TV Home Forum

BBC cuts jobs / Charter renewal

1,000 people may leave the BBC (July 2015)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
RS
Rob_Schneider
BBC Worldwide can do what they like. Just like ITV etc. can. This is very irresponsible journalism.

On the subject of B&W licenses... you'd have to spend a bit on a box that the old telly could take. I don't know of any that have an RF output. I don't think even YouView boxes do?
WH
Whataday Founding member
Rob_Schneider posted:
BBC Worldwide can do what they like. Just like ITV etc. can. This is very irresponsible journalism.


I don't buy the argument that Worldwide can do what it likes. Actually, it probably CAN, but it should have more scrutiny than an organisation like ITV.

BBC Worldwide is owned by the BBC, and is able to exploit brands and programming created thanks to the licence fee. In return for this privilege its profits go to the Corporation.

The article may well be a non story, but if BBC Worldwide WERE peeing money up the wall, this is money which could be supplementing the BBC's income. And that's why I believe it's wrong to say they should be allowed to do what they like, no questions asked.
GO
gottago
Ronnie_1990 posted:
Quote:
Last night, MPs and campaigners accused the corporation of a ‘baffling’ and ‘wilful’ waste of public funds, totally out of kilter with its poverty plea.
Conservative MP Bill Cash said: ‘Nobody exercised restraint – this is a wilful waste of money. It’s beyond imagination, but not apparently the BBC’s limitless pockets.’

The BBC confirmed the photoshoot took place and would be used as part of a marketing campaign ordered by BBC Worldwide, the Corporation’s commercial arm, which exists to top up its funding.
It would not reveal the cost of the project, but said it had been in the planning for around a year.
It also defended the decision to hire one of the world’s most expensive photographers on the basis that it had come out of BBC Worldwide, rather than directly from the licence fee.
A spokesman said: ‘Quest is a non-licence fee funded BBC Worldwide marketing initiative for international audiences that will build awareness of the unique talent behind BBC content - and showcase British creativity to the world.’


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3171465/BBC-news-presenters-portraits-taken-20-000-DAY-photographer-Rankin-hired-marketing-campaign-director-general-complaining-cuts.html

Its still a lot of money for a photoshoot.

£20k isn't that much in the world of advertising. If they didn't think that it would attract new viewers and generate revenues of over £20k they wouldn't have done it, it really is as simple as that.
bilky asko and Jonny gave kudos
RK
Rkolsen
gottago posted:

£20k isn't that much in the world of advertising. If they didn't think that it would attract new viewers and generate revenues of over £20k they wouldn't have done it, it really is as simple as that.


I think it's relatively cheap especially in this day and age. Also I imagine they probably had multiple presenters getting their photos/videos taken each day other than the two mentioned.
RO
Ronnie_1990
Im sorry, but such thinking as this is why the country is in such a mess.

Its the going rate? without being rude, so what?

Go down to the local uni and pick out five photography students, and get them to do it. Pay them a grand and they will be as happy as Larry. Pick from the best.

And if these uni shots were terrible, fine, go and get a pro, but not a 20k a day pro (we don't know if the BBC paid that but let us assume they did).

Why should we just accept, "oh its the going rate" so lets start burning some money. I wish people would think outside the box.

Im sorry if that is not how things are done in the industry, I have no idea, but maybe they need to start thinking differently and not rely on the norm. There are so many examples of the BBC burning fee money.

Another article, a fair one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/23/daily-mail-bbc-rankin-presenter-portraits_n_7854950.html
Last edited by Ronnie_1990 on 24 July 2015 9:36am - 2 times in total
NE
Neil__
Ronnie_1990 posted:

How is that a 'fair' one?

It re-iterates the Daily Mail story and throws in a few tweets. No real investigation done into the facts.
DO
dosxuk
Neil DG posted:

Because it confirms what Ronnie already believes.
Neil__ and bilky asko gave kudos
JO
Jonny
I can just imagine it...

"BBC Wastes £THOUSANDS on Amatuer Photographers" 'Corp Blows YOUR MONEY on Unusable Photoshoot, Finally Hires a Pro to do it Right' (cont. Page 94)

Gottago's above post hits the nail squarely on the head. To continue returning profits to the licence fee funded BBC, BBC Worldwide must continuously pursue new advertisers and subscribers, whilst also retaining existing ones. This is partly achieved through professionally executed marketing activities such as this one.

If you want to continue to go round in deeply confused, agitated, fist-flailing circles, feel free.
DO
dosxuk
The BBC could decide to stop paying market rates for professional marketing and use amateurs, the same as they could stop paying market rates for broadcast cameras and use £150 cameras from Argos instead. They could stop paying thousands of pounds a day for satellite capacity, and just use facetime instead.
MarkT76, Jonny and bilky asko gave kudos
RO
Ronnie_1990
dosxuk posted:
The BBC could decide to stop paying market rates for professional marketing and use amateurs, the same as they could stop paying market rates for broadcast cameras and use £150 cameras from Argos instead. They could stop paying thousands of pounds a day for satellite capacity, and just use facetime instead.


Don't they use mobiles these days? and FaceTime for some live news broadcasts.

Im sure they have started to. And so do Sky News. Only for certain broadcasts.
RO
Ronnie_1990
Neil DG posted:
Ronnie_1990 posted:

How is that a 'fair' one?

It re-iterates the Daily Mail story and throws in a few tweets. No real investigation done into the facts.


I thought it was fair, it gives responses from both sides, on Twitter at least.
RO
Ronnie_1990
dosxuk posted:
Neil DG posted:

Because it confirms what Ronnie already believes.


The only thing I believe is that the BBC wastes money in every sector of the organisation, and that money should be saved in anyway possible as long as it does not damage the major aims of the organisation as a whole.

I am obviously thick for thinking such a thing.

The End.

Newer posts