BBC confirms cuts to radio, online services

[panthro]

They sure as hell play commercials on their international services. For users outside the UK, the BBC website is practically covered with them.

+1.

Its so annoying! Every time I want to watch a news clip, I have to watch a bloody advert about booking my next holiday in Malaysia.

Same with Youtube, I keep getting Google Chrome adverts before each video.

 

[Sankari]

really?

Any chance of a screen shot of iplayer for you Aussies?

Sure. It looks like this:

No access if you're outside the UK.

 

[Wicksta]

I think Tefal meant a pic of the website covered in ads.

doh maybe he didn't reading back, but can i see one?

 

[Chimerical]

The BBC has had commercial operations outside the UK for ages. BBC America is ad funded. I think its a good thing.

They're saying they're going to have an international commercial version of iPlayer this year aswell.

To be honest, I wish they'd introduce adverts between the beginning and end of programmes in the UK (not during the programmes though).

 

[starfighter]

FFS get rid of Radio1 not Radio 6.

 

[RDM]

Surely channels such as Radio 6 are the sorts of things that the BBC should be providing as it just isn't viable as a commercial station?

 

[Chimerical]

Surely channels such as Radio 6 are the sorts of things that the BBC should be providing as it just isn't viable as a commercial station?

Apparently so according to an interview conducted on Channel 4 news. However, isn't it right that they make a profit also?

It does sound like they're purely going after ratings though.

 

[RDM]

Apparently so according to an interview conducted on Channel 4 news. However, isn't it right that they make a profit also?

The more profit they make the better as it means more programming at no extra cost to us. However if they want to justify keeping the licence fee then they should stick to their remit. If they only keep the commercially viable stuff then why should we be forced to pay for it?

It does sound like they're purely going after ratings though.

Indeed. But it is a bit of a catch 22. If they don't produce stuff people will watch we will resent paying for it. If they do produce stuff that people would watch then why do we have to be forced to pay for it?

 

[Marky]

I can say I've never ever heard of "Radio 6" or "Asian Network"...

 

[Abraham]

Apparently so according to an interview conducted on Channel 4 news. However, isn't it right that they make a profit also?

It does sound like they're purely going after ratings though.

That's the stupid thing actually, 6 music has a bigger audience than 1xtra and 5 xtra, despite having a lower budget than both of them. The biggest reason for 6 musics lack of success seems to be how few people know about it. A lot of borderline listeners of radio1/radio2 would probably switch to 6 if it was as simple.

As for international stuff, BBC Worldwide is the commercial arm of the BBC and makes an absolute fortune.

 

[Chimerical]

The more profit they make the better as it means more programming at no extra cost to us. However if they want to justify keeping the licence fee then they should stick to their remit. If they only keep the commercially viable stuff then why should we be forced to pay for it?

I think if adverts were introduced, they could at least reduce the license fee I guess. Although it would be more of an all or nothing situation with that.

Indeed. But it is a bit of a catch 22. If they don't produce stuff people will watch we will resent paying for it. If they do produce stuff that people would watch then why do we have to be forced to pay for it?

There are other ways of doing that though. If they made drama shows up the quality of something like Mad Men (I realise that show is expensive at $2.5m an episode) then stuff like that can be sold worldwide and potentially be a big hit and all the rest of it. Essentially, making quality programmes that are unique to the BBC is a better investment, I think, than just producing reality TV shows that have big ratings but zero replay value. They did help fund Rome though, which is good.

What I don't get is using the license fee for stuff like Strictly Come Dancing, although that may just be down to my own personal prejudice and a lot of (older) people seem to get value out of it. That show could still have been made by anyone though and is mainly broadcast to compete with a commercial channel (ITV obviously) which they shouldn't be doing.

I think Torchwood and Doctor Who are a hit overseas but then they're not up to the calibre of many of the American shows and I think poorly directed in terms of how they use their budgets.

 

[Morgoth]

The only reason I know 6music exists is because it's where Dave Pearce's Dance Anthems ended up.

 

[ripperOFflesh]

not bothered have not seen them

 

[Dolph]

It's hardly a surprise they are cutting services, this is the nature of the beast when your funding is independent of service provided. It creates a situation where normal market dynamics (better services, higher income) is replaced with a situation where worse services gives reason to request higher incomes. It is the main reason why all public funded/managed entities spend money or make savings in the wrong way to be efficient (they spend money on non-frontline services, and cut frontline services).

This will, of course, be a problem across the public sector when the budget cuts start, they have spent the last 13 years expanding the public sector in non-essential roles as the funding has been increased, but you can guarantee that is not where the axe will fall.

The only way to change this mentality is to remove the allocation of funds and create competitive alternatives however...

 

[Sankari]

I think if adverts were introduced, they could at least reduce the license fee I guess. Although it would be more of an all or nothing situation with that.

They don't need to introduce adverts at all. The ABC (Australia's equivalent of the Beeb) doesn't have any adverts, and we don't pay a license fee either. So it can be done.

 

[Baboonanza]

What I don't get is using the license fee for stuff like Strictly Come Dancing, although that may just be down to my own personal prejudice and a lot of (older) people seem to get value out of it. That show could still have been made by anyone though and is mainly broadcast to compete with a commercial channel (ITV obviously) which they shouldn't be doing.

The BBC is in a difficult position here though. In order to justify the license fee it has to be competetive with ITV in prime time slots because that's where the most viewers are. And competition is good in general here.

I can't remember the last time I watched ITV though. It's TV for Sun readers. But I do like Strictly, it's done with a bit more class than the equivalent ITV offerings. Though I'll admit that it's also completely naff and that liking it makes me a big nancy

I too think it's a shame they're axing 6 Music. I've never listened to it purely because I didn't know it existed, but now I'd like too. It's budget is tiny and could easily have been saved in other places. BBC3/BBC4 and Radio 3 are the obvious massive wastes of money, alll offering the worst cost per viewer/listener hour. BBC3 in particular isn't doing anything to justify it's existence IMO. BBC4/Radio 3 at least get some credit for being 'cultural'.

 

[Bennie-Mac]

Spending on its online services, which commercial competitors complain stifle competition, will be cut by 25 per cent by 2013.

Maybe if the commercial competitors had something decent to watch, they wouldnt be complaining as much

 

[semi-pro waster]

They don't need to introduce adverts at all. The ABC (Australia's equivalent of the Beeb) doesn't have any adverts, and we don't pay a license fee either. So it can be done.

At the risk of starting something of a measuring contest, in your opinion how good is the output of ABC? I am aware that a lot of public broadcasting in other nations doesn't have the greatest reputation so wondered if the quality was comparable to the BBC which for all its faults is usually fairly well produced.

It's a shame that they're cutting minority interest programming, that's one of the things that a public broadcaster is meant to supply where market forces may not make it otherwise viable. It's obviously not an absolute and some shows/stations will simply be too much of a niche interest but I'm not certain that the two highlighted are in that category.

 

[Cosimo]

Good. The BBC is now a bloated, overgrown evil empire that sucks money out of the licence payer. It is just too big. How many newsrooms does it need, news correspondents, web sites, radio sations, property, the list just goes on. It is not an international media business that competes with other businesses.

It is just a public broadcasting organisation and get on with what it supposed to be doing, proving a decent level of public broadcasting and nothing else. If it wants to carry on the way it is now then I hope it gets privatised then we will see whether it can sink or swim.

 

[Abraham]

I don't think many people are arguing that cuts shouldn't be made, the point about the different dynamic of a non-commercial business is a good one. However these are probably the wrong cuts to make