BBC To Be Smaller Post-Switchover

[Bob The Skutter]

I don't know whether to believe this is a good thing, or simply the BBC bowing to media pressure.
The talk of reduced pay, reduced output and reduced web presence seems to be giving in and allowing Murdoch to get exactly what he wants, it may not be all of it, but I have no doubt it is a first step in that direction.

The public can expect a "smaller BBC" after the analogue TV signal is switched off in 2012, director general Mark Thompson has said.

Speaking at a Voice of the Listener and Viewer conference in London, Mr Thompson was outlining plans for the BBC's strategic review next year
.
He said there would be "reductions in some kinds of programmes and content", including web services.
However, he promised more money would be spent on original British content.



...
"Expect to see a further shift of emphasis in favour of key priority areas: The best journalism in the world, high quality programmes and services for children, content of every kind that builds knowledge and shares music and culture and a long-range commitment to outstanding British drama and comedy," Mr Thompson said.


When asked about the future of the BBC's digital radio and television services, Mr Thompson said it would be "slightly counter-intuitive" to close BBC Three and Four while encouraging people to go digital.



But he suggested that services could be "reduced" in a "post-switchover world when people can use services like iPlayer to get content in other ways."



"For example, we've slightly reduced the services on the red button because so many people are able to get interactive services on the web," he said.



Speaking about the BBC website, Mr Thompson said the review would look at "the many millions of pages" and "whether everything needs to be there, is updated and is relevant".


...
"The point of the strategy review is to set out a template for a more focused BBC, a BBC that delivers better quality of higher value," Mr Thompson said.



"It may point to a BBC which is smaller in some respects, but no less confident."
Later in an interview on BBC Two's Newsnight programme, he discussed pay plans for his most senior managers - 50 of whom earn more than the prime minister.



'Confidential matters'

He said: "People who come and work for the BBC should expect to earn a lot less in senior management positions than they do elsewhere.



"What we're going to do in the future is look at what the equivalent in the private sector would be and discount it for the most senior managers by 50% to 80%."

So what do you guys think? Good, bad, indifferent?
Between this and the talk of limiting BBC Worldwide's activity and buying in shows other than "Quality shows that the BBC would be happy to show in the UK", I can't help but see this as a set of bad steps all coming so close together.

 

[wamdue]

"What we're going to do in the future is look at what the equivalent in the private sector would be and discount it for the most senior managers by 50% to 80%."

is he being serious?

its hard to comment on the BBCs plans until they announce something more than a vague notion of cutting back

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Sounds seriously dodgy to me. There may be some people who would work at a serverley reduced rate from passion for the job and prestige of working at the BBC, but I can't believe they expect to be able to get top people at 20-50% of market rates.

I'd like to think a bigger focus on new British production for Kids, Drama and Comedy has to be a good thing, but kinda seems they're not being totally realistic in what can be done while continuing to be successful.

 

[wamdue]

^Sounds seriously dodgy to me. There may be some people who would work at a serverley reduced rate from passion for the job and prestige of working at the BBC, but I can't believe they expect to be able to get top people at 20-50% of market rates.

is he hoping that, once the BBC cut the pay by that much, the commercial channels will do the same, so it becomes cheaper for everyone?

You would think a big part of the broadcast industry cutting pay like that would have some sort of knock on effect in the industry.

the problem is those people who might have taken the high paid job (at BBC or commercial) will go to another sector for the higher pay.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

But he said a discount on the private sector equivelent, so surely that means if ITV drop their pay by 30% in reaction to it that means the BBC drop their by a similar amount again?

 

[cultcross]

Why is the BBC so obsessed with 'British content'? With, granted, a list of notable exceptions, an awful lot of 'British content' sucks balls. Even the stuff that doesn't is usually spruced up for international sale. Sounds to me like a euphemism for 'we can't afford to import anything good, so we have to fund British content'.

I wouldn't cry over the loss of BBC 4 really, and a number of the radio stations could be trimmed without too much loss of decent content. It would be a real shame if BBCs 1,2 and 3 suffer from this drastic cost-cutting.

