Forum menu
In 2013/14, BBC Worldwide generated headline profits of £157.4m and headline sales of £1,042.3m and returned £173.8m to the BBC. In 2012/13 it made a profit of £156.3m on a turnover of £1,115.8m. The company had made a profit of £104m on a turnover of £1,085m in the previous financial year.
Time to abandon the licence fee?
errrm, you know BBC Worldwide isn't the actual BBC, don't you?
Why? We put in an investment, part of that generates a profit that then funds more. BBC worldwide is the worldwide part of the BBC not the UK part. It sells the worldwide distribution if things like Top Gear
That's what instant Google research gets you! 😳 Can't find any handy quick reference to the actual BBC profit record.
I wonder how much they make above and beyond the licence fee?
Blimey that's dropped. Good job it just subsidises toward the licence fee.
Nope. Do the maths - what does that work out at for each current licence in the UK (25 million of them)? But it sounds like John Whittingdale, the new culture secretary fella is hell bent on it so say hello to a BBC riddled with ads coming to a screen near you in the next 5 years.
The licence fee is a bargain.
It's worth it for iPlayer alone.
Can't find any handy quick reference to the actual BBC profit record.I wonder how much they make above and beyond the licence fee?
What do you think they do with that profit? Pay the shareholders? Perhaps they pay back into the BBC to make more stuff and to fund more of the specialist stuff that is not massively popular but valuable.
(This again?)
Simple answer, no.
The £173.8m from BBC Worldwide is small beans compared to the £3,726m from the license fee. At the end of the 2014 year they have £154 surplus left over, down £3 million from 2013. So ditching the license fee would mean they'd have to find £3,572m just to make ends meet.
[img] 
[/img]
Source:
What do you think they do with that profit? Pay the shareholders? Perhaps they pay back into the BBC to make more stuff and to fund more of the specialist stuff that is not massively popular but valuable.
Well why can't they just do that without us paying extra for something they could afford to do themselves?
The op is Nigel Farage and I claim my £5...
😉
GrahamS - Member
(This again?)Simple answer, no.
The £173.8m from BBC Worldwide is small beans compared to the £3,726m from the license fee. At the end of the 2014 year they have £154 surplus left over, down £3 million from 2013. So ditching the license fee would mean they'd have to find £3,572m just to make ends meet.
No arguing with the figures.
I agree.
Another nice infographic:
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/2013-14/bbc_annualreport_201314_overview_bbcataglance.pdf ]Sauce[/url]
No arguing with the figures.I agree.
Shortest STW debate evar! 😀
I agree.
Who are you and what have you done with Mr Woppit?
[img] 
[/img]
Is the BBC, with it's wealth of quality programming and web content, worth the license fee?
Yes.
Should it be a "commercial" enterprise, ala Sky, and be beholdent to its advertising revenue?
No.
Given I watch virtually nothing that isn't BBC or C4 (also publicly owned) I think the status quo is excellent.
We know what an ad funded BBC would look like because as mentioned we already have one - C4. It's not bad, but it's not as good as the Beeb.
However given the Tories are in Sky/Fox's pocket I assume they will be trying to end the high quality, free at the point of use BBC output to try and boost their friend's profit (on the basis that if BBC quality falls, rises in price or disappears then Sky doesn't look such a bad deal). And the quid pro quo will be that Sky will use its enhanced influence to try to support the Cameron project.
Time to abandon the licence fee?
Mr Murdochs terms and conditions for supporting the Tories and the Pied Piper has to be paid 😉
We know what an ad funded BBC would look like because as mentioned we already have one - C4. It's not bad, but it's not as good as the Beeb.
I reckon it would be worse than that - there has to be a finite amount of money all companies together are prepared to pay in advertising - another platform to advertise on surely means it would turn into a buyers market and commercial advertising slot prices would plummet, not just on the BBC but on the other competing networks too. I'd say it's in Murdoch's (and ITV's) interest for the BBC to remain licence fee funded.
The licence fee will be initially frozen and then scaled back and probably ultimately eradicated IMO
The BBC could be easily funded by advertising either partially or fully. I pay a licence fee and all I watch is the News/Newsnight and the occasional catch up programme for which you don't actually need a TV licence.
Funny how increases in VAT or other taxes are widely regarded as regressive yet the licence fee is fixed and £145 equals a 1% VAT rise on spending on £14,500.
Interesting. I watch little else than BBC output. The rest is mostly rubbish, in my opinion.
Even if it is on iPlayer, it still has to be made in the first place.
The BBC could be easily funded by advertising either partially or fully. I pay a licence fee and all I watch is the News/Newsnight and the occasional catch up programme for which you don't actually need a TV licence.
I really doubt it could be, also the "I don't need a license fee to watch" things still need funded the be made. Ad revenues are down, the BBC actually produces some quality output which the BBC worldwide figures prove.
Is the BBC, with it's wealth of radio,quality TV and web content, worth the license fee?
[b]Yes[/b].
I forsee David Cameron's "One Nation"-ism finding it's first test when his new culture secretary starts in on the BBC.
Isn't "One Nationism" the principle behind a Reithian BBC?
do the same as Germany.
make it essentially a surcharge tax on the household.
those that like to think they are important and brag about not having a TV are the losers. those that watch get their money's worth.
and since it's a ringfenced surcharge, it's not the politicians that set decide how much they get from general taxation. collect it via council tax along with other surcharges.
sky will always complain, since they aren't a total monopoly on media in the UK yet.
