[Newshound47]

The streaming market is in decline. A hybrid system would likely flop.

[Brekkie]

It's a debate really with no easy answers and the most likely alternatives to the licence fee will be a licence fee in all but name - and if it's based on the models of European countries who've replaced the licence fee it will almost certainly be a levy which will likely cost many people more than currently without the option to opt out (even for businesses) - but with a lower rate for those on lower incomes. Advertising isn't an option as it would kill the rest of the market, which is already on life support - and for similar reasons I doubt streamers and pay-TV providers would be keen on them being a direct subscription competitor too.

Hopefully the DG now putting pressure on the government to fund World Service again will see results after the election, and funding S4C independently once more would ease pressure on BBC finances and make finding a longer term solution more viable.


Ironically Gladiators might well be the saviour of the BBC - on paper it's the sort of show that should be left to the commercial market but it's return, alongside shows like The Wheel and Big Show, has shown how the BBC has a role to play in providing entertainment programming for the masses. Of course too the reality of the licence fee nowadays is it doesn't remain within the BBC - through independent commissions many producers and of course ITV do receive a good chunk of it through commissions which supports the wider industry at a time when the industry is doing it pretty tough.

[James2001]

Why bother? we’ve had that conversation millions of times and nobody ever comes up with a solution that would properly fund what you claim you don’t want to go away.

That's the thing, people say "we should get rid of the licence fee, but we need to keep the BBC", but not a single one of them are able to tell us how that could be remotely possible, as advertising and subscription aren't going to cut it (splitting advertising, which is already struggling, with the BBC would probably spread money so thinly that it would kill most of the broadcasting industry), and neither are PBS-esque pledge drives. The only thing that could realistically be viable is making it part of taxation- but that's hardly going to satisfy the licence fee critics as it's basically the LF in another form, doubly likely to annoy them as unlike the LF as is there'd no way to opt out at all. People are going to have to accept that if you want a true PSB BBC, then some sort of public charge is going to have to be kept.

The only other option is scrapping the BBC entirely, which I imagine would make some people ecstatic, but in the real world would be hugely detrimental to British broadcasting.

[thomalex]

The area people seem to be ignoring is the international market, and it is this which gives the BBC most potential to raise funds via partnership deals, advertising and subscription. This needs to be generating a larger proportion of the BBC's income overall.

This should then be backed up by a free, no barrier to entry domestic offering funded by general taxation similar to the European models mentioned. No this doesn't mean charging everyone £159 via tax, but a smaller 'cultural' charge which also has the added benefit of not being payable by those on lower incomes. Some of this pot could also be shared among other cultural institutions across the nation.

I'm not seeing many downsides to this model and it seems to fit the idea of a more 'progressive' charge Tim Davie was describing.

[Spencer]

The area people seem to be ignoring is the international market, and it is this which gives the BBC most potential to raise funds via partnership deals, advertising and subscription. This needs to be generating a larger proportion of the BBC's income overall.

This should then be backed up by a free, no barrier to entry domestic offering funded by general taxation similar to the European models mentioned. No this doesn't mean charging everyone £159 via tax, but a smaller 'cultural' charge which also has the added benefit of not being payable by those on lower incomes. Some of this pot could also be shared among other cultural institutions across the nation.

I'm not seeing many downsides to this model and it seems to fit the idea of a more 'progressive' charge Tim Davie was describing.

The problem with being funded by general taxation is the BBC would essentially be run by the government, which would raise a huge concern over independence and impartiality.

The reason we currently have a separate licence fee is to keep the corporation at arms length from the government. It’s by no means perfect in this respect, but it at least provides a level of independence.

[Independent]

That's the thing, people say "we should get rid of the licence fee, but we need to keep the BBC", but not a single one of them are able to tell us how that could be remotely possible, as advertising and subscription aren't going to cut it (splitting advertising, which is already struggling, with the BBC would probably spread money so thinly that it would kill most of the broadcasting industry), and neither are PBS-esque pledge drives. The only thing that could realistically be viable is making it part of taxation- but that's hardly going to satisfy the licence fee critics as it's basically the LF in another form, doubly likely to annoy them as unlike the LF as is there'd no way to opt out at all. People are going to have to accept that if you want a true PSB BBC, then some sort of public charge is going to have to be kept.

The BBC relying on ads in the UK is a very bad idea (as is BBC News-World being too dependent but for different reasons) and it's not hypothetical. New Zealand is a real life example of how having a public broadcaster rely on ads is killing off their TV industry. More people need to be aware of this.

[James2001]

Once you start getting into all these details, it really shows how all these people who say "it should be simple to find a replacement for the TVL" really don't know what they're talking about.

[Kim Wexler’s Ponytail]

The area people seem to be ignoring is the international market, and it is this which gives the BBC most potential to raise funds via partnership deals, advertising and subscription. This needs to be generating a larger proportion of the BBC's income overall.

The Industry is clamouring for less reliance on international markets not even more.

[Brekkie]

The Industry is clamouring for less reliance on international markets not even more.

I don't think that could be further from the truth.

[JexedBack]

The answer of course, is all options.
-A small household levy on Council Tax, which would fund the most of the public service obligations and local/regional content.
-A subscription iPlayer service for exclusive content and first run material. With a ‘free’ version for other catch up.
-Perhaps also a subscription TV channel (maybe tied to iPlayer subscription)
-Adverts in podcasts
-Explore paid for product placement in non-news programmes, but not take traditional adverts.
-Limited adverts on BBC online
-Voluntary ‘Go Fund Me’ style ability for those who value the BBC to contribute more.
-Licence content to big tech companies especially news. Perhaps even an annual windfall tax from the biggest.
-Government to resume funding of World Service content