BBC licence fee to be abolished in 2027 and funding frozen

[Brekkie]

Worth noting that for 2019/20 the BBC did generate nearly 30% of it's income through commercial activity, according to the stats posted below.

I suspect as much as politicians spin the argument that it's about being sympathetic to those not wishing to pay the licence fee the evasion rate climbing from 5% to 7.5% is probably one of the reasons why they're looking at models where every household has to pay regardless of if they have a TV, presumably making evasion easier to track.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/res.../cbp-8101/


Also without getting into the details of the politics of it the announcement and fall out in the House of Commons today show there isn't universal support for these changes amongst Tory MPs themselves. I think the BBC also almost needed to get to this point for the case for it's existence to be made even stronger - and people across all sectors and from all walks of life seem to be coming out fighting in a way I've not really seen before.

[benzj]

Of course you will argue that I can listen to 1Extra if I choose, which of course I can, but that isn't the point. The question should be why aren't these demographic groups listening to mainstream BBC? What is the BBC doing wrong to exclude these folk from wanting to use the services already provided? Radio 1 for instance has become ageist and shouldn't exclude older artists from their playlists just because its producers feel younger people wouldn't want to hear them. Again, you'll argue "But you can use Radio 2" which of course I can, and do. The fact is though, I used to enjoy listening to Radio 1. However since I'm no longer catered for on Radio 1 I have found myself using commercial local radio instead more because I find it more universally listener friendly. That's the point.

The BBC waste money trying to appease demographic groups that sometimes it comes across as patronising, whereas other services offered elsewhere seem to have nailed exactly how to appeal to everyone without bringing colour, age or anything else into the equation.

BBC3 is another example. Do young people want BBC3? Do they actually watch the content or are they finding things to watch that better suit on Amazon or Netflix?

By contrast, it's through services like Radio 1, Radio 1Xtra and BBC Three that these audiences are introduced to the "mainstream BBC". While it can be argued that the BBC could be doing more in some areas to better serve more audiences (BBC Two in daytime personally comes to mind as an area for potential improvement), the days where the whole family sat down to watch the same programs, or even where segmented programming blocks for various audiences made sense, have long been over. It would be to the BBC's detriment to revert to either of those strategies, as that's just not how people consume content anymore. Why would I wait for, say, a CBBC block on BBC One when I can tune into CITV, Pop, or one of the pay-TV kids' channels instead? If a BBC Three-style block doesn't start until 10:30pm, for another example, why wouldn't I spend my evening with ITV2 or E4 instead (and potentially forget about the programming block altogether)?
When I'm listening to Greg James on Radio 1 and get a promo for a new drama on BBC One, that's how I'm made aware of other services the BBC offers, and not only may I be inclined to tune in to what's promoted, but stick around and have other programming promoted to me or to keep watching the rest of the lineup. Reaching audiences successfully these days isn't about hoping they'll come to your broadly generalist offering, but instead about delivering to the level of your audience and providing something that they'll enjoy. What the average (present) listener of Radio 2 wants is likely different from what the average Radio 1 fan would like, and that's part of why they're separate services to begin with. Trying to make them play nice within the same programming and playlist would alienate parts of both audiences, and make it less competitive against other options, no matter how noble it might seem to have such a widely-appealing service in theory.

Further, a strategy where the channels were so segmented would create challenges as to which audiences would be prioritized where and when, as there are only so many timeslots during peak viewing periods. This could create the impression amongst the audiences that aren't regularly catered to during these times that they're more of an afterthought or a quota exercise and not necessarily important in the eyes of the broadcaster. (For example, parts of the BBC Three audience, myself included, felt rubbed the wrong way over lacking a TV home the past six years). This would exacerbate the issues the BBC already has with reaching broad demographics, not solve them, and it would likely give its detractors and commercial rivals more justification for their views and interests. It would worsen the stereotypes the BBC is trying to break, it would heighten the calls for the BBC's curtailment or demise from its opponents, and it would give commercial rivals free reign to court these audiences to their own services, only encumbered by what they could sell advertising for -- and little of that would likely meet the depth or creative risk-taking the BBC could provide through its lack of such an encumbrance. It would be more patronizing, at least to me, to serve modern audiences through programming blocks rather than give them their own spaces which, ideally, are authentic to their needs and interests. Further, it could lead to certain audiences which are currently served through separate services not being served at all, either through the perception of being seen as an afterthought or just through budget cuts and rationalizations. Look back to the objections to the original closure of BBC Three, for instance.

