BBC helped fund Bluey & now gets 100% of the merchandise profits, so what happens to that extra millions upon millions of funding?
Posted by glastonbury13@reddit | AskUK | View on Reddit | 273 comments
I may be completely wrong about this, but I looked up why BBC pops up at the end and went down a wormhole of who owns the rights and it seems like the BBC is getting £100,000,000+ extra a year from Bluey merch
clrthrn@reddit
The reason the license fee is £180 and not more (considering they offer a Netflix service, a radio service, a live broadcast service, and a Sky Sports style service and it's competitors charge the same money every month for just streaming) is because it gets some government money but also outside the UK, the BBC is commercial. If it wasn't, license fee would be a lot more. As someone who now lives outside the UK, I have to hear adverts on all BBC podcasts and it's all over BBC news site inc ads before all video content, I never had that in the UK. For the record, I would absolutely pay the license fee here if I could to get access to full BBC content over here for £15 a month.....the BBC equivalent here is absolutely dire.
Patecatli@reddit
People don't realise what the BBC actually does, how good it is for what we pay, how much soft power it gives the UK.
No other public broadcaster comes close to producing what the BBC does, the TV channels, IPlayer, Radio, Sports, Website, News.
For most they just complain they don't like Dr Who/Eastenders/Masterchef, don't like presenter xyz, etc, and therefore why should they pay the licence fee.
evthrowawayverysad@reddit
Yep. I'm a journalism student, and it fucks me off astronomically to hear fellow brits complain about the BBC. We have NO IDEA how lucky we are to have a genuinely unbiased (yes, it fucking is) non-government steered, but publically funded broadcaster that does as much as it does. The fact that reform promises to do everything in it's power to shut it down if they con their way into no. 10 should tell you everything you need to know.
Boomshrooom@reddit
When you drill down into it though you find that most people are apathetic at best to the BBC. What they're really angry at is what they perceive to be a predatory and outrageous TV licensing business model. If you could just opt out and never be bothered again most people wouldn't care, but that's not the case. You are regularly hounded and threatened with enforcement action, even when you have made the necessary declaration.
If we look at it objectively no private company would be allowed to operate in the same way as TV licensing. The BBC is damaged by association, and a lot of people rag on it because of displaced anger.
There will always be people that hate the BBC, but most don't actuslly dislike it.
Ratbag321@reddit
We have the GEZ in Germany ( known as the Geztapo by Brits here, obv, even though it's now the Rundfunkbeitrag) which is about 20 euros a month and goes towards funding channels which also have adverts etc. You have to pay it regardless of whether you use it. And German TV is really really shit.
Crap deal all round.
ExplanationMotor2656@reddit
I like watching DW's news and documentaries on youtube. Never watched any entertainment programming from Germany.
jimicus@reddit
It goes beyond the BBC, I can tell you.
Britain is incredibly good at doing things to a world class standard - but Brits are, on the whole, completely unaware of most of it.
And so we wind up with faintly ludicrous discussions between people who are aware of the value Britain is creating (which I can tell you right now is astronomical) and people who would shut down anything that might cost money simply because they don’t see value in anything.
If you never spend money on anything, you’ll never have anything to show.
Chlorofom@reddit
The old “it doesn’t benefit me *personally* so the whole thing is worthless” approach
fuggerdug@reddit
This sums up why large parts of the country feel so broken, desolate and run down, and yet you visit London and the place is absolutely thriving.
jimicus@reddit
Yup. You can see where the money is going, and it ain’t Clacton.
Chlorofom@reddit
We only have to look at our previously privatised resources to know what would happen if the BBC went the same way. Do people really think netflix, sky, apple etc… would offer the same thing they do now if the BBC wasn't there to compete? The day the BBC dies all these streaming execs will be rubbing their hands with glee.
intotheneonlights@reddit
Same. I'm in film/TV and, while their production budgets are decreasing massively and the whole industry is screwed, I am a staunch supporter of its continued existence.
Scot_Survivor@reddit
As a journalist student, how do you rate the BBC’s cover of the genocide in Palestine?
evthrowawayverysad@reddit
As extensive as it can be given israel's banning of western journalists from Gaza. And it's very difficult for the BBC to openly object to this, since they'd be roasted in HoC if they appeared to be trying to influence international relations. So it's a catch 22: They can't provide more extensive coverage because they can't get reporters in to Gaza, and they can't advocate to get journalists into Gaza because actively opposing israel's blockade of journalists crosses the line into politicking, advocacy, etc.
The best they can do is wait for ministers to make that kind of statement themselves, and lean into it as hard as possible, which is pretty much what they did with this film made alongside AFP and AP, after the UK finally started to vocally support allowing foreign media back into Gaza mid last year.
But of course since then, attention has shifted, and the situation sadly remains unchanged.
New_Slice_1580@reddit
Unbiased? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
evthrowawayverysad@reddit
Yep. 100%. And what you think their bias is will reflect the exact opposite of your own bias. Prove me wrong, and share a 'biased' story.
anotherMrLizard@reddit
"Unbiased" is a stretch, but it's certainly not as biased as it could be given the propensity of every UK government since Thatcher to kick them around like a political football.
ATSOAS87@reddit
The BBC gets a roughly equal amount of complaints from both sides.
