BBC - are they worried?!

[Towers]

Anybody else finding the current ‘What has the BBC ever done…?’ and associated campaigns to be a little bit over the top, almost as if someone is a bit worried?

I understand that the corporation is under a lot of fire these days, but the relentless justification of the license fee becomes really rather tedious pretty quickly I find. The add with Romesh seems to be played relentlessly, alongside constant “Thanks for paying for your license” interludes from the continuity bods at the end of shows. Last night I happened upon The One Show, which I have to say I’ve always thought is on a par with most daytime TV in terms of being utterly bland, and the levels of self indulgence over it being their twentieth ‘anniversary’ were positively vomit inducing!

I’m not sure what the best direction might be for the Beeb moving ahead, but they certainly seem to be fighting to justify themselves currently!

 

[AM9]

Anybody else finding the current ‘What has the BBC ever done…?’ and associated campaigns to be a little bit over the top, almost as if someone is a bit worried?

I understand that the corporation is under a lot of fire these days, but the relentless justification of the license fee becomes really rather tedious pretty quickly I find. The add with Romesh seems to be played relentlessly, alongside constant “Thanks for paying for your license” interludes from the continuity bods at the end of shows. Last night I happened upon The One Show, which I have to say I’ve always thought is on a par with most daytime TV in terms of being utterly bland, and the levels of self indulgence over it being their twentieth ‘anniversary’ were positively vomit inducing!

I’m not sure what the best direction might be for the Beeb moving ahead, but they certainly seem to be fighting to justify themselves currently!

The BBC has been fighting for it's survival since the 2010 election with the then government hobbling licence income by signalling that avoiding payment wasn't that illegal, and at the same time as forcing the BBC fully fund the Government's propaganda carrying BBC's World Service channel from that reduced budget. I personally find the current ad campaign irritation and probably self-defeating, but they have to alert the public somehow that there is much to lose here as negotiations are currently underway with the Government about funding arrangements. Anti-BBC advocates (many of whom hypocritically watch the BBC's output without licences) should be careful of which they wish for, - try asking those from countries that have a purely commercial range of services.
I believe that eventually, the BBC will migrate to a free skeleton broadcast service with news and current affairs with a sprinkling of light entertainment, with all the better stuff being delivered via an enhanced iplayer behind a subscription paywall. The broadcast service will be universal in that it will be part government directly funded and able to deliver public information as required. That way, freeloaders will have no licence fee to evade yet a properly constructed online paywall with collect from all who benefit from the online material, except the catch-up function of the free broadcast channel.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

"What has the BBC ever done for me?", Romesh Ranganathan asks. Apart from receiving a six or maybe seven figure annual payment from the Beeb, perhaps? Nice money if you can get it!

 

[AM9]

"What has the BBC ever done for me?", Romesh Ranganathan asks. Apart from receiving a six or maybe seven figure annual payment from the Beeb, perhaps? Nice money if you can get it!

Don't you understand the concept of a person acting a part?

 

[dosxuk]

It's nothing new. They ran the same campaign in 1985, fronted by John Cleese. The widely acclaimed Perfect Day song was a similar campaign.

More recently, the BBC reported a significant uptick in licences purchased as a result of their half time QR codes shown throughout the World Cup, so they would argue there's clearly an audience who need reminding what the BBC actually does for the money.

A TV licensing spokesperson said: “The summer campaign, including use of the QR code is ongoing, but initial signs suggest TV Licence sales have performed very strongly during the World Cup.

“Major live sporting events typically drive an increase in sales activity. We will continue to do all we can to ensure people are properly licensed.

BBC sees TV licence sales surge amid World Cup

Over the past decade, the corporation's licence fee income has plummeted by more than £1 billion

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Don't you understand the concept of a person acting a part?

So, Romesh Ranganathan portraying the role, or persona, of Romesh Ranganathan? Worth every penny of the licence fee!

 

[AM9]

So, Romesh Ranganathan portraying the role, or persona, of Romesh Ranganathan? Worth every penny of the licence fee!

I would say that he is worth the remuneration that the BBC pays him for his various roles. Whether the current ad being discussed here is the right way to go is a different matter.

 

[Trackman]

More recently, the BBC reported a significant uptick in licences purchased as a result of their half time QR codes shown throughout the World Cup, so they would argue there's clearly an audience who need reminding what the BBC actually does for the money.

I find it difficult to believe even with a source.
I just thought there were two just types of people: People who pay their TV licence and those who refuse to pay it.

