BBC White Paper - Glasto reference

[GlastoSimon]

Portillo I think was on about the BBC running like Netflix last night. Completely missing the point of the BBC as a whole, not to mention there is a LOT of shite on Netflix.

[koj]

Glastonbury seems to be the biggest stick the BBC's critics have to beat them with at present, it's constantly being referenced.

The paid broadcasting landscape has changed the past few years with BT entering the market and gobbling up as much sports coverage as it can. Sky have been putting more budget into drama, and what's to stop them going for music events, it's going to give them access to a new customer base.

Of course this only happens if Eavis sanction a move away from the BBC and they've been quoted plenty of times saying they have been approached and are not interested in more cash.

(Personally I've never been a Sky customer and I don't think I ever will, even with Glastonbury coverage.)

The BBC coverage is fantastic, particularly now you can watch them afterwards on iPlayer, I do wish they'd extend coverage to some of the smaller stages as others have said, acoustic in particular.

[clarkete]

26 minutes ago, koj said:

Sky have been putting more budget into drama, and what's to stop them going for music events, it's going to give them access to a new customer base.

Some of their home grown dramas, even the good ones, have only had tens of thousands of viewers, plus they obviously don't have any capability to broadcast on the radio currently.

Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'll be flinging my sh*t at downing street first.

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, koj said:

Sky have been putting more budget into drama, and what's to stop them going for music events, it's going to give them access to a new customer base.

I think, in regard to Glasto coverage, what's to stop them is the Eavii's willingness to do a deal with them.

It's not, as far I know, simply a matter of the money on offer - so Sky could out-bid the beeb, and Eavis still might tell them where to shove it.

So it could come down to the govt telling the beeb they can't do it, and the Eavii saying "no TV at all then" ... which is good for Britain as a cultural icon, how, exactly?

It's pretty clear this white paper isn't about the beeb playing to its strengths but about trying to weaken it where it's strong.

[Memory Man]

yeah SLCV has gone i'm afraid, which is a real shame.

Back to topic, I thought one of the main reason Glastonbury gets so much coverage is because it comes under the umbrella of classic UK historical public events in the same way that the likes of Wimbledon, The Grand National, FA Cup, Olympics, World Cup. Euro's, Crufts(!?!) Eurovision do?

The fact is that the festival sells out every year just like wimbledon etc and gives joe public a window inside one of the UK's most treasured events. It would be strange if there were no coverage. They could and perhaps should scale it back a bit and cover some of the smaller areas as much as they do the main stages but for me that is their call. Will joe public care about who is headlining croissant neuf rather than the other stage? I might, we all might, but Mr Average will not.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Memory Man

[4AssedMonkey]

On 12/05/2016 at 6:26 PM, musky said:

The problem as I see it is that this section of the report isn't intended to assist smaller festivals over bigger ones, but that it's part of a wider attack on the BBC.

The BBC are being instructed to consider their production of popular content and it's scheduling. That's a big leg up for it's competitors and one that will undoubtedly be used to justify further attacks on both the institution and it's funding. It's not helped by the fact that the new board will be dominated by government appointed flunkies with editorial control over content (including news).

 

On 13/05/2016 at 8:06 AM, eFestivals said:

When the beeb is being (essentially) told it's not permitted to broadcast the best events in particular areas, it's pretty clear that the govt are trying to marginalise it, to the benefit of other broadcasters, and to weaken over time the public's support for the beeb.

It's all very well saying "isn't Sky fantastic", but it's typicial cheap-style american-style cheap TV, and not very fantastic. Crap TV like that is what causes people to rate the beeb so highly ... and sky costs around yen times as much.... would the general public think they'd got a good deal if they had to pay 10 times as much for TV, and worse TV? Would they fuck.

 

On 13/05/2016 at 2:07 PM, eFestivals said:

So it could come down to the govt telling the beeb they can't do it, and the Eavii saying "no TV at all then" ... which is good for Britain as a cultural icon, how, exactly?

It's pretty clear this white paper isn't about the beeb playing to its strengths but about trying to weaken it where it's strong.

All the points I was going to make, put better than I could.  This is a first step towards making a hugely successful public corporation that works into private hands for profit.  See also - Royal Mail, Network Rail, NHS, etc etc.

