Could the BBC be better off if it raised money through subscriptions? Last week Westminster heard that the BBC had modelled precisely this scenario and found that it would be richer than it is today. It just didn't want to tell you. And in a strange alignment of interests, the BBC's pay-for rivals don't want you to know either …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

1. 1. 1. 1. Monday 27th January 2014 11:53 GMT Intractable Potsherd
        
        Re: Follow what money? @AC 19:43
        
        If any of the other mainstream news providers in the UK (so not Al Jazeera, EuroNews or Russia Today) were producing anything with a significantly different spin to BBC News, I might just agree with you. However, ITN and Sky News follow basically the same path on virtually every story.
        
        What exactly is it that you want the news providers to give you that they don't already?
        
        1 1
      2. Monday 27th January 2014 17:20 GMT Fogcat
        
        Re: Follow what money?
        
        "Ministers benefit from the current system because they get to hold the BBC's leash and ensure the right propaganda reaches the masses."
        
        These would be the same ministers (of whatever government right or left) that complain about the BBC?
        
        0 0
2. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:48 GMT Naughtyhorse
  
  Re: Follow what money?
  
  200,000 people fined each year for not having a licence.
  
  the fine is more than the cost of the licence
  
  0 0
  1. Monday 27th January 2014 10:01 GMT Neil B
    
    Re: Follow what money?
    
    Well, yes, otherwise it wouldn't be much of a disincentive would it?
    
    Anyway, that 1 in 10 figure is just perverse. Surely those on very low incomes should be exempt.
    
    2 1
Friday 24th January 2014 15:34 GMT Anonymous Coward

"Could the BBC be better off if it raised money through subscriptions?"

No, there, now can I have my million pound consultants fee please?

A TV license costs as near as makes no difference £150 a year now. That's £12.50 a month for 4 TV channels. 3 of which you'd actually watch sometimes, and one of them only starts at 7pm and mainly shows repeats from BBC1 plus the iPlayer (I forget if you need a license for that or if it is only for the live TV).

Netflix costs £5.99 a month.

Even if they did go for the subscription model there is no way that they will get anywhere close to the revenue they currently have and they will go bust...OnDigital and ITV Digitals subscription services proved that.

14 6
1. Friday 24th January 2014 17:02 GMT Steve Davies 3
  
  You forgot Radio
  
  I listen to the Radio far more frequently than I watch TV.
  
  Their Radio output would be the first to go it it went Subscription.
  
  Going to a Subscription model is only a short step to letting the advertisers in to their broadcasts.
  
  ITV is bad but all the other channels are far worse. Commercial TV is Adverts interrupted with short programme breaks. I for one don't want the BBC to go down that slippery slope.
  
  13 3
2. Friday 24th January 2014 17:02 GMT Bobthe2nd
  
  Content Generator
  
  Its not sensible to compare the BBC against Netflix. Netflix just buy and stream, they dont for example operate worldwide radio broadcast services or film/commission work.
  
  Therefore £150 or whatever it is, seems good value even if it was just for their science output.
  
  8 2
  1. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:43 GMT jason 7
    
    Re: Content Generator
    
    Watch this space as Netflix becomes a major creator of drama and content over the next 5 years.
    
    They have already got off to a good start. Plus as they state, they don't have to pander to advertisers also.
    
    1 0
  2. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Content Generator
    
    ..Therefore £150 or whatever it is, seems good value even if it was just for their science output.
    
    Firstly, I don't watch that much TV*, but as the other denizens of my house (aka family) do, I (grudgingly) fork out for the license.
    
    I wouldn't mind a tick box on my license which stated which types of 'programming' my monies went to fund, I'd happily tick one for science, so long as they also promise to stop dumbing down the damn programmes. (Ditto wrt the wildlife stuff, there has been a marked drop in quality of output there as well).
    
    I'd also love a list of programme categories that absolutely none of my monies went to fund, not even a stray Vietnamese dong's worth would go to sports, reality(hah) tv, fscking property shows, eastenders, oh, how long this list would be...
    
