Zoe Ball's pay rise wtf

scrumhalf

randella said:

ICBM said:

RandallFlagg said:

...they Inform, Educate & Entertain. Not sure which of those categories Zoe Ball falls into though. :-) 

All of them... if you take two letters from Inform, three from Entertain and three from Educate.

Nfrm, ntrtan, ecat?

I think you've just summoned a genie. 

thecolourbox

LightB4sound said:

Just one thing to consider. The BBC for all its sins (to many people) does a lot to support music, drama and the arts. BBC Introducing, Radio 6, Radio 3 (world music, classical music which would not be played on a commercial station), BBC Writers room, BBC R&D, sponsored stages at smaller festivals, OBs from smaller festivals (eg Womad)  and so on.

If the BBC were forced to compete with the market, these would all go because they are not always commercially viable, but many of us are reliant on them. BBC Radio 3 can play music from new composers because of this, Classic FM just sticks the big hitters. The same with 6 Music, no commercial station with it's nationally syndicated playlists would play some of the new artists or music that gets played on there. This is something to shout about....especially given that this is a music related forum and I guess some of might be musicians. 

The BBC do a lot for the arts, and we can all use this to our benefit. Submit a track to BBC introducing, it will get listened to, and may get played on the radio. Try that with Netflix, Sky etc.

As with all things in life, the BBC is far from perfect, but it does  have a large remit trying to keep 60 million people happy! When it gets it right it produces content that is world beating (travel around the world and see what other people think of the BBC) and when it gets it wrong, it gets it wrong. But don't we all?

For presenters pay, this is always going to be a tough call. As mentioned already, all of these people could be on 5 times as much moving to a commercial channel. Whilst I support them bring up new talent, how many of you or your friends and family would watch/listen to a program with a total unknown? It is exactly the same with music, do you listen mostly to bands you know or do you actually go out and support unknown bands? The BBC has to have some named talent or the majority would not watch, it is a sad fact of life.

Like many things in life, this is a case of be careful what you wish for, because once it is gone, there will be no going back. Politics will ensure that, because there is one thing ANY government doesn't want and that is a public service broadcaster. The BBC is slated by both the left and the right for bias, which to me seems to probably be the right balance. If no one likes you, you might be doing something right.

Could they not run a music service separately then? If we are reliant on them then I'd have thought it would be worth considering, I'd probably subscribe to that. What I object to is having to pay for their terrible news and politics coverage when actually all I want is to watch the Jools Holland shows and Glastonbury coverage

Regards their bias, just because both sides allege a bias doesn't mean they are both equally justified or correct

Fretwired

UnclePsychosis said:

Viewed in that context, I can entirely believe the Beeb when they say that the Linekers, Shearers, and Balls of the world pull in an audience. The public as a whole cannot be judged by your own personal anecdote. There's 60m+ of us. 

In the case of Ball that's not the case. Chris Evans pulled in 900K more listeners a week when he did the same show on R2 than she does. The issue here is what justifies the BBC giving one person who works for a publically funded radio station a £900K pay rise?

UnclePsychosis

@ESBlonde @LightB4sound ;

Totally agree chaps. I find the whole "bbc is a waste of money" attitude thats prevalent around here somewhat disconcerting when you realise its coming from a forum full of people with a vested interest in the arts. There's definitely a "don't know what you have till it's gone" thing at play here. 

Fretwired

LightB4sound said:

Just one thing to consider. The BBC for all its sins (to many people) does a lot to support music, drama and the arts. BBC Introducing, Radio 6, Radio 3 (world music, classical music which would not be played on a commercial station), BBC Writers room, BBC R&D, sponsored stages at smaller festivals, OBs from smaller festivals (eg Womad)  and so on.

If the BBC were forced to compete with the market, these would all go because they are not always commercially viable, but many of us are reliant on them. BBC Radio 3 can play music from new composers because of this, Classic FM just sticks the big hitters. The same with 6 Music, no commercial station with it's nationally syndicated playlists would play some of the new artists or music that gets played on there. This is something to shout about....especially given that this is a music related forum and I guess some of might be musicians. 

The BBC do a lot for the arts, and we can all use this to our benefit. Submit a track to BBC introducing, it will get listened to, and may get played on the radio. Try that with Netflix, Sky etc.

As with all things in life, the BBC is far from perfect, but it does  have a large remit trying to keep 60 million people happy! When it gets it right it produces content that is world beating (travel around the world and see what other people think of the BBC) and when it gets it wrong, it gets it wrong. But don't we all?

