The Future of the BBC

[french frank]

You sure the government would close a station with 15m reasonably ardent listeners? A vote winner??

They've just won an election - there won't be another one for a while: better close it quickly. And Radio 2 costs more than Radio 3. In any case, I imagine it will be the BBC that has to decide which services close.

[antongould]

They've just won an election - there won't be another one for a while: better close it quickly. And Radio 2 costs more than Radio 3. In any case, I imagine it will be the BBC that has to decide which services close.

By the time it eventually closed another election could well be imminent and it will be seen that Dave and George wot did it .........

[Gordon]

Totally agree Mr. GG - also there often seems a lack of appreciation of what R2 plays in 2015 .......

and

People who listen to R3 who assume that R1 is a taxpayer funded version of Capital / Kiss FM

That isn't the point, the point is can the private sector do any better in any of those radio spaces? If not the government has a problem if it wants to cause the BBC to reduce itself.

These stations [ie R1 and R2] may be "distinctive" in their output in relation to other stations that do other things, perhaps in the same general territory. Does R1 or R2 have a real like for like competitor in the radio industry? If not why not? If so then the BBC needs to look to itself. Is the BBC stifling the commercial players? Does R3? Again why not? If we can say that the BBC provides a service that cannot otherwise be provided then in all cases there is market failure, one of the clear signs of the need for intervention and hence a public service player. What would the commercials do if both R1 and R2 were closed down to save money for other things deemed more valuable to the PSB principle, despite the audiences? Would they, could they, really step up and replace them and meet the public demand?

Government can't have it both ways: an excellence or at least distinctiveness in radio from the BBC but no one in the private sector able or willing to take it on at the same level of excellence. The audiences for R1 & R2 are not small or trivial showing a public need and to some extent R3 is healthy given what it does. If you want to replace them what can be done that involves less public expense and more commercial engagement?

The point is whether government plus the private sector can convince themselves that they can do better or at least as well and stump up the funds to do it OR whether in fact that distinctiveness is unique to how the BBC does it, albeit with public funds. Seems to me that government is throwing down a gauntlet to both BBC and the commercials to make their respective cases. In some ways it is a challenge that is long overdue.

[antongould]

Adverts ......

[Frances_iom]

Adverts ......

R4 drive time has about 4min/hour + extra in program placements - not quite at CFM level (yet)
R3 tends to be about 1 - 2 min/hour but I've not listened to drive time programs for a long time so this may have increased to R4 norm - the catch with R3 adverts is they totally destroy the listening experience (at least for me - this is especially true of those with conflicting musical genres and oft repeated plugs)

[french frank]

By the time it eventually closed another election could well be imminent and it will be seen that Dave and George wot did it .........

But neither Dave nor George will be the ones with 'dirty hands': much of the public wouldn't take on board that it was funding cuts which forced the BBC to do it (are D 'n' G implicated in the reduction of BBC Three to online only? It was the BBC Trust people lobbied). It's the BBC that would fight tooth-and-nail to keep Radio 2 'the Nation's favourite radio station' and Radio 1 open.

For the record, last year total expenditure on Radio 1, Radio 2 and 5 Live was £180.1m. or an average of £60.03m each. Radio 3 cost £56.7m.

Radio 3's 'commercial value' is nothing, whereas a company like Global would be delighted to swallow up the popular services - and all the better if they are seen to be 'distinctive' in some way.

The inconveniences of closing Radio 3 would be that the BBC claim to be a 'public service' broadcaster would be very weak; and the Proms would end since:

a) the BBC would have no outlet for broadcasting the concerts, and would be simply a concert promoter.

b) Radio 3 conveniently subsidises them

[MrGongGong]

That isn't the point,.

I think it is A point
Starting from a position of ignorance and misunderstanding doesn't help IMV

[antongould]

But neither Dave nor George will be the ones with 'dirty hands': much of the public wouldn't take on board that it was funding cuts which forced the BBC to do it (are D 'n' G implicated in the reduction of BBC Three to online only? It was the BBC Trust people lobbied). It's the BBC that would fight tooth-and-nail to keep Radio 2 'the Nation's favourite radio station' and Radio 1 open.

For the record, last year total expenditure on Radio 1, Radio 2 and 5 Live was £180.1m. or an average of £60.03m each. Radio 3 cost £56.7m.

