Axing of BBC Singers and related cuts

[french frank]

Yes but these days an awful lot of people spend their time angry about everything. I don’t agree with the cuts but to pretend that classical music has been singled out in some way by the BBC isn’t accurate. The cuts are pretty much in line with what’s happened in other BBC departments and in the case of the orchestras less. Other areas have had staff cuts with no freelance replacement and a consequent cut in service - indeed sometimes a complete loss of a service.

There's something counterintuitive about this - though I no longer keep as close an eye on R3/classical expenditure (and it's no longer possible to do so since the BBC Trust was abolished, along with their publications).

Whose decisions? I don't know. But if, say, R3 was cut by 20% that doesn't stop payments for Devonté Hynes, Tolkio Myers, Elizabeth Alker (Unclassified), Sound of Gaming &c, all which are alternative ways of cutting classical music, albeit less obviously.

'Falling audiences' for classical music (wherever) have long been discussed as a chicken-and-egg problem. If contemporary non-'classical' music is integrated into R3's schedules, why can't a similar amount of classical music be integrated into the R1/R2 schedules? Sorry, but I think the BBC is doing more to kill off the classical audience than to nurture it. And the Proms never had a budget of its own (something I argued for - fat chance - some years ago). The yearly deficit is another call on R3's budget.

[Ein Heldenleben]

There's something counterintuitive about this - though I no longer keep as close an eye on R3/classical expenditure (and it's no longer possible to do so since the BBC Trust was abolished, along with their publications).

Whose decisions? I don't know. But if, say, R3 was cut by 20% that doesn't stop payments for Devonté Hynes, Tolkio Myers, Elizabeth Alker (Unclassified), Sound of Gaming &c, all which are alternative ways of cutting classical music, albeit less obviously.

'Falling audiences' for classical music (wherever) have long been discussed as a chicken-and-egg problem. If contemporary non-'classical' music is integrated into R3's schedules, why can't a similar amount of classical music be integrated into the R1/R2 schedules? Sorry, but I think the BBC is doing more to kill off the classical audience than to nurture it. And the Proms never had a budget of its own (something I argued for - fat chance - some years ago). The yearly deficit is another call on R3's budget.

Yes but they are all irritants - not core. I agree there should be more light classical on Radio 2 and heavier weight on R4.But…
Spending £35 million a year is a funny way of “killing “ something off isn’t it? That’s hyperbole. One thing does that £35 mill include the BBC orchestras ?
One saving - that mindfulness trail and programme . All it does is mentally disturb me …

[Ein Heldenleben]

Maybe the justification there is that the costs can be recouped by selling the programme on to broadcasters in other countries? Attenborough is very bankable. But I'm not and haven't ever been an insider so this is just a guess.

Yes you’re right of course re co pros. But that brings about a whole series of other questions about whether the co pro interest are driving the editorial. Indeed even Wild Isles ( and excellent series by the way albeit with a luxury budget) has had that levelled at it.
But in essence in the last twenty years certain tv and radio genres have had virtually standstill budgets (cuts ) e.g documentaries, arts and music programmes, local radio, local broadcasting, news , political programmes, and (though here my knowledge is partly guesswork) virtually all radio except high profile breakfast presenter led progs and popular global podcasts.

. On the other hand other genres have , imv , seen significant budget increases - high end and mid range drama , high end natural history , sports outside broadcasts and rights and some factual entertainment especially those with high talent costs. Many in the industry argue this is driving a fall in quality and range on the former list. It’s not really even an argument - it’s a fact. The figures are all there in OFCOMs report on annual spend on UK tv production.

[Bryn]

Does anyone here know how much the BBC Studios' UKTV channels contribute towards BBC funding?

[ardcarp]

jonfan: posts #39 and 40

[Ein Heldenleben]

Does anyone here know how much the BBC Studios' UKTV channels contribute towards BBC funding?

As always an excellent question.
This is the nearest I could get from the BBC 2019-20 annual report

“Advertising income – £237 million (increase of 158% from last year)
and subscription fees – £255 million (increase of 36% from last year).
The BBC acquired the full shareholding of UKTV in June 2019, which it had previously held as a joint venture
with Discovery. The BBC now receives 100% of income generated by UKTV through advertising income and subscription services.”

UkTV’s annual revenue is now around the $260 million dollar mark. Of course there will be running costs but I would be surprised if these are more than a few million.

The BBC ‘s commercial success is one of the industry’s best kept secrets. They don’t make a fuss about it - it’s one of the things that drives the negative coverage from other big profit making media combines.
One defence of course is to spend it on public service output like CLASSICAL MUSIC.

[vinteuil]

.

... a pedant inquires/enquires - "axing" or "axeing"? I have seen arguments in favor/favour of either/both.

I think I prefer "axeing"

But as the great pedant Claude Favre, seigneur de Vaugelas [1585-1650], one of the first forty members of the Académie française, said on his death-bed - "Je m'en vais ou je m'en vas... L'un et l'autre se dit ou se disent..."




.

[Bryn]

As always an excellent question.
This is the nearest I could get from the BBC 2019-20 annual report

“Advertising income – £237 million (increase of 158% from last year)
and subscription fees – £255 million (increase of 36% from last year).
The BBC acquired the full shareholding of UKTV in June 2019, which it had previously held as a joint venture
with Discovery. The BBC now receives 100% of income generated by UKTV through advertising income and subscription services.”

