The BBC and coverage of commercial events - Glastonbury?
Discussion
Flowing from the discussion about the BBC and it's non-commercial mandate.
Over the past few years I've been wondering how the BBC's coverage of things like the Glastonbury Festival squares with it's 'non-commercial' mandate. Glastonbury is, after all, an entirely private commercial venture.
This year the BBC had two of it's TV channels covering the festival simultaneously, a huge amount of radio coverage and large amounts of its website seemed to be devoted to it.
Where does the legitimate coverage of a cultural event stop and it become little more than glorified advertising for a private commercial operation which is what Glastonbury is?
You could ask the same questions about sports events; F1, Wimbledon, the Word Cup, etc, are in reality simply private commercial businesses.
Over the past few years I've been wondering how the BBC's coverage of things like the Glastonbury Festival squares with it's 'non-commercial' mandate. Glastonbury is, after all, an entirely private commercial venture.
This year the BBC had two of it's TV channels covering the festival simultaneously, a huge amount of radio coverage and large amounts of its website seemed to be devoted to it.
Where does the legitimate coverage of a cultural event stop and it become little more than glorified advertising for a private commercial operation which is what Glastonbury is?
You could ask the same questions about sports events; F1, Wimbledon, the Word Cup, etc, are in reality simply private commercial businesses.
Eric Mc said:
If they were not allowed broadcast live events that had a commercial ethos to them, there would be precious little in the way of live events left to show - apart from state occasions.
Indeed. Even village fetes might be a bit of a grey area as the proceeds from the tombola might go towards the Church roof.Eric Mc said:
If they were not allowed broadcast live events that had a commercial ethos to them, there would be precious little in the way of live events left to show - apart from state occasions.
That's not really what I'm getting at though. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to show privately produced live events, just when does it start to impinge on the 'non-commercial' ethos the BBC is supposed to have?There was virtually blanket coverage by the BBC over the weekend. How far can they go without it just being a massive, publicly funded advert for someone's private business?
AJL308 said:
Eric Mc said:
If they were not allowed broadcast live events that had a commercial ethos to them, there would be precious little in the way of live events left to show - apart from state occasions.
That's not really what I'm getting at though. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to show privately produced live events, just when does it start to impinge on the 'non-commercial' ethos the BBC is supposed to have?There was virtually blanket coverage by the BBC over the weekend. How far can they go without it just being a massive, publicly funded advert for someone's private business?
To be fair Glastonbury is a bit more than a commercial venture, it's become a cultural mainstay and is run and organised along those lines which is why it has an eclectic arts based ethos and not a commercial one like say V festival or T in the Park which isn't covered by the bbc
AJL308 said:
Eric Mc said:
If they were not allowed broadcast live events that had a commercial ethos to them, there would be precious little in the way of live events left to show - apart from state occasions.
That's not really what I'm getting at though. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to show privately produced live events, just when does it start to impinge on the 'non-commercial' ethos the BBC is supposed to have?There was virtually blanket coverage by the BBC over the weekend. How far can they go without it just being a massive, publicly funded advert for someone's private business?
dandarez said:
I'm fully with AJL308 on this. It's not broadcasting an event that is the issue, it's the bloody non-stop plugging of Glasto. I doubt a minute passed without its mention. It was simply one big long weekend advert which cost Michael Eavis nowt.
And if the BBC disappeared, where would he get that "promotion" from for free?Would Glastonbury and similar events survive without it?
FredClogs said:
Blanket coverage? I must have missed that. So you're saying no sport and no coverage of live performance art? Seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
To be fair Glastonbury is a bit more than a commercial venture, it's become a cultural mainstay and is run and organised along those lines which is why it has an eclectic arts based ethos and not a commercial one like say V festival or T in the Park which isn't covered by the bbc
No, that's not what I'm saying. The point of discussion was at what point, as far as commercial events are concerned, does coverage by the BBC turn from legitimate coverage of a cultural event to being free promotional material for the owner of the business running it?To be fair Glastonbury is a bit more than a commercial venture, it's become a cultural mainstay and is run and organised along those lines which is why it has an eclectic arts based ethos and not a commercial one like say V festival or T in the Park which isn't covered by the bbc
Blanket coverage? Yes, pretty much. It was covered on two BBC TV channels at the same time, two nights running, as I recall; the Chris Evans show was there for radio and was being plugged all over the BBC what seemed incessantly.
Perhaps that's all ok? I don't really know. Surely though the BBC must have some policy as to what constitutes commercial promotion and what is legitimate coverage.
IroningMan said:
I don't think the BBC has to pay anything for the broadcast rights for Glastonbury, so it's a great deal of low-cost content for them. That notwithstanding, it doesn't get saturation coverage compared to Wimbledon, The Proms, or any other event of similar profile.
It was virtually never off the airwaves all weekend. I think it even started as early as the Thursday.I agree that things like Wimbledon involve the issue as well. When does coverage of that become free promotion of private interests?
Eric Mc said:
And if the BBC disappeared, where would he get that "promotion" from for free?
Would Glastonbury and similar events survive without it?
He wouldn't, he'd have to pay for it. Same as everyone else in the private sector.Would Glastonbury and similar events survive without it?
Yes, it would probably survive. Might not be as massive though so he'd make less.
