TV Licence Fee Decision

The BBC are just damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

You could reinstate Free Licence Fees for over 75’s, but lose several services potentially including BBC Four, BBC News Channel, Radio 5 Live etc. Or keep get pensioners to pay for their LF’s and get the same, if not less.

I understand that it is an unpopular move, but prior to Mr Blair’s government pensioners had to pay for their LF’s in the same way they paid their bus fares. That government was known for overspending and the previous government was known for cuts, cuts and more cuts. I don’t think it’s fair for those who solely live on a state pension (one of the worst in Europe) who should have to fork out for it, however nothing is free.

I think a digital tax to fund the BBC is a good idea, especially if you taxed Netflix and Amazon. However, this idea would be almost impossible to implement, unless there’s some kind of tax led incentive is there for the commercial broadcasters.

I also think the BBC whilst is a treasure that we should adore, it has also got itself into this situation, maybe it has got too big. Whilst it was the government that transferred funding of World Service and S4C to the BBC, maybe there are further bits they could cut back on. Or maybe there are shows and services that the BBC don’t need to cover and could easily end up within the commercial sector. For example why did they create the BBC Scotland channel when BBC Three was closed solely on cost?

How do you also implement any change of funding without causing a massive upset? Imagine if the BBC went subscription only? How many TV’s, Freeview and Freesat devices would become useless as a result? Millions I’d have thought. Imagine if they sold advertising? You’d probably get not only a far weaker BBC, you’d get an even weaker ITV and Channel 4. That wouldn’t benefit the viewer, nor would it the broadcasters.

This is where you simply don’t envy the BBC, they can’t do right from wrong without getting scrutinised by the friends of the government, such as Mr Murdoch and Mr Dacre...

There are some out there who just wish the BBC were not there at all. I feel the BBC needs to be drastically cut back in what it does.

Also, I was watching GMB and heard that their commercial arm BBC Studios makes £1.4 billion a year, but only returns £200 million to the BBC. Why not more? £1.2 billion remains with the commercial company, of course given to presenters etc.

That £1.4 billion would be a great asset to the BBC. Why only £200 million?

OK, lets look at this.

If such a system were allowed then properly organised there would be a whopping increase. The BBC might also focus increasingly on higher quality programmes on BBC 1 and 2 so as to get higher profile advertisers.

BBC Four should be closed, and all of their new programming be transferred to BBC Two. BBC Three programming should be shared between BBC One and BBC Two, with the BBC Three brand closed for good.

CBBC and Cbeebies should be merged into one 24 hour broadcasting network, with various blocks for different age groups.

It would a small start, but it would tighten the BBC into providing better programming on a smaller number of channels. Does anyone really watch BBC Four anymore? Wouldn't their programming suit BBC Two, who have vast amounts of hours free which they simply air repeats or simulcast with BBC News.

Having watched Good Morning Britain this morning, and seeing them take a stand against the Licence fee, I did feel that they were jumping on the bandwagon because it was anti the competition, however a point was raised, which I think they completely misrepresented.

Yes the BBC employs outside consultants, and spends and awful lot of money on this, however I bet any other broadcaster does exactly the same thing, this is one of the reason consultants can charge so much money.

In addition the BBC is a victim of successive government meddling, programmes cost money to make, and considering previous governments have stated the BBC should be using more independents, when they do have a success on their hands they have to spend more money to fend off their competitors from poaching their shows ala Bake off and The Voice, therefore the BBC have to pay more.

Its a similar story for talent. At the same time the BBC is having its income streams stretched through a Licence fee freeze and have to increase contributions to rival commercial broadcasters. Even now the licence fee can be increased, this is still not enough to offset them being forced to take on the over 75s free licence fees, therefore something had to give.

The BBC has already started making co-productions with streaming rivals such as Amazon and Netflix, and utilising some of the resources of its commercial arms to make programming, but they can not do this with every programme, so its not avoiding trying to secure income from different financial steams.

There is not an easy solution, and what ever they chose would create a certain amount of backlash, close a service, and it would have to be larger than BBC Four or BBC News Channel to cover the funding gap which is there, raise the licence fee for everyone significantly, which I am not sure they are able to do, or as they are doing withdraw the free licence fee offer.

I remember a Yes Minister sketch where Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey were trying to "persuade" the BBC director general not to air an interview Hacker did with them, where Hacker said some things he wished he didn't say.

They tried to twist the arm of the DG by suggesting they transfer the broadcast of parliament to ITV (when it occurs) as this was made in the early 1980s before parliament was televised.

Can you imagine what ITV Parliament would be like now in 2019 if Thatcher had offered that for real?

What a load of nonsense.

Anyone who wants a good laugh and see how this BBC issue has always been there, watch the Yes Minister sketch here, and enjoy it. Even though it was made in 1982, it is perfect for 2019 - Anyone agree?

Clip is here - https://vimeo.com/155307641

Me.



No.

The answer is very simple, as any GCSE level business studies student will tell you... revenue doesn't equal profit


The accounts are here, pages 3 and 10 have the figures
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01420028/filing-history/MzIwOTUzNDc1N2FkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

Revenues were £1.04 billion.
Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation was £118 million
Profit was £88 million

The profit plus some cash flow made up the £209 million paid to the BBC

(that's just Worldwide I think. I don't think it includes BBC Studios or BBC Studioworks)

Thank you for the clarification. Forgive me, my mathematics was never great at school.