 

[wamdue]

But he said a discount on the private sector equivelent, so surely that means if ITV drop their pay by 30% in reaction to it that means the BBC drop their by a similar amount again?

true, that did cross my mind when I posted, but its not like these appointments are made every week, so the effect wont show up in the short or medium term

still you are in theory it does create an endless downward spiral until it hits minimum wage and then the BBC is screwed.

actually I think ITV etc having to compete for top people with other industry's will keep the pay up a bit.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Why is the BBC so obsessed with 'British content'? With, granted, a list of notable exceptions, an awful lot of 'British content' sucks balls. Even the stuff that doesn't is usually spruced up for international sale. Sounds to me like a euphemism for 'we can't afford to import anything good, so we have to fund British content'.

I wouldn't cry over the loss of BBC 4 really, and a number of the radio stations could be trimmed without too much loss of decent content. It would be a real shame if BBCs 1,2 and 3 suffer from this drastic cost-cutting.

You'd rather they got rid of BBC Four over BBC Three? Personally I would miss BBC Four a hell of a lot more than Three, but I think all 4 channels have some worthwhile content I would be sorry to lose.

Radio I don't particularly listen to but I think it would be sad to see the radio dramas go, and the slots that are aimed at breaking new talent.

I think you have it backwards, too. Producing original drama and comedy is a damn sight more expensive than importing shows. It's more along the lines of importing shows is Sky's bread and butter so Murdoch is pissed off when BBC get shows that they could have had.
I don't think having a main focus of producing British shows is a bad thing, especially if it's good quality and not the reality/entertainment rubbish. I just think passing up quality imports would be a bad thing too.

 

[cultcross]

You'd rather they got rid of BBC Four over BBC Three? Personally I would miss BBC Four a hell of a lot more than Three, but I think all 4 channels have some worthwhile content I would be sorry to lose.

Well I'd rather not lose any, but I don't think I've ever watched a whole program on BBC 4. Every time I go onto it it's taking a potentially interesting subject and grinding it down to the most boring thing imaginable. I watched a thing on Henry VII, possibly one of the most interesting monarchs Britain has ever had, and they spent the full first 20 minutes with talking heads talking about tapestries. I switched off.

I think you have it backwards, too. Producing original drama and comedy is a damn sight more expensive than importing shows. It's more along the lines of importing shows is Sky's bread and butter so Murdoch is pissed off when BBC get shows that they could have had.
I don't think having a main focus of producing British shows is a bad thing, especially if it's good quality and not the reality/entertainment rubbish. I just think passing up quality imports would be a bad thing too.

It just irritates me when the BBC can't be bothered to put out the necessary money for quality imports, even when they're proven ratings winners on the BBC channels. I remember when 24 started on the Beeb, it was a gold mine for the BBC but they lost it after season 2 because they weren't prepared to bid for it in a grown-ups market. As someone who refuses to pay for Sky I've never seen another episode of 24 off DVD. They can't even hold on to shows in the terrestrial market - refusing to pay for any new Simpsons lost them their whole licence for the show to Channel 4, ditto almost every other genre show to Channels 4 or 5. On occasion, they've had shows taken away from them not because anyone else actually wants them, just because they expect to get them for a joke of a licence fee to air them.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^I've found lots of interesting shows n BBC Four, from the occasional sci-fi drama, to historical dramas,and documentaries on physics and quantum mechanics. I guess the media centre does help in not being tied to just watching shows on their schedule though.

The thing with that though is the audience is much larger for home grown shows than it is for imports, so if they pay a high price for an import they get blasted for wasting Licence fee money.
And if they bid against commercial channels and end up paying higher prices for the shows they get blasted again for using their guaranteed income and market dominence to muscle out other bidders. They can't win either way. And if they lose a show for not bidding high enough when there is no interest from anyone else anyway, who is the one being foolish, the BBC or the company who aren't getting any income at all from the UK?

Oh and a big reason they lost the rights to 24 and Simpsons was political, News Corp were just being bastards and trying to prove Murdoch's point, that rights to shows would become prohibitively expensive for BBC if they stopped paying Sky for encryption on satellite.

