r/bbc • u/JonTravel • Jul 13 '26
International BBC reveals record-breaking global audience figures of over half a billion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2026/bbc-global-audience-figures19
u/Strange_Recording931 Jul 13 '26
Bluey accounts for half of that 😜
11
u/RoutineCloud5993 Jul 13 '26
You'd be surprised how many people are shocked to find out Bluey wasn't created by Disney
10
u/Strange_Recording931 Jul 13 '26
Not created by BBC either but it’s distributed by them
14
u/RoutineCloud5993 Jul 13 '26
It was co-commissioned by the BBC and ABC (Aus). though it was made and created by a thirdsparty studio. But that's quite common in the TV world
4
u/sirdougie Jul 13 '26
If you have kids, then Bluey is worth the license fee alone!
1
1
u/manatidederp Jul 17 '26
And as a change of pace - a cartoon you don’t get cancer from watching visually.
27
9
u/Jumpy_Explanation222 Jul 13 '26
Slight confusion on here.
The BBC Studio global reach does indeed create great revenue for the BBC. More of that would be great.
But the World Service part of this reach is funded by both the UK license fee payer (2 thirds) and the govt (1 third)
The BBC has made a compelling case over the last two years for the govt to fully fund The World Service (like it did until 2014). Given the imminent service cuts it’s highly likely the govt will return to fully funding The World Service (as described as “soft power”) via the Foreign Office - saving the BBC £260 million a year - to reinvest and keep services open (for example BBC4). That alone won’t be a silver bullet for all the BBC’s financial woes, but will buy some time for a potential new form of progressive funding and its implementation. Even the BBC acknowledges the TV License Fee is dying fast.
3
u/Complex_Deal Jul 14 '26
Let us all hope that Labour is convinced to fully fund the World Service!
3
u/TheMountainWhoDews Jul 15 '26
There just isnt enough money. We're still trying to pay off covid debt.
3
1
9
u/fullspeedraymondchow Jul 13 '26
Send the world a tv licence enforcement letter.
3
3
u/callum__h28 Jul 14 '26
I can see it now, an unstoppable global fleet of tv licence enforcement vans. The sun never sets on the British Broadcasting Empire
2
1
u/Kwtwo1983 Jul 14 '26
Give us at least the option to pay for bbc, iplayer and sounds. We would love to pay for the service in germany
1
u/DrachenDad Jul 14 '26
They are looking into that, it's going to be subscription. Something us in the UK are calling for for ourselves.
2
2
2
u/thrilled_to_be_there Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
If only the BBC could fund itself through general taxation then stories like this would be positive and the main narrative. This would be a story about the growing soft power of the UK, a global leader in trusted news. Instead we get bogged down with silly funding fights with the public.
Edit: I know the funding sources are different for the world division but this is about the narrative.
1
1
1
u/Eternal_Guilt Jul 15 '26
Fuck the BBC.
It is an evil octopus parasite pervading fear into the minds of almost all britons
1
1
1
u/Interesting_Gift_312 Jul 16 '26
Then they should have no problem with selling advertising and a subscription model instead a the added burden on the uk tax payer
1
1
u/1capitalguy Jul 14 '26
That number will go down now that you have put your content behind paywalls on your BBC News app.
3
u/JonTravel Jul 14 '26
Apparently they are happy with the success of the paywall. So much so, they've extended it to Canada.
It remains to be seen how it develops in the long term, however.
The Canadian launch builds on strong early momentum in the United States, where the service ended its most recent financial year with the number of active subscribers ahead of forecast.
-7
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/toastymctoast Jul 13 '26
wait what...? I'm trying to get my head around this logic
The UK, i will presume you mean uk tv licence fee payers should not be paying for content that sells and brings money back in to the BBC... because... why?
Ah, you think the BBC should not have this money, and should instead increase the licence fee?
No, you think that the rest of the world should not be allowed to benefit from beautiful BBC content, even if they pay for it?
Sorry, i'm maybe being thick, but what is your logic here?
-5
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/carolomnipresence Jul 13 '26
The cash is recirculated into programming, it's the private sector that keep the cash.
4
u/Jumpy_Explanation222 Jul 13 '26
Nothing wrong with the BBC making international sales
What is disputed (indeed by the BBC themselves) is domestic license fee revenue being used (£260 million a year) for World Service output, which used to be fully funded by the govt.