    A 'shitlist' of people that my monies should in no way or form fund would be nice as well.
    
    *Stargate, Enterprise, Sherlock Holmes (The Brett ones), Mock The Week repeats, Father Ted, Occasional film on Film4.
    
    0 1
    1. Monday 27th January 2014 11:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: Content Generator
      
      I don't have a TV and don't pay license but I watch iPlayer.
      
      If there were a way to donate to BBC and directly support the sorts of programs I watch, then I would do that. But there isn't, and so I don't.
      
      0 1
3. Friday 24th January 2014 17:03 GMT jaywin
  
  Four channels?
  
  BBC One
  
  BBC Two
  
  BBC Three
  
  BBC Four
  
  And then there's:
  
  BBC News
  
  CBBC
  
  CBeebies
  
  BBC Alba
  
  And that's before you include the World Service television channels which will shortly be paid from the licence fee rather than a grant from the FCO.
  
  I'm still not sure which one of those mostly shows repeats from BBC One though...
  
  5 0
4. Friday 24th January 2014 17:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Netflix costs £5.99 a month.
  
  And you can see why. Just went to their site and there were 4 prominent films/programmes featured, presumably to entice new customers.
  
  First up is a film starring Will Ferrell. If that's not a good enough reason to avoid a film, I din't know what is.
  
  Next, Frankie Boyle. Not everyone's cup of tea. Personally, I think he's OK, a lot of people would disagree.
  
  Then, Breaking Bad. One of those American series that are allegedly brilliant, but, for some reason fail to make me want to watch them.
  
  Lastly, Netflix's own super-series, House Of Cards, proudly trumpeted as "A Netflix Original Series", except, well, it's a remake. Of a BBC programme. Based on a British book about British politics.
  
  So, you keep Netflix, I'll keep the BBC. Go take a look at the Netflix British TV category. The vast majority is produced by the very organisation you are criticising. Take that away, as well as, presumably, the public funding for Channel 4, and you're left with a handful of ITV produced content. You obviously love American TV, as that is all that would be left if the BBC disappeared.
  
  It may have evaded your intelligence, but, someone has to make TV programmes, and company's like Netflix are not the ones to do it.
  
  19 7
  1. Friday 24th January 2014 23:08 GMT Andrew Jones 2
    
    Have you even seen House of Cards?
    
    You can't call it a remake simply because a British Version exists. The Netflix House of Cards is very American and deals with the American political system.
    
    A remake is something which is recreated after the original and is almost entirely the same story as the original.
    
    You can't even say it is "based on" because the original deals with the British political system and the Netflix version deals with the American political system.
    
    3 7
  2. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:49 GMT Naughtyhorse
    
    not strictly fair..
    
    netflix is not quite as bad as you are painting it, it makes quite a bit more stuff than house of cards. but i accept your overall point
    
    0 0
5. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:49 GMT Naughtyhorse
  
  Netflix??????
  
  Not a like for like comparison, VM or SKY are proper comparisons and they are way more expensive. And presumably they would have to pay to rebroadcast BBC's content under this model. I have a VM package, about 140 channels alledgedly (I have never counted) of which I watch probably 7, 2 of which are BBC.
  
  2 0
Friday 24th January 2014 15:34 GMT Jason Bloomberg

VFM

So the BBC provides value for money, the overwhelming majority agree, and would be happy to pay the same (or more) through subscription as they do through license fee. I wouldn't disagree with that.

So don't try to fix what isn't broken. Not that I can see how the BBC could become subscription only and still fit with the free-to-air and free-to-view offerings we currently have.

Call me cynical but it couldn't be about trying to get rid of free-to-air and free-to-view could it?

23 3
Friday 24th January 2014 16:46 GMT Mark Eaton-Park

What people are forgetting is...