So they're doing something right.
nick_gadget@reddit
And something left
_-id-_@reddit
The BBC itself has admitted bias. An organisation trying to be unbiased and having bias slip through can both be true.
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
That is fair. However, the fact we can hold it accountable for any bias is something that shouldn’t be taken for granted.
It is legally required to be unbiased. No other news outlet has that requirement.
fuggerdug@reddit
It's so refreshing to hear at least one bit of Reddit praise the BBC, I sometimes feel like I'm going mad with how much hatred it seems to generate amongst some people. I would pay the licence fee for the radio channels alone.
Nublett9001@reddit
I always find it funny how both the extremes of right and left hate the BBC and want to scrap the license fee. It's almost as if they actually just report the news and don't spin it (that much)
And in before the inevitable. Yes they do have some bias, it's usually towards whoever is currently in charge.
call_me_cookie@reddit
For any person you meet who thinks the BBC has a particular bias on a particular issue, you can guarantee there are people who are adamant that the BBC is biased in *exactly* the opposite direction.
Otto1968@reddit
Ah yes but the other side are making it up!
Maleficent-Drive4056@reddit
I agree with you. But I also question why the BBC needs to pay megabucks to celebrity presenters, or run shows like Masterchef that could surely be commercially viable on ITV.
BBC should focus on public service broadcasting - children, educational, innovative, regional etc.
Patecatli@reddit
Because those celebrities draw in the audience. The BBC still needs to have decent viewing figures for its shows
Maleficent-Drive4056@reddit
Why? (Serious question - I don't really understand how it works)
Patecatli@reddit
What do you mean why? Why do celebrities draw in an audience? If that's the question, then it's because people like that celebrity and are more willing to watch a show with them on it, hosting it, taking part, than if they weren't.
Maleficent-Drive4056@reddit
Sorry, my question was why does the BBC need to draw a decent audience to shows like Masterchef? Is it so they stay on to watch the more 'public service' oriented content afterwards?
Patecatli@reddit
Even though it's not a commercial channel, it's still needs good viewing figures to help justify the licence fee. If people aren't watching the shows, that will/would be used as an argument by some to get rid of the BBC as it currently is.
Unfortunately too many people only think of BBC 1 & 2, when they think of the BBC and what it does.
nick_gadget@reddit
There’s two different things there. On the Masterchef style programmes, ‘inform, educate and entertain’ is still the BBC’s key remit. Masterchef is an entertainment programme that reaches a wide demographic. I’d also argue that there’s an educational element, given how few people can cook.
The presenter question comes up a lot too, but the truth is that they pay a little under market rates. People like Graham Norton could have earned more on a commercial channel, but there is prestige to being on BBC, no need to work around adverts or sponsorships and the name recognition that helps if you’re interviewing big names. Not to mention that they offer radio, huge live events like Eurovision, light entertainment, plus more serious stuff all in one place. From the BBC’s point of view they need the best talent to present their shows, just as they need really good camera operators, directors etc.
paulmclaughlin@reddit
The BBC were on the calling list for the emergency response team at the chemical plant I used to work at. If there ever was an emergency that needed announcing publicly, then the BBC were responsible for cascading communications to the rest of the media.
So much more than just what people watch or listen to.
MinaZata@reddit
Honestly for me the radio, news and weather is enough for me, it's incredible all the other stuff we get for the fee
potatan@reddit
Not sure if this is still the case, but there used to be local reporters at every single football league game. That's a hell of a lot of infrastructure and staffing to support
fuggerdug@reddit
Plus coverage of every county cricket game.
Patecatli@reddit
Not to mention the funding of local journalists via the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
jimicus@reddit
And radio doesn’t just mean listening to it in your car.
The radio content also includes concerts (which few other radio stations can do), live sessions in the BBC’s own studios (which lots of other stations can do, but seldom to the same level) and quite often they’ll make recordings from those performances available so you find a “Live at the BBC” version of your favourite song. Which very few other radio stations will do.
All of this is also streamable online worldwide - separate from iPlayer.
OSUBrit@reddit
[What has the BBC ever given us?(https://youtu.be/u6wcdrqjo_M?t=21)
gulfrend@reddit
The other thing people forget is the BBC funds reporting for many other news organisations too via Local Democracy Reporter scheme, at a time where most places have slashed their local budgets. If you read about local council / court issues in your paper, it's almost certainly the BBC is paying for that.
Patecatli@reddit
Was just about to mention this in reply to someone else as well.
JGG5@reddit
Seriously. £180/year is a small price to pay for everything the BBC brings into our home every year. It’s a national treasure that must be protected from the constant encroachment of enshittification.
ThrustersToFull@reddit
Yes but what a lot of people have a problem with is the manner in which that fee is extracted.
elchet@reddit
Yes I’d love a redesign (nearly said reform) of the license fee experience that makes it feel less like an angry parasitic tax and more of the worthwhile investment that it is.
TheAdminsAreNazis@reddit
Angry parasitic tax is the right. Those letters are threatening as hell and effectively designed to bully old/ uninformed people into paying for it even if they don't need it. I had an elderly relative paying despite being exempt and even when I went through the TV license's own list of people who don't need to pay he was so worried that they'd send baillifs to his house that he just kept paying.
I support the BBC in principle but I'm disgusted that they outsourced the collection of the TV license to those scumbags.
Daveddozey@reddit
Direct debit every month?
