TV Home Forum

Ofcom tells BBC to show more UK-made programmes

Also: comedy identified as 'an area of particular weakness' for the BBC (October 2017)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
NG
noggin Founding member
Riaz posted:
Sounds like the already restrictive budget will have to be stretched even further unfortunately.


Come on, the BBC has masses more money than most privately owned TV channels which broadcast in Britain and an almost guaranteed source of income.


Though it also runs a lot more services - so you need to compare like-with-like. Pence per hour, or pence per viewer hour, figures are probably more useful than overall budgets in that regard.

Quote:

The question which hangs over the BBC is what material really should qualify for public service broadcasting.


Yes - and if you aren't careful you end up with public service being taken to mean 'stuff that commercial companies won't make money doing' and only that...

You only need look at the US to see what that leaves you with...
RI
Riaz
Yes - and if you aren't careful you end up with public service being taken to mean 'stuff that commercial companies won't make money doing' and only that...


That's a bit of an extreme opposing viewpoint. It's questionable whether the BBC can continue to justify calling itself a public service broadcaster in the future if it continues as the gargantuan institution that it is today. There is also another question whether it should focus on providing a public service in Britain or whether it should be a flag carrier for Britain on the global stage.

Quote:
You only need look at the US to see what that leaves you with...


There are people worldwide who admire PBS.
CA
Cando
Riaz posted:

There are people worldwide who admire PBS.


Outside of the chattering classes, I very much doubt many know it exists.
Fox News on the other hand....
RI
Riaz
I don't think there is an American broadcaster that functions as a flag carrier for the US. The closest is probably Disney.

Fox News? Possibly a flag carrier for certain factions of the American political right but certainly not the US as a nation.
NG
noggin Founding member
Riaz posted:
Yes - and if you aren't careful you end up with public service being taken to mean 'stuff that commercial companies won't make money doing' and only that...


That's a bit of an extreme opposing viewpoint. It's questionable whether the BBC can continue to justify calling itself a public service broadcaster in the future if it continues as the gargantuan institution that it is today.

Gargantuan?

Compare it to ZDF and ARD in Germany (count the number of TV stations and radio service they operate...)? Back of envelope calculation suggests that their income in 2016 was €8bn (€6bn for ARD, €2bn for ZDF). BBC income for the same period? £3.5bn...

Compare it to any of the major US broadcasters ? Compare it to BSkyB, Netflix or Amazon.

Perspective is useful. The BBC is a well funded public service broadcaster, and still seen as a good model for others...

Quote:

There is also another question whether it should focus on providing a public service in Britain or whether it should be a flag carrier for Britain on the global stage.


It can do both - though the change to all licence-fee funding (excluding World 2020 stuff) has made this trickier and was a backwards step (not of the BBC's doing)

Quote:

Quote:
You only need look at the US to see what that leaves you with...


There are people worldwide who admire PBS.


Yes - and many also admire the BBC. PBS is close to irrelevant to a large proportion of the US public (it isn't actually serving that large a public). The BBC is very relevant to a large number of the UK public...
Last edited by noggin on 15 October 2017 2:05pm - 2 times in total
tmorgan96 and bilky asko gave kudos
NG
noggin Founding member

I’m all for gender equality.

Seeing the stats in the management roles significantly makes the 50% that much more attainable. How ever the 2020 time frame is quite ambitious. That being said I thought it would be much lower.

How will they go about meeting that goal is what puzzles me. Will they suddenly reconsider all current managers or make them redundant? Will they had more “senior management” positions - which correct me if I’m wrong the BBC was under fire for having too many managers.


Snr management positions have quite high levels of 'churn' - so that will probably allow for a lot of reorganisation.
Quote:

Also important is the pay. Say a woman is hired from outside the BBC for position that became available. Will she automatically get the same pay the previous manager made (male or female) or will she be placed in the same grade but at a lower step* until she has some tenure?

Most very Snr Managers are in ungraded positions (i.e. they are above the highest grade), those who are in the highest graded position will negotiate their salary in a similar way. At that level its always a negotiation (albeit now with more information)...
RI
Riaz
Yes - and many also admire the BBC.


