It’s always interesting in these debates how people who never use certain BBC services tend to see no need for them and that they can be easily disposed of or merged with something else they don’t use. Radio 3 is often attacked for having a tiny audience and those proposing to close it say ‘there’s always ClassicFM’. Comparing ClassicFM to Radio 3 is like comparing Bruce’s Price is Right to University Challenge. Same with CBBC/CBeebies. Both my kids devoured as much CBeebies content as we would let them consume but didn’t make the leap to CBBC whatsoever. There’s no way these channels could be merged.
History repeating itself though - I remember taking part in debates about BBC funding at university in the early 90s. You could argue the BBC was distinctly more expensive for what you got in return back then. Advertising, sponsorship, Poll Tax levy, a charge added to the purchase of each new TV set or VCR, subscription - all debated back then and it was ultimately decided that the license fee was the ‘least worst option’.
There's plainly a high degree of politics in this issue: raising the issue plays into a narrative which favours a certain political brand. And in that case, whatever eventually happens in this space will depend far more on the politics of the day than (necessarily) on the merits of the argument.
That said... On the substance of the policy issue here, I think there are good grounds to review the BBC's funding model. As others have said, I'm not convinced a licence fee is fit for purpose in a world of streaming and content being accessed across multiple types of devices. And while I support public service broadcasting, I've never been convinced by the argument that it is of such supreme importance that it merits its own specialised funding channel, when any number of other vital societal functions are funded through ordinary taxes and budget appropriations. Drop the licence fee, and fund public service broadcasting from the budget. Establish 3-year or 5-year funding cycles, underpinned by legislation, to ensure a degree of stability and predictability.
The question of funding levels is rather different. I don't have any firm view on what the "right" funding level is. But the starting point for such a debate must surely be a clearly defined position of what the BBC's role is -- what are the services and functions it should provide? But good luck trying to get politicians to focus on that instead of hurling accusations of bias and wokeism around.
I think you're right, [mention]Mr Q[/mention]. There is two very different questions at play here: the funding model and then the level of funding.
Whilst I take the argument about streaming services, I would argue that the BBC has always been something a little different and has now grown into an institution of state (lowercase s there). By that I mean, a bit like the NHS, it's very much part of our cultural and intellectual foot print in the UK and one which is, in many senses, a unique set up. I hold little time for the comparisons - made by the woman who ate a Kangaroo anus on national TV - with Netflixs as they are purely different 'products'.
That said, is a license fee the right form for this. Personally, I see this as a question of wooden dollars. If you're not collecting revenue through a license, then we might as well just embed it as part of our taxation. It is, for all intents and purposes, the same question here.
But then this takes us to the question of what does a BBC for the 21st Century mean. I know there has been a lot of anguish from colleagues about the changes in recent years but personally, I see this as an essential first step in prioritising the offer. I think, in some senses, you can break out the essential for the nice to have but do think this is a piece of work that will require something a lot more imaginative - like, say, a cultural commission made up for experts etc - to determine how you begin to think of the BBC as a new institution.
Inspector Sands post_id=63674 time= user_id=1003 Wrote:James2001 post_id=63656 time= user_id=956 Wrote:The Daily Mail won't be happy whatever happens.
They're ideologically opposed but being owners of ITN,they also have the most to gain from a weaker BBC.
Actually apart from the upcoming Talk TV its interesting to note that I think all the other national newspapers have disposed of their TV and radio interests now. At one point every national newspaper had at least one TV or radio station connected to it
That’s also why it’s unlikely a advertisement funded BBC would be approved. All newspapers would lose out in that situation due to a dilution of the ad market.
Newshound47 post_id=63680 time= user_id=1854 Wrote:Inspector Sands post_id=63674 time= user_id=1003 Wrote:James2001 post_id=63656 time= user_id=956 Wrote:The Daily Mail won't be happy whatever happens.
They're ideologically opposed but being owners of ITN,they also have the most to gain from a weaker BBC.
Actually apart from the upcoming Talk TV its interesting to note that I think all the other national newspapers have disposed of their TV and radio interests now. At one point every national newspaper had at least one TV or radio station connected to it
That’s also why it’s unlikely a advertisement funded BBC would be approved. All newspapers would lose out in that situation due to a dilution of the ad market.
Having commercials on the BBC, would decimate commercial TV and Radio.
You need both sides of the industry to be funded appropriately and properly for UK broadcasting as a whole to thrive.
Nadine Dories will be giving a statement to the Commons on this later today.
Been thinking about this and I do believe it's a positive move. In the era of streaming the license fee is a broken model and revenue must be shrinking sharply, the BBC need a funding model which has a future.
I feel the best solution would be to split the BBC and have funding for core services be provided by taxation (tv, radio, news, major sports, educational and childrens programming) with a subscription 'BBC Plus' which would enable access to more entertainment content (dramas, films and maybe additional sports). Most of what is on iPlayer would be subscription, with some content accessible for free if watched live on broadcast TV (I'm classing linear tv channels as a core service). 'BBC Plus' would also be an international service.
Fundamentally nothing would be lost and the BBC would continue to have the same level of output, if not more. Continue with the licence fee and output will have to be drastically cut.
The statement has started.
Dorries confirms the licence fee will be frozen for two years. After that, it will rise in line with inflation for four years.
The commercial arm will also have increased borrowing limits.
Edit: Here is a statement from the BBC regarding today’s announcement…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statem...e-fee-2022
Can't see constant links with 'streaming giants' - they don't do half the things the BBC does, and never would.
I largely agree with many others here - I believe the BBC could not operate on a subscription, or 'Netflix-like' model. The purpose of the organisation is to serve the whole of the UK; to 'inform, educate and entertain', and it would not be possible to do this whilst marketing itself, and slimming itself down to become commercially viable.
The general point being made is that the BBC needs to change - it is old and irrelevant amongst younger proportions of the country, but I think this is being blown up for political gain - whilst the statistics overall show use by young people is declining, this is not a slide into 'irrelevance'; These are similar, but distinctly different things.
I fall into the category of a 'young person'. Of course my opinions of the BBC are not entirely representative of the whole the population, but I see a continued use of its services. Most people I know watch BBC programs of some form regularly, listen to the radio, or read the news. When I see people saying the BBC is 'plunging into obscurity' I see exaggeration for effect, and I find that upsetting - after all, the BBC continues to 'inform, educate and entertain' effectively, much to the envy of the rest of the world, to the disappointment of those who wish there be less competition, but to the joy of many, many more.
Markymark post_id=63682 time= user_id=1078 Wrote:Having commercials on the BBC, would decimate commercial TV and Radio.
You need both sides of the industry to be funded appropriately and properly for UK broadcasting as a whole to thrive.
Any future proposal for an advertising-funded BBC would also probably prompt ITV and C5 to immediately request the removal of their remaining PSB licence commitments. A case they could probably justify given the changing landscape. So there goes your PSB media plurality. It's a situation that is going to destabilise the whole industry.
I can't see that there's any way around this other than funding the BBC through general taxation. As others have said, the issue with that is that the government can pretty much make as many cuts to it as they want, but if they pledged to keep a minimum spend on the BBC at a similar level to the amount they get from the licence fee, that should work alright in theory. Given the alternative options, I'd personally rather have ads than a subscription model but either would be dreadful.
sdaonline post_id=63751 time= user_id=1185 Wrote:Can't see constant links with 'streaming giants' - they don't do half the things the BBC does, and never would.
Amol Rajan is contractually obliged to mention Netflix in every single report he produces, or at least it seems like that