NG
Very good question.
I'm no expert...but if you are a nonprofit, and you can do something for $100, then I, as a private company, will want to have my margin added on top of the actual $100 cost of the activity if I do it for you. (Or do some of these independent producers try to function as non-profits? I don't know...does anyone?)
In independent production terms there are two arguments :
1. Some indys are small - and thus operate with lower overheads, so they actually make programmes for less money using methods the BBC can't, and in some cases get access and operate in ways that allow them to make shows the BBC couldn't. Not all of course - but some. (Small indies may not provide pension schemes, they may not have the overheads of accommodation, phone systems, personnel departments, senior management etc. that the BBC have and that are folded into programme budgets)
2. Independent production has deemed to be an important industry for the country - both creatively in the public service, and as a revenue generation system for the country (Leading independents sell their programmes and formats overseas - effectively "exporting" - which is good for the country.
When it comes to outsourcing other services - technology, playout, transmission and soon resources, the argument is that the BBC was too small to fully exploit savings made by large scale companies in the same field and thus even though they make a profit, the BBC should still make a saving compared to the cost it would have cost the BBC to do the same things in house. Whether this is ACTUALLY the case for all outsourcing...
Alternatively, if you have a unionised workforce and I don't...well....wages are usually one of the largest cost-components of any activity...
... is that really the point? Is all this outsourcing just designed to change the balance of power between the organizations and labour in the media industry in general (and the public service part of it in particular)? Or is it just that the structure of the BBC right now is getting in the way of evolving the corporation into whatever it is intended to evolve into? Part of some long-term plan to turn the BBC into something more like the American PBS or the Canadian CBC?
How many of the people who lose their positions at the BBC will end up joining the production concerns that the BBC will outsource to? What sort of positions, exactly are intended to be eliminated?
TVC is, when you get down to it, just famous real estate. But changing the way that content is produced is changing the way the BBC does its job. What sort of institution will it be after these changes are made?
If it carries on as it currently is - Channel Four (the original publisher/broadcasters) would be a good model.
The irony is that ITV have decided to revert to making as much as possible in-house, after embracing independent production for far more than their 25% quota that the government demands.
noggin
Founding member
phileasfogg posted:
I have a question. If the BBC is supposed to operate as a non-profit organization, how is there to be any long-term savings in outsourcing production activities to profit-motivated private contractors?
Very good question.
Quote:
I'm no expert...but if you are a nonprofit, and you can do something for $100, then I, as a private company, will want to have my margin added on top of the actual $100 cost of the activity if I do it for you. (Or do some of these independent producers try to function as non-profits? I don't know...does anyone?)
In independent production terms there are two arguments :
1. Some indys are small - and thus operate with lower overheads, so they actually make programmes for less money using methods the BBC can't, and in some cases get access and operate in ways that allow them to make shows the BBC couldn't. Not all of course - but some. (Small indies may not provide pension schemes, they may not have the overheads of accommodation, phone systems, personnel departments, senior management etc. that the BBC have and that are folded into programme budgets)
2. Independent production has deemed to be an important industry for the country - both creatively in the public service, and as a revenue generation system for the country (Leading independents sell their programmes and formats overseas - effectively "exporting" - which is good for the country.
When it comes to outsourcing other services - technology, playout, transmission and soon resources, the argument is that the BBC was too small to fully exploit savings made by large scale companies in the same field and thus even though they make a profit, the BBC should still make a saving compared to the cost it would have cost the BBC to do the same things in house. Whether this is ACTUALLY the case for all outsourcing...
Quote:
Alternatively, if you have a unionised workforce and I don't...well....wages are usually one of the largest cost-components of any activity...
... is that really the point? Is all this outsourcing just designed to change the balance of power between the organizations and labour in the media industry in general (and the public service part of it in particular)? Or is it just that the structure of the BBC right now is getting in the way of evolving the corporation into whatever it is intended to evolve into? Part of some long-term plan to turn the BBC into something more like the American PBS or the Canadian CBC?
How many of the people who lose their positions at the BBC will end up joining the production concerns that the BBC will outsource to? What sort of positions, exactly are intended to be eliminated?
TVC is, when you get down to it, just famous real estate. But changing the way that content is produced is changing the way the BBC does its job. What sort of institution will it be after these changes are made?
If it carries on as it currently is - Channel Four (the original publisher/broadcasters) would be a good model.
The irony is that ITV have decided to revert to making as much as possible in-house, after embracing independent production for far more than their 25% quota that the government demands.