They could sack:

1. All those employees who go door to door attempting to intimidate people into buying a license for a service they don't use

2. Crapita

these are where they make the big savings along with not having to pay the independent broadcasters a cut of the license fee ( not mentioned I note).

To me sacking those badgers would make it all worth while, yes they are paying that ex-SKY scum too much money, i.e. anything at all, however if it means one less group of people banging on my door demanding my attention, I am all for it

Sorry I meant I would still pay the BBC, honest, I really really would continue to pay the technology tax

5 10
Friday 24th January 2014 17:00 GMT Anonymous Coward

"Although he did say the BBC pays presenters 'bugger all'. "

Quite right, all the money goes to the freelance presenter's service company. Which then pays them in a tax-minimizing route

eg http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/bbc-stars-go-back-payroll/552744

3 1
1. Wednesday 29th January 2014 13:28 GMT Darren Barratt
  
  I doubt if anyone on this site full of IT contractors would recognize that method of operation!
  
  0 0
Friday 24th January 2014 17:00 GMT Anonymous Coward

Scandinavian model ?

So, are we going to apply this logic across the board to what can be broadly labeled as 'indespensible' services ? Is a bus fair going to be cheaper if you make less money ? Drinking water ? Electrical power ? Or does this logic apply to every form of spending by the general public ? A Bentley perhaps ? A family holiday to Ibiza ?

Granted, the two last examples seem silly. But is it not true higher incomes already pay more taxes ? And not only in absolute numbers, but higher tax brackets. Are people who spend more not only paying more taxes, but also more sales tax - in absolute numbers - because they by more and more expensive consumer goods ? Are we returning to 'there's one for you, nineteen for me' ?

It reeks of communism. And I thought we had generally come to the conclusion it doesn't work.

Bear in mind Scandinavian politicians are no different from the ones in Blighty, or Belgium for that matter : they keep trying to find new ways of extorting money from citizens and use a never ending supply of bovine excrement to sell it as 'fairness'.

7 8
Friday 24th January 2014 17:01 GMT jai

i'd happily pay more

as long as it meant more than 3 episodes of Sherlock per season, and Top Gear specials at Xmas instead of at some random time a month or two later.

and less bloody eastenders

7 2
1. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:53 GMT King Jack
  
  Re: i'd happily pay more
  
  The BBC make 3 episodes of Sherlock because they can get away with it. If they made a proper run of say 13 a series it would still cost the tax payers the same. So they make 3 and laugh all the way to the bank. Same logic with Top Gear. People love being shafted by the BBC so much they defend them.
  
  Let them go subscription, so I can stop getting extortion letters every month.
  
  3 5
  1. Monday 27th January 2014 03:37 GMT MJI
    
    Sherlock
    
    But they want to take their time and do it well not churn out a load of crap. We only have one Moffatt and he has to do DW as well
    
    2 1
Friday 24th January 2014 17:01 GMT All names Taken

It seems the Beeb has only the highest regard for and of itself no?

£11 per month will give us:

BBC 1, 2, 3, 4 and a part time Cbeeby or two

on tv

Sky £30 per month will give us all of the Beebs plus a heck of a lot more.

I think the Beeb is using power generator tactics to overprice its product and if the subscription model goes ahead pray tell how I can listen to BBC Radio York in, say, Cornwall?

For BBC tv I think a £1 per channel per month seems reasonable if not a bit on the high side

3 8
1. Friday 24th January 2014 18:19 GMT Tom 38
  
  If Sky is £30 a month now, and the BBC would be £11, then Sky then would be £41 a month, assuming you didn't opt out of BBC channels.
  
  13 0
2. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:49 GMT Naughtyhorse
  
  heck of a lot more......
  
  a brace of shopping channels
  
  a further brace of repeat channels
  
  a further brace of 'buying a house, painting it and selling it on' channels
  
  a couple of second rate bbc1 imitators
  
  3 maybe 4 proper channels
  
  a laughable news channel
  
  a plethora of music channels (all shite)
  
  and a fishing channel
  
  sports... thats extra
  
  movies...thats extra
  
  yup! that IS a lot more, but a lot more of what is debatable.
  
