The BBC has been rocked to its foundations this week by Nadine Dorries’s declaration on Twitter that the licence fee is to be abolished.
‘The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors are over,’ the Culture Secretary announced.
Auntie’s reaction, predictably, was to clutch at her pearls and gasp in horror.
Gary Lineker and Dan Walker, two of the Beeb’s highest-paid presenters, leapt to its defence, while Labour, predictably, accused the Government of ‘cultural vandalism’.
But if the Corporation’s executives manage to take a level-headed view, they will see that this is not a death sentence for the institution.
It is, in fact, a sign of liberation.
Auntie’s reaction to the fee freeze, predictably, was to clutch at her pearls and gasp in horror
Forgettable
The BBC is forced to pay a licence fee because it restricts creativity.
With the rare exception of flagship dramas and documentaries, such as Line Of Duty and Sir David Attenborough’s nature series, true excellence is almost impossible to achieve under the licence fee.
The schedules instead feature shallow entertainment programs that heavily rely on celebrity presenters and a small number of celebrities. Many of the popular concepts, like MasterChef and The Apprentice, have been resurrected until they are no longer relevant.
For nearly 40 years, I have been trying to get rid of the TV licence fees. I remember when I started one of the first independent businesses producing content for ITV and Channel 4 in 1985. I expressed my concern about how much easier a monthly subscription could be.
The BBC must change, because it is my desire for the BBC’s survival.
At the time, ominous public information adverts ran almost daily on the BBC, warning that ‘TV detector vans’ were patrolling Britain’s streets. ‘If you switch on,’ ran the slogan, ‘be prepared to pay up.’
The magistrates’ courts dealt constantly with so-called ‘licence-dodgers’ — often people surviving on low incomes, who could not afford to pay the fee without going further into debt.
As now, pleas of poverty were not an excuse. In extreme cases, imprisonment was possible for those who failed to obtain a license.
Anybody can easily see how inhumane such a system would be. It’s shameful that in Britain the same flat rate is levied on a billionaire with a giant plasma screen in every room and a pensioner with one small set and a Freeview box.
The licence fee, while indefensible back in 1985 is much more acceptable today. Millions of British youth don’t watch the BBC even though they love Netflix, YouTube and other services. The BBC is their only legal obligation to pay. It’s a nonsense.
The licence fee for TV and radio was voluntary during a third its existence. People could have the licences and either pay or opt for them in those early days when only BBC Radio was available.
Gary Lineker and Dan Walker, two of the Beeb’s highest-paid presenters, leapt to its defence, while Labour, predictably, accused the Government of ‘cultural vandalism’.
In 1955, the compulsory licence fee was made mandatory by Independent Television. This allowed consumers to watch and listen to other programs for the first-time.
Don’t imagine for a moment that I dislike the BBC or want to see it abolished. It’s the exact opposite. The Beeb is part of my DNA. When I was 19 years old, I joined the Beeb as a trainee and continued to work with some of its top shows like Panorama and The Money Programme. I was both saddened by its slow decline over the past decades.
The BBC must change, because it is my desire for the BBC’s survival.
In the 1980s my thoughts about subscription TV were only theoretical. In the 1990s satellite TV was introduced and I took over programming for BSkyB. Sky Television Network. That’s when I saw my ideas put into practice.
1200 people called subscribers every hour of the day. I received a steady stream of comments from them each morning. We heard what they liked, what they didn’t like, what was missing and what they wanted to see more of.
We were able to respond in a unique way. It was not our job to guess or dictate what people were watching. We simply responded to the demand.
The BBC didn’t — couldn’t — do that. And it still doesn’t.
The 1980s were a time when viewers had no other way to express their opinions than to send a letter to Points Of View, hoping that Anne Robinson or Barry Took would read it on-air.
Today, viewers can take to Twitter — but there’s still little hope that the executives at New Broadcasting House will pay attention to their grievances
Insignificant
ITV was just as poor. We had one telephone operator, Marjorie. She was a pencil-wielding telephonist who worked at Thames TV. She could handle 15 calls at once on a good night. In the Greater London area, we had over 15 million viewers.
It was unbelievable. The audience was not engaged at all, however the number of channels available was limited so that ITV couldn’t afford to ignore them.
Today, viewers can take to Twitter — but there’s still little hope that the executives at New Broadcasting House will pay attention to their grievances. What good is that, with an income stream they can’t increase or decrease in any way?
It is essential that the BBC can provide services that meet people’s needs. If it can’t do that, it becomes irrelevant and doesn’t deserve to exist.
Sky, Netflix and American cable networks have shown that subscription models are flexible. This model generates a lot of money for shows that people want. It can also be internationally funded.
Netflix is now available in 160 countries. This is because it is able to produce extravagant dramas featuring large all-star castings such as Bridgerton and The Crown.
The BBC would not have attempted these shows if it tried. They would instead be weak and underfunded productions that are far more cinematic than what subscribers get for their subscription fee.
The BBC may also be able to expand its audience by moving to a subscription-based model. The BBC could allow viewers to choose the content they want: BBC1 may show dramas and documentaries with different channels.
Important
But BBC2, perhaps, could continue as a free-to-air public-service channel airing news, religion and children’s programming, all paid for out of general taxation.
The country will still want and need such strictly impartial content — but this programming is not self-sustaining commercially.
How the BBC responds to the Culture Secretary’s announcement over the coming months will be crucial. It is at risk of acting like a caged animal and not embracing opportunities.
A worst case scenario would be for BBC executives to start seeing a Labour victory in the next General Elections as the best way of maintaining their status quo. The BBC would have to abandon all pretences of impartiality in order to support an anti-Tory strategy. This could be disastrous for the country.
Already its coverage of Brexit, Donald Trump and Covid as well the Downing Street Party scandals have fallen way short of the impartial ideal that the BBC Charter calls for.
Executives have to see the licence fee for what it is — a ball and chain, shackling them to politicians. As long as the BBC’s funding is fixed by the Government, other broadcasters will have all the advantages.
It is my dream to see BBC succeed. It must not be charged a fee to achieve this.