ICanEditPostTitles@reddit
The stupid letters the TV Licensing people send out are a travesty, but it does need to be mandatory, because people wouldn't pay if they didn't have to, and then we'd lose the BBC.
MDL1983@reddit
Have you considered using a vpn?
I know some things can detect when a vpn is in use but I’m not sure if the bbc is there yet
looeee2@reddit
I use a VPN. The only thing I use it for is iPlayer and sounds. I would much prefer to pay for a license for the service I'm using.
Beartato4772@reddit
A VPN is easy to detect because any given service is only going to have 1 or a small range of UK IPs.
If a new one appears and you suddenly get 150 people all using the same ip that'll get flagged.
Patecatli@reddit
It is, sometimes if I'm using a VPN when out and about the BBC website will ask me to log in, never get that without the VPN in the UK. Seen other people say the same thing.
MDL1983@reddit
Ta 👍🏻
Early_System4734@reddit
Have you tried using a VPN? Set location to UK. You may need a dedicated UK based VPN IP
clrthrn@reddit
It's really sketchy. Nord worked really well for a while and then the BBC seemed to be onto them and now it works sporadically. I tend to use it for Iplayer for BBC and channel 4, live is not reliable. But I would much rather not pay for the VPN and just pay the Beeb for the content so they get the money.
HiddenWalrus@reddit
It's a matter of support and the right service tbh. I have been using streamlocator for the better part of 3 years now and never had a single issue with iplayer, itv or any of the other uk tv channels. When looking for this stuff always search for a purpose-built service for streaming, rather than a catch-all traditional vpn - Those are unreliable for streaming these days
Early_System4734@reddit
I get you, yeah seems beeb is missing a trick here.
Daveddozey@reddit
That devalues selling the material to foreign platforms via bbc worldwide. You’d have to take well over a billion a year in subscriptions to make up for that.
lankymjc@reddit
The only reason the licence fee is as low as it is, is because there’s a cap mandated by the government. It’s not enough to actually sustain the BBC, which is why they’re heavily subsidised while also getting funding from elsewhere, lie merchandising and ads.
If they offered people outside the UK the opportunity to buy a TV licence and turn off all the ads, they’d lose money because the ads are generating more revenue than the value of the licences. Or the licence would be prohibitively expensive.
Justboy__@reddit
I’m confused by what you mean by Netflix and Sky Sports service? I assume you mean iplayer for the Netflix service but what’s the Sky sports service?
allthingskerri@reddit
I assume the Netflix comparison is iPlayer - and then the sky sports comparison is probably the sporting events they still have rights too - any other streaming service or sports service would upcharge for watching them.
Otto1968@reddit
Not sure they have much sports left TBH
TIGHazard@reddit
Obviously they have less than they used to but there's a reason why the 'Sporting Crown Jewels' list exists. All these have to be Free-to-Air (BBC, ITV, C4, C5)
And that's ignoring the BBC just aired the Snooker (1.8 million people watching BBC Four past 10pm), the Women's football (Super League and Champions League), Netball and the Rugby Super League.
DTH2001@reddit
Also, after a rest week, the Women’s 6 Nations is back on this weekend. All matches are on the BBC
TheMusicArchivist@reddit
The BBC also funds five professional symphony orchestras and as such is a real saving grace to an under-funded industry where the UK is a world-leader.
It also takes a lot of punts on up-and-coming talent such as in comedy (another massive UK-is-a-world-leader sector).
moondust1959@reddit
So would I! I even asked about it once.
PartyPoison98@reddit
It goes back into the BBC budget.
It's a big sum of money, but the BBC is a huge organisation that costs billions to run annually.
PolyFun-UK@reddit
Another reason the BBC should have their charter removed and give people a choice if they want to pay for their services or not.
Ok_Net4562@reddit
Probably the opposite. Its clear people dont seem to understand how much and just what the bbc does. If its just "woke news" and bbc 1 like my dad thinks , people wouldnt pay for it at all. Itd disappear in days
PolyFun-UK@reddit
Who cares what the BBC does, all the other broadcasters do it as well but they don't get a penny from the TV licence even though you have to have a licence to watch any live TV channel regardless of the BBC. Remove the licence and if the BBC want to charge for their services then let them but don't make it compulsory for us to pay for the BBC just so we can watch any other broadcast live.
AuthenticCheese@reddit
The difference is the other broadcasters also have much lower standards. If you compare what constitutes a scandal for the beeb Vs others you'll see people hold them to a much higher level.
Yes that's because it's publicly funded. Yes that's also the whole point.
PolyFun-UK@reddit
The other broadcasters do have standards they have to adhere to to keep their licence. Wether the BBC has higher standards and more paedophiles on the payroll or not doesn't constitute making us pay the BBC just to watch live broadcasts. You need to pay the BBC to watch a live broadcast on Netflix or Amazon prime. Now in reality no one is gonna pay that but right now that is the law and it's seriously outdated. The BBC could drop of the face of the earth tomorrow and we wouldn't lose anything as the other broadcasters would step up and fill the void.
Minute-Employ-4964@reddit
I mean you have to pay for it or they send enforcers to your house.
If I was going to pay for one of the big channels honestly I’d choose channel 4.
Or just make it a reasonably priced subscription model with log in details, I’d pay £7.99 a month for bbc.
