BBC - how does it fight back?

[Mr Q]

What I don't quite understand is why BBC News has a budget of £350m a year - that seems way too high.

It has 2,000 journos, 250 correspondents, and 50 foreign news bureaus. Does it really need that many to run two news channels, news for the nations and English regions, websites, and World Service language provision?

I'm a little unclear here. Do you think £350m per year is too much for what BBC News produces, or do you think £350m per year is too much and therefore BBC News should produce less?

I have no idea whether £350m per year is an objectively reasonable amount. I have no basis of comparison. But I have no doubt at least part of that cost is due to the BBC covering local news, national news and international news - all of which are very different beasts, and requiring different types and levels of resourcing. Moreover, I would add that the public service value-add (to the UK audience at least) comes not so much from the day-to-day headline reporting - there are plenty of other sources for that. Rather, it's from current affairs and investigative journalism that is resource and time intensive, and thus less commercially attractive.

[Blobs]

I, like many others, think the licence fee will be extended for a further 10 years at its next review. I would spend this time and those 10 years diverting funding away from what I consider (I know you all don't share my beliefs) non-core activities which could be made profitable by the private sector and devote that funding to creating a production line of hits week after week which wow and charm licencepayers.

And what about those millions of licence payers who do value those "non core actvities"? Nothing screams quantity over quality more than your proposal to "create a production line of hits week after week". That is basically Netflix. Where not everything is The Crown.

[johnnyboy]

I have no idea whether £350m per year is an objectively reasonable amount. I have no basis of comparison. But I have no doubt at least part of that cost is due to the BBC covering local news, national news and international news - all of which are very different beasts, and requiring different types and levels of resourcing. Moreover, I would add that the public service value-add (to the UK audience at least) comes not so much from the day-to-day headline reporting - there are plenty of other sources for that. Rather, it's from current affairs and investigative journalism that is resource and time intensive, and thus less commercially attractive.

TBH, Mr Q, I am in the same position as you in having no basis of comparison.

Brekkie made a good point earlier about duplication but, as he stated, the Radio 4 and 5 audiences are very different to each other.

On investigative journalism, it's something the BBC used to do really well but, since the Hutton Inquiry, it's something they do seem to do as much anymore (happy to be corrected on this) and they're definitely more fearful of the government.

Alistair Campbell used to scare the bejesus out of BBC News and I think vestiges of that remain to day.

And what about those millions of licence payers who do value those "non core actvities"? Nothing screams quantity over quality more than your proposal to "create a production line of hits week after week". That is basically Netflix. Where not everything is The Crown.

I have already made my thoughts clear on this, Blobs. Sell the non core activities to the private sector in a beauty contest.

The problem with the BBC at the moment is that it is spread so thin that it is already in a position of providing quantity over quality.

A focus on quality is exactly what's needed but that costs money - money they don't have because they're spending £100ms of non core activities.

[Toby brown]

What I don't quite understand is why BBC News has a budget of £350m a year - that seems way too high.

It has 2,000 journos, 250 correspondents, and 50 foreign news bureaus. Does it really need that many to run two news channels, news for the nations and English regions, websites, and World Service language provision?

I don't know how anybody can look at the significant on screen effects of the cuts in recent years and still think BBC News still needs to drastically cut their budget.

Yes, £350m a year as a figure plucked out of thin air may seem way too high, but so does £150billion for the NHS. These things add up. Back to TV and even the simplest half hour show will often have 50+ names in the credits.

People who have little idea of how to resource a broadcast news organisation may think 160 journalists would be more than enough to run a 24/7 service, but it clearly isn't. At a guess each 2 minute report we see on air each day probably involved at least half a dozen people (that's an estimate as a viewer - I could see how it could easily be more than that). At 10 reports a region per day, and say 20 for the national news, we'll round that up to being 200 reports a day and to keep things simple if they all take 5 people to make you soon hit 1000 people a day. For a 24/7 operation you'd need at least twice that many on your books when you factor in weekends and holidays, so suddenly 2000 isn't that unreasonable. And that's just for TV and just for short form routine news packages.


Yes, there is duplication* and yes I do question whether the BBC really needs to provide services in several middle Eastern languages. They used to be funded by the foreign office but came under licence fee funding a while back, though I think is now funded by the government again - they were given £289m to fund 12 foreign language services back in 2017 at a time when hundreds of millions was being withdrawn to support the free over 75s licences.


* - One obvious duplication for me is Today and 5 Live Breakfast. Yes, both serve different audiences but when 5 Live Breakfast seemingly doesn't cut through as a significant player in the market (it's not on the ministerial morning routine for example) you have to wonder whether a simulcast could work there, especially as that is what is done on TV with BBC1 and BBC News where arguably the viewer would benefit from something more general on BBC1 and more newsy on BBC News. However if it's a question about value rather than cost there is absolutely value in 5 Live doing their own thing in the mornings.

