[Stockland Hillman]

That is an interesting document, and they seem like plausible points - though I can't lie I feel slightly out of my depth when it comes to these statistics... Would be keen to know why you (and others) think things like distribution costs and cost/viewer are so high. And what can be done to bring them down?

(Appreciate we've gone a bit off topic)

Taking the time to look at facts, and ask questions is always a very good thing,  and exploring if you don't understand everything.

TV channels historically commissioned based on day part and the channels has a target for costs per hour,  so daytime is cheaper than primetime, and peak highest spend. Different genres has different costs as well, so that was a factor. 

Problem in 2023, is a show in early peak (630-9pm) gets a fraction of views compared to 15 years ago. The netflix/OD effect 

TV costs less to make these days, as equipment from cameras to edit have  moved from highly specialised to mass market hardware and software. Easier to mutiskill,  and easier to reversion and share content.  So in theory you can do more for less.

The things that cost money are people intensive,  long research time items like investigative journalism (newsnight) so effectively it's only PSB Broadcasting that can support these costs.

Let's look a the 'cut to the bone' BBC.  A 7 minute VT insert on morning live is out for commissioning at £11,000 per feature.  That's more of less the same as the per HOUR fee channel 5  pay for the non Jermey Vine  talk segments of the morning sequence.
 Source:
www.bbc.co.uk 

That's a very very simplified view of what happens on every show, every platform/channel. 

There are huge savings to be made, but the BBC won't use neutral benchmarks for these decisions [as shown to the court in the Samira Ahmed/Jermey Vine pay comparison case]