if that were the case then why do we need a license fee? If they can fund everything through overseas sales then great! No need for enforced subsidy from license fees.
Government could ban BBC from showing top shows at peak times
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
if that were the case then why do we need a license fee? If they can fund everything through overseas sales then great! No need for enforced subsidy from license fees.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of HBO, time was we would have had all those shows in the UK free to air, As well as great home grown content not to mention the football of the UK on UK terrestrial TV. But that's before sky and the pay for networks got their claws in.
Frankly the beeb are one of the only producers of content in the world who's output you could even hope to put a list together to tally up with HBO's.
Why do they 'need' subsidy? I'd be skeptical of the claim being made anyway... the whole organisation is run in the UK without adverts and the news alone doesn't take up the license fees - even with overseas sales they're still reliant on license fees to fund general broadcasting not just special interest stuff (which is hardly expensive).
Taste is a tricky thing
but have you actually watched line of duty or the fall?
I mean they are no jessica jones or gotham hahahaha
I'm not even sure what you're asking here. Large successful formats and shows that can be sold around the world bring in money that goes into a large pot and from that pot more work is paid for. How is is possible to be skeptical of the notion that income from successful products funds the less successful ones?
it is a completely disingenuous argument - BBC Worldwide - the commercial arm that brings in revenue from selling shows around the world makes 100-something million a year whereas the license fee brings in around 3.7 billion!
you might as well argue that buying lunch in the BBC canteen is subsidising the documentaries about canal boats
You missed out a couple of things -
The Night Manager
Undercover
Many and varied nature programmes
The Sky at Night
The Proms
And the biggest thing of all - no damn adverts! The majority of the US shows noted are destroyed by ads when shown in the US and over here on ad supported channels.
The quality of programming on the two children's channels is beyond reproach.
Aren't you looking at profit generated by Worldwide after it's paid the BBC to actually license the shows? Sales are around the 1bn mark.
But would mean the basic ethos of the organisation would have to change.
Once you start having to get advertisers or subscribers you can no longer afford to take the same risks with programming, cover the same range of programming, or really cultivate talent the same.
We wouldn't have had "Life on Mars" without the BBC, as from memory the creators went to all the commercial broadcasters, none of whom thought it was worth the risk, and that's just one example.
The BBC does an awful lot of work in effectively training up young/new talent for the entire British TV and film industry, and because most of it's content is from the UK does a huge amount to support the UK TV and Film industries ongoing talent and infrastructure for example IIRC the work they do for the BBC pretty much keeps a lot of the secondary companies ticking over between film work (the costume and prop companies that do work on things like GOT and Star Wars typically include a lot of people whose bread and butter work between films will be TV, and the UK's biggest buyer of UK made TV drama and sci-fi is...).
Because for things like SCD whilst they may make a profit, don't cover the cost of things like News, Documentaries or Current Affairs, let alone niche entertainment content.
IIRC the BBC makes back about 1 billion a year in sales of content, but because they don't rely on that they can and do take chances no commercial company would (they don't NEED to make a profit on say a documentary about the British Canal Network and it's importance to the development of the UK, or the National Grid).
ITV is a great example of how commercial broadcasting is at odds with PSB, you just have to look at how they've effectively dumped most of the public service parts of their output over the years as it became "too expensive" or the rules regarding advertising changed, and how having to please shareholders in the short term results in problems in the long term (ITV has little content it shows itself that can be resold* to other broadcasters, and wants instant returns - yet oddly enough it's studios can and do make good programming for the BBC).
*One of their only sci-fi series actually had to be saved from being axed by BBC:WW because ITV didn't want to pay what it cost to make, but BBC:WW saw that if they had the international distribution rights it could break even for them, not a big profit, but worth doing. Most of ITV's weekly line up is even worse, I don't there is any market for Ant & Dec in America.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,505
The first season of BSG was part funded by SKY in association with someone else.
To date I think it is the only thing they have managed partially on their own.
Hex?
Mile High?
Dream Team?
The Strangerers?
Although one of those was a cheap British Buffy wannabe, two were terrible, and the last was pretty short lived.
They've done a fair few, but IIRC their budget for commissioned UK drama is small enough that from what I recall them upping it to something like 50-100 million was a big thing a few years back (IIRC Sky's entire UK production budget is around 500-600 million, about what BBC2 costs).
To give an idea of what £50 million gets in UK TV, it's about 50 hours of very high quality drama, or about half BBC3's total budget for 2012 (during that time it produced several hundred hours of content, including things like Being Human).
I think they've increased the budget for Drama across it's channels since then, but it's still mainly spent on American imports.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,505
Were Mile High and Dream Team not soaps?
channel 4 is also a public service broadcaster and doesn't require license fees
I'd agree with ring fencing and funding BBC world service/news out of general taxation or a much reduced license fee or tax on TV sales - but I see little reason for the bulk of BBC1, Radio 1 etc.. to require funding - most of their content is actively competing with and might as well be commercially funded content - they're even buying shows/formats from overseas - the voice, the apprentice etc..
Why make a comparison with ITV? ITV doesn't have a PSB remit - the comparison you should be making if you're not being disingenuous is with Channel 4 - a commercially funded, government owned broadcaster that has a public service remit and does take risks...
As for the 1 billion a year thing - BBC Worldwide makes 1 billion in sales(this includes a range of things from advertising to content sales), they don't return 1 billion to the BBC - they've got their own operations/costs to take care of first - they return approx 100-something million a year in profits via dividends (though more last year due to selling off a BBC America stake), they also make a slightly larger contribution in the form of content investment though they're not very open about this.
It's only fair the BBC goes subscription because like a lot of people including me, all of what the BBC show is of no interest. Haven't watched the any BBC channel for years.
But, the BBC will fight this tooth and nail because they'd lose money. They don't care if I watch it or not, they just want my £145.
But, the BBC will fight this tooth and nail because they'd lose money. They don't care if I watch it or not, they just want my £145.