BBC Funding

[Fox92]

I like the BBC and (some of) the programmes they have given us, throughout history through to now, are excellent.

 

My only query is the ludicrous salaries they pay.

Edited 6 February 2020 by Fox92

[Uranyl Yellow]

There was a time when I might have said it was value for money, but those days are long gone. I find that nowadays I hardly watch it, and the programs I do watch I wouldn't really miss. It is certainly true that I watch C4 (the other public service broadcaster) far more than the BBC, and that is paid for by advertising. If I had full access to the programmes my licence fee had funded to be made, then the story might be different, but compared to C4 there is a general dearth of material in the BBC archives, and that is perhaps what I resent the most.

[davieG]

33 minutes ago, Uranyl Yellow said:

There was a time when I might have said it was value for money, but those days are long gone. I find that nowadays I hardly watch it, and the programs I do watch I wouldn't really miss. It is certainly true that I watch C4 (the other public service broadcaster) far more than the BBC, and that is paid for by advertising. If I had full access to the programmes my licence fee had funded to be made, then the story might be different, but compared to C4 there is a general dearth of material in the BBC archives, and that is perhaps what I resent the most.

Well we all have our preferences, I hardly watch C4 these days and watch a fair bit of BBC not only for the choice of programmes, although they have put some tripe on later but also because of the lack of adverts although again they do push a lot of their own stuff between programmes and the guarantee of sub-titles.

 

All the advertised loaded channels I only watch recorded and as for  on stream it's a waste of time as they rarely have sub-titles apart from the BBC .

[bmt]

2 hours ago, The Syrup said:

The wages linked to MOTD presenters are ridiculous, but I guess they have to match the likes of BT and Sky

Lineker : £1.7M pa

Shearer : £445K 

Jenas : £215K

Wrighty : £210K

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48839428

 

BBC is trying to be everything to everybody, making it way too bloated. I don't pay for a licence, but do listen to BBC radio (5live and 6 music). You don't need a licence to listen to BBC radio or BBC sounds, yet the licence funds them. 

 

TV licence comes from a time when there was only a couple of channels. Totally outdated for the streaming, on-demand era we're in.

 

How many hours a week do they work to earn that? It's madness, Lineker's especially.

[twoleftfeet]

Monthly tv Costs

BBC £12.56 a month

Amazon Prime £7.99 a month

Netflix  £5.99 a month

Britbox £5.99 a month

NOWTV £8.99 a month

Looking at the costs I don't believe that the BBC is good value for money, impartiality is great but that independence most apply to all subjects including salaries. The problem is 85% of their output is dross and the few gems are few and far between. I begrudgingly pay as the is no choice its a tax. I had SKY and decided that with the constant rise in prices, that my entertainment budget could be better spent else where so we currently have prime, now and Netflix and will consider adding Disney plus. Its not the spending of money on TV that is the problem, with the BBC it is the lack of opportunity to show that the public has to say to them as a business that your product is sub standard  and I will go else where.  

Who watches MOTD for their weekly fill of Lineker, Shearer , Wright, Murphy or Jenas ?  I could live with out the punditry and just settle for the football if I want a second, third or forth opinion I can ask my mates at work on Monday. Its all about the football it isn't about the presenters.

Top Gear was probably the opposite it isn't about cars just about the presenters which is why they have been able to get the same audience they had with Clarkson and co.

[Jon the Hat]

Don't forget the £211m over three years the BBC paid for the highlights package.  Honeslty in this day and age, taxing people to pay the EPL for TV rights?  That is criminal.

 

They are many amazing things the BBC does - and must continue to do, but these should be funded by central Government spenidn not the TV license.  Take for example the education content - move that budget into the Dept of Education.

 

The BBC is however now trying to be all things to all people.  Online footprint is massive, half the TV channels show utter crap to low audiences.  Needs a serious budget cut to force the tough decisions.  I am thinking like 50%.

 

Edited 6 February 2020 by Jon the Hat

[ealingfox]

 

16 minutes ago, bmt said:

 

How many hours a week do they work to earn that? It's madness, Lineker's especially.

 

Be fair now, they have to sit on the sofa and watch all the games during the Saturday.

[Guest MattP]

19 minutes ago, bmt said:

How many hours a week do they work to earn that? It's madness, Lineker's especially.

Its hard to think of a more ridiculous publicly funded salary in the country that his.

 

I assume its 3-4 hours on a Saturday for 38 weeks a year including prep and makeup  and the odd cup game for a few hours.

 

If its 200 hours a season it works out at £8,500 per hour. Good job he's got a second job at BT Sport to top it up.