If 5live were to save money by sharing the radio 4 breakfast show now would be a good time to do it as nicky Campbell is moving to mid morning and rachel is a contender to take over from Louise on bbc breakfast. If Rachel doesn't get the bbc breakfast gig she could move to drive to replace Anna when she goes to the middle east

[Blobs]

I have no idea whether £350m per year is an objectively reasonable amount. I have no basis of comparison. But I have no doubt at least part of that cost is due to the BBC covering local news, national news and international news - all of which are very different beasts, and requiring different types and levels of resourcing. Moreover, I would add that the public service value-add (to the UK audience at least) comes not so much from the day-to-day headline reporting - there are plenty of other sources for that. Rather, it's from current affairs and investigative journalism that is resource and time intensive, and thus less commercially attractive.

TBH, Mr Q, I am in the same position as you in having no basis of comparison.

Brekkie made a good point earlier about duplication but, as he stated, the Radio 4 and 5 audiences are very different to each other.

On investigative journalism, it's something the BBC used to do really well but, since the Hutton Inquiry, it's something they do seem to do as much anymore (happy to be corrected on this) and they're definitely more fearful of the government.

Alistair Campbell used to scare the bejesus out of BBC News and I think vestiges of that remain to day.

And what about those millions of licence payers who do value those "non core actvities"? Nothing screams quantity over quality more than your proposal to "create a production line of hits week after week". That is basically Netflix. Where not everything is The Crown.

I have already made my thoughts clear on this, Blobs. Sell the non core activities to the private sector in a beauty contest.

The problem with the BBC at the moment is that it is spread so thin that it is already in a position of providing quantity over quality.

A focus on quality is exactly what's needed but that costs money - money they don't have because they're spending £100ms of non core activities.

Netflix spends billions and billions churning out shows weekly and, as I said, they're not all The Crown. The BBC selling off Radio to free up more money for "weekly event TV" is not going to result in more Line Of Duty style hits it's going produce more mediocre to low quality sh*t. More money does not equal more hits. The BBC's USP is it's broad range of services and turning it into Netflix-lite where people will be paying the same for considerably less will benefit no one.

[johnnyboy]

Netflix spends billions and billions churning out shows weekly and, as I said, they're not all The Crown. The BBC selling off Radio to free up more money for "weekly event TV" is not going to result in more Line Of Duty style hits it's going produce more mediocre to low quality sh*t. More money does not equal more hits. The BBC's USP is it's broad range of services and turning it into Netflix-lite where people will be paying the same for considerably less will benefit no one.

What a strange argument.

Freeing up more cash to invest in quality hit is going to "produce more mediocre to low quality sh*t".

And "more money does not equal more hits". What does, Sherlock?

The BBC's USP should be its range of quality services and not just a broad range of services.

[tellyblues]

Netflix spends billions and billions churning out shows weekly and, as I said, they're not all The Crown. The BBC selling off Radio to free up more money for "weekly event TV" is not going to result in more Line Of Duty style hits it's going produce more mediocre to low quality sh*t. More money does not equal more hits. The BBC's USP is it's broad range of services and turning it into Netflix-lite where people will be paying the same for considerably less will benefit no one.

People being asked to pay for repeats and programmes that no longer bring anything new to the table benefits no one.

[Blobs]

Netflix spends billions and billions churning out shows weekly and, as I said, they're not all The Crown. The BBC selling off Radio to free up more money for "weekly event TV" is not going to result in more Line Of Duty style hits it's going produce more mediocre to low quality sh*t. More money does not equal more hits. The BBC's USP is it's broad range of services and turning it into Netflix-lite where people will be paying the same for considerably less will benefit no one.

What a strange argument.

Freeing up more cash to invest in quality hit is going to "produce more mediocre to low quality sh*t".

And "more money does not equal more hits". What does, Sherlock?

Have you seen what Netflix churns out week after week between their big hitters like Stranger Things and The Crown?. What makes you think the BBC could churn out only wall to wall quality if even Netflix can't with the billions they spend?

The BBC's USP should be its range of quality services and not just a broad range of services.

Where's the actual evidence the millions of licence fee payers who listen to BBC's portfolio of radio stations don't consider it to be value for money and would rather that money be spent on this magical conveyor belt of weekly guaranteed hits instead? Because you'd be willing to throw a lot of license fee payers under the bus I'm assuming you must be basing this on something solid that only you are privy to?

[johnnyboy]

Have you seen what Netflix churns out week after week between their big hitters like Stranger Things and The Crown?. What makes you think the BBC could churn out only wall to wall quality if even Netflix can't with the billions they spend?

The difference between you and me is that I would like them to try.

1 great program which gets people talking and sells to TV stations and streaming services around the world delivers more value and builds more love for the BBC than 20 series of Homes Under The Hammer or the morning phone in on BBC Radio Sheffield followed by the country and western hour.

