An experiment depriving 80 homes of all BBC programmes and services for nine days found that sceptical viewers were more willing to pay the charge as a result of the experience.
The study, conducted by research company MTM on behalf of the BBC, cut off access to any BBC services, across TV, radio, online and apps, for nine days, covering two full weekends, for just under 200 people.
Participants were also not permitted to watch any BBC content available via other services such as Netflix or YouTube. In return, they received the cost of the licence fee for those days, which works out at about £3.90.
The study found that 70 per cent of those who initially said they would rather do without the BBC, or would prefer to pay less for it, changed their minds and became willing to pay the full licence fee or more to keep BBC content and services.
BBC director-general Tim Davie, who will present the results at a media conference on Wednesday, hopes the outcome will help persuade ministers not to abolish the compulsory charge when the current Royal Charter expires in 2027.
Approximately one million households have cancelled their licence fees altogether over the past two years. But the BBC isn’t alone in feeling the squeeze as the cost of living crisis escalates.
Around 1.5 million Britons cancelled subscriptions to Britbox, Disney Plus, NowTV, and Apple TV Plus in the first three months of 2022, a huge increase of half a million on the same time last year.
Reasons given by the experiment participants for changing their views, included a realisation that they had “underestimated the amount of BBC content and services they consumed in their daily lives”.
This included missing out on “high-profile dramas, event TV and live sport that brings the country together; missing CBeebies and CBBC; missing BBC iPlayer; missing the BBC radio stations/Sounds that they listened to; and missing BBC online services.”
Other factors were an increased understanding of the variety of services the licence fee pays for; the high quality of content; missing content without advertising; and greater recognition of the cultural and societal role of the BBC in UK life.
A BBC source said: “We know from our audiences – whether it’s fearless reporting from Ukraine; a love of Strictly; World Cups; or turning to Bitesize – that a universal BBC has a unique place in UK life.
“No one is complacent – we know we have to earn that support, provide something for everyone and continue to offer great value.”
The study produced a near identical result to a “deprivation” experiment conducted in 2014/2015, despite a significant increase in global competition from other broadcasters, subscription services and platforms.
People don’t realise what they have until it is taken from them.
If the TV license was the same price as a Netflix SD subscription I don’t think people would have any issue with that, however it isn’t. They also use bullying tactics to get people to pay their license fee even resorting to intimidation and threatening legal action. That attitude to their ‘customers’ has to change and they need to finally realise their product is nowhere near as good or worth as much as they think it is.
Make it a subscription service then and not a imposed service. That way if people want it they can pay for it.
Or maybe don’t hound those that wish to opt out
As it stands it is poor value. IMO.
[removed]
I stopped paying, sent them a statement 2 years ago and don’t miss it. Altho someone else has the host the Eurovision party this year. I’ve got multiple streaming services I can’t even keep up with.
I don’t mind the BBC but almost all of its television content just doesn’t appeal to me. They try and please everyone and not take risks
I am very satisfied with its radio and online content
>Could you live without the BBC?
Yes. Haven’t had a TV license for 3 years. It’s really not a big thing.
so the experiment shows that there is no need for an enforced TV licence, with a licence Gestapo enforcing a law that you have to have one to ever view stuff that actually they are beaming into your house whether you asked them to or not.
In fact, they could just exist as a subscription, which surely is what the Government is suggesting they change to.
IV changed my mind on the BBC over recent years.
My personal opinion is that as a nation we should have a public broadcast / news and radio service.
But it should be part of our taxes and not a “licence fee”
This, however, should be a limited budget (Lower than what it is now) the intention should be to provide a “free” service to ensure people always have access to news and entertainment.
The BBC should also offer a subscription service for their more expensive “premium” shows
I’d be interested in how they chose these households for this experiment.
*The study, conducted by research company MTM on behalf of the BBC…*
The idea that the views of 80 households can be extrapolated to the entire country seems not to hold water.
I mean, if it were 8000 households it might have some basis to it. And of course such a study not being commissioned by the BBC itself.
For context, I live alone. I cancelled my sky and tv license a few months back, and haven’t missed it one bit. Even when I was more of a TV watcher, it was never live broadcast shows and it was very rarely a BBC show I would watch – I was mostly watching Sky Atlantic shows on demand. I can’t remember the last time I saw a BBC show that I thought I absolutely must watch.
