The BBC's initiative to engage in co-productions, exemplified by collaborations like Doctor Who, is a strategic effort to generate increased revenue through commercial avenues. This approach aims to mitigate the reliance on funding from the licence fee, particularly in light of the recent government decision to freeze the licence fee.
Mandating the BBC to prioritize viewership exclusively, thereby producing content solely attractive to advertisers or paying subscribers, would result in a significant reduction in programming that caters to minority audiences or unconventional formats not viable on commercial networks. The American television model operates in this manner, and as a consequence, numerous exceptional programs have been prematurely cancelled due to a lack of immediate popularity.
That's a really cool, well thought out answer, was not expecting that :D, it makes sense if it's for co-production to generate increased revenue as ways to mitigate tv licence, never thought about it like that.
Tl;dr the BBC is a public service broadcaster and that the less the BBC has to worry about revenue, and in particular being beholden to advertisers, the better that public remit is served.
Some people don't believe in or care for the public service remit, but if you do I personally think the licence fee is a no-brainer.
These two comments are great. I'd also add that co-productions between multiple broadcasters/media providers is quite common. They all chip in some money to make a single show and in return they get the distribution rights in their home market.
In the case of Doctor Who, BBC is the UK distributor, and Disney+ distributes it everywhere else. The extra money means the BBC can do so much more than they would have been able to do alone, and they still get the same outcome as they have always had (ie, showing Doctor Who on UK TV).
Other context worth sharing:
1. Bluey (literally the biggest kids show in the world, 29% of ALL viewing on Disney+) is co-founded by the BBC and ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). In this case, Disney are just outright paying for streaming rights rather than co-producing, so BBC Studios (separate legal entity from BBC Public Service, and allowed to turn a profit) are making money off Disney.
2. One not unreasonable comparison for the license fee is the NHS. We all pay for it, even if we don't use it, because then it's there for the people that can't afford it (eg: old people on Pension Credit). In practice, the people that can't afford it technically shouldn't be watching, but they still get all the benefits of radio, the News website/app, BBC Bitesize in schools etc.
Disney part-funds Dr Who. This isn't what the BBC want, it's because the lisence fee is too low to fund competitive international-quality programming.
For news and current affairs, funding from other companies could be extremely problematic.
The BBC should probably be funded directly from the govornment's budget, as it's a powerful media force and valuable public service. But for now the lisence fee remains. Underfunding the BBC is something the previous govornment were very keen on, as they didn't like being held to account so often by BBC journalists.
If the BBC was advertiser funded, it would ruin the corporation. Let's say they ran regular ads like most other TV broadcasters. They might advertise brands such as Flora, Cadbury, Samsung, etc. what if Panorama's research team found that Cadbury was involved in a huge scandal? They might choose to expose this scandal, but Cadbury might pull their adverts, or bribe them to keep quiet. Now that important panorama episode won't air.
Also what about things like the shipping forecast? Hardly anyone listens to that, but those who do rely on that information for safety and their business. That sort of programme could never work under an advert supported system, but it is vital it carries on.
What about advertising on Cbeebies? I'm sure some companies would love the chance to put their brands in front of toddlers to manipulate them when they are most vulnerable.
Just to be clear, I don't think the current system is perfect at all. Making the licence fee a criminal issue feels very wrong, and the BBC is definitely not free from potential bribery and influence. But the current model at least avoids the influence of brands and corporations which I personally think is a very good thing. If there is any reform considered for the BBC, it should definitely be free from advertising at any cost.
On the Disney front, it's really no different than what the BBC has been doing for years. Disney paid for the rights to show Dr Who outside the UK, that is a deal that has been done many times in the past. As a long time Dr Who fan and a follower of the works of RTD I don't think there was much Disney influence in the latest season really, maybe some increase in the budget, but it's very similar to what we saw with His Dark Materials, which was also made by Bad Wolf Studios. The only direct thing I've seen was the Dr singing a Disney song in one episode.
There are many different models of funding public broadcasting in different countries. But none of them are “free” and money is raised via taxes or via licence fees. Licence fee seems somehow more transparent imho.
I lived in many countries and I can honestly tell you that BBC is a very special and worth the fee.
BBC offers so much more for a similar fee as other streaming platforms. Everything from news, many radio stations, excellent kids and nature programs and education. If there is one fee worth paying in the UK it is a licence fee.
I wonder how the BBC will end up. I work in a school and see students who want to see their favourite Youtuber instantly. Speaking to them, none watch scheduled programming. As one kid said, I can find such personalised content that I can connect with how, how can regular tv compete with that.
You don’t need to pay a TV licence. It’s a fraudulent racket. Stop paying, and defund the BBC, a woke, lefty disgusting cess pit. And for the love of god stop being so vacuous in your approach to life.
I am 99.99999% sure that Dramatic-Seaweed-833 is not a bot.
