Politics Thread 6

[Ecno]

Germany has an €18 per month household tax with exemptions/reductions for students, UC recipients etc

Just switch to that for simplicity

[Victor Mildew]

Speaking to my nan on the phone last night, and one of the first things she said was, "has Boris gone yet? He's awful."

[Tomous]

Speaking to my nan on the phone last night, and one of the first things she said was, "has Boris gone yet? He's awful."

I hope your Nan is bellwether for the OAP vote

[DML]

It's a tough one. I wouldn't say the licence fee is anywhere near my top 100 issues that need solving, but I really struggle to justify it in this day and age. If I take my household, neither my wife, me or my 8 year old really use BBC services anymore aside from the odd program on Iplayer. That's a huge change compared to 30 years ago.

The way we consume media has massively changed. Take kids TV for example. My son is 8 years old, and I know him and his friends at school watch virtually nothing on TV unless it's films or some Netflix stuff with parents. The days of coming home from school and putting CBBC on are long gone. Or Saturday morning, getting up to watch cartoons or Live and Kicking, kids just aren't watching TV like that anymore.

The BBC can put out genuinely decent diverse kids programs, and no doubt they do, but the audience for it is now so small because they have gone elsewhere.

However, you may not be aware of the other side of the coin. I am fairly sure you have seen the peak of Netflix. The model of the company may be unsustainable moving forward. More content is going to drift away and be put behind paywalls of other apps, or the going rate to keep Netflix is going to keep going up to mitigate. Netflix is such a good deal precisely because they aren't charging a going rate for it. They have a model where companies who make shows for them don't get paid until seven years later. Those charges will start flying in now.

It's all very well saying the BBC needs to modernise (and it might do, true) but the Netflix model would be absolutely unsustainable for it in my opinion.

[DML]

To summarise, would you prefer subscription over a TV license if it cost twice as much and there was a risk of ads?

That's the real question being asked. Anything is probably a strawberry floating fantasy as big as Brexit.

[Tomous]

It's a tough one. I wouldn't say the licence fee is anywhere near my top 100 issues that need solving, but I really struggle to justify it in this day and age. If I take my household, neither my wife, me or my 8 year old really use BBC services anymore aside from the odd program on Iplayer. That's a huge change compared to 30 years ago.

The way we consume media has massively changed. Take kids TV for example. My son is 8 years old, and I know him and his friends at school watch virtually nothing on TV unless it's films or some Netflix stuff with parents. The days of coming home from school and putting CBBC on are long gone. Or Saturday morning, getting up to watch cartoons or Live and Kicking, kids just aren't watching TV like that anymore.

The BBC can put out genuinely decent diverse kids programs, and no doubt they do, but the audience for it is now so small because they have gone elsewhere.

However, you may not be aware of the other side of the coin. I am fairly sure you have seen the peak of Netflix. The model of the company may be unsustainable moving forward. More content is going to drift away and be put behind paywalls of other apps, or the going rate to keep Netflix is going to keep going up to mitigate. Netflix is such a good deal precisely because they aren't charging a going rate for it. They have a model where companies who make shows for them don't get paid until seven years later. Those charges will start flying in now.

It's all very well saying the BBC needs to modernise (and it might do, true) but the Netflix model would be absolutely unsustainable for it in my opinion.

First of all, I don't believe anyone spends millions on making a show for Netflix and agrees not to get paid for 7 years.

Second of all, Netflix recently announced they were cashflow positive and didn't need to take on more external debt. People have been saying the model wasn't sustainable for years because they were needing to take on more and more debt to fund additional content.

Netflix recognised the content going away from them behind paywalls and other apps like Disney and Prime and bet big on making their own shows. But it seems the bet has paid off because they've been posting big profits for the past few years. The fact they're profitable suggests the rate they're charging is sustainable at this level of cost.

Having said that, Netflix had to hit 200m+ subscribers and spend a huge amount of money to get to this point so I would agree that doesn't feel like it's suitable for the BBC.

