'Delivering Quality First' (DQF) cuts

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes and they sound so much more alive somehow.

(I now do Morecambe and Wise at 5 rather than PM with Cameron and Clegg - all of a sudden, the pattern of life feels more normal. That is Wednesday. Now where is my thesis on next week's schedule? There is a day when Hancock knocks SMP and Humphreys out of the water at breakfast, repeated if I'm not mistaken at 1200 and 1900 hours or is it 1230 and 1930?).

[teamsaint]

It's a common assumption that archive material must be cheap or free because it's already been recorded and is there simply to be pulled off the shelf and re-broadcast. Often it isn't. When the programme (concert, play, whatever) was originally made, the BBC probably bought the rights to one repeat. Very likely it will already have had that repeat in the past if it's any good. To broadcast it a third time will probably involve paying all the artists again. People tend to forget about these rights issues. There's no such thing as a free lunch!

Someone said that it seemed strange to cut lunchtime chamber concerts when it can't cost much to make the broadcast. The biggest cash cost will be the artists' fees, which will not be negligible. But obviously there will have to be cuts in production staff costs as well, to meet this 20% overall cut. Which presumably means there will be job cuts at Radio 3 that include producers and sound engineers - which in turn means fewer broadcast concerts and more programmes with CDs. It's not rocket science.

I understand all your points....and its obvious even to us outsiders that there are costs attached to repeats etc. ( I did happen to know the general "1 repeat" rule"). However, as regards TV repeats there is over half a century of material buried away. even allowing for some technical work and repeat fees, the absence of any substantial origination cost, along with the certainty over the quality of material must surely make trawling the archives an attractive proposition. Perhaps its not very attractive to those employed by the BBC though, who perhaps have to show us all why they are worth their salary in terns of original programming.

As regards concerts etc, I just don't buy it. Renegotiate with performers (its an over supplied industry). Use freelance producers. Modern equipment is amazing...bet there are plenty of freelance sound guys around who would do the job on a tight budget..
AS I said earlier, publishers produce a book( a physical commodity) from beginning to end for £10k. That is amazing, and its done by tight control of costs, And lots of very hard work !!

[RobertLeDiable]

As regards concerts etc, I just don't buy it. Renegotiate with performers (its an over supplied industry). Use freelance producers. Modern equipment is amazing...bet there are plenty of freelance sound guys around who would do the job on a tight budget..

You may not buy it, but you might like to explain how you 'renegotiate' a signed contract which is going to be to the detriment of the artists involved. Obviously BBC Enterprises must have been able to negotiate with the likes of the Hancock estate in order to sell all those comedy programmes on tape and now DVD, or to repeat them on R7. But those are programmes with world-wide mass appeal and selling potential so deals can no doubt be done. Doubt if that's going to work for a lot of one-off concerts, or at least it's going to take a lot of expensive lawyer time to do it. A lot of the production staff, especially the sound people, are actually freelance nowadays. They still have to be paid though.

[french frank]

You may not buy it, but you might like to explain how you 'renegotiate' a signed contract which is going to be to the detriment of the artists involved.

I've never understood this point. Why would it be to the detriment of the artists when the alternative is that the programmes aren't repeated and they get nothing? Just an enquiry for my own enlightenment.

[RobertLeDiable]

I've never understood this point. Why would it be to the detriment of the artists when the alternative is that the programmes aren't repeated and they get nothing? Just an enquiry for my own enlightenment.

Human nature. You tell me that if I agree to let you repeat my performance for a pittance, you'll probably repeat it several more times for more pittances which in total will add up to something worth letting you take my rights away for. I don't believe you. You guarantee me ten times the pittance over the next few years, I might think about it. You can't do that? Oh well - tough then, I'm not budging. Ever been involved in a union negotiation?

[teamsaint]

You may not buy it, but you might like to explain how you 'renegotiate' a signed contract which is going to be to the detriment of the artists involved. Obviously BBC Enterprises must have been able to negotiate with the likes of the Hancock estate in order to sell all those comedy programmes on tape and now DVD, or to repeat them on R7. But those are programmes with world-wide mass appeal and selling potential so deals can no doubt be done. Doubt if that's going to work for a lot of one-off concerts, or at least it's going to take a lot of expensive lawyer time to do it. A lot of the production staff, especially the sound people, are actually freelance nowadays. They still have to be paid though.

Um, concerning concerts, I was obviously talking about new programming, and negotiating deals within new financial constraints. If budgets are under pressure, you have to cut costs by tightening up on fees, cutting better deals etc. Its tough out there in the commercial world, arts as much as anywhere. musicians and technical people want work.
Strangely, having been freelance in sales for over 20 years , I can get my head round the idea that freelancers need paying.

My very simple point is that is if budgets are cut,you can try to get the same for less money, rather than cut some programming, wring your hands, and hope keep your own job.
The company I work for deals with cover prices that haven't gone up in at least five years, competition from amazon, etc , and still turns a profit. It can be done.
I am not , in principle, in favour of cutting fees for the little guy, by the way. Times are tough though.