 

[Holdfast]

Shrinking down the BBC to focus on its core entertainment & news duties sounds like a good idea to me. Rationalising its often duplicative and chaotic output also sounds sensible.

Cutting top executive pay is idiotic and will instead lead to poor top-level leadership, increased numbers of poor quality middle managers to attempt to contain that lack of leadership and therefore increased inefficiency, bureaucracy & total cost. This is the model of management/organisational failure that is already present throughout public services in this country, no need to exacerbate it further in the BBC.

The traditional compensation of poor public sector pay has been the pension and honours system. The former is increasingly irrelevant as people are more happy to change jobs frequently and as the pension benefits are gradually reduced. The latter remains valuable as a reward at the top levels, but a gong alone will not compensate for 30-50% undercutting of salary. Assume you're a reasonably well-paid exec for 10 years at the BBC; that's a total paycut of at least a million or two. Is that the going rate for a K these days? Sounds like overpaying to me. Better get the money from the private sector and then decide to make a political donation at the end of your career. Half a mill would probably be enough for the knighthood and you can pocket the rest!

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Seems very much like bowing to media pressure to me.

"look at how much they're paid" "do they deserve it?"

Is it really a matter of whether they deserve it? If it was Movie stars and sports stars wouldn't be paid millions, it's about is it what a similar position would pay else where and why you'd do the job if there were better options.

 

[Jadzia]

I like what the BBC was in its glory days. I think they should remain the dominant broadcaster in the UK, and be funded by public money, but conditionally with these changes...

I dislike how they expanded their services in the 1990s. They became too liberal and the quality of their services slipped. I dislike how 'celebrity presenters' were paid a lot more than a fair rate for the work they did. I'd cut employee income back to not much more than the average london salary + expenses. This is how it should be for an employee of a government funded body.

I'd have kept Television Centre too. Focus the BBC there instead of regionalizing it. That building stands almost as a statue, celebrating our broadcasting history.

Two channels are quite enough for them to fill I think. It was a perfectly good model for 40 years: BBC1 for conservative family entertainment and the news. BBC2 for high-brow arts, serious current-affairs, and educational programmes. And always focus on original and quality programming, like was done in 1970s-1980s.

Also, presenters should all be made to speak in RP, wear decent clothing, and remain seated when they're speaking. Except for weathermen... and Kilroy... who are the only people allowed to be seen walking on television. And we should have continuity announcers: the friendly face of television instead of those awful swimming hippos.

 

[23skidoo]

I'd like to think a bigger focus on new British production for Kids, Drama and Comedy has to be a good thing.

Same here. I'd hate to think of a "smaller BBC" as being one that, say, drops Doctor Who, for example, or stops making the kind of programs have distinguished British TV over the last 50 years. Do they really need 4 channels? I don't know -- not being in the UK I have no idea what you might find on BBC4. But if BBC 3 and 4 have to die so that BBC 1 lives, then so be it.

It'll be interesting to see how the UK handles the changeover to digital, especially with regards to licence fees. In the US and Canada the onus is on the consumer to obtain the tools necessary to receive digital. But in the UK will this mean the government will have to shell out millions of pounds to make sure every household that pays the licence fee and that hasn't already got some form of digital receiver gets one? It'll be a big job. There are probably still households watching telly with rabbit ears and black and white sets.

Alex

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^There is a fund for underprivileged, elderly and disabled people to cover the cost of switchover, coming out of ring-fenced licence fee funds. Which it looks like a big portion of it will not be needed, because a large percentage of the country already has digital regardless.

I have to disagree with Jadzia though. I'd hate the BBC going back to being stuffy and RP and more Londoncentric. Perhaps more direct in it's news and information shows, but not so that they're looked down upon as not relevant or connected to the rest of the UK.

