'Subsidising' the Proms?

[french frank]

I know, I know - I shouldn't. But I can't be bothered to comment on Damian Thompson's blog in the Telegraph because there are too many comments there already. But, 'I love the Proms – but why subsidise them?' is the headline. What a mutton-headed question!

"Anyway, back to my original question: why do the (wonderful) Proms need nearly £6 million of your money, out of a budget of around £9 million?

The main factor is that ticket prices are too low. The Beeb may get a philanthropic buzz from charging only £5 for Prommers’ tickets in the arena, but it’s at our expense..."

Um, have you not noticed, Mr Thompson, that the whole of Radio 3 is 'at our expense'? What would it cost Radio 3 to fill all the Proms hours over two months, with the afternoon repeats and other repeats later in the year? What would alternative programming cost anyway? That £6m is just part of Radio 3's programming costs.

Aother frequently heard suggestion is that the Proms 'lose' £6m [sic]. Many people may have begrudged the £6m annual payments that went to Jonathan Ross, but it wasn't presented as 'loss-making' or 'subsidy' - it was just spending (foolishly, outrageously, in my view) on programme content.

In 2009, the BBC spent £1.7m on coverage of Glastonbury - and how much programme time did that fill? (in fact, according to the official figure, the Proms that year 'cost' £3.7m). Radio 1 got little change from a million for The Big Weekend. One weekend! And the Beijing Olympics 'lost' £15.6m of 'our money'.

The licence fee provides two months of live music-making for the entire country. So why, if it comes to that, should the Prommers 'subsidise' the nation's entertainment by paying more? - or should the Proms be henceforth considered no more than a great opportunity to turn in a bit of a profit?

[MrGongGong]

What a load of muddle headed nonsense Damian Thompson writes

its hardly worth replying ..................... so I won't

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

what a world of difference between the words subsidise and sponsor eh ....

[David Underdown]

There are some figures on Pliable's "On an Overgrown Path" blog. While they also talk in terms of subsidy, it is at least pointed out that it actually equates to cheap TV and radio. If it would actually cost more to fill the airwaves with alternative programming, can £6 million really be regarded as a subsidy? One thing that also never seems to be reported in Proms figures is the return they get on selling rights to other broadcasters, particularly for the Last Night - realistically some of that £6 million could also be offset against this (and eg merchandising sales of Proms mugs, t-shirts etc), rather than it being purely from the licence fee payer.

[french frank]

One thing that also never seems to be reported in Proms figures is the return they get on selling rights to other broadcasters, particularly for the Last Night - realistically some of that £6 million could also be offset against this (and eg merchandising sales of Proms mugs, t-shirts etc), rather than it being purely from the licence fee payer.

I'm not sure where the detailed Proms accounts are reported (I don't think they're published). In theory (so I understand) the shortfall between income and expenditure comes out of Radio 3's budget. The figure of £3.7m which I read for 2009 is nearer what I understood to be the cost, though expenditure must differ from year to year (Gothic symphony, anyone?). £9m is the highest estimate of overall cost that I've seen. The merchandise may be produced by the BBC commercial arm, and profits might therefore not come back to Radio 3.

Proms accounts have always seemed to be wrapped in mystery. Even though I'd been poking into matters of R3 costs for some years, it was a while before it dawned on me that they were 'paid for' by Radio 3 (if they are ... ).

Have just found this from 2008:

How much do the Proms cost to put on?
The total cost of the Proms season, including hire of the RAH, artistic costs, management and extra events, not including Proms In The Park is £8.7million.
How much does the box office contribute?
The total ticket income is just over £4million; and the remaining funding comes from the licence fee.

So that was £4.7m. Has it really gone up to £6m? (Still cheap at the price)

[David Underdown]

Here's the "Overgrown Path" entry I referred too http://www.overgrownpath.com/2009/08...proms.html?m=1 (based on 2009 figures, including some from FOI requests), the point about relative cost of actually filling the schedule is "in 2005/6 the average cost per hour of BBC Two TV programming was £99,300. My calculations above, assuming two hour concerts, show an average cost per hour of £31,579 for televising the Proms. That is less than one third of the average network programming cost before a proportion of the charge is allocated against BBC Radio 3."

And as I say before take an account of the overall funding picture of the BBC which does have commercial aspects in addition to licence fee funding that both Pliable and Thompson make no mention of, even if there is no "profit transfer" explicitly stated within the accounts

[french frank]

Thanks for digging that article out, David. There are some points I agree with - an independent artistic director would probably produce better concerts, and fewer might mean better too. The BBC agenda isn't necessarily good for the Proms but at least it guarantees their continuance.

I could never understand how when Nicholas Kenyon gave up the Directorship and RW took over, he appeared to be doing two jobs for one salary. The 'official' Proms figures do seem to fluctuate rather wildly.

I can well understand that televising the Proms provides cheap programmes compared with, say, the cost of a new Doctor Who series for example. And the hugely, extravagantly expensive Radio 3 has an annual budget of £37.3m whereas cheapo Radio 2's budget is now £46.7m (what do they spend it on?).

There may well be questions to ask about the Proms, but Damian Thompson doesn't at all seem to be on the right track to me.

[PhilipT]

Just my 2p worth ..

On the "two jobs for one salary" point, I don't think the job of Director of the Proms is a full-time job. (I once heard it described as "a full-time job for three months of the year".) Didn't Nicholas Kenyon combine it for a while with heading up the BBC's planning for the coverage of the Millennium celebrations?

