BBC Funding Model Review

The Government has announced a review of future funding methods for the BBC.

At the moment the BBC is funded almost exclusively by the TV licence fee. Payment of the £159 a year TV licence fee (2023/24 rate) is legally required for any property where equipment is installed or used to receive "live" broadcast TV programmes or on-demand programmes provided by the BBC. As virtually every TV viewer falls within that category, the TV licence is effectively a universal fee.

Under current arrangements, the BBC receives around £3.8 bn a year in TV licence revenue. It receives that funding however woeful its programming or sordid its scandal. Every year the BBC, unlike commercial rivals, receives that big wad of cash from the Government for no other reason than it always has done. Those are very favourable funding conditions and the BBC has no appetite for change, but needs to appear receptive to suggestions.

Since the advent of commercial television in the mid-1950s there has been a perceived unfairness in a TV licence system that effectively requires every household, on threat of criminal conviction, to pay for a BBC service it might not use. In the twenty-first century, with literally hundreds of non-BBC channels available at the push of a button, the TV licence is an even greater absurdity.

The TV Licensing Blog is strongly in favour of a subscription model for BBC services, which will give viewers the choice of paying for content they want. As viewers of Points Of View will know, the BBC thinks everything it does is absolutely brilliant and represents cracking value for money. That being the case, surely viewers would be queuing around the block to sign up for BBC subscriptions.

Of course in reality the BBC does not want people to have that choice. It wants to maintain the current TV licence system where virtually everyone thinks they need to pay and are fearful of not doing so.

Terms of reference have been published for the latest BBC Funding Model Review.

Briefly, the review will consider:

• The context of a rapidly-changing broadcast media market.
• The sustainability of the BBC's current funding model.
• Whether the BBC should provide more services to audiences on a fully commercial basis, and what those services could be.
• The potential for the BBC to generate more commercial revenue.
• The evidence around other funding models to support BBC services and output.
• How the BBC could transition to any new funding model.

The Secretary of State, Lucy Frazer MP, has invited the following industry experts to sit on the review:

• Martin Ivens - Editor of The Times Literary Supplement and former editor of The Sunday Times.
• Sir Peter Bazalgette - Television executive and producer.
• Siobhan Kenny MBE - Communications consultant.
• Dame Frances Cairncross DBE - Economist and journalist.
• David Elstein - Television executive and producer.
• Oli Hyatt - Author and animator.
• Helen Bower-Easton CBE - Formerly Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson and Director of Communications at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
• Amber de Botton - Formerly Downing Street Director of Communications.
• Lorna Tilbian - Media analyst and investment advisor.

Speaking of the review, Ms Frazer said: "The BBC has a unique role in public life, and fulfils an important service in projecting and promoting our values and culture at home and around the world. We want to see it thrive for generations to come.

"But in an evolving media landscape, with increased pressure on licence fee payers, it’s right that we take a look at whether the current funding model is fit for the future."

This will be the third Government review on this topic within the space of a decade. Nothing has changed with the other two, so I wouldn't expect too much from this one!

If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.

Further anti-BBC reading:

• Is The True Or Did You Hear It On The BBC?, by David Sedgwick (aff. link)
• The BBC: Myth of a Public Service, by Tom Mills (aff. link)