Daily Heil

[rh82]

With its now mandatory whinge about the bbc coverage today . . .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286271/Daily-Mail-moaning-again-blah-blah-blah

Further to

This

this

this

and this

The cost is for 400 staff, the majority of which are technical staff and contractors. Considering the coverage costs a little over twice the cost of one Doctor Who episode, and the BBC has to install all broadcasting equipment (it is a farmer field after all) its not that bad, is it?!

[toooldtoknowbetter]

Why oh why oh why does anyone read that nasty small-minded bigotted ignorant tubthumping rag? It supported Oswald Moseley, you know.

[rh82]

Why oh why oh why does anyone read that nasty small-minded bigotted ignorant tubthumping rag? It supported Oswald Moseley, you know.

[TomfromStroud]

Got a feeling I'm going to be deeply unpopular here, but FOUR HUNDRED staff?

I pay a huge licence fee, and then I'm expected to heavily subsidise the biggest BBC jolly on the calendar.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that so many people should be sent on a jolly at taxpayer's expense. Those tickets could go to extra performers, sold and the profits given to worthy causes, or given to extra local people to ensure the festival receives extra support in the local area.

And now, for what will possibly be the most unpopular statement on this forum this week...

If they gave it to Sky I reckon they could do it just as well with less than 100.

[rh82]

Got a feeling I'm going to be deeply unpopular here, but FOUR HUNDRED staff?

I pay a huge licence fee, and then I'm expected to heavily subsidise the biggest BBC jolly on the calendar.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that so many people should be sent on a jolly at taxpayer's expense. Those tickets could go to extra performers, sold and the profits given to worthy causes, or given to extra local people to ensure the festival receives extra support in the local area.

And now, for what will possibly be the most unpopular statement on this forum this week...

If they gave it to Sky I reckon they could do it just as well with less than 100.

[ApacheAnderson]

These were apparently the numbers last year, i don't think OTT

Staff

[Insomaniac]

I really don't want to agree with the Daily Mail, but would it do that much harm if the BBC scaled down their coverage of Glastonbury?

Speaking from a purely selfish point of view I'll be at the festival so I'm not going to be watching any of the coverage anyway, and even when I get home I can't be bothered downloading/watching iplayer because television coverage doesn't do the festival justice anyway. On top of that the highlights of the festival for me are very rarely band related but more all the other random things that go on.

Fair enough if the festival needed publicity, but I think it does fine without it.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Insomaniac

[toooldtoknowbetter]

But if they reduced the coverage, there'd be even less chance of my flag getting seen on the telly. I'd simply have to make an even bigger one.

[TomfromStroud]

I tend to agree with you, insomniac. I like to watch a couple of bands on iplayer when I get back, and maybe listen to a Steve Lamacq roundup in a nice bath on the Monday, but that is really just about it and I like Glastonbury more than just about anyone I know.

Worth noting as well that any stage with a screen has people filming it anyway, and I don't think they're part of the BBC crew. So I believe (and I may be wrong) that effectively many of these staff are employed to only do the links between coverage, not even the coverage itself.

But I take particular issue with BBC senior management going, who play absolutely no part at all in the actual coverage. It just seems bizarre. How can it be seen as anything other than a jolly? It just creates a bad impression.

Edited June 14, 2010 by TomfromStroud

[Spindles]

Odd that they have so many articles slating the cost of glastonbury, yet none slating the proms (which are watched by much fewer people).

I would say that dividing cost/staff by viewers/listeners as well as taking into account how much replay/resale value there is in the footage. How often does the wimbledon footage get rerun or sold to other broadcasters? I actually think that the coverage represents good value, however as I do not pay a license fee it isn't really as if my opinion matters that much.

[Steve P]

I really don't want to agree with the Daily Mail, but would it do that much harm if the BBC scaled down their coverage of Glastonbury?

Speaking from a purely selfish point of view I'll be at the festival so I'm not going to be watching any of the coverage anyway, and even when I get home I can't be bothered downloading/watching iplayer because television coverage doesn't do the festival justice anyway. On top of that the highlights of the festival for me are very rarely band related but more all the other random things that go on.

Fair enough if the festival needed publicity, but I think it does fine without it.

[bombfrog]

I pay a huge licence fee, and then I'm expected to heavily subsidise the biggest BBC jolly on the calendar.

[ukslim]

I think the "twice the cost of one Doctor Who episode" factoid sums it up.

Pound per minute of popular, reusable TV, it seems like it's good value. Similar to Eurovision -- every year people whinge about what the BBC spends on Eurovision, but they counter that it's extraordinarily good value for money compared to a lot of other programming.

[tinpottery]

Quite sure no one on here can comprehend just how many people are needed to effectively cover a event like Glasto. When you think about how many hours of broadcasting they get from it, it sounds like a good return (when compared to the Doctor Who example).

[Gnomicide]

Let's face it, the BBC Glastonbury coverage isn't for people who go is it?

Surely it's for people who stay at home and listen on the radio or watch it on TV?

[Steve P]

I think the "twice the cost of one Doctor Who episode" factoid sums it up.

Pound per minute of popular, reusable TV, it seems like it's good value. Similar to Eurovision -- every year people whinge about what the BBC spends on Eurovision, but they counter that it's extraordinarily good value for money compared to a lot of other programming.

[TomfromStroud]

No, they wouldn't and even if they did it would be shit, full of adverts and not in HD.

[woodie04]

No, they wouldn't and even if they did it would be shit, full of adverts and not in HD. Have you seen the ITV2 coverage of IOW?

[MilkyJoe]

Twice the cost of one Dr. Who episode?

So the same cost as two Dr. Who episodes then...

[Phil-itfc]

400 staff sound alot. But a large number of radio shows that are broadcast live from the festival. now these staff would have only been in the BBC's radio studios at the same cost to the lisence fee. also the ammount of recording equipment that has to be set up would need to be set up reguardless of who was broadcasting or even if no one was broadcasting we'd still have the large screens that need to be fed. and a few of the DJ's are also named as acts on the line up.

[MEGABOWL]

I cant see anywhere it saying that glasto coverage is in HD, this would be great tho, any link? Have just bought a freeview hd recorder for the footy so this would be a great bonus, as long as itv1 hd arent involved at all as they missed the england goal on Saturday night!

[bombfrog]

I cant see anywhere it saying that glasto coverage is in HD, this would be great tho, any link? Have just bought a freeview hd recorder for the footy so this would be a great bonus, as long as itv1 hd arent involved at all as they missed the england goal on Saturday night!

[Insomaniac]

Be careful what you wish for. The BBC are about to come under huge pressure to cut costs in everything and coverage of the arts will be one of the easiest things to cull. When I couldn't go to last years Glasto I watched a lot of the BBC coverage and enjoyed it. Yeah some of the presenters are on too much but in general it's great.