Revenue in 2009 was £623 million. Around £40 million of that was from performances in pubs and clubs, but this was reduced on the 2008 figure by pub/ club closures (down about 5%, or £2 million, I believe).

From what I can see, the attempt to put the "bite" on music being played at work, or in places like the playgroup above, is to try and make up ther losses due to pub/ club closures. Most of them paid their license fee: an extra £2.2 million was raised by "vigorous pursuit" of people playing background music at work, etc, which nicely offsets the pub/ club losses.

It's this part of the PRS's strategy that seems to cause most of the negative feeling about the PRS from the "ordinary members of the public" that I know. Many of my friends have stories of the PRS pursuing people for payment of trivial or incidental use of music in environments where calling it a public performance is really stretching a point. Presumably broadcast radio stations have already paid the PRS, so trying to "double dip" on someone listening to a radio at work, or threatening a granny with prosecution for singing to herself while stacking shelves in a supermarket, seems unfair to most.