5 ms·

The wider context here is that ministers have been arguing that the BBC is behind the times, because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to

The wider context here is that ministers have been arguing that the BBC is behind the times, because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now. Not only that, but an annual subscription to Netflix is cheaper than the BBC licence fee. The BBC have responded by pointing out that government regulators killed off their attempt to work with competitors to produce such a service over a decade ago (Project Kangaroo), and now they’re being criticised by government for not being one.

jacquesm 7y ago
> because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now Is it? I have been exposed a bit to Netflix and the content is a lot of filler with the occasional interesting movie. But not nearly enough value for what it costs in my opinion, and with the very limited programming it would become boring quickly.
- whycombagator 7y ago
  > because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now > Is it? I have been exposed a bit to Netflix and the content is a lot of filler with the occasional interesting movie. The comment you quote says "the way people want to consume", but your comment is about the content itself. I think most people want the on-demand style, but of course everyone also wants there to be good content. Content being equal, do you think on-demand content is not the way most people would want to consume it?
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    When several people are potentially watching it can take a long time to reach consensus. Even by myself I've scrolled Netflix for 15 minutes and then turned it off, because I can't agree what I want to watch... In contrast, channels have content in sync with the rhythm of the day and the hour. You only have to choose the channel. I wish I could flick through channel streams at the speed I can flick through broadcast channels.
  - xbmcuser 7y ago
    His comment is pointless anyway he might not want to consume Netflix content but 100million paid subscribers do.
- mikehall314 7y ago
  I understand the point, but whether it actually is the way people want to consume content or not is irrelevant — that is the accusation being levelled at the BBC, and specifically that they risk being “Blockbuster in the age of Netflix”.
chewxy 7y ago
I used to work at the ABC (the aussie version of BBC). We have a pretty good streaming service called iview. It started ahead of the curve, 2 years before Netflix started its streaming service. While I wasn't there at the time, stories have been that iView faced government queries at the time for "wasting money" (and after sometime, the govt relented and funded it in 2013). This back and forth went on and on until today. Now, of course, the stories in the media is whether or not we should impose a quota on Australian content on external streaming services. All I can do is give that Annoyed Picard reaction.
cs02rm0 7y ago
The BBC have responded by pointing out that government regulators killed off their attempt to work with competitors to produce such a service over a decade ago (Project Kangaroo), and now they’re being criticised by government for not being one. I don't think they're being criticised by government for not being a Netflix-style VOD service. The debate is as to whether they should be funded by the licence fee with all the restrictions that come with it to allow competition in the market vs. letting them do their own thing without the licence fee. The government do appear to be coming down on the side against the licence fee, but that could just be a negotiating position, at least for the foreseeable. No one as far as I can see is making the argument that a licence fee funded broadcaster should have taken that money and used it to launch a Netflix competitor.
- michaelt 7y ago
  They've certainly been criticised for not "attracting and retaining younger audiences" who are "increasingly turning to subscription on demand services, such as Netflix" [1] which don't need TV licenses. Of course, a Rupert Murdoch type who wanted to shut down the BBC would argue that low viewing figures prove the injustice of forcing people to pay for a service they don't use, and therefore the justice of privatising; while high viewing figures prove the viability of the BBC as a subscription service, and therefore the viability of privatising. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/24/bbc-losing-generation-viewers-ofcom-warns/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/24/bbc-losing-gener...
EnderMB 7y ago
Which is a crazy argument because iPlayer was ahead of the times for years before Netflix became a mainstream choice in UK households. Hell, the 2012 coverage of the London Olympics was still some of the best coverage I ever remember seeing of a sporting event.
- thu2111 7y ago
  It's a bad argument for another reason. In 2009 there was a totally different government in power. It's weird to blame politicians today for decisions made by the opposing party over a decade ago. The BBC's problem is not iPlayer vs Netflix. It's that they aren't producing enough compelling content anymore to justify the tax that funds them. Additionally they keep angering ministers, who think they're biased and out of touch.
  - EnderMB 7y ago
    While I largely agree, I would attribute most of the BBC's issues down to simple budget cuts. A world-leading organisation had its funding reduced, and was eaten from the inside by those put in charge by the government. The government has always wanted to control the state broadcaster, and a decade ago people would've fought tooth and nail to keep the BBÇ alive. The decline in quality has been slow, but obvious from all sides, from sport coverage, to factual output, and most notably from the news and political front. Those people that would've fought for the BBC years ago are now those that want its funding removed entirely, and in my opinion it's a master-class in control from the Tories. The left have been played hard by the BBC. You're absolutely right in that it's not an iPlayer vs Netflix debate. It's an output issue, and that output has been eroded over 5-10 years.
    - thu2111 7y ago
      Maybe. I'd argue the funding has barely been cut at all. In 2010 excluding the over 75s it was 2.93 billion, in 2018 it was 3.17 billion: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/bbc-licence-fee-receipts-expenditure/ https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/... The over 75s grant has been cut a little bit but the actual gross revenues are higher now than they used to be. Funding isn't the BBCs problem. It is able to tax a growing population - that's the definition of increasing revenues. With billions of pounds to splash around it's really hard for them to plead poverty. The bigger issue is they produce a lot of content but it's increasingly narrowly targeted to, basically, the sort of thing Lib Dem voters in London like (and think other people should like). That's a small minority of the population.
johannes1234321 7y ago
The even wider context is that the current government doesn't like media contradicting them.

