The BBC has safeguarded Radio 4 and BBC One from moves to slash £700m from its £5bn annual budget, but it will axe a further 2,000 jobs. Director General Mark Thompson made good on his pledge not to ditch any specific services – but BBC supporters and critics alike will be disappointed that the top-heavy bureaucracy isn’t being …
So does this mean I can pay less for my TV licence
now the BBC are delivering me less?
I have already lost F1 and now there are more things I watch that are getting cut.
I propose I pay them 20% less.
It isn't really a 20% cut as such, it is a price freeze. The 20% relates to the extra amount they were planning to gouge you for over the next few years.
If they are looking to save £700M for the next 5 years, that presumably means that they were hoping to get an extra 3.5 billion in accumulated fee increases over that time? Jesus.
Any organisation which pays people millions a year to *present a light entertainment show* whilst simultaneously complaining the don't have enough money is beyond repair.
Im paying them nothing at all
It's frozen, so in real terms you will indeed be paying less. The rest of the cut is to accommodate the World Service, so actually you should pay slightly lower taxes. (Where's that joke alert icon for the last sentence?)
So pay them 20% (16%) less
When they send you a licence fee demand, leave it two months before you renew and do it online. Invent yourself some new initials and a new email address and hey presto, ten months for the price of twelve. I've been doing it for years.
"ten months for the price of twelve", you say? What a bargain, I'll take two!
Neither I'm I
Albeit, I am from the Republic of Euroland I mean Ireland, I am though paying RTE for some reason, I don't even watch any of their channels!
Beer, cause it's nearly the weekend!
“It should still be possible to run an outstanding broadcaster"
Well Sky can't manage to be a decent broadcaster on 6 billion so I think the Beeb does excellently on almost half the revenue.
Re: “It should still be possible to run an outstanding broadcaster"
Your numbers are very wrong. Which channel were you watching for your unreliable information? :-)
A different way of looking at it.
No idea how much Sky costs to run but I do know that I pay Sky £24.50 a month for my basic package. My TV license (if I paid by monthly direct debit) would cost me £12 a month. BBC wins every time as to me, the BBC is far better value. Of course it is so cheap mainly because you have almost no choice about whether you pay the license fee.
That's not the basic package, so why are you paying for what you don't like!
I pay £20.50 a month to Sky (just enternatment +discovery packs), and for that I get:
SkyOne (aka The Simpsons Chanel), SkyAtlantic, Living, Syfi, FX, Alabi, an dozen or so Discovery channels, with the +1Hour options of all of those and the ITV's, Channel 4 & 5, and Film4. There are lots of other channels that get used now and then (Comedy Central, Halmark,etc...), basically not bad value.
There are also lots of radio channels and the picture quality is usally better than freeview.
For the £12 TAX I get:
Repeats of Dad's Army, New Tricks, Dr Who (I cannot think of anything else I've watched for about 4 years). PLus a hugh mass off utter crap designed for the consumption of the dumbest members society, with the likes of Eastenders, Holby, Celebrity(Dancing,Skating,Crapping in the woods...) and CGI Dino-twaddle. Plus a news service that is about on par with FoxNews with its in depth reporting or wahtever advertising was passed its way and re-reporting what was on SkyNews the day before.
A complete wast of money!
"Which channel were you watching for your unreliable information? :-)"
Al Sharpton on MSNBC
Straight from the Horse's mouth
In the twelve months to 30th June Sky had a revenue of £6,597million. No they could have spent a good chunk of that on programming but instead they only spent 2,188 million, Their marketing spend was almost half that at £1,179 million with the rest taking it up to a total spend of 5524 million.
So to answer your sarky comment, it was the Sky FY Press Release from 10/11 that gave me the figures. - http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/latest_results/fy_press_release_1011
Sounds about right
Getting the BBC "bureaucracy" to reduce itself is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.
Still rather annoyed with the BBC over its underhand Sky F1 deal, and had occasion to make a comment regarding this on its "Internet Blog". The BBC bods were crowing about yet another web site redesign (about the 5th or 6th in as many months). I happened to ask why the dear old Beeb was blowing cash on tarting up websites while killing off BAFTA winning sports events that attract 6m viewers?
Instantly got my post moderated because, and I quote:-
"a comment of the form "I do not like [topic of post], the BBC should instead have spent the money on [off-topic segue]" is off-topic."
I used to be a supporter of the BBC and the "unique way it is funded", but things like the Android iPlayer cock-up, the F1 fiasco, and anally retentive control-freakery like that exhibited above are starting to make me think its time it was put out of its misery.
You were off-topic
What do you expect?
Barcharts that don't start at zero
Whilst normally an anarchist, I'm tempted by the idea severe draconian punishments for those that use "deceptive presentation of statistics" techniques to make a point, such as making bar charts that have zero as the baseline to exaggerate differences.
ICON = Pedantic statistics nazi alert?
