BBC Survey results published
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ourbbcourfuture/detailed-rep...
PH's favourite broadcaster has published the results of this year's ‘Our BBC, Our Future’ questionnaire. Unsurprisingly, there seems to be a disconnect between what people want the BBC to be, and what they perceive it to be right now. No surprise that bias, diversity and salaries feature heavily.
PH's favourite broadcaster has published the results of this year's ‘Our BBC, Our Future’ questionnaire. Unsurprisingly, there seems to be a disconnect between what people want the BBC to be, and what they perceive it to be right now. No surprise that bias, diversity and salaries feature heavily.
They don't seem to have asked the question:
How big should the BBC be?
Personally, I think it should be smaller.
People should be asking what sort of a BBC could you deliver for a licence fee of say £50 a year.
At that price, less people would opt out.
At the moment, lots of people already opt out, and many more seem to question whether to.
How big should the BBC be?
Personally, I think it should be smaller.
People should be asking what sort of a BBC could you deliver for a licence fee of say £50 a year.
At that price, less people would opt out.
At the moment, lots of people already opt out, and many more seem to question whether to.
OutInTheShed said:
They don't seem to have asked the question:
How big should the BBC be?
Personally, I think it should be smaller.
People should be asking what sort of a BBC could you deliver for a licence fee of say £50 a year.
At that price, less people would opt out.
At the moment, lots of people already opt out, and many more seem to question whether to.
Even at £50 people wouldn't want to pay. The race to the bottom never works. How big should the BBC be?
Personally, I think it should be smaller.
People should be asking what sort of a BBC could you deliver for a licence fee of say £50 a year.
At that price, less people would opt out.
At the moment, lots of people already opt out, and many more seem to question whether to.
AbbeyNormal said:
Even at £50 people wouldn't want to pay. The race to the bottom never works.
You can see it as a 'race to the bottom', I would see it as concentrating on the business areas where the organisation is most valued.The current model is struggling, many young people are not opting in to the whole iPlayer, live broadcast offer.
There's a world of competition out there from Netflix, Youtube and dozen of other businesses offering what people want.
It isn't 1975 any more, the nation does not sit down to choose between two channels.
The issue is, what bits could be cut? The popular bits are the most expensive, such as sport. The less popular bits are really where the value of a non commercial broadcaster is, such as local radio and Welsh and Scottish language productions.
BBC 24h rolling news station maybe? That seems to be a model from the days before easy access to online news and the ability to watch later.
BBC 24h rolling news station maybe? That seems to be a model from the days before easy access to online news and the ability to watch later.
To me, what the BBC does best and yet is massively undervalued is local broadcasting
The network of local radio stations is the only real way that local news, events, culture and issues get covered and has real local interaction and engagement
It's a treasure really
Much of the rest of it can be replicated by commercial broadcasters
The network of local radio stations is the only real way that local news, events, culture and issues get covered and has real local interaction and engagement
It's a treasure really
Much of the rest of it can be replicated by commercial broadcasters
DeadShed said:
The issue is, what bits could be cut? The popular bits are the most expensive, such as sport. The less popular bits are really where the value of a non commercial broadcaster is, such as local radio and Welsh and Scottish language productions.
BBC 24h rolling news station maybe? That seems to be a model from the days before easy access to online news and the ability to watch later.
Good question!BBC 24h rolling news station maybe? That seems to be a model from the days before easy access to online news and the ability to watch later.
I can't say I've seen a recent breakdown of where the money goes.
It's basically the same questions we were discussing 25 years ago with the rise of Sky, Cable and internet news.
Another thing to look at is what's been cut already, like the Business section of the website.
How much longer do we need actual 'Broadcast' TV? Could we do away with all those megawatt transmitters as people use internet TV instead?
The BBC is fighting a rearguard action against the 21st century.
And yet, I'm using its website more than I did ten years ago because so many other news channels have gone paywall or ad-swamp.