For presenters pay, this is always going to be a tough call. As mentioned already, all of these people could be on 5 times as much moving to a commercial channel. Whilst I support them bring up new talent, how many of you or your friends and family would watch/listen to a program with a total unknown? It is exactly the same with music, do you listen mostly to bands you know or do you actually go out and support unknown bands? The BBC has to have some named talent or the majority would not watch, it is a sad fact of life.

Like many things in life, this is a case of be careful what you wish for, because once it is gone, there will be no going back. Politics will ensure that, because there is one thing ANY government doesn't want and that is a public service broadcaster. The BBC is slated by both the left and the right for bias, which to me seems to probably be the right balance. If no one likes you, you might be doing something right.

The BBC is too big and does too much. It needs pruning or it will die. Neither of my kids has a TV license - the have Sky and Netflix. And this is the problem. For example, does it need to do Strictly come dancing or any sport? I'd say no as such things are covered by commercial channels. I watched Strike which is hailed as a good Sunday night drama. It was rubbish - even Channel 4 produces better drama than the BBC - but Netflix and Sky do much better and it's not just they have bigger budgets. I don't watch much on the BBC anymore - I listen to some BBC radio but you don't need a TV license for radio.

And go on the internet you'll find hundreds of stations devoted to world music, diverse classical music, drama, and the like. There are quite a few that just play prog rock all day if that's your bag.

Fretwired

UnclePsychosis said:

@ESBlonde @LightB4sound ;

Totally agree chaps. I find the whole "bbc is a waste of money" attitude thats prevalent around here somewhat disconcerting when you realise its coming from a forum full of people with a vested interest in the arts. There's definitely a "don't know what you have till it's gone" thing at play here. 

I think the argument is more 'the BBC wastes money' rather than it being a waste of money. It wasted £100 million on a failed digital media initiative, spent £1 billion on a move to Salford and then spent hundreds of millions on trave to bus London-based presenters to the new studio every week and in 2019 spent £350K on travel bookings that weren't actually used. I could go on ... the biggest waste of money is chasing the youth market .. the BBC is wasting its time.

It faces competition, much of which is better, as it spreads itself too thin. How many versions of Master Chef do we really need? But at the moment a lot of the content funded by license fee payers has been removed from iPlayer and is on Britbox which is a subscription-based platform. So if I want to watch say Dad's Army which has been on iPlayer since it launched I now have to spend another £60+ a year to watch it.

exocet

LightB4sound said:

Just one thing to consider. The BBC for all its sins (to many people) does a lot to support music, drama and the arts. BBC Introducing, Radio 6, Radio 3 (world music, classical music which would not be played on a commercial station), BBC Writers room, BBC R&D, sponsored stages at smaller festivals, OBs from smaller festivals (eg Womad)  and so on.

If the BBC were forced to compete with the market, these would all go because they are not always commercially viable, but many of us are reliant on them. BBC Radio 3 can play music from new composers because of this, Classic FM just sticks the big hitters. The same with 6 Music, no commercial station with it's nationally syndicated playlists would play some of the new artists or music that gets played on there. This is something to shout about....especially given that this is a music related forum and I guess some of might be musicians. 

The BBC do a lot for the arts, and we can all use this to our benefit. Submit a track to BBC introducing, it will get listened to, and may get played on the radio. Try that with Netflix, Sky etc.

As with all things in life, the BBC is far from perfect, but it does  have a large remit trying to keep 60 million people happy! When it gets it right it produces content that is world beating (travel around the world and see what other people think of the BBC) and when it gets it wrong, it gets it wrong. But don't we all?

For presenters pay, this is always going to be a tough call. As mentioned already, all of these people could be on 5 times as much moving to a commercial channel. Whilst I support them bring up new talent, how many of you or your friends and family would watch/listen to a program with a total unknown? It is exactly the same with music, do you listen mostly to bands you know or do you actually go out and support unknown bands? The BBC has to have some named talent or the majority would not watch, it is a sad fact of life.

Like many things in life, this is a case of be careful what you wish for, because once it is gone, there will be no going back. Politics will ensure that, because there is one thing ANY government doesn't want and that is a public service broadcaster. The BBC is slated by both the left and the right for bias, which to me seems to probably be the right balance. If no one likes you, you might be doing something right.

Good points.

