism taxes.

The other 拢50m should come from subscriptions or paid-for downloads. 拢1 a year from each web viewer, or world service listener would be a better way of funding.

Please keep at least the news pages of 大象传媒.co.uk ad-free. The 大象传媒 is unique, and really one of the reasons I still feel OK being British. And probably why I have never had to really learn a foreign language!

I certainly don't mind seeing advertisements on pages if that is the best solution.

However, I hope that accessing the 大象传媒 from the states won't relegate me solely to the "International version," which I never read. I use the UK version to keep up on what's going on in England and Wales. As a student, I also make use of the History and Learning channels.

The 大象传媒 web site is possibly one of only two in existence that I would willingly pay extra -- such as the International license others have discussed -- in order to enjoy full, ad-free, access.

When are standards going to improve in the media with regard to grammar and spelling? I cite as an instance the article on Elizabeth I today: Elizabeth & Lester?? Surely anyone who knows anything about English history and historical names knows that it is spelt Leicester?

While this is not an ideal solution for me personally, I completely understand the motivation behind, and am more than willing to contribute to the finances of the wonderful 大象传媒 News site.

My own national public broadcaster (head to nrk.no for evidence) has made no issue whatsoever out of stuffing their site with advertisements aimed at people who actually DO pay their license fee, so you can imagine my fascination with the 大象传媒 when they actually polled me - a non-paying user - how I would feel about an ad-supported site. It certainly goes some way to show the respect they have for their audience.

Thank you 大象传媒 for the quality of content presented on your web page.
I was especially appreciative of the low graphics formatt for my former MAC. Please keep up the good work.

Dan Lane
USA

I'm a Brit living in the US, and I certainly would welcome the opportunity to contribute financially to the upkeep of the 大象传媒 (as I would if at home) but advertising is my least preferred method - I would prefer (the option of) a subscription model, as others who have commented above.

It seems this could be a first for the 大象传媒, in that content with advertising (大象传媒 World, etc) has until now been split off from content without advertising (大象传媒 UK terrestrial channels, website, etc). Now the content is to be THE SAME (or very nearly so, and produced by the same department), but appearing in one place with advertising, and in another place without.

This could function to help prevent the content being watered down or affected in other ways by advertising (as you have e.g. on US news websites) which some people have worried about, but it could also have the opposite effect (at the same time) - putting pressure on the DOMESTIC editing policy to change content to suit advertisers that are not even advertising on the domestic website.

I doubt (perhaps over-optimistically?) this second danger is very real - the 大象传媒 staff, at least the *reporting* staff (not so sure about editors and producers) tend to be a principled lot (just look at Jeremy Paxman). No-one will tolerate any sort of visible change to domestic newsgathering and editing for the sake of advertisers overseas who are not even represented in the UK (by the 大象传媒). The fact that the internet newsroom, the radio newsroom (including world service?), and the tv newsroom are all to be integrated into a new multimedia newsroom (on balance a good thing) will further offset this danger, since the latter two departments are domestic-only.

I would agree *very strongly* with earlier comments about not making the bandwidth hostage to advertisers, even if the 大象传媒 content remains free of their influence. Not just for the sake of people on low-bandwidth connections, but for the sake of everyone. Keep the 大象传媒 website unique among news websites by keeping the advertising "lite". You could incorporate a policy that restricts advertisers to some suitable (and small, please) fraction of total bandwidth for any particular webpage. Make the advertisers themselves work within that restriction, and force them to come up with creative ways of minimising its effects to them. Above all, stay independent!

And do consider offering an alternative subscription model. I'd be happy to pay the equivalent of today's licence fee to get access to even the small minority of 大象传媒 programmes I like to watch (e.g. Newsnight on a high-bandwidth stream, Panorama, Question Time) as well as an advertising-free 大象传媒 website.

Thank you!

(And please don't touch the 大象传媒 Radio Player. It's magic!)

Just read two sports stories this am both of which had glaring errors. The story about A-Rod leaving the NY Yankees during the Red Sox win against the Rockies states the Red Sox won the world series 4 - 3, the score was actually 4 - 0. And the story about Glasgow Rangers not blaming fatigue for loss to Dundee Utd states Rangers have only taken 1 point from previous possible nine, but Rangers defeated Celtic 3 - 0 last saturday to pick up all three points. Don't expect to see these kind of basic mistakes on the 大象传媒.

This seems to be a very good decusion on the 10th anniversary of 大象传媒 website. Since 大象传媒 is having a lot of international listeners, this move help to increase the popularity of the website.

But I am confused by the statement that this will not be accessible to people in UK. Does it mean that any one residing in UK can't access this...?

The 大象传媒 news home page this morning carries three simultaneous adverts for Airbus. I have moving images on the top and to each side of the page. If this is Mr Sambrook's idea of adverts not being intrusive, he's using a different definition of the word to the rest of us. And yes, of course it detracts from the editorial content. If it comes down to money, as it does for say CNN, then heaven help us, because if they are indeed 'the most trusted name in news', the terms trust and instrusive are both being redefined.

David Evans

This is totally the correct decision. Editorial content will not be affected in the slightest as it will still be the same advert free 大象传媒 providing the content(for UK TV licence fee payers) - the only difference is that non-licence fee payers will now see the very same content with some advertising to help offset the costs the 大象传媒 webite incurs from the bandwidth usage of international users who do not contribute finacially to 大象传媒. Internet bandwidth is not free - why should UK TV licence fee payers subsidise non-UK, non-licence fee payers? You get the same content in an unbaised manner except it will be served to you via a seperate commercial wing of 大象传媒 but the actual content originates from advert free 大象传媒 UK and therefore remians unifluenced by advertising.

Seeing adverts on the homepage shocked me. How long before we get those awful hotmail/yahoo-style advertising pop-ups that obscure the page - you know the ones that usually contain audio as well and make you jump out of your chair?

I am sick to death of advertising .. I don't want to buy any of their cr@p. And the more they continue to thrust stuff in my face, the more resentful I become. If I want something I'll go look for it. Otherwise leave me the h3ll alone. Okay!

Moving out to Australia recently I really appreciate how much better things are in the UK. Out here everythings much more American - the advertising is loud, incessant and mighty irritating. The worst thing I've seen is they even embed shopping channel-esque slots in morning TV where the presenters engage with the sales folk as if they were guests on the show. How sneaky and evil is that?!

Advertising is the road to ruin... we must resist.

I understand the arguments in favour of websites, but please can they not be animated? It's incredibly hard to read text that's presented alongside moving displays.

I'm with David Evans on this, the new advertising banners that have appeared on the 大象传媒 news site in the last 48hours are distracting to the utmost. A final nail in the coffin perhaps in favor of the Guardian, which is also these days hosting the most splendid news related video footage.

What is with all this talk of the 大象传媒's moral rights to make a buck off there international services?? Does anyone remember the world service and its role in global democracy and literacy?? Radio dials that instead of listing frequencies, listed key European stations so that you could listen to the perspectives of other countries on the issues of the day? I guess if the 大象传媒 will no longer be a flagship of the English language abroad then all those mono-lingual Brit holiday makers will finally have to pay some attention at school in their French, German and Spanish lessons if they want to continue to be able to communicate there need for "OY!, Another beer mate".

Pathetic!. How many more years before the 大象传媒 is just another profit hungry media corporation listed on an American stock exchange and churning out sensationalized news bulletins?

These "non-intrusive" adverts just freaked me out so much that I started Googling to find out which virus my computer had been attacked by and ended up on this page. I am totally shocked to read that this is no virus but a planned and accepted policy on behalf of the 大象传媒. Being an ex-pat, I view(ed) the 大象传媒 and its website as a lifeline to "my" culture and language, an oasis of peace, authority and impartiality in a digital world of chaos and commercialism. And now? Now I can't concentrate on what I'm reading because I am constantly being distracted by moving images, left, right, above offering things I don't need and for which I did not log on to bbc.co.uk. I think it is a sad day. I have access to 大象传媒1 and 大象传媒2, but have stopped watching the news because of the dumbing-down and excessive use of computer graphics to "illustrate" stories (outbreak of swine fever - here is a picture of a pig, just in case you don't know what one looks like). Where can I go now for my sanity?

Agree with the chorus of other expats....we're one constituency who would actually be HAPPY to pay a license fee (as we experience broadcasting where advertising is the primary form of funding).
Please look into making ad-free access with a subscription available to *all* content (i.e. include the iPlayer).

Flash ads? On the 大象传媒? The pits. I get ads for airlines and watches, and I consider them intrusive at least. Presumably Sambrook's use of "highly intrusive" is studied, as just plain old intrusive is fine for people outside the UK.

The World Service had a remit, and it ought to be extended to the Web. Since when were public duties owed only and exclusively to the locals? Is the next step deathly-dull ads on Radio 4 when we listen online from an IP address outside the UK? Am I tempting fate? Where can I sign a petition?

(Part-time ex-pat in Canada)

I'm with Adam, I understand and appreciate the position the 大象传媒 is in and I think advertising is a good solution but the implementation of these ads is horribly intrusive.

I really hope the site managers reconsider the way in which advertising is displayed for international visitors. I visit the site several times a day, not just to keep in touch with home news but because the 大象传媒 has the best international coverage available, and I just can't see myself getting used to the ads, not as they are.

The one in the header has to go, I think I can live with the right side ad and the small left column one, but please, not animated ads!

These 'adverts' have now ruined what was formerly a good source of information. The animated advertisements are an eyesore and clearly a distraction for anyone viewing the pages.

While it was announced that these would be present on selected pages, I have yet to see an advert-free page.

It very much looks like I will have to go elsewhere to read news and sport items.

Same as #210 I am an British expat living in the Netherlands and deliberately take the more expensive digital package on a more expensive provider in order to receive 大象传媒1, 2 ,3 & 4. The 大象传媒 presumably receives a return for this subscription which is akin to the license fee in the UK.

Therefore it is like rubbing salt into the wound that I cannot access all online services as per UK license payers (e.g. iplayer, 大象传媒 5 Live, etc) and yet have to be lumbered with adverts as well as paying a subscription.....

Maybe the Beeb (and some of the persons making incorrect comments e.g. #207) can consider this.

Keep the ads by all means but then give "foreign subscriptees" the same access rights to content in return.

I understand the 大象传媒's reasons for beginning to show adverts, but I wish they weren't so...obvious. When I logged into the 大象传媒 site this morning, I couldn't help but be distracted by the flashing ad for a Swiss watch. Rather than placing the ads on every page, why not make it so they appear only in between articles as individuals browse through them? I think that would resolve a lot of the complaints regarding the adverts.

How sad that the 大象传媒 has decided to include these intrusive adverts on their news website.
May I quote from Media Guardian Wednesday June 28, 2006
"Mr Smith said the advertisements would be "low key" and limited to "still ads" that appear in the middle of online articles. There were no plans for pop-up or banner ads, the most common advertising formats for online publications."

So please explain why your adverts are animated and banners! The banner at the top is particularly irritating.

Please be aware that many international users pay to receive 大象传媒 TV (in some cases, we pay a lot more than the UK licence fee!)

Living in Canada, I too was assaulted by the over-animated header, footer and both side panels for the Airbus advertising on the 大象传媒 International site. I am hoping this was a one-off as I have not seen them since. That amount of banner advertising is far too intrusive. I hope the 大象传媒 will take a more tasteful approach to its advertising by only using a right-hand panel with none or limited movement!! I am certainly not against the 大象传媒 obtaining revenue but would ask they employ their "artistic" director for what is appropriate!!**!!

"Bombarded with an advert"??
I'm not sure if Roy was being tongue in cheek or not.

Let's get things in proportion - I never noticed the adverts for a day or so, so intrusive are they. I was more concerned about the introduced extra delay before the page loaded fully, and the white space at the top of the page.

I have no problem with the 大象传媒 advertising to make money and provide a better service. However, I do object to the animated adverts, which are distracting when trying to read.

I would pay the fee to view the 大象传媒 website adverts free, and an extra fee if I was able to view streaming content from abroad, or listen to better quality (higher transfer rate) radio programs.

With everyone willing to pay towards the removal of adverts and for extra services, it seems a good idea to investigate this and put a trial in place to see if it is feasible.

I believe the 大象传媒 would end up with more money than the current advertising option can provide.

If you are prepared to invest in the technology to determine the browser location (as opposed to the ISP, the proxy server, the router or any other node between the user and you) then fine. Otherwise you should show adverts to everyone or noone. As things stand, you are not meeting your obligations to license fee payers or to overseas visitors; you are demonstrating that the law is being overtaken by technology to such an extent that a new settlement on how to fund the 大象传媒 (if at all) is required. You need to think very carefully about the political consequences of any approximations that you make due to technological limitations. (The initial non-availability of iPlayer to non-windows platforms is another example of this combination of being not quite technologically sophisticated enough to avoid political naivity.

The television license is for television sets not computers so why not let everyone see these advertisements especially as the British license payers are NOT paying for this net service?

My brilliant advice is simple and effective. Put the adds on a seperate page. If they are creative/beautifull/attractive enough people will go to the adds.

Let real artists i.e. not postmodern "conceptual" artists play with the adverts page.

Be a leader and not a follower again.

Give me the job. I am brilliant.

:-)

One of the features that made the 大象传媒 world news a great news site was the lack of advertising. It is shameful that the editorials are not always lucid and at times the discussions on "have your say" tend to be vapid and more toward political correctness that reality. Those failings can be changed with a change in moderators.
It is a shame that a once balanced media outlet has let itself be dragged under by an apparent rabid search for profits.

It's truly awful one cannot bypass these omnipresent commercials. I watch my news on bbcnews.com because I do not have a television nor do I want one. I should have the option to watch or bypass an advert/commercial on your website. I want the news and nothing more.

Richard - I'm a UK user, based in the UK, looking at the UK version of the front page. Why on earth am I getting adverts?

Specifically I am talking about the banner adverts, across the top of the page, which are for other 大象传媒 services. (For example, 大象传媒 WORLD FAST:TRACK or something.)


These are first of all amazingly ugly adverts. Incredibly so.

They are also amazingly distracting, and partly broken too it seems.

The page will initially load as normal, but there will be a space where this hideous advert will go at some point in the future. Then some awful bright purple advert pops in there, that does not fit in at all with the rest of the page.

Then if you are unlucky another copy of this same hideous advert plasters itself over the red 大象传媒 banner obstructing this, and the date at the top of the page.

I would really advise you as strongly as I can to remedy some of these issues, as you have taken a very classy, well put together site to tackiness in one movement.

(I run Firefox browser if this is any help. And being told "Run IE" is not a solution.)

Presumably the 大象传媒 World Service exists to influence the rest of the world with the "British" point of view. Why else is this funded without advertising revenue?
The incremental cost of making the "home" 大象传媒 website available to a larger group is very small. Why not drop the "international" presentation to save costs - we don't need it.
What we really don't need is turning the 大象传媒 into a glorified CNN.