I use Spotify or Radio X in the car/while working, have Netflix and Disney+, and tend to spend evenings either gaming or reading. They can “prove the value” to however many households, but it doesn’t change the fact that there is no value in me paying a license fee.
This person stopped paying 15 years ago and has been harassed ever since. They document every communication by the enforcers at this website.
I did not notice as I use none of those things hehe
We need a vector for public education and information. The bbc is made for this and I don’t see how we replace it. Perhaps the bbc should be scaled back to one channel that does news and fact based documentaries – they used to do documentaries and shows for school , I think it might even have been done with the open university.
I would willingly contribute towards this. I would also contribute to one radio channel.
I don’t think the bbc should be wading in on race , sexuality , gender, religion or any other subjective/cultural topic.
Fuck ‘em. A VPN and attitude adjustment is all you need to circumvent these nonce hiding fuckwits.
Why would you pay it when you don’t consume any of their services?
Not sure how holding people hostage to when and where they can use a product they pay (Legally enforced) would work, where if Netflix did the same, they would lose subscription, because people wouldn’t pay for a product they were denied their access to.
​
​
Hell, this now enforced the belief that we should scrap the TV licence fee, and and for those affected, you should seek a refund for the nine days you were denied access to a product you paid for.
I use an emulator and get it all for free from around the world. What really pissed me off is that Killing Eve aired 3 weeks earlier in the US than in UK.
So tired if this. Fund from general taxation and let’s move on
When I moved to this place about 15 years ago, the aerial didn’t work. Since then I’ve not “watched live TV as it is broadcast”.
Since they got a refund of the license fee, that tells me they had already paid and as such, use live TV.
If you cut off my access to the BBC, I wouldn’t even have a clue except for if I followed a link to the BBC news site, which is accessible free without a license and could easily be replaced with another news source if it was to go altogether.
I believe the license either should be scrapped or the laws surrounding it be re-written.
If I wanted to pay for a live sporting event (lets say UFC) and watch it on my PC, making use of no BBC facilities to do so, I’d still be breaking the law, because the event is being streamed at the same time on TV.
I get the BBC maintain broadcasting stations and that needs paying for, but when I’m not using those facilities, I shouldn’t have to pay for it. It’s no different to me watching netflix or prime.
Not paid for 10 odd years. Just make it a subscription service rather than beaming out your programming unencrypted
If they know the value of their product, enter the free market, customers will flow in if they believe what they’re offering is of value
Wether it is or it isn’t, nobody should be forced to be pay for a product
Good things do not need to rely on threats of prison time to get you to pay for them.
It was supposed to be 20 days but they shat themselves when people were like – What’s the BBC?
Every fucker here is all “I cancelled by licence fee and don’t use the BBC for anything” and then a bomb goes off and the entire country (and beyond) hits bbc.co.uk
The article is behind a paywall, but how were they planning on switching off terrestrial broadcast television and radio for a few people? that’s impossible.
as for apps, there’s only Iplayer that you need a TV licence for, I would guess it quite easy to no use that for a few weeks tbh.
I would happily watch adverts on the BBC or websites if it meant I didn’t need a TV license. But because of the way the law works, I can’t watch any live TV from any provider as I don’t have a license.
So I stick to YouTube, Prime and Disney. No need for Sky or freeview.
Remember they have the same rights as the milkman or postman does at your front door- they have no right to get answers from you on anything, no right to do anything except approach and knock on your front door via an obvious front pathway; even that right is taken away from them with a “no entry sign” half way down your garden path.
Literally nothing they can do if you answer the door and just silently stare at them until they leave.
As for letters, bin them as junk mail. That is literally what it’s categorised as, even though they try to make it look like some legal threatening notice.
This is the wrong question. The right question to ask is of the people considering leaving and have already left why is it they want to stop paying or have already done so. That right there is the problem. Being able to turn around in practice 70% of those potentially leaving isn’t very impressive, infact it says 30% of your audience would leave if it was easier to do so. But if they want to improve their financial situation they need to be asking the right questions rather than trying to frame this as some form of gift that no one can do without.
obviously then the value wasn’t much as it’s the first time i’d heard about it.
Sounds like Vladimir Putin is the new commissioner for the BBC.
In Russia BBC does not need you, you need BBC.
“Today comrades tried to go cold turkey with additional incentive of a 3 ruble compensation, only to suffer unbearable withdrawals – so pay for BBC, like a propagandariat!”
I’ll start paying when there’s something decent on tv
36 comments
Could you live without the BBC?