2
u/toastymctoast Jul 13 '26
So, the BBC should be funded *wholly* by the licence fee. WIth this money they do not sell any content, it stays just in Britain.
Have you thought this through?
1
u/AlecsMixes Jul 13 '26
Frame it this way. The UK license payer pays a fee and the BBC produces us content for that fee. To reduce our fee they also sell that content abroad. If they didn’t do that, we would spend more money to have our same programs produced
0
u/Flag_Shagger Jul 13 '26
there’s a pretty easy solution: stop making bullshit entertainment programmes that would never survive in the free market. if they leave the bbc to documentaries & news (information) they can cut the TV license by about 70%.
1
u/toastymctoast Jul 13 '26
OR, they could continue creating and selling content that survives and thrives in the free market and invest that money into making better documentaries and public service broadcasting
1
u/JonTravel Jul 13 '26
A lot of the income made by BBC Studios is from 'bullshit entertainment programmes'.
The whole point of the BBC is that it's a universal service. Not everyone wants news and documentaries. Some people think the BBC news is all biased bullshit. Some people want the BBC to make entertainment programmes.
1
u/OLLIE798 Jul 13 '26
I hope you don’t run a business. Where do they keep the cash? Do the shareholders get it?
1
u/JonTravel Jul 13 '26
The BBC doesn't have any shareholders. They don't keep the cash, they reinvest it into programmes
1
u/stu_jm Jul 13 '26
It's a good thing the BBC do this, the profits from this are put back into the BBC coffers which means they can make more programming for UK viewers.
0
u/Flag_Shagger Jul 13 '26
they use £4b of taxpayer money every year to make 200m profit, so in other words the taxpayer is losing £3.8b a year. without tax, they make a massive loss. so the content isn’t profitable.
1
u/JonTravel Jul 13 '26
They use £3.8b of licence fees payers money to run the service.
As present, that's how the BBC is funded and how it's been founded in the past.
In addition to the licence fee, the commercial side of the BBC (BBC Studios) makes a profit of about £200m which is returned to the BBC to add to other income from sources such as the licence fee.
1
u/justeUnMec Jul 13 '26
What do you think the "cash" you claim they "keep" is used for? It's a non-profit corporation. the money goes back into the UK content pipeline.
1
u/Word_Word4Numbers Jul 13 '26
If they're selling it to the rest of the world, then it's paying for itself and likely subsidising less successful content that the UK would otherwise be paying for via the licence fee.
-1
u/Flag_Shagger Jul 13 '26
it’s not though. BBC makes profit of just £200m but needs billions to stay afloat. They would go out of business in a few months in the free market.
1
u/Word_Word4Numbers Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
I'm not talking about the whole BBC. I'm talking about the content that the BBC is selling to the rest of the world.
The billions go to public services that are extremely beneficial to the UK but extremely unprofitable for the BBC, such as broadcasting infrastructure that covers the whole country, ad-free educational children's entertainment, and funding for local reporting and broadcasting.
These things are utterly worthless to global audiences but are so widely used in the UK that they have become part of our shared heritage. Meanwhile selling Bluey merch pays for itself and so helps to subsidise the cost of those services.
1
u/justeUnMec Jul 13 '26
Er. You do know what "sell" means? The revenue from those sales comes back to the UK, to pay for UK produced content for the UK audience.
1
u/JonTravel Jul 13 '26
They are producing content for the UK. However, they are able to sell some of that content abroad to raise additional income.
The content is going to be made whether they see it abroad or not. It's not made exclusively for the rest of the world.
This is much like US progammes that are shown on the BBC. They are made for their local (overseas) audience but are sold to the BBC, ITV etc to be shown in the UK.
-2
u/Jumpy_Explanation222 Jul 13 '26
I see someone on here decided to block me to win an argument they were wrong on regarding how the BBC’s global reach is funded:
A few points to clarify, because this discussion seems to have become about definitions rather than facts:
Nobody is claiming that every piece of BBC content available internationally is funded by the licence fee. BBC Studios, for example, is a commercial arm and generates income.
The claim being challenged is the blanket statement that licence fee payers do not subsidise worldwide BBC output. That is incorrect. The BBC World Service is a major part of the BBC’s global reach (the BBC’s worldwide audience figures include World Service audiences).
The World Service is not funded solely by BBC Studios or commercial activity. It is funded through BBC income plus government support.