[CaledonianGonzo]

2 hours ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Stewart Lee been cancelled?? I wasn't aware of this. 

More 'not renewed' than cancelled.  There's an explanation on his website, but he seems fairly sanguine about it all.

[4AssedMonkey]

Much as I love Stewart Lee and SLCV, it did feel last series like it had run it's course and was a bit "same old" in places.  If anything, it had gone a "bit too Stewart Lee" and felt like someone parodying him, by doing what he does, but taking it too far.  Lost it's edge a bit.

[CaledonianGonzo]

I can see how a 30 minute impersonation of Rod Liddle eating poppadums wouldn't be for everyone.

[Memory Man]

he's got gravy all down his shirt!

[GlastoSimon]

1 hour ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

Much as I love Stewart Lee and SLCV, it did feel last series like it had run it's course and was a bit "same old" in places.  If anything, it had gone a "bit too Stewart Lee" and felt like someone parodying him, by doing what he does, but taking it too far.  Lost it's edge a bit.

This was my opinion too, but the last episode of the series was fantastic. That kept me hanging on

[Dave F.]

On 12/05/2016 at 3:52 PM, budvar said:

Its heavy promotion of certain large festivals, for example, can have negative impacts on smaller local and regional festivals.

This is actual rubbish.

Both the geezer at Mean Fiddler & Rob da Bank have said they have more difficulty selling tickets for their festivals during Glastonbury's *fallow* year. (Basically, they're saying that many festival goers are fickle)

I wonder if there's anything in this paper about, say Wimbledon, having a "negative impact" on other UK tournaments.

[Dave F.]

10 hours ago, Memory Man said:

he's got gravy all down his shirt!

I got bored of waiting for the conclusion... Did it ever get to a 'punch line'?

[LondonTom]

On 5/13/2016 at 1:33 PM, GlastoSimon said:

Portillo I think was on about the BBC running like Netflix last night. Completely missing the point of the BBC as a whole, not to mention there is a LOT of shite on Netflix.

Christ yeah I'd hate that! I'd say there is more shite on Netflix than good (and alot of the good stuff is BBC produced anyway!)

2 hours ago, Dave F. said:

This is actual rubbish.

Both the geezer at Mean Fiddler & Rob da Bank have said they have more difficulty selling tickets for their festivals during Glastonbury's *fallow* year. (Basically, they're saying that many festival goers are fickle)

I wonder if there's anything in this paper about, say Wimbledon, having a "negative impact" on other UK tournaments.

Makes sense, the average casual festival goers, sees what a bloody fantastic time we all having at Glasto and wants some of that, off they trot to google "UK Festivals" and there is a few that may take their fancy!

Has anyone seen Sky etc.'s attempts at Festival coverage?! Even just compared to what the BBC used to do for Reading/Leeds and TiTP let alone Glastonbury it is miles and miles behind. One or two songs followed by an ad break basically.

[ltfckimbo]

Commercial telly barely touches festival coverage with a barge pole. Sky had a stab at going big on IOW (which invariably has a main stage line up on a par with glasto) a few years ago, but now it has been scaled back to about 4 hours of coverage, broadcast the week after the festival.

From the coin-eyed view of a tv exec, there would be no point in covering 5 stages when 90% of the big commercial/heritage acts are on 2 of them. So they would end up devaluing the thing they paid for right from the off, and they will invest less and less into covering it each time.

If the BBC were forced to stop covering this and other big events, it would be like bald men fighting over a comb. None could make the current level of investment stack up from a business perspective, so it would never be successful. It would be funny if it wasn't so depressing, we've ended up with this amazingly popular multimedia platform that completely discredits the approach of the greedy cnuts we're now going to hand it over to.

[DeanoL]

If I were working for Glastonbury, losing the BBC deal would be near the top of my list of risks to the festival. The fact is that Glastonbury is a British institution because of the BBC coverage, and not the other way around. That coverage has ensured consistent sellouts, which has allowed for further growth, which keeps it one of, if not the, premium festivals in the UK. Even if someone else picked up the actual payment element and even paid more than the BBC do now, the loss in terms of free advertising from blanket coverage by the BBC for an entire weekend would be huge. In 2003 when the festival sold out in 24 hours it was assumed that it'd keep selling out within a day, and it did, until 2008 when a variety of factors saw it not sell out at all (or on the weekend itself, depending what you believe). It's not inconcievable that demand drops again for the festival in future years without something as huge as losing all that media coverage.