An experiment depriving 80 homes of all BBC programmes and services for nine days found that sceptical viewers were more willing to pay the charge as a result of the experience.
The study, conducted by research company MTM on behalf of the BBC, cut off access to any BBC services, across TV, radio, online and apps, for nine days, covering two full weekends, for just under 200 people.
Participants were also not permitted to watch any BBC content available via other services such as Netflix or YouTube. In return, they received the cost of the licence fee for those days, which works out at about £3.90.
The study found that 70 per cent of those who initially said they would rather do without the BBC, or would prefer to pay less for it, changed their minds and became willing to pay the full licence fee or more to keep BBC content and services.
BBC director-general Tim Davie, who will present the results at a media conference on Wednesday, hopes the outcome will help persuade ministers not to abolish the compulsory charge when the current Royal Charter expires in 2027.
Approximately one million households have cancelled their licence fees altogether over the past two years. But the BBC isn’t alone in feeling the squeeze as the cost of living crisis escalates.
Around 1.5 million Britons cancelled subscriptions to Britbox, Disney Plus, NowTV, and Apple TV Plus in the first three months of 2022, a huge increase of half a million on the same time last year.
Reasons given by the experiment participants for changing their views, included a realisation that they had “underestimated the amount of BBC content and services they consumed in their daily lives”.
This included missing out on “high-profile dramas, event TV and live sport that brings the country together; missing CBeebies and CBBC; missing BBC iPlayer; missing the BBC radio stations/Sounds that they listened to; and missing BBC online services.”
Other factors were an increased understanding of the variety of services the licence fee pays for; the high quality of content; missing content without advertising; and greater recognition of the cultural and societal role of the BBC in UK life.
A BBC source said: “We know from our audiences – whether it’s fearless reporting from Ukraine; a love of Strictly; World Cups; or turning to Bitesize – that a universal BBC has a unique place in UK life.
“No one is complacent – we know we have to earn that support, provide something for everyone and continue to offer great value.”
The study produced a near identical result to a “deprivation” experiment conducted in 2014/2015, despite a significant increase in global competition from other broadcasters, subscription services and platforms.
People don’t realise what they have until it is taken from them.
If the TV license was the same price as a Netflix SD subscription I don’t think people would have any issue with that, however it isn’t. They also use bullying tactics to get people to pay their license fee even resorting to intimidation and threatening legal action. That attitude to their ‘customers’ has to change and they need to finally realise their product is nowhere near as good or worth as much as they think it is.
Make it a subscription service then and not a imposed service. That way if people want it they can pay for it.
Or maybe don’t hound those that wish to opt out
As it stands it is poor value. IMO.
[removed]
I stopped paying, sent them a statement 2 years ago and don’t miss it. Altho someone else has the host the Eurovision party this year. I’ve got multiple streaming services I can’t even keep up with.
I don’t mind the BBC but almost all of its television content just doesn’t appeal to me. They try and please everyone and not take risks
I am very satisfied with its radio and online content
>Could you live without the BBC?
Yes. Haven’t had a TV license for 3 years. It’s really not a big thing.
so the experiment shows that there is no need for an enforced TV licence, with a licence Gestapo enforcing a law that you have to have one to ever view stuff that actually they are beaming into your house whether you asked them to or not.
In fact, they could just exist as a subscription, which surely is what the Government is suggesting they change to.
IV changed my mind on the BBC over recent years.
My personal opinion is that as a nation we should have a public broadcast / news and radio service.
But it should be part of our taxes and not a “licence fee”
This, however, should be a limited budget (Lower than what it is now) the intention should be to provide a “free” service to ensure people always have access to news and entertainment.
The BBC should also offer a subscription service for their more expensive “premium” shows
I’d be interested in how they chose these households for this experiment.
*The study, conducted by research company MTM on behalf of the BBC…*
The idea that the views of 80 households can be extrapolated to the entire country seems not to hold water.
I mean, if it were 8000 households it might have some basis to it. And of course such a study not being commissioned by the BBC itself.
For context, I live alone. I cancelled my sky and tv license a few months back, and haven’t missed it one bit. Even when I was more of a TV watcher, it was never live broadcast shows and it was very rarely a BBC show I would watch – I was mostly watching Sky Atlantic shows on demand. I can’t remember the last time I saw a BBC show that I thought I absolutely must watch.
I use Spotify or Radio X in the car/while working, have Netflix and Disney+, and tend to spend evenings either gaming or reading. They can “prove the value” to however many households, but it doesn’t change the fact that there is no value in me paying a license fee.
