BBC Cuts..
- Thread starter Alpherah
- Start date
Well that's a load of rubbish, you've been reading too much Daily Mail.
Consider this for a moment.
It takes Sky 120 people+ to do a single broadcast from a single venue that has been built and equipped with TV broadcasts in mind, and most of the infrastructure in place all year round.
That's for a broadcast lasting about 3 hours max normally.
I am of course talking about a football match, by Sky's own PR they use 120+ people.
Now take Glastonbury.
Every year the BBC have to -
Setup the infrastructure for the broadcast from scratch in what can be little more than a large mud pit, everything from the communications, to editing areas, to power supplies.
They then have to have enough staff and to run something like 5 sets of fixed cameras/mics, plus roving cams and mics simultaniously, for pretty 3 full days across a huge area - with the support staff to fix problems as they crop up. (remembering that they record a lot for later playback, and often don't get the go ahead for what they can show live until a music set is being played).
I'm always amazed that it doesn't take them many more staff, especially as the "407" people includes all the contractors (most of the staff sent are subcontractors working for companies like SIS* who decide how many they need to do the job, whilst the BBC just pays them a set fee for the job, so the outside broadcast company isn't going to send more people than they have to - they don't get paid per person), and people that might go on say the Wednesday to setup, go home, and go back to take stuff down.
From what I've heard from people who've actually been there for the BBC, it's one of the hardest "gigs" in the business in terms of how hard they work, and the hours.
As for "moonchester" are you rally trying to troll?
Anyway the move to Manchester was dictated by Labour, the BBC didn't want to move but where told they were "too London centric" and that they had to move a certain amount of staff etc out of London, so Manchester was I beleive the best option in terms of travel links and options for facilities.
As for the Olyumpics, you are of course have a laugh?
One of the US networks (just one on it's own...) sent something like 2000 staff to the Chinese Olympics yet had a lot less coverage than the BBC, and most countries that have a reasonable level of coverage will send far more than 30-40 staff, as that would barely cover a handful of concurrent events at minimum levels, let alone multiple concurrent events all day long, with interviews with the athletes etc.
[edit]
I will add that in cost per hour of content (given how much they get out of it), Glastonbury is, I believe one of the cheapest programmes that is live music etc.
*I think it's SIS.
You can pretty much blame the Government and Murdoch for this
The BBC are facing an effective cut of over 20% (possibly a lot more if inflation is bad), over the next few years as they have a licence fee freeze implemented to "help keep the hardship of the recession down" (or some such rubbish).
Hence the need to cut costs, and F1 is relatively expensive, at least they are maintaining over half the coverage (half the races, and highlights).
*You'll notice that at the same time Sky have IIRC already upped their prices over the level of inflation, and will no doubt continue to do so.
I know it stems from the government, but I think what infuriates me the most is that I actually emailed the BBC Trust over this when the rumours started and got a reply which stated:
"Any significant proposals that impact on the audience will be subject to public consultation by the Trust before any decisions are taken."
As far as I know that consultation did not take place, especially considering I got that reply 3 weeks ago.
Ummm no, why do the BBC run Radio 1?
It should be cut off as it cold survive commercially and competes with the private sector, that isn't what the BBC's remit is.
They should focus on providing high quality programming such as the above documentary that would fail to be produced in the private sector.
Also those saying ahhhh look its the Conservatives, have you ever seen how much money the BBC wastes?
Surely if everybody is paying for the BBC then it is the job of the BBC to make programmes that as many people as possible want to watch?
The BBC don't make dancing on ice, they make 'Strictly come dancing' and it isn't a bad show, get off your high horse.
IMO the BBC should continue making the content they do but they should support up and coming performers and presenters more than they do now and they should cut all of the prima donnas from their staff. While it is good to have quality presenters on your pay roll it is possible to have 80% of their quality for 20% of their wages - the BBC has made most of the big names who they are today, they can make more provided they give people the opportunity. Tell the existing 'stars' that they can have lower wages or they can GTFO, if they don't like it then bring the lower echelons through the ranks and let them shine. Rinse and repeat.
Words fail me on how gutted I am - will be an end of an era for me, I cant afford/justify Sky Sports and refuse to pay for it - I very much doubt Ill be a small minority in thinking the same so hopefully viewing figures will show that (as if that makes a difference, how wrong I was.
That's like £55 per race, if you get sky just for f1.
)ps3ud0
You all realise that reality shows are cheaper to make than the Dramas, Documentaries, and Sports coverage? That's why there is an increasing amount of it.
I'm not a big F1 fan to be fare but I'm disappointed with this as it's letting Sky get F1 in to pay TV via the back door as anyone criticising the deal will get "Oh but you can still see half the races on the BBC and all the highlights!"
The BBC is damned either way, pay £XXXm for the full rights and everyone moans about wasting license fee money to pay Bernie Ecclestone. Don't pay it and the F1 fans moan that the BBC is wasting the license fee on anything other than F1.
Then again this all goes back to the back room deals that the BBC did with the Coalition on the license fee changes.
I'm not a big F1 fan to be fare but I'm disappointed with this as it's letting Sky get F1 in to pay TV via the back door as anyone criticising the deal will get "Oh but you can still see half the races on the BBC and all the highlights!"
The BBC is damned either way, pay £XXXm for the full rights and everyone moans about wasting license fee money to pay Bernie Ecclestone. Don't pay it and the F1 fans moan that the BBC is wasting the license fee on anything other than F1.
Then again this all goes back to the back room deals that the BBC did with the Coalition on the license fee changes.
Not only that, but a lot of reality tv shows make their money back from the voting phone lines. They are very good value for money for the broadcasters.
I understand that Strictly Come Dancing isn't everyones fav programme, but it is one of the most popular things produced by the BBC. My wife recently said that she would pay the licence fee just to watch that (please don't judge her!
)
I understand that Strictly Come Dancing isn't everyones fav programme, but it is one of the most popular things produced by the BBC. My wife recently said that she would pay the licence fee just to watch that (please don't judge her!
)![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
I understand that Strictly Come Dancing isn't everyones fav programme, but it is one of the most popular things produced by the BBC. My wife recently said that she would pay the licence fee just to watch that (please don't judge her!
It's one of the most popular TV shows in the world, BBCW makes more money licensing it than any other show (including Top Gear).
Haha, you want to get rid of Radio 4? On yer bike.