BBC response to DCMS Greenpaper: landgrab or last gasp?
Discussion
Apologies if this has been picked up elsewhere:
So the Department of Culture, Media and Sport launched a green paper earlier in the year to review and consult on a strategic direction for UK ‘media’.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/watch-...
In the last week the BBC has responded with
https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/bbc-re...
It’s a long 45 page read with lots of pictures of Pudsy, David Attenborough etc.
But within it are some fascinating insights and also ‘suggestions’.
“In line with Ofcom’s findings that only a fifth of the time spent by UK-based YouTube users goes to UK-originated content, while over half goes to content from North America, it is possible that both PSM content and content from UK creators could be preferred”
“At present, for example, we do not have access to the data that would allow us to understand how PSM content is ranked within UK viewing on third-party platforms. Improved
data-sharing arrangements would allow us to meaningfully evolve our offering and benefit the wider UK media ecosystem. We consider that to ensure that we and other PSBs can gain this information it is likely that government will have to put in place regulatory backstops to support
consistency of approach. This is a long-term and enduring issue that needs a flexible and adaptable regulatory regime.”
Ie we want access to the algorithms….
“We also welcome the Government’s intention to review, one year after implementation, which devices should be considered ‘internet television equipment’ – including consideration of whether devices such as games
consoles and smart screens (also known as portable lifestyle screens), should be included”
And also the hardware….
“Similarly, remote controls continue to be one of the most popular gateways to content. Research conducted for Ofcom found that the most common user journey for on-demand content on connected TVs is viewers going directly to a favourite app, whether from the app rail or a dedicated
button on the remote. Global content competitors with significant financial resources, negotiating worldwide distribution deals with device manufacturers, can secure branded remote control buttons that take viewers directly to their service – for e.g. dedicated Netflix buttons. PSM
providers should also have prominence on remote controls for our linear and on-demand services, and those buttons should be branded on the same basis as other content providers’ buttons.”
And even into the design of remote controls…
(I’d note that those ‘content competitors’ pay for that prominence)…
“Given the pace of change in the market, government should set a high-level principle for significant PSM prominence in primary legislation,with delegated powers to direct Ofcom to assess how that principle should be implemented, without the need for further primary legislation. Government could mandate Ofcom to assess the market proactively and
regularly, to understand whether sufficient PSM prominence is being delivered in line with this principle as audience behaviours change. The principle of significant – rather than appropriate – PSM prominence should encompass PSM wherever and however it appears, so that it isgenuinely futureproof”
And we want this baked into Ofcoms remit so future primary legislation is unnecessary..
I’m unsure whether this is an extraordinary punt/landgrab by the BBC hoping to piggyback on Labour’s ability to legislate anything it likes without understanding the implications, or a wheezing last gasp of an institution that is increasingly irrelevant in the modern digital landscape. Or maybe both?
So the Department of Culture, Media and Sport launched a green paper earlier in the year to review and consult on a strategic direction for UK ‘media’.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/watch-...
In the last week the BBC has responded with
https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/bbc-re...
It’s a long 45 page read with lots of pictures of Pudsy, David Attenborough etc.
But within it are some fascinating insights and also ‘suggestions’.
“In line with Ofcom’s findings that only a fifth of the time spent by UK-based YouTube users goes to UK-originated content, while over half goes to content from North America, it is possible that both PSM content and content from UK creators could be preferred”
“At present, for example, we do not have access to the data that would allow us to understand how PSM content is ranked within UK viewing on third-party platforms. Improved
data-sharing arrangements would allow us to meaningfully evolve our offering and benefit the wider UK media ecosystem. We consider that to ensure that we and other PSBs can gain this information it is likely that government will have to put in place regulatory backstops to support
consistency of approach. This is a long-term and enduring issue that needs a flexible and adaptable regulatory regime.”
Ie we want access to the algorithms….
“We also welcome the Government’s intention to review, one year after implementation, which devices should be considered ‘internet television equipment’ – including consideration of whether devices such as games
consoles and smart screens (also known as portable lifestyle screens), should be included”
And also the hardware….
“Similarly, remote controls continue to be one of the most popular gateways to content. Research conducted for Ofcom found that the most common user journey for on-demand content on connected TVs is viewers going directly to a favourite app, whether from the app rail or a dedicated
button on the remote. Global content competitors with significant financial resources, negotiating worldwide distribution deals with device manufacturers, can secure branded remote control buttons that take viewers directly to their service – for e.g. dedicated Netflix buttons. PSM
providers should also have prominence on remote controls for our linear and on-demand services, and those buttons should be branded on the same basis as other content providers’ buttons.”