@Anton - also for missing out the three years 2006-9. Pointless graph.
Not to mention the bizarrely non-linear x-axis.
I think you meant "that *don't* have zero as the baseline". 100% agreement.
Time to put an end to their outdated business model
I will vote for any political party that will privatise the BBC, abolish the TV license and let them earn their money through subscription and/or advertising like every other broadcaster. Currently the BBC is just a parasite feeding off our taxes.
Blue Sky Thinking?
Except that unless someone does something completely magical - the evidence is you will end up paying much more for much less. Or are you already a Sky subscriber?
I like the license fee idea, whenever I watch tele, which isn't often, most of the shows/documentaries are on the beeb, mostly iPlayered. Plus i listen to radio 4 all the time. I was a little gutted about the F1 thing
Considering i was wasting £35 a month on Sky for very little watchable content, I think £145 a quid a year is fine.
Each to their own I guess.
Wouldn't go so far as voting anyone in purely on that fairly unimportant single issue but I agree with the sentiment.
The beeb is a total leach and I get the feeling that lots of people seem to think that the fee goes to other channels as well or they don't actually know which ones they watch.
The only things they air that are any good are shows from the US which they run months late and cut the gritty bits out of anyway.
Gimme a £5 / month stream of HBO and I'll gladly pay it. Till then though I'll just manage in other ways. Either way though I'll never pay the TV tax again.
"Each to their own I guess"
Unfortunately, that's the entire problem. Someone who would be happy to just get Sky Sports still has to pay for the BBC. Someone who would be prepared to only watch commercial channels for free still has to pay the BBC. That isn't each to their own, really.
The One Show
Just extend the news by 30mins and ditch The One Show AKA self-cock sucking luvies promo show. That will save £700+ million and improve the nations intelligence by 10 points
Dump deadenders, corrie, river city, <insert guff soap here>, and watch the country's IQ and morale rise 50%
Perhaps thats a good idea to boost ratings, I may even watch it!
And yet they can still pay £22M for "The Voice" that's never going to compete with X-Factor. The ONLY thing I ever watch from the BBC is Top Gear, Dr Who and the Formula 1 - and I'm losing the Formula 1!
Time to reconsider paying my licence and this "watching live TV" thing I think.
"More than a fifth of the population never watches BBC One..." or to put it another way, "Over 48 Million people in the UK watch BBC 1..."
hang on, have I just clicked onto the Daily Mail by accident? Such bile directed at it!
The BBC is a fantastic broadcaster, delivering a phenomenal amount on a relatively paltry amount - just over half of what Sky gets in revenue, yet producing so much more - and of a much MUCH higher quality.
Not one of the 2000 then?
And not giving the people who pay for it what they want. If the BBC had to pay its own way, it would NEVER have ditched F1. If it funded itself via ads then it would would have and excuse to spend £22m+ on the Voice. As it is funded by tax, there is no reason to compete with ITV for ratings.
I seem to recall something in the BBC's charter which prevents it from directly competing with commercial TV, specifically because of how the Beeb is funded.
As for the F1 debacle - it's utterly shocking that the the "agreement" reached over freezing the licence fee has resulted in the best F1 coverage for years being lost. I would pay the licence fee for the F1 coverage alone, so the fact I get gems like Dr Who, Planet Earth and Sherlock as well is fantastic. I dread to think of quite how badly Sky will present F1...
I don't mind paying for something I watch. However, when I lived in the UK I *never* watched the BBC, or the other ones. (really, my TV wasn't even tuned in to terrestrial channels). Yet I still had to pay for them.
I'm fine with having the BBC, but let's have it so that only the people who watch it pay for it. According to the above that's still 4/5s of the population, so should be plenty.
As an aside, I had a friend who worked for the BBC as a manager, and he often boasted to me about how many jollies his chums and he went on on the Beeb's ticket. Great value I'm sure.
Should I ever live in the UK again I won't be getting a TV at all.
How about the BBC learn its not ITV
and stop competing with commercial tv with its various celebutards being judged by other celebutards doing singing/dancing/cooking/whatever. Sure it gets good ratings but its not exactly going to be remembered in decades unlike other stuff the BBC has done in its time like the comedy's/docs/drama an
Demonstrating a complete lack of reality....
......To create future savings.. they are going SELL freehold property they *own* and instead pay RENT no doubt at the usual hyper inflated market value.... yeah that'll be the next excuse.. we are paying out so much in rental on the buildings we need... The term *Asset Stripping* comes to mind.
This is the same shower that don't understand that 50% of a motor-sports season is not worth having - especially as their own news channel delights in screaming results of events that take place during our night..... cant afford sport yet we can afford to prop up a welsh language channel with almost zero audience.
Time to axe the tv tax!
Misunderstanding accountancy there...
Dull but important: Freehold property = asset. Rent = liability. If you sell an asset, your size (as measured in money) reduces, and is reduced further because you now have a liability to fund.
