> The BBC is to begin charging US-based users for unlimited access to its news content and rolling televised coverage, as it searches for new ways to ease the pressure on its finances.
> In the first scheme asking users outside the UK to pay a direct subscription for its news content, US users will be offered the chance to pay for a “premium experience”, including unlimited news and feature articles and a livestream of the BBC News channel.
> Ad-free documentary series, films, early access to podcasts and exclusive newsletters will be tested as part of the deal, which launches on Thursday and will be targeted at those who are already heavy users of the BBC’s content.
> It comes after the Guardian revealed earlier this month that BBC bosses were considering the idea. The initial phase of the launch will offer the premium package for $49.99 (£37) a year, or $8.99 (£6.60) a month.
> Senior BBC figures believe there is a real opportunity to raise far more commercial income in the US. They believe there could be an appetite to pay for its brand of journalism, given the politically partisan reputation of some US television networks.
It’s going to be interesting to see if this works out.
LookOverall on
Sounds like a really bad idea. Americans are going to be in dire need of real news soon.
gbroon on
If it does work out it could mean BBC news becomes worse through catering to the profitable American market.
GuyLookingForPorn on
Honestly sound like a great idea:
>The UK national broadcaster described it in a statement on Thursday as “the first phase of a pay model for BBC.com visitors in the US”, with ad-free documentary series and films, early release podcasts and exclusive newsletters and content to be included in the offer later this year.
>
>.. BBC.com reaches 139mn visitors globally, including nearly 60mn in the US.
>
>.. Last year, it upgraded BBC.com and launched a new international app. BBC.com has seen double-digit year-on-year growth since the relaunch, according to the broadcaster. Unlike in the UK, the site will continue to offer advertising.
>
>All users visiting BBC.com in the US will be assessed based on how much they read and how long they stay on the platform, with heavier users then being asked to pay to gain unlimited access to all of the site’s content.
>
>Visitors who choose not to pay will still have access to some global breaking news stories, BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service radio livestreams, BBC World Service Languages sites, and a variety of free newsletters and podcasts.
Daver7692 on
If we have to pay a licence fee to support it, why should they get it free?
Not sure there’s many US Taxes that are directly providing us with any services.
Flat_Revolution5130 on
And are Americans going to go to prison if they do not pay it.?
Crovon1 on
Oh good, maybe they can reduced the cost of the U.K. tax then
Cynical_Classicist on
You’d think with their obsession with profit, Americans would be pleased at this!
londons_explorer on
Free with Ads, or $5/month ad-free seems like a good business model for bbc news (website and TV). Or you can pay the TV license fee and get it included.
Heck, I think they should do this both in the UK and overseas. If someone in australia wants to pay the TV license fee and get all the british content, let them.
exhauated-marra-6631 on
Making actual news harder to access pushes people towards misinformation. The amount of folks who’ll believe sponsored posts on Facebook, but won’t view their local news site because it’s a mess of advertisements is already frustratingly high.
limeflavoured on
This is essentially a preview of what will happen if and when the TV license is scrapped.
Due_Wait_837 on
They’re sending out the detector vans and you’ll get a visit from an enforcement officer next Tuesday. At least that’s what the letters will say. Also it’s a criminal offence to use a VPN and watch for free.
SignalButterscotch73 on
I’m honestly surprised they don’t already charge in the US.
Does that mean the US has been getting free TV paid for by our licence fees? How on earth does that make sense?
At bare minimum I assumed that BBC coverage outside the UK was funded by advertising to make it finantialy neutral rather than just another expense.
Ferrisuk on
Why pay for the truth when they can get lies for free
14 commenti
> The BBC is to begin charging US-based users for unlimited access to its news content and rolling televised coverage, as it searches for new ways to ease the pressure on its finances.
> In the first scheme asking users outside the UK to pay a direct subscription for its news content, US users will be offered the chance to pay for a “premium experience”, including unlimited news and feature articles and a livestream of the BBC News channel.
> Ad-free documentary series, films, early access to podcasts and exclusive newsletters will be tested as part of the deal, which launches on Thursday and will be targeted at those who are already heavy users of the BBC’s content.
> It comes after the Guardian revealed earlier this month that BBC bosses were considering the idea. The initial phase of the launch will offer the premium package for $49.99 (£37) a year, or $8.99 (£6.60) a month.
> Senior BBC figures believe there is a real opportunity to raise far more commercial income in the US. They believe there could be an appetite to pay for its brand of journalism, given the politically partisan reputation of some US television networks.
It’s going to be interesting to see if this works out.
Sounds like a really bad idea. Americans are going to be in dire need of real news soon.
If it does work out it could mean BBC news becomes worse through catering to the profitable American market.
Honestly sound like a great idea:
>The UK national broadcaster described it in a statement on Thursday as “the first phase of a pay model for BBC.com visitors in the US”, with ad-free documentary series and films, early release podcasts and exclusive newsletters and content to be included in the offer later this year.
>
>.. BBC.com reaches 139mn visitors globally, including nearly 60mn in the US.
>
>.. Last year, it upgraded BBC.com and launched a new international app. BBC.com has seen double-digit year-on-year growth since the relaunch, according to the broadcaster. Unlike in the UK, the site will continue to offer advertising.
>
>All users visiting BBC.com in the US will be assessed based on how much they read and how long they stay on the platform, with heavier users then being asked to pay to gain unlimited access to all of the site’s content.
>
>Visitors who choose not to pay will still have access to some global breaking news stories, BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service radio livestreams, BBC World Service Languages sites, and a variety of free newsletters and podcasts.
If we have to pay a licence fee to support it, why should they get it free?
Not sure there’s many US Taxes that are directly providing us with any services.
And are Americans going to go to prison if they do not pay it.?
Oh good, maybe they can reduced the cost of the U.K. tax then
You’d think with their obsession with profit, Americans would be pleased at this!
Free with Ads, or $5/month ad-free seems like a good business model for bbc news (website and TV). Or you can pay the TV license fee and get it included.
Heck, I think they should do this both in the UK and overseas. If someone in australia wants to pay the TV license fee and get all the british content, let them.
Making actual news harder to access pushes people towards misinformation. The amount of folks who’ll believe sponsored posts on Facebook, but won’t view their local news site because it’s a mess of advertisements is already frustratingly high.
This is essentially a preview of what will happen if and when the TV license is scrapped.
They’re sending out the detector vans and you’ll get a visit from an enforcement officer next Tuesday. At least that’s what the letters will say. Also it’s a criminal offence to use a VPN and watch for free.
I’m honestly surprised they don’t already charge in the US.
Does that mean the US has been getting free TV paid for by our licence fees? How on earth does that make sense?
At bare minimum I assumed that BBC coverage outside the UK was funded by advertising to make it finantialy neutral rather than just another expense.
Why pay for the truth when they can get lies for free