I never dened that one.

Quote:
PBS is close to irrelevant to a large proportion of the US public (it isn't actually serving that large a public).


Are you sure about this one? PBS might not bring in the viewing figures that the popular entertainment channels do but it is (or definitely was) a trusted and respected brand. It even shows BBC programmes from time to time.

Quote:
The BBC is very relevant to a large number of the UK public...


Is the popularity of BBC TV primarily a result of its public service commitments or is it a result of its popular entertainment?
GO
gottago
Riaz posted:


Are you sure about this one? PBS might not bring in the viewing figures that the popular entertainment channels do but it is (or definitely was) a trusted and respected brand. It even shows BBC programmes from time to time.

Quote:
The BBC is very relevant to a large number of the UK public...


Is the popularity of BBC TV primarily a result of its public service commitments or is it a result of its popular entertainment?

PBS might be respected but fundimentally it serves a specific audience, it’s not for everyone, it’s seen as older skewing and upmarket. The BBC strikes a perfect balance of making public service programmes popular and accessible to everyone.
IS
Inspector Sands
Riaz posted:
I don't think there is an American broadcaster that functions as a flag carrier for the US. The closest is probably Disney.

Probably CNN. It's reach and availability is massive and internationally at least it still has a lot of credibility


You don't find many hotels worldwide that don't have CNN on their tellies. Something they used to promote a lot
RK
Rkolsen
Riaz posted:
I don't think there is an American broadcaster that functions as a flag carrier for the US. The closest is probably Disney.

Probably CNN. It's reach and availability is massive and internationally at least it still has a lot of credibility


You don't find many hotels worldwide that don't have CNN on their tellies. Something they used to promote a lot


There really isn’t one national broadcaster. There would be some that you could call true legacy broadcasters NBC & CBS. However if you wanted a BBC style newscast you’d go with PBS’s Newshour.

However if you wanted to know the statistics of network coverage head on over to RabbitEars.info. In terms of network cover of population they are as follows:

1) ABC covering 97.74% of the population with 129,755,788 households through 242 affiliates.
2) NBC covering 97.32% of the population with 129,111,215 households through 237 affiliates.
3) PBS covering 97.24% of the population with 129,307,820 households through 348 member stations.
4) CBS covering 96.63% of the population with 128,207,117 households through 242 affiliates.
5) FOX covering 95.72% of the population with 126,789,896 households through 241 affiliates.

Even though there are only 210 DMAs many of these numbers include satellite stations, translators or low power stations. I guess you could say each affiliate refers to an individual transmitter. That being said some stations may share the same transmitter/call signs but appear as a subchannel (x.2 etc) on the stations multiplex.
RI
Riaz
Probably CNN. It's reach and availability is massive and internationally at least it still has a lot of credibility

You don't find many hotels worldwide that don't have CNN on their tellies. Something they used to promote a lot


I thought about CNN because its tentacles extend far and wide but widespread availability worldwide doesn't necessarily make something a national flag carrier. It's a bit like Ford is American but Ford cars are rarely thought of as a flag carrier for the US on the roads of Britain.

CNN is news but Disney is cultural and entertainment. There was a time when I used to think that MGM and WB were to a certain extent flag carriers for the US because they were highly distinguished brands on-screen despite not having their own channels in Britain.
IS
Inspector Sands
Riaz posted:

CNN is news but Disney is cultural and entertainment.

Yes but as 'a broadcaster' which is what the question was, Disney or ABC isn't anywhere near as dominant outside the US.

It's programmes and films are massively popular of course, but it's broadcasting outlets aren't. And even with those when was the last time most people watched some Disney content that was actually Disney branded?

CNN is news but it's American-centric news and opinion. It pushes American culture and ideas to the world. People learn about America from CNN... people learn English from CNN!

It's the USs de facto World Service. I know officially that's VOA but who listens to that or goes to their website for news?
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 16 October 2017 8:53am - 2 times in total

Newer posts