BBC Licence Fee......

[Buddha]

Maybe folk should watch TR's #panodrama , to appreciate what one's license fee pays for.
When it was released , within a month BBC had lost 150,000 'subscribers'

I've watched that, val. It was quite a clever bit of propaganda, I'm not surprised you liked it.

I wasn't fooled by it but I knew that quite a few would be.

 

[Cookiejar]

Would it not be simpler to just reduce the fee and streamline it?

half the price for half the content or stagger much like Sky so for example you could have licence fee of 50 a year giving you

bbc news including feee to air sport
bbc local radio
bbc one Including some kids show for those who remember the 80’s
radio one / five live

then a subscription bolt on for the rest of the fee which might include

cbeebies
bbc sport
bbc entertainment

well you get the idea

 

[Trev_GFC]

Personally I agree the licence fee is good value. If people don’t value it then they shouldn’t have to, but I think many of those are blinkered by stupid views that the BBC are the Tory Propaganda machine or the voice of the far left, etc.

 

[Gills 58]

I'd be happy to pay the TV license if they dropped the price down to a figure like £30 a year and used it purely for reporting the actual news and factual shows like Panarama.

For the other 90% of the time broadcasting "entertainment" shows like Strictly Come Dancing and Doctor Who etc, they can appeal to the open market and put in advertising between each show. With luck shows like Mrs Brown's Boys will earn the BBC so little in terms of advertising revenue that they'll scrap the show and start producing shows people actually want to see.

Re Mrs Brown's Baghdad, I have to admit that's the first good reason I've seen for defunding the BBC. An abomination. Total waste of licence fee money.

 

[RotherhitheGill]

World Service, invaluable to getting our view out to the rest of the world. Priceless.

 

[timnolongerinbrisban]

Having sampled English language TV in a few countries, the BBC is head and shoulders above others in terms of content and quality. I also echo Rotherhthe's point about World Service, which is excellent.

Times have changed and there does need to be a review of how they are funded. Perhaps some kind of opt out, which blocks the BBC TV signal/IPlayer for those who choose not to pay the licence fee. There would have to be similar for radio.

 

[LSB2]

Can I just pay for Radio Kent?

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

I respect your opinion but I repeat my earlier point. This isn't just about BBC1 and BBC2, it's about all the public service stuff the BBC does that isn't viable commercially. Once that's lost we'll never get it back, because no one else will do it. If you're ok with that, fine. But I'm not.

I think that access to BBC television broadcasting should be via voluntary subscription; a mandatory licence fee to prop up a national broadcaster is no longer appropriate or relevant. However, I appreciate what you say about local radio. I do believe that BBC local radio provides a valuable service to local people insofar as local issues are concerned and also national issues but from a local perspective. So, i`m kind of in two minds. I`m inclined to side with Baghdad when he/she suggests a more modest fee, around £30, but would have that fund BBC Radio not television.

 

[Tarian]

I think that access to BBC television broadcasting should be via voluntary subscription; a mandatory licence fee to prop up a national broadcaster is no longer appropriate or relevant. However, I appreciate what you say about local radio. I do believe that BBC local radio provides a valuable service to local people insofar as local issues are concerned and also national issues but from a local perspective. So, i`m kind of in two minds. I`m inclined to side with Baghdad when he/she suggests a more modest fee, around £30, but would have that fund BBC Radio not television.

I have some sympathy for BBC local radio.
At away games, it can be interesting hearing the local reports.

But apart from the footie shows, what else is there ?
Local news and travel perhaps ?
Phone-ins for local controversies ?

But that still doesn't explain why millions of people who (probably) never listen to BBC local radio should have to pay for it.

Drive across country during the evening and one can hear the same BBC radio show across 3, 4 or more different BBC areas.
Is that efficiency - or very low evening audiences ?

 

[EagerExile]

I have some sympathy for BBC local radio.
At away games, it can be interesting hearing the local reports.

But apart from the footie shows, what else is there ?
Local news and travel perhaps ?
Phone-ins for local controversies ?

But that still doesn't explain why millions of people who (probably) never listen to BBC local radio should have to pay for it.

