What changes to the BBC would you make?
Discussion
Given that the BBC is funded by the forced license fee and should be run for the benefit of the subscribers what changes would you make?
It seems somewhat against what it's original remit was and I sometimes wonder if the license fee regulation rules should be changed.
What changes would you make or would you rather scrap the whole idea of a license fee?
It seems somewhat against what it's original remit was and I sometimes wonder if the license fee regulation rules should be changed.
What changes would you make or would you rather scrap the whole idea of a license fee?
So for example:
- All salary negatiations with talent/presenters should have representation of members of the public who are elected and part of the negotiation
- No payment of talent/presenters through a holding company - ie should be directly employed and salary clearly detailed
- Limit on the number of shows that a presenter can cover
- Limit on the time a presenter can present a show ie can present for 4 years max then must be rotated.
- All salary negatiations with talent/presenters should have representation of members of the public who are elected and part of the negotiation
- No payment of talent/presenters through a holding company - ie should be directly employed and salary clearly detailed
- Limit on the number of shows that a presenter can cover
- Limit on the time a presenter can present a show ie can present for 4 years max then must be rotated.
I'm a lone voice on this one. I actually think the BBC does a pretty good job and actually maintains it original remit, that being to "act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain".
As society changes, so the BBC changes. If someone doesn't like how society changes then it's understandable that they may then not like the BBC either.
The only think I'd change is BBC radio. Far too much centralisation. BBC local radio used to be really good. I have and continue to do the odd bit with BBC Essex which was once a hive of activity and original, locally produced content that, along with other local BBC stations would quite often feed into the national ones. These days, far too much is edited, produced and often presented centrally.
How it's funded is a difficult one. I think the idea of the licence is sound but am not certain it applies today. But it should never be a subscription based service because that would make it a commercial operation which it should never be. For the time being, until someone comes up with a better solution, I think the license is the least worst option.
As society changes, so the BBC changes. If someone doesn't like how society changes then it's understandable that they may then not like the BBC either.
The only think I'd change is BBC radio. Far too much centralisation. BBC local radio used to be really good. I have and continue to do the odd bit with BBC Essex which was once a hive of activity and original, locally produced content that, along with other local BBC stations would quite often feed into the national ones. These days, far too much is edited, produced and often presented centrally.
How it's funded is a difficult one. I think the idea of the licence is sound but am not certain it applies today. But it should never be a subscription based service because that would make it a commercial operation which it should never be. For the time being, until someone comes up with a better solution, I think the license is the least worst option.
Edited by StevieBee on Tuesday 22 October 21:19
nuyorican said:
I love the BBC but the way it's funded is wrong, and that's a dealbreaker for me.
Stop hiding behind your hired goons intimidating students and the elderly.
I love the BBC too but recognise the funding model has a limited lifespan. So they need a plan B soon. But apart from that, it's great. Stop hiding behind your hired goons intimidating students and the elderly.
£10/year/household from general taxation to fund one TV channel, one radio station, and the news website.
The remit is news, and low budget educational documentaries. Impartial, with the key aim to keep the other commercial channels in line with a baseline to be judged against.
Everything else, sport, quizzes, daytime TV, sitcoms, dramas, etc... moved to a subscription model.
The remit is news, and low budget educational documentaries. Impartial, with the key aim to keep the other commercial channels in line with a baseline to be judged against.
Everything else, sport, quizzes, daytime TV, sitcoms, dramas, etc... moved to a subscription model.
I can't remember what year I last watched terrestrial TV. Their radio output isn't for me at all either.
If the BBC ceased to exist tomorrow it wouldn't bother me one bit (and yes I understand that doesn't just cover BBC TV channels).
Feels a bit like another tax at this point. I'd have to ask the wife if we actually have a TV licence but I'm sure we will do.
If the BBC ceased to exist tomorrow it wouldn't bother me one bit (and yes I understand that doesn't just cover BBC TV channels).
Feels a bit like another tax at this point. I'd have to ask the wife if we actually have a TV licence but I'm sure we will do.
