NO - Neil Johnston, head of TV, OMD UK
The BBC is probably the best-funded public service broadcaster in the world. To go to advertisers looking for even more money, for programmes that form a perennial part of its calendar, is a disgrace. It appears that it sold the BBC Sports Personality of the Year sponsorship to Robinsons at a discount to get cash to cover staging the event. Commercial broadcasters are under pressure: a strong BBC means a weak commercial sector.
NO - Martin Corrigan, associate director of broadcast, MediaVest Manchester
Given that the BBC generates more than £3bn a year from the TV licence alone - apart from its BBC Worldwide income - there should be no need to look for additional revenues. Such revenues would simply be stolen from the BBC's commercial rivals, which would only further dilute the UK sponsorship marketplace and, ultimately, reduce the quality of future TV offerings.
YES - Jason Spencer, managing director, PHD North
Where companies sponsor and add value to events that are broadcast by the BBC, there should be no issue - provided the money goes to charities every time. The BBC should come out and say that all sponsorship revenues are donated to charity. As soon as it accepts sponsorship revenue into its own coffers or creates events purely to drive sponsorship revenues, then it crosses the line of what is acceptable.
YES - Caroline Binfield, business director, TV, Arena BLM
The BBC should have sponsored televised events, but only if the sponsorship falls within the remit of the BBC as a public service broadcaster. An alcohol brand should not sponsor BBC televised events, but a charity could. But this would need to be tightly controlled and the money generated must be used in the public's interest. Bottom line: the sponsorship money must be accountable to the public.