I'll try and answer your questions Tarian.

BBC local radio audiences are measured by reach (ie proportion of total local population who listen at some point each week). This varies massively, depending on geography. 3% in London, 14% in Kent, 20% in Nottingham (my nearest one), 35% in Ulster. Typically 12-20% across the country. That's many millions of people. Mainly it's for the news-based breakfast shows and local sport, weather and travel. Local radio really comes into its own during local emergencies - snow, floods, school closures etc. Instant info that no one else is in a position to provide. This is all public service stuff. BBC local radio is actually part of emergency planning systems for that reason. So if it's lost, there'd be a big hole no one else would fill.

9am-4pm (ie until the news-based drivetime shows) is more chat and music which you could argue is less distinctive. But no radio station can build an audience unless it's broadcasting across the day. In my view, after drivetime you could save money by having a national shared show or even switching off the output completely (unless there's a midweek game, perhaps). For those who listen, it would be a massive blow though.

I take your point about radio being funded by the licence fee. You have to remember this was set up before commercial radio existed, so it is an anachronism now. But what's the alternative? Advertising? Local commercial stations can't generate enough income, which is why they've been absorbed into national networks. Someone has to do the local stuff. I'd guess that all 39 BBC local radio stations combined cost less than £200m a year (when I ran various ones 2001-2005, my annual budget was about £2.5m - for staff, buildings, engineering etc). They're a tiny drop in the BBC ocean cost-wise.

One final thing. Did you know that local newspaper democracy reporters tasked with covering councils, NHS etc are paid for by the BBC? Those roles would be lost too if the licence fee goes.

PS My favourite station for away games is Radio Sheffield and their "praise or grumble" post-match phone-in. Listening to local fans having a grumble after we've tonked their team is hugely entertaining!

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

I have some sympathy for BBC local radio.
At away games, it can be interesting hearing the local reports.

But apart from the footie shows, what else is there ?
Local news and travel perhaps ?
Phone-ins for local controversies ?

But that still doesn't explain why millions of people who (probably) never listen to BBC local radio should have to pay for it.

Drive across country during the evening and one can hear the same BBC radio show across 3, 4 or more different BBC areas.
Is that efficiency - or very low evening audiences ?

Yes, as Eager Exile says.

I`ve found our local BBC radio station (Lancashire) very helpful through the current Covid-19 chaos; also any other situation that benefits a local perspective, especially adverse weather etc.

 

[ARFUR CONNELL]

I'll try and answer your questions Tarian.

BBC local radio audiences are measured by reach (ie proportion of total local population who listen at some point each week). This varies massively, depending on geography. 3% in London, 14% in Kent, 20% in Nottingham (my nearest one), 35% in Ulster. Typically 12-20% across the country. That's many millions of people. Mainly it's for the news-based breakfast shows and local sport, weather and travel. Local radio really comes into its own during local emergencies - snow, floods, school closures etc. Instant info that no one else is in a position to provide. This is all public service stuff. BBC local radio is actually part of emergency planning systems for that reason. So if it's lost, there'd be a big hole no one else would fill.

9am-4pm (ie until the news-based drivetime shows) is more chat and music which you could argue is less distinctive. But no radio station can build an audience unless it's broadcasting across the day. In my view, after drivetime you could save money by having a national shared show or even switching off the output completely (unless there's a midweek game, perhaps). For those who listen, it would be a massive blow though.

I take your point about radio being funded by the licence fee. You have to remember this was set up before commercial radio existed, so it is an anachronism now. But what's the alternative? Advertising? Local commercial stations can't generate enough income, which is why they've been absorbed into national networks. Someone has to do the local stuff. I'd guess that all 39 BBC local radio stations combined cost less than £200m a year (when I ran various ones 2001-2005, my annual budget was about £2.5m - for staff, buildings, engineering etc). They're a tiny drop in the BBC ocean cost-wise.

One final thing. Did you know that local newspaper democracy reporters tasked with covering councils, NHS etc are paid for by the BBC? Those roles would be lost too if the licence fee goes.