This topic keeps on surfacing and as much as I try to stay out of it (declared interest - I used to work for the BBC 20 years ago) ...I can't resist.

From my slightly "older" perspective, nothing is perfect but the BBC has served the U.K well for the overwhelming majority of it's existence. Clearly it is now out of favour with younger audiences (as is any service in the traditional "linear world" ) and as such needs to change.....without doubt it will.

The reality is that it will stay until 2027 (next Charter renewal) - it will probably only exist in a much reduced scope after that date.

As for different operating model for finance. The reality is that it has an obligation to provide Universal Access i.e. "Free to Air".

Any change to this requires legislative changes and technology changes. The reality is that it is only in fairly recent times that the technology existed to implement a cost effective "pay per view" operating model. Any move to such an approach would alienate large numbers of the population (elderly) who either don't like change, can't afford to implement new "boxes" or don't have suitable broadband to receive video (surely the most flexible way to deliver chargeable content)? Moving from analogue broadcasting to digital proved to be a major headache from a tech platform perspective because older users didn't want / couldn't afford new equipment.

What does concern me is that UK media providers as a whole don't appear to have a viable / sustainable charging model that delivers a modern service in a pure monthly service paying for what you want and not paying for what you don't. From what I can see , you are tied into a "monthly contract with minimum 12 month term " or a "monthly contract +" rather than minimum one month commitment? Sky offer pay per view without contract via NOW TV but the last time I used this (2 years ago) , it was not even delivered in full 1080 HD. I would hate to see U.K centric media / production companies be subsumed into a Global (U.S Centric) operating model but alas that appears to be the direction of travel.

LightB4sound

thecolourbox said:

Could they not run a music service separately then? If we are reliant on them then I'd have thought it would be worth considering, I'd probably subscribe to that. What I object to is having to pay for their terrible news and politics coverage when actually all I want is to watch the Jools Holland shows and Glastonbury coverage

Regards their bias, just because both sides allege a bias doesn't mean they are both equally justified or correct

I gave music as one example of a service they provide (aside from TV), which would not be able to allowed to deliver the same services if it were made commercial. 

I also do not enjoy the majority of the BBC's output, but then I accept it is not for me. I don't watch Mrs Brown's Boys, or the million shows about bargin hunting etc. As with many things that are out there in the world, music, books, art, films, people (!), if I don't like them or are not interested I just turn to something I do. But I accept that I have to pay for things (like cleaning pavements) for people I don't like to walk on. 

Given that the BBC costs £13.30 a month. I feel that for cost of say 10-12 DVDs or 15 CD (*) or 10 trips to the cinema, or 4-5 gigs a year, the value I get from the music documentaries (Soul America being a current fav), the radio stations (I listen to 3,4,5 and 6), the podcasts (Mayo and Kermode's film review, Friday night comedy), the big ticket docs (like planet earth), a couple of good dramas (Line of Duty, the Bridge etc), the coverage of Glastonbury as well as the fact that I know that some of that is being used to support my fellow artists develop their careers is reasonable value for money. Personally I think that is exception value for money (other opinions do exist). 

With current Netflix subscription, I get a couple of series and some films (most of which I have seen), no radio, no websites for kids to get help with their schooling (Bytesize), no podcasts. Still reasonable value though.

With my Audible subscription, I get a book a months and some podcasts. No TV, no websites, no information, no support for my music. Still great value.

I agree with your statement on bias. But we have to accept that no person, organisation, being can be free of internal biases. But without XYZ mega corp/Political party paying for their agenda, I think the BBC on the whole does a good job (see recent Murdoch documentary, what other broadcaster could air that?). Nothing is perfect, the BBC news has lost it's way, even some of it's own say the same. Some of the reason? Well perhaps the 24 rolling news programs are an issue, perhaps we need bulletins again where thought and consideration can go into reports, rather than making things appear like they are happening. Perhaps the amount of opinion based reporting should be stopped? Perhaps below the line commenting should be removed on articles? Perhaps we should all take the time to look into things a bit more. Or perhaps in terms of news....in reality, in our every day, day to day lives the majority of it does not affect us. Or more than any of that, if we see problems with something, try to find ways to improve what we have, rather than trying to cancel everything we don't argee with/undertsand/don't like.

(oh and all along I forgot the access to the BBC sound effects library which I use all the time in my work!)