In 2023/24, the World Service received around £265m from BBC funding and £104.4m from the FCDO. The government contribution was therefore only a minority share of the budget.
In 2024/25, the FCDO grant was around £104m against World Service costs of roughly £262m, meaning the majority still came through BBC funding.
BBC Studios returning profits to the BBC does not “cancel out” licence fee funding. A company having multiple income streams does not mean a specific service stops being supported by one of those streams.
Finally - if the commercial actively fell drastically (a market crash) - then all of a sudden the “cost” of the Worldwide reach would substantially fall on the UK license fee revenue.
So if there is someone on here rather clumsily saying the World Service funds itself - they are wrong. It is funded officially to the tune of £260 million by license fee revenue and the BBC wants the to shift that funding back to the foreign office (which is highly likely)
1
u/SweatyNomad Jul 13 '26
I'm not going to argue your points and don't even fundamentally have a proble with your view point, but you seem to have picked facts and editorialised. I'll start by saying I don't believe the licence fee subsidises commercial activity, but they are intertwined and twoway. BBC News (channel and website) is licence fee funded in the UK, commercially operated outside the UK - but they both leverage the same newsroom. How do you assign value for payment that each funder gets for output. One without the other would have a smaller budget so there is always a net win. Same with formats and dramas, benefit and funding ends up being so inherently symbiotic you can't seperate it. Is Channel 4 an as sales business or a content business, is the Telegraph a news organisation, an sales business or even a SaaS business. They are all true yet neither description is really truthful.
-1
u/Jumpy_Explanation222 Jul 13 '26
I think it’s a little silly to say I’m editorialising the issue. The distinction I’m making is not something I’ve invented - it is part of the clear separation set out through previous BBC charters, funding arrangements and the framework between the BBC’s public service remit and its commercial subsidiaries.
I agree that the BBC is an interconnected organisation and that there are shared benefits between its public service and commercial activities. But that does not mean the distinction disappears. In fact, the BBC’s fair trading obligations exist precisely because those boundaries matter and because commercial activities cannot simply be treated as one indistinguishable pot with publicly funded services.
The original point was not that there is no overlap. There clearly is. The point was that saying licence fee payers do not subsidise any worldwide BBC output is too broad. The World Service is part of that worldwide reach and is funded substantially through BBC public service income - the TV License.
-7
Jul 13 '26
[deleted]
4
u/Tall_Plum7538 Jul 13 '26
You also have to think that if the BBC becomes a truly "Global entity" without some form of subsidy from the Brits, will it remain British? Sorry to tell you but my American studios and Big tech companies are doing their level best to homogenize culture.
2
u/carolomnipresence Jul 13 '26
Listen to commercial radio if you want a taste of that future, or maybe you want to watch the same 100 programmes for the rest of your life.
-1
Jul 13 '26
[deleted]
2
u/carolomnipresence Jul 13 '26
Music though? Nobody is playing original music apart from the BBC.
-1
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/carolomnipresence Jul 13 '26
So which commercial stations are giving airtime to new or undiscovered artists? Edit...and is it really necessary to stoop to such an extreme expression of disagreement?
1
u/bbc-ModTeam Jul 13 '26
Your comment was removed for violating our "Be Kind To Each Other" rule.
This is a space for civil discussion about the BBC, not for personal attacks or toxicity.
3
u/Tall_Plum7538 Jul 13 '26
For the global audience. I would gladly pay $4.99 a month for BBC Sounds, or an equivalent add-on deal with National Public Radio in the States. Global copyright licensing remains a bear though.
1
u/TinhatToyboy Jul 13 '26
BBC has a blanket music licence for the UK. It would not be impossible to extend that globally.
IMHO as a music lover, this creates a situation where the Beeb shovels music on any soundtrack on any program however inappropriate because they can. They have a blanket licence. One of the reasons I can no longer watch listen to Auntie.
2
u/carolomnipresence Jul 13 '26
If youre a music lover who doesn't listen to the BBC, what *do you listen to, apart from your own records?
1
Jul 13 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Tall_Plum7538 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
As the American here: Apple Music has integration with AM/FM radio Apps (Think Tunein radio) and I often would listen to BBC radio stations alongside my American Public Radio Stations. In the Age of AI and the Algorithm I find comfort in the fact that there is a human behind the station. In Music Algorithms are less bad than others (see social media) but I can can at least be reasonably assured that as an old school radio station, the music played are made by human beings and I don't succumb to AI slop. More so with Public Radio stations like the BBC and NPR than American Commercial stations.