ThePistachioBogeyman@reddit
You don’t have to if you don’t watch it…
I haven’t paid for years, I don’t even have a satellite dish or anyway to view freeview channels.
If you do watch it, then it makes sense to pay for it?
Minute-Employ-4964@reddit
I don’t watch it.
I admit I like channel 4.
I’d happily pay for channel 4 is my point
ThePistachioBogeyman@reddit
“I mean you have to pay for it”
Was your first line, you _don’t_ is my point.
Minute-Employ-4964@reddit
Yeh that’s fair bro.
I just wouldn’t pay for bbc.
It’s not like it’s ten years ago where you got football, boxing, top gear, mock the week etc.
Azuras-Becky@reddit
The BBC isn't just a huge organisation, it's one of the biggest in the world. People look at the BBC and thing it's not that big, but it's absolutely enormous. The NHS is bigger, but not hy much. It's an absolutely gargantuan BBC.
I'll see myself out.
Far-Presentation6307@reddit
/r/im14andthisisdeep/
Ecstatic_Food1982@reddit
Fnar fnar
FoodAccomplished7858@reddit
The NHS is bigger by a country mile. The BBC employs 21,000 people and is currently on a cost and jobs cutting exercise which will see it go sub 20/-. The NHS employs around 1.5 million people, so around 70 times larger.
funfun151@reddit
They were making a nob gag mate
Azuras-Becky@reddit
It's true. I'm not proud of it but that's what I was doing.
FoodAccomplished7858@reddit
Oh I see. Very droll. Maybe my comments about ‘cuts’ were funnier than I meant them to be.
Vanzzer@reddit
They keep saying the cuts will make it 'look' bigger.
Dissidant@reddit
Unfortunately others can't always rise to the occasion
But we must not give them a hard time
HMS_Hexapuma@reddit
Much respect for taking that BBC gag. It's always good to stretch yourself.
Azuras-Becky@reddit
It was a hard swallow.
Easy-Equal@reddit
No point crying over split milk
deformedfishface@reddit
Those guys getting fired are really getting shafted.
BloodAndSand44@reddit
Let’s have the old staffing comparison with Indian Railways.
h00dman@reddit
I need a cold shower.
Azuras-Becky@reddit
You do!
yearsofpractice@reddit
You made me laugh. I am pleased by this development.
Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit
Billions of dollar bucks?
Marigold16@reddit
No, bluey is Australian. So it's currency is the Dolleridoo.
Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit
Fake news.
simonjp@reddit
Billions of pound quids!
Acrylic_Starshine@reddit
Wow! For real life?
Beer-Milkshakes@reddit
Super serial
cold_tap_hot_brew@reddit
Trifficult to get your head around though.
nuttycorny@reddit
A fellow Elis & John fan? Haha
Bird-Hause@reddit
Off set the cost of future licence fee
zeelbeno@reddit
Yea the Bluey income was basically Linekers annual salary a few years back
Bigallround@reddit
It does cost an awful lot to protect pedophiles and harass pensioners for a made up licence
Competitive-Fig-666@reddit
Probably in the trillions tbh
spaceshipcommander@reddit
The UK economy is three trillion pounds a year. You think the BBC costs more than a third of GDP to operate?
talligan@reddit
The cbeebies presenters get a million each every morning
spaceshipcommander@reddit
Does judge Judy present on there?
NoisyGog@reddit
I’m a sound engineer. When I work for the BBC I get a million pounds for each distinct sound that i hear whilst on the clock.
I have to fill in a huge form listing everything I heard at the end of a job.
Phonemes are a bugger to list, since English in my second language, and I get mixed up with them.
Small-External4419@reddit
The cost of a pint in London is now so high that every scene of Eastenders filmed in the Queen Vic costs the same as 50 doctor’s salaries
NoisyGog@reddit
🤣
tinymoominmama@reddit
😅
Drath101@reddit
Could be quadrillions
Competitive-Fig-666@reddit
Quintillions, mate
KeithMyArthe@reddit
Brazillions even
laidback_chef@reddit
Not surprised the bbc are using slavery to pay their debts. strange, it's Brazilions, though. /s
SeoulGalmegi@reddit
No lol
PolarLocalCallingSvc@reddit
BBC total revenue is around £6bn.
The UK government revenue is only just in the trillions.
rogeroutmal@reddit
No. No it isn’t.
luffy8519@reddit
Profit from BBC Studios is returned to the BBC to supplement the licence fee income.
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
Another aspect that is ignored is that people compare it to Netflix, Amazon, Disney or whatever but they fail to understand that is an amazing feat.
The sheer fact that the BBC is put in comparison to multibillion dollar companies that make tens of billions in revenue more than the BBC is an immense feat.
OkSun8521@reddit
The BBC is a multibillion dollar organisation.
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
Yes, with an order of magnitude less revenue than those companies.
jimpez86@reddit
This is the actual answer. It should be the top.
BBC studios is the commercial arm of the BBC. It's job is to sell BBC around the works.
BBC helped pay for Bluey to get made, and is now seeing a great return on that investment. The profits from studios go back to the main been to help keep the licence fee down
Strange_Recording931@reddit
BBC Studios is the world wide distributor and runs the merchandising globally, they are not IP holders in any way so their profits, substantial though they are are just a slice of the Bluey pie, all fed back into the BBC’s central funds
Newmaniac_00@reddit
But dont worry
TV Licensing will still come for you
DragonEmissary25@reddit
If they are getting that much they can scrap TV license fee.
