NG
The BBC has a predicted shortfall of £2bn based on projections of income from the licence fee and the amount predicted to be spent on plans already in place for future broadcasting. Refurbishment projects, new services, talent and broadcast inflation, improvements to existing services, continuing current services etc. are all part of this predicted cost structure.
Whether the BBC cancels some new services (Local TV?), reduces programme or department budgets, reduces its headcount and thus its overheads, are all decisions the BBC has to make. Some of the projects the BBC has committed to (BH, Salford) it is unlikely to be able to cancel - and some of the outsourcing contracts have been signed for long-terms. (Siemens a prime example)
However although there isn't a budget cut in cash terms, there IS a budget cut in relative terms, as the licence fee will be growing by less than broadcast and talent inflation, as these costs grow at a higher rate than normal inflation - the amount the BBC gets for its money will be reduced in real-world terms...
Really, the Beeb should be looking into expenditure. How many needless helicopter shots (£1,000 per hour) are used to illustrate stories,
The BBC - like most broadcasters - has an annual contract on a helicopter with a 3rd party operator. This contract includes a guaranteed number of hours of use - in return for a major cost reduction. This is MUCH cheaper than hiring a helicopter on an as-required basis as the BBC previously did, reducing the "per hour" cost - and thus there are occasions where the BBC have not used the helicopter much during one period, so they can deploy it more frequently in another. Not using it would be a waste of money - as there is a minimum number of hours the BBC have agreed to use it...
Sure - the BBC could reduce the number of hours on its contract - but the number of hours they buy is based on experience of the type of story that a helicopter provides a unique viewpoint (and in some cases the only pictures) for coverage - floods being a prime example, but also live coverage of events that would otherwise require large numbers of ground based cameras etc.
A single helicopter camera can be much more cost effective than deploying multiple trucks - especially when you are sustaining a live news channel.
Sure you can argue that a news channel is something the BBC can't afford to do (though others would argue it is a core requirement), and you can argue that a still graphic or library pictures can be used to cover breaking stories as effectively as live pictures from a helicopter (though others would argue that TV is about pictures, and News is about current events)
Whether the helicopter is always deployed wisely is a different matter editorially - but in cost terms it is quite straightforward to argue that it is more cost effective than other newsgathering methods.
how many pointless OBs are there to irrelevant locations, how many big name correspondants and presenters are flown out to locations which have regional correspondents, how much money is thrown around by crews with extortionate shooting budgets?
OBs are cheaper than taped reports usually - and again the BBC seldom buy in these facilities. They have trucks across the UK to provide decent news coverage - are you suggesting they axe the trucks, or keep them in a garage rather than deploying them? Surely having them sitting in a car park is a waste of money...
As for big name correspondents, they are big name correspondents for a reason - they are usually better at their craft. When a big story breaks, you can't cope on a single reporter (which is what the BBC usually have in most out-of-the-way regions) filing recorded reports and live reports for all the BBC radio and TV outlets. (Other broadcasters like Sky and ITN who have only one or two outlets can...)
I can guarantee that the BBC fly people on the cheapest carriers possible... It is certainly not averse to Easyjet, Ryanair etc...
Not sure where you get the idea of "extortionate shooting budgets" - have you watched an average BBC News report? They consist of a lot of library pictures (if you see 14:9 pillarbox bars on a UK news report - guess what - it is likely to be library... The Beeb shoot almost nothing in the UK in 4:3), MiniDV stuff (thats the nice sharp stuff with the lovely colour balance, great sound and stable camera work...) and the standard BBC crew is a single operator - many of whom are also journalists (think the term is video producer) and ask the questions (as the reporter may be elsewhere or working on another programme)
Yes - the BBC do send their crew overseas - but they usually have to deliver a lot of content in return. Now that non-broadcast technology is being used for live reports - it is less common to send and engineer and uplink dish to remote locations, and instead the reporter and camera operator also edit their material and send it back via laptop store and forward systems, and do their live reports via a sort of super web-cam system. All much cheaper than sending an engineer and dish.
noggin
Founding member
gilsta posted:
Axing jobs and bulletins is not the way to go. As has been said there isn't even a budget cut, just a reduced increase, to suggest such a financial situation warrants these changes is barmy.
The BBC has a predicted shortfall of £2bn based on projections of income from the licence fee and the amount predicted to be spent on plans already in place for future broadcasting. Refurbishment projects, new services, talent and broadcast inflation, improvements to existing services, continuing current services etc. are all part of this predicted cost structure.
Whether the BBC cancels some new services (Local TV?), reduces programme or department budgets, reduces its headcount and thus its overheads, are all decisions the BBC has to make. Some of the projects the BBC has committed to (BH, Salford) it is unlikely to be able to cancel - and some of the outsourcing contracts have been signed for long-terms. (Siemens a prime example)
However although there isn't a budget cut in cash terms, there IS a budget cut in relative terms, as the licence fee will be growing by less than broadcast and talent inflation, as these costs grow at a higher rate than normal inflation - the amount the BBC gets for its money will be reduced in real-world terms...
Quote:
Really, the Beeb should be looking into expenditure. How many needless helicopter shots (£1,000 per hour) are used to illustrate stories,
The BBC - like most broadcasters - has an annual contract on a helicopter with a 3rd party operator. This contract includes a guaranteed number of hours of use - in return for a major cost reduction. This is MUCH cheaper than hiring a helicopter on an as-required basis as the BBC previously did, reducing the "per hour" cost - and thus there are occasions where the BBC have not used the helicopter much during one period, so they can deploy it more frequently in another. Not using it would be a waste of money - as there is a minimum number of hours the BBC have agreed to use it...
Sure - the BBC could reduce the number of hours on its contract - but the number of hours they buy is based on experience of the type of story that a helicopter provides a unique viewpoint (and in some cases the only pictures) for coverage - floods being a prime example, but also live coverage of events that would otherwise require large numbers of ground based cameras etc.
A single helicopter camera can be much more cost effective than deploying multiple trucks - especially when you are sustaining a live news channel.
Sure you can argue that a news channel is something the BBC can't afford to do (though others would argue it is a core requirement), and you can argue that a still graphic or library pictures can be used to cover breaking stories as effectively as live pictures from a helicopter (though others would argue that TV is about pictures, and News is about current events)
Whether the helicopter is always deployed wisely is a different matter editorially - but in cost terms it is quite straightforward to argue that it is more cost effective than other newsgathering methods.
Quote:
how many pointless OBs are there to irrelevant locations, how many big name correspondants and presenters are flown out to locations which have regional correspondents, how much money is thrown around by crews with extortionate shooting budgets?
OBs are cheaper than taped reports usually - and again the BBC seldom buy in these facilities. They have trucks across the UK to provide decent news coverage - are you suggesting they axe the trucks, or keep them in a garage rather than deploying them? Surely having them sitting in a car park is a waste of money...
As for big name correspondents, they are big name correspondents for a reason - they are usually better at their craft. When a big story breaks, you can't cope on a single reporter (which is what the BBC usually have in most out-of-the-way regions) filing recorded reports and live reports for all the BBC radio and TV outlets. (Other broadcasters like Sky and ITN who have only one or two outlets can...)
I can guarantee that the BBC fly people on the cheapest carriers possible... It is certainly not averse to Easyjet, Ryanair etc...
Not sure where you get the idea of "extortionate shooting budgets" - have you watched an average BBC News report? They consist of a lot of library pictures (if you see 14:9 pillarbox bars on a UK news report - guess what - it is likely to be library... The Beeb shoot almost nothing in the UK in 4:3), MiniDV stuff (thats the nice sharp stuff with the lovely colour balance, great sound and stable camera work...) and the standard BBC crew is a single operator - many of whom are also journalists (think the term is video producer) and ask the questions (as the reporter may be elsewhere or working on another programme)
Yes - the BBC do send their crew overseas - but they usually have to deliver a lot of content in return. Now that non-broadcast technology is being used for live reports - it is less common to send and engineer and uplink dish to remote locations, and instead the reporter and camera operator also edit their material and send it back via laptop store and forward systems, and do their live reports via a sort of super web-cam system. All much cheaper than sending an engineer and dish.
