Funding of the BBC

The BBC will not operate a subscription model. Its business model is based on mass penetration. In the event of the license fee system being withdrawn, they will operate in exactly the same way as all the other public service broadcasters do, i.e. free to air, with advertising.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

The BBC will not operate a subscription model. Its business model is based on mass penetration. In the event of the license fee system being withdrawn, they will operate in exactly the same way as all the other public service broadcasters do, i.e. free to air, with advertising.

There is an increasing number of services operating both a free or reduced price option with advertisements and an advertisement free option at a higher price.

Your post assumes it is not possible to change your business model. They may be forced to do so. It is disgraceful in this day and age that people who never make use of BBC services are still obliged to pay for the Corporation. It is also a disgrace that some are making use of their services and getting away with not paying.

The subscription model overcomes these problems. Ultimately, the BBC will need to adjust.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There is an increasing number of services operating both a free or reduced price option with advertisements and an advertisement free option at a higher price.

Your post assumes it is not possible to change your business model. They may be forced to do so. It is disgraceful in this day and age that people who never make use of BBC services are still obliged to pay for the Corporation. It is also a disgrace that some are making use of their services and getting away with not paying.

The subscription model overcomes these problems. Ultimately, the BBC will need to adjust.

There is no logical progression in your argument.

None of the current commercial public service broadcasters operates a mixed free/pay model. Channel 4 has tried it in the past with Film 4 and more recently with their music channel. It didn’t work. ITV tried it when they took over OnDigital. It didn’t work.

Sky obvs does operate a mixed model, but they do not have PSB obligations and their free channels are designed mostly as showreels for their premium content, as you’ll know if you’ve ever sat through a commercial break on Pick.

You have asserted that subscriptions would solve the problems of licence fee dodging, and people feeling they’re paying for a service they don’t use (personally I don’t believe the last argument is true in 99% of cases, but that’s another issue). Subscriptions would solve the problem, at the expense of creating another one - that the BBC’s entire output is based on the assumption that they’re broadcasting to everyone.

Almost everything the BBC does would change overnight if it went behind a paywall and saw audiences for its biggest shows cut in half, or worse. Remaining free to air and supporting itself with advertising, on the other hand, would allow it to continue to do most of what it already does, and maintain audience figures at their current level - and command a premium no other broadcasters can offer. Can you imagine the price tag for a 30-second commercial in the middle of Eastenders?

The best thing from the BBC’s point of view is that the FTA model already operates at ITV, Channel 4 and Five, and even in the difficult commercial climate of the last decade it works. If faced with a choice between a subscription model requiring radical change to its practices and a free-to-air model under which things would stay largely the same, no sane executive is going to choose a paywall.

Originally Posted by Chris

There is no logical progression in your argument.

None of the current commercial public service broadcasters operates a mixed free/pay model. Channel 4 has tried it in the past with Film 4 and more recently with their music channel. It didn’t work. ITV tried it when they took over OnDigital. It didn’t work.

Sky obvs does operate a mixed model, but they do not have PSB obligations and their free channels are designed mostly as showreels for their premium content, as you’ll know if you’ve ever sat through a commercial break on Pick.

You have asserted that subscriptions would solve the problems of licence fee dodging, and people feeling they’re paying for a service they don’t use (personally I don’t believe the last argument is true in 99% of cases, but that’s another issue). Subscriptions would solve the problem, at the expense of creating another one - that the BBC’s entire output is based on the assumption that they’re broadcasting to everyone.

Almost everything the BBC does would change overnight if it went behind a paywall and saw audiences for its biggest shows cut in half, or worse. Remaining free to air and supporting itself with advertising, on the other hand, would allow it to continue to do most of what it already does, and maintain audience figures at their current level - and command a premium no other broadcasters can offer. Can you imagine the price tag for a 30-second commercial in the middle of Eastenders?

