Zoe Ball's pay rise wtf

monquixote

Fretwired said:

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.

It has commercial subsidiaries because it has to.

It couldn't run Worldwide in the main corporation because it is prohibited from those types of commercial activities.

Most programming is made in the private sector. The BBC acts as a commissioning house which awards some contracts to its own production arm. This is the Window of Creative Competition WoCC.

springhead

Fretwired said:

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.

By White City do you mean Television Centre?  The 'BBC' bits of that are owned and managed by BBC Studios, one of the commercial companies.  They paid for the current fitout.  BBC Studios put £276 million back into the BBC last financial year.  I think at least two of those studios are block booked by ITV. 

Something needs to change, younger viewers/listeners don't consume linear broadcasting like us older folk.  Will be interesting to see how they change.

exocet

Fretwired said:

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.

Britbox is a joint commercial venture with ITV (there may be other parties as well) so not the core BBC but is there to monetise UK content without paying the middlemen e.g. Netflix / Amazon Prime etc. In all honesty, I really can't see it making any significant headway into the subscription market space when Netflix are so strong. 
I'm firmly in the camp that thinks that you can't pull the BBC apart leaving a mix of "open access" and "subscription" - it has evolved over a number of decades to become what it is today. 

So we are back to Charter Renewal in 2027 at which point it becomes a vastly different organisation (core news and tight public service remit only) funded out of general taxation and supplemented by overseas / subscription content sales (which will decline due to lack of new content investment)  ...if it survives at all.

Fretwired

exocet said:

Britbox is a joint commercial venture with ITV (there may be other parties as well) so not the core BBC but is there to monetise UK content without paying the middlemen e.g. Netflix / Amazon Prime etc. 

But the BBC is putting all its historic content on Britbox, content that was paid for by licence fee revenue and content that was available on iPlayer. The iPlayer platform will become a 'catch-up' platform focusing more on recent content.

This thread was about Zoe Ball and her £900K pay rise. Now if BoJo had been given a £900K pay rise this would run to 100 pages ... I'm amazed that people think giving someone a £900K payrise is OK. The BBC is also making staff redundant to save money.

ICBM

Fretwired said:

This thread was about Zoe Ball and her £900K pay rise. Now if BoJo had been given a £900K pay rise this would run to 100 pages ... I'm amazed that people think giving someone a £900K payrise is OK. The BBC is also making staff redundant to save money.

I don't even think someone whose job it is to witter inanely and play a few records occasionally should be paid £900K *at all*, let alone on top of whatever it was they were already getting.

exocet

Fretwired said:

exocet said:

Britbox is a joint commercial venture with ITV (there may be other parties as well) so not the core BBC but is there to monetise UK content without paying the middlemen e.g. Netflix / Amazon Prime etc. 

But the BBC is putting all its historic content on Britbox, content that was paid for by licence fee revenue and content that was available on iPlayer. The iPlayer platform will become a 'catch-up' platform focusing more on recent content.

This thread was about Zoe Ball and her £900K pay rise. Now if BoJo had been given a £900K pay rise this would run to 100 pages ... I'm amazed that people think giving someone a £900K payrise is OK. The BBC is also making staff redundant to save money.

Britbox is a UK centric content platform...BBC, ITV, CH4, CH5. It allows content to be sold / viewed globally without discounting other providers to host. There are complex licensing terms for content, always have been. The BBC has never had the ability to rebroadcast existing content "cost free", various rights holders have always had to be paid and in some circumstances agreements were very difficult / expensive to arrive at. It's much easier to agree to pay the rights holder a commission based upon actual "views" that were paid for? The "BBC" will receive revenues through licensing agreements with Britbox as they do currently through BBC Worldwide for content that is sold to other Broadcasters / Media Platforms.

I agree I am diverging from the original thread

monquixote

Fretwired said:

exocet said:

Britbox is a joint commercial venture with ITV (there may be other parties as well) so not the core BBC but is there to monetise UK content without paying the middlemen e.g. Netflix / Amazon Prime etc. 

But the BBC is putting all its historic content on Britbox, content that was paid for by licence fee revenue and content that was available on iPlayer. The iPlayer platform will become a 'catch-up' platform focusing more on recent content.

.

Your argument does sound a bit like you want BBC to become like Netflix, but you don't like it that the BBC has become like Netflix.

LightB4sound

As you say @exocet one of the complex issues that perhaps some are not aware of is that of 'royalties'. Any piece of content (lets just stick with music for the time being) has a copyright and a performance royalty. I anyone on this forum (actually many probably do) who writes a piece of music, owns 50% (or the writer's share of the the performance royalty...the other 50% is publishing, which you may or may not own depending if you have a publishing deal). Therefore every time your piece of music is broadcast, played in a pub, at a hairdressers etc you are entitled to a performance royalty. Collected and maintained by the PRS.

Now, getting back to the point, this also applies to legacy content, so if your tune was in a program from 1997 which was rebroadcast the performance royalty (in most cases..there are exceptions) has to be paid. The BBC and most other broadcasts pay a lump sum to the PRS every year for blanket rights to use music (in this case) in their shows. Broadcasters (as should pubs, clubs and yourself)  have to then submit playlist logs to the PRS so they can divvy up the cash to pay out to the 'writer' (crucial NOT the artist!). The money then makes it's way to the writer and publisher.

Whilst, the BBC may have commissioned the program in 1997, paid the staff, the crew, the actors (some actors get royalties!) their wage in 1997, they still have to pay some money out in 2020 to rebroadcast the show. Not to mention potentially have to re-license the song used in the show, which may have not been given a licence in perpetuity. Some tracks, eg Rolling Stones 'start me up' cost Microsoft $10million to licence (yes yes yes I know this is an extreme example, but top acts ofter get 6 figure sums to have their track licensed to a show).

Analogy to this is, you play your song in at a pub gig. The pub landlord pays you for the gig. This is what most people do, but what they don't realised is that the pub landlord has to also pay the PRS a licence to play music. Therefore, if you are a PRS member, (and you wrote your song) you can claim a writers royalty payment from the PRS by submitting a setlist. Most musicians who write and perform their own material do not do this. But like the BBC the landlord paid for you to do a job at a certain point in time, but yearly also has to pay royalties for those songs performed in the venue.