BBC vote. Would you pay a subscription?

[YerMotherWasAHamster]

Inspired by the thread in AIBU regarding the public consultation.

Just a vote. I'm curious just to see the numbers.

If the government removed the licence fee and all bbc services moved to subscription only - like Netflix, sky etc, and this subscription was the same price as the current tv licence - would you subscribe?

You would not be able to view or listen to any BBC content without subscribing.

Subscription would be completely your choice and you would be free to watch other live tv eg itv etc without it. Just like if you dont have a sky account you can still watch channel 4.

How much is it?

I could live without BBC TV but I listen to their radio content a lot every day.
I couldn't imagine life with out it.
So I would happily pay a subscription.

I happily pay for the TV licence. I don’t want it to change to subscription so I haven’t voted as I would pay but not that way.

I would pay. I listen to a lot of BBC radio, podcasts and I love Radio 4 dramas and books! I think the production quality on BBC TV productions is streets ahead of ITV (I rarely watch ITV and when I have watched dramas / adaptations on here they’re pretty poor). An ITV Peaky Blinders for example would have been very poor in comparison to what the BBC produce.

I think BBC 2 and 4 are hard to beat for cultural programmes.

There is so much choice these days though so I can see why some people wouldn’t pay. Sky Atlantic programmes are often very good as are Channel 4. A lot of European series too but a lot of these end up on BBC 4.

I too would prefer the license to continue, but if it were scrapped I definitely would subscribe. I don’t watch a lot of TV but at least two thirds of what I do watch is BBC - and I listen to Radio 3 and 4.

I think we’d miss the BBC as it is now if their funding were to be cut even more. Not just the actual programming but the standard of programmes that other channels have to stride to match. Plus the absence of advertising.

I would pay the licence fee/subscription just for the weekend output on Radio 6.

I would happily pay for a subscription based service, an advantage of this would be you could choose to not pay for a few months if money was tight which isn't currently possible with the license fee system

It would depend on how easily it is to dip in and out off. I've always paid the licence fee but I'm struggling to afford it plus I only watch TV 3-4 times a week for a couple of hours. Would love to pay for a month and just watch bbc stuff during that time.

Yes, we have a tv licence. I’d like to see those who don’t have a licence/subscription banned from the bbc website and radio (not sure how you can) because not fair that we subsidise those who don’t pay

Same price as current tv licence.

Just scrap the licence fee and fund the BBC out of general taxation. It would save money and the number of people who genuinly do not consume any BBC content must be so small as to be insignificant.

No.

The BBC doesn't do anything I'm interested in, hence why I object to being expected to fund it even though I do not use it.

If it changed to subs only I still wouldn't have any interest.

I would 100% vote for a subscription service ...... and then not subscribe, unless I can opt in and out like Netflix etc then I might do.

Right now it’s the only tv service that doesn’t run ads as standard after you’ve paid for it!

There are pretty much only 2 companies that have really viable subscription on demand services - Netflix (by a country mile) and Disney+.

Netflix manages by having a huge global subscriber base - it is aggressively commercial in the type of content it offers, and makes the most of being able to deliver that content to people in multiple territories. Even then it still has a lot of people on ad tiers. It is also carrying a few billion dollars of debt. It is a Goliath that dwarfs the BBC.

Then you have Disney/Hulu, which only became profitable recently - and is way less profitable than Netflix. That is even taking into account that Disney is possibly the worlds best known (and trusted) entertainment brand, and has the resources to control Marvel and Star Wars in addition to its own huge catalogue of content.

After those 2 you get down to services like Warner Bros. Discovery which I think just about edged into profitability (although they add in their Pay TV revenues to make themselves look more profitable so take that with a pinch of salt). In a similar category you have Paramount.

These are the absolute giants of US entertainment - almost all struggling and failing to make money out of streaming in spite of huge catalogues of globally recognised content and vast resources to throw at these services.

Against this backdrop you have some people saying the BBC should just become a subscription service, in other words it should compete with the US giants and make a profit. Presumably it would have to do this whilst also fulfilling a public service remind - to inform, educate and entertain, providing national and international news, political coverage, schools programming, educational resources, radio programmes, the World Service etc etc.

If US media giants purely motivated by producing content that people will want to pay for still (mostly) can’t make subscription video on demand work as a paying business, I’m not sure how anyone could expect a UK focused public service broadcaster to somehow beat them at their own game!

The licence fee model needs updating, but we need to be realistic. The BBC can only exist as a UK asset if it has a large element of its funding protected. We can’t pretend it could survive as a purely commercial service because everything we know about the market tells us that is all but impossible.

I currently pay the licence fee even though I think it should be less, so depending on how much a subscription would cost and what you’d be getting, I would definitely consider it.

Yes I would. Sky Q multiroom costs a small fortune and I'm really only paying it for football and the odd movie, whereas I use Sounds and iPlayer a lot more. I watch a few bits on Netflix but mostly we have it for DDs.

Yes I definitely would.

I think it would be a terrible shame though- the current system is what enables the BBC to produce the sort of content that is important but won't pay for itself (local news, minority services, some children's content etc)- it will become much more like every other provider, and then I imagine that lots of the people who grumbled about the licence fee will grumble about that.

I’d pay for a subscription, but suspect it wouldn’t be as good. I use Sounds every day, iplayer several times a week.

I’d pay a top-up to access archives on demand.

Absolutely would. The license fee is remarkably good value for what you get

What @Nesbi said. Especially this…

The BBC can only exist as a UK asset if it has a large element of its funding protected. We can’t pretend it could survive as a purely commercial service because everything we know about the market tells us that is all but impossible.

As for The BBC doesn't do anything I'm interested in… how is this even possible, considering that there are a several TV channels, plus many national and lots of local radio stations. Personally I’d pay just to get Radios 3 and 4.

eta
Like@User122333 I value BBC Sounds and iPlayer, and a subscription for an on demand Archive would be welcome.

Also, if the BBC’s funding were to be cut it would no longer be able to provide the same quality and quantity of programmes. Which would be an open offer for the commercial networks to lower the quality of their output whilst increasing their charges.

No. I barely watch anything on the BBC and intend to cancel my TV licence when it comes up for renewal. Happy not to watch any BBC nor live TV. 99% of what I watch is on demand and that's fine for us.

I would subscribe but I would want them to publish their financials and report on gender and race pay gaps like a coroporation. I would also limit the high wages there is no reason a con host of a tv show should have a wage over £200k per year ever. It’s ridiculous some BBC look pretty and giggle on a sofa whether man or woman is being paid £25k per week!

the money should be put into better content. Real shows and films.

Does it mean we could watch other self funded live channels without paying the subscription which we cannot now as tv licence covers all live tv? Even though it doesn't fund them

Yes we watch BBC news and Masterchef and Great B menu and all the crime documentaries and other bits and pieces. CBBIes.