Aaron Macarthy Beards
Editorial Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2014
- Messages
- 94
- Reaction score
- 47
- Points
- 124
- Age
- 31
The bbc is is a farce beyond measure. It already gets at least 5000 million pounds a year without having to try for it.
Far past time it was made to pay for itself and the licence theft cancelled.
In the past, the BBC would always bolster their programming with bought-in (typically American) shows. Star Trek. Buffy. Seinfeld. MASH. Even The Rockford Files, Starsky & Hutch, Taxi... Those days are gone though.
As far as home-produced content, it feels like the BBC got too comfortable leaning on things like Last Of The Summer Wine and Eastenders, and didn't predict the shift in the landscape started by Netflix.
There have been some stand-out global-appeal BBC shows in the last few years, but is the BBC making enough of them to compete with Netflix etc? (I'd say no, not as things stand). Can you make a successful commercial streaming service on the basis of Strictly, The One Show, Mrs Brown's Boys, Homes Under The Hammer...?
Is there some aspect of regulation that requires them to churn out so many tired, old-fashioned programmes? If not, I don't think it's regulation that's the issue...
It's complex and there's a lack of space and time, but reduced to the max: Rights and Licences. If you own the rights you can make a mint, if you have the licence you are basically renting, not owning. The BBC has been operating commercially for years, through BBC Worldwide, for example, also co-producing (Often with itself - the joys of creative accounting!) also running PPV channels in other territories, as well as commercial arms there, such as BBC America. The current Killing Eve for example, which I adore, is a co-pro with BBC America and after airing the first episode here all eight got posted on iPlayer (Binge-a-rama!). Old shows, such as 'Last Of The Summer Wine' did sell overseas, and the format rights, such as would apply to 'Strictly' and 'Homes Under The Hammer', are also worth money and could, theoretically sell forever. The BBC's main problem is financing new shows in the face of Amazon's and Netflix's bottomless pockets. Of course, a legitimate question would be: Since the licence payer is financing so much of this, why are the profits not paid back to them? Another legitimate question would be: If the BBC is a public broadcaster then why does it not stick to its remit instead of chasing ratings and audience share? Like just about every public body, it wants to have its cake, eat it and eat yours as well.
It's complex and there's a lack of space and time, but reduced to the max: Rights and Licences. If you own the rights you can make a mint, if you have the licence you are basically renting, not owning. The BBC has been operating commercially for years, through BBC Worldwide, for example, also co-producing (Often with itself - the joys of creative accounting!) also running PPV channels in other territories, as well as commercial arms there, such as BBC America. The current Killing Eve for example, which I adore, is a co-pro with BBC America and after airing the first episode here all eight got posted on iPlayer (Binge-a-rama!). Old shows, such as 'Last Of The Summer Wine' did sell overseas, and the format rights, such as would apply to 'Strictly' and 'Homes Under The Hammer', are also worth money and could theoretically sell forever. The BBC's main problem is financing new shows in the face of Amazon's and Netflix's bottomless pockets. Of course, a legitimate question would be: Since the licence payer is financing so much of this, why are the profits not paid back to them? Another legitimate question would be: If the BBC is a public broadcaster then why does it not stick to its remit instead of chasing ratings and audience share? Like just about every public body, it wants to have its cake, eat it and eat yours as well.
Thanks for the reply, very interesting.
I would expect the BBC to find ways to exploit their output wherever they can. Is there some other way of raising revenue that the Beeb are missing out on due to regulation? What specific bit of deregulation are the BBC asking for?
People are talking about a paid-for streaming service, but have the BBC even intimated that that's an approach they want to pursue? There seems to be a limit on the number of streaming services that the majority of viewers will pay for, and with Netflix and Amazon already established, and services from Disney and Apple on the way, I'm not convinced a "paid-for iPlayer" would be most consumers' first or second choice. Though it might work if a paid-for iPlayer came in at half the price of Netflix et al.
And I agree - does it make sense for the BBC to try and compete on the same turf as Netflix anyway? Perhaps the model they have now is the right one. Although it can be a slippery slope once you find yourself getting marginalised by the competition.
ITV sold Bodyguard to Netflix, I think you will find.The other small point to make is that whilst Netflix and Amazon spend that mind boggling amount each year, it’s also important to remember that those amounts are very much split between territories. It’s all well and good saying the BBC can’t compete with Netflix’s Billions, when in truth it’s only a small portion of that which is actually pushed directly to buying content for the UK. For example whilst whining about the Big Bad Netflix, BBC has just sold them global rights outside the UK to the Bodyguard for example.