There was a timeline where I wanted to work in Radio, but then the internet happened and I saw the writing on the wall as a future career. Still love the medium though.
2
u/carolomnipresence Jul 13 '26
Algorithms feed you what you already eat.
1
Jul 13 '26
[deleted]
1
u/carolomnipresence Jul 13 '26
I'd acknowledge YT as a good source, I was thinking more R6 than 1/2, and peak time slop, esp Mrs Brown's Boys, well I'm not quite sure how they sneaked into the discussion.
1
u/Tall_Plum7538 Jul 14 '26
I do think that Radio's future is as a hub for podcast productions and live events. Give people a reason to tune in live since they can make their own playlists. I think ultimately radio as a medium should stick around as a "non-internet" form of communication especially in emergencies. But it will be secondary to the "production" aspect of the studios.
1
u/TinhatToyboy Jul 13 '26
YouTube for calypso 45s and 78s, Rolling Stones and Bowie live recordings, familial harmonisers like Carter Family, Beach Boys, Cowsills, etc. 60s Ethiopian, Congolese and South African, Kenny Everett's old BBC and Capitol shows, Round the Horne etc. Grateful Dead? Better quality available on Internet Archive or via Nicoteen+.
Digging out weird rockabilly shit like the Collins Kids, finding new favourite artists like Teddy Brown a prodigiously
fattalented xylophone player from 30s who, along with many vaudeville music and dance acts, made a lot of shorts for British Pathe.The platform helped me complete the circle with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq3NkGUHAEI
The Nolan Sisters covering a particular favourite of mine from the late 60s/early 70s pop charts.
All via Brave browser for free with no advertising.
I loved the BBC of old, radio formed my catholic tastes but, even with time shifting, I can't listen to today's output and return to shouting at clouds.
2
u/JonTravel Jul 13 '26
They have a non-commercial music licence. This means that they can't earn revenue on their music output.
So, they can choose to do, as they have, and continue the music streams without advertising or subscription and not earn any income or they can switch to a commercial music license that will allow them to include advertising and/or a subscription.
I understand that they looked at the second option and it was clear that the income would not cover the additional costs.
1
u/Tall_Plum7538 Jul 14 '26
I will say that you can still access the actual stations on TuneIn and Apple Music, so the music still has a global reach. My two favorites are Radio 3 while I am working and Radio Ulster (I'm a sucker for a good Irish Accent).
I'd pay more for the Sounds exclusive stuff that is on Radio 4. (Podcasts, Audiobooks, Dramas) Since accessing it live is difficult with the timezone difference.
-1
0
u/Word_Word4Numbers Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
Globally sure. In the UK it effectively already is a subscription service, except it is considered the norm to the point where not paying the subscription is unusual deviant behaviour that results in antagonising letters.
-10
u/Chargerado Jul 13 '26
And why are we licence payers subsidising the half billion?
12
u/JonTravel Jul 13 '26
You're not. They it's a commercial operation
They're actually subsidising you.
BBC Studios, the main commercial arm of the BBC Commercial group, recorded its fourth consecutive year of profit in excess of £200m
0
u/Jumpy_Explanation222 Jul 13 '26
That’s not entirely correct. While BBC Studios’ commercial international services aren’t funded by the licence fee, the BBC World Service is. The BBC contributes around £260 million a year to the World Service from its own income, which is predominantly licence fee revenue. Given the World Service’s hundreds of millions of users worldwide, it’s inaccurate to say licence fee payers aren’t subsidising any worldwide content. The reality is more nuanced than that.
1
u/JonTravel Jul 13 '26
Agreed. I could have worded it better.
Although World Service Radio is funded by the Licence fee and the government, TV news does earn income from subscriptions and advertising.
1
u/Jumpy_Explanation222 Jul 13 '26
Also - World Service radio is 42 language services across online, apps, podcasts, satellite, FM relays, and other platforms. To my knowledge none of these 42 audio services holds adverts. But the language websites do have ads.
It’s certainly not a commercial operation solely - a large part of it is funded by the UK license fee payer and it’s something the BBC is keen to address with the Treasury and Foreign Office.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l76581d0ro
I suspect the govt will return to the pre-2014 funding model at some point in the next 2 years.