  Not to mention that the beeb retransmission is on the basis that you have a licence, under a subs model, they would be extra.
  
  3 0
  1. Tuesday 28th January 2014 07:51 GMT DiViDeD
    
    Re: heck of a lot more......
    
    Oh you guys need to come to Australia where the Dirty Digger, together with that nice Mr Packer The Younger, have worked televisual magic.
    
    You get only one laughable news channel? We get six! And one (Sky News) still seems to give over half it's coverage to sport. The other half consists of hard news items such as 'Australia is the best country in the world and by God you should be grateful we let you live here' and 'Those Foreigners. They're funny, aren't they?'.
    
    We also get nothing that would even merit 'second rate' on the BBC wannabe scale, Discovery Science specially tailored for the Aussie viewer, which means no science at all, ever, but lots of fighter aircraft, US cars and big explosions, Aurora, which combines the best of fishing programmes (not a high bar) with the best of 'Driving a Ute up hills' programmes, extraordinarily camp gay dating programmes (I can't think of a gay friend who doesn't cringe when introduced to it), and my personal favourite, the 'Wasn't music great in the 50s before it all went shite?' show.
    
    I can more than recommend Oz for the climate, the lifestyle and the people. But never for the TV. Best to migrate here by boat and reel out your aerial cable behind you as you go.
    
    0 0
Friday 24th January 2014 17:01 GMT TheTick

Quality

"However, Hewlett warned of "perverse incentives" for the BBC if subscriptions were introduced - it would seek to maximise revenue rather than maintain quality."

Does the concept of maximising revenue *by* maintaining quality not occur to them. I'm not an Apple fan but you can't deny they have done well by producing quality products for example.

Overall it's about damn time these things were being looked at. There's a few good BBC programs I watch but there's an awful lot I object to being forced to pay for if I dare to watch Sky Atlantic.

Join the free market - thrive or fall like the rest of us have to.

4 7
1. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:43 GMT Christian Berger
  
  Re: Quality
  
  Well there are plenty of examples where maximizing revenue has lead to lower quality.
  
  The market doesn't care about quality, it only cares about marketing. It doesn't matter if your product is better for the same price all that matters is how it's sold. Look at Apple, their products are mediocre at best at top prices. Selling things costs a lot of money and virtually every consumer electronics company spends way more on marketing than actual technical product development.
  
  5 1
2. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:52 GMT Richard 12
  
  Re: Quality
  
  The UK's commercial broadcasters generally don't go for quality in order to get revenue. They make most of their revenue from advertising, and the remainder from their subscribers and the TV licence.
  
  High-quality TV is extremely expensive to make - that's why it's so rare.
  
  If the BBC turned fully commercial then they would obviously reduce their quality because that makes them more profit - and the existing commercial channels would be able to reduce their quality further as they'd be compared to a worse quality of programming.
  
  The BBC keeps the commercial broadcasters honest - and not just UK ones, because every broadcaster around the world is compared to the BBC.
  
  On top of that, the commercial broadcasters would get less revenue because most of them get a small cut of the licence fee!
  
  4 2
  1. Monday 27th January 2014 03:38 GMT John Brown (no body)
    
    Re: Quality
    
    "the existing commercial channels would be able to reduce their quality further as they'd be compared to a worse quality of programming.
    
    The BBC keeps the commercial broadcasters honest - and not just UK ones, because every broadcaster around the world is compared to the BBC."
    
    Upvoted for that. I suspect the BBC will eventually die or change beyond all recognition but on the whole this what helped keep standards up despite the evidence that it is falling now.
    
    5 0
3. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:53 GMT Vic
  
  Re: Quality
  
  > Does the concept of maximising revenue *by* maintaining quality not occur to them
  
  No. It doesn't.
  
  Vic.
  
