BBC cuts jobs / Charter renewal

Please explain how hiring a professional photographer to take photos that could be used well into the next decade, that are printable quality up to billboard size, and and that are designed to project a professional image to, potentially, an entire continent, is a waste of money.

I am sure there remain sections of the BBC (Worldwide and domestic) where cost-savings could be achieved, perhaps compromising the quality of output, perhaps not. As there will be in the vast majority of organisations of similar stature.


The problem is you admit to being initially falesly taken in by and then continuing to base your argument/opinion on an extremely problematic article, which wears its vested interests like a blindingly bright Christmas jumper.

There are always two sides to every story. The sensible thing is always to take stock of both accounts and make your judgements accordingly. Not to go in already doggedly preset in your views, looking for them to be massaged and confirmed by articles whose primary objective is to spread toxic misinformation for the benefit of the newspaper's proprietors.

That is a dangerous path.

del

I have already explained that.

20k is too much, in my opinion. But I am not part of the media industry, clearly its a different world.

Forget about the photoshoot for a moment, there are many examples of the BBC burning money.

Lets wait and see what these photos are like, and how they are going to be used.

As I said before, I have my opinion, I think its right, you think you are right, lets leave it there.

End, again.

I'm talking about all their output, not just news where's it's impossible / impractical for them to get a proper camera / link. Imagine Wimbledon filmed on mobiles and sent over 4G using Skype. It'd be cheaper than the market rates for that sort of event.



Give us some other examples of the BBC burning money then.

The 20k isn't a media rate, that's the photographers' going rate. I'd be very surprised if he only works for media companies. Besides, 20k for a professional photographer, which will include the equipment, grading of the images, and the rights to those images isn't particularly high these days for any sizable company. Yes, you can get cheaper, normally resulting in either a lower quality product, one that doesn't meet your brief, or (the big discount) - not owning the rights to the images, so you end up paying a royalty every time they're used.

Go and get a job in a company that has to promote itself, you'll quickly learn that marketing costs lots of money.

Nobody has actually said it cost £20,000.

There are many examples of the BBC burning money,





Don't mention the half a million severance packages paid out to high profile staff leaving, and some did not deserve a thing because they were terrible at the job. A total of £60 million since 2005.

The BILLION pound cost to move the BBC to media city.

£24 million spent on relocation packages.

The £4,000 a month paid out to staff who do not want to move to media city. A total of £228 million extra.

£2.4 million on the Pollard review.

The £3 million the BBC is going to be paying to rent back part of television centre, the place they sold for a lower than expected cost.

They burn money through poor management as well, and we will never know the full cost. When they sent nearly 200 staff members to the lib deb conference for example. How much did that cost I wonder. And that was after they had scaled back the plan.

And then you have things that are being commissioned that are absolute rubbish, how do they even get through the door. Maybe that is personal taste so lets discredit that.

They pay loads to enforce the license, you could argue that is required.

There are more things, research it.

The point is that the BBC likes to pile your fee cash into a room, and point a flame thrower at it. Not literally of course.

BURN BURN BURN.

http://i1253.photobucket.com/albums/hh582/tvlresistance/BBC_zps9664daf7.jpg

Sorry but I could not resist this image.

I feel sorry for those at the BBC that have common sense, its a shame they will be the ones who lose their jobs, while the decision makers get a pay off.

Think about how much money the BBC is wasting, you might say, oh they have much more, but its a lot of money these folks are burning. Imagine that cash in real money.

I am assuming it did, the mail contacted his people and they said he costs 20k a day, but the BBC got a special price so who knows.

The article itself states "The overall costs are approximately a fifth of what we would normally charge for a production of this kind". It also says that another presenter was believed to have been photographed in the same session.

Even the Daily Mail couldn't bring itself to lie outright, just to overemphasise and exaggerate to the extreme.

The IT system which had it worked would have saved millions. There are cost overruns on IT projects everywhere, everyday. Unless you can say for sure that the system was doomed from day one but was still signed off, you can't say the money was burned.



I'm sure their staff and guests would be far happier with Dave from round the corner who doesn't mind giving them a lift. Unless he's got to nip down the shops. Still, he's cheaper than a normal taxi!



----

I don't have time to pick up on your other points, but they all seem to fall under one category "Big company, doing big things, costs more than an individual thinks should be spent".

Exemplified by

You've said you don't know much about the way the BBC works, so how can you even comment on the number of people it takes to do what they need to do. It would be like me complaining that Sainsbury's have too many drivers. Surely they could get the lorry drivers to do the home deliveries too, just think how much it costs to have all those drivers, which pushes up the cost of the bread and milk.

The IT system did not work and wasted 100 million, that is the fact. Its more the fact that it failed in the way it did that is the problem. Its an example of how things happen in the BBC. According to the BBC themselves it the project had massive failings.



That's very nice of them, but is it really something that should be done in a time of cuts.



MP's have voiced concern, and you seem to be suggesting no money has been wasted?

I don't know how many staff it takes to do one of these events, but the rest of the media seem to think that is too much, maybe its a conspiracy.

This argument is never going to be won by me, so you are right I am wrong, happy days.

The alternative with that system was to carry on regardless and continue to spend money until it did work. If they'd done that, it'd have cost more, but wouldn't have generated any negative press in the end. Would that have been better?



Absolutely. If your staff are unable to get home from work without being mugged, raped or assaulted, you'll very quickly find yourself with a shortage of staff. Employers have a duty of care to their employees. Have you asked how much taxpayers money TfL spend on taxiing train and bus drivers around?



You'll find it's only a certain area of the media who think it's too much. Those who would benefit massively from a dismantling of the BBC. Well, that and the people who "don't know how many staff it takes to do one of these events", but still think it's too many.



And no, I'm not saying no money is being wasted, but the level of wastage isn't anywhere near as high as the tabloids like to make out. I'm still waiting for one of them, who are quite happy to print that the DG gets paid more than the PM, to point out he only gets a tenth of his equivalent at ITV.