Old_Pomegranate_822@reddit
It goes into the general pot and funds the other programs they take a chance on and don’t do so well… what are you expecting, a giant Bluey statue in the middle of TV centre?
Popular_Set_9042@reddit
Well that would be a waste of money as television Centre isn't BBC anymore they moved to media city 😁
And I feel most of us would prefer a discount on TV licence rather than a statue or other mad expenses the BBC do put thru the system
gggggenegenie@reddit
Yes. A discount on the licence fee as opposed to developing and taking a punt on the next Bluey, or funding for local news services, or keeping the licence fee costs down (while other media has shot up in recent years), etc.
Word_Word4Numbers@reddit
Crap attitude that innit. People are happy to remove all quality from something just to get it a bit cheaper. It permeates everything.
It's why so many eat unhealthy foods, why Ryanair is so popular, and why all our buildings are cracked and mouldy.
mrb2409@reddit
The license fee is just as expensive as Netflix etc.
clrthrn@reddit
Do Netflix offer a full 9+ channels of free to air radio, own the biggest soft power weapon in the UK hands (BBC world service) and then do sports and a range of shows inc live free to air content? And have a back catalogue spanning the entire history of broadcast media? No it doesn't. BBC is an absolute bargain for the money and people will only fully wake up that when it's gone.
mrb2409@reddit
I think the BBC has value but it’s £180 a year. £15/month that puts it right in the ballpark of every other streaming service.
Personally I think we should fund the news and world service.
Then TV & Radio can have ads or a subscription model with different tiers.
Popular_Set_9042@reddit
I get Free Netflix, Disney, HBo and Prime
Also exempt now for paying licence fee.
mrb2409@reddit
Do you? Or does your phone plan subsidise it? Or the your bank?
Popular_Set_9042@reddit
Well just like a the licence fee I don't pay for it or pay a fee to have it subsidised.
false_flat@reddit
But dramatically better value.
mrb2409@reddit
Is it? I basically get Radio 6 out of it and the BBC website. I don’t watch anything they produce for TV.
Popular_Set_9042@reddit
Where did I say not to reinvest the funds in programming?
Do you know the BBC when they relocated from London. Paid for first class train journeys to manchester for 1 hour meetings costing £100s of pounds instead of using Skype or localising the meeting. Majority of the team were still based in SW London and were told to come to Media city for meetings as thats Hq
Waste of funds.
Mfcx6sp4@reddit
If they stop taking a punt on new shows they don’t make the mega shows that help to fund a better service, it just withers and dies.
A £4 annual reduction is not worth that.
Dolgar01@reddit
How do you know that you aren’t getting a discount? Maybe without the Bluey money, the licence fee would be £5 a month more . . .
bad_ed_ucation@reddit
Didn't know that was an option. I would, actually, really like that.
RohanDavidson@reddit
That wouldn't be unreasonable. BBC Bristol has a triceratops because dinosaur programming was so successful.
SilverstoneMonzaSpa@reddit
Manchester has Upsy Daisy too.
Long-Woodpecker-1980@reddit
Petition to make an Alan Partridge colossus for Norwich!
samfitnessthrowaway@reddit
The Angel of the East.
PigHillJimster@reddit
They have to produce some programs that are never going to do well in order to fulfill their mandate to provide something for everybody.
takesthebiscuit@reddit
I think Op wanted a Bluey dividend on the license fee
DTH2001@reddit
Technically they do. The commercial arm of the BBC subsidies its output beyond what is raised through the licence fee
Popular_Set_9042@reddit
No
iamabigtree@reddit
OP was expecting some hidden shareholders or fat cats pocketing the money as they wanted to be angry. Just going back into the overall BBC budget doesn't spark anger.
HonkersTim@reddit
Which part of the OP's post causes you make these weird assumptions?
ShortNefariousness2@reddit
Such attacks are made against the BBC all day every day, and it has been going on for decades. How did you miss it?
HonkersTim@reddit
Because there isn't anything there? Unless he's edited his post? It's just seems like an innocuous question.
Grenache@reddit
TBF one might question the performance of BBC studios and ask the question. On commercial income BBC only just outperforms ITV despite having the massive advantage of many decades of huge taxpayer finance.
The commercial arm should be better.
CJBill@reddit
BBC Studios doesn't receive licence fee money, it stands and falls as a commercial enterprise.
Grenache@reddit
Yes, and how do you think the content that BBC studios owns was paid for?
PartyPoison98@reddit
BBC Studios has to pay for the content from the BBC though. Its a seperate entity that allows the BBC to conduct commercial operations, but theres a thick line drawn between it and the public service arm of the BBC.
Having worked on some BBC docs before, I know that quite often the docs would get sold to BBC studios, but also sometimes they'd get sold elsewhere, or even outbid.
Grenache@reddit
Didn't know that! Thanks for the information.
CJBill@reddit
BBC Studios actively creates commissioned content, like any studio. For example, the NHU produces content for Netflix, National Geographic, Amazon, NBC et al.
DarkNinjaPenguin@reddit
ITV makes money through ads. The BBC doesn't do ads, like at all.
Grenache@reddit
Yes, obviously.