And that blanket BBC coverage is what draws in a hell of a lot of other media too, it's why the news will cover the festival, it's why papers will run articles about it. Because it's a part of the British conciousness and that is driven by the BBC. It's not something to take for granted, most people aren't like us on here. That cachet will fade quickly after just a few years. Honestly I think the BBC stopping supporting the festival would be a death knell for it.

And y'know, I love the BBC, they're bloody brilliant, one our country's huge achievements but... they do send 300 staff to Glastonbury. They're not helping themselves. They're kinda taking the piss. It doesn't need that many. The perfect Glastonbury coverage would be camera crews on as many stages as possible, and pick what you want via the red button. Get an off-site editor to do a highlights package every night with a voiceover for links. Maybe sent two presenters, a cameraman and boom operator to wonder the site itself.

It really shouldn't be that hard. And the number of staff going should have fallen, not increased over the past decade as portable broadcasting has gotten easier. I do think there's some truth to a lot of BBC staff having it as a jolly. (And equally I'm sure a good proportion of that number work their bollocks off to make it all work).

[musky]

6 hours ago, DeanoL said:

And y'know, I love the BBC, they're bloody brilliant, one our country's huge achievements but... they do send 300 staff to Glastonbury. They're not helping themselves. They're kinda taking the piss. It doesn't need that many. The perfect Glastonbury coverage would be camera crews on as many stages as possible, and pick what you want via the red button. Get an off-site editor to do a highlights package every night with a voiceover for links. Maybe sent two presenters, a cameraman and boom operator to wonder the site itself.

It really shouldn't be that hard. And the number of staff going should have fallen, not increased over the past decade as portable broadcasting has gotten easier. I do think there's some truth to a lot of BBC staff having it as a jolly. (And equally I'm sure a good proportion of that number work their bollocks off to make it all work).

Don't fall for the guff propagated by competitors to the BBC who are more than happy to see the BBC scaled back and take any opportunity to attack the organisation.

A friend of mine used to work at Glastonbury for the BBC and they used to describe the 'jolly' as "the hell that was Glastonbury". Not because they didn't like the festival, but because their day began with a 6:30am production meeting and ended with queuing for a coach at 1 in the morning. They did get time off in the day of course, but not enough to move from the main stages. The idea that this is a jolly for those concerned is entirely false.

Edited May 17, 2016 by musky

[incident]

8 hours ago, DeanoL said:

And y'know, I love the BBC, they're bloody brilliant, one our country's huge achievements but... they do send 300 staff to Glastonbury. They're not helping themselves. They're kinda taking the piss. It doesn't need that many.

Sorry, but you're miles off here.

Considering what they actually produce, 300 staff is incredibly efficient, and the overall cost is far less than most other programming. They're churning out hundreds of hours of content, spread over multiple stages, over multiple platforms - TV, Radio (both local and national) and Online. By comparison, Sky Sports send 130 people to every Premier League match - and once you include rights fees, spend more to produce just 15 minutes of a match than the BBC spend in total at Glastonbury.

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, incident said:

Sorry, but you're miles off here.

Considering what they actually produce, 300 staff is incredibly efficient, and the overall cost is far less than most other programming. They're churning out hundreds of hours of content, spread over multiple stages, over multiple platforms - TV, Radio (both local and national) and Online. By comparison, Sky Sports send 130 people to every Premier League match - and once you include rights fees, spend more to produce just 15 minutes of a match than the BBC spend in total at Glastonbury.

There's relative and absolute value though. Yes, it's good value and ultimately profitable for the corporation. It's better value than a lot of other things they do.

But it also doesn't follow from that they need 300 people on-site to do it. There would be better targets to make cuts on from a financial point of view, but it's about appearances and not giving people a stick to beat them with.