Where's the actual evidence the millions of licence fee payers who listen to BBC's portfolio of radio stations don't consider it to be value for money and would rather that money be spent on this magical conveyor belt of weekly guaranteed hits instead? Because you'd be willing to throw a lot of license fee payers under the bus I'm assuming you must be basing this on something solid that only you are privy to?

Honestly. Do you actually think through what you write before posting mate?

No-one is getting thrown under the bus under my plans.

A few non essential services would be given to the private sector to run under a beauty contest format. Those who would bid would have certain contractual.obligations on the service they provide. The services would remain albeit with advertising.

I am not suggesting getting rid of the licence fee nor do I think it should be reduced from its current level.

If the BBC and British TV is to compete in the world of Netflix, Prime, and Disney, it needs to spend more money and take more risks with formats, story telling, and so on.

This will protect the BBC far more than sticking your head in the sand and pretending that nothing is wrong and that all services delivered are of equal value and worth to licence payers.

[Matthew]

1 great program which gets people talking and sells to TV stations and streaming services around the world delivers more value and builds more love for the BBC than 20 series of Homes Under The Hammer or the morning phone in on BBC Radio Sheffield followed by the country and western hour.

They serve different audiences though and we need a variety of programming. Can't have endless shows that are designed to make people talk like Line of Duty. Homes Under the Hammer gets good ratings so why shouldn't it exist?

[Blobs]

BBC content already does sell all around the world and always has done. It's always been respected around the world and it's only these crackpot plans to gut it of everything other countries admire it for that are going to damage that reputation. Not everything the BBC does should be tailored to a global audience. You might not think there's value in the morning phone in on BBC Sheffield because it can't be sold around the world but the people in Sheffield who listen to it surely do? And Homes Under The Hammer (blimey, this obsession with homes under the hammer!) again, you might not like it but plenty clearly do so who are you to say it shouldn't exist anymore because if people in Texas don't like it has has no value?.

[johnnyboy]

1 great program which gets people talking and sells to TV stations and streaming services around the world delivers more value and builds more love for the BBC than 20 series of Homes Under The Hammer or the morning phone in on BBC Radio Sheffield followed by the country and western hour.

They serve different audiences though and we need a variety of programming. Can't have endless shows that are designed to make people talk like Line of Duty. Homes Under the Hammer gets good ratings so why shouldn't it exist?

You're right that we can't have endless shows like Line of Duty but the Beeb could try to make more of them.

However, budgetary constraints are such that it would be impossible to pump an extra half billion of money into appointment to view television.

Therefore, we need to make sacrifices elsewhere if we are to increase the perceived value of the BBC to the licence fee paying public.

However, we have the fortune in this country to have a vibrant, well invested private sector who could take over these services meaning that no one loses out.

[MatijaTelevizija]

If the BBC and British TV is to compete in the world of Netflix, Prime, and Disney, it needs to spend more money and take more risks with formats, story telling, and so on.

This will protect the BBC far more than sticking your head in the sand and pretending that nothing is wrong and that all services delivered are of equal value and worth to licence payers.

I have not been able to put it into words but I thought this all along , the BBC does need to take more risks and stop playing it so straight ?

[johnnyboy]

BBC content already does sell all around the world and always has done. It's always been respected around the world and it's only these crackpot plans to gut it of everything other countries admire it for that are going to damage that reputation. Not everything the BBC does should be tailored to a global audience. You might not think there's value in the morning phone in on BBC Sheffield because it can't be sold around the world but the people in Sheffield who listen to it surely do? And Homes Under The Hammer (blimey, this obsession with homes under the hammer!) again, you might not like it but plenty clearly do so who are you to say it shouldn't exist anymore because if people in Texas don't like it has has no value?.

Crackpot planning is to plan to change nothing in a time when more and more people aren't willing to pay the licence fee anymore.

The private sector could easily replicate the services provided by BBC Local Radio. They'd jump at the opportunity.

And it might surprise you that I actually like Homes Under The Hammer. This is ultra cheap television which could be commissioned directly by UKTV and other such providers. The only reason they don't is because it's slightly cheaper and less risky to buy a pre-filmed episode instead.

Homes Under The Hammer is not the first thing which springs to mind, I imagine, when people think about what makes the BBC different.

You can't see the larger and more important picture here, Blobs.

[tellyblues]

1 great program which gets people talking and sells to TV stations and streaming services around the world delivers more value and builds more love for the BBC than 20 series of Homes Under The Hammer or the morning phone in on BBC Radio Sheffield followed by the country and western hour.

They serve different audiences though and we need a variety of programming. Can't have endless shows that are designed to make people talk like Line of Duty. Homes Under the Hammer gets good ratings so why shouldn't it exist?

TV shows can't go on forever. It's not enough to say something is popular. Did viewers of Flog It particularly like it when they were told it was being axed? No, but they got over it and other formats were given a chance.