It's primarily for the overseas market, who haven't paid a licence fee.
I have no problem with the BBC selling content to foreign markets, but agree that they should not be charging people in the UK to access content. Britbox does also have content from the commercial channels.
That's a difficult one though eh? You have to bear in mind that so many routes to market are changing for 'media'. The BBC sold DVDs, CDs and in the past, tape to supplement their broadcast and production sales revenues. No one baulked at that (the BBC's Lord of The Rings on tape is in my drawer still, but we don't have a cassette player anywhere now) - we even had a BBC shop in the town selling their programmes on DVD...etc . But that market is now shrinking (going?) and streaming is taking over. So what do they do? Peaky Blinders on DVD is good when you have a DVD player. The future appears to be streaming - which forces the BBC's hand. Should they then charge for content they would have sold before anyway , but just through a different medium - or just completely lose that market stream? It's difficult times.
If Netflix or Amazon had commissioned Spitting Image, then no one would have batted an eyelid at paying them if they wanted to watch it.
It's all barking though - I used to moan about paying the TV licence - then along comes Sky - and suddenly instead of paying just £70 (or whatever it used to be) a year, I also then pay £x00 for Sky's service. Now Amazon and Netflix are in the market - who else? Where does it stop? A fragmented market, with the players all charging £x a month for the service.Â
Makes you realise what good value the TV licence - and the BBC - is.
I agree with @KT53 . My issue isn't with the BBC selling content to foreign markets. I think this is a sensible approach to gain maximum value for their investment into that content, and reinvesting it gives greater return for UK audiences.
My issue is that the BBC is a tax funded organization, using that tax to create and deliver content that now requires license fee payers to pay a second time to access it.
I agree that the streaming age has changed all sorts of models, but it doesn't change the point above. The BBC did indeed used to sell tapes etc, but you were paying for a physical object that required resources to make, ship and sell.
Today the BBC has a perfectly acceptable platform for streaming - iPlayer. It works well, it is geolocation locked to allow UK households to watch for free, and it's perfectly capable of delivering all the content required. Locking both new content and archived content behind a new pay wall is surely unacceptable and double taxation.
As I posted previously, the BBC owns a lot of the content that's apparently on Britbox (only fools, top gear etc). But really, the UK public owns that content. We paid for it through the license fee, and we allow the BBC to maintain and curate it for us. Not to charge us twice, let alone prevent us from watching it by using a false Public Value Test so they can obtain even more revenue by selling it to subscription only UK channels (I'll explain this more if it's not clear, but it's another example of double charging).
That's why nobody can complain if Netflix commissioned spitting image. I have a choice whether or not to pay for a subscription. I don't pay, I don't watch. But I've already paid my subscription to the BBC - it's the license fee, collected as a tax and enforced by criminal conviction.
As for the wider BBC content, the issue is that it shouldn't attempt to compete with Amazon or Netflix. They are entirely different propositions. The BBC simply cannot play in the same ball park. To compare, Amazon's budget per episode of Man In The High Castle is more than the entire budget of Blue Planet 2. The production of entertainment shows on the big streaming services is light years beyond anything the BBC can hope to achieve, regardless of whether you or I enjoy it or are the target market. And let's not forget that these big players also create high quality non-fiction content.
The BBC cannot be allowed to continue playing in both camps. Either it wants to compete with commercial services, in which case it should operate on an optional subscription basis. It will fail, wither and die, and that is absolutely right because that's how commercial markets work.
Or it should continue to focus on its core purpose "to inform, educate and entertain", using taxation to pay for core high value content available to all. In which case I'd be happy to pay a license fee for content that doesn't include rubbish like this:
The BBC always played in both camps - it was commercial in as much as it charged for DVDs, CDs, videos and cassettes. Some people bought those things, some didn't. Now those revenue streams are disappearing not because the content isn't good, but because 'hard' medium is becoming rapidly outdated. Now they have an updated mechanism in Britbox - it is still up to the individual whether they want to buy (rent) that 'product'.