Radio 3's 'commercial value' is nothing, whereas a company like Global would be delighted to swallow up the popular services - and all the better if they are seen to be 'distinctive' in some way.

The inconveniences of closing Radio 3 would be that the BBC claim to be a 'public service' broadcaster would be very weak; and the Proms would end since:

a) the BBC would have no outlet for broadcasting the concerts, and would be simply a concert promoter.

b) Radio 3 conveniently subsidises them

"But neither Dave nor George will be the ones with 'dirty hands':..........." IMVHO - you might well understand that Josephine Public won't ..........

[Gordon]

I think it is A point
Starting from a position of ignorance and misunderstanding doesn't help IMV

If you mean by that that we are speculating before the event of any clear proposals from government then I agree. We may be fearing the worst for radio in particular but TV is a much bigger target consuming the lion's share of the LF. It's only a couple of days until the GP so we'll have to be patient.

[MrGongGong]

If you mean by that that we are speculating before the event of any clear proposals from government then I agree. We may be fearing the worst for radio in particular but TV is a much bigger target consuming the lion's share of the LF. It's only a couple of days until the GP so we'll have to be patient.

I didn't mean that

I meant this

I think there are a couple of assumptions in all of this

People who listen to R1 who assume that R3 is a taxpayer funded version of CFM
and
People who listen to R3 who assume that R1 is a taxpayer funded version of Capital / Kiss FM

Both are wrong IMV

[Gordon]

I didn't mean that

I meant this:

I think there are a couple of assumptions in all of this

People who listen to R1 who assume that R3 is a taxpayer funded version of CFM
and
People who listen to R3 who assume that R1 is a taxpayer funded version of Capital / Kiss FM

Both are wrong IMV

Then I didn't understand. So, for the avoidance of doubt, you're suggesting that prejudice and partisanship is at play such that, if push comes to shove, and the BBC or government [whoever] requires the loss of some radio services then fans of each station at risk, especially those with large audiences, will point at the others and say "them first" out of ignorance/prejudice. If that is what you meant then I agree. In that case, if it becomes a democratic public vote based on audiences, perhaps moderated a bit by cost per head [it won't of course - will it?], R3 will not do well regardless of partisanship, especially when the usual accusations of elitism are tossed in as well.

BTW the Trust has not long closed [June 26th] a consultation on distribution channels seeking views on how it distributes its content. One objective is to see whether savings could be made in the £218M cost [about 6% of LF]. The wildly out of proportion cost per head of internet distribution is startling and a cause for concern when Whittingdale panel members like Airey are calling for a significant reduction in BBC web activity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2015/distribution_framework

[MrGongGong]

"Democracy" isn't all it's cracked up to be, is it?

(and please no crass Churchill quotes )

[Frances_iom]

... The wildly out of proportion cost per head of internet distribution is startling and a cause for concern when Whittingdale panel members like Airey are calling for a significant reduction in BBC web activity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/p...tion_framework

Gordon where are the actual cost figures per hour of internet modes vs various broadcast methods given - maybe I speed read the report but in ref the access 'rights' of BBC, consumer + provider are spelled out in some detail but the costs of this 20% coverage not given

[Gordon]

Gordon where are the actual cost figures per hour of internet modes vs various broadcast methods given - maybe I speed read the report but in ref the access 'rights' of BBC, consumer + provider are spelled out in some detail but the costs of this 20% coverage not given

You won't find any useful figures in that linked document you need to look in the latest Annual Report to get closer to details. It's possible that FF will have a finger on the place where this data is available. In the 2014 Report BBC Online is globally costed [page 122 - see pasted below with footnotes that at ** show some confusing On Line breakdown] at £175M but I have seen figures somewhere in footnotes perhaps] that break this down further such that for the relatively few that actually use On Line as a means of viewing [iPlayer etc] the cost is a lot less than this but per head/hour is high. Looking at that Report for Radio, see this extract but note these are basic operating costs without overhead share [see lower image pasted below] also note the cost related to hours consumed as well as heads:

[Frances_iom]

Thanks Gordon - without knowing the % of listened hours by on-demand rather than braodcast difficult to compare but guessing that less than 10% is currently online (the orig doc estimated 20% of TV by 2020) then online cost to BBC of radio per hour of listening is 3x that of broadcast - the cost to the user is a much greater cost as an FM radio can be bought for less than 1 month of broadband access (let alone the cost of mobile phone data)