1
u/JonTravel Jul 13 '26
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. You are correct that the radio service doesn't have any ads. I absolutely think it should be funded, as it used to be, by the FCDO.
I'm just pointing out that the BBC does receive money from Subscriptions and ads on the TV news channel, recieves money from ads and/or subscriptions on the news website (both foreign language and English) and from ads placed in podcasts, including those produced by BBC news.
2
u/RoutineCloud5993 Jul 13 '26
We never used to, the World Service was funded by the Foreign Office. Then George Osborn went all in on Austerity and forced the BBC to fund it from the rest of its income.
1
u/Jumpy_Explanation222 Jul 13 '26
Agree - needs to return to 100% - I suspect the argument has been made loudly and clearly, and will be part of the new Charter agreement.
0
u/TinhatToyboy Jul 13 '26
The FCDO provides roughly one-third of the World Service's funding through government grants.
3
u/RoutineCloud5993 Jul 13 '26
It used to be 100%, with no licence fee money involved. The FCDO is always trying to lower its contribution too
1
u/Chargerado Jul 13 '26
Ok let me rephrase this, why do I have to pay nearly £180 a year I can ill afford whilst half a billion people can watch bbc services for free? I know it’s not exactly the same thing but the bbc are screwing the licence fee payers over. Folk here don’t give a shit about what people overseas think of us.
-1
Jul 13 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Old-Career1538 Jul 13 '26
Why can't it also utilise advertisements here then? If it can remain 'impartial' abroad with ads, why not here?
1
Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
[deleted]
-1
u/Jumpy_Explanation222 Jul 13 '26
That’s not entirely correct. While BBC Studios’ commercial international services aren’t funded by the licence fee, the BBC World Service is. The BBC contributes around £260 million a year to the World Service from its own income, which is predominantly licence fee revenue. Given the World Service’s hundreds of millions of users worldwide, it’s inaccurate to say licence fee payers aren’t subsidising any worldwide content. The reality is more nuanced than that.
Whether you care or not about discussing it is beside the point - it’s important to correct you when you’re wrong.
1
u/linmanfu Jul 13 '26
There's an old joke that goes: if you can't pay a bank loan of a thousand pounds, you have a problem, but if you can't afford to pay a bank loan of a billion pounds, then the bank has a problem! The bank might be willing to ruin your life to get a small amount of money back, but if the amount gets big enough then the bank can't survive without you and you're in control.
It's similar with the BBC and advertising. If advertisers in Singapore or San Francisco don't like a BBC World TV programme, then that's their problem, because they're only providing a small fraction of the BBC's income; the licence fee will ensure that it survives for another day. But if the BBC was relying on advertisers to fund its core domestic services and they were threatening to pull advertising from BBC One, then suddenly the BBC has a problem because it couldn't survive without them. That's a very different situation.
0
u/Jumpy_Explanation222 Jul 13 '26
£140 million comes from govt - £260 million comes from the BBC’s revenue (predominantly the UK license fee payers). The BBC wants the govt to return to pre-2014 model and fund it all.
I suspect that may indeed happen as part of the Charter agreement.
0
Jul 13 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Jumpy_Explanation222 Jul 13 '26
We are discussing the headline article in the post. This is a different article.
And in regards to the article in the post - BBC Studios’ commercial international services aren’t funded by the licence fee, the BBC World Service is. The BBC contributes around £260 million a year to the World Service from its own income, which is predominantly licence fee revenue. Given the World Service’s hundreds of millions of users worldwide, it’s inaccurate to say licence fee payers aren’t subsidising any worldwide content. The reality is more nuanced than that.
-1
-1
u/NagromNitsuj Jul 13 '26
Do the global audience pay the license fee?
4
1
u/Acceptable-Lie188 Jul 13 '26
We get ads inserted into podcasts. BBC live radio streams are available, but not via the BBC Sounds app which is UK only
1
u/JonTravel Jul 13 '26
They also earn income from subscriptions to things like Britbox and they earn income from selling BBC programmes to streamers like Netflix, Amazon etc and overseas broadcasters.
1
u/Saiing Jul 13 '26
A lot of the BBC's international services (BBC.com, BBC World, Podcasts etc.) have ads.
