Going down the rabbit hole of googling "public service broadcasting funding models" I came across
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm.../15609.htm from last year.
It discusses the principal public funding models for PSB with the pros and cons. The primary three are licence fee, household/individual fee, and state budget. It also briefly mentions other alternatives such as advertising, subscription, taxation as a supplement, and donations.
Perhaps interestingly this page ends with cases studies for Finland and Germany, both of which use the household/individual fee model. If I was a betting man I'd suggest this is the most likely route the BBC is heading down, at least under the current government/leadership. Point 33 of this page notes...
Quote: However, 5% of German households refuse to pay the household fee and at this rate of evasion in the UK, there would be little financial benefit to the taxpayer from shifting away from the licence fee. However, if a household fee was attached to council tax it could be more progressive than the current licence fee model, enabling those on lower incomes to pay less.
Brekkie post_id=63631 time= user_id=976 Wrote:Generally it's advertising between programmes rather than during, and occassionally there are rules which exclude advertising during certain time periods (i.e. primetime) or certain types of shows.
One option might be sponsorship and/or product placement rather than traditional advertising. That may have less impact on commercial rivals, but therefore likely raise less revenue too. Considering in sport especially the sponsor of the event will normally get a couple of name checks during the broadcast they might as well pay for it instead.
If we take the French model. France Télévisions is ad and sponsorship funded in addition to the
"Contribution à l’audio visuel public" which I believe is around €138, but they're not allowed to have advertising during peak shows which is after 9pm.
Most programmes have breaks between shows, but game shows have breaks in the middle of the programme.
The household/individual fee is pretty much a licence fee in all but name, but perhaps with more variation in what people pay - and if it was progressive in the way the Finnish model is for example it would, stereotypically, be Tory voters hit the most, hence why they don't usually go for those sort of models. In the case of Finland it went from around €250 to a variable rate of between €140 and €3000 a year. Suddenly an inflation matching £7.50 a year I suspect would appeal to many of the Defund the BBC brigade.
Of course that document has many red flags why the government shouldn't go down that route so I wouldn't be surprised if it is the route we end up down. And just like with Brexit, Beebxit means different things to different people and many of the anti-BBC brigade won't be happy with anything other than complete closure. Oh how fun it'll be to watch their #DefundTheBBC campaigns end up with them probably paying twice as much as now.
Problem with a household model, we are saying that fewer people pay the licence fee, so we are going to charge everyone regardless.
Currently the licence fee is £13.25 a month - that is quite a lot to add as an broadband levy or a mobile phone levy to those on the cheaper packages.
Brekkie post_id=63642 time= user_id=976 Wrote:Oh how fun it'll be to watch their #DefundTheBBC campaigns end up with them probably paying twice as much as now.
Be like the farmers and fishermen who campaigned for brexit then.
JAS84 post_id=63638 time= user_id=881 Wrote:CCFG post_id=63597 time= user_id=1195 Wrote:I personally think that the BBC will end up having it's channels and iPlayer locked behind a premium subscription model. Having adverts could completely mess up timeslots for some programmes.
No it won't, they'll just make new episodes shorter, and use the same edits as UKTV (i.e. trimmed to fit in commercials) for older shows.
Scripted programmes on UKTV tend to run in longer slots with fewer edits now a days .
I can only see it being a subscription model through that would not work at all for radio and would be greatly flawed for TV.
Newshound47 post_id=63648 time= user_id=1854 Wrote:JAS84 post_id=63638 time= user_id=881 Wrote:CCFG post_id=63597 time= user_id=1195 Wrote:I personally think that the BBC will end up having it's channels and iPlayer locked behind a premium subscription model. Having adverts could completely mess up timeslots for some programmes.
No it won't, they'll just make new episodes shorter, and use the same edits as UKTV (i.e. trimmed to fit in commercials) for older shows.
Scripted programmes on UKTV tend to run in longer slots with fewer edits now a days .
They've been showing BBC shows in 40 minute slots for as long as I can remember.
Newshound47 post_id=63650 time= user_id=1854 Wrote:I can only see it being a subscription model through that would not work at all for radio and would be greatly flawed for TV.
I think there will be elements of advertising and a reduced "broadcasting tax" paid by the public. Perhaps some Channels like BBC3 and BBC News where advertising could work without much detriment to the viewer (between programmes - not during) and on some Digital Radio Stations but main channels and all public service broadcasts provided will be exempt from advertising. The shortfall to be provided by a chunk of the broadcast tax (for which there'd be no exemptions or freebies) which would also be used to continue and sustain broadband rollout etc. The BBC will never go down a pure subscription route - I think BBC 1 and BBC 2 will always be sacred cows, but of course there could be subs for other services and iPlayer may be more attractive because probably, Britbox would close as the BBC would look to put content from that onto iPlayer.
SteveRW post_id=63652 time= user_id=2173 Wrote:Newshound47 post_id=63650 time= user_id=1854 Wrote:I can only see it being a subscription model through that would not work at all for radio and would be greatly flawed for TV.
I think there will be elements of advertising and a reduced "broadcasting tax" paid by the public. Perhaps some Channels like BBC3 and BBC News where advertising could work without much detriment to the viewer (between programmes - not during) and on some Digital Radio Stations but main channels and all public service broadcasts provided will be exempt from advertising. The shortfall to be provided by a chunk of the broadcast tax (for which there'd be no exemptions or freebies) which would also be used to continue and sustain broadband rollout etc. The BBC will never go down a pure subscription route - I think BBC 1 and BBC 2 will always be sacred cows, but of course there could be subs for other services and iPlayer may be more attractive because probably, Britbox would close as the BBC would look to put content from that onto iPlayer.
The opinion pieces the Daily Mail have chosen to run connected to this have more than once praised the ad free nature of the streamers. I am not sure an advertisment funded model is on the agenda.
The Daily Mail won't be happy whatever happens.
James2001 post_id=63656 time= user_id=956 Wrote:The Daily Mail won't be happy whatever happens.
The Daily Mail has one view with its readers (the biggest daily selling newspaper by the way) resonating with it, and The Daily Mirror and Guardian another. All views are acceptable. The BBC though, has no God given right to exist. Nothing does. If the BBC feels it is entitled to exist, then it shouldn't be because "it just does". If people want it, they'll pay for it. If they don't, then the BBC will reinvent itself into something different.
According to this, it's the Metro, not the Daily Mail. Also, the circulation of The Sun, The Times, and the Telegraph is unknown. If The Sun's circulation is the same as two years ago, it would actually top the chart.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/most-popular-...n-figures/
Not that the majority read the papers these days regardless. So being the "most read" paper means little in terms of the overall population when it's read by less than 2% of it. I think it's fair to say more people probably get their news from the BBC than all the papers combined.
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