Their coverage of Wimbledon is absolutely 
ish. They have at least 4 terrestrial channels which we fund and yet every fecking year you cannot watch a single game (unless it’s the final) on a single channel uninterrupted to its conclusion.
It’s “we’re now switching coverage of this match to BBC 2 or BBC 1 or the iPlayer or on the Red button or some such st which might work for retired people who can sit on their sofas, eat Pringles, and surf the BBC’s idiotic game of pinning the tail on the donkey. For the rest of humanity funding these twunts and recording matches to watch later is hugely frustrating.
ish. They have at least 4 terrestrial channels which we fund and yet every fecking year you cannot watch a single game (unless it’s the final) on a single channel uninterrupted to its conclusion. It’s “we’re now switching coverage of this match to BBC 2 or BBC 1 or the iPlayer or on the Red button or some such s
t which might work for retired people who can sit on their sofas, eat Pringles, and surf the BBC’s idiotic game of pinning the tail on the donkey. For the rest of humanity funding these twunts and recording matches to watch later is hugely frustrating. They dont do anything better than alot of other channels, some paid for some free to air.
They often over pay talent just because they can.
Encrypt the channels it broadcasts, and make them fight in a free market.
Those that want it can pay for it, can.
If you dont want netflix and dont pay for it, you dont get it, simple, same should work for the bbc.
Alot of people pay the fee just because, and some never watch anything produced by the bbc.
Not sure about radio as dont often listen to it, but if i do its a commercial station, and dont really mind the odd advert.
They often over pay talent just because they can.
Encrypt the channels it broadcasts, and make them fight in a free market.
Those that want it can pay for it, can.
If you dont want netflix and dont pay for it, you dont get it, simple, same should work for the bbc.
Alot of people pay the fee just because, and some never watch anything produced by the bbc.
Not sure about radio as dont often listen to it, but if i do its a commercial station, and dont really mind the odd advert.
StevieBee said:
I'm a lone voice on this one. I actually think the BBC does a pretty good job and actually maintains it original remit, that being to "act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain".
As society changes, so the BBC changes. If someone doesn't like how society changes then it's understandable that they may then not like the BBC either.
The only think I'd change is BBC radio. Far too much centralisation. BBC local radio used to be really good. I have and continue to do the odd bit with BBC Essex which was once a hive of activity and original, locally produced content that, along with other local BBC stations would quite often feed into the national ones. These days, far too much is edited, produced and often presented centrally.
How it's funded is a difficult one. I think the idea of the licence is sound but am not certain it applies today. But it should never be a subscription based service because that would make it a commercial operation which it should never be. For the time being, until someone comes up with a better solution, I think the license is the least worst option.
Not a lone voice at all. I dont even think their funding model is broken. The fact that all political parties think they are biased probably proves they arent. I struggle to believe that people dont get some benefit from their TV, and radio channels or from their website.As society changes, so the BBC changes. If someone doesn't like how society changes then it's understandable that they may then not like the BBC either.
The only think I'd change is BBC radio. Far too much centralisation. BBC local radio used to be really good. I have and continue to do the odd bit with BBC Essex which was once a hive of activity and original, locally produced content that, along with other local BBC stations would quite often feed into the national ones. These days, far too much is edited, produced and often presented centrally.
How it's funded is a difficult one. I think the idea of the licence is sound but am not certain it applies today. But it should never be a subscription based service because that would make it a commercial operation which it should never be. For the time being, until someone comes up with a better solution, I think the license is the least worst option.
Edited by StevieBee on Tuesday 22 October 21:19
I find it quite incredible that people pay a lot of money for Sky then have to watch adverts as well. You can argue that we all have to pay to watch the BBC whether we watch it or not but then we all indirectly pay for Sky and any other model that receives advertising. After all who pays for the advertising? Its all us consumers as products cost more to allow the manufacturer to have an advertising budget.
