« Topics
ccskycomedy
London London
More than ten years ago, BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky's websites were treated like a proper websites. Now it seems to reduced to just a blogs and/or on demand services.
Last edited by ccskycomedy on 21 September 2019 9:15pm
Brekkie32,288 posts since 4 Jan 2003
HTV Wales Wales Today
Does annoy me how they point to social media, especially when the regions and sometime national news programmes do online specials but through Facebook rather than their own on demand services or website.
I preferred the internet when it had a sense of humour.
Neil Jones5,561 posts since 23 Dec 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today
Because with Facebook the site (presumably) pays for the bandwidth, which they would have to do instead if they used their own bandwidth either on the site or through on-demand.

Anyway its easier to "share" through Facebook. Through their own site they can only share the link indirectly, by dumping it on Facebook its easier to rack up a few hundred shares in a relatively short space of time.

Plus of course if you're not on Facebook then anybody under 25 isn't interested in anything you have to say.
Night Thoughts242 posts since 24 Jan 2016
London London
In short, because running "proper" websites is expensive. Not as expensive as making telly, but still expensive. And the BBC blew a *lot* of money on little-read websites in the early 00s, some of which were absolute crap.

Does annoy me how they point to social media, especially when the regions and sometime national news programmes do online specials but through Facebook rather than their own on demand services or website.


It's worrying how broadcasters give so much house room to promote what are actually rivals to them (and rivals with far lower editorial/moral standards to boot, although that's another discussion for another place, really). There's no point in complaining Facebook is hoovering up your advertising when you're giving it content to sell that advertising around.

It's not the under-25s - for many older people, Facebook is basically *the internet* now, so it's easy to see why they do it, but it's not a healthy situation.
3
scottishtv, Brekkie and chinamug gave kudos
tesandco1,022 posts since 28 Sep 2001
Granada North West Today
It's not just the pros this affects, you can easily see the reasoning just in the context of things round here. I run a pres website (yeah I know, I kept that one secret!), and spend huge amounts of time and effort keeping it updated with supplementary text, dates, images etc. Despite this, the web stats (and things like site threads on here) show a huge percentage of what goes on the site is completely overlooked until someone either reposts just a video from the same era (or indeed sometimes even the exact clip lifted) on Youtube. Whereupon it often appears in the 'Youtube Gold' or 'Missing Presentation' threads on here as though it's never been seen on the net before, and doesn't come with any of the surrounding content of a full website. Other websites/blogs etc also focus on making spreading content from big social media sites easier as it's considered a consistent platform with a bigger userbase from one hit of coding. You ever tried embedding a 'traditional' site video on this very forum and getting the thumbnails, right hand side thread promotion etc as happens automatically for YT vids? Wink

Broadcasters are not going to be immune to this same social media phenomenon just because they're bigger. The difference being that for us small site owners, the costs currently are more on our free time and sanity to maintain a site even if a limited number of people are using it. For a broadcaster there's still going to be serious costs on development and content writers regardless of use.
TV Whirl - Still covering UK idents, presentation, teletext and programmes after 18 years
2
623058 and Andrew Wood gave kudos
Neil Jones5,561 posts since 23 Dec 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today
Anybody who's ever done a website to fill a hobby/like/interest, for work or for any reason will know how much time and effort goes into it. I should say a "proper" website, not something you can stick on Weebly or a blog somewhere. The design, the navigation, the images, the text... Doesn't do itself. They are hard work! In a professional environment somebody has to be paid to write all that, not going to work for free.
2
steveboswell and London Lite gave kudos
Pete9,042 posts since 18 Jun 2001
STV North Reporting Scotland
"Proper" websites - as you call them - are incredibly difficult and expensive to maintain. When they were being built in the late 90s, early 00s the techniques to build them essentially meant anyone with a vaguely techie team could do website stuff.

Snap forward 20 years and the concept of what a website is is totally different. For a start people will arrive by google or social links meaning that your carefully curated navigational journeys are ruined. You need to be able to support not just people appearing at any page but also people using a variety of devices from low end android phones to 5k 27" iMacs. This means web has become a far more professional industry both in terms of coding but also content creation. No longer can you expect full concentration, you need to be able to deal with lazy flicking on phones. Plus don't underestimate the increasing use of voice.

The producisation of things such as BBC Programmes which allows for automatic deployment of a website for every single show ever broadcast means there are limits for what the "hobbyists" can do, but the advantages outweigh the loss for the most part. It also means that as sites, servers, and platforms become more complex you're able to patch the entire site with a code drop or by moving your buckets around AWS.

TL:DR, the web is bigger and needs to support more user agents. This means less room for bespoke and expensive sites.
ELM 2011: I am sick of been persicuted by you immature TV Forumers!
2
scottishtv and Night Thoughts gave kudos
noggin14,597 posts since 26 Jun 2001
Yep - the BBC used to produce websites independent of TV and Radio content, and many of these were pretty hand coded. The costs of producing this content was reasonably high, the BBC was expanding into an area it had previously not worked in (it was a new area) and competing with new players, and a decision was taken to scale back and effectively stop web-only production outside of News, Sport and corporate, and concentrate on reducing the production costs for the websites it continued to produce. This also co-incided with one of the many BBC cost-cutting exercises...

The BBC moved to a new system with automatic production of blog, programme pages and iPlayer pages, with general Journalist, TV and Radio (i.e. not separate web) production staff being able to produce and edit these pages using a standard production system, just like News and Sport were already doing for their online service.

Other broadcasters around Europe have largely followed this - ceasing bespoke page and website production and moving to a News, Sport News, Catch Up TV and Blog model generated through production systems that non-web specialists can use to publish/create and edit online content.
4
Hadrien, scottishtv and 2 others
  • Night Thoughts
  • London Lite
gave kudos
Alan de Robson149 posts since 8 Aug 2012
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
Building websites is so much harder than it was 10 years ago. It's a world of pain and hurt for a small company.

For a multi-tentacled organisation like a broadcaster, I can only imagine the sleepness nights and the sky-high contractor bills that building and maintaining a modern website requires.
OFCOM's queen bitch
1
623058 gave kudos
62305823,632 posts since 19 Aug 2005
Building websites is so much harder than it was 10 years ago. It's a world of pain and hurt for a small company.

For a multi-tentacled organisation like a broadcaster, I can only imagine the sleepness nights and the sky-high contractor bills that building and maintaining a modern website requires.


I wish more people would understand this important point...............................