 

(Edited - didn't know they watch the games so this isn't accurate)

Edited 6 February 2020 by MattP

[davieG]

16 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

Monthly tv Costs

BBC £12.56 a month

Amazon Prime £7.99 a month

Netflix  £5.99 a month

Britbox £5.99 a month

NOWTV £8.99 a month

Looking at the costs I don't believe that the BBC is good value for money, impartiality is great but that independence most apply to all subjects including salaries. The problem is 85% of their output is dross and the few gems are few and far between. I begrudgingly pay as the is no choice its a tax. I had SKY and decided that with the constant rise in prices, that my entertainment budget could be better spent else where so we currently have prime, now and Netflix and will consider adding Disney plus. Its not the spending of money on TV that is the problem, with the BBC it is the lack of opportunity to show that the public has to say to them as a business that your product is sub standard  and I will go else where.  

Who watches MOTD for their weekly fill of Lineker, Shearer , Wright, Murphy or Jenas ?  I could live with out the punditry and just settle for the football if I want a second, third or forth opinion I can ask my mates at work on Monday. Its all about the football it isn't about the presenters.

Top Gear was probably the opposite it isn't about cars just about the presenters which is why they have been able to get the same audience they had with Clarkson and co.

The BBC also includes several National and plenty of Local Radio Stations plus a world renowned World Service relied upon by many suppressed nations.

[Crinklyfox]

I would be happy to pay the licence fee if only to keep the BBC World Service going.  I've spent some of my career on temporary overseas assignments including a six month contract in South America in the 80's and I lived on the BBC World Service.

[The Syrup]

34 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

Top Gear was probably the opposite it isn't about cars just about the presenters which is why they have been able to get the same audience they had with Clarkson and co.

Top Gear in the Clarkson, May, Hammond era was a huge cash cow for the BBC, what with licensing to foreign channels, books and DVDs. They must have hated having to sack Clarkson. 

[CosbehFox]

3 hours ago, davieG said:

The BBC also includes several National and plenty of Local Radio Stations plus a world renowned World Service relied upon by many suppressed nations.

Throw in the news agency, the website, the production companies which pretty much makes a lot of the programmes shown by Amazon/Netflix. 

Edited 6 February 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[CosbehFox]

3 hours ago, twoleftfeet said:

Monthly tv Costs

BBC £12.56 a month

Amazon Prime £7.99 a month

Netflix  £5.99 a month

Britbox £5.99 a month

NOWTV £8.99 a month

Amazon, Netflix and in particular Britbox are in part propped up by BBC programming. 

[Stadt]

I'd agree it's probably a bit bloated but the variety in television and radio content is outstanding, I can't see anybody else filling the void for a lot of their smaller but vital operations.

[Trav Le Bleu]

6 hours ago, Yes N'Didi said:

I like the BBC, but I would be happy to let them use advertising to increase revenue and ultimately reduce the license fee.

That's the one thing I wouldn't accept, unless it was between programs. It annoys me hugely that we pay more than the licence fee for Sky and even so, it has adverts!

 

Having said that I don't think they would. I rarely watch any program live these days and if I do on a commercial channel I'll often pause it at the start and go off to make a cup of tea or do a couple of small chores, then restart and fast forward the commercials. I know that lots of people do this kind of thing. TV commercials have had their day, hence program endorsements at the start and the end, which are harder to avoid, though I'm not sure I've ever bought something because it sponsored a TV show I liked.

 

As for subscriptions... well I pay my fee by direct debit, many people do; is there really much difference?

 

Edited 6 February 2020 by Trav Le Bleu

[fleckneymike]

4 hours ago, twoleftfeet said:

Monthly tv Costs

BBC £12.56 a month

Amazon Prime £7.99 a month

Netflix  £5.99 a month

Britbox £5.99 a month

NOWTV £8.99 a month

Looking at the costs I don't believe that the BBC is good value for money, impartiality is great but that independence most apply to all subjects including salaries. The problem is 85% of their output is dross and the few gems are few and far between. I begrudgingly pay as the is no choice its a tax. I had SKY and decided that with the constant rise in prices, that my entertainment budget could be better spent else where so we currently have prime, now and Netflix and will consider adding Disney plus. Its not the spending of money on TV that is the problem, with the BBC it is the lack of opportunity to show that the public has to say to them as a business that your product is sub standard  and I will go else where.  

Who watches MOTD for their weekly fill of Lineker, Shearer , Wright, Murphy or Jenas ?  I could live with out the punditry and just settle for the football if I want a second, third or forth opinion I can ask my mates at work on Monday. Its all about the football it isn't about the presenters.