This could have two motivations: 1) "Look what we've done Mr Cameron, we're much smaller now", or 2) "Look at the cost of rent Mr Cameron, please can we put the licence fee up?"
There are also considerations of maintenance costs if the freehold buildings are old and in need of a lot of work, and if the Beeb are now shedding thousands of jobs it's better to sell an inflexible building and rent flexible space instead which can grow or shrink as required.
So not a bad thing then really.
How come they survive the chop?
I mean, how many paper-shufflers, quasi-managers and trick-cyclists do you need to run a media company, FFS.
In this whole recession, I think I've only seen one company actually aim the cuts and the management/paper-shufflers which is where the biggest savings can be made, and it wouldn't affect the capacity to actually produce and deliver products & services.
" how many paper-shufflers, quasi-managers and trick-cyclists do you need to run a media company". All of them? Is that not the definition of a media employee?
A smiling Mark Thompson tells us that NO services will be cut. Since the BBC management is structured around these services, that translates to no management will need to go since they still have their service to "manage". We'll just lose content instead which after all in not that important as it employs fewer of Mark's friends and their children. Isn't John Sergeant's son doing well.
I feel bad
For really enjoying the hell out of BBC America w/o contributing a dime to running it. It's one of only 4 consistently decent channels in the whole lineup. I'm sure my tightwad cable company isn't paying much for licensing.
It's a sad day when you come into work at the Beeb and find out you've been replaced by an Excel macro..
Welcome to 1985, BBC employee. Only took you 25 years to catch up with the real world.
"More than a fifth of the population never watches BBC One"
That's a fairly hard to believe number, what is the source?
Also, regarding BBC 3, you don't like it, I don't like it (with the exception of Family Guy and American Dad) Paxo and many other BBCers don't like it. The thing is that it's not targeted at us, it's targeted at youth and we shouldn't like it. The BBC want a TV channel equivalent of Radio 1 and not Radio 1 in the early 90s when it was mainly listened to by 30 somethings. The day that 30+ middle-class men start watching and enjoying BBC3 is the day that it's failed.
Looks like BBC3 has failed then... I'm a 30+ middle-class man and I do quite like it... Sorry BBC3.
Paris, because she'd be at home on BBC3. Possibly. If it was a particularly low-brow programme...
"The day that 30+ middle-class men start watching and enjoying BBC3 is the day that it's failed"
Actually, the target audience for BBC does include 30-somethings. Or, as the Beeb puts it: "its centre of gravity will be 16-34 year-olds: people who are young in spirit and mindset."
IIRC, when the station launched, the targeted demographic was 18-36, so there has been a change.
When I was in my teens, which is a little longer ago than I would like, I enjoyed all manner of programming, some of it was obviously targeting a much more adult audience, but I still managed to get something out of it. A channel like BBC 3 can underestimate what the target audience will like (there’s some original programming that I think is smashing, so I’m not saying it’s all crap), but that’s very BBC. A little while ago, I was at a media agency that was asked by the Beeb to pitch an idea for an online project that would appeal to the ‘yoof’ – it fears that it’s losing the hearts and minds of young ‘uns, doesn’t have a clue what to do about it and it
Although we have all these channels today, I’m always reminded by a Fry and Laurie sketch where a government minister who’s deregulated TV goes to a posh restaurant. The maitre d’ praises him for his speech that said choice is all-important, before apologising about the cutlery set at the table and removed it. Bringing back a sack of plastic tea stirrers, the maitre d’ poured them onto the table and when the MP protested that he couldn’t eat with the stirrers, the maite d’ agreed: “Oh, they’re all absolutely crap… but at least you have *choice*.” I remember when BBC 2 would have one foreign film once a week, had seasons that focussed on film like the Czech New Wave, and Alex Cox opened my eyes wider about cinemas. Does the BBC do anything equivalent today? Does it heck. The fact that Alex Cox stopped doing Moviedrome because he was told ‘no more films with subtitles will be shown’ on BBC 2 speaks volumes.
"More than a fifth of the population never watches BBC One"
That's a fairly hard to believe number, what is the source?
Why's it hard to believe? Because you watch it a lot and therefore everyone must also be doing the same? I never watch it, so theres one for you.
It amazes me the way that avid BBC fans say what great value it is, whilst never considering that its only due to the fact that everyone is forced to pay for it. £5 Billion for what the BBC produces isn't particularly good value anyway.
If the BBC is so confident in its output, then why not use viewing cards (which would cost no more to set up than the £100's millions spent on TV tax collection)
The fact that there is a tax on owning a TV, which then funnels all the money to one company is outrageous!
Are you sure thats years, I would suggest it's more like the IQ of their target viewers.
The source is the BBC's Annual Report and Accounts.
Look up the sections for audience reach.
An oldie is discussed here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/515/51504.htm