As for the "true and fair" accounting point, one obscurity is how to account for the costs of the BBC's house orchestras. One figure I once saw put their total aggregate running costs at £18 million a year. When the BBCSO play a Prom, do you count the fully-apportioned cost (and risk double-counting somewhere in the accounts) or the marginal cost? Also, the revenue from the overseas syndication of the Last Night TV broadcast alone must be non-trivial. A new Doctor Who series could be sold overseas as well, of course, but it wouldn't help meet the BBC's obligation to broadcast a certain number of hours of live music each year. I think publication of the full accounts would be a good thing, but it won't be a simple document.

[aeolium]

I still think the point made in the Overgrown Path blog about the season being too long is a valid one. At the time the BBC started regularly broadcasting the Proms there were few other summer music festivals in Britain. Now there are a great many, some of which at least are just as deserving of coverage. In particular, the marginalisation of the Edinburgh Festival is for me the greatest drawback of the extended duration of the Proms. The truth is that there are quite a few Proms concerts that are frankly run-of-the-mill and don't greatly differ - apart from their location in a hall with poor acoustics - from plenty of other concerts at other times in the year. It's true that the Proms can produce the exceptional and memorable concert, and can stage performances such as those over last weekend which could probably not be mounted elsewhere. But that is not a good reason for refusing to countenance change simply because of the force of tradition. And that change should be driven not by considerations of cost but of quality and of broadcasting diversity.

[french frank]

JAs for the "true and fair" accounting point, one obscurity is how to account for the costs of the BBC's house orchestras. One figure I once saw put their total aggregate running costs at £18 million a year. When the BBCSO play a Prom, do you count the fully-apportioned cost (and risk double-counting somewhere in the accounts) or the marginal cost?

The Performing Groups have their own budget which covers the day-to-day managerial costs. Radio 3 contributes towards the actual costs of broadcast concerts, similar to the way it would pay external orchestras. But it isn't clear-cut - there was some alteration in the way transmission costs were reported a couple of years back. I think they were moved over to Radio 3. The television channels would presumably pay a proportion of televised concert costs too. It must be a bit of a nightmare working out what goes where to avoid double counting.

[NickWraight]

During the run of the Proms there are very few other "Classical" concerts in London as compared to the rest of the year. It could be argued that during the Summer there are more people in London (UK residents on holiday, foreign visitors) and therefore the series fills a significant gap. You could also, of course, argue the reverse that more UK residents are on holiday and therefore do not require the Proms -audience sizes seem to put the lie to that one.

There are more Summer (I use the word broadly!) UK music festivals but how many in and around London major on the orchestral repertoire? Yes, there is the "official "Edinburgh Festival" but that is broadly based on most artforms and not just the orchestral repertoire and itself is heavily subsidised by the City Council and commercial sponsorship. All paid for at the bottom of the chain by you and I!

The BBC licence fee is always a hot topic and increasingly high up the Governmental agenda mainly because they have little control of how that particular "tax" is used. Advertising pays for Commercial broadcasting and who might I ask ends up paying for that - as always the general public through the the price paid for products and services. If the Public wants something they will pay for it one way or another.

One rumour currently doing the rounds is that the 2013 season will be crunch time for the Proms when you would imagine the only real savings could be made with the length of the season being severely cut. However, if the Proms are relatively cheap broadcasting there would need to be large savings elsewhere (orchestras; Radio/TV channel(s) and associated staff support etc) to make any real economic sense.

Should this line be taken the accusations of cultural vandalism on the UK's and London's music life as well as the BBC would be huge. Surely the reactions to the Radio 6 and World Service debacles show what could happen?!

[aeolium]

The loss of say 2 weeks off the Proms season would not have a huge impact on London concert life. After all, London has probably more orchestral concerts than other parts of the country put together, going right through the year. We are talking about a rebalancing so that there could be more R3 coverage of other UK festivals including Edinburgh. I can't believe there would be a significant impact on costs if this happened. Why on earth would it be cultural vandalism to broadcast Edinburgh Festival concerts rather than the Proms, unless one has a uniquely London-centric view of the musical universe?

Would we really think now, if we were not constrained by the long tradition, that an eight-week long festival of concerts in a large old Victorian hall would provide the best vehicle for R3 broadcasts between mid-July and mid-September every year?

[Lee McLernon]

I can't believe there would be a significant impact on costs if this happened.

Well, for a start, there the fixed cost of placing the OB team and query whether that OB team would need to move around venues in Edinburgh, thus increasing the cost further. Then there's the fact the BBC has no control over the programme/artists and there could be cost implications as a result of broadcast rights, particularly as the artists would have the upper hand in negotiations. In the past the Beeb has not been afraid to say no to orchestras who want too large a broadcast fee to play at the Proms.

[aeolium]

R3 already do broadcast some concerts from the EIF, so they would have a team there. The EIF main festival combines chamber music, piano and song recitals, orchestral and opera. EIF chamber music concerts would presumably be cheaper to record and broadcast than the large scale orchestral performances in the Proms.

But as I said, the issue is not principally about cost - it's about quality and diversity.

[barber olly]

...And the hugely, extravagantly expensive Radio 3 has an annual budget of £37.3m whereas cheapo Radio 2's budget is now £46.7m (what do they spend it on?).

Maybe their employment of, often sub-standard, Celebrity Presenters accounts for some of this!