You are here:   BBC > Scrap the Licence Fee and Privatise the BBC
 

All being well, profits could be made despite free-to-air competition from the BBC and the independent companies. For most of the 1990s BSkyB lost money. Murdoch had embarked on an ambitious long-term gamble, even if it was one that secured strong backing from the UK's big institutional investors. Ironically, BSkyB's investors became involved in this forward-looking and risky venture just as left-of-centre economists started to criticise the City of London for the alleged "short-termism" of its time horizons and the supposed caution of its decision-taking. At any rate, after 15 years of red ink subscription revenues first ran ahead of expenses in 2003. For the last decade BSkyB has operated in the black, with profits reaching over £1 billion a year for the first time in 2011.

In the last few months the Murdoch media have had a bad press, with the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World receiving huge coverage. But that has been a distraction from the serious debate on the future structure of British broadcasting which must soon begin. It has been so easy to condemn the practices in one part of the News Corporation empire that commentators have overlooked the astonishing transformation that Murdoch and his backers have wrought. In an article in the Sunday Telegraph accompanying the ICM poll Rob Harris, Conservative MP for Reading West, used the word "dominance" to characterise the BBC's position in news and current affairs broadcasting. Many analysts continue to see the BBC as "dominant" with an entrenched, almost unassailable position on the UK media scene.

A changing landscape: Subscriptions have become the largest revenue stream for British television 

The actual position is far more even-handed and complex. As the growing unpopularity of the licence fee has constrained the BBC's revenues, TV advertising spend is now about the same size as the total money collected by the licence fee and well above the portion of this money devoted to television. (See graph, above. Remember that the licence fee has also to meet the costs of radio.) But the truly spectacular development of the last few years is that both total advertising spend and the licence fee money have been surpassed by BSkyB's subscription revenue. As BSkyB also picks up advertising revenue on its channels, its annual income is well above the BBC's. To be more specific, in their last complete years — to March 31, 2013 for the BBC, and to June 30 for BSkyB — the BBC's income was £5.1 billion, of which £3.7 billion came from the licence fee, while BSkyB's income was £7.2 billion, of which about 80 per cent derived from subscriptions. BSkyB has therefore overtaken the BBC in terms of market presence and the BBC has ceased to be dominant even in Britain itself. The BBC does have an international arm, BBC Worldwide Ltd, with an avowedly commercial remit, but  its sales are small compared with CBS, the Hearst Corporation and Murdoch's US-based 21st Century Fox. 

So British broadcasting today is utterly different from its situation in 1946, when the licence fee began and the BBC enjoyed both massive prestige and a monopoly position. On the face of it, three forms of payment are jostling with each other in the UK television market: the semi-tax licence fee money exclusively for the BBC, and advertising spend and subscription revenues for the other two types of participant. No participant is dominant, but in simple money terms BSkyB is first among equals. Just after the Second World War UK broadcasting was the paradigmatic public good; for a long time it was a regulated duopoly. Today it is a confusing oligopoly with a mix of public and private ownership. Even if technology could somehow be stabilised for all time, the original case for the licence fee would have to be reformulated. The private sector businesses, led by BSkyB and ITV (much the largest of the remaining "independent" companies), have carved out strong market positions, but they have done so only after taking great commercial risks and defying the blatant government subsidy given to the original state-owned industry leader, the BBC.  

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Capt Cluster
January 13th, 2014
3:01 PM
The BBC has become a bleeding heart liberal and the presenters, commentators and comedians have become unwatchable by non ex-pollytech lefties. The sooner this over privileged propaganda machine is sold off the better. Tragic!