 

[Buzby]

I just thought there were two just types of people: People who pay their TV licence and those who refuse to pay

There’s a third. People who don’t need to pay because they do not make any use of the service. I decided around 14 years ago the cost was too great for the minimal service I consumed. I do admit to listening to Radip 4, but as no licence is required for radio it’s a bit of an own goal on their part.

 

[Razorblades]

There’s a third. People who don’t need to pay because they do not make any use of the service. I decided around 14 years ago the cost was too great for the minimal service I consumed. I do admit to listening to Radip 4, but as no licence is required for radio it’s a bit of an own goal on their part.

Correct, I too fall into that category; 2020 was the year I suspended use of live telly. Radios 2 and 6 (and The Archers) don't count!

 

[AM9]

There’s a third. People who don’t need to pay because they do not make any use of the service. I decided around 14 years ago the cost was too great for the minimal service I consumed. I do admit to listening to Radip 4, but as no licence is required for radio it’s a bit of an own goal on their part.

That is currently estimated as about 5% of households, although that might include a not insignificant number of freeloaders who either have TVs with no licence, or many more who think that watching live or iplayer tv on a mobile doesn't have a licence.

 

[Trainbike46]

I find it difficult to believe even with a source.
I just thought there were two just types of people: People who pay their TV licence and those who refuse to pay it.

I think you're forgetting a rather important group: people who require a licence, and are willing to pay for one, but forgot to renew it. That's the group I think the ads and QR-codes are most likely to work for.

 

[cb a1]

There’s a third. People who don’t need to pay because they do not make any use of the service. I decided around 14 years ago the cost was too great for the minimal service I consumed. I do admit to listening to Radip 4, but as no licence is required for radio it’s a bit of an own goal on their part.

I fall into the category that doesn't need to pay a licence fee as my main use of the BBC is Radio Scotland, but pays the licence fee as I value the service that the BBC provides to the UK and I'm lucky enough that I can easily afford to do this.

Like democracy, the BBC isn't perfect but so far the alternatives that I've seen are far worse.

 

[adc82140]

The licence fee is flawed, but at the moment I can't think of a better alternative.

Adding to general taxation would be hugely unpopular, as would an Internet tax to fund it.

Subscription is a non starter, the whole point of public service broadcasting is that it's the home of stuff that isn't commercially viable, so needs to be subsidised by the stuff that is.

Perhaps a trim back of output is required. Could BBC Four content be squeezed onto BBC Two? Does it even need to be linear?

Go for the low hanging fruit: put AM radio out of its misery.

It's a known fact that big ticket productions such as Strictly are cost positive, as the sale of international rights brings in more than it costs to make, so they have to stay.

 

[styles]

I mean without a massive shift in their funding model, yes they will be worried, and rightly so.

Particularly when iPlayer became part of the equation, the BBC are operating in a highly-diversified viewing landscape with many product offerings, most of which are cheaper than the licence fee, even for ad-free options.

I would actually supporting the notion of rolling it into general taxation - the majority of the population by far would get it for cheaper than under the current funding model, and it would be somewhat progressively-priced. But I'm very aware of how unpopular this would be!

 

[Harpo]

Answering the OP’s question, I suspect the BBC is worried. The possibility of a Reform government would probably signal the demise of the BBC in its current form.

Farage and Reform have the outlet they need at GB News and no BBC interview with Reform goes well, with interviewees exceedingly reluctant to actually take questions and invariably using the time to attack the BBC in a Trumpian way.

Other media organisations also despise the BBC’s guaranteed funding and will undermine it at every opportunity. Ending the licence fee would help divert funds their way.

 

[Freightmaster]

I would actually supporting the notion of rolling it into general taxation - the majority of the population by far would get it for cheaper than under the current funding model, and it would be somewhat progressively-priced. But I'm very aware of how unpopular this would be!

Why would it be any more unpopular than lots of other things that are funded by income/council tax,
even though they are not used by everyone, such as public libraries, railways, etc?

 

[adc82140]

Why would it be any more unpopular than lots of other things that are funded by income/council tax,
even though they are not used by everyone, such as public libraries, railways, etc?

There is a subset of people, both on the left and the right, that get all hot under the collar when the BBC doesn't agree with their extreme points of view, and start shouting bias.

 

[Rover]

Farage and Reform have the outlet they need at GB News and no BBC interview with Reform goes well, with interviewees exceedingly reluctant to actually take questions and invariably using the time to attack the BBC in a Trumpian way.

Quite right, they all come on angry, arrogant and rude, do we really want people like that running the country?