jacquesm 7y ago

> because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now Is it? I have been exposed a bit to Netflix and the content is a lot of filler with the occasional interesting movie. But not nearly enough value for what it costs in my opinion, and with the very limited programming it would become boring quickly.

whycombagator 7y ago
> because Netflix-style on-demand services are the way people want to consume content now > Is it? I have been exposed a bit to Netflix and the content is a lot of filler with the occasional interesting movie. The comment you quote says "the way people want to consume", but your comment is about the content itself. I think most people want the on-demand style, but of course everyone also wants there to be good content. Content being equal, do you think on-demand content is not the way most people would want to consume it?
- angry_octet 7y ago
  When several people are potentially watching it can take a long time to reach consensus. Even by myself I've scrolled Netflix for 15 minutes and then turned it off, because I can't agree what I want to watch... In contrast, channels have content in sync with the rhythm of the day and the hour. You only have to choose the channel. I wish I could flick through channel streams at the speed I can flick through broadcast channels.
- xbmcuser 7y ago
  His comment is pointless anyway he might not want to consume Netflix content but 100million paid subscribers do.
mikehall314 7y ago
I understand the point, but whether it actually is the way people want to consume content or not is irrelevant — that is the accusation being levelled at the BBC, and specifically that they risk being “Blockbuster in the age of Netflix”.

chewxy 7y ago

I used to work at the ABC (the aussie version of BBC). We have a pretty good streaming service called iview. It started ahead of the curve, 2 years before Netflix started its streaming service. While I wasn't there at the time, stories have been that iView faced government queries at the time for "wasting money" (and after sometime, the govt relented and funded it in 2013). This back and forth went on and on until today. Now, of course, the stories in the media is whether or not we should impose a quota on Australian content on external streaming services. All I can do is give that Annoyed Picard reaction.

cs02rm0 7y ago

The BBC have responded by pointing out that government regulators killed off their attempt to work with competitors to produce such a service over a decade ago (Project Kangaroo), and now they’re being criticised by government for not being one. I don't think they're being criticised by government for not being a Netflix-style VOD service. The debate is as to whether they should be funded by the licence fee with all the restrictions that come with it to allow competition in the market vs. letting them do their own thing without the licence fee. The government do appear to be coming down on the side against the licence fee, but that could just be a negotiating position, at least for the foreseeable. No one as far as I can see is making the argument that a licence fee funded broadcaster should have taken that money and used it to launch a Netflix competitor.

michaelt 7y ago
They've certainly been criticised for not "attracting and retaining younger audiences" who are "increasingly turning to subscription on demand services, such as Netflix" [1] which don't need TV licenses. Of course, a Rupert Murdoch type who wanted to shut down the BBC would argue that low viewing figures prove the injustice of forcing people to pay for a service they don't use, and therefore the justice of privatising; while high viewing figures prove the viability of the BBC as a subscription service, and therefore the viability of privatising. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/24/bbc-losing-generation-viewers-ofcom-warns/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/24/bbc-losing-gener...

EnderMB 7y ago

Which is a crazy argument because iPlayer was ahead of the times for years before Netflix became a mainstream choice in UK households. Hell, the 2012 coverage of the London Olympics was still some of the best coverage I ever remember seeing of a sporting event.

thu2111 7y ago
It's a bad argument for another reason. In 2009 there was a totally different government in power. It's weird to blame politicians today for decisions made by the opposing party over a decade ago. The BBC's problem is not iPlayer vs Netflix. It's that they aren't producing enough compelling content anymore to justify the tax that funds them. Additionally they keep angering ministers, who think they're biased and out of touch.
- EnderMB 7y ago
  While I largely agree, I would attribute most of the BBC's issues down to simple budget cuts. A world-leading organisation had its funding reduced, and was eaten from the inside by those put in charge by the government. The government has always wanted to control the state broadcaster, and a decade ago people would've fought tooth and nail to keep the BBÇ alive. The decline in quality has been slow, but obvious from all sides, from sport coverage, to factual output, and most notably from the news and political front. Those people that would've fought for the BBC years ago are now those that want its funding removed entirely, and in my opinion it's a master-class in control from the Tories. The left have been played hard by the BBC. You're absolutely right in that it's not an iPlayer vs Netflix debate. It's an output issue, and that output has been eroded over 5-10 years.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    Maybe. I'd argue the funding has barely been cut at all. In 2010 excluding the over 75s it was 2.93 billion, in 2018 it was 3.17 billion: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/bbc-licence-fee-receipts-expenditure/ https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/... The over 75s grant has been cut a little bit but the actual gross revenues are higher now than they used to be. Funding isn't the BBCs problem. It is able to tax a growing population - that's the definition of increasing revenues. With billions of pounds to splash around it's really hard for them to plead poverty. The bigger issue is they produce a lot of content but it's increasingly narrowly targeted to, basically, the sort of thing Lib Dem voters in London like (and think other people should like). That's a small minority of the population.

johannes1234321 7y ago

The even wider context is that the current government doesn't like media contradicting them.