3. What scope, scale and remit should the BBC have?

[french frank]

Mmm, quite a big question.

Scope - I wonder what this means? Currently, a range of TV channels; national and local radio stations (analogue and digital); online; BBC Worldwide. What else would be included? All those seem reasonable.

Scale? ??? Do we look at the range of services and say e.g. We don't need Radio 1 because it's just pop music like most of the commercials. (NB that's just an e.g. not a suggestion IOW does the BBC need all the services it has?)

Remit: might involve looking at the thread on the Public Purposes. Inform, educate and entertain, in short.

I'm a bit stumped. I wonder if there are any further guidelines.

[Honoured Guest]

In the context of Radio 3, the elephant in the room on the subject of "scope" of the BBC must surely be the BBC performing groups, such as the BBC Orchestras, and BBC live events, such as the BBC Proms. Arguments will be made that these are in unfair competition with performing groups and live events which aren't subsidised by the BBC's licence fee, and also that the BBC could fulfil its broadcasting remit more economically if it didn't maintain its own performing groups and didn't promote live events.

[french frank]

In the context of Radio 3, the elephant in the room on the subject of "scope" of the BBC must surely be the BBC performing groups, such as the BBC Orchestras, and BBC live events, such as the BBC Proms. Arguments will be made that these are in unfair competition with performing groups and live events which aren't subsidised by the BBC's licence fee, and also that the BBC could fulfil its broadcasting remit more economically if it didn't maintain its own performing groups and didn't promote live events.

Very hot potatoes - though they aren't really in the context of Radio 3 since both have their separate budgets and have the 'BBC' brand.

Arguably the orchestras are able to put together programmes that commercial orchestras wouldn't be able to (do they?) and are they really unfair competition if concert-goers pay market prices for their tickets (do they?). The Proms tickets are kept artificially low by the subsidy, though I wonder if 'rival' events lose out. Don't the concert seasons tend to begin when the Proms end? Whether the Proms, which are not self-financing, and orchestras ditto, are a good use of public funds will depend on what arguments can be used to support them.

[salymap]

The Proms seem to expand every year. PERHAPS limit some of the foreign orchestral visits, cut them back to the 48 -50 concerts that they were years ago.

Plenty of new works seem to have been introduced in the mid 20C.

Less gimmicks and chat, back to the basic repertoire, the best of the new works highlighted,

[Honoured Guest]

Very hot potatoes - though they aren't really in the context of Radio 3 since both have their separate budgets and have the 'BBC' brand.

Arguably the orchestras are able to put together programmes that commercial orchestras wouldn't be able to (do they?) and are they really unfair competition if concert-goers pay market prices for their tickets (do they?). The Proms tickets are kept artificially low by the subsidy, though I wonder if 'rival' events lose out. Don't the concert seasons tend to begin when the Proms end? Whether the Proms, which are not self-financing, and orchestras ditto, are a good use of public funds will depend on what arguments can be used to support them.

Yes, separate budgets, but if the scope of the BBC is limited in the next Charter so that it drops the performing groups and public events, that would have enormous impact on Radio 3. I agree with you, and it was my original point, that they'll probably be put at risk in this Charter renewal process if no one in this consultation submits good enough arguments for their inclusion within the scope of the BBC.

[Serial_Apologist]

The Proms seem to expand every year. PERHAPS limit some of the foreign orchestral visits, cut them back to the 48 -50 concerts that they were years ago.

That might depend on whether or not invites to BBC's orchestras would be curtailed as a result

Plenty of new works seem to have been introduced in the mid 20C.

Does anyone know how much commissioning of new work takes place today, as compared with in the 1950s and '60s?

Less gimmicks and chat, back to the basic repertoire, the best of the new works highlighted,

Well certainly more straightforward, factual, and less gushing announcements.

[french frank]

Yes, separate budgets, but if the scope of the BBC is limited in the next Charter so that it drops the performing groups and public events, that would have enormous impact on Radio 3. I agree with you, and it was my original point, that they'll probably be put at risk in this Charter renewal process if no one in this consultation submits good enough arguments for their inclusion within the scope of the BBC.

Okay - that point taken on board. The only comparable 'BBC' event is Radio 1's Big Weekend - staff 271 (as against the Proms 145!!!). Per hour broadcast - thanks to Radio 3's coverage - the Proms work out among the cheapest of the 'big events' covered by the BBC such as Wimbledon, Glastonbury and any mega sporting event.

[Zucchini]

ff and others may well have read the Myerscough Performing Groups Report issued last year. It's a brief easy read and contains useful factual data. Tim Davie summarises in his blog:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/bbcperforminggroups_johnmyerscough.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/review-of-the-bbcs-performing