UkTV’s annual revenue is now around the $260 million dollar mark. Of course there will be running costs but I would be surprised if these are more than a few million.

The BBC ‘s commercial success is one of the industry’s best kept secrets. They don’t make a fuss about it - it’s one of the things that drives the negative coverage from other big profit making media combines.
One defence of course is to spend it on public service output like CLASSICAL MUSIC.

Thanks, that a revenue stream all to easily forgotten about.

[french frank]

Yes but they are all irritants - not core. I agree there should be more light classical on Radio 2 and heavier weight on R4.But…

The point I make is that the core grows slimmer and slimmer. There are still only 24 hours in a day with the 'popular' (non-classical) entertainers becoming more prominent.

Spending £35 million a year is a funny way of “killing “ something off isn’t it? That’s hyperbole. One thing does that £35 mill include the BBC orchestras ?

2nd point first. I think the orchestras do have a separate budget. If I remember, Jenny Abramsky separated the performing groups from R3 on the grounds that the orchestras were used for a range of other broadcast services.

Figures for 2005/06 (BBC Annual Report & Accounts, screen grabs only):

R3 £31.1m Orchestras and PFs £19m; R1 £17.7m; R2 £24.1m. R3 33.8%, Orchs 20.7%, R1 19.2%, R2 26.2%.

2021/22 (BBC Annual Report & Accounts p 183)

R3 £35m; Orchestras & PFs £25m; R1 £36m; R2 £47m. R3 24.5%; Orchs 17.5%; R1 25.2%; R2 32.9%

One saving - that mindfulness trail and programme . All it does is mentally disturb me …

I suspect all the Mind, Body and Spirit, 'Slow Radio' stuff will be swept away by the new Controller. I don't think he'll be worse than the current one …

Forgot to add quote re the BBC from email received 11.29 this am from ex-forumite, à propos the BBCS - but not this discussion:

"Well, fig 'em! They lost my support completely about 12 years ago - whilst I used to be horrified by the idea that the Licence Fee would be scrapped, the efforts of "my" BBC to alienate me and make me feel isolated and irrelevant means that I now couldn't care less. The Internet now gives me what I need."

[french frank]

.

... a pedant inquires/enquires - "axing" or "axeing"?.

House style where I worked: axeing, which I prefer.

[Padraig]

.

... a pedant inquires/enquires - "axing" or "axeing"? I have seen arguments in favor/favour of either/both.

I think I prefer "axeing"

But as the great pedant Claude Favre, seigneur de Vaugelas [1585-1650], one of the first forty members of the Académie française, said on his death-bed - "Je m'en vais ou je m'en vas... L'un et l'autre se dit ou se disent..."




.

I prefer axeing too v, though the meaning of your supporting quote defeats my poor French. My reason is, to avoid any confusion with axing, meaning asking. As a child I was 'corrected' at home for speaking like some of my pals; as a teacher I had to repeatedly correct the same 'mistake'.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Thanks, that a revenue stream all to easily forgotten about.

Yes and it gets more and more important as the licence fee is frozen. This commercial revenue tends to go up so more and more of the BBC is “dependent “ on commercial income . That potentially skews editorial decisions - you cut things that aren’t revenue generating or open to co - production money. People outside the business can be forgiven for not understanding the complexities but there is a parallel say with private practice in the NHS - the potential for all sorts of conflicts of interest.
There’s been no debate about this. The only people really kicking up are the Murdochs, the Barclays and the Rothermeres of this world. But when people are wondering where all their art docs have gone this might offer at least part of the explanation. The other is dwindling overall audiences.

[Serial_Apologist]

I prefer axeing too v, though the meaning of your supporting quote defeats my poor French. My reason is, to avoid any confusion with axing, meaning asking. As a child I was 'corrected' at home for speaking like some of my pals; as a teacher I had to repeatedly correct the same 'mistake'.

"Ax", being the American English version, would translate into "axing", I would think. It wouldn't surprise me to be seeing it more frequently with American "culture" increasingly taking over in this country.

[Ein Heldenleben]

The point I make is that the core grows slimmer and slimmer. There are still only 24 hours in a day with the 'popular' (non-classical) entertainers becoming more prominent.

2nd point first. I think the orchestras do have a separate budget. If I remember, Jenny Abramsky separated the performing groups from R3 on the grounds that the orchestras were used for a range of other broadcast services.

Figures for 2005/06 (BBC Annual Report & Accounts, screen grabs only):

R3 £31.1m Orchestras and PFs £19m; R1 £17.7m; R2 £24.1m. R3 33.8%, Orchs 20.7%, R1 19.2%, R2 26.2%.

2021/22 (BBC Annual Report & Accounts p 183)

R3 £35m; Orchestras & PFs £25m; R1 £36m; R2 £47m. R3 24.5%; Orchs 17.5%; R1 25.2%; R2 32.9%




I suspect all the Mind, Body and Spirit, 'Slow Radio' stuff will be swept away by the new Controller. I don't think he'll be worse than the current one …

Thanks FF . So a total spend on classical music including orchs is about £60 mill a year. In the 2022 - 3 strategic plan £27 million was set aside for Orchestras and Proms. £60 million is a tiny fraction of the BBC One budget but still a large sum of money.

[vinteuil]

I prefer axeing too v, though the meaning of your supporting quote defeats my poor French

... perhaps untranslatable - but something along the lines of - "I go, or I am going... the one and the other is or are acceptable"

.