[teamsaint]

And heres a way to cut costs. next time the BBC shows live championship football , lets say Cardiff city v Leicester city. Just show the game, and have it introduced by a non celebrity commentator.
Because that sort of event, for which a decent fee has been paid, will only be watched by people who are interested in the game, not because there is a big name, big salary presenter. Nobody switches on to see them. Nobody. At all. its a complete waste of money. Our Money. Every time they show a game.
Oh and usually they don't know what they are talking about.

[aeolium]

It's a common assumption that archive material must be cheap or free because it's already been recorded and is there simply to be pulled off the shelf and re-broadcast. Often it isn't. When the programme (concert, play, whatever) was originally made, the BBC probably bought the rights to one repeat. Very likely it will already have had that repeat in the past if it's any good. To broadcast it a third time will probably involve paying all the artists again. People tend to forget about these rights issues. There's no such thing as a free lunch!

No, I am aware that there are costs involved in broadcasting archive material, but I find it hard to believe that the costs will be as high as mounting a new drama production. I'd be interested to learn what the cost comparison might be. Surely the extensive use of archive material in R4E is cheap relative to broadcasting new material?

[teamsaint]

No, I am aware that there are costs involved in broadcasting archive material, but I find it hard to believe that the costs will be as high as mounting a new drama production. I'd be interested to learn what the cost comparison might be. Surely the extensive use of archive material in R4E is cheap relative to broadcasting new material?

You are quite right, costs won't be as high.

If we reprint an out of print book we still have to pay royalties, distribution fees, print costs etc.
But because basic origination costs such as lots of editorial time are cut out, it can be very profitable business. Ok its not very creative, but we get books to new markets, perhaps in a more attractive format,and everybody( except the competition !) wins. We can't survive on it, but its an important strand. I think our general suggestion here is that at the dear old £2bn+ a year BBC, its perhaps an under utilised strand.

[RobertLeDiable]

Um, concerning concerts, I was obviously talking about new programming, and negotiating deals within new financial constraints. If budgets are under pressure, you have to cut costs by tightening up on fees, cutting better deals etc. Its tough out there in the commercial world, arts as much as anywhere. musicians and technical people want work.
Strangely, having been freelance in sales for over 20 years , I can get my head round the idea that freelancers need paying.

My very simple point is that is if budgets are cut,you can try to get the same for less money, rather than cut some programming, wring your hands, and hope keep your own job.
The company I work for deals with cover prices that haven't gone up in at least five years, competition from amazon, etc , and still turns a profit. It can be done.
I am not , in principle, in favour of cutting fees for the little guy, by the way. Times are tough though.

I was talking about repeats of old programmes, made perhaps when times were easier financially and contracts didn't include buyouts of rights. Some people seem to think that because they're 'on the shelf', a repeat is virtually free. If you had, say, a London Symphony Orchestra concert broadcast 20 years ago that you wanted to repeat, you might have to pay fees to all the players all over again. Of course nowadays, I'm quite sure companies like the BBC buy out repeat rights (and internet rights, etc), so repeats of more recent material will be cheaper, even if the original cost up front was greater.

[mercia]

probably a dumb question but will the cutting-back of broadcast lunchtime concerts financially affect Wigmore Hall ?

[MrGongGong]

What is the point of "local" radio or "regional" TV ???
A few months ago Feedback had a whole programme devoted to advertising how essential local radio was using the examples of the floods in Cumbria and the gunman who went amok in the same area as reasons why it was useful. What a load of utter nonsense, we could have much better ways of alerting people to danger rather than assuming they are listening to endless drivel etc

Our "local" TV comes from Yorkshire (where we don't live) and is endlessly preoccupied with violent crime so that we used to call it "stabbings nightly" and always turn off, the weather forecast never covers where we live so its totally useless as some kind of public service........

junk local radio I say, there are plenty of commercial stations doing exactly the same thing............

[Mandryka]

Isn't this the perfect opportunity to eviscerate BBC Sport?

Sport can pay its own way and, even if you don't have a Sky subscription, you can still watch any so-called 'big' matches in your local for the price of a pint, thus supporting the local economy at the same time.

Sport should be the exclusive domain of the private sector.

[Serial_Apologist]

Isn't this the perfect opportunity to eviscerate BBC Sport?

Sport can pay its own way and, even if you don't have a Sky subscription, you can still watch any so-called 'big' matches in your local for the price of a pint, thus supporting the local economy at the same time.

Sport should be the exclusive domain of the private sector.

Oh no! Sport is the national moral restorer, which the BBC is supposed to be playing its part in. Sports people as role models to the feckless young, like pop stars weren't in the 60s. You know, drugs, groupies, the perfect body, the government campaign against obseity and the selling off sports fields, er, team spirit, local identity, and one could go on...

[MrGongGong]

Oh no! Sport is the national moral restorer, which the BBC is supposed to be playing its part in. Sports people as role models to the feckless young, like pop stars weren't in the 60s. You know, drugs, groupies, the perfect body, the government campaign against obseity and the selling off sports fields, er, team spirit, local identity, and one could go on...

Small boys, jumpers for goalposts ........................

You are joking , aren't you ??????

Its hard to know at times what with fictional characters such as Sidney appearing to be real to some folk etc