Top Gear was probably the opposite it isn't about cars just about the presenters which is why they have been able to get the same audience they had with Clarkson and co.

The BBC is phenomenal value for money. For a little over twelve pounds you get nine national TV channels, TV for the regions, online TV streaming, ten national radio stations and regional stations carry sport, music and current affairs, oh and a bloody good website too. Without sounding like a little Englander, they also produce and screen over ninety percent British content whereas Netflix is around three percent. The diversity of content too is amazing. Netflix does not produce news, current affairs, live TV or sport yet the BBC does all of this. From looking at the costs I'd say the others are terrible value.

 

Oh and lets not get started on how much debt Netflix has accrued.

[Vlad the Fox]

Also there’s the radio, I fill my days listening to comedy, drama, documentaries, books, podcasts etc. 

[Guesty]

I think it's important to remember when comparing the BBC to Netflix and Amazon it's not really comparing like for like. 

 

Netflix is something like £12 billion in debt. And Amazon is propped up by it's main business. 

 

The BBC did want to launch a a Netflix type service years ago (for some of their output). They were told by the regulators they weren't allowed. 

 

They seem to be damned if they do and damned if they don't. 

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, fleckneymike said:

The BBC is phenomenal value for money. For a little over twelve pounds you get nine national TV channels, TV for the regions, online TV streaming, ten national radio stations and regional stations carry sport, music and current affairs, oh and a bloody good website too. Without sounding like a little Englander, they also produce and screen over ninety percent British content whereas Netflix is around three percent. The diversity of content too is amazing. Netflix does not produce news, current affairs, live TV or sport yet the BBC does all of this. From looking at the costs I'd say the others are terrible value.

 

Oh and lets not get started on how much debt Netflix has accrued.

You have to think of things they cover that nobody else would because it’s not profitable, The London Marathon, The Chelsea Flower Show etc. 
I agree the value is great on it’s own merit and we would miss out on so much if it were gone.

[Milo]

10 hours ago, Guesty said:

I think it's important to remember when comparing the BBC to Netflix and Amazon it's not really comparing like for like. 

 

Netflix is something like £12 billion in debt. And Amazon is propped up by it's main business. 

 

The BBC did want to launch a a Netflix type service years ago (for some of their output). They were told by the regulators they weren't allowed. 

 

They seem to be damned if they do and damned if they don't. 

But this is exactly the point. Netflix wouldn’t be £12 Billion in debt if it got a guaranteed £4 Billion a year like the BBC does!!! 🙄

 

 

 

 

[Milo]

13 hours ago, fleckneymike said:

The BBC is phenomenal value for money. For a little over twelve pounds you get nine national TV channels, TV for the regions, online TV streaming, ten national radio stations and regional stations carry sport, music and current affairs, oh and a bloody good website too. Without sounding like a little Englander, they also produce and screen over ninety percent British content whereas Netflix is around three percent. The diversity of content too is amazing. Netflix does not produce news, current affairs, live TV or sport yet the BBC does all of this. From looking at the costs I'd say the others are terrible value.

 

Oh and lets not get started on how much debt Netflix has accrued.

Only if you watch/listen to 12 quids worth of content a month. 
 

 

 

[ealingfox]

5 minutes ago, Milo said:

But this is exactly the point. Netflix wouldn’t be £12 Billion in debt if it got a guaranteed £4 Billion a year like the BBC does!!! 🙄

 

 

 

 

 

It would if alongside their streaming they had to provide live television, a global news service, national radio, local radio, worldwide sports coverage, weather, and all the rest.

 

People talk as if Netflix is free but let's not forget it costs £107.88 a year so the BBC is less than 50 quid more per year for about twenty times the content.

[Milo]

35 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

It would if alongside their streaming they had to provide live television, a global news service, national radio, local radio, worldwide sports coverage, weather, and all the rest.

 

People talk as if Netflix is free but let's not forget it costs £107.88 a year so the BBC is less than 50 quid more per year for about twenty times the content.

Yeah - but I can chose to pay for the other services...

 

[The Syrup]

The problem is the TV licence is forced on people that don't watch any BBC content but may watch other live broadcast channels, whether that's ITV or a live match on BT sport. Because its a live broadcast it means they have to fork out for the licence. BBC are already dabbling in subscription services with BritBox, plus they own lots of commercial channels like UKTV and BBC America, make the TV licence a BBC subscription fee instead so folks don't have to pay for something they don't use.

Edited 7 February 2020 by The Syrup

[twoleftfeet]

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/17/70_pc_tv_licensing_convictions_women/

I wonder how many caved at the door step and purchased a license.