This person stopped paying 15 years ago and has been harassed ever since. They document every communication by the enforcers at this website.
[http://www.bbctvlicence.com/](http://www.bbctvlicence.com/)
I did not notice as I use none of those things hehe
We need a vector for public education and information. The bbc is made for this and I don’t see how we replace it. Perhaps the bbc should be scaled back to one channel that does news and fact based documentaries – they used to do documentaries and shows for school , I think it might even have been done with the open university.
I would willingly contribute towards this. I would also contribute to one radio channel.
I don’t think the bbc should be wading in on race , sexuality , gender, religion or any other subjective/cultural topic.
Fuck ‘em. A VPN and attitude adjustment is all you need to circumvent these nonce hiding fuckwits.
Why would you pay it when you don’t consume any of their services?
Not sure how holding people hostage to when and where they can use a product they pay (Legally enforced) would work, where if Netflix did the same, they would lose subscription, because people wouldn’t pay for a product they were denied their access to.
​
​
Hell, this now enforced the belief that we should scrap the TV licence fee, and and for those affected, you should seek a refund for the nine days you were denied access to a product you paid for.
I use an emulator and get it all for free from around the world. What really pissed me off is that Killing Eve aired 3 weeks earlier in the US than in UK.
So tired if this. Fund from general taxation and let’s move on
When I moved to this place about 15 years ago, the aerial didn’t work. Since then I’ve not “watched live TV as it is broadcast”.
Since they got a refund of the license fee, that tells me they had already paid and as such, use live TV.
If you cut off my access to the BBC, I wouldn’t even have a clue except for if I followed a link to the BBC news site, which is accessible free without a license and could easily be replaced with another news source if it was to go altogether.
I believe the license either should be scrapped or the laws surrounding it be re-written.
If I wanted to pay for a live sporting event (lets say UFC) and watch it on my PC, making use of no BBC facilities to do so, I’d still be breaking the law, because the event is being streamed at the same time on TV.
I get the BBC maintain broadcasting stations and that needs paying for, but when I’m not using those facilities, I shouldn’t have to pay for it. It’s no different to me watching netflix or prime.
Not paid for 10 odd years. Just make it a subscription service rather than beaming out your programming unencrypted
If they know the value of their product, enter the free market, customers will flow in if they believe what they’re offering is of value
Wether it is or it isn’t, nobody should be forced to be pay for a product
Good things do not need to rely on threats of prison time to get you to pay for them.
It was supposed to be 20 days but they shat themselves when people were like – What’s the BBC?
Every fucker here is all “I cancelled by licence fee and don’t use the BBC for anything” and then a bomb goes off and the entire country (and beyond) hits bbc.co.uk
The article is behind a paywall, but how were they planning on switching off terrestrial broadcast television and radio for a few people? that’s impossible.
as for apps, there’s only Iplayer that you need a TV licence for, I would guess it quite easy to no use that for a few weeks tbh.
I would happily watch adverts on the BBC or websites if it meant I didn’t need a TV license. But because of the way the law works, I can’t watch any live TV from any provider as I don’t have a license.
So I stick to YouTube, Prime and Disney. No need for Sky or freeview.
Remember they have the same rights as the milkman or postman does at your front door- they have no right to get answers from you on anything, no right to do anything except approach and knock on your front door via an obvious front pathway; even that right is taken away from them with a “no entry sign” half way down your garden path.
Literally nothing they can do if you answer the door and just silently stare at them until they leave.
As for letters, bin them as junk mail. That is literally what it’s categorised as, even though they try to make it look like some legal threatening notice.
This is the wrong question. The right question to ask is of the people considering leaving and have already left why is it they want to stop paying or have already done so. That right there is the problem. Being able to turn around in practice 70% of those potentially leaving isn’t very impressive, infact it says 30% of your audience would leave if it was easier to do so. But if they want to improve their financial situation they need to be asking the right questions rather than trying to frame this as some form of gift that no one can do without.
obviously then the value wasn’t much as it’s the first time i’d heard about it.
Sounds like Vladimir Putin is the new commissioner for the BBC.
In Russia BBC does not need you, you need BBC.
“Today comrades tried to go cold turkey with additional incentive of a 3 ruble compensation, only to suffer unbearable withdrawals – so pay for BBC, like a propagandariat!”
I’ll start paying when there’s something decent on tv