All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Ian: 'so just who is benefiting from all this cost cutting at the BBC?'
You could argue thats its Sky....
| link to this comment |
Charles Stuart: The idea of cutting CBeebies/CBBC came up on Britmovie yesterday, and my argument there is pretty much the same here - its unfair and unworkable. I suspect that most are totally unfamiliar with the channels, or how they operate.
Firstly, CBBC/CBeebies share space with BBC3/4 - when the childrens programmes end at 7pm, then they start - so putting two together saves nothing - you've still have one channel spare during the day, and you've got to show something.
Next, the two channels serve different audiences, and putting the two together would be a bit like amalgamating BBC3 and 4 - I can imagine that would not go down well. CBeebies serve an audience that are 6 or under, whilst CBBC start at 6 and go up to 12. As anyone whose had kids can testify, that is a huge age range, and although there is some crossover around 5-7, when could you schedule a programme for a 10 year old that would be OK for a 4 year old to see?
Most of CBeebies audience is pre-school, so there is no justification for not broadcasting during the day, and of course programmes are repeated, so actually costs are not huge. Now you could argue that CBBC could close between 9 - 3 each weekday, but you could say the same for BBC1 & 2 for that time - its the period of fewest viewers for all channels (which is why you have cheap programming at that time). And dead air on a multiplex doesn't really save much money - its the content that costs, and if your repeating shows, then costs are relatively low.
However, having that 6-7 hour break (for only Monday-Friday) would be a scheduling nightmare. My children have some 15 weeks a year as holiday from school, but these are not evenly spaced, Easter moves every year, and half terms are not uniform (some schools one week, some the next). So something like 20 weeks out of the year would be broadcasting all day. How could you sell (or even use?) those blocks of 'spare' multiplex time? Yes, you could just show a test card/ident, but again, repeated programmes cost relatively little.
Trying to kill off kids TV is also unfair. Firstly, I pay my licence fee (first and last time I'll write that), and like other parents, we want good TV for our kids, hopefully without adverts. Until CITV started, there was a point some years ago where there was no childrens TV at all on terrestial TV apart from the BBC's output, and even now, the amount of toy adverts on CITV does not make me all that happy.
To be fair, CITV does some decent stuff (some of it UK made), including the rather good if your an adult (but total crazy) Aquabats. But it does not have the specialisation or depth of the BBC channels. Kids TV is exactly the sort of thing that the BBC should be doing, since the relative lack of it is a market failure.
Overall, these two channels are very much following the concept of doing things that the commercial sector does not, and certainly deliver 'quality'. CBeebies also has an international channel and both channels have programme merchandising, which raise revenue. Its worth pointing out that in 2012, CBeebies budget was about a third less than BBC4, yet in Dec 2013 had a 1.3% audience share, whereas BBC4 had a 1% share.
I'd love more old films on BBC2 (there is a thread on Britmovie which mentions whats coming up - I'm All Right Jack was on the other week), but it might be that its cheaper and more popular to show newer stuff (which are made by independents, who have to make up at least 25% of BBC output).
I honestly have no idea if the BBC mostly shows films made after 1980 (Films on Freeview is probably your best bet for actual data), but remember that colour films have been largely standard since the 1950's - so about 20 years of mostly monochrome, and 60 years of mostly colour.
As for repeats, the BBC has a limit on how many they can show, and when. In the mid-late 1980's they used to show some excellent stuff from the archives of 'The World About Us', 'Great Railway Journeys'. It could be that it costs more, and have more problems with clearance to broadcast those than new programmes.
Does the BBC have too many radio stations? They all serve a purpose, and although I seldom listen to 1x, regional or local radio, why shouldn't their audience be served? Frankly, your choices make up the bulk of the budget anyway, and local radio is very cheap considering the number of stations.
You dont like lots of 'popular' programmes - some of that list I'm fine with, some not so much, but my wife likes Strictly and 'The Voice' - she also pays the licence fee, so why shouldn't she have programmes she wants to watch? I hate Top Gear, but I can watch BBC4 instead.
I'm in agreement with Russell Kane Russell Kane: kill BBC3 and you kill risk-taking comedy | Stage | theguardian.com - 'If everyone puts in £145.50 then all deserve to be pleasured. From Moneybox Live through to Help, My Tits Are Hairy I would defend the right of anyone to receive their slice.' None of us are going like everything, but hopefully we should all have a reasonable number of programmes that we like, and that are of decent quality. After all, we've all paid for it.
Michael - There are lots of people in the end titles of films as well - is there any evidence that film producers are padding their payroll? In reality, making tv programmes is more complex than most people think, and that applies to the programmes Sky shows as much as the ones that the BBC make. In fact, the ones that Sky makes are usually written, produced, directed and starring people who have worked for the BBC.
| link to this comment |
Briantist: There is also another problem with having CBeebies basically codesharing with CBBC during a school day slot - what happens at 4pm? If you have a 4 year old and an 8 year old, who both want to watch their programme, someone is going lose. Now within a family you could say that one will watch CBeebies programmes recorded earlier or watch on another TV, but try doing that nationwide. And what about school holidays or weekends? More trouble than its worth.