* Average values

WiresDreamDisasters

UnclePsychosis said:

@ESBlonde @LightB4sound ;

Totally agree chaps. I find the whole "bbc is a waste of money" attitude thats prevalent around here somewhat disconcerting when you realise its coming from a forum full of people with a vested interest in the arts. There's definitely a "don't know what you have till it's gone" thing at play here. 

The BBC don't give two flying fucks about sick-ass-post-metal-ambient-tings. Their presence in the world hasn't helped me one iota, as a musician and an artist. I've had my music played on Canadian TV, so technically my allegiances should be towards CBC!

ESBlonde

exocet said:

From my slightly "older" perspective, nothing is perfect but the BBC has served the U.K well for the overwhelming majority of it's existence. Clearly it is now out of favour with younger audiences (as is any service in the traditional "linear world" ) and as such needs to change.....without doubt it will.

The reality is that it will stay until 2027 (next Charter renewal) - it will probably only exist in a much reduced scope after that date.

In my lifetime the BBC has always been slow to respond to the yoof market. It had to suddenly invent R1 after the pirate stations gave it a bit of a ratings kicking for a few years afetr rock n' roll was over a decade old!. It is hard for middla aged people to remember the sudden vitallity with which teenagers view something new as hip or cool or whatever the current buzz word for that is. It is nice to see some standards maintained for the silent majority who are no longer teenagers, but because the BBC is not directly commercial it doesn't have to pander to the teen pound in the same way that a commercial broadcaster does.

scrumhalf

The BBC has been slow to respond to most markets, because of its corporate belief that it guides the nation, and not the other way around.

Having been approached some years ago to do some work for its property arm I saw an organisation that had the nimbleness of a very large container ship, and where almost everything had to be referred, discussed, referred again and then, finally, a decision might come down from on high.

Much of what it does could be done better at lower cost. It no longer has a right to exist and shgould justify its existence and finances every day. Like commercial companies have to.

axisus

I could happily give up the TV license. I am one of those who resents paying for it when there is other free stuff. The ONLY thing I ever need it for is new Dr Who, and that is rarely on TV anyway, ten 50 minute episodes every 2-3 years.

There should be an option to have an antenna (or whatever) that filters out BBC so we can still watch the other stuff, but to be honest I only really watch a bit of Netflix occasionally and that's it for TV.

Fretwired

Rank and file BBC staff aren't happy. In July, the BBC invited staff to apply for voluntary redundancy in an attempt to save £125 million in savings this year in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

The broadcaster has asked its public service staff – not those in its commercial subsidiaries – to make a voluntary redundancy expression of interest.

The BBC suspended plans to cut around 450 jobs in BBC News because of the demands of covering the coronavirus pandemic but the cuts will still take place at a later date.

monquixote

axisus said:

I could happily give up the TV license. I am one of those who resents paying for it when there is other free stuff. The ONLY thing I ever need it for is new Dr Who, and that is rarely on TV anyway, ten 50 minute episodes every 2-3 years.

There should be an option to have an antenna (or whatever) that filters out BBC so we can still watch the other stuff, but to be honest I only really watch a bit of Netflix occasionally and that's it for TV.

It's a TV License not a BBC license.

springhead

Fretwired said:

UnclePsychosis said:

@ESBlonde @LightB4sound ;

Totally agree chaps. I find the whole "bbc is a waste of money" attitude thats prevalent around here somewhat disconcerting when you realise its coming from a forum full of people with a vested interest in the arts. There's definitely a "don't know what you have till it's gone" thing at play here. 

I think the argument is more 'the BBC wastes money' rather than it being a waste of money. It wasted £100 million on a failed digital media initiative, spent £1 billion on a move to Salford and then spent hundreds of millions on trave to bus London-based presenters to the new studio every week and in 2019 spent £350K on travel bookings that weren't actually used. I could go on ... the biggest waste of money is chasing the youth market .. the BBC is wasting its time.

It faces competition, much of which is better, as it spreads itself too thin. How many versions of Master Chef do we really need? But at the moment a lot of the content funded by license fee payers has been removed from iPlayer and is on Britbox which is a subscription-based platform. So if I want to watch say Dad's Army which has been on iPlayer since it launched I now have to spend another £60+ a year to watch it.

I think that was the original estimate for the "whole life" costs for Salford over a number of years, including operating costs for the programme departments, lease costs for the buildings etc. etc.  Doesn't include the savings from moving out of Televison Centre and closing the other Manchester sites. Initiated I believe by government insistence on increased programme making outside of London.