Do you not consider the BBCs position over ITV advantageous and perhaps the BBC should be out performing ITV given it has had higher revenue than ITV for its entire existence, has the name and recognition of BBC, massive state subsidies in terms of space and advamntage in London and yet is only just outperforming ITV.
I love the BBC, but the fact ITV is so close is embarrassing.
EffectzHD@reddit
Yes, exactly that with a little pound surrounding it the kids would love it
RunningDude90@reddit
Programmes*
New_Slice_1580@reddit
£100,000,000?
Are you sure about that number
glastonbury13@reddit (OP)
Well it's reported that Bluey makes over £1 billion in merchandise, so I think 10% going to the owners of the merchandising rights is probably fairly accurate?
JGG5@reddit
This is the same bullshit argument the US right-wingers made about PBS until they finally managed to get it defunded. “Sesame Street makes millions from merchandising! Where’s all that money going?” The financial arrangements are slightly different, but it’s still funding the news and Live from Lincoln Center and all the British dramas they’re paying to bring over the pond.
spectator_mail_boy@reddit
Yeah no-one would watch MOTD unless you pay Shearer and his pals millions. No one is really interested in the highlights. They want to hear "Oh wonder goal" for the tenth time a night.
nick_gadget@reddit
Everyone says they only want to see the highlights, then when all the pundits went on strike to support Lineker, it was awful (and got terrible ratings).
Adam-West@reddit
I looked it up a week or so ago. Bluey merchandise is like triple the value of Barbie. It’s huge. And as somebody with a small toddler if I look out for it I see it on literal like 1/4 of all the kids in the park.
Bitter-Train-5961@reddit
All the money is going to buy subscription of your Mum's OF
sigma914@reddit
Why do you think the licence fee is so cheap?
CandG@reddit
Bluey is part of BBC studios, the commercial subsidiary of the BBC which is distinct from the publicly funded licence fee side of the corporation. BBC studios produces programmes for the BBC and for other broadcasters and it raises money through commercial activities.
ChrisRR@reddit
Same with every company, it goes back into the running costs
Ok_Shirt983@reddit
Except the BBC doesn't have shareholders that it's paying out dividends to, so it ALL goes back into the running costs.
spectator_mail_boy@reddit
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c15wxgjn9xjo
Vernon Kay at 400k. Running costs.
Ok_Shirt983@reddit
Paying staff is part of the running costs of a business, yes.
spectator_mail_boy@reddit
We need to pay Alan Shearer half a mil for the most dull, unoriginal talking points on football. For some reason.
Can't give a newbie a chance or footie journos. No.
Thanks Beed. Money well spent/
fsuk@reddit
Inform, Educate and Entertain
Impartial News & Information: Operates BBC News and BBC World Service, providing global coverage.
Broadcasting Services: Operates TV channels (BBC One, Two, Three, Four), children's channels (CBBC, CBeebies), and national/local radio stations.
Digital Content: Delivers digital services including BBC iPlayer, BBC Sounds, BBC Sport, and education via BBC Bitesize.
Public Purpose: Acts in the public interest, reflecting UK culture and values worldwide.
Commercial Activities: Generates income through BBC Studios to invest back into creating new content.
The last one is where Bluey falls, the rest whilst providing good do not generate any income and are (barely) funded by the license fee.
If it we left to simply commercial funding we would not have things like Bitsize, Welsh language services, Radio/Music which gives new artists a chance, independent news services (not owned by big media companies with their own agenda).
Currently a big one for me (having a young child) is Childrens TV. British children's TV is much more educational and wholesome compared to that found on (mostly US) commercial services which simply care about excitement and keeping childrens captive attention. Bluey probably would not have been made without the BBC.
One of the complaints I often see on this sub is about not wanting to pay the licence fee because they don't watch live TV but the reality is that everyone in the UK benefit from it in some way of another.
Rico1983@reddit
Bitesize and S4C are huge ones here for me. Can you imagine the impact on children if those revision resources were removed?
twmffatmowr@reddit
Exactly! And we even have Bluey in Welsh!
nosniboD@reddit
Do they speak Welsh with Australian accents?
Captain_Piccolo@reddit
The theme song is great in Welsh.
Rico1983@reddit
Glasy
twmffatmowr@reddit
Blŵi
Rico1983@reddit
Is that what it is? Bendigedig.
twmffatmowr@reddit
Yes 😂😂
maersyl@reddit
I don’t pay the licence fee because I don’t watch live TV, but I have a nephew who loves Bluey so I might just buy some merch for him and do my civic duty for the British public at the same time.
Daveddozey@reddit
I pay my license fee because I support what the bbc does including the children’s entertainment.
It’s also 10% of my subscription budget and that budget itself is 2% of my household income. It’s peanuts.
cardboard-collector@reddit
A lot of people miss out on mentioning the BBC Monitoring service which was crucial in wars. So much so that the government used to fully fund it, now it’s cut to the bone
newtonbase@reddit
You managed to find out how much the BBC earn from Bluey but not what they spend?
nosniboD@reddit
I also saw something the other day about this, mainly from the Aussie perspective at how they fumbled it and didn't want to pay full price to fund a children's cartoon and have now lost out on over 2 billion AUD
spinfold@reddit
As always with the BBC, there are slight nuances.
So the ABC and BBC developed it: as public service broadcasters, it'll be in their remit to produce children's TV.