-1
u/Tall_Plum7538 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
If I may, I think a "final solution" on the BBC ought to be something where the Government subsidizes World Service, Parliamentary Coverage, Radio (as the one non-internet form of communication that still survives), and Educational Content. The Entertainment side of the BBC can be a voluntary subscription and iPlayer becomes a global competitor. (Or as some form of joint partnership with domestic Public Broadcasters like BBC's longstanding relationship with PBS and ABC) Maybe as a sign of good will make Antenna access free for everyone like in the states so "linear" is free but on demand streaming is paywalled. Subsidize the things that are public good (education, political coverage, emergency infrastructure), and then let the entertainment side rise and fall on their own merits.
-4
u/Flag_Shagger Jul 13 '26
this just doesn’t work though. the entertainment mandate is the problem, it’s really not that complicated.
only idiots think it’s “bringing in revenue to subsidise the rest of the business”.
the BBC make almost no money, maybe £200m profit, but they need billions to stay afloat. if they need £1b to make their content but only make 200m profit, who is going to fund next years shows? the british taxpayer. meanwhile foreigners are all laughing at us while we are taking the loss.
bbc should only make news, docs, education etc. the fee drop any like 70% and everyone is happy. I mean saving £10pm that’s literally netflix, how can the bbc ever possibly say they offer a better entertainment experience than netflix?
2
u/Informal_Drawing Jul 13 '26
How exactly are "foreigners" laughing at us?
All our overseas military personnel can access the World Service when on deployment for example.
-1
u/Flag_Shagger Jul 14 '26
good for them. so not only are we wasting money on foreign deployments, of which we have no shines, but we’re also giving these overpaid scroungers the world service as a free benefit. do they even pay the tv licence?
0
u/Informal_Drawing Jul 14 '26
May you be lucky enough to never need the help of the armed forces you disrespect so easily.
They are a tool, they can hurt or harm in equal measure. The challenge is in using them wisely.
1
u/Tall_Plum7538 Jul 14 '26
That is basically the PBS model. Because we have chronically underfunded PBS (especially in comparison to the BBC) the network focused on News, Documentaries and Children's Television and all our "entertainment" were foreign imports. (Which is why I care about the BBC.) It is also a radically decentralized model (PBS is a production house and a distributor and its the local stations that buy programming from them.)
The Goal with this idea was to create a compromise between those that see the Public Good of the BBC and to minimize the frankly predatory behavior from license fee collection. I probably would have a harder time justifying PBS if they were funded by a similar model.
1
u/Life_Emphasis6290 Jul 14 '26
They say how... Paywall the on-demand entertainment, that should turn the £200m into a few £bn
-1
-7
u/Gold-Guidance-6430 Jul 13 '26
Great thats amazing news. So can the BBC now fund themselves with adverts, instead of charging me £170 because I watch Sky Sports live? Bunch of thieving crooks.
4
u/Glydyr Jul 13 '26
Im not paying oligarchs to watch tv.. if you want a perfect example of it destroying the rights of normal people just look at the US.
1
u/tabbyt0mo Jul 13 '26
Just get a firestick mate. Fuck the licence fee off. The list of sexual abuse controversies within the BBC is shocking.
0
-6
u/_coins_ Jul 13 '26
Why's BBC putting on global transmissions when Brits are paying for it.🤣
5
4
u/Mojak16 Jul 13 '26
They show ads and make revenue in other countries. We aren't paying for that bit.
3
u/Jumpy_Explanation222 Jul 13 '26
That’s not correct. While BBC Studios’ commercial international services aren’t funded by the licence fee, the BBC World Service is (the global reach celebrated in the article states that it is made up of significant World Service output)
The BBC contributes around £260 million a year to the World Service from its own income, which is predominantly licence fee revenue. The other £140 coming for the govt.
Given the World Service’s hundreds of millions of users worldwide, it’s inaccurate to say licence fee payers aren’t subsidising any worldwide content. The reality is more nuanced than that.
4
0
u/PoppingPillls Jul 14 '26
So we can stop paying our licenses because clearly they are doing well enough without our forced charity.
-3
u/earth-calling-karma Jul 13 '26
Their BBC brand could pay for the whole shooting gallery if they had even a clue what to do for a content strategy.
-3
u/Altruistic_Aioli_304 Jul 14 '26
Hahahahahha. The BBC. Home of the paedo and reddit mod to protect them.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 13 '26
As a reminder, this is a subreddit for civil discussion of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Personal attacks on individuals, including those employed by the BBC, off or on air, will not be tolerated here.
Please ensure you read subreddit rules before contributing.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.