I still think the BBC is worth preserving but I’ve no idea how it should be done
Direct gov funding seems out of the question as independence is required for reputational reasons at least
Extending license regs so you need one to watch youtube/netflix/etc an obvious non-starter (hopefully)
Expanding commercial operations so they can sell access to archives through iplayer, overseas subscriptions, Huw Edwards merch etc might be ok but unlikely to raise the billions required to operate
Direct government funding works. We have it for the BBC’s cousin, the ABC, in Australia.
It’s somewhat contractual that the ABC’s content is independent, impartial and bipartisan.
The only problem with government funding is when the government cuts the funding for actually exercising independence, impartiality and bipartisanship.
IMO trying to milk the end users here is the wrong move. People are unsubscribing from the licence because they’re not using it and don’t want to pay £170 a year for something they don’t use. Which is fair.
But one could easily “tax” the other services - TV channels, radio, streaming platforms like Netflix or Spotify, pushing these companies to provide 1% of their revenue to fund the public broadcasts.
Combine that with the licensing the content abroad and you’ve got a plan going.
They should start selling iPlayer licences to foreign people. I’d love to pay to watch BBC but they won’t take my money. So now I give the money to a VPN company instead.
The problem here is that they are used to the model where they sell a license to say Sherlock for US audiences and it’s Netflix that buys that for a huge pile of cash. Could they probably make a lot more by cutting out the middle man? Sure, but then they’d have to support all those users directly.
Most of the content is sold abroad via BBC worldwide, which has different rules from the rest of BBC when it comes to profit.
The government under Cameron blocked the BBC turning iplayer into netflix back when that was still possible as the Conservatives hate the BBC even after they neutered it with many changes including making the license fee optional if you own a tv but don’t watch BBC or live tv.
I wouldn’t say “gov funding”, as the money comes from tax payers. It has to be publicly funded. As long as the entity is managed democratically, I think it’s worth preserving.
The problem is that TV is a slowly dying format, so any attempt at saving the BBC is an uphill struggle even with the best will for it. Which I think is a shame, I think it’s culturally important. It needed to have evolved quicker and sooner, but how exactly I don’t know.
Broadcast TV may be a dying format. But, BBC is a lot more than broadcast TV. They do radio, they do podcasts, they do short form video content, they do streaming, they do VOD, they do web news and blogs.
IMO, that’s the problem with a TV subscription. A lot of people interact with BBC stuff on a daily basis on phones, computers, game consoles, etc. It’s hard to avoid seeing a piece of BBC content even if you don’t own a TV.
I am in Switzerland and I watch tons of BBC content online, listen to BBC World Service evwry other day and enjoy quite a few BBC podcasts from time to time. BBC produces some of the best content!
They already sell it to the yanks as Britbox and are reasonably successful at it but the license fee currently covers about four billion quid of their six billion annual operating costs. They don’t have to do Netflix numbers but it’s a lot of subs to sell (assuming that it must remain free to UK viewers and of ads)
As a yank who has perused…and may also have been known to use a VPN to change countries to watch various things…I’ve compared the two and BritBox isn’t really the same. A fair amount of things are available sometimes, but it’s just not fully comparable.
They should sell the full service to the rest of the world like it’s presented to the locals. I’m sure there’s some Brit expats who might love to have it properly available to them.
You’re right. They hide their shame from curious limeys by geoblocking britbox.com, but a vpn trip to Texas reveals it looks like a load of old shit on offer (Twenty Twenty Six is probably good though)
So as for they should sell the full service to the rest of the world, I agree. i suppose it’s licensing issues or they’d be doing it already? Much of their programming is not made not in-house but by external production cos
I wonder if it would be possible to do direct government funding but via legislation that states that it needs a supermajority or something to be repealed
I still think the BBC is worth preserving but I’ve no idea how it should be done
Direct gov funding seems out of the question as independence is required for reputational reasons at least
Extending license regs so you need one to watch youtube/netflix/etc an obvious non-starter (hopefully)
Expanding commercial operations so they can sell access to archives through iplayer, overseas subscriptions, Huw Edwards merch etc might be ok but unlikely to raise the billions required to operate
At this point is it saveable?