 

[brad465]

My top lesson for the BBC is this quote:

"If someone says it's raining, but another person says it's dry, the job of a journalist is not to strike a balance between them, it's to look out of the ******* window to see who is correct."

 

[Merle Haggard]

That is currently estimated as about 5% of households, although that might include a not insignificant number of freeloaders who either have TVs with no licence, or many more who think that watching live or iplayer tv on a mobile doesn't have a licence.

I do not buy a TV licence.
This is because, for my own reasons, I do not want to pay towards the BBC,
It means that I cannot have a television and cannot watch any TV programmes on any channel.
What I am incensed about is that TV Licencing assume that people like me, without a licence, are freeloaders and I am harangued regularly by them by post and email. (my bold on your comment). The possibility of honesty is dismissed.
I get threatening letters with headings in red capital letters 'ACT NOW TO AVOID PROSECUTION' for instance. ( I think forum rules prevent me from using red, but it's ok for TVL).
The forms and letters include such possibilities as 'I've forgotten to renew my licence' 'I've moved and not notified them' 'I didn't know I needed a licence to watch on I Player' down through other less likely possibilities but NEVER including 'I don't have a TV licence because I neither have nor watch one'.
If I try to confirm that I don't need one on-line I have first to listen to all the great things that happen on BBC and then find that on-line I can't confirm I don't need pne.
I then have to phone (I think, not sure, a premium charge line)

If everyone without a licence is written to and emailed as frequently as I am I find it unlikely that the assertion you have made (my italics) is the case.

It is very unusual for a supplier to demand payment even though you only patronise one of their competitors, not them. Certainly doesn't apply to the printed news medium, for instance.





.

 

[GusB]

I do not buy a TV licence.
This is because, for my own reasons, I do not want to pay towards the BBC,
It means that I cannot have a television and cannot watch any TV programmes on any channel.
What I am incensed about is that TV Licencing assume that people like me, without a licence, are freeloaders and I am harangued regularly by them by post and email. (my bold on your comment). The possibility of honesty is dismissed.
I get threatening letters with headings in red capital letters 'ACT NOW TO AVOID PROSECUTION' for instance. ( I think forum rules prevent me from using red, but it's ok for TVL).
The forms and letters include such possibilities as 'I've forgotten to renew my licence' 'I've moved and not notified them' 'I didn't know I needed a licence to watch on I Player' down through other less likely possibilities but NEVER including 'I don't have a TV licence because I neither have nor watch one'.
If I try to confirm that I don't need one on-line I have first to listen to all the great things that happen on BBC and then find that on-line.
I then have to phone (I think, not sure, a premium charge line)

If everyone without a licence is written to and emailed as frequently as I am I find it unlikely that the assertion you have made (my italics) is very unlikely to be the case.

It is very unusual for a supplier to demand payment even though you only patronise one of their competitors, not them. Certainly doesn't apply to the printed news medium, for instance.
.

I had a TV licence and found myself having to cancel my direct debit to fund another, more urgent bill. When I went to set it up again I discovered that the first three payments would be a third of the full cost of the licence and only on the fourth month would it revert to the regular £13 a month as it was then - a cost i simply couldn't afford.

At that point my aerial amplifier had packed in and I wasn't able to tune into most TV channels anyway, with most of my viewing being on demand. I just decided to delete BBC iPlayer from my devices and stick with STV Player and Channel 4. There are some BBC programmes that I miss, but most of my viewing is on YouTube these days.

I also object to the threatening letters, despite my viewing being completely legal. I could register as not requiring a licence but I don't really see why I should have to. The letters just go into the recycling unopened.

 

[Bald Rick]

"What has the BBC ever done for me?", Romesh Ranganathan asks. Apart from receiving a six or maybe seven figure annual payment from the Beeb, perhaps? Nice money if you can get it!

The BBC dont pay him. They will be paying the production company he works for.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I had a TV licence and found myself having to cancel my direct debit to fund another, more urgent bill. When I went to set it up again I discovered that the first three payments would be a third of the full cost of the licence and only on the fourth month would it revert to the regular £13 a month as it was then - a cost i simply couldn't afford.

At that point my aerial amplifier had packed in and I wasn't able to tune into most TV channels anyway, with most of my viewing being on demand. I just decided to delete BBC iPlayer from my devices and stick with STV Player and Channel 4. There are some BBC programmes that I miss, but most of my viewing is on YouTube these days.

I also object to the threatening letters, despite my viewing being completely legal. I could register as not requiring a licence but I don't really see why I should have to. The letters just go into the recycling unopened.