But BBC Studios have the rights to merchandising. BBC Studios is the commercial arm of the BBC, and is responsible for the exploitation of BBC properties, with money raised being returned to the BBC. The ABC didn't negotiate anything for themselves (story).
eves21@reddit
As an Aussie with a healthy disdain for the ABC, this is not surprising.
Im-A-Kitty-Cat@reddit
I have criticisms of the ABC undoubtedly but it is literally one of the few organisations in the country keeping journalism alive at a large scale.
eves21@reddit
Afraid we’ll have to disagree there, but happy for you.
UpsetKoalaBear@reddit
Didn’t they expose the SAS War Crimes committed by people like Ben Roberts-Smith? Is that not a good public service?
llksg@reddit
Exploitation is a bit of a harsh term for this context
spinfold@reddit
Intellectual property (IP) exploitation is a thing, though the link I provided in my initial reply would suggest that some Australians think the BBC are exploiting the exploitation... but that's the ABC's fault.
Atompunk78@reddit
You know exploitation isn’t always negative right? I think it’s only more recently that the neutral meaning has become less common
You still hear it all the time in mining and stuff too, eg ‘oil field exploitation’
mr_iwi@reddit
That has a negative connotation as well now, but maybe there isn't a better example
Atompunk78@reddit
There are better examples I’m just lazy. Frankly OC’s use is the best example lmao
You can increase asset exploitation to increase profit for example, or expand to new countries to exploit the new markets, you can exploit new technologies incl renewable energy, you can exploit a gap in enemy lines, and so on
rocketshipkiwi@reddit
In this context it just means to make productive use of an asset, it doesn’t mean the poor dog is beaten and held in slavery.
gggggenegenie@reddit
That poor blue dog is already rumoured to be on crack and hookers, such is the exploitation.
Living_Substance9973@reddit
She's on nangs and is a hooker.
Colleen987@reddit
Not that I’m saying women don’t use hookers but Bluey is a girl.
dead_jester@reddit
Ah, reporting error; “Bluey is on crack, and is now a hooker” Not really sure that’s the right kind of language for describing sex workers with a drug dependency
BackgroundDesigner52@reddit
Get out the whip, boys.
theonlysamintheworld@reddit
Part of the reason the license fee is so low for such a vast array of services.
Dave_Eddie@reddit
Its BBC studios that have the rights. Not 'The BBC' BBC studios is one of the commercial companies owned by the BBC, that pays money back to the larger parent company in dividends.
Total_Fly_2628@reddit
CBeebies is absolutely blooming marvelous so I’m assuming it goes back into their budget.
bacon_cake@reddit
There's nothing that makes you appreciate CBeebies more than going to a TV-Licence-less parent-friend's home and seeing the drivel their kids are watching on Youtube.
jimpez86@reddit
Yeah it's crap, we started to see things like toy opening videos and uninstalled YouTube kids
Aware_Price5261@reddit
Gary Lineker will start presenting it soon
Captain_Honkytonk@reddit
Gotta pay Winkelman to make more Traitors
clrthrn@reddit
That show is worth the license fee on its own.
Aware_Price5261@reddit
The whole point of the licence fee is to ensure commercially unviable / unprofitable educational content gets made. It's a disgrace that the BBC use public money to fund absolute dross such as The Traitors. That shit belongs on ITV with Ant the drink driver, Dec and that Stephen fella who probably wishes Ant and Dec were both dead.
EvilInky@reddit
I would imagine selling the format for The Traitors to other countries has made a lot (if not all) of the money they spent making it back.
jimpez86@reddit
Traitors isn't owned by the when it comes to international rights. They bought the rights from the Dutch.
Unfortunately for the Dutch broadcaster that created it you can't sell Traitors plushies
Aware_Price5261@reddit
Cool - so we'll be seeing some good educational productions on the BBC soon, right?
bee-sting@reddit
No. good bye.
clrthrn@reddit
Selling The traitors to other countries has made enough money for the BBC to make educational content for the next 100 years. It might be dross but it's lucrative AF
rcgl2@reddit
They spend a lot of it on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest they just squander.
OmniWise@reddit
Don't forget horse, coke and champagne.. or maybe they were what you meant by squander.
rcgl2@reddit
Simply the Best
Divide_Rule@reddit
Pays for the celebrities on Traitors
_-id-_@reddit
What are you getting at and how dare you? The BBC, like the NHS, is immune from criticism on Reddit. Try not to break the social rules.
Big_Comfortable4256@reddit
If it's BBC Studios, they're a commercial entity not funded by the TV Licence.
colin_staples@reddit
Same as with all the money they used to make from Top Gear
It goes back into the BBC budget, to be spent on running the BBC. Which costs a lot more than is raised from licence fees alone
MrMrsPotts@reddit
It would be fun it made so much money they reduced the licence fee
PartyPoison98@reddit
The licence fee has massively fallen in real terms. It already is being used to subsidise a cheaper licence fee.
Patecatli@reddit
It literally does reduce the licence fee, without all the income from the BBC commercial arm the licence fee would be much higher.
mk6971@reddit
If it says BBC Studios that is the commercial arm of the BBC. It doesn't receive any of the license fee.
RessurectedAccount@reddit
Corporate thieves while stealing money for their dross from the public. Parasites.
Temporary_Ebb9486@reddit
SHOW US THE EVIDENCE !!!