Earthdweller said:
To me, what the BBC does best and yet is massively undervalued is local broadcasting
The network of local radio stations is the only real way that local news, events, culture and issues get covered and has real local interaction and engagement
It's a treasure really
Much of the rest of it can be replicated by commercial broadcasters
That's very interesting because I see it as totally the opposite (although I totally respect your opinion) The network of local radio stations is the only real way that local news, events, culture and issues get covered and has real local interaction and engagement
It's a treasure really
Much of the rest of it can be replicated by commercial broadcasters
IMHO: The value of BBC (Radio) are the national stations...
I'd drop the local ones and the massive duplication of staffing that they require and allow local commercial radio to flourish...
OutInTheShed said:
Good question!
I can't say I've seen a recent breakdown of where the money goes.
It's basically the same questions we were discussing 25 years ago with the rise of Sky, Cable and internet news.
.
Big difference now is that when Sky and Cable came about people still needed a TV licence to use those services so the BBC continued. Now with streaming services and the wider internet people don't need a TV licence so they don't pay it myself included. I can't say I've seen a recent breakdown of where the money goes.
It's basically the same questions we were discussing 25 years ago with the rise of Sky, Cable and internet news.
.
I can foresee a future where young people now don't have a TV in their house at all in the way we think about a TV now. My children, 8 and 13 barely watch TV at all, they are more interested in using other devices for media, my eldest had a TV and asked me to take it out of her room because it was gathering dust. That's where the BBC will come unstuck in a big way, there's no future for them as things stand now.
Jamescrs said:
OutInTheShed said:
Good question!
I can't say I've seen a recent breakdown of where the money goes.
It's basically the same questions we were discussing 25 years ago with the rise of Sky, Cable and internet news.
.
Big difference now is that when Sky and Cable came about people still needed a TV licence to use those services so the BBC continued. Now with streaming services and the wider internet people don't need a TV licence so they don't pay it myself included. I can't say I've seen a recent breakdown of where the money goes.
It's basically the same questions we were discussing 25 years ago with the rise of Sky, Cable and internet news.
.
I can foresee a future where young people now don't have a TV in their house at all in the way we think about a TV now. My children, 8 and 13 barely watch TV at all, they are more interested in using other devices for media, my eldest had a TV and asked me to take it out of her room because it was gathering dust. That's where the BBC will come unstuck in a big way, there's no future for them as things stand now.
Funding journalism at all levels must be crucially important at the moment. With the rise of AI and AI search summaries I think revenue from clicks is only going to go down.
So much reporting has already gone. I think the value of the BBC (and funding it) will only go up in the short term.
So much reporting has already gone. I think the value of the BBC (and funding it) will only go up in the short term.
Jamescrs said:
Big difference now is that when Sky and Cable came about people still needed a TV licence to use those services so the BBC continued. Now with streaming services and the wider internet people don't need a TV licence so they don't pay it myself included.
I can foresee a future where young people now don't have a TV in their house at all in the way we think about a TV now.
Yes, I haven't had a TV for well over a decade, probably nearer 2.I can foresee a future where young people now don't have a TV in their house at all in the way we think about a TV now.
Have a small media PC hooked up to a projector for "big screen" living room viewing.
There's more stuff than I can keep up with online anyway.
AbbeyNormal said:
You assume all those "other" channels will continue to be "free" and that at no time will there be a backlash against them. The point of most tech start up is to grow and dominate and push out other players and then to monoplise and make money. The cost of a family netflix account is more than the licence fee, if anyone thinks that pushing the price / quality of the BBC down is going to win that game needs to give their head a wobble. TNT is £30 a month to watch football, Sky Sports is £20. The BBC at £14.50 per month seems quite a bargain considering what you get in return.
I don't assume the other channels are free at all, they all cost money but the point of the free market is that a consumer chooses where to put that money, the BBC seems a bargain to you, but with respect I think that's a generational thing and as I said earlier th younger generations coming through now seem to have little to no interest in the BBC and their output so they will spend their £14.50 on another streaming service. I don't think this is exclusive to the BBC either, I think Sky will have a very similar problem, their one USP currently is the Sports they show but that won't be enough alone to keep many customers.
DeadShed said:
The issue is, what bits could be cut?