I watch little else than BBC output. The rest is mostly rubbish, in my opinion
Today's BBC 1 listings
Homes Under the Hammer - Crap
Don't Get Done, Get Dom - Crap
Oxford Street Revealed - Crap
Bargain Hunt - Crap
BBC News; Weather - Crap
Doctors - Crap
Land Girls - Crap
Escape to the Country - Crap
Decimate - Crap
Flog It! - Crap
Pointless - Crap
BBC News - Crap
The One Show - Crap
EastEnders - Crap
Holby City - Crap
24 Hours in the Past - Crap
licence fee as it currently is is massively regressive, and the the weight of enforcement bears most heavily on the poorest.
No reason that many of the BBC's services could not be by paid subscription, especially iPlayer
the weight of enforcement bears most heavily on the poorest.
What does that actually mean?
Is this an "enforcement bear"?
[img] 
[/img]
Doesn't look that heavy.
Today's BBC 1 listingsHomes Under the Hammer - Crap
Don't Get Done, Get Dom - Crap
Oxford Street Revealed - Crap
Bargain Hunt - Crap
BBC News; Weather - Crap
Doctors - Crap
Land Girls - Crap
Escape to the Country - Crap
Decimate - Crap
Flog It! - Crap
Pointless - Crap
BBC News - Crap
The One Show - Crap
EastEnders - Crap
Holby City - Crap
24 Hours in the Past - Crap
Indeed 😀
the weight of enforcement bears most heavily on the poorest.
Do you mean they send letters to the people who don't pay what they are due to pay ?
Wolf Hall.
W1A
Peter Kay's car share.
Andrew Marr show.
Horizon.
Charlie Brooker.
Click.
Countryfile.
Daily Politics.
University challenge.
The Proms.
Wimbledon.
Question time.
Quick list. All good.
No, it means that of the 170 odd thousand people prosecuted, over 70% were women and the majority were classed as “vulnerable” (ie: out of work, on benefits, single parent or in receipt of ESA or DLA etc).
Genuine question - is live TV now considered an essential for all, i.e. should those [i]'out of work, on benefits, single parent or in receipt of ESA or DLA etc' [/i] be allowed to get it for free (either by right or not prosecuted) or a discounted rate? That's in the context of on demand and radio being free of licence need so you wouldn't be completely out of touch with the world. Is access to cash in the attic and strictly now considered a national right?
If the licence fee was added to council tax as per andytherocketeer's suggestion above (which does make sense) should those exempt from council tax also be exempt from paying the TV element too?
Nice idea
Apparently 10% of magistrate court cases are for non-payment of the license fee!
I think the solution to that is probably to make non-payment a civil offence, rather than a criminal one (i.e make it the same as any other bill).
Arguably the fee could be made more progressive as well, reduced or free to those below a certain income threshold. But in my opinion that is a different argument than saying it should be abolished altogether.
Can you see Sky making the equivalent of W1A?
With that level of (quite brutally at times) taking the rip out of themselves.
Genuine question - is live TV now considered an essential for all, i.e. should those 'out of work, on benefits, single parent or in receipt of ESA or DLA etc' be allowed to get it for free (either by right or not prosecuted) or a discounted rate?
[b]If[/b] the purpose of public service broadcasting is still to [i]"inform, educate and entertain"[/i] - then yes.
I dont want to lose the BBC and I don't like peopel weedling out of paying the fee because they dont watch live TV.
But there is not much on it I like anymore.
They should cover less football and do more alternative sports,
drop F1 and do something else.
Having spent the last 5 years watching the BBC pander to the Tories in a desperate attempt to be granted leniency I'd actually find it quite amusing to see them still get pumped.
Once I'd have been up in arms like many other at the thought of ads but to be honest I've withdrawn from most telly. The only must see's are on Sky Atlantic IMO and they are dwindling. Plenty of decent stuff on the beeb but nothing I'd be really bothered about never seeing again or that's going to have any real effect on my life.
They should just do what [i]I[/i] want them to do. 6music should only play the music [i]I[/i] want and not have annoying DJs. Then [i]I'd[/i] be happy.
Homes Under the Hammer - Crap
This thread lost all credibility at this point.
The Licence fee is a small price to pay for no adverts on BBC radio or TV - so NO.
Just because the politicians don't like what the Beeb says about them (it's funny how the right wingers when in power accuse it of left wing bias, whilst the left wing when in power accuse it of right wing bias) is not a good reason to stifle it.
to be honest I've withdrawn from most telly
BBC Radio? iPlayer? BBC website?
Just because the politicians don't like what the Beeb says about them (it's funny how the right wingers when in power accuse it of left wing bias, whilst the left wing when in power accuse it of right wing bias) is not a good reason to stifle it.
On the contrary, it's an excellent reason to keep it.
If it manages to annoy both ends of the political spectrum, while being regarded as fairly reasonable (ie it's not annoying both ends by being just nasty to humanity), then it's probably getting it about right.
If the purpose of public service broadcasting is still to "inform, educate and entertain" - then yes.
I think you'll find that's the STW forum