  1 0
Friday 24th January 2014 17:01 GMT M7S

"Radio 4 is worth the licence fee alone"

Aah, memories

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA

1 0
Friday 24th January 2014 17:02 GMT Daz555

I get so annoyed when the cost of the BBC is brought into question. It is simply the finest broadcaster on the planet. No question.

Bloody hell, www.bbc.co.uk/everysubjectimagineableincludinghowtopassyourgcse is in itself probably worth the licence fee alone.

Please, leave the BBC alone.

26 9
1. Friday 24th January 2014 18:41 GMT TheTick
  
  It's not the cost, it's the method of funding. If it's so great then why are they so afraid of selling their product rather than having the government force people to buy it?
  
  4 11
  1. This post has been deleted by its author
2. Friday 24th January 2014 23:05 GMT OrsonX
  
  "the finest broadcaster on the planet"
  
  I wouldn't pay and begrudge being forced to pay now.
  
  The worst channel is BBC News 24.
  
  Reporter: I'm standing IN the IMPACT crater, let's ask this woman how she feels having lost her house, her home and her 5 children?
  
  How the fuckin fuck do you fuckin think she is feeling?!!!
  
  Then (after the sport, ne. football) I can look forward to the weather FORECAST, where I can hear what the weather has been like TODAY, FFS!
  
  6 6
  1. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:49 GMT Naughtyhorse
    
    Re: How the fuckin fuck do you fuckin think she is feeling?!!!
    
    upvote!
    
    1 3
  2. Monday 27th January 2014 09:13 GMT Timfy67
    
    Re: "the finest broadcaster on the planet"
    
    "How the fuckin fuck do you fuckin think she is feeling?!!!"
    
    You are Peter Capaldi AICMFP...
    
    0 0
3. Monday 27th January 2014 11:00 GMT Moosh
  
  This is completely true.
  
  If anyone deigned to actually watch the drivel thats shown on literally any other broadcasters channels, I think they'd really change their tune.
  
  A single BBC nature documentary is, in my opinion, worth many years of my subscribing to the BBC. Pioneering in most every way. Do you honestly think any other broadcaster on the face of this planet would have done that?
  
  All these American dramas that people are raving about I find incomprehensibly dull. I honestly don't understand their attraction, they're still bloated and melodramatic in the way that only America seems to do.
  
  But then I suppose i'm in the minority. I don't watch television dramas, I watch arts, history, documentaries, entertainment and other, all of which the BBC is unarguably the best at, regardlessy our fondness of American or BBC drama.
  
  4 0
Friday 24th January 2014 17:02 GMT Tsung

Here comes the TV & Internet Licence fee..

I don't pay for a TV licence, my TV isn't tuned for any channel, I watch Film & TV Series from Netflix.

However, one of my biggest annoyances with the BBC is the technology exists to encrypt the channel and deliver it to just those who pay for it. The big digital switch over was the perfect time to incorporate this technology. Instead they would rather make out people who choose not to watch broadcast TV are criminals. I'm certain the "long term" goal for the BBC is this..

"We cannot possibly monitor everybody who uses I-Player and we cannot issue usernames / passwords for those who pay the TV licence so our only option is an TV & Internet Licence fee."

Lets see if it happens...

7 10
1. Friday 24th January 2014 18:35 GMT dajames
  
  Re: Here comes the TV & Internet Licence fee..
  
  .... one of my biggest annoyances with the BBC is the technology exists to encrypt the channel and deliver it to just those who pay for it. The big digital switch over was the perfect time to incorporate this technology.
  
  You're advocating DRM on broadcast TV.
  
  DRM is the name given to the application of technlogy to the task of making things difficult for people who have paid for them, in the vain hope of making things even more difficult for those who have not.
  
  It doesn't work. Those who really want to will always get around the protection and make unprotected copies. Those who do pay for the content will find that their viewing experience is less convenient and more restrictive that the system provided under a licence fee (you can't watch that upstairs, because it's encrypted and only the downstairs TV has a card slot; you can't record this channel because the video recorder doesn't understand encrypted channels; yes, I did record that for you on my special, expensive, DRM-enabled video recorder, but it was only available for a week and the recorder erased automatically on Tuesday).
  
