The BBC’s wrong turn on audience figures
It is fair to say that when the BBC decided that only high viewing figures would justify the licence fee, it took a wrong turn and should have concentrated instead on public service television
Prioritizing high viewing figures as the primary justification for the BBC licence fee marked a significant and arguably problematic shift in the BBC’s mission. The BBC was founded on the principle of public service broadcasting, to inform, educate, and entertain, and not merely to compete for audience share as the commercial networks do.
The core rationale for a publicly funded broadcaster like the BBC is to provide content that may not be commercially viable but is culturally, educationally, or socially valuable. If viewing figures, rather than public service, become the main metric of success, it risks sidelining minority interests, highbrow or experimental arts programming, or children's and educational content
This leads to service content that is commercially incompatible being under-served, the very content the BBC was meant to provide.
When the BBC chases ratings, it begins to mimic commercial broadcasters, duplicating what ITV, Channel 4, or streaming platforms already provide. This undermines the argument for a compulsory licence fee. Why should people be forced to pay for what the market already offers?
The BBC’s Royal Charter defines it as a public service institution. Moving too far toward ratings-driven programming represents a drift from that mission and weakens its legitimacy in public debates.
The BBC was historically respected globally for its impartial news, educational programming, and investment in cultural heritage. It is not now. A focus on popularity has eroded that trust and reduced the BBC to becoming ‘just another broadcaster,’ undermining the unique position it once held in UK public life.
While audience size is a relevant consideration, it should never have become the dominant one. The BBC’s real value lies in what only it can do, which is to serve the public interest broadly, not just the public's entertainment preferences.
People can legitimately ask if Strictly Come Dancing should be supported by public money. It could be commercial, given its high entertainment value, mass appeal, and heavy sponsorship potential. Formats like this thrive on commercial channels worldwide (e.g. Dancing with the Stars in the U.S.).
EastEnders is a long-running soap opera set in East London. It could easily be commercial, in that it is very similar to commercial soaps such as Coronation Street and Emmerdale. While it has tackled social issues, as have they, its primary purpose is entertainment.
Does The Apprentice, the business-based reality show with Lord Sugar, serve the public interest? Some point out that it is close in tone and structure to reality formats on ITV or Channel 4, more entertainment-driven, than educational. One can ask the same of Celebrity Master Chef, the cooking competition with celebrity contestants. A look through the BB’s programming shows many programmes of which the same question can be asked.
They are undeniably popular, but the BBC’s unique public funding model means it should arguably focus on programming not viable in a commercial context, programmes such as documentaries, the arts, in-depth news, science, children’s education, and more.
If the BBC devotes too much of its budget and airtime to its popular shows, critics argue it risks becoming indistinguishable from commercial TV, undermining its claim to a mandatory licence fee.
They might be enjoyable and well-made, but they generally don’t require public funding to exist, and don’t contribute uniquely to public knowledge, minority inclusion, or democratic enrichment.
There is a case for ending public support and turning the BBC into commercial and subscription channels. At the very least there is a case for making it fund the popular, non-public-service shows by advertising, reserving public funds for what it was originally set up to do.
Madsen Pirie