Plus, having distinct channels for distinct audiences makes it easier to discern whether something to watch may be of interest to you. When the "1Xtra Takeover" airs on Radio 1 on Saturday nights, I know roughly what I could expect, and from there I can decide whether to listen or to choose a different option. While that's a bit of a overt example, each service the BBC has crafts a distinct image for itself, which influences perceptions about content which further drive viewing choices. It's the same of any TV channel or radio station in these times, where a variety of competing content sources are available. Streaming services like Netflix, forced by nature to have as generic and all-encompassing brands as possible, have great trouble getting the right content to the right audiences, much less wide ones, and for every time they're successful at that endeavor, there are dozens of occasions where that effort fails. There's simply not enough promotional investment to go around to ensure that all of their programming has the best chance at success.

The reason the BBC has maintained the importance it does to so many audience groups is because they have services which reach so many audience groups, not in spite of that. One household might be big viewers of BBC One and Two, sure, but the house next door might frequent CBBC and BBC Four. As a public broadcaster, it's important for both of those viewing experiences -- and the myriad of others out there -- to be regarded as similarly important, at least in my opinion.

[benzj]

To go back to my point from my "BBC - how does it fight back?" thread from July, the BBC is such an easy target because it does too much that the private sector can do well and it doesn't currently do what it does well enough.

It has been the architect of much of its own misfortune. It has needed a radical shake-up for years. If the proposal to replace the licence fee with a subscription goes ahead, it will have to do much of what I suggested it should do back in the July thread anyway.

One only needs to look at the sorry state of public and non-commercial broadcasting in the United States to imagine why the BBC eschewing what "the private sector can do well" could be a disastrous idea. The likes of PBS, NPR, and a slew of locally-based noncommercial offerings are relative afterthoughts in the wider media landscape here, producing important and 'worthy' content that is relatively lesser consumed, and many of the audiences the BBC offers content and services for in the UK aren't equivalently served in any capacity, if they're served at all. Most of public and noncommercial broadcasting in the US effectively boils down to analogues of BBC Two, BBC Four, CBeebies, BBC Radio 3, and BBC Radio 4. Imagine what the BBC would look like, and the reputation it would have, if it was boiled down to just those services?
I think it's imperative the BBC keeps doing some things that are commercially attractive in order to maintain (and, in a way, subsidize) "what it does well enough", as well as the more thought-provoking and niche things commercial broadcasting doesn't touch.

While admittedly the US and UK are vastly different broadcasting systems formed under different circumstances, I've personally found it admirable that Europe has such sturdy (if not relatively strong) public broadcasters, I feel that they need strengthening and protecting as the institutions they are, given I know exactly what it looks like when public broadcasting isn't deemed so structurally important (though for full disclosure, I do volunteer at a noncommercial radio station where I live). As much as there's no area of the BBC that should be immune from criticism or not open to improvement, it's important that the qualities and character so many love about the BBC is maintained, and I'm not sure how that can happen if it comes to pass that it suffers so dearly.

[johnnyboy]

....and I'm not sure how that can happen if it comes to pass that it suffers so dearly.

Very thoughtful post, benzj.

I think the crux of the issue is your last sentence. My post back in July was my best guess at how to preserve much of the scale of the BBC while at the same time improving the output by giving it less to focus on.

The BBC is part of our national identity and a crucial part of our soft power. I personally do not want the licence fee scrapped but I would like the BBC to provide me with a bit more to watch. Maybe I am spoiled by the streaming, multi-channel landscape now but it's really in the last 2-3 years that I feel the quality of the output has gone down. I can't quite put my finger on it though.

[Keith]

Maybe I am spoiled by the streaming, multi-channel landscape now but it's really in the last 2-3 years that I feel the quality of the output has gone down. I can't quite put my finger on it though.

Probably has a lot to do with the licence fee freezes between 2010 and 2016 which were real term cuts. Then small increases which if in line with inflation was a real term freeze (or if below inflation was still a real term cut). Inevitably the scale of these cuts will have had some effect on the output. There's also been the increase in streaming services with Netflix, Prime, and Disney+ having much larger budgets for programmes by comparison. A combination of both may be why the likes of Around the World in 80 Days are co-productions.

