'Delivering Quality First' (DQF) cuts

[french frank]

As a mere civilian, could I ask 'why?'? - genuine enquiry

No secret, Am51. Editorial strategy, including choices on what stays and what goes on a particular service, is the clear responsibility of management. Unless the cuts are clearly contrary to the requirements of the service licence, or go against the BBC's public purposes, the BBC Trust will not intervene, and especially not when they've accepted that savings must be made.

[amateur51]

No secret, Am51. Editorial strategy, including choices on what stays and what goes on a particular service, is the clear responsibility of management. Unless the cuts are clearly contrary to the requirements of the service licence, or go against the BBC's public purposes, the BBC Trust will not intervene, and especially not when they've accepted that savings must be made.

Many thanks french frank.

I thought that your original post was implying that any intervention by Patten would be thwarted but in fact he has no role in these matters so it won't arise

[Russ]

DQF headlines (in no particular order) from this morning's BBC briefings to staff (gleaned from tweets):

R4 budget "unaffected". Small reductions in scope of BBC News. 15% budget reduction in BBC sport. Elimination of BBC2 daytime budget. Asian Networks survives, but with smaller (34% of current) budget. Local Radio afternoon and evening programmes to be shared. 280 fulltime Local Radio posts to go. No single service to be cut. Less spend on red button. Withdrawal of some medium wave. R4 longwave to be phased out. "Closer pairings of R4 and R4X" (?)

Increase in newsgathering in China. World service funding to be increased in 2014. Proms to get more money. More archive material in iPlayer. Regional current affairs staff cut by 40%. BBC Production departments to work closer. 1000 more staff to move to Salford. BBC3 to move to Salford by 2016. Factual programmes from Birmingham to cease. (Archers to stay.) BBC to quit White City and Shepherd's Bush by 2021. Middle management to be 'flattened'. Target 11% productivity savings and 25% operational savings. 2000 jobs to go by 2017 (up to 800 in News). Budget cuts: BBC1 3% BBC2 6.1% BBC3 10% BBC4 9.6% BBC HD 75%. dqf might mean radio producers will be required to re-apply for their jobs.

The BBC's official DQF version is at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/dqf/, which contains the ominous:

"Reducing the amount of original drama, live music and specially recorded concerts at lunchtime on Radio 3, and reviewing the BBC's orchestras and singers"

Russ

[Mr Pee]

You can bet your life Radio 1 will be left alone also , as that performs the useful function of stopping a good proportion on the (often unemployed) under 25 s from actually thinking about their situation, and what that music and other content says about their lives.

How unbelievably patronising.

No wonder many people think classical music is elitist and out of touch when posters here spout such ignorant codswallop.

[gamba]

Seems Alan Yentob may be offloaded. Good riddance. For him to be involved in arts & culture programmes is ludicrous. He belongs in the world of 'pop' music & suchlike. A vast salary plus a large fee for appearing in his own programmes was just one more example of the madness prevailing at the BBC these days. Now what, will we see him back again in a freelance capacity? Don't hold your breath.

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks Russ. Starting reluctantly from the position that there have to be savings, there is a lot of sensible stuff in this package. I am therefore very surprised. I'd give it 8 out of 10 for common sense which is a high mark in these times.

R4 budget unaffected - Agree. One of the two flagship stations.

Small reductions in scope of BBC News. 15% budget reduction in BBC sport - Agree. While the BBC generally does such things better, it is overdoing news and some sport is handled as well if not better elsewhere, ie horse racing.

Elimination of BBC2 daytime budget - Agree. Largely rubbish. Who needs it?

Asian Networks survives but with smaller (34% of current) budget - Agree. Might have gone even further, ie 50-66%.

Less spend on red button - Agree. Not the winner it was thought to be.

Withdrawal of some medium wave. R4 longwave to be phased out - Agree. A natural development.

Increase in newsgathering in China. World service funding to be increased in 2014 - Completely agree.