AJL308 said:
That's not really what I'm getting at though. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to show privately produced live events, just when does it start to impinge on the 'non-commercial' ethos the BBC is supposed to have?
There was virtually blanket coverage by the BBC over the weekend. How far can they go without it just being a massive, publicly funded advert for someone's private business?
You're right. And all those songs they play on the radio all day every day too - pissing our money away supporting drugged-up beatniks! There was virtually blanket coverage by the BBC over the weekend. How far can they go without it just being a massive, publicly funded advert for someone's private business?
Edited by minimoog on Thursday 2nd July 16:26
It's a cultural event that will sell out, every single year it is held in minutes - with or without the BBC 'promoting' it.
The BBC isn't paid to promote it, so there's no conflict of interest for them - but they can sell their broadcasts globally like they do with Topgear etc.
If you want to feel a bit better about it, Glastonbury, whilst it is a commercial venture - the organisers (Michael Eavis and his Daughter) only take a modest salary from it - Michael takes £60k or so - he actually makes a lot more by being a Diary Farmer, most of the profits from the Festival go to charity.
But most of all, it's a bloody brilliant event to watch - not everyone wants so spent a long weekend in a muddy field, or a blazing hot on as it is very occasionally, or can afford the £225 for the cheapest ticket, or even if they do and can probably won't be able to get one as it's very over subscribed and the BBC do it brilliantly on the TV, Radio and iPlayer.
The BBC isn't paid to promote it, so there's no conflict of interest for them - but they can sell their broadcasts globally like they do with Topgear etc.
If you want to feel a bit better about it, Glastonbury, whilst it is a commercial venture - the organisers (Michael Eavis and his Daughter) only take a modest salary from it - Michael takes £60k or so - he actually makes a lot more by being a Diary Farmer, most of the profits from the Festival go to charity.
But most of all, it's a bloody brilliant event to watch - not everyone wants so spent a long weekend in a muddy field, or a blazing hot on as it is very occasionally, or can afford the £225 for the cheapest ticket, or even if they do and can probably won't be able to get one as it's very over subscribed and the BBC do it brilliantly on the TV, Radio and iPlayer.
Completely agree that the BBC are on a sticky wicket when they (e.g.) devote a radio or TV doc to U2's new album, but not sure the argument stands up for Glastonbury. a) it's a £35m/pa charity - money goes to local causes & the main beneficiaries (Oxfam, Water Aid etc). Local volunteers nominate a local cause to benefit from their attendance - one steward I spoke to was responsible for a £3k donation to a local school. Yes Eavis gets a good whack (I was told £750k), but he funds a lot of local causes out of that - including a free festival for the whole community as a thank-you for the disruption & b) running blanket coverage on the day doesn't bring in extra punters & revenue - it's all pre sold months before - no casual drop ins. I don't see that Eavis or the charities benefit from size of the BBC's coverage. Different for Wimbledon for example: I dont think the AELTC are a non profit & you can drop in for an evening using a returned ticket, so revenue could maybe be boosted by media coverage. As could sales for Nike, Adidas, Moet, etc
I think the massive BBC presence is more about Glasto's yoof and political appeal. It's leftfield/60's CND/hippie/protest movement roots act as a handy counterbalance for BBC coverage of ascot, wimbledon & other events which might be seen as elitist & non youth?
Not linked to Glasto, or Eavis, or the BBC, just went this year & spent some time talking to security & stewards about their views on working there. The tabloids have been trying to trip Eavis up for years - the books are open & nothing has been found.
I think the massive BBC presence is more about Glasto's yoof and political appeal. It's leftfield/60's CND/hippie/protest movement roots act as a handy counterbalance for BBC coverage of ascot, wimbledon & other events which might be seen as elitist & non youth?
Not linked to Glasto, or Eavis, or the BBC, just went this year & spent some time talking to security & stewards about their views on working there. The tabloids have been trying to trip Eavis up for years - the books are open & nothing has been found.
Without the BBC the lovable farmer would just charge ITV or Sky for the rights to cover his event and would still get just as much 'free' advertising, with perhaps a little less bum licking and fawning.
As with most of the commercial events which the BBC broadcasts there is a trade off. And remember kids it isn't Glasto that the BBC are promoting, it's their coverage of the event
As with most of the commercial events which the BBC broadcasts there is a trade off. And remember kids it isn't Glasto that the BBC are promoting, it's their coverage of the event
CardinalFang said:
[Snip/} b) running blanket coverage on the day doesn't bring in extra punters & revenue - it's all pre sold months before - no casual drop ins.
[snip/]
Just on that point I think that you are right in the short term but if there were on BBC coverage of the event, and no one else mainstream stepped in, I suspect you would find it about 1/2 the size it is today within 10 years, possibly 5.[snip/]
Very few people actually give two figs about the lay lines man. It's all about the big event, the saying you've been and everyone knowing what you are talking about. The being seen to be right on and open minded whilst actually only going to the 'big name' sets other than the one band you fell upon whilst buying a burger.
IMO (and I was saying this in 1995 when I was looking at going as a student) it is like any of the Ascots, BGP, Wimbledon, etc's of this world. There are just as many, if not more, people who are there to say they went as there are people who would turn up if it wasn't 'a place to be seen to be.'
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff