BBC White Paper - Glasto reference

[budvar]

Can't imagine this will get much attention, but there's a reference in the Government's white paper on the BBC that will be of interest to some on this forum:

Focusing more on potential market impact – the BBC needs to be sensitive to the market impact of some of its partnerships. Its heavy promotion of certain large festivals, for example, can have negative impacts on smaller local and regional festivals.

Reading between the lines, I'd say it's more a warning than anything else, but don't be surprised if organisers of other events refer to it directly; it could certainly have an impact when the rights to cover the festival are next negotiated. 

[reflekting]

5 minutes ago, budvar said:

Can't imagine this will get much attention, but there's a reference in the Government's white paper on the BBC that will be of interest to some on this forum:

Focusing more on potential market impact – the BBC needs to be sensitive to the market impact of some of its partnerships. Its heavy promotion of certain large festivals, for example, can have negative impacts on smaller local and regional festivals.

Reading between the lines, I'd say it's more a warning than anything else, but don't be surprised if organisers of other events refer to it directly; it could certainly have an impact when the rights to cover the festival are next negotiated. 

Whilst I don't like and agree with government intervention in most cases, I think this is a fair point. The BBC do spend far too much time promoting already big and established acts on the Pyramid Stage, whilst footage from areas like Croissant Neuf tends to get a back seat. 

BBC could do worse than look at smaller fetivals like Festival No 6, Green Man and even Kendal Calling to promote up and coming acts. 

[Sawdusty surfer]

The BBC spend an absolute fortune on their Glastonbury coverage but incredibly it is still a huge earner for them. Much of the coverage goes out to BBC Worldwide and the revenue that that generates is enormous.

 For that reason I can't see anyone else covering the festival.

[Festival Liam]

Maybe some of the money generated should go into funding smaller festival coverage? 

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, Sawdusty Surfer said:

The BBC spend an absolute fortune on their Glastonbury coverage but incredibly it is still a huge earner for them. Much of the coverage goes out to BBC Worldwide and the revenue that that generates is enormous.

 For that reason I can't see anyone else covering the festival.

Couldn't a company with lots of resources take it on and make similar amounts worldwide? That probably means Sky, which would be annoying, but they could do it.

[zero000]

This is going to set Giddings off on one again isn't it?

[5co77ie]

19 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Couldn't a company with lots of resources take it on and make similar amounts worldwide? That probably means Sky, which would be annoying, but they could do it.

I don't think Eavis would ever do that

[eFestivals]

2 hours ago, budvar said:

Can't imagine this will get much attention, but there's a reference in the Government's white paper on the BBC that will be of interest to some on this forum:

Focusing more on potential market impact – the BBC needs to be sensitive to the market impact of some of its partnerships. Its heavy promotion of certain large festivals, for example, can have negative impacts on smaller local and regional festivals.

Reading between the lines, I'd say it's more a warning than anything else, but don't be surprised if organisers of other events refer to it directly; it could certainly have an impact when the rights to cover the festival are next negotiated. 

Has Glastonbury all over the TV been good for other festivals, or bad for other festivals?

I think it's impossible to suggest it's been bad for them. 20 years ago there were just (a comparative) handful of festivals. Now there's a thousand or so, with nearly all of them having ridden on the success of Glasto on TV.

Just because other festivals are less successful than Glastonbury isn't because Glastonbury is all over the TV, it's because those other festivals just aren't as popular. If the commercial ruled the festival world as they seem to think they've entitled to for the rest of the world, then Reading/Leeds, V, etc, would have cleaned up.

There's a reason why they don't rule the festival world, and it's got fuck all to do with what's broadcast on TV.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2016 by eFestivals
corrected a type, from 'is' to 'isn't'. whoops.

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, 5co77ie said:

I don't think Eavis would ever do that

Oh yeah, good point.

[5co77ie]

2 hours ago, budvar said:

Can't imagine this will get much attention, but there's a reference in the Government's white paper on the BBC that will be of interest to some on this forum:

Focusing more on potential market impact – the BBC needs to be sensitive to the market impact of some of its partnerships. Its heavy promotion of certain large festivals, for example, can have negative impacts on smaller local and regional festivals.

Reading between the lines, I'd say it's more a warning than anything else, but don't be surprised if organisers of other events refer to it directly; it could certainly have an impact when the rights to cover the festival are next negotiated. 

they've quoted me in my ^Music interview where I complained the BBC believed there were only 70 festivals - dammit now I'm donig the Tories dirty work - off to have a shower - not sure I'll ever get clean

 

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Has Glastonbury all over the TV been good for other festivals, or bad for other festivals?

I think it's impossible to suggest it's been bad for them. 20 years ago there were just (a comparative) handful of festivals. Now there's a thousand or so, with nearly all of them having ridden on the success of Glasto on TV.

Just because other festivals are less successful than Glastonbury is because Glastonbury is all over the TV, it's because those other festivals just aren't as popular. If the commercial ruled the festival world as they seem to think they've entitled to for the rest of the world, then Reading/Leeds, V, etc, would have cleaned up.

There's a reason why they don't rule the festival world, and it's got fuck all to do with what's broadcast on TV.

 

 

Was going to post the same.  Unfortunately think smaller festivals have benefited from the BBCs coverage of Glasto.  If the BBC were instead broadcasting the yoot smashing toilet blocks at Reading I don't think festivals would be as popular.

[incident]

2 hours ago, Sawdusty Surfer said:

The BBC spend an absolute fortune on their Glastonbury coverage

You could argue that the absolute cost is a lot (approx £2 million according to the Daily Mail who presumably will have taken the highest justifiable number).

In terms of how much content they get out of it, spread across Radio, TV, and online? It's ridiculously cheap. To put it in context - they get hundreds of hours of content for almost exactly the same cost as 90 minutes of Doctor Who.

[musky]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Has Glastonbury all over the TV been good for other festivals, or bad for other festivals?

I think it's impossible to suggest it's been bad for them. 20 years ago there were just (a comparative) handful of festivals. Now there's a thousand or so, with nearly all of them having ridden on the success of Glasto on TV.

Just because other festivals are less successful than Glastonbury is because Glastonbury is all over the TV, it's because those other festivals just aren't as popular. If the commercial ruled the festival world as they seem to think they've entitled to for the rest of the world, then Reading/Leeds, V, etc, would have cleaned up.

There's a reason why they don't rule the festival world, and it's got fuck all to do with what's broadcast on TV.

 

 

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).

They want popular content gone and replaced with niche programming, and unfortunately I don't think Glastonbury can really be considered niche any more.

[jparx]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Has Glastonbury all over the TV been good for other festivals, or bad for other festivals?

I think it's impossible to suggest it's been bad for them. 20 years ago there were just (a comparative) handful of festivals. Now there's a thousand or so, with nearly all of them having ridden on the success of Glasto on TV.

Just because other festivals are less successful than Glastonbury isn't because Glastonbury is all over the TV, it's because those other festivals just aren't as popular. If the commercial ruled the festival world as they seem to think they've entitled to for the rest of the world, then Reading/Leeds, V, etc, would have cleaned up.

There's a reason why they don't rule the festival world, and it's got fuck all to do with what's broadcast on TV.

 

 

Couldn't agree with this more.

I actually think the coverage of Glastonbury has helped smaller festivals. Music festivals have now become a staple of the British Summer and I think the coverage of Glastonbury has a lot to do with that. My local festival (Y-Not) has gone from strength to strength, and I know a lot of people go to that festival because they like the idea of Glastonbury but are daunted by the size or can't afford it.

I think Glastonbury is as much an advert for music festivals in general than it is Glastonbury specifically. 

[phil the shrew]

Perhaps the report is referring to The Proms which the BBC covers with more staff, coverage and cost than Glastonbury. I'm sure Mail and Tekegraph readers would be happy to subscribe to Sky to watch that!

Havent seen the report but to single out festival coverage seems odd. Across the channels on the radio lots of smaller festivals get lots of coverage, and Radio 1, 2 and 6 hold their own events in towns bands wouldn't normally visit. Along with BBC introducing they do a lot for the smaller festivals and music scene 

[joeltg]

Tough one with BBC coverage, because whilst i'm on Worthy Farm I would prefer them not to cover it atall, but when I'm back or when I miss out on going I love watching, just a shame it's mostly Pyramid, Other and West holts covered! 

Lets go back in time, live it in our memories instead....ban mobiles whilst were at it.

Sorry, digressing...

Edited May 12, 2016 by joeltg

[grumpyhack]

To ignore the biggest festival in Britain and concentrate on the smaller events would be a bit like not covering Formula One to promote go karting.

That said, it would be nice to see more coverage of smaller stages.  Looks like West Holts is going to get a fair bit this year.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, grumpyhack said:

To ignore the biggest festival in Britain and concentrate on the smaller events would be a bit like not covering Formula One to promote go karting.

unfortunately, that's just about5 the position the beeb have already been forced into - giving up F1 because it was too expoensive.

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.

[clarkete]

14 hours ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Couldn't a company with lots of resources take it on and make similar amounts worldwide? That probably means Sky, which would be annoying, but they could do it.

Their home grown programmes don't usually have anything like the ratings of comparable offerings on terrestrial broadcasters.  Of course the idea of the coverage being broken up with advertisers would jar a bit too.

[Pbird81]

The BBC do cover other festivals, don't they? Am sure I watched stuff from Reading and Belladrum last year - 6Music are usually all over any festivals that are going; BBC London do loads of stuff from the Notting Hill Carnival, etc... am sure there's plenty more....

It's just that people want to watch Glastonbury more

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

11 hours ago, grumpyhack said:

To ignore the biggest festival in Britain and concentrate on the smaller events would be a bit like not covering Formula One to promote go karting.

That said, it would be nice to see more coverage of smaller stages.  Looks like West Holts is going to get a fair bit this year.

Yep, and when the F1 leaves Channel 4 and is only available on pay TV, that's it as far I'm concerned. I won't bother watching anymore and I suspect that will be the same for a lot of people.

Actually, Channel 4 privatisation is another pointless exercise this govt are trying to railroad through.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, HotChipWillBreakYourLegs said:

Yep, and when the F1 leaves Channel 4 and is only available on pay TV, that's it as far I'm concerned. I won't bother watching anymore and I suspect that will be the same for a lot of people.

Actually, Channel 4 privatisation is another pointless exercise this govt are trying to railroad through.

Because to ideologs, only the commercial has the answer.

Which the very existence and high-ratings of the beeb c0ompared to those commercial services proves as bollocks, of course.

So the ideolog's answer is to try and force the beeb to be worse so they can claim 'look, commercial IS better'.

They're clearly people who've never seen TV in the USA for themselves, it's utterly utterly dreadful.

 

[budvar]

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Has Glastonbury all over the TV been good for other festivals, or bad for other festivals?

I think it's impossible to suggest it's been bad for them. 20 years ago there were just (a comparative) handful of festivals. Now there's a thousand or so, with nearly all of them having ridden on the success of Glasto on TV.

Just because other festivals are less successful than Glastonbury isn't because Glastonbury is all over the TV, it's because those other festivals just aren't as popular. If the commercial ruled the festival world as they seem to think they've entitled to for the rest of the world, then Reading/Leeds, V, etc, would have cleaned up.

There's a reason why they don't rule the festival world, and it's got fuck all to do with what's broadcast on TV.

 

 

This is the key debate and I agree with your view, but we're now probably past "peak festival" (at least this time around) so wouldn't be shocked if some competitors complained about the special status the BBC affords Glastonbury.

Also worth showing that BBC Three showed Reading and T for years and they're highly commercial.

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

1 hour ago, budvar said:

This is the key debate and I agree with your view, but we're now probably past "peak festival" (at least this time around) so wouldn't be shocked if some competitors complained about the special status the BBC affords Glastonbury.

Also worth showing that BBC Three showed Reading and T for years and they're highly commercial.

And what has happened to BBC3 (mainly due to govt meddling)?

[GlastoSimon]

The thought of the Beeb being run primarily on a ratings-based system frightens me, as a lot of the 'alternative programming' which makes the Beeb brilliant will go. Both radio and TV.

They've already started by having to get rid of some decent comedy (Stewart Lee's programme, House of Fools) and keeping on crap like Mrs Brown's Boys, Citizen Khan etc.

It's a shame more didn't kick up a fuss about BBC3, because programmes which were very successful for the BBC (Gavin and Stacey notably) started there before moving to BBC1. I'm sure BBC 4 will have to go in the near to mid-term future, whilst a lot of the good late night BBC2 stuff which doesn't get that many viewers (Jools etc. I'm worried about) will go too.