Local Radio afternoon and evening programmes to be shared - Disagree but we need more information. OK if such programmes become regional but ludicrous if they are to be national. And the programmes in the major cities should be distinct. Would still prefer to see some stations removed completely, ie combine Wiltshire and Somerset, Gloucestershire and Bristol, Guernsey and Jersey, Cornwall and Devon, Oxford and Berkshire, Derby and Nottingham and Leicester, Suffolk and Norfolk, Shetland and Orkney, York and Humberside, Lancashire and Cumbria, Hereford/Worcester and Shropshire, Stoke and West Midlands, Solent and Sussex, Kent and Surrey, Essex and Three Counties, Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire.

Closer pairings of R4 and R4X - Not sure. OK as long as it doesn't mean dumbing down.

More archive material in iPlayer - Agree. New programmes are not always better programmes. Both this and the one above draw on the BBC's rich heritage.

Factual programmes from Birmingham to cease - Agree given the move to Salford.

Regional current affairs staff cut by 40% - Not sure. Possibly agree but it sounds a bit harsh.

BBC3 to move to Salford by 2016. BBC to quit White City and Shepherd's Bush by 2021 - Now that the move has been decided, agree. Could these dates not be brought forward?

Middle management to be 'flattened' - Probably agree. Typical though that the top layer continues to behave as if this were the land of plenty. Ditto overpaid celebrities who I now refuse to listen to on a point of principle, however good they might be.

BBC Production departments to work closer - Agree.

Budget cuts: BBC1 3% BBC2 6.1% BBC3 10% BBC4 9.6% BBC HD 75% - Agree. So BBC3 has bigger cuts that BBC4 and BBC2. Not what was said earlier - and good news. Arguably the service on BBC1 could be improved while making bigger savings there. The money isn't always being spent on the best programmes.

Job Cuts - Sad to see so many job losses but there is the scope for alternative employment in the commercial sector, unlike for miners in the 1980s and public service administrators now.

Proms to get more money - Strongly disagree if this means there have to be the kinds of savings they appear to have agreed for lunchtime and afternoon programmes on Radio 3. The budget for Radio 3 should have been ring fenced.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

Proms to get more money - Strongly disagree if this means the kinds of savings agreed for lunchtime programmes on Radio 3.

The "Summary of BBC management’s key proposals" for Radio 3 includes these:

• Broadcast around 25 per cent fewer live and specially recorded lunchtime concerts
• Reduce the cost of evening concerts by broadcasting fewer orchestral concerts and replacing them with chamber and instrumental concerts
• In addition, BBC management is conducting a review of the BBC’s orchestras and singers to consider where both efficiency and scope savings can be made. Proposals are due later in the autumn

So the Proms may get more money, but what does this mean for "core" Radio 3 output apart from the Proms?

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks. I would like to see some more figures here. We got ourselves into a bit of a pickle over R3 v R4 a few days ago. I see these as the two flagship radio stations alongside the World Service which has its own status. As I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, a significant percentage of spending on the Proms comes from the R3 budget. I don't know how far this extends to the television coverage of the Proms if at all?

The main question here is "how much of this is a trade off for the benefit of an extended Proms"? What I would like to see is (a) the increase in money to be spent from the R3 budget on the Proms and (b) the decrease in money being spent on other live and recorded performance for R3. How similar are these figures? As the Proms heads off towards comedy and spaghetti westerns, is some of the money for those being found elsewhere? Arguably it should be.

More broadly, I would like to know how expensive an orchestral performance broadcast from one of the regions might be compared with other things. How many nights can you have of Janice Long talking to truck drivers at two in the morning for each such concert? How many hours of standard cricket coverage? How many editions of The World Tonight? How many minutes of Graham Norton? Presumably events from the Manchester area will become cheaper? Can anyone enlighten on these points?

[BetweenTheStaves]

.
• In addition, BBC management is conducting a review.... to consider where both efficiency and scope savings can be made. .

Get rid of Mr Wright?

In a more serious vein, I'd question the saturation coverage given at key events and the planeloads of journalists etc that fly across the atlantic, for example, to cover things like the Presidential elections.