Ultimately, the biggests costs of any TV channel is the content - not the electricity bill.
Carrying on from Brianists comments about Pact and Equity, the idea of a BBC 'Rep' company came up a little while ago on Britimovie BBC and iTV - Hollywood Style Studio System? . Its never really happened, for excellent reasons.
Quite apart from the BBC having to pay at least Equity rates anyway, such a system would have people on contract (and being paid) whether they were working or not (which would be wasteful). Also, would a 'rep' actor be right for a role ('no, but he's on contract, so we'll have to use him'), would they be allowed outside work, and would'nt you get a bit sick of seeing the same character actors in everything?
Actors are freelancers, hired to do a particular job - a vastly more flexible and cost effective system than the one you suggest. ITV tried a 'golden handcuffs' approach with certain big name actors from 1997-2002, and it was an expensive flop. Now its true that big name light entertainment people do get signed for a certain number of years, but generally for good commercial reasons.
Writers certainly tend to be freelance, as are a significant number of on screen/on air talent. Your local weather presenter is highly likely to be, as are many sports presenters, news presnters, comedians, etc. Michael and you have this idea that the BBC can slash costs by paying people vastly less than the going rate. The BBC already tends to pay less than the rest, but talent tends to like working for the BBC, because of what they do, but if you think you can pay a skilled broadcaster relatively little just for the love of working for the BBC, you will be disappointed.
In fact wages are often quite low
Broadcast presenter: Salary and conditions
|
Prospects.ac.uk
- and even in 2011, over 95% of people employed by the BBC in one way or another (including extras) earnt less than £50,000. I suspect the averge figure for most on screen talent might be lower than this.
Michael: Brianst mentioned WoCC - check out the credits for Spooks, Downton Abbey, Sherlock, Call the Midwife, New Tricks and Line of Duty on IMDB - some are BBC productions, some ITV and some independent. All of them have similar credits, no matter who makes them. They cost what they cost.
| link to this comment |
In 2012, the BBC News Channel cost £57.5m per year. However, bear in mind that the BBC1 bulletins are basically an extention of that, albeit with a different presenter. And remember that we are paying BBC people to gather news 24 hours a day, so we might as well watch it...
| link to this comment |
Aerialman: I actually agree with Brianist that regional news is a bit of a mess, although there would be a lot of resistance to drastic changes. 'All politics is local', and so is TV - people tend to get very protective of local services, even if they never actually use them!
I remember Jack Hargreaves on Southern TV - very much a local programme for the region - but the economics really wouldn't work now.
At the very least, sorting out the regions would make sense - we had South Today growing up, and its geographical area is huge and somewhat arbitary (Dorset to Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire to Brighton). The idea that local BBC news is killing local newspapers makes even less sense when you look at the vast area served by one programme.
Charles Stuart: didn't there used to be a programme where regional presenters did show stories that went a bit wider than the normal local slot? I think the One Show took the slot, but there is no reason you couldn't have the equivalant of 'From Our Own Correspondent'. Its an interesting point about local TV and radio - do reporters have to work 'bimedially', like the do for the national news? That might save some money, and make actually regional reporting still viable.
I have to admit that I have no idea what is happening in 'my' region, since East Midlands broadcasts from Waltham, which is where my aerial points. If I could get Anglia, I could find out what stabbings have happened in my area, rather than in Derby! On the other hand, they have a rather nice weather presenter, so I'm not complaining.
| link to this comment |
Briantist: '"This particular regional magazine has won industry awards. " - I remember seeing this on the East Midlands BBC regional news credits. Its sounds impressive (RTS ward, no less http://www.rts.org.uk/awa…ds), until you realise that it was up against the BBC's West Midland REgional programme (of which it was once a part), and ITV News Central. So basically it came first out of three....
I think this thread is the perfect example of how much people like their 'local' news, no matter what.
| link to this comment |
CliveEA: Looking at both your and Brianist's points, it could be argued that you are not in complete disagreement - although it might not seem that way!
1. Regional news gets consistently higher audience figures ACROSS THE NATION than most other programmes.
Evidently, thats not correct, looking at the figures Brianist supplied above. However, its not much less than Current Affairs, and is only marginally below 50% - so we can all agree that its is still a popular service.
2.' It's a requirement under the Charter. That's not going to change, believe me'.
I have to agree with you. Although Charter renewal is a chance for things to change, there is no chance that politicians are going support a downgrading in local/regional news - any more than an MP will want their local hospital closed. Frankly, keeping the local service costs politicians nothing, and even more cynically, its the main way that their voters are going to actually see and hear them.
3. Regional News operations are an essential part of the national news system
They should be, but its unclear how much they do mesh with the national system. Its certainly true that they supply a lot of the national talent - local news is a good training ground, and perhaps more use should be made of it. However, it would be interesting to see an indepth report looking at what 'local' BBC news does do. Is there a decent stream of stories floating up to national news, or is there a glass ceiling?