Direct government funding works. We have it for the BBC’s cousin, the ABC, in Australia.
It’s somewhat contractual that the ABC’s content is independent, impartial and bipartisan.
The only problem with government funding is when the government cuts the funding for actually exercising independence, impartiality and bipartisanship.
IMO trying to milk the end users here is the wrong move. People are unsubscribing from the licence because they’re not using it and don’t want to pay £170 a year for something they don’t use. Which is fair.
But one could easily “tax” the other services - TV channels, radio, streaming platforms like Netflix or Spotify, pushing these companies to provide 1% of their revenue to fund the public broadcasts.
Combine that with the licensing the content abroad and you’ve got a plan going.
I quite like this idea
They should start selling iPlayer licences to foreign people. I’d love to pay to watch BBC but they won’t take my money. So now I give the money to a VPN company instead.
i could see this being a thing. open it up to the world. 20 bucks a year. lubly jubly guv
The problem here is that they are used to the model where they sell a license to say Sherlock for US audiences and it’s Netflix that buys that for a huge pile of cash. Could they probably make a lot more by cutting out the middle man? Sure, but then they’d have to support all those users directly.
Most of the content is sold abroad via BBC worldwide, which has different rules from the rest of BBC when it comes to profit.
The government under Cameron blocked the BBC turning iplayer into netflix back when that was still possible as the Conservatives hate the BBC even after they neutered it with many changes including making the license fee optional if you own a tv but don’t watch BBC or live tv.
I wouldn’t say “gov funding”, as the money comes from tax payers. It has to be publicly funded. As long as the entity is managed democratically, I think it’s worth preserving.
I meant to give a few of the alternative funding arrangements if the license fee were scrapped but I managed not to say that part out loud, oops
The problem is that TV is a slowly dying format, so any attempt at saving the BBC is an uphill struggle even with the best will for it. Which I think is a shame, I think it’s culturally important. It needed to have evolved quicker and sooner, but how exactly I don’t know.
Broadcast TV may be a dying format. But, BBC is a lot more than broadcast TV. They do radio, they do podcasts, they do short form video content, they do streaming, they do VOD, they do web news and blogs.
IMO, that’s the problem with a TV subscription. A lot of people interact with BBC stuff on a daily basis on phones, computers, game consoles, etc. It’s hard to avoid seeing a piece of BBC content even if you don’t own a TV.
I am in Switzerland and I watch tons of BBC content online, listen to BBC World Service evwry other day and enjoy quite a few BBC podcasts from time to time. BBC produces some of the best content!
They have a streaming service. They can charge for it.
Doesn’t seem that complicated.
Frankly, it makes more sense than charging people for broadcast TV.
They already sell it to the yanks as Britbox and are reasonably successful at it but the license fee currently covers about four billion quid of their six billion annual operating costs. They don’t have to do Netflix numbers but it’s a lot of subs to sell (assuming that it must remain free to UK viewers and of ads)
As a yank who has perused…and may also have been known to use a VPN to change countries to watch various things…I’ve compared the two and BritBox isn’t really the same. A fair amount of things are available sometimes, but it’s just not fully comparable.
They should sell the full service to the rest of the world like it’s presented to the locals. I’m sure there’s some Brit expats who might love to have it properly available to them.
You’re right. They hide their shame from curious limeys by geoblocking britbox.com, but a vpn trip to Texas reveals it looks like a load of old shit on offer (Twenty Twenty Six is probably good though)
So as for they should sell the full service to the rest of the world, I agree. i suppose it’s licensing issues or they’d be doing it already? Much of their programming is not made not in-house but by external production cos
The license fee is what the UK user currently pays, if you remove the license fee it won’t remain available to the UK audience for free
I wonder if it would be possible to do direct government funding but via legislation that states that it needs a supermajority or something to be repealed
It is dependent on direct govt funding now. The independence comes from being run by a trust.
The only politically viable solution is to abolish the licence and allow advertising on some services.