  The licence fee is BY FAR the fairest and most convenient means of collecting revenue for the broadcast media, and I'd happily pay it ten times over if I could have all forms of DRM banished from the planet forever.
  
  I'm not suggesting that piracy is acceptable -- far from it -- just that there are other ways of preventing it, some of which might actually work.
  
  Instead they would rather make out people who choose not to watch broadcast TV are criminals.
  
  Now, I agree that the tactics used against those who genuinely do not watch broadcast television are somewhat tactless and heavy-handed, at times. You have to understand, though, that the BBC believes that the work it does is fantastic and that nobody in their right mind would eschew it. I'm not saying that I agree with them, but I do see how it must be difficult for them to believe that some people just don't want to watch TV.
  
  Personally, I'll happily pay the licence fee to fund Radio 3 and BBC4 (not Radio 4) ... and if that means I'm allowed to watch repeats of Star Trak on Pick as well ... that's a bonus!
  
  Icon: Man who watches too much television.
  
  17 2
  1. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:53 GMT dajames
    
    Oops!
    
    Personally, I'll happily pay the licence fee to fund Radio 3 and BBC4 (not Radio 4) ...
    
    Replying to myself (not that that's a novelty) because it's too late to edit.
    
    Sorry, that makes it look as though I'm dissing Radio 4, which wasn't my intention. I'm very happy for Radio 4 -- as well as other BBC endeavours -- to be funded from the licence fee even though I personally hardly ever listen to it ... but it's Radio 3 and BBC4 television that I'd be happy to pay for if I had to subscribe to each channel separately (which, I hope, nobody is suggesting).
    
    1 0
Friday 24th January 2014 17:02 GMT M7S

Radio 4 is worth the licence fee alone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA

Oh the irony

0 0
Friday 24th January 2014 17:02 GMT JimmyPage

I would gladly sell my house

and all it's contents to pay for the BBC ...

8 3
Friday 24th January 2014 17:02 GMT Darren Barratt

Market zealot propaganda

What about radio? All the best radio channels are BBC (4, 6 and a little of 2), but they've not been mentioned.

Sky should be taxed to help pay for the BBC. TV is only as popular as it is because the BBC is excellent, so Sky should compensate them for supplying such a fertile market.

If only 80% of people continue to pay what they are paying now, then it's a 20% cut in revenue. Surely maths isn't so bad that this nonsense is being believed.

10 4
1. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:50 GMT Naughtyhorse
  
  Re: Market zealot propaganda
  
  They should fund radio from road tax, after all it's the only time _I_ ever listen to it.
  
  1 0
Friday 24th January 2014 17:02 GMT Anonymous Coward

In reality ..

Odd shows like "Sherlock" excepted, I could happily live with BBC4 only.

1 0
1. Friday 24th January 2014 18:50 GMT Graham Marsden
  
  Re: In reality ..
  
  "I could happily live with BBC4 only."
  
  Except that, with a subscription model, BBC4 would probably be first against the wall. "Too niche, too boring, nobody wants to watch a documentary about XYZ, we'll never sell it to other broadcasters, no, get rid of it and let's have more Britain's Got Big Brother Coming Dancing Strictly Through a Hole in a Wall on Ice..."
  
  16 1
  1. Sunday 26th January 2014 19:48 GMT John Smith 19
    
    @Graham Marsden
    
    ""Except that, with a subscription model, BBC4 would probably be first against the wall. "Too niche, too boring, nobody wants to watch a documentary about XYZ, we'll never sell it to other broadcasters, no, get rid of it and let's have more Britain's Got Big Brother Coming Dancing Strictly Through a Hole in a Wall on Ice..."
    
    You forgot all those Scandinavian crime dramas.
    
    Who watches them?
    
    1 0