The best thing from the BBC’s point of view is that the FTA model already operates at ITV, Channel 4 and Five, and even in the difficult commercial climate of the last decade it works. If faced with a choice between a subscription model requiring radical change to its practices and a free-to-air model under which things would stay largely the same, no sane executive is going to choose a paywall.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Chris

There is no logical progression in your argument.

None of the current commercial public service broadcasters operates a mixed free/pay model. Channel 4 has tried it in the past with Film 4 and more recently with their music channel. It didn’t work. ITV tried it when they took over OnDigital. It didn’t work.

Sky obvs does operate a mixed model, but they do not have PSB obligations and their free channels are designed mostly as showreels for their premium content, as you’ll know if you’ve ever sat through a commercial break on Pick.

You have asserted that subscriptions would solve the problems of licence fee dodging, and people feeling they’re paying for a service they don’t use (personally I don’t believe the last argument is true in 99% of cases, but that’s another issue). Subscriptions would solve the problem, at the expense of creating another one - that the BBC’s entire output is based on the assumption that they’re broadcasting to everyone.

Almost everything the BBC does would change overnight if it went behind a paywall and saw audiences for its biggest shows cut in half, or worse. Remaining free to air and supporting itself with advertising, on the other hand, would allow it to continue to do most of what it already does, and maintain audience figures at their current level - and command a premium no other broadcasters can offer. Can you imagine the price tag for a 30-second commercial in the middle of Eastenders?

The best thing from the BBC’s point of view is that the FTA model already operates at ITV, Channel 4 and Five, and even in the difficult commercial climate of the last decade it works. If faced with a choice between a subscription model requiring radical change to its practices and a free-to-air model under which things would stay largely the same, no sane executive is going to choose a paywall.

+1

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

All designed to keep the proles in order and paying the BBC tax.

Fake, fake, fake.

Over ten years now NOT paying the BBC tax but watching non-BBC output.

If their technology was that good it has failed.

More fool anybody who is still paying this nonsense.

Do you watch live TV as it's broadcast?

[heero_yuy]

Quote from Mythica:

Do you watch live TV as it's broadcast?

About 30% of our viewing. Mostly foodie channels and discovery / documentary type stuff. Though to call that live TV is rather misleading as they are all recorded programmes.

Rest is downloads, youtube, streams, DVDs and box sets.

FYI

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

You need to be covered by a TV Licence to
- watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV or live on an online TV service
- download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer.

This applies to any provider you use and any device, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.

Any chance we can get back on the BBC Funding line, Chris made an excellent post above - this isn't a thread on why people need a TV license.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

About 30% of our viewing. Mostly foodie channels and discovery / documentary type stuff. Though to call that live TV is rather misleading as they are all recorded programmes.

Rest is downloads, youtube, streams, DVDs and box sets.

So you're breaking the law. Not wise to admit to such things on the internet.

Originally Posted by Mythica

So you're breaking the law. Not wise to admit to such things on the internet.

Excuse me - follow my directive above.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by Mick

Excuse me - follow my directive above.

I posted that before reading further down. Still the point still stands, you have a forum member who has openely admitted to breaking the law which can be linked into the topic of BBC funding if they aren't paying for something they should be paying for.

Originally Posted by Mythica

I posted that before reading further down. Still the point still stands, you have a forum member who has openely admitted to breaking the law which can be linked into the topic of BBC funding if they aren't paying for something they should be paying for.

Enough - this is not a debate on law breaking - follow the instruction. - I am not interested on whether someone is breaking the law, this is not the premise of this topic.

Further such posts will be deleted and you will get an infraction warning for ignoring a team instruction.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

There is no logical progression in your argument.

None of the current commercial public service broadcasters operates a mixed free/pay model. Channel 4 has tried it in the past with Film 4 and more recently with their music channel. It didn’t work. ITV tried it when they took over OnDigital. It didn’t work.

Sky obvs does operate a mixed model, but they do not have PSB obligations and their free channels are designed mostly as showreels for their premium content, as you’ll know if you’ve ever sat through a commercial break on Pick.

