Column: Clinton Rogers on the BBC and the TV licence fee

I have rather more reason than most to believe it has earned its place in British life.

But even this old BBC hand has to ask: "Does the licence fee still make sense in 2026?"

The world has changed dramatically.

When I joined the BBC, there were three television channels, a handful of radio stations and no such thing as streaming.

Today we have Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, YouTube and countless other ways of filling our screens.

I suspect many people simply don't realise the breadth of what their licence fee pays for.

Which brings me to the BBC's increasingly relentless campaign asking: "What has the BBC ever done for us?"

The latest expensive-looking advert, launched around this summer's World Cup, is a clever, modern echo of the famous John Cleese campaign of 1985.

But however entertaining it may be, there is a danger in telling people repeatedly how wonderful you are.

After the fifth or sixth showing, even the most loyal viewer may be thinking: Yes, we get the message.

Worse, it can sound defensive.

The figures are certainly worrying.

More than 23m licences were sold in 2024-25, but the BBC estimates evasion at 12.5 per cent.

It’s estimated that more than £1.1bn in potential income was lost through evasion and households declaring they did not need a licence.

What has changed is that prosecutions have been falling for years.

Perhaps that is part of the problem.

If people increasingly feel there is little consequence to opting out, why would they pay?

The licence fee undoubtedly needs reform.

But before throwing it away, perhaps we should make sure people understand what they would lose.

That, surely, is the BBC's real challenge, not persuading us that it is brilliant but reminding us why it matters.