The White paper published in 2006 on the future of the BBC promised to retain the licence fee as the Corporation’s primary source of funding for the next ten years. The charter promises that no changes will be made to the BBC’s funding until after 2016. Some critics of the BBC argue about the unfair licence fee imposed on every householder who owns a TV set and who don’t even watch the BBC channels. They argue it would be better for the government to intervene and implement something sooner than later. With the on-set of the digital age and digital channels with more choice then ever before it’s no surprise that the BBC has now come under scrutiny.
In reality, the BBC is surely losing its fight against privatisation. The licence fee is as old as the dinosaur and must be scrapped say critics. However broadcasting has such an impact on society that it cannot be entirely seen as just a commercial activity. The BBC is needed for impartiality and to tell the truth. Therefore the licence fee is needed to justify that mere act of righteousness. The licence fee also guarantees that all BBC programmes are advert free and it allows the BBC to go where no other commercial channels have gone before.
If we were to scrap the licence fee then what alternative would there be for the BBC? There are roughly five basic sources of revenue that the BBC can adopt say the critics and all of these can generate income to keep the corporation going. They are advertising, subscription, pay-per-view, public service broadcasting tax, and direct taxation.
The first one of these is simple to understand. Advertising is the most widely used method of funding both television and radio programming. In Britain ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five are funded this way. As are most of the other commercial networks like Sky and Virgin. The advantages are that popular programming can pull in immense amounts of funding. Popular programmes such has Eastenders and major sporting events could generate huge amounts of revenue from just sponsorships. The money could be used to make new programmes and concentrate on developing other venues within the BBC. The disadvantages with this sort of method is that the total amount of revenue available to business and industry to spend on advertising in finite. Arguably the amount of various digital channels available makes it even harder for companies to invest in one corporation instead the revenues are being thinly spread across all channels. Minority or periodic dramas would attract little interest from advertisers so would be difficult to finance. The other drawbacks are that most adverts are not suitable for family viewing due to their sexual content so the BBC supporters would argue that it was not worth even considering this line of revenue to self finance the BBC.
The second method of generating finance is through Subscription. The different channels would be available to subscribe on payment of a periodical fee. It can be enforced by legislation, more often today by encryption/decryption technology. Viewers subscribe either directly with the broadcaster or the services are included as part of package included in Sky subscription. The advantages are that only those people wanting to watch the BBC channels would subscribe and pay for them. This seems a more justifiable way of funding the BBC as silencing those critics, which argue that they deem the licence as an unfair tax on the masses. The drawback of this sort of this scheme would be that it would result in a drop of the amount of BBC funding needed to fund excellent programme making and the BBC would become just another Sky. The BBC’s identity would also be under threat it would no longer be seen as a bastion of the nation.
The Pay-As-Per-View would work like most one-day special events work at the moment on private channels such as Sky. Sporting events like cricket and boxing offer customers to pay for that one particular show so payers pay as on a per programme basis. The advantage of this time of service is that you only pay for what you want, unfortunately the consequences for minority programming are pretty much the same as under the advertising model. Only popular programmes will be shown.
The Public Service Broadcasting Tax (PSB) would mean removing the licence fee from the BBC and instead using it to fund all TV channels in Britain. The advantages would be that the BBC could use advertising as their main source of income to produce populist programmes such as reality shows whilst depending on the PSB to fund dramas and specialist programmes that they are so well noted for. It would also remove the resentful views felt by millions who pay the TV licence but don’t watch the BBC channels. ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, would all benefit from this form of taxation and would be able to provide the same sort as specialist programming as the BBC. It would seem as a more just and fair taxation and it would remove the exclusivity of the TV licence from the BBC. The disadvantage of PSB would be the same as advertising if the BBC used the latter as their second source of income. On the other hand one would argue that advert breaks would be a small price to pay if say minority and specialist programmes survived due to the PSB being adopted alongside it. The specialist programmes could be shown without an interval break and this would remove the stigma of unsuitable adverts being shown whilst family viewing is going on.
The last method is Direct Taxation a method already deployed in the US. Instead of paying a licence fee the government would allocate the funding direct from the public purse. The advantages are that the general public wouldn’t need to dig deep into their pockets to pay for it annually, instead it would be collected from the usual taxes. So the saying ‘out of mind and out of sight’ would agree much better with the general masses and would also silence the critics that state they are forced to fund a system with which they disagree with. The major disadvantage with this sort of system is that it would also make the government the ‘big boss’ the BBC would be reduced to nothing more than a puppet on a string. Imagine the Hutton Inquiry taking place whilst this form of taxation was in place, the trembles would be felt more widely throughout the cooperation. The strings would be cut and you could say goodbye to the present day BBC.
There are no real solutions to privatising the BBC. Each method has its own drawbacks. But still one must be adopted! Better to choose then, one with less severe complications and disadvantages. For those critics who complain that times are changing and we can’t hold onto something that the public doesn’t want there is another answer, the BBC needs to address the licence payers and deliver what they want. At the moment the BBC is failing to cater for everyone, minorities have suffered and have opted to watch other Channels. There are too many critics to avoid and time is running out, the BBC needs to solve this problem by 2016, and the clock is already ticking.
No comments:
Post a Comment