4. Your "it's not very good" comment is not objective, you don't like it most of the audience do. - OK, much of the audience does like it, but how much they like it and how viable the costs of that services are debatable. Counting the amount of hours of local news a day - it seems to be 30 min after the 6pm national news, 5min portions before the half and full hour bulletins on Breakfast TV, 7min after the 1pm bulIetin and the same after the 10pm News. Thats about 2 hours a day, much of which is repeated headlines. There is a debate as to whether thats worth such a large investment, and whether it can be done better.
It should be pointed out that BBC3 actually has more viewers than BBC4, and there are some excellent programmes on it, including Junior Paramedics, Bluestone 42 and Hair (I would never have thought I'd find something like thats interesting, but its really good!). The Death Row programme coming up looks really good.
5. Audience research shows that people want regional/local news.
True. As I said yesterday, people get very possesive of local news. However, Brianist has a point - they might like it, but are they prepared to pay for it? And how is it to be paid for, considering all the other things the BBC has to do, including now paying for the World Service, etc.
The cutoff point between local and regional news is unclear, and it would be interesting to see how they fit together - If you can define when one stops and the other starts.
The regions dont always work particularly well. BBC Yorks & Lincs is odd, and the mix of BBC South, BBC South West and BBC West is slightly crazy (bits of Dorset are in all three). If the can be made more rational, with a bigger imput from BBC local radio at the local level, and a slightly more focused regional coverage, then improvements could be made and costs saved.
The other thing that struck me was that whilst the BBC operates BBC Wales, which includes a Welse language service, it also now has to pay for S4C (thanks J. Hunt!), which is also a Welsh language service. OK, but the BBC supplies to S4C various programmes ' including Newyddion, S4C's news bulletin, and a soap opera, Pobol y Cwm, and providing them to S4C free of charge. It has also provided (or licensed) Welsh-language versions of English-language programmes, e.g., The Tweenies. ' (from wiki). So the BBC is supplying free programmes to a channel which now has to pay for...., which does to same sort of thing it already can do. And which costs it £30m. And which has a 0.1% audience share. BBC Alba has apparently a 12.2% share, and costs £7.8m. Am I confused here, or should S4C be rolled into BBC Wales?
| link to this comment |
MikeP: I have to agree with you - a sample of 36 is basically what happens when someone wants to put out a press relase, and a paper wants to report something!!
However, thinking about my customers, I suspect that a fair number of customers dont use most or indeed any of the smart features that come with their TV. Thats not so surprising, when you consider that many people dont even use the recorder very much that they do own. I used to have customers so unadventurous that they had not not even used the 'Red Button'!
Brianist linked to a TV Licencing report when citing a figure about PVR's, and this stated that people have bought smart TV's passively - TV's are all smart, so if your buying a TV, you have those smart features, even if you are not even connected to the net. That backs up other research, where people are just buiying a new TV, and smart is one of the features that generally comes with it.
About 10-15% of customers ask to buy a smart TV, and about 5% say they dont want want smart TV. The answer to the first group is 'basically they all are' (and certainly will be this coming year), and the second group gets either pointed to one 32in Samsung, or merely point out that they are all are, and that they dont have to use the extra features anyway.
An article in Wired a while back did say TV's were not exactly user friendly in relation to smart features, and even now you'd probably use an Ipad/laptop to browse the net, rather than the browser that comes with them (although the cooler extra remotes you get with more expensive TV's makes life rather easier), but gradually, I think people are learning to use at least some of those functions (such as Iplayer), functionality is much better and gradually understanding/use will improve.
The World Cup should certainly boost sales of TV's, and those smart features are standard. I certainly like Iplayer via the Xbox - very useful if I've forgotten to record the programme that my wife asked me to!
| link to this comment |
Saturday 8 March 2014 10:26PM
KMJ,Derby: I feel your pain, being the not especially proud owner of an almost nine year old Philips CRT!
However, I cannot recommend buying an HDMI to scart adaptor. Your paying £35 plus for a box which takes a digital signal and turns it into analogue. In the long term, why would you want to do that?
I'd rather someone just put their money towards a Humax (Philips and Sagem also do ones with scarts). In fact Humax's actually have scart, HDMI and RCA's (now practically extinct) on the back and have HD tuners and Iplayer access. Fine for CRT's, fine for flat screens.
In fact most manufacturers have stopped having scarts on their recorders for pretty simple reasons - cost and need. If 70% plus of the population have an HD-Ready or full HD TV (with HDMI's), having a scart makes little sense - its just an extra cost. If you dont have anything other than scarts on your TV, then Humax and one or two brands do them, but they are getting rare. Its not perfect, but I understand why.
Whats really annoying is the attitude of cheap manufacturers who have produced SD boxes with just scarts. Since modern TV's tend to only have one scart (and from 2013 video RCA's have been replaced by the now pretty rare RGB), how do you connect more than one scart? And of course there is no upscaling. Again, its all down to cost...