CBeebies forced out of Television Centre

If you think about it what a ridiculous situation. Because BBC Resources is now a profit-making company, a BBC service (in this case CBeebies) now has to rent BBC studio space from a BBC building which once upon a time it would have been automatically entitled to! Whether or not that would have been for "free" I don't know. The result - CBeebies has now been forced out of TVC and is looking for new accommodation in the independent sector.

Maybe I'm missing something here but BBC Resources sound almost like racketeers and the result is now affecting what is seen on screen. Whatever happened to the idea that channels automatically had a right to their own studio buildings if not for free than a nominal rate? This really is ludicrous.

I don't think it's a case of CBeebies being forced out by BBC Resources - more that CBeebies are choosing to move to Shepperton Studios (I think) as the studio space is cheaper there and will save them £500,000 a year.

But I can see where you're coming from with the statement you made. It is a ridiculous situation that BBC Resources are outpricing themselves and effectively, as you said, forcing CBeebies out.

Its very convenient to move them out of TVC since they will be forced up north in a few years to reside in a glorified glass greenhouse (and have to rent studio space from a profit making company which will run the Salford studios)

There is also going to be quite a lot of effort put into a slow public propaganda campaign to remove the BBC association from TVC.

Much of the way the BBC is run and managed now makes no sense whatsoever. Cost cutting exercises are proving expensive to implement and the whole situation over Salford Quays is degenerating into a financial farce - the figures did not add up in the first place - I now looks like its going to cost much more than the ringfenced budget - anything else has to come out of programme budgets.

TV productions in the past would have always paid to use a studio and this would have come out of he budget of the programme.

But the big diffrent now is that any production team/company can use a BBC studio and there are lots of independent studios not owned by broadcasters. But they can't really say to one of thier own programmes - you can have the studio less than the going rate that everyone else is paying

Of course if the BBC hadn't have got into the studio hire business their studios would have been more empty than they are now! Although I agree that they should be more competetive with their prices

They're off to Teddington Studios which is owned by Pinewood/Shepperton

It is a shame, it is sad, but that is the way business works. The minute the BBC decided that BBC Resources had to compete on the open market, and BBC programmes could chose whatever facilities they wished to use on the open market (Producer Choice), things like this were bound to happen.

Is this really any different from The Weakest Link being made at Pinewood (I think), or many BBC sit coms being made at Teddington? Is it that different from Graham Norton being made at TLS, or SCD It Takes Two coming from The Hospital?

Equally - 8 out of 10 Cats, The Alan Titchmarsh show, previous runs of Paul O'Grady, GoldenBalls etc. are all made at TV Centre...

I think it is a bit rich to describe "CBeebies" as being FORCED out - they had a choice - and made it. Teddington were obviously able to provide a more competitive solution than BBC Resources in this case.

AIUI TV Centre is more competitive in the medium-to-large studio area than it is in the small studio one. Until relatively recently TV Centre didn't really have any small studios (TC10 and TC11 were News, TC0 and TC12 were bits of a music studio, and TC9 dedicated to Pres, as Pres A and Pres B were before them) Other facilities - like Teddington - have more experience in this area - and may have more experience of the competitive nature of pricing these kinds of deals.

It is also worth pointing out that TC10, TC11, TC0 and TC12 are - or were - equipped with pretty poor quality kit (JVC multi-core cameras) as they were built very cheaply and initially aimed at UKTV and BBC Three productions (when these implied low cost productions) Watching stuff out of these studios you could easily tell the cameras were not really up to it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Teddington provided full broadcast quality kit as well... They've always had a good technical reputation.

That's right. Thanks

Not really the case - programmes always had an internal "budget" and were able to access the resources they needed to make their shows based on this. There was still an internal market long before Producer Choice - the only difference was that you couldn't go outside if you weren't happy. So if your internal budget only paid for 4 hours in a small studio, you only got 4 hours in a small studio. It didn't matter that the same amount of money (which of course you could only guess at) would get you 8 hours in a similar studio outside the BBC, or 4 hours in a much larger studio, you didn't have the option.

Yes - it is easy to hark back to halcyon days when everything was free... Except it wasn't. Licence fees were still being spent just as they are now. It is just that programme makers had less financial responsibilities than they do know - and had almost no idea how much their programmes ACTUALLY cost. The only cash they dealt with were talent fees, overtime and expenses...


