Really interesting to read people's take on this.
It strikes me there's two things going on here: 1) should the BBC exist, and 2) if so, how should it be funded. If you don't believe there's any value in a public service broadcaster then fair enough (though I will try to convince you!), but if you do, then funding by ads or subscription just doesn't seem viable to me. Apologies for the long post but I hope someone finds it useful. Feel free to spit it back in my face 🤣
I'll start by saying the licence fee is clearly indefensible in 2026, and it's to the BBC's shame they haven't evolved it many years ago to avoid this situation. So yes, paying for it needs reform and great that's being acknowledged. Maybe it's one of the routes other countries use, maybe there's something unique. Don't know. I'd personally happily pay but I happily pay the licence fee and get huge value out of it. But that's a funding mechanism question, and it's frustrating how easily that's collapsed into whether it should continue to exist as an institution at all (which, I'll be clear, isn't always how it behaves!), by conflating what it's value with what it's 'worth'. Just my take of course.
On bringing in ads... the BBC already runs ads internationally and on things like the U channels run by its commercial arm. But first, not having ads is brilliant as a viewer, it's an obvious advantage the BBC has it would be sad to lose. But also, Britain is quite a small market really, and there's only so much ad revenue available. If the BBC takes ads, it removes that spend from other channels and weakens the whole media landscape. That's without acknowledging that ad-funded services only have to please one group: the advertisers! They don't care about anything else (I get it, you don't think the BBC do either!) So content would shift away from the entire purpose of a public service broadcaster, which is to serve audiences that commercial operators can't afford to - often older people, those who are isolate, marginalised - and that should include real diversity of thought, for example, which I also acknowledge it doesn't always do well (and has led to much of the anger against it).
On subscriptions... this idea that "it'll be fine if it's good!" You know what we have lots of? Good quality streamed TV and film from Apple, Netflix, Disney etc (who keep putting prices up of course too). That's not what the BBC should compete with. Its value is in the commercially marginal or loss-making, but important) stuff: local radio, the World Service (HUGE soft power for an ever-weakening UK), minority language content, educational content, especially some great kids stuff, proper regional news, orchestras - remember those - and the huge thing nobody seems to talk about: training much of the industry. Brits are hugely influential in the US e.g. (the stuff we're all apparently watching instead!) as producers, writers and actors, and that's because we produce lots of great talent in front of and behind the camera, and have done for years, the overwhelming majority thanks to the BBC's support. Without that, a lot of the best stuff you attribute to Netflix doesn't come to pass. And that's without looking at the partnerships that have produced shows like Bluey (so don't tell me the BBC doesn't make good stuff!). Of course others are involved, but the BBC is an important cog in the machine.
Look, of course they've made plenty of mistakes and continue to do so. Reform is needed in the funding and in the way it runs. The way they handle the main news now is baffling to everyone across the spectrum, I think, though the local stuff remains so important in a world where newspapers are closing and we're left relying on social media, which has its own issues. The fear if it goes is we end up in a worse position with half a dozen partisan channels competing for eyeballs instead of just telling us what's what (which the BBC really need to get back to).
The daft celebrity stuff that's just not needed needs to go, and obviously the handling of various serious scandals needs to be taken seriously. But those things can, you'd hope, be fixed if it can survive and properly evolve for the modern era.
But comparing the BBC to a TV service that could survive on subs or ads completely misses what its value is I think. And again, fine, if you don't think there's value in a non-commercially led broadcaster that provides significant support to the entire industry and infrastructure behind everything from lots of other TV elsewhere, schooling support, hyper-local news etc etc, then that's your call. But if we lose the BBC, it isn't coming back because the market can't support it. And I think we'll all be far poorer for it if that happens, whether we choose to watch and listen or not.