You have asserted that subscriptions would solve the problems of licence fee dodging, and people feeling they’re paying for a service they don’t use (personally I don’t believe the last argument is true in 99% of cases, but that’s another issue). Subscriptions would solve the problem, at the expense of creating another one - that the BBC’s entire output is based on the assumption that they’re broadcasting to everyone.

Almost everything the BBC does would change overnight if it went behind a paywall and saw audiences for its biggest shows cut in half, or worse. Remaining free to air and supporting itself with advertising, on the other hand, would allow it to continue to do most of what it already does, and maintain audience figures at their current level - and command a premium no other broadcasters can offer. Can you imagine the price tag for a 30-second commercial in the middle of Eastenders?

The best thing from the BBC’s point of view is that the FTA model already operates at ITV, Channel 4 and Five, and even in the difficult commercial climate of the last decade it works. If faced with a choice between a subscription model requiring radical change to its practices and a free-to-air model under which things would stay largely the same, no sane executive is going to choose a paywall.

There does seem to be an assumption that many people make that just because things are as they are now, that is evidence that it cannot be changed. Having seen all the big changes that have happened to TV over the last 20 years, this appears to me to be an incredible frame of mind to hold.

On demand viewing seemed to come out of nowhere when cable went digital. Maybe I was asleep at the time, but that took me by surprise - I just discovered. it on the menu when we switched over from analogue.

Just a few short years ago, who would have thought we would ever get a service like Netflix on our TVs? What is more, to have the content available on our boxes, integrated in such a way that we can bookmark its content to appear on 'My Shows'?

You say that none of our public service broadcasters currently operate a mixed model, but that is incorrect. ITV Hub + gives just that choice.

http://www.itv.com/help/itv-hub

As you know, the BBC is looking at creating a website with content from their own channels as well as ITV and Channel 4. If Ofcom allow this to get off the ground, and they have already admitted they got it wrong when they prevented Project Kangaroo from seeing the light of day, then there is no reason why this should not be successful. I would imagine that this project will enable free viewing with ads or uninterrupted viewing with a subscription. There is no reason why such a venture would not succeed.

The BBC's entire output is certainly not based on the assumption they are broadcasting to everyone as you say. It is based on the principle that everyone who meets the all encompassing criteria is charged. I agree that changing over to a voluntary subscription will lose them a relatively small number of viewers, but a premium subscription offer could take care of that.

You present the choices faced by the BBC either to go behind a paywall or a free to air model. What I am saying is that it could be both, and that would maximise viewership.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There does seem to be an assumption that many people make that just because things are as they are now, that is evidence that it cannot be changed. Having seen all the big changes that have happened to TV over the last 20 years, this appears to me to be an incredible frame of mind to hold.

On demand viewing seemed to come out of nowhere when cable went digital. Maybe I was asleep at the time, but that took me by surprise - I just discovered. it on the menu when we switched over from analogue.

Just a few short years ago, who would have thought we would ever get a service like Netflix on our TVs? What is more, to have the content available on our boxes, integrated in such a way that we can bookmark its content to appear on 'My Shows'?

You say that none of our public service broadcasters currently operate a mixed model, but that is incorrect. ITV Hub + gives just that choice.

http://www.itv.com/help/itv-hub

As you know, the BBC is looking at creating a website with content from their own channels as well as ITV and Channel 4. If Ofcom allow this to get off the ground, and they have already admitted they got it wrong when they prevented Project Kangaroo from seeing the light of day, then there is no reason why this should not be successful. I would imagine that this project will enable free viewing with ads or uninterrupted viewing with a subscription. There is no reason why such a venture would not succeed.

The BBC's entire output is certainly not based on the assumption they are broadcasting to everyone as you say. It is based on the principle that everyone who meets the all encompassing criteria is charged. I agree that changing over to a voluntary subscription will lose them a relatively small number of viewers, but a premium subscription offer could take care of that.

You present the choices faced by the BBC either to go behind a paywall or a free to air model. What I am saying is that it could be both, and that would maximise viewership.

How do you arrive that this conclusion, please?