LightB4sound

Talking of people's pay, personally I find this more abhorrent than anything the BBC has done. We already pay his wage and he has also failed at his job more times than I can remember, plus he doesn't educate, entertain or inform.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54185180

monquixote

Fretwired said:

I think the argument is more 'the BBC wastes money' rather than it being a waste of money. It wasted £100 million on a failed digital media initiative, spent £1 billion on a move to Salford and then spent hundreds of millions on trave to bus London-based presenters to the new studio every week and in 2019 spent £350K on travel bookings that weren't actually used. I could go on ... the biggest waste of money is chasing the youth market .. the BBC is wasting its time.

It faces competition, much of which is better, as it spreads itself too thin. How many versions of Master Chef do we really need? But at the moment a lot of the content funded by license fee payers has been removed from iPlayer and is on Britbox which is a subscription-based platform. So if I want to watch say Dad's Army which has been on iPlayer since it launched I now have to spend another £60+ a year to watch it.

The BBC does waste a lot of money, but a lot of it is mandated by it's charter. It's not able to just do what it wants.

It moved to Salford because it had to move jobs out of London, it doesn't have the option of not "chasing the youth market" because the charter dictates that it has to appeal to everyone. 

It has to keep plugging away with things like 1Xtra and Asian Network which wouldn't make commercial sense because it can't charge a universal license fee, but only make content consumed by white people.

It even has requirements for having a certain amount of religious programming hence you get "thought for the day" and "songs of praise" which seem really anachronistic.  

EricTheWeary

LightB4sound said:

Talking of people's pay, personally I find this more abhorrent than anything the BBC has done. We already pay his wage and he has also failed at his job more times than I can remember, plus he doesn't educate, entertain or inform.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54185180

Me and Mr G have form, he would be the last person in the world I would employ to do anything. 

£100k for working one day a week, is he paying back his government salary for one day per week? I don’t know, I’ll guess not. 

exocet

monquixote said:

Fretwired said:

I think the argument is more 'the BBC wastes money' rather than it being a waste of money. It wasted £100 million on a failed digital media initiative, spent £1 billion on a move to Salford and then spent hundreds of millions on trave to bus London-based presenters to the new studio every week and in 2019 spent £350K on travel bookings that weren't actually used. I could go on ... the biggest waste of money is chasing the youth market .. the BBC is wasting its time.

It faces competition, much of which is better, as it spreads itself too thin. How many versions of Master Chef do we really need? But at the moment a lot of the content funded by license fee payers has been removed from iPlayer and is on Britbox which is a subscription-based platform. So if I want to watch say Dad's Army which has been on iPlayer since it launched I now have to spend another £60+ a year to watch it.

The BBC does waste a lot of money, but a lot of it is mandated by it's charter. It's not able to just do what it wants.

It moved to Salford because it had to move jobs out of London, it doesn't have the option of not "chasing the youth market" because the charter dictates that it has to appeal to everyone. 

It has to keep plugging away with things like 1Xtra and Asian Network which wouldn't make commercial sense because it can't charge a universal license fee, but only make content consumed by white people.

It even has requirements for having a certain amount of religious programming hence you get "thought for the day" and "songs of praise" which seem really anachronistic.  

As you say, the move to Salford was driven by political pressure - it also made the creation of Salford Media City (a private venture) viable which in turn is used by other broadcast media companies i.e. ITV.

Fretwired

springhead said:

Fretwired said:

I think that was the original estimate for the "whole life" costs for Salford over a number of years, including operating costs for the programme departments, lease costs for the buildings etc. etc.  Doesn't include the savings from moving out of Televison Centre and closing the other Manchester sites. Initiated I believe by government insistence on increased programme making outside of London.

The 20-year costs will be much higher. The BBC sold White City for £200 million and then leased a big chunk of it back after promising they would divest themselves of the whole site. The BBC still has three large studios and production facilities at White City so never achieved the projected cost savings.

They spent a fortune relocating staff (who didn't want to go) and even now some just commute and return home to London. This is funded by the BBC.

The BBC is also clever at creating commercial companies to avoid public scrutiny. In fairness they make money - BBC World regularly delivers a profit of £200 million or more so why not break the BBC up. Radio, News, arts and other niche programming can be state-funded while everything else can be made by private companies.

The BBC has already launched a subscription service called Britbox. If you read the small print you don't need a TV licence to view it. iPlayer will become a short term catchup service - most content will be put on Britbox. So the BBC wants the best of both worlds.