Just to pick something out - 2014 saw them send 17 presenters. For 50 hours of radio and 30 hours of TV. So they did about a90 minutes a day each? And yes there's prep time, but the vast majority of that 80 hours would have been performances and they'd just be doing links. 17 people to go "and next up is..." and maybe do the odd interview?

I don't doubt that some of the more technical employees are worked to the bone as musky says, it's just there's clearly an excess in the 'talent' area, that's quite visible. I'd guess you may see a similar surfeit in middle-management too.

[Yokel Again]

A world without the BBC isn't worth thinking about - 10 minutes watching ITV or listening to commercial radio would tell you that.

re: Glastonbury coverage. The BBC coverage is great, but it is a little excessive? Maybe it's just because we go most years, but how many people really do sit at home all day watching sets live on the red button and working their way around the site? Would love to know the figures of how many people watch the smaller stages and not the main BBC2 type coverage. 

[Memory Man]

13 hours ago, Dave F. said:

I got bored of waiting for the conclusion... Did it ever get to a 'punch line'?

not really.... classic SL

[DeanoL]

12 minutes ago, Yokel Again said:

re: Glastonbury coverage. The BBC coverage is great, but it is a little excessive? Maybe it's just because we go most years, but how many people really do sit at home all day watching sets live on the red button and working their way around the site? Would love to know the figures of how many people watch the smaller stages and not the main BBC2 type coverage. 

If you're filming all those stages so you've got a big set of options for highlights compilations though, the cost of also just pushing that stuff out via iPlayer / red button as it happens becomes marginal. It's only five stages (I think) and coverage of many doesn't start until later in the day also. No idea if the camera feeds these days are the same as for the screens at the stages or different.

[incident]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

But it also doesn't follow from that they need 300 people on-site to do it. There would be better targets to make cuts on from a financial point of view, but it's about appearances and not giving people a stick to beat them with.

Just to pick something out - 2014 saw them send 17 presenters. For 50 hours of radio and 30 hours of TV. So they did about a90 minutes a day each? And yes there's prep time, but the vast majority of that 80 hours would have been performances and they'd just be doing links. 17 people to go "and next up is..." and maybe do the odd interview?

I don't doubt that some of the more technical employees are worked to the bone as musky says, it's just there's clearly an excess in the 'talent' area, that's quite visible. I'd guess you may see a similar surfeit in middle-management too.

You're making some important and utterly incorrect assumptions - specifically that there's one presenter at a time, and that 90 minutes of work always equals 90 minutes of output. For example the shows typically include field reports - it's entirely possible, likely even that a pre-recorded 5 minute report on Arcadia takes 3+ hours of presenter time to create, going round recording different bits, interviewing people, etc. And that's not wastefulness on the part of the BBC, that's just how long it takes.

[DeanoL]

5 minutes ago, incident said:

You're making some important and utterly incorrect assumptions - specifically that there's one presenter at a time, and that 90 minutes of work always equals 90 minutes of output. For example the shows typically include field reports - it's entirely possible, likely even that a pre-recorded 5 minute report on Arcadia takes 3+ hours of presenter time to create, going round recording different bits, interviewing people, etc. And that's not wastefulness on the part of the BBC, that's just how long it takes.

Well yeah those bits take a long time. But that's balanced by the bits where they go "and here are the headliners" and have a couple of hours off. And that is the majority of that 80 hours of content. Footage of bands. Obviously, that's what people want to see. There a very few bits of 'roving reporter' style bits - maybe half an hour total per festival? (6x5min bits) - and they're generally done by the same two people for the entire festival while Jo Whiley etc. seem to sit back stage and do links. Most of that could even be done off-site.

For comparison, the Worthy FM crew is 30 people and they broadcast 24 hours a day for 7 days. Twice as much content as the BBC with 10% of the people. Obviously it's audio only, but then so is a majority of the BBC output.

[eFestivals]

Just to prove the point that these BBC changes are not about ensuring the beeb stays the best...

They're killing off 11,000 pages of recipes, where the cost of creating the pages for those recipes already exist so there's no cost to the beeb in keeping them.

So it's very clearly about reducing the services content and penetration of the beeb, to make it a lessw good service that is easier for others to compete with ... it's pissing the licence fee money up the wall to the advantage of worse broadcasters.