As for getting rid of Three and Four because 2 channels is enough, I don't think that is true. Three shows stuff they'd never put on One or Two, and some of it is interesting, fun, or perhaps even a little more risk taking than they'd allow on either of the main channels, and Four allows them to go more in-depth on topics than they would on Two, by having a few days of shows on a given topic.
Personally I would hate to see any of them go. But I think just looking at this thread it's easy to see why it's so hard for the BBC, so many people expect so many different things from them, and they are supposed to try and meet them all.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

I would ditch BBC3 over BBC4 in a heart beat, although BBC3 started strong and gave us some great new comedy it now seems to be full of tired old unfunny guff , BBC4 however started strong with its vast array of different and very interesting documentaries which its continued to produce, and lets not forget the Jewel in its crown for me which is screenwipes.

What the BBC does not need is a 24 hours news channel which like every other 24 hour news channel seems to have about 30 Min's of any real news that's then repeated ad nauseum over 24 hours.

Ditch the 24 hours news channel, give BBC3 another year to get back on form, if not ditch it as there is nothing on it that could not be transmitted on BBC1/2, and force the BBC to make more Hustle, screen wipes, Dr who, and i mean force, get it round the back of BBC center and grab its arm right up its back until its crying and agrees to make more Hustle.

 

[cultcross]

What the BBC does not need is a 24 hours news channel which like every other 24 hour news channel seems to have about 30 Min's of any real news that's then repeated ad nauseum over 24 hours.

Ditch the 24 hours news channel, give BBC3 another year to get back on form, if not ditch it as there is nothing on it that could not be transmitted on BBC1/2, and force the BBC to make more Hustle, screen wipes, Dr who, and i mean force, get it round the back of BBC center and grab its arm right up its back until its crying and agrees to make more Hustle.

The problem with this plan is that BBC News is arguably their cheapest output channel (except maybe the quarter-screen snoozefest that is BBC Parliament). They research news anyway for their BBC 1 shows, so no saving there, they use one set and the same graphics as the regular news broadcasts, make very few original shows for the channel, and as you say use heavy repetition throughout the day when news is slow. The channel is successful and cheap - not one the BBC are going to be dropping any time soon.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I would ditch BBC3 over BBC4 in a heart beat, although BBC3 started strong and gave us some great new comedy it now seems to be full of tired old unfunny guff , BBC4 however started strong with its vast array of different and very interesting documentaries which its continued to produce, and lets not forget the Jewel in its crown for me which is screenwipes.

What the BBC does not need is a 24 hours news channel which like every other 24 hour news channel seems to have about 30 Min's of any real news that's then repeated ad nauseum over 24 hours.

Ditch the 24 hours news channel, give BBC3 another year to get back on form, if not ditch it as there is nothing on it that could not be transmitted on BBC1/2, and force the BBC to make more Hustle, screen wipes, Dr who, and i mean force, get it round the back of BBC center and grab its arm right up its back until its crying and agrees to make more Hustle.

They are making more of every show you mentioned... Although right now I think Screenwipe is only a christmas special, there is a series of News Wipe in the works.

I think the pilot season on BBC Three was a good thing, wish they'd do more of that kind of thing. Being Human is great, as is How Not To Live Your Life.
Britain's Really Disgusting Food has really opened my eyes, too.
Sure there is some rubbish on BBC Three, but there's some decent stuff on there too if you look hard enough.

The problem with this plan is that BBC News is arguably their cheapest output channel (except maybe the quarter-screen snoozefest that is BBC Parliament). They research news anyway for their BBC 1 shows, so no saving there, they use one set and the same graphics as the regular news broadcasts, make very few original shows for the channel, and as you say use heavy repetition throughout the day when news is slow. The channel is successful and cheap - not one the BBC are going to be dropping any time soon.

How long is it since you watched Parliament? It hasn't been a quarter screen in about 3 years. Besides that Parliament has actually increased its viewship lately.

 

[cultcross]

How long is it since you watched Parliament?

Whenever I first got freeview, plus about an hour.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

How long is it since you watched Parliament?

Whenever I first got freeview, plus about an hour.

I occasionally watch it for PMQ or some of the debates on subjects I'm interested in. I like that it is there. But yeah, it hasn't been a quarter screen for years.