Regarding your last two sentences; I have always registered that I don't have a TV but the reminders still come. The period between them seems to have shortened, possibly out of desperation,
Just before I registered as not requiring one I received a letter warning of a visit by an 'Agent' as I was now on a target list. Anyone know a good check for Novichok on the doorknob .

The BBC dont pay him. They will be paying the production company he works for.

Isn't there a legal tax avoidance by which 'talent' can claim that the production company is buying their 'image' from their company not employing them? I think that HMRS tried to challenge this but lost.
Has the obvious advantage of not paying NI and also paying corporation tax on profit not PAYE but maybe not a great saving.

 

[Johnnie2Sheds]

If we want the BBC, we're going to have to pay for it. Including it in general taxation would eliminate the freeloading. If we don't want it, AFAIK there is only one political party to vote for and good luck with that. Even though the BBC annoys me intensely on occasion, I think I would heave the telly into the bin if it went. Or, more likely, just keep it for YouTube.

 

[AM9]

It is very unusual for a supplier to demand payment even though you only patronise one of their competitors, not them. Certainly doesn't apply to the printed news medium, for instance. .

The requirement is for receiving broadcast TV plus any BBC internet based programming (as opposed to on demand programming from Disney+ Netflix and Amazon Prime).
In that context Channel 4, ITV and Channel 5 are licensed by the government to use distribution networks (terrestrial, satellite and cable) for live broadcast distribution funded by advertising. The competition between them for viewers is a separate issue.
The printed news media is a self funding proprietary publishing industry, usually colouring the facts reflecting their owners' political views. They do not have to present those facts in an honest unbiased as the licensed broadcasters do*.

Somehow, GBN seems to escape any form of control in this aspect.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The requirement is for receiving broadcast TV plus any BBC internet based programming (as opposed to on demand programming from Disney+ Netflix and Amazon Prime).
In that context Channel 4, ITV and Channel 5 are licensed by the government to use distribution networks (terrestrial, satellite and cable) for live broadcast distribution funded by advertising. The competition between them for viewers is a separate issue.
The printed news media is a self funding proprietary publishing industry, usually colouring the facts reflecting their owners' political views. They do not have to present those facts in an honest unbiased as the licensed broadcasters do*.

Somehow, GBN seems to escape any form of control in this aspect.

It is true that the print news medium is self funding, but so are the 'independent' TV channels - 'ITV' so isn't my comparison valid?

If the printed news medium is 'usually colouring the facts reflecting their owner's political opinions' they would not sell any product - unless people bought them because they generally shared those views. No-one is forced to buy a newspaper.

 

[Halwynd]

I cancelled my licence six years ago because I became sick of spending my money (and life) watching progammes that were truly awful. Not only on the BBC, but ITV too, which I think had become even worse. And the threatening and misleading letters the BBC send to me every month do nothing except to confirm what a nasty organisation the BBC can be. I've got used to these letters now, I was taken aback by them at first, but now they just go straight into the bin unopened.

I can say in all honesty that I don't watch live TV anymore, just the odd 'archive' programme from the 70s to the 90's on the ITVX, C4 (currently getting through the box set of Hill Street Blues) and C5 apps. Most of my viewing is from YouTube which I mark as 'watch later' on my PC for viewing on my television at a later date.

 

[Oxfordblues]

There has been much controversy recently about the early release of violent, dangerous criminals from our overcrowded prison system. Many offenders have only served a tiny fraction of their already-lenient sentences, but will soon be out on the streets unsupervised.

Meanwhile BBC Licensing is threatening elderly, vulnerable pensioners with imprisonment if they can't afford the fine of up to £1,000 for evading the £180 Television Licence fee. Many victims live alone, are on limited incomes and have to choose between eating, heating and paying the Television Licence fee. It is morally indefensible to threaten old people with being thrown into jail while releasing rapists and murderers.

Advertisements for the Television Licence even appear on Radio Four with the assertion that the fee pays for BBC Radio implying that you need a licence to listen to Woman's Hour, which is of course arrant nonsense.

 

[sor]

I think you're forgetting a rather important group: people who require a licence, and are willing to pay for one, but forgot to renew it. That's the group I think the ads and QR-codes are most likely to work for.

Given the way they engage in borderline harassment when you do not have a licence and have not told them that you do not need one (which is not a legal requirement), I'd be surprised if there are that many people who are that unaware.

I have always found it a bit odd that the BBC/Capita are allowed to be so rude to anyone who does not hold a licence. It'd be like getting constant letters from the DVLA when you don't own a car. Or getting letters about tax evasion while you're unemployed. Or indeed, having TOCs threaten to do you for fare evasion when you don't use the train!