[OrangeRKN]

The BBC should be funded primarily by taxation, subsidised by but not reliant on its commercial arm (home media releases, selling content abroad, selling old content to other channels).

What the BBC desperately needs is greater independence, protection from government interference (including threats to funding), and an overhaul of its poor approach to "balance".

There is frankly nothing wrong with commercials on the radio so stations can go that way.

The commercial pressure has an editorial effect on content - companies will pay to advertise on shows they want to be associated with, and pay more for peak listening times, thus shows with more commercial appeal will be prioritised if the station is reliant on advertising income.

I listen to Radio 4 and World Service, both would be much worse with adverts and I'm not even sure who would advertise on the World Service with it being global.

[DML]

First of all, I don't believe anyone spends millions on making a show for Netflix and agrees not to get paid for 7 years.

Its true. The money for making the show is given to them, but the 'fee' comes way later, and that is pretty substantial - ie, the profit.

[Tomous]

First of all, I don't believe anyone spends millions on making a show for Netflix and agrees not to get paid for 7 years.

Its true. The money for making the show is given to them, but the 'fee' comes way later, and that is pretty substantial - ie, the profit.

I'm still surprised companies agree to that but regardless, I don't think this is that significant to their long term anyway. I just looked at a consolidated balance sheet from Sept 2021 (most recent I could find), and high level they owe $2.3bn in long term liabilities and $4.1bn due in the next 12 months relating to content. Those figures are pretty standard for eachq quarter over the past few years. For context, they have over $7bn in cash.

Their biggest question mark was on the long term debt which is at $15bn but like I said they've said they no longer need to borrow anymore and are cashflow positive now. They've got to a healthy position that many observers said they wouldn't over the past 5-6 years. Probably helped a little by the pandemic but there we go.

[Photek]

For the past few years the BBC has been an embarrassment tbh. It's political coverage is insane.

[Tomous]

For the past few years the BBC has been an embarrassment tbh. It's political coverage is insane.

This is what annoys me about the both left wing and right wing people don't like it therefore it must be balanced.

Left wingers dislike it because it's been a tool for this Tory government.

Right wingers dislike it because they put minorities on comedy panel shows and stuff like that.

Not the same thing at all.

[Moggy]

For the past few years the BBC has been an embarrassment tbh. It's political coverage is insane.

Wait until you see how bad our other media is at political coverage.

[Photek]

For the past few years the BBC has been an embarrassment tbh. It's political coverage is insane.

Wait until you see how bad our other media is at political coverage.

Sky News isn't as bad is it? Beth Rigby takes no bullsh*t!

[Green Gecko]

First of all, I don't believe anyone spends millions on making a show for Netflix and agrees not to get paid for 7 years.

Its true. The money for making the show is given to them, but the 'fee' comes way later, and that is pretty substantial - ie, the profit.

I'm still surprised companies agree to that but regardless, I don't think this is that significant to their long term anyway. I just looked at a consolidated balance sheet from Sept 2021 (most recent I could find), and high level they owe $2.3bn in long term liabilities and $4.1bn due in the next 12 months relating to content. Those figures are pretty standard for eachq quarter over the past few years. For context, they have over $7bn in cash.

Their biggest question mark was on the long term debt which is at $15bn but like I said they've said they no longer need to borrow anymore and are cashflow positive now. They've got to a healthy position that many observers said they wouldn't over the past 5-6 years. Probably helped a little by the pandemic but there we go.

The likely scenario is the producers and all staff on hand etc get paid their fees and salaries etc but royalties that ultimately come from Netflix's long term profits are paid only to producers, IP licensees and internal and external stakeholders, that is essentially a bonus. That doesn't mean the show producers get ripped off.