[Lateralthinking1]

Another one - and I am completely serious about this - is the Eurovision Song Contest. I'd love to see the spending figures there. Is it still the case that only we and three other countries pay for it? If so, that financial anachronism should cease.

On FoR3, there is an issue about where to set the bar realistically. There are understandable objectives to stop the standards from slipping further and to return to a time when the station was different from any period during the last 10 to 20 years. These are difficult objectives to square and, on balance, I think it is done very well.

However, the going gets tougher when a third factor is introduced, namely the embracing of, or at least the comparative absence of opposition to, areas of expansion like the Proms. My feeling is that it is far more difficult to argue the case somehow for both the first and the second while not saying there is a preference for those over any newer initiatives that are generally welcomed. I would go for the former even if it meant losing - or not getting - the latter.

[french frank]

Or, in full:

Radio 3
• Broadcast around 25 per cent fewer live and specially recorded lunchtime concerts
• Reduce the cost of evening concerts by broadcasting fewer orchestral concerts and replacing them with chamber and instrumental concerts
• Less specially recorded contemporary music for Hear and Now
• Reduce the amount of original drama, although longer-form drama would remain on the station
• More sharing within news bulletins between Radio 3 and Radio 4
• Reinvest in The Proms to maintain quality
• In addition, BBC management is conducting a review of the BBC’s orchestras and singers to consider where both efficiency and scope savings can be made. Proposals are due later in the autumn.


Less specially recorded contemporary music for Hear and Now - does that mean they'll reduce the length of the programme? Or what will they put on instead? Perhaps it will still have coverage of festivals ...

On drama, sounds as if The Wire will be chopped. Since Do3 includes new writing anyway I wouldn't think that was too much of a loss. Radio 4's drama budget will no doubt be available for those hoping to break into radio drama ...

A lot of people/us have been hoping for better coverage of chamber music so the 'cutback' in the live evening orchestral concerts may be okay too.

Proms? Proms? Proms? Since the Proms don't have a separately published budget from R3's it's hard to see how this will work. No reduction in the overal R3 budget but more to be ploughed into the Proms, ergo less for other things?

[John Skelton]

Less specially recorded contemporary music for Hear and Now

They could always broadcast "especially recorded contemporary music" to replace some of those 'orchestral concerts'.

[John Skelton]

Less specially recorded contemporary music for Hear and Now - does that mean they'll reduce the length of the programme? Or what will they put on instead? Perhaps it will still have coverage of festivals ...

Good question. I suppose they could take concerts from other European broadcasters, which would certainly provide different perspectives on "contemporary music" to those of Hear & Now. Or they might just want to get rid of new music .

[Chris Newman]

Reading between lines I see that savings are planned by combining the News Service and World Service staffs and making cuts by using the same correspondents: that really does make good sense. The BBC orchestras and singers are to be externally assessed for viability: that opens many cans of worms regarding the protection of an internationally famous quality organisation up against what may well be a vital body in a region.

I have long felt that most channels broadcasting National News could use the same pre-recorded bulletins made a few minutes before rather than using five or six different readers at the same time.

Nowhere in the DQF paper do I see anything about over-paid individuals, certain News anchormen, Chris Moyles, Alan Yentob and so on. There are and have been celebrities whose annual BBC pay would best part finance a regional radio station. There is a deep in-bred confusion within BBC higher management between QUALITY and CELEBRITY.

[french frank]

As I predicted a couple of weeks ago, in line with recent trends Radio 1's content budget will overtake Radio 3's by, at the latest, 2016/17, leaving Radio 3 as the least expensive of the five network stations: Radio 3 - £40.7m (and that's supposed to include the 'reinvestment' in the Proms, presumably), Radio 1 - £42.1m.

The others are: Radio 2 - £49.2m, Radio 5Live - £62.8m, Radio 4 - £99.5m.

I also see: 'some reductions to live music and music talks on Radio 3'. What would those music talks be, I wonder? Does Radio 3 have any now?

They could always broadcast "especially recorded contemporary music" to replace some of those 'orchestral concerts'.

And why not?