BBC Plots iTunes-Like Paid Download Store For TV Shows

A new competitor to paid download services like iTunes, Netflix and Blinkbox may soon be launched, as the BBC revealed plans to release as much as 93 percent of its television programmes in a new digital store for users to download. The UK public service broadcaster has been in talk with independent TV show producers to reach an agreement over rights deals that will allow it to sell the content on its upcoming digital download portal which has been given the nickname of “Project Barcelona”.

BBC
BBC plots iTunes-like paid download store for TV shows

The BBC iPlayer is currently the video-on-demand service being offered by the broadcaster that allows users to view its range of TV programmes for free (albeit only for 30 days), which commanded a total of 1.94 billion programme requests last year. After 30 days download services like iTunes and Netflix are able to buy the rights to the programmes from either the producers of the shows or BBC Worldwide directly.

This new BBC digital download service is more likely to see the organisation let users buy each television episode at about £1.89 rather than provide a download rental service. The Beeb is looking to sell as much as 93 percent of its TV programmes through the new service, as it currently only manages to sell 7 percent to other download service providers.

In order to tempt TV show producers away from services like iTunes and Netflix, the BBC has confirmed that it will be allowing them to take a larger portion of the revenue from the downloads, by offering producers 40p per downloaded episode compared to the 28p given to them by Apple iTunes.

Although it is still in the planning stages, Project Barcelona is expected to be one of the services that will be used to raise extra funding, after the government pushed the BBC to do more to raise funding by freezing TV licence fees until 2017.

Source: Paid Content

4 comments

  1. So I pay the licence fee as long as I own a television , and the BBC still want to sell me episodes of tv programmes that are not worth watching. Whereas with iTunes I get 1080p programmes from many studios for the same price per episode. Methinks the BBC as usual have well and truly missed that boat. The iPlayer is a complete waste of time as I can only download and have programmes available for a relatively short period of time.Now iTunes are offering free upgrades of already purchased hd shows to 1080p versions.

    Just what does the BBC think it has that is so special and is not already on iTunes????

  2. Steve….

    “So I pay the licence fee as long as I own a television, and the BBC still want to sell me episodes of tv programmes that are not worth watching.”

    The BBC didn’t invent their funding system – but, as it happens, it has shown to be the cheapest form of providing and delivering quality programming there is. You may not think its programmes are worth watching, but millions would disagree with you.

    “Just what does the BBC think it has that is so special and is not already on iTunes????”

    Hardly merits a response. Evidently you cannot see much value beyond a picture line count. The BBC has a treasure trove of content that is hugely significant in cultural and historical terms – and highly marketable. The fact that the content was, and is, funded through a licence fee does not mean that we now own that content, any more than we own the content of ITV paid for through our shopping baskets. The BBC has every right – and some would say “duty” – to exploit the commercial value of its content in every way it can. It seems to me that the idea of the BBC launching its own download service, whereby it gets to keep more of the revenue stream than it currently does on iTunes, and over which it has more control, is good business sense and will help to keep licence fee low and even more of a bargain. This is exactly the direction in which the BBC should be going.

    As for the iPlayer “being a complete waste of time” – it is a triumph of British technological innovation which has led the way with on-demand catch-up services and is recognised as such throughout the world. It is also very popular with the public and can only be described as a huge success.

  3. If the BBC is so confident that it provides the best possible service at the lowest possible price then may i suggest they give the consumer a choice as to whether they wish to pay for it.

    For example, i love old episodes of Doctor Who, but all BBC Three ever shows is constant repeats of the new series, how many times can they repeat that, forever it would seem while denying us the chance to see the older episodes from for example the Tom Baker years.

    Encrypt the BBC, if people wish to pay for it then let them, if people instead wish to pay for Sky or some other service then so be it and if instead and like me you do not wish to pay for it then let us watch Channel 4 and 5 and ITV and the other free channels and drop this hideous tax on television viewing completely and for good, by that i mean do not put the tax onto owning a computer, have the BBC encrypt their service and lets see how well they do, i suspect many would not buy into the BBC and the quality of their output would drop, i wouldn’t shed a tear because in a democratic society we should only pay for services we want and there should not be a tax on television viewing.

    Don’t start with the nonsense about paying for Channel 4 and ITV through advertising, that is not a payment which comes directly out of the bank every month and is preferable because of that.

    If the BBC want to engage me then they can start showing the classic Doctor Who on BBC 3 but even then i would suggest we should have an option to opt out of the licence fee and they should be encrypted in the digital age.

  4. Hi FoxyMulder

    I wasn’t really making a case for the maintenance of the Licence Fee; I was just stating that BBC services (whether you like them or not) are astonishingly inexpensive compared with any other broadcaster or programme supplier. I also wanted to counter the commonplace misconception that, because BBC production is funded by a LF, its content should therefore be freely accessible for ever.

    In many ways, I agree with a lot of your post. The LF is becoming quite anachronistic and will not maintain public support in the age of Choice. The BBC would actually attract huge revenues if it were to take adverts (and the losers would be all the other commercial networks), but I think the public would hate it. I also think the BBC could do very well as a subscription service as you suggest.

    The trouble is, the LF is at the heart of the BBC’s ethos: it doesn’t see itself as just another TV or Radio company, it sees itself as part of our cultural fabric and heritage, doing far more than just making TV and radio programmes. It is that role in our society – as part of the cultural establishment, I suppose – that would be lost if it were not at least partly funded by us all. We have to decide whether we want it to continue in that role, or just be another broadcaster like all the rest.

    It’s not an easy question. People rarely stop to think about the deeper implications of changing the BBC’s funding – they just baulk at what they see as a tax… so it certainly looks as if the days of the licence fee are numbered.