[ConorW2000]

If the BBC really wanted to revamp itself, then I think IPlayer should be replaced by new a streaming platform, this could sit alongside the existing licence fee.

The new streaming platform would be available in the UK and abroad and allow the existing BBC Channels to be streamed live for those in the UK, for those internationally, they could have their own content along with advertising, however you could get extra benefits by paying a £6 per month fee.

You could have some exclusive content, so for example you could get early access to EastEnders and certain BBC programmes like the Traitors for example, you could do it so you get the episodes a week early before they go out on terrestrial television.

I think this sort of service would be popular, if you get 100,000 people to pay the £6 a month fee, it would mean the BBC would get an extra £600,000 per month, which over a 12 month period would generate an extra £7.2m for the BBC.

[DTV]

If the BBC really wanted to revamp itself, then I think IPlayer should be replaced by new a streaming platform, this could sit alongside the existing licence fee.

I think this sort of service would be popular, if you get 100,000 people to pay the £6 a month fee, it would mean the BBC would get an extra £600,000 per month, which over a 12 month period would generate an extra £7.2m for the BBC.

Firstly, ditching iPlayer - one of the BBC's strongest brands - would be a terrible idea. I don't see any benefits to that, but clear drawbacks.

More crucially, though, £7.2m is nothing in BBC terms (for context, this is about the budget of Newsnight or the Asian Network). Even excluding the costs of running such a service, the idea that would be generating 'extra' revenue for the BBC is ludicrous - especially when inflation-related cuts are currently running into £100ms annually.

[Kunst]

At one point I could see integrating BBC iPlayer into a kind of "BBC" full stop, similar to Channel 4; actually I remember stating something similar

But as for now, why bother? They still probably need a distinction, as they're the public service and rebranding the OTT service as just BBC (while C4 at that can have more freedom) would probably spark controversy and even confusion.

This is not to say I think iPlayer isn't a somehow strange branding for BBC at this point, as the "i" these days doesn't make much sense and of course it's just a relic of older times; but it's distinctive enough at this point that people refer to it as just "iPlayer", a rebrand to BBC Player probably would lose its distinctiveness, be expensive just for the sake of it (in a time where costs are a big issue and priorities are elsewhere), and do not resonate as easily with people.

So yeah, I try to stay balanced (unlike my anti-iPlayer rant some time ago); I'm not a fan of the iPlayer branding, but if it works, then the BBC should keep it going

[Neil Jones]

It was Charlie Brooker who did a run-down of costs of TV, and while I suspect its not 100% God's honest truth (this is Brooker after all, and it was a segment from an episode of Screenwipe), it probably gives a representative idea of the costs (albeit from probably 15 years or so ago) of TV production:

www.youtube.com 

[Brekkie]

Firstly, ditching iPlayer - one of the BBC's strongest brands - would be a terrible idea. I don't see any benefits to that, but clear drawbacks.

More crucially, though, £7.2m is nothing in BBC terms (for context, this is about the budget of Newsnight or the Asian Network). Even excluding the costs of running such a service, the idea that would be generating 'extra' revenue for the BBC is ludicrous - especially when inflation-related cuts are currently running into £100ms annually.

And if you're going for a two-tier service and stripping out content to move to the premium tier then those paying the regular licence fee would expect a discount too which likely wouldn't offset the additional funds earned.

As for the iPlayer brand though - I think there would be more logic in ditching that and just branding the service "BBC" than there was with C4 ditching the All4 brand.

[Scrotnig]

Everybody knows what iPlayer is. Changing its name would be foolish. And everyone would still call it iPlayer anyway.

“What’s that on?”
“BBC”
“Where on the BBC?”
“That streaming thing they have”

No, it’ll always be iPlayer.

[orange]

I think a revamp of the name wouldn’t hurt though - having a separate name for the online side of things helps differentiate them and I like that, but I think the fact the name “iPlayer” stuck is quite unfortunate.

[VMPhil]

All the other broadcasters have changed their online service name multiple times only to their detriment. The fact it's still iPlayer is a huge plus, not a negative.

[Brekkie]

Everybody knows what iPlayer is. Changing its name would be foolish. And everyone would still call it iPlayer anyway.

“What’s that on?”
“BBC”
“Where on the BBC?”
“That streaming thing they have”

No, it’ll always be iPlayer.

I think that's why they might change it though. So many shows now are advertised as on "BBC iPlayer" or "BBC Sounds" with promotion excluding any reference to their linear broadcast, so advertising something as on "the BBC" becomes a catch all promotion.

[Steve in Pudsey]

I think this sort of service would be popular, if you get 100,000 people to pay the £6 a month fee, it would mean the BBC would get an extra £600,000 per month, which over a 12 month period would generate an extra £7.2m for the BBC.

Now subtract the additional cost of clearing global rather than UK rights, and performers (and their agents) expecting to negotiate a higher fee for a global audience