[James2001]

I won't deny I'll laugh a bit if the BBC does get funded through taxation and everyone has to pay for the BBC regardless of if they even own a TV, that would make the licence fee complainers (who ironically have been calling it the "TV tax" for years) explode, instead of freeing people from the "TV tax", they'll be making people pay it who didn't have to before. Another example of something where what people campaign for actually achieves the opposite of what they wanted.

[Matrix]

One aspect I found quite interesting, now I’ve had a chance to see the Culture Secretary’s statement is actually the row back in terms of language. Yes: a real terms cut through the freeze but, actually, the stuff leaked to The Mail et al really didn’t feature in the statement. It does rather pose the question if this isn’t indeed all part of a broader political landscape and an attempt to create a narrative (but not actual reality) that the BBC is facing the axe.

Indeed, the Secretary’s statement explicitly referred to her desire to see the BBC continue. Whilst it might not quite be the anus-eating quality she’s used to, I do have this final thought: in ten years we’ve had ten Secretary of State. Perhaps — just perhaps — the smoke signals and table banging is that, as personally I think it very unlikely that this Minister will likely be the one to see the next Charter Renewal.

[Keith]

Licence fee freeze will cost BBC £285m and hit programmes - director general
BBC services and shows will have to be cut as a result of a £285m funding gap arising from the latest licence fee deal, its director general has said.

Tim Davie said the settlement, which will see the cost of a TV licence frozen for the next two years, "will affect our frontline output".

Asked what might be cut, he said "everything's on the agenda".

Full article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60036446

[Roger Darthwell]

[quote=Keith post_id=63856 time= user_id=1115]

Licence fee freeze will cost BBC £285m and hit programmes - director general
BBC services and shows will have to be cut as a result of a £285m funding gap arising from the latest licence fee deal, its director general has said.

Tim Davie said the settlement, which will see the cost of a TV licence frozen for the next two years, "will affect our frontline output".

Asked what might be cut, he said "everything's on the agenda".

Full article:

[AxiosBrit67]

BBC Two and BBC Four are unlikely to go. I rather see some unprofitable service like Bitesize be the first to go or absorbed into another service. Radio 5 Live and 5 Live Sports Extra can be merged into single radio channel.

[Markymark]

Heard that BBC Two, BBC Four and BBC Radio 5 Live could be the first to go

No. (Paraphrasing) Davie was asked whether BBC 2, 4 etc might be axed, to which he replied, 'anything was possible'

[LoganStuff]

If anything, I think BBC Two or BBC Four would be the last ones to go. I imagine they'll start axing off some of the smaller services and radio stations that not many use, and merging together others.

[Roger Darthwell]

Heard that BBC Two, BBC Four and BBC Radio 5 Live could be the first to go

No. (Paraphrasing) Davie was asked whether BBC 2, 4 etc might be axed, to which he replied, 'anything was possible'

I understand now, thank you!

[Keith]

If anything, I think BBC Two or BBC Four would be the last ones to go. I imagine they'll start axing off some of the smaller services and radio stations that not many use, and merging together others.

Whilst relatively small savings I'd have thought podcasts that currently don't feature on radio or TV would be a candidate for reviewing, to see if they can air either on a TV or radio channel. If I recall the Newscast podcast gets shown on the News Channel. If there are others which are suitable presumably airing/repeating them on a linear channel has a cost saving to the schedules, and if they can't be shown then can the cost of the stand-alone podcast still be justified?

Similarly whilst savings are presumably small does the BBC still need to have individual channels for its radio stations on Virgin and Sky, when they now have the BBC Sounds app? The same could also be asked of its radio channels on Freeview given that they weren't available on TV pre-DSO, though not all Freeview devices are internet enabled to access the Sounds app.

I'd agree that 5 Live sports extra may be under threat, as for major sporting events there's now the option of having a pop-up station instead (e.g. Radio 2 Eurovision). Similarly looking at https://pressgazette.co.uk/times-radio-l...res-rajar/ suggests 1Xtra and Asian Network have a low weekly reach, and have potential to be under threat though the BBC may be conscious of another '6 Music closure backlash'.

[Jon]

Surely a backlash against potential closures is what the BBC need? I would suggest the best way to fight against any cuts of public funding they get, would be announce the planned closure of Radio 2 and BBC Two along with the axing of Strictly.