PS My favourite station for away games is Radio Sheffield and their "praise or grumble" post-match phone-in. Listening to local fans having a grumble after we've tonked their team is hugely entertaining!

Excellent post E.E. You've highlighted one of my gripes about the Beeb, in that they pay one football presenter almost as much as the entire local radio station has in one year!

 

[EagerExile]

Excellent post E.E. You've highlighted one of my gripes about the Beeb, in that they pay one football presenter almost as much as the entire local radio station has in one year!

Cheers Arfur. I can't argue with your point about Lineker. He's just not worth it. The BBC has loads of rank and file presenters who'd do just as good a job, if not better. It's a good example of the bad BBC management I mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

[valenciagill]

The BBC managed to find £100 million last week , to be spent on 'diversity'

 

[PhilK66]

The BBC is the least worst broadcasting organisation in the world

 

[Whitstabletangerine]

Is it overstaffed though, with more than ten correspondents in New York/Washington and two reading the south east news (in normal times) both sitting alongside each other, one reading one line followed by the other reading the next line, seems to me to be over the top when money is scarce within the corporation.

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

I know a couple of people who work/ed for the BBC and by virtue of engagement with their (BBC) friends it seems to me that there are far too many London-centric characters in the Corporation. Some of them are eccentric and radiate the impression of being out of touch with "ordinary" people. Perhaps it`s the same with other large media organisations - I don`t know.

 

[EagerExile]

Is it overstaffed though, with more than ten correspondents in New York/Washington and two reading the south east news (in normal times) both sitting alongside each other, one reading one line followed by the other reading the next line, seems to me to be over the top when money is scarce within the corporation.

Good question. Two good reasons why you need more than one reporter on the same story or in a foreign bureau:

1. Multiple BBC news outlets (breakfast/1pm/6pm, TV/radio, Today programme/5 Live, World Service, News 24 etc etc - you can't be everywhere at once. Equally, you can't edit a TV piece/prepare a radio report at the same time (I used to report for both, but only simultaneously on pre-planned stories where I could control when the reports were used. It's impossible when doing on-the-day reporting). In a place like the US, there are also several stories to cover at once.

When I started in TV in the early 90s, a standard crew was me (reporter), camera operator plus sound man. Sometimes there was a director too. Then you'd cut your report alongside a full time VT editor. When I finished in 2008, it was just me - planning, filming, writing, editing. I actually preferred it. The technology made it possible, so there have already been massive savings.

2. Shifts/holidays. The BBC is on air 24 hours a day

Presenting is an interesting one. The on air dynamic is definitely better with two presenters because they bounce off each other. However, it's harder to justify when money's tight. As part of the cuts just announced, all regional TV programmes and local radio breakfast shows will only have one presenter in future.

 

[EagerExile]

I know a couple of people who work/ed for the BBC and by virtue of engagement with their (BBC) friends it seems to me that there are far too many London-centric characters in the Corporation. Some of them are eccentric and radiate the impression of being out of touch with "ordinary" people. Perhaps it`s the same with other large media organisations - I don`t know.

True! When a News Editor in Nottingham, I was once asked by Newsgathering in London to send our radio car to Birmingham. They simply didn't know the geography!

On another occasion I rang London to offer them an exclusive interview with Brian Clough, for the 6 O'Clock News. The person on the other end of the line was silent for a moment, then said: "Who's Brian Clough?" Absolutely true...

This from the world's best news organisation - allegedly (this was pre-Sky). Moving a big part of the news operation to Salford has helped, but the London focus is still overwhelming.

 

[PhilK66]

True! When a News Editor in Nottingham, I was once asked by Newsgathering in London to send our radio car to Birmingham. They simply didn't know the geography!

On another occasion I rang London to offer them an exclusive interview with Brian Clough, for the 6 O'Clock News. The person on the other end of the line was silent for a moment, then said: "Who's Brian Clough?" Absolutely true...

This from the world's best news organisation - allegedly (this was pre-Sky). Moving a big part of the news operation to Salford has helped, but the London focus is still overwhelming.

Not sure I entirely agree with your last paragraph. Whenever a news programme does a vox pop they more often than not scour the streets locally to hear what Mancs have to say.