The other small point to make is that whilst Netflix and Amazon spend that mind boggling amount each year, it’s also important to remember that those amounts are very much split between territories. It’s all well and good saying the BBC can’t compete with Netflix’s Billions, when in truth it’s only a small portion of that which is actually pushed directly to buying content for the UK. For example whilst whining about the Big Bad Netflix, BBC has just sold them global rights outside the UK to the Bodyguard for example.
ITV sold Bodyguard to Netflix, I think you will find.
I detest paying the TV licence... I'm constantly trying to cut down bills yet I'm forced to hand over £12/month for something I don't want.
I'd quite happily cancel it but the missus is a stay at home parent and she doesn't have the time or the will to be dealing with enforcement officers, I'd quite happily tell them to f-off but i'm rarely home.
I'll buck the trend by saying I really don't mind paying the licence fee. Effectively it's a subscribtion service that gets me a number of TV, radio and websites that don't carry advertising. And God I hate ads. I get the same from Netflix and Amazon; content with no ads and I pay a small monthly fee to both. Do I watch everything that the BBC puts out? No, but neither do I watch everything from Netflix and Amazon.
That said, I fully appreciate that what some people want is the option to not pay the licence fee and not watch BBC programming. There is no easy answer to this one, for every licence fee hater you'll find someone defending it just as strongly. I hate the ad funded world we now live in and I don't suppose many of you stop to think that every ad is funded by a mark up on every product you buy. Commercial TV is mostly funded by adverts, the adverts are funded by you.
Can you be more specific at to what you mean by "split between territories"? Certainly, if you produce with Netflix it is their way or the highway. They look for all rights, all media, all territories, in perpetuity (I would guess this last) and commission only what can play across as many Netflix territories as possible. One series that I know of has already been dubbed into getting on for twenty languages. Netflix simply does not do licensing deals in the standard sense. In the past, if you produced for the BBC it would take all rights. That changed and then it insisted the series or whatever would have to be sold through BBC Worldwide. That also changed and now independent producers can choose the sales company and also hold back whatever rights they can. If Netflix offered the BBC enough cash for the global rights to 'Bodyguard' then that is a straight up business deal and probably brought in more than simply selling them territory by territory instead. And such deals can always include holdbacks, such as in this case, where the BBC retains UK rights, for example.
I haven't had a TV license for over 10 years. Why you ask? It's simple,I don't watch rubbish! Especially nothing the BBC likes to call "entertainment". Netflix and dvd/blu rays have all I could possibly need. I admit there is the odd good programme that comes from them but I get them on DVD as cheap as I can as not to support them. I don't even watch iplayer nor have it installed on any of my equipment.
Also I don't like the fact that the BBC treat people who don't want to use their crappy service like criminals. I declared I didn't need a license to them those years ago and I get quite threatening letters at least once every fortnight from them since. Such as "we have opened an investigation" and "we know,you know this address is unlicensed and an enforcement officer will be paying you a visit".
I don't recall Kelloggs ever sending me a letter stating they're sending someone round to see if I'm eating corn flakes I haven't paid for. They can send however they like but they are not coming into my property.
To be honest I feel that this crooked company has gotten away with daylight robbery and covering up certain events (*cough* Jimmy Savile and co.*cough*) for decades and it's about time it's outdated service was removed entirely. Even most of the so called news they dish out is pure biased government propaganda.
Now they're stating that they can't compete with other streaming services and actually expect the paying public to feel sorry for them after robbing them blind for years.
Ok so sorry for the rant but this is honestly something I feel very strongly about. Especially when you hear of single mums being jailed for not being able to pay the license,ridiculous!
No I don't disagree with regard to their Original series, I fully realise that their wholly owned/global licensed titles are viable worldwide. Its just out of that huge wad of expenditure each year there is a Very sizable amount allocated to a movie licenses, and they are very much split by territory. (Disneys soon to end deal with Netflix in the US alone comes to some $300M annually.)
Where Netflix has been very smart is taking locally produced series from one country, buying global licensing rights elsewhere, and essentially beating the various local networks over the head with each others content. All the while the local networks are moaning, and yet they still giving Netflix the ammo to do more damage to each other.