Maybe if I only watch the BBC I should have a discount on any product thats advertised on the other channels?
pistonheadforum said:
No payment of talent/presenters through a holding company - ie should be directly employed and salary clearly detailed
That would be almost impossible to implement, cost an absolute fortune and serve no purpose.The TV (and film) industry is made up of a huge number of 'freelancers'. More than any other sector. I'd say as much as 70% of all involved operate this way both on-screen talent and technical personnel. This includes jobbing actors who operate via an agency to a-list talent that provide their services via a company that they own. For the big-earning talent, that company is commonly a production company that the talent owns and which produces the show.
For example, The Graham Norton Show is not made by the BBC. All they do is broadcast it. It's made by a company called So Television who the BBC commission and pay to make the show (and others). Graham Norton co-owns So Television and it's from that company he draws his salary or fee. All the staff, the researchers, technicians, etc, are employed or hired by So Television not the BBC.
Absorbing all this into a BBC controlled entity would incur the corporation huge and unnecessary cost. You'd have armies of people on the payroll who, for extended periods of time, would have nothing to do, some of which would be earning six-figure salaries incurring additional cost on NI, etc. It would also disadvantage the a-list talent who would simply switch their allegiance to ITV or Netflix or any other broadcaster.
The only exceptions are BBC Sport and BBC News that remain (in the main) BBC productions where staff and talent are employed and where the salaries of 'talent' are indeed a matter of public record.
I assume your suggestion is to deliver greater transparency. That being the case, there is perhaps an argument that the BBC should reveal the fees it pays to external production companies. This, it doesn't do currently (at least on a commission by commission basis) on the grounds of commercial sensitivity and i would imagine that the production companies would push back on this quite robustly.
pistonheadforum said:
Limit on the time a presenter can present a show ie can present for 4 years max then must be rotated.
Not certain what problem this would solve. You'd loose an awful lot of good shows and talent. Think about Jools Holland, Have I Got News for You, etc...long running shows that become part of the British cultural landscape. Edited by StevieBee on Wednesday 23 October 07:11
As a non-license payer (legally) I could not give half a crap.
FWIW though, I think the license fee should be abolished. The manner in which it is handled at arms length by crapita is appalling.
The BBC rarely produces anything I want to watch, and most of it is far from high quality. I fail to see why I should have to fund the BBC if all I want to watch is Rugby on TNT or Sky, or Tennis on Prime. If people find value in the BBC content then they should pay for it through subscriptions.
Which leads to another piss take. The BBC uses TV license funds to produce content, and then sells it to other platforms. Including through things like Britbox, where UK license payers who already funded the content get the opportunity to pay a subscription to access content they already funded, and which arguably should be on iPlayer.
FWIW though, I think the license fee should be abolished. The manner in which it is handled at arms length by crapita is appalling.
The BBC rarely produces anything I want to watch, and most of it is far from high quality. I fail to see why I should have to fund the BBC if all I want to watch is Rugby on TNT or Sky, or Tennis on Prime. If people find value in the BBC content then they should pay for it through subscriptions.
Which leads to another piss take. The BBC uses TV license funds to produce content, and then sells it to other platforms. Including through things like Britbox, where UK license payers who already funded the content get the opportunity to pay a subscription to access content they already funded, and which arguably should be on iPlayer.
spookly said:
The BBC rarely produces anything I want to watch, and most of it is far from high quality. I fail to see why I should have to fund the BBC if all I want to watch is Rugby on TNT or Sky, or Tennis on Prime. If people find value in the BBC content then they should pay for it through subscriptions.
This is common argument against the BBC - "I don't like the programmes, why should I pay?"The counter argument against this is that the BBC is much, much more than the programmes it puts out. Its true value lies in the positive contribution it makes to British society and the promotion of British values overseas. Its educational content for schools is probably the best in the world so children's education benefits which in turn benefits society. It promotes emerging arts talent (arts being a major enricher of society) to levels untouched by any other institution. Despite the constant suggestions otherwise, its news coverage is the most impartial and subsequently, the most trusted in the world.
And best of all, it's entirely optional. As you have proven. If none of that matters to you, you are not forced to contribute to it or watch it or listen to or learn from it.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff