Good point re iplayer. You just have to answer yes you have a TV licence - no idea how they can check that or not. So anyone in the UK can watch iPlayer - and I believe overseas there are plenty of ways round it. Don’t think that’s the case with Netlix etc.
But that is silly not to take advantage of opportunities to increase their income. Why would they not do so? They do sell quite a lot of content but I’m sure they could sell and licence more.
The more income they can create by doing this the less the licence fee would cost.
1 Like
IIRC there is a registration process, and the name and address (and IP address) are checked against the license database. To access iPlayer from outside (or inside without a license) one can use a VPN that terminates in the UK and give a false address, but that’s illegal of course.
1 Like
Because every single time in the past they’ve been seen as being overly commercial there’s been outrage in the press.
What makes you sure of that Anne? I’m not familiar with the BBC’s business model or what constraints they are operating under, but I’d be surprised if the senior executives hadn’t explored every revenue generating opportunity they could. It would be foolish not to have with all the years of Tory sabre rattling. In fact, according to that font of knowledge, Wikipedia, " The BBC has been criticised by some for being expansionist and exceeding its public service remit by providing content that could be provided by commercial broadcasters.”. So damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
The big opportunity is, of course, advertising. The BBC unleashed from the constraints of public service broadcasting could become a far bigger problem for the Tory hard right than it is today 
. I’d certainly wish them all the best.
BTW, have you read the history of Nadine Dorries’ political career. Not pleasant reading.
1 Like
OT did you know Nadine Dorries writes “women’s fiction” novels? She is listed as the author of a number of them.
Yes, I saw that, a three book deal in 2013. It comes as no surprise to me as her whole political life seems to have been based on fiction 
Though, she did call out Cameron and Osborn as two posh clowns, or something to that effect.
Nevertheless, I didn’t find too much overlap between my and her values 
Maybe we are talking at cross purposes, I was just meaning to exploit all their programmes and sell them overseas wherever there is an opportunity. Surely the press would not make a fuss about that? Why would they.
My point was just that the BBC should make as much money externally as they can through marketing and selling or licensing the programmes they make.
I don’t feel there is anything controversial or inappropriate in that. Just common sense.
And my point Anne is I assume that they are - why would they not? Their “product” is excellent.
Did you also see that, despite being firmly in favour of Brexit, she said of the Withdrawal Agreement that "This is a very sad place to be, but unfortunately, the future of the country and of our relationship with Europe is at stake. This deal gives us no voice, no votes, no MEPs, no commissioner”
These are very stupid (and dangerous) people IMHO. 
They do that already.
I was thinking along the same lines as @John_Scully who made my point better. I actually worked on the first 2 series of The Voice and still feel a little battered today (and I consider myself pretty tough when it comes to business lol) at the onslaught that most likely won’t remember from the right wing press asking how dare the BBC attempt to do a show when ITV was already doing better with X Factor (ignoring the fact that most of that outrage was allegedly manufactured due to a Mr Cowell having a relationship with a Mr Clifford who had a close relationship with the right wing press, especially those owned by a Mr Murdoch). That whole saga is long forgotten by most but at the time it was not fun, and just one of many that have happened over the years. Look at what happens when people find out that Gary Linekar, Graham Norton or Zoe Ball are paid a sum commensurate with their peers, uproar of people saying they shouldn’t be paid so much because the BBC is a public broadcaster, when there’s little said regarding any of the people who work elsewhere. It may well be a very valid argument but it is the perfect example of what a minefield the BBC being remotely commercial becomes.
2 Likes
Just a little something I saw
a little reminder
The BBC can only benefit financially from programmes they actually make, so many well known shows/sitcoms etc shown on the Beeb are made by production companies that are often foreign owned, as an example, The Voice was created by a Dutch company.
2 Likes
Which it’s worth remembering is a direct result of government interference. Various governments have both reduced budgets and forced sales of non core activities such as the studios and technical departments, and at the same time actively insisted that more content is produced by other companies. Again, this may be absolutely the correct decision, but it’s not something that the beeb have voluntarily done generally precisely because as you say they then can’t generate anywhere as near as much revenue.
1 Like
The cost of a TV licence is only slightly more than Netflix - but for that you get all of the channels and the radio stations - I certainly know which I would rather pick.
BUT - and this is a very BIG BUT - this is absolutely nothing to do with money - if govt was concerned about people ability to pay, the £20 uplift would not have been withdrawn and the £4.3Billion pounds would not have been written off just a couple of days ago as lost due to Covid fraud. There would also be significantly more attention paid to the upcoming hike in energy prices.
Please do not get distracted that this is about money - it is simply a tool used by Govt to try and get BBC to tow their line. Personally I do not want BBC to become a North Korea style broadcaster.
A lot of people on left feel that BBC is biased in favour of Govt whereas many on the right feel it has a left bias. From this you could conclude it is relatively balanced - or as balanced as it is going to get.
4 Likes
If @Geof_Cox doesn’t see a conflict between being fair and socially responsible and making money, then neither should the BBC 
The problem for the BBC is that the situation is more complicated than if they just had to answer to GC.
Indeed - thousands of social enterprises throughout the world demonstrate daily that using business models and methods for public good rather than private gain not only works, but works better than conventional business. It’s not enterprise itself that’s wrong, but business models based on greed and exploitation.
But in the UK Channel 4 is actually a better exemplar of social enterprise - and indeed closer to most European public-service broadcasting models, than the BBC - and everybody I know in the UK that has a serious interest in decent news etc coverage now thinks Channel 4 is far superior to the BBC.
Why? - probably because although it is state-owned, Channel 4 is largely self-financing.
But I think it’s also true that many of the BBC’s ‘license fee’ problems are down to a peculiarly British conception of ‘buying’ a license that specifically funds one broadcaster.
Most European countries have some kind of audio-visual tax that funds public service broadcasting, but it’s generally conceived more like ‘road tax’ is in the UK - as something you just have to have in order to use the equipment in the first place (in France, for example, you have to pay it even if you only receive UK channels - or indeed only use DVDs or on-demand services).
It’s this common misconception of the ‘license’ in the UK, surely, that seems to have brought it into conflict with a more diverse and internationalised media world.
I cannot support the excessive costs of the three individuals you mention I’m afraid, First of all they are not that good; secondly they are any of their peers are not worth that money; third they are being paid by the compulsory licence fee.
1 Like