Nothing is free - is is just how you chose to account. Whether you blanketly fill the studios with staff and kit corporately and reduce programme budgets to just the production staff and talent costs (and then remove the staff production team members as well if you want) or whether you allocate the true costs of making a show, including resources.

These days you don't really have much option - as you obviously have to publish transparent accounts for anti-competition reasons.

One main reason most European broadcasters have outsourced their resource operations is that they have to separate production from resourcing for open tendering transparency...



No - it has chosen to go to a cheaper facilities provider. Previously it wouldn't have been able to do this. Result that around 3,300 TV licences are now free-ed up to make more programmes rather than pay for facilities based at TV Centre. In less than a year it is likely that BBC Resources are going to be a 3rd party - just like Teddington. Why should the licence fee subsidise this 3rd party operation??



BBC Resources and Teddington are businesses designed to make profits. Teddington makes a profit for its owners Pinewood/Shepperton, BBC Resources makes a profit for the BBC (i.e. putting money back into programme making)

They set their facilities costs at a level they decide suitable to attract the work they want to attract. Teddington gave CBeebies a better deal. This could be because they have facilities doing nothing, they have reduced overheads, reduced land rent, or wanted to loss-lead to get the business. Equally BBC Resources may not have wanted to continue the contract so didn't work hard to keep it, or not been prepared to run it at a loss. If they were going to have to upgrade TC0 to keep the contract then this may have reflected in a higher price. If Teddington already had acceptable facilities, this too may have altered the costing.

Don't see how you can describe BBC Resources as racketeers - they lost the contract - they didn't force CBeebies to stay...



Where did you ever get that idea from ? It flew out the window with Producer Choice in 1992. Even before then you didn't have an automatic right - you got what you were given. Many producers were far from happy with this - as they knew they could have had better facilities outside the BBC than the ones they were given inside. Just as you didn't get a choice in studio facilities - you also didn't get a choice in your crewing - which could be a terrible situation to be in...

Equally some shows got facilities far better than they would have been able to have afforded on the open market. I well remember seeing hilarious site of The Sky at Night - essentially two chairs, some black flats and a cream rug, set in TC1, occupying a tiny bit of the studio floor. Equally a small low budget show could get some top-notch crew...

I think you are harking back to a vision of a perfect halcyon BBC - which didn't exist.

They have. However I think their studio cameras are about the oldest to be found at any major studio centre, and I'm including BBC English regions.

Ikegamis I think, modified to 16:9 about 8/9 years ago ?

This "producer choice" - it still seems like a racket to me. Even if the profits they make goes back into programming, paradoxically it's actually taken funds OUT of programme making in this instance and that is why CBeebies are on the move. Likewise, Blue Peter's familiar huge studio is no more.

Why shouldn't the BBC, or any broadcaster, be an anti-competitive, insular operation keeping their studios to themselves? From what's been said here it seems this nonsensical move to Manchester will only make things worse. Likewise the Beeb outsourcing its playout - wouldn't doing it themselves actually SAVE money which could then be given back to programming?

AIUI they've just had their Ike's refurbished - no real point buying new SD cameras. They must be better than the pretty-awful JVCs Resources bought... (JVC??? Who ever heard of them making a camera worth using...)

How has it taken money out of programme making. The same programmes are being made for £500,000 less. That is £500,000 available to put into more programmes - or £500,000 less to be taken out of other programme budgets in the current climate.

Blue Peter is different - they decided to reduce the amount they spend on studio facilities within BBC Resources, and accepted a smaller studio as a result of their reduced budget. The studio they used to occupy can now be rented out to other programme makers. Blue Peter are thus able to spend less on their studio production and more on their film-making and outside broadcasts - or use this as a way of meeting the savings that all productions are having to make as a result of the poor licence-fee settlement.


European competition laws are quite significant. Licence-fee money can't be used to distort a resources market AIUI.



That is the question. Now Red Bee have more clients than just the BBC there are arguments about economies of scale, competitive management etc.

There are areas where the BBC on its own is now too small to be cost effective in some areas - where larger operations can be cheaper on a service by service basis.

This may not be the case for everything.

I question the wisdom of some of the outsourcing - but jumping back to the 70s simply isn't an option.