[SyneRyder]

The BBC has other sources of income too. Here in Australia, there is a ton of BBC content on Netflix Australia, which presumably Netflix paid the BBC for (eg River, for which Netflix acquired exclusive international streaming rights: http://deadline.com/2015/10/netflix-bbc-river-stellan-skarsg... )

In Australia, our ABC is funded directly out of general taxes, rather than an explicit TV License. I can imagine Britain eventually moving to a similar model to fund the BBC.

[phillc73]

> River is represented by Endemol Shine International, the sales and distribution arm of Endemol Shine Group.

While the BBC may have broadcast River, Endemol Shine Group has the distribution rights, which is who Netflix would have paid.

I don't know all the details, but unless River was a wholly internal BBC production, I'd suggest Endemol probably contributed to the production budget in return for the distribution rights.

This happens with a lot of BBC programmes. The majority of the rights reside with BBC Worldwide, a wholly owned commercial subsidiary of the BBC. BBC Worldwide bids on distribution rights like any other TV sales and distribution company. Any profits from BBC Worldwide's activities are invested back in the public BBC, thus reducing licence fee rises to some extent.

However, other companies like Endemol and All3Media also produce programmes broadcast on various BBC channels or work with independent production companies to fund productions, in return for distribution rights, regardless of where it is broadcast domestically.

BBC Worldwide has also been investing in independent production companies in order to increase their distribution catalogue.

Disclosure: I worked for BBC Worldwide for 9 years and then ran my own post-production company for a few more years.

[genmon]

BBC income last year... From the license fee, £3.7B GBP; from commercial activities, £1.0B GBP. Details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/repo...

The BBC is in a difficult bind. It can't charge for license-fee funded content in the UK where it's best known. And if it had to make all its income from its commercial arm, it would only make Doctor Who and Top Gear, none of the classical music, news, or drama that it's best at.

How the BBC is funded is intensely political, being argued a ton right now as the charter is up for renewal in 2016. The BBC in 2017 could be much smaller.

[gregpilling]

Top Gear will not be earning them much anymore - Clarkson, Hammond and May have left. They went to Amazon, to produce an original auto tv show there.

from here: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/panic-at-the-bbc-as-...

"Maintaining an international foothold is vital for Top Gear, which is the BBC’s biggest global brand with sales of the TV show, DVDs, books, live shows and other merchandise worth more than £50 million ($101 million) a year. BBC sources fear Evans is a complete unknown outside the UK. Top Gear’s former three stooges are settling in well at Amazon."

"Clarkson, Hammond and May may no longer be on Top Gear, but they are still vying for the same viewers. While Top Gear’s schemes play out in public, they are busy preparing their new rival big-budget show for Amazon — and crowing about how little interference they get from their latest masters. Along with the lack of outside pressure, the team also has cash, and lots of it, with a budget reported to be at £4 million ($8.1 million) an episode — ten times that of Top Gear’s."

So the BBC will be losing all that Top Gear money too.

[PhasmaFelis]

> Top Gear will not be earning them much anymore - Clarkson, Hammond and May have left.

And by "left", you mean that Clarkson got canned for punching out a guy because he didn't like his catered dinner, after being warned repeatedly for starting fights and making racist remarks on camera.