The service is vastly better than it has ever been - now you don't have to record stuff (but you still can if you want - no recording restrictions yet on BBC content that I'm aware of) - iPlayer has it usually - that is taken for granted nowadays - but it comes at a cost. 'Sounds' has podcasts all over the show. The service has been enhanced no end - broadcast media and streaming services. Production costs and delivery costs increase. I think Britbox offers a good secondary service that I can dip into when I want - I'll probably subscribe to get Spitting Image and then see what else is on there - much as I bought Lord of The Rings on cassette and browsed the BBC shop on the high street when it was there. I don't see that Britbox threatens the ethos of the BBC as such.
What the BBC becomes and it's relevance I think is a different issue. I still think that a 'non-political' (?) broadcaster is essential in some form. What that form is, and will be in 10..20 years, who knows.
I'm posting this question here, not because I'm feeling curmudgeonly but because I know that corner members will see this as a genuine "I wonder why...." Â When a male person refers to their husband, I am totally used to it being a bloke - so what -big deal but I can't remember ever hearing of a member of a gay couple being referred to as a wife.. Why might this be? I have my own ideas but I would like to hear a more informed opinion.
I'm posting this question here, not because I'm feeling curmudgeonly but because I know that corner members will see this as a genuine "I wonder why...." Â When a male person refers to their husband, I am totally used to it being a bloke - so what -big deal but I can't remember ever hearing of a member of a gay couple being referred to as a wife.. Why might this be? I have my own ideas but I would like to hear a more informed opinion.
Maybe we don't have many lesbians on the forum? No idea.
Posts
I have no problem with the BBC selling content to foreign markets, but agree that they should not be charging people in the UK to access content. Britbox does also have content from the commercial channels.
I agree with @KT53 . My issue isn't with the BBC selling content to foreign markets. I think this is a sensible approach to gain maximum value for their investment into that content, and reinvesting it gives greater return for UK audiences.
My issue is that the BBC is a tax funded organization, using that tax to create and deliver content that now requires license fee payers to pay a second time to access it.
I agree that the streaming age has changed all sorts of models, but it doesn't change the point above. The BBC did indeed used to sell tapes etc, but you were paying for a physical object that required resources to make, ship and sell.
Today the BBC has a perfectly acceptable platform for streaming - iPlayer. It works well, it is geolocation locked to allow UK households to watch for free, and it's perfectly capable of delivering all the content required. Locking both new content and archived content behind a new pay wall is surely unacceptable and double taxation.
As I posted previously, the BBC owns a lot of the content that's apparently on Britbox (only fools, top gear etc). But really, the UK public owns that content. We paid for it through the license fee, and we allow the BBC to maintain and curate it for us. Not to charge us twice, let alone prevent us from watching it by using a false Public Value Test so they can obtain even more revenue by selling it to subscription only UK channels (I'll explain this more if it's not clear, but it's another example of double charging).
That's why nobody can complain if Netflix commissioned spitting image. I have a choice whether or not to pay for a subscription. I don't pay, I don't watch. But I've already paid my subscription to the BBC - it's the license fee, collected as a tax and enforced by criminal conviction.
As for the wider BBC content, the issue is that it shouldn't attempt to compete with Amazon or Netflix. They are entirely different propositions. The BBC simply cannot play in the same ball park. To compare, Amazon's budget per episode of Man In The High Castle is more than the entire budget of Blue Planet 2. The production of entertainment shows on the big streaming services is light years beyond anything the BBC can hope to achieve, regardless of whether you or I enjoy it or are the target market. And let's not forget that these big players also create high quality non-fiction content.
The BBC cannot be allowed to continue playing in both camps. Either it wants to compete with commercial services, in which case it should operate on an optional subscription basis. It will fail, wither and die, and that is absolutely right because that's how commercial markets work.
Or it should continue to focus on its core purpose "to inform, educate and entertain", using taxation to pay for core high value content available to all. In which case I'd be happy to pay a license fee for content that doesn't include rubbish like this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00htyc7
(No, I've not heard of this until just now. Yes, I did Google "worst BBC programmes" to make my point. No, I'm not off to watch it).
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/26/pm-offers-top-media-body-jobs-to-critics-of-bbc-say-reports
 When a male person refers to their husband, I am totally used to it being a bloke - so what -big deal but I can't remember ever hearing of a member of a gay couple being referred to as a wife.. Why might this be? I have my own ideas but I would like to hear a more informed opinion.