majorian
January 10th, 2014
6:01 PM
I'll be brief as I'm not going to convince anyone here. Graphs rarely 'prove' anything. They display data which can be interpreted in different ways. In this article they illustrate the simple point that the BBC used to be the biggest beast and now it's Sky. We all know this, it could have been explained in a short paragraph and it's irrelevant to the argument. There is an increasing misuse of graphs, charts and tables in non-scientific articles precisely to try and convince lazy readers that they are scientific and impartial. Well, it worked on PP. There is a perfectly rational free-market argument for abolishing the BBC. I just don't agree with it. I would have more respect for Mr Congdon if he hadn't hidden behind the fiction of privatisation. I don't believe the BBC is perfect but when Sky is promoting Fox News as news I can live with a bit of soft left bias. Advertising isn't in itself a bad thing but any organisation that accepts it is beholden to the advertisers. I reserve a reaction of horror to more rather more frightenng apparitions PP - grow up. As a Sky subscriber I can tell you that the cost of a full Sky package for one month DOES cost more than the the licence fee. Not possibly but definitely. This is an ideological argument masqerading as an economic one. You believe in privatising everything. I don't. This isn't an argument but a clash of beliefs.

BrentwoddBuff
December 30th, 2013
6:12 PM
We've said this before,30-Dec-2013 but, We think the BBC Licence Fee wastes about £85milion p.a., because the cost of collection is about 3.5% of money collected, whereas 'general taxation', with 3 exceoptions, currently costs less than 1% of money collected. Were UK 'governments' able to trust oneanother, we argue that they could agree a percentage of the UK's GDP to be allocated to the Beeb ( currently for Radio, TV , World Service, and BB roll-out), and restrict broadcasts to only top-quality material for the public good.

Principled Peter
December 3rd, 2013
5:12 PM
"..supplies graphs to demonstrate that this is science and not just the usual Thatcherite claptrap." How awful. Proving stuff. Not sure what is offered in your response by way of a counter to actual evidence in graphic form, beyond not making sense. "No mention of quality or impartiality or trust" McAlpine. Pollard. Rose. PAC. Just this last year. Maybe best they were not mentioned? "No mention that Sky costs its customers as much in a month as the BBC charges for a year" Possibly. But with the BBC it is by compulsion backed by fine or prison. On top of being, well, on top of the 'fee' charged? "AND it takes advertising" The horror. Excuse me while I wait for the next Xmas endless incestuous promo break doing the same job. "No mention of cosy backroom deals between Murdochs minions and Cameron." Yes, well, the lack of interest conflict and degrees of ethical separation between such as Ed Richards of OFCOM and all Lord Hall's hires hiring hires from Purnell to Katz, etc, are nothing in comparison. And yes, I do know Lord Patten is supposed to be a Tory. But it's the deeds that matter. And they are getting darker daily with each BBC-untrustworthy redaction or untransparent obfuscation as they find they can be held to account just as much as they think they could, without any accountability, target others. "You can't privatise the BBC. Once it moves out of public ownership it becomes just another media company." Too what to fail then? Hardly the best excuse for a £4B questionably accurate or ethical or impartial propaganda machine on the public tab.

Patrick Heren
November 29th, 2013
12:11 PM
I agree with Majorian that Mr Congdon's article is over-long, but Congdon's analysis is spot on. Not only is the BBC as currently constituted several decades out of date, but its pervasive soft-left influence on British life hinders real debate and reduces this country's ability to deal with the real world. Privatising the BBC, as I argued in Standpoint some years ago, would be a tremendous one-off bonus for the Exchequer, as well as opening up real debate and discussion in our country's politics.

majorian
November 27th, 2013
8:11 PM
An unnecessarily long article with a ton of extraneous detail presumably included to convince us that Mr Condon is a broadcasting expert and not just another fifth rate economist in denial since 2008. He supplies graphs to demonstrate that this is science and not just the usual Thatcherite claptrap. His argument can be summarised as 1 Sky now generates more revenue than the BBC 2 Times change - people have mobile phones and stuff 3 No-one knows what the future will bring but it will probably be different No mention of quality or impartiality or trust. No mention that Sky costs its customers as much in a month as the BBC charges for a year AND it takes advertising. No mention of cosy backroom deals between Murdochs minions and Cameron. You can't privatise the BBC. Once it moves out of public ownership it becomes just another media company. Privatisation is abolition by the backdoor as Mr Condon knows very well but, for some obscure reason, won't say. I suspect he doesn't watch much television. Most people pontificating about TV don't, and don't care about it. For Mr Condon it's just another privatisation to make more money for him and his rich chums. And screw the people who actually use it. But that's the story of the last thirty years.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.