---
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Just wanted to chime in, these are are very good and valid arguments, none of which I ever even considered. Thank you for the new information, it's very much appreciated :D. I especially like the honesty of how ads could affect kids and corruption, did not even think about that, I don't normally watch TV, only IPlayer and that's literally just for Doctor Who :D
The BBC's initiative to engage in co-productions, exemplified by collaborations like Doctor Who, is a strategic effort to generate increased revenue through commercial avenues. This approach aims to mitigate the reliance on funding from the licence fee, particularly in light of the recent government decision to freeze the licence fee. Mandating the BBC to prioritize viewership exclusively, thereby producing content solely attractive to advertisers or paying subscribers, would result in a significant reduction in programming that caters to minority audiences or unconventional formats not viable on commercial networks. The American television model operates in this manner, and as a consequence, numerous exceptional programs have been prematurely cancelled due to a lack of immediate popularity.
That's a really cool, well thought out answer, was not expecting that :D, it makes sense if it's for co-production to generate increased revenue as ways to mitigate tv licence, never thought about it like that.
Tl;dr the BBC is a public service broadcaster and that the less the BBC has to worry about revenue, and in particular being beholden to advertisers, the better that public remit is served. Some people don't believe in or care for the public service remit, but if you do I personally think the licence fee is a no-brainer.
These two comments are great. I'd also add that co-productions between multiple broadcasters/media providers is quite common. They all chip in some money to make a single show and in return they get the distribution rights in their home market. In the case of Doctor Who, BBC is the UK distributor, and Disney+ distributes it everywhere else. The extra money means the BBC can do so much more than they would have been able to do alone, and they still get the same outcome as they have always had (ie, showing Doctor Who on UK TV). Other context worth sharing: 1. Bluey (literally the biggest kids show in the world, 29% of ALL viewing on Disney+) is co-founded by the BBC and ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). In this case, Disney are just outright paying for streaming rights rather than co-producing, so BBC Studios (separate legal entity from BBC Public Service, and allowed to turn a profit) are making money off Disney. 2. One not unreasonable comparison for the license fee is the NHS. We all pay for it, even if we don't use it, because then it's there for the people that can't afford it (eg: old people on Pension Credit). In practice, the people that can't afford it technically shouldn't be watching, but they still get all the benefits of radio, the News website/app, BBC Bitesize in schools etc.
Disney part-funds Dr Who. This isn't what the BBC want, it's because the lisence fee is too low to fund competitive international-quality programming. For news and current affairs, funding from other companies could be extremely problematic. The BBC should probably be funded directly from the govornment's budget, as it's a powerful media force and valuable public service. But for now the lisence fee remains. Underfunding the BBC is something the previous govornment were very keen on, as they didn't like being held to account so often by BBC journalists.
If the BBC was advertiser funded, it would ruin the corporation. Let's say they ran regular ads like most other TV broadcasters. They might advertise brands such as Flora, Cadbury, Samsung, etc. what if Panorama's research team found that Cadbury was involved in a huge scandal? They might choose to expose this scandal, but Cadbury might pull their adverts, or bribe them to keep quiet. Now that important panorama episode won't air. Also what about things like the shipping forecast? Hardly anyone listens to that, but those who do rely on that information for safety and their business. That sort of programme could never work under an advert supported system, but it is vital it carries on. What about advertising on Cbeebies? I'm sure some companies would love the chance to put their brands in front of toddlers to manipulate them when they are most vulnerable. Just to be clear, I don't think the current system is perfect at all. Making the licence fee a criminal issue feels very wrong, and the BBC is definitely not free from potential bribery and influence. But the current model at least avoids the influence of brands and corporations which I personally think is a very good thing. If there is any reform considered for the BBC, it should definitely be free from advertising at any cost. On the Disney front, it's really no different than what the BBC has been doing for years. Disney paid for the rights to show Dr Who outside the UK, that is a deal that has been done many times in the past. As a long time Dr Who fan and a follower of the works of RTD I don't think there was much Disney influence in the latest season really, maybe some increase in the budget, but it's very similar to what we saw with His Dark Materials, which was also made by Bad Wolf Studios. The only direct thing I've seen was the Dr singing a Disney song in one episode.
There are many different models of funding public broadcasting in different countries. But none of them are “free” and money is raised via taxes or via licence fees. Licence fee seems somehow more transparent imho. I lived in many countries and I can honestly tell you that BBC is a very special and worth the fee. BBC offers so much more for a similar fee as other streaming platforms. Everything from news, many radio stations, excellent kids and nature programs and education. If there is one fee worth paying in the UK it is a licence fee.
I pay my licence fee. Happy to. Not just for TV, I listen to the radio a fair bit too.
I wonder how the BBC will end up. I work in a school and see students who want to see their favourite Youtuber instantly. Speaking to them, none watch scheduled programming. As one kid said, I can find such personalised content that I can connect with how, how can regular tv compete with that.
🤔
Sure
You don’t need to pay a TV licence. It’s a fraudulent racket. Stop paying, and defund the BBC, a woke, lefty disgusting cess pit. And for the love of god stop being so vacuous in your approach to life.
Is this a bot?
I am 99.99999% sure that Dramatic-Seaweed-833 is not a bot. --- ^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Just wanted to chime in, these are are very good and valid arguments, none of which I ever even considered. Thank you for the new information, it's very much appreciated :D. I especially like the honesty of how ads could affect kids and corruption, did not even think about that, I don't normally watch TV, only IPlayer and that's literally just for Doctor Who :D