BBC Three. Its target is close to overlapping the demographic least likely to watch live broadcast TV. According to BARB the viewing figures are tiny. Just move the bits that are watched to BBC2 or Red Button depending on content and do away with the duplication/operating/branding costs.gregs656 said:
Funding journalism at all levels must be crucially important at the moment. With the rise of AI and AI search summaries I think revenue from clicks is only going to go down.
So much reporting has already gone. I think the value of the BBC (and funding it) will only go up in the short term.
Agreed. I'm a really big fan of the BBC, for all its faults.So much reporting has already gone. I think the value of the BBC (and funding it) will only go up in the short term.
Jamescrs said:
I don't assume the other channels are free at all, they all cost money but the point of the free market is that a consumer chooses where to put that money, the BBC seems a bargain to you, but with respect I think that's a generational thing and as I said earlier th younger generations coming through now seem to have little to no interest in the BBC and their output so they will spend their £14.50 on another streaming service.
I don't think this is exclusive to the BBC either, I think Sky will have a very similar problem, their one USP currently is the Sports they show but that won't be enough alone to keep many customers.
I was using the word 'channels' in a wide 'movement of content' sense, so you can consider say Youtube as a 'channel' or you pick another word.I don't think this is exclusive to the BBC either, I think Sky will have a very similar problem, their one USP currently is the Sports they show but that won't be enough alone to keep many customers.
Stuff can be 'free' as in they don't charge you, but they shove adverts in your face and take your data.
Platforms like Sky work on a worldwide basis, they charge what they think each market will bear, if less people in the UK will pay £X for football, they will either adjust their pricing model or concentrate on other markets and maybe bid less for football's TV rights.
The multinational netwroks don't fundamentally depend on the UK for their next meal.
It always seems oddly significant to me that when I was doing some work for a player in the industry, the buzz-phrase was 'pay per view'.
That seems to be the one model that's never happened, just pay for each programme you want, since the death of video rental?
cwis said:
That's very interesting because I see it as totally the opposite (although I totally respect your opinion)
IMHO: The value of BBC (Radio) are the national stations...
I'd drop the local ones and the massive duplication of staffing that they require and allow local commercial radio to flourish...
I can't stand radio any more, even Radio Three has too much blathering. STFU and play the bloody record.IMHO: The value of BBC (Radio) are the national stations...
I'd drop the local ones and the massive duplication of staffing that they require and allow local commercial radio to flourish...
Broadcast radio, in my view, went obsolete with ipods and mobile phones holding a decent bucketful of MP3.
Oddly people love it.
This is the problem with mass media, the punters' taste.
There are 45 local and regional radio stations.
Some of these will be very useful because of remote locations, etc. Many more will be of very little use whatsoever.
Driving up the country you can sometimes have multiple BBC local stations available at once, all delivering pap to, I suspect, tiny listenerships.
The cost per listener must be phenomenal.
Some of these will be very useful because of remote locations, etc. Many more will be of very little use whatsoever.
Driving up the country you can sometimes have multiple BBC local stations available at once, all delivering pap to, I suspect, tiny listenerships.
The cost per listener must be phenomenal.
Jamescrs said:
Big difference now is that when Sky and Cable came about people still needed a TV licence to use those services so the BBC continued. Now with streaming services and the wider internet people don't need a TV licence so they don't pay it myself included.
I can foresee a future where young people now don't have a TV in their house at all in the way we think about a TV now. My children, 8 and 13 barely watch TV at all, they are more interested in using other devices for media, my eldest had a TV and asked me to take it out of her room because it was gathering dust. That's where the BBC will come unstuck in a big way, there's no future for them as things stand now.
Yet everything they seem to do is with the aim of "growing" youth viewers while in doing so alienating what should be their core viewership.I can foresee a future where young people now don't have a TV in their house at all in the way we think about a TV now. My children, 8 and 13 barely watch TV at all, they are more interested in using other devices for media, my eldest had a TV and asked me to take it out of her room because it was gathering dust. That's where the BBC will come unstuck in a big way, there's no future for them as things stand now.
A perfect example is the Boat Race. The BBC organisation sees this as elitist. It is this and similar disconnects that demonstrates how out of touch the BBC is with the country it is broadcasting too.
Until the BBC fixes this, it will continue on its current doomed trajectory.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff