Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unm-cvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!unm-cvax!cs2532aa From: cs2532aa@unm-cvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.tv.drwho Subject: Dr Who: Income > Costs Message-ID: <292@unm-cvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Mar-85 16:38:48 EST Article-I.D.: unm-cvax.292 Posted: Sat Mar 9 16:38:48 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 20:22:09 EST References: <695@voder.UUCP> Reply-To: cs2532aa@unm-cvax.UUCP (Foobar Baz Bletchquux) Organization: The Breakfast Club Lines: 29 > From: kevin@voder.UUCP (The Last Bugfighter) > > ... > The BBC's explanation for the suspension is that Dr. Who is getting to ex- > pensive to produce. > On that note I have to ask: What with Dr. Who's release to America over > the past few years hasn't this resulted in a rather significant increase in > this show's revenues? Isn't the American market greater than that of Great > Briton? Granted that they don't run commercials on PBS stations, what does > a PBS station pay to show an episode of the Doctor? At our last local Dr Who fan club meeting, the program director from our local PBS station (KNME-TV5) quoted a price of $46,000/year. The station has the rights to the Tom Baker and Davison series. At this price, it is the most expensive program that KNME buys. Multiply that amount by the number of stations that show Dr Who over here, then add in all the revenues from merchandise (t-shirts, Target novelisations, sonic screwdrivers...) and it slowly becomes apparent how ridiculous the BBC's "explanation" really is. The licence fee explantion sounds more reasonable all the time... .rne. ----- Real World . . Ernie Longmire / 311 Don St. SE / Los Lunas, NM 87031-9405 UUCP . . . . . {{purdue,cmcl2,ihnp4}!lanl,ucbvax}!unmvax!unm-cvax!cs2532aa ----- "Torch Television Centre!" -- Unknown incensed Dr Who fan