OnlymyOP@reddit
It goes back into the BBC budget since the BBC is non profit and funded by the Taxpayer.
iffyClyro@reddit
Pretty sure it just gets put back int the BBC. There was a story years ago about income from Top Gear merch.
nWoSting145@reddit
What’s the story?
super_sammie@reddit
Top gear sells merch. People buy it money goes to BBC.
Beer-Milkshakes@reddit
Not much of a story tbf
Hairy_Ad5141@reddit
Balamory
Rico1983@reddit
Morning Glory
jizzyjugsjohnson@reddit
They made a shit load of cash from middle aged men in bad jeans
JackXDark@reddit
Even if the merchandising is worth that much, that’s unlikely to be a figure that represents the total revenue they receive from it.
It’ll be licensed out via a separate agency. The companies that manufacture it will pay a fee to them which will go back to the BBC, that’ll only represent a small percentage of the retail price.
So a gross figure of £100m for merchandising will maybe only net £5-10m back to the BBC.
I mean, I’d still be very happy with that if it were coming to me, but it’s barely even Graham Norton’s salary.
hdhxuxufxufufiffif@reddit
I thought the same, but I googled and Bluey merchandise is apparently a billion+ pound industry annually.
JackXDark@reddit
Wow. Okay, then that £100m net is probably about right.
HomeworkInevitable99@reddit
No, the numbers are correct. Australia's ABC reckon they made the worst deal ever.
ABC lost out on a yearly income of twice is yearly budget.
Gone_For_Lunch@reddit
Haha, BBC pulled a George Lucas.
Snaggl3t00t4@reddit
War fund for Uncle Donald's legal case.
Calm-Homework3161@reddit
The BBC Group reported a total revenue of £5.9 billion for the 2024/25 financial year, a 9% increase from £5.4 billion in 2023/24. This includes £3.8 billion from licence fees and record commercial sales of £2.2 billion. The group reduced its operating deficit to £132 million.
So £100,000,000 isn't perhaps as much as it sounds in the grander scheme of things
Decard_Pain@reddit
They will believe the shite TV with shite writing is really good and carry on losing money, oh and then the licence fee will go up
Mundo7@reddit
£100 million profit from merchandise 😂😂😂😂
Easy_Feedback5361@reddit
Exactly, it's not like the Beeb has a Scrooge McDuck vault somewhere—this extra cash just helps offset the insane cost of producing everything else they do. People forget how many shows flop or take years to break even, so Bluey's success is essentially subsidising the risky stuff and the duds. It’s the same principle as having a hit single pay for the rest of the album.
zelandofchocolate@reddit
Daily push alerts that coconuts have water in them
matmah@reddit
The BBC outsources a lot of production these day, these are the companies that are making the money, and do not have to report anything.
If anyone thinks that the BBC is honorable is surely mistaken. There are people who are making millions from the corporation. It's like the rail companies and ROSCOS.
In 2024/24 the BBC spent over 3 billion outsourcing content, so yes there are plenty of people making good money out of it.
The sooner it dies a death the better. The license fee is archaic at best!
detectivebabylegz@reddit
The BBC also holds the international broadcasting rights.
Myceliphilos@reddit
The bbc budget is billions. Any extra money they get, they spend.
They dont have a commercial incentive or a concern about funding, other than the license fee being removed.
Thats a kushty business, has some of the best paid on screen and off screen staff in the entertainment industry, has legal authority to prosecute, its a dream for greedy cunts.
ActionBirbie@reddit
Same as all profits from BBC Worldwide.
Dennyisthepisslord@reddit
They burn it and specifically piss on a photo of you.
While laughing.
Or you know...it goes back into the BBC to find the hell of lot they do just like doctor who and other big merch sellers
agile-spider@reddit
So it’s our Bluey now then? When do we get a cut?
Spiritual_Tie3348@reddit
They probably use it to make their own bluey's with hookers, rent boys and cocaine.
Early_System4734@reddit
Ah the good old days when a Bluey meant something quite different
Whithorsematt@reddit
Funds all the letters chasing license fees.
ComprehensiveCamp192@reddit
BBC studios is an entity owned by the BBC that that generates revenue from various BBC and other IPs that is sent back to the BBC to supplement its revenue streams.
KeySubject4895@reddit
The license fee doesn’t cover everything. The BBC is running multiple revenue streams.
sockhead99@reddit
As Unicorse would say....
Hulla_Sarsaparilla@reddit
Same as happens with selling the format for Strictly around the world or selling Dr Who or when shows made by the BBC are sold to Netflix once they’re off iPlayer, some funds get put back via BBC Studios (the commercial arm) into the public service side, some stays in Studios to fund production.
I think you’ll find the figures in the BBC Annual reports, there’s one for public service and I believe a separate one for Studios.
dopexvii@reddit
It will also be sold to every other country who have there own dub and distribute it locally. Where's that money ?
-info-sec-@reddit
Goes to replace the money lost as more and more people stop paying the TV licence.
Nothing like standing in a burning building, and pretending everything is okay.
Whole_Necessary2040@reddit
It's in the group accounts
Inside-Escape-6830@reddit
Goes towards funding some extra noncery.
AutoModerator@reddit
Please help keep AskUK welcoming!
When replying to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. If a post is marked 'Serious Answers Only' you may receive a ban for violating this rule.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.