Of course delivering a show without basic pay would be unethical, so the 7 years thing probably refers to a maximum extent or end of payment schedule including recurring proceeds. Perhaps after 7 years all residual proceeds attributable to the property go solely to Netflix if they have unlimited and exclusive rights to it, which isn't all that unusual seeing as they likely paid for the majority of costs upfront or to schedule.

Say for example unless the show makers are completely insane they would net fees/salaries/basic pay at a rate they negotiate or mandate to secure the publishing and green light the show, that is their principle pay, the performance of the show or share of proceeds ie royalties (but it could also be a performance based bonus or several or a combination) is a separate component. That ensures the producers get paid. The balance of risk and reward is up to both parties but most creatives would say the risk is born by the commissioning body, in this case Netflix. Artists who take on the fiscal risk are kind of stupid in that scenario, because they may as well do it themselves.

I'm not saying all producers do that and there are many examples throughout history of creatives truly strawberry floating themselves over with zero business acumen or straight up delusion about what matters more: getting out there / fame / notoriety / success or whatever or actually getting paid.

[Knoyleo]

[Rocsteady]

That's really well done.

[Squinty]

The BBC did an online article about toilet history and I think it's a crack-ing read.

[Moggy]

The BBC did an online article about toilet history and I think it's a crack-ing read.

Sounds like something a looser would read.

[Victor Mildew]

"Buttock-clenchingly honest"

[DML]

First of all, I don't believe anyone spends millions on making a show for Netflix and agrees not to get paid for 7 years.

Its true. The money for making the show is given to them, but the 'fee' comes way later, and that is pretty substantial - ie, the profit.

I'm still surprised companies agree to that but regardless, I don't think this is that significant to their long term anyway. I just looked at a consolidated balance sheet from Sept 2021 (most recent I could find), and high level they owe $2.3bn in long term liabilities and $4.1bn due in the next 12 months relating to content. Those figures are pretty standard for eachq quarter over the past few years. For context, they have over $7bn in cash.

Their biggest question mark was on the long term debt which is at $15bn but like I said they've said they no longer need to borrow anymore and are cashflow positive now. They've got to a healthy position that many observers said they wouldn't over the past 5-6 years. Probably helped a little by the pandemic but there we go.

The likely scenario is the producers and all staff on hand etc get paid their fees and salaries etc but royalties that ultimately come from Netflix's long term profits are paid only to producers, IP licensees and internal and external stakeholders, that is essentially a bonus. That doesn't mean the show producers get ripped off.

Of course delivering a show without basic pay would be unethical, so the 7 years thing probably refers to a maximum extent or end of payment schedule including recurring proceeds. Perhaps after 7 years all residual proceeds attributable to the property go solely to Netflix if they have unlimited and exclusive rights to it, which isn't all that unusual seeing as they likely paid for the majority of costs upfront or to schedule.

Say for example unless the show makers are completely insane they would net fees/salaries/basic pay at a rate they negotiate or mandate to secure the publishing and green light the show, that is their principle pay, the performance of the show or share of proceeds ie royalties (but it could also be a performance based bonus or several or a combination) is a separate component. That ensures the producers get paid. The balance of risk and reward is up to both parties but most creatives would say the risk is born by the commissioning body, in this case Netflix. Artists who take on the fiscal risk are kind of stupid in that scenario, because they may as well do it themselves.

I'm not saying all producers do that and there are many examples throughout history of creatives truly strawberry floating themselves over with zero business acumen or straight up delusion about what matters more: getting out there / fame / notoriety / success or whatever or actually getting paid.

If I am reading this right, then you have it all wrong. All the fees for the making of a show, its staff, wages etc IS paid out at the time of commissioning. However the fee to the indie company on top - the royalties, is paid out in the future, or at least with a very large amount of that coming in the future. This is not normal, and normally this is paid all up front at the time of commissioning. However it is worth it to many because Netflix is shown the world over, not just in one country. No-one is being reckless by getting their product commissioned by Netflix on the indie side, as long as they see their business being around for many years.