Anyone who reads jBlog regularly will know that I’m a big fan of the BBC. As a nation we should be proud that we have an organisation that is so well respected across the world.
So I’m naturally disheartened to hear of imminent job cuts at the BBC.
The license fee settlement has, according to the Beeb, meant that journalists will be facing redundancy. It’s always a sad state of affairs to see this happen, but part of me wonders if the BBC simply employs too many people?
Take Five Live as an example. If you ever listen to their football coverage, you’ll notice how a ‘team’ of reporters covers every match. Is it too much to ask a team of one commentator and one analyst to do the whole match? I’ve heard some games covered by no less that six different people. Pure wastage, and I fail to see how it improves coverage in the slightest.
On a local level, radio coverage from the BBC is very good. Although, again, it could be cut back without hindering quality. On my local radio station, I enjoy listening to Mark Johnson’s commentary on Cambridge United’s games. It’s good — Mark is a long time United fan, so there is a sense of shared joy when the mighty U’s do well.
But our opposition, whoever it may be, will have their own commentary team covering the match too. Two BBC commentary teams commentating on the same match, at the same time. Why not combine the two? If Cambridge are playing Torquay, why not have Mark Johnson and his Torquay-based equivalent commentating together? Already you’ve saved on two analysts.
Apply this to Premiership games, when there will be no less than three commentary teams covering (each local station, and Five Live), and you’ve saved an absolute packet over the season.
And that’s just one example. I could go into the money-spending exercise that was changing the BBC idents to the ridiculous ones with the Hippos (how much did that cost?), or how pointless it is having a shivering Nick Robinson standing outside Downing Street, in the dark, telling us all that nothing has changed since the 6 o’clock bulletin.
I sympathise with the BBC. It’s not nice having to get rid of journalists. No doubt the NUJ will be on their back about this as well. Rightly so, those journalists affected need to be represented. But we should really be looking into how the BBC came to employ these surplus journalists in the first place.
Once that’s done, they can then start looking at how to earn more money from what it does already. Will an advert on BBC.com really be that bad? BBC.com is an attractive prospect for advertisers because it is a well-respected news source that people trust. So, with that in mind, I can’t see the advertisers offering much in the way of pressure on content. They’d want the BBC to stay exactly as it is.
What’s more, why should overseas internet users gain advertising-free access to a website that we — the license fee payer — have paid for?
If the BBC directs its efforts into trimming the excess, and maximising the assets it already has, this change need not be so drastic. We shouldn’t even notice it happening.
Thoughts?
We’ve been warned about this for a while and yes the BBC may be a bit frivolous with its staff but by doing so has built up an excellent reputation.
Let mee answer a couple of your points, first local commentary. Nice idea but as budget remits come out from seperate local stations it’s not viable. You can’t employ someone on a 12 month contract and say ‘well actually you’re only needed twice a month on a Saturday so we’ll take ten grand off your salary’.
And as you rightly said the listener becomes comfortable with their own commentator who knows the team. People personalise their radio stations – hell, I know some that switch off when a certain presenter comes on. The BBC is giving you a choice…whether it be local or not.
The hippos – well it was in the charter that they’d update their logos every 4 or so years…the budget was there and it had to be used.
As for advertising on the BBC website – slippery slope mate, once you stick an advert on there where will it stop? Before you know it Cadburys will be trailing their latest sweet before Eastenders.
I’m proud of having a world wide resource in this country – the BBC website – and I think sharing it with other countries not only gives us importance and status but trust as well. Helping journalists to be made welcome in other countries by simply uttering those three letters ‘BBC’.
About the commentators. As it is at the moment, there will be one regular commentator, and then a ‘guest’ who will add the odd comment now and again. I’m guessing that the guest won’t be on a contract.
In my ‘new’ system, the main commentator for each region would still commentate on as many games (four/five a month say), but we could drop the extra guest. The commentary team would consist of one person from one locality, and then one from the opposing team’s station.
This set up could work on national radio too. Man United vs Liverpool commentary team: one bloke from BBC Merseyside (if that’s what it’s called) and one from BBC Manchester.
None of this six commentators rubbish.
I don’t see why advertising is a slippery slope. BBC.com is a commercial product. If a UK resident puts BBC.com into their browser, they’ll be re-directed to an advertisement-free bbc.co.uk automatically. No problem there.
I’m proud of the BBC too, I’ve said that many a time, but at the same time I think if advertising is managed well, it can become a major source of funding for a company that is strapped for cash.
Remember that the UKGold/Style/Living channels are all offshoots of the Beeb… so advertising in the BBC is nothing new, despite the public perception.
The trust you speak of will still exist.
As far as budget remits go…maybe that’s the problem. Some sections have bigger budgets, and they feel like they have money to burn. Others are extremely tight. This lack of flexibility is harming the BBC (the same thing is happening in education, health and many public services).
Dave,
I think you make some interesting points.I understand your point about the soccer commentary but really these sort of savings I would imagine are drops in the ocean.(How many reporters could you employ if you saved J.Ross’s salary)
It is worrying that the BBC may have to shut down some of its overseas news operations in the light of these savings because cutbacks in quality journalism will harm the corporation.
As regards the slippery slope of advertising,there is no reason in my mind why the corporation can’t at least fund some of this shortfall thru that medium.it is ,after all ,a quality product and would have no problems attracting that sort of revenue.The other side of the coin is that this income would move away from commercial outlets and then we get into the unfair competition argument.
I think the answer is to look at reducing some of its services,do we really need BBC3 for example? and selling off its commercial arms.