And even into the design of remote controls…
(I’d note that those ‘content competitors’ pay for that prominence)…
“Given the pace of change in the market, government should set a high-level principle for significant PSM prominence in primary legislation,with delegated powers to direct Ofcom to assess how that principle should be implemented, without the need for further primary legislation. Government could mandate Ofcom to assess the market proactively and
regularly, to understand whether sufficient PSM prominence is being delivered in line with this principle as audience behaviours change. The principle of significant – rather than appropriate – PSM prominence should encompass PSM wherever and however it appears, so that it isgenuinely futureproof”
And we want this baked into Ofcoms remit so future primary legislation is unnecessary..
I’m unsure whether this is an extraordinary punt/landgrab by the BBC hoping to piggyback on Labour’s ability to legislate anything it likes without understanding the implications, or a wheezing last gasp of an institution that is increasingly irrelevant in the modern digital landscape. Or maybe both?
Ridgemont said:
PSM
providers should also have prominence on remote controls for our linear and on-demand services, and those buttons should be branded on the same basis as other content providers buttons.
Stupid providers should also have prominence on remote controls for our linear and on-demand services, and those buttons should be branded on the same basis as other content providers buttons.
s not satisfied with already being channel 1/2/etc so want more. (Plus I hate dedicated buttons)Can't compete on their own even with forced subscription so want a thumb on the scales.
I noticed youtube on the george melly doesnt work properly if you dont watch all the st peddled at you. If you watch only sensible informed stuff they piss it up with buffering and stuff or not load it at all. All the adverts work perfectly.
Long term you cant trust internet delivered content as they can mess with it. Over the airwaves TV keeps freedom alive.
t peddled at you. If you watch only sensible informed stuff they piss it up with buffering and stuff or not load it at all. All the adverts work perfectly.Long term you cant trust internet delivered content as they can mess with it. Over the airwaves TV keeps freedom alive.
They weren't too bothered when they started to compete with other media outlets when they had the upper hand at the start of online content publishing.
Why buy a newspaper when you could just pull up the main stories on your phone on the way to work for instance?
So now technology is moving on again and people are curating their own evening's entertainment, from a much wider selection of sources.
Why buy a newspaper when you could just pull up the main stories on your phone on the way to work for instance?
So now technology is moving on again and people are curating their own evening's entertainment, from a much wider selection of sources.
Edited by swisstoni on Sunday 11th October 19:06
JoshSm said:
Ridgemont said:
PSM
providers should also have prominence on remote controls for our linear and on-demand services, and those buttons should be branded on the same basis as other content providers buttons.
Stupid providers should also have prominence on remote controls for our linear and on-demand services, and those buttons should be branded on the same basis as other content providers buttons.
s not satisfied with already being channel 1/2/etc so want more. (Plus I hate dedicated buttons)Can't compete on their own even with forced subscription so want a thumb on the scales.
Then they, at considerable expense, bring it back to Freeview/ Freely/Freesat etc
They are floundering about
JoshSm said:
Ridgemont said:
PSM
providers should also have prominence on remote controls for our linear and on-demand services, and those buttons should be branded on the same basis as other content providers buttons.
Stupid providers should also have prominence on remote controls for our linear and on-demand services, and those buttons should be branded on the same basis as other content providers buttons.
s not satisfied with already being channel 1/2/etc so want more. (Plus I hate dedicated buttons)Can't compete on their own even with forced subscription so want a thumb on the scales.
Shock as BBC act in their own interests.
Maybe I should ‘Shock as ‘insert company name’ acts in their own interests’
The BBC are making some smart moves to finally generate income from overseas users. Doing what the competition is doing to drive people to their (world leading) content is not a bad idea.
I know this places hates the bbc ofc.
Maybe I should ‘Shock as ‘insert company name’ acts in their own interests’
The BBC are making some smart moves to finally generate income from overseas users. Doing what the competition is doing to drive people to their (world leading) content is not a bad idea.
I know this places hates the bbc ofc.
Is this the report where they also suggest having a tax or levy on people's internet bills because "people consume stuff via the internet" therefore we need a bit of that money please?
I'd gladly pay for the BBC... If they made anything I wanted to see or listen to. But they no longer do. They used to, but it's all been gradually binned off in favour of interminable dross. They don't even cover major sporting events properly anymore.
I'd gladly pay for the BBC... If they made anything I wanted to see or listen to. But they no longer do. They used to, but it's all been gradually binned off in favour of interminable dross. They don't even cover major sporting events properly anymore.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Is this the report where they also suggest having a tax or levy on people's internet bills because "people consume stuff via the internet" therefore we need a bit of that money please?
I'd gladly pay for the BBC... If they made anything I wanted to see or listen to. But they no longer do. They used to, but it's all been gradually binned off in favour of interminable dross. They don't even cover major sporting events properly anymore.
I think that is this one which looks at wider issues in the context of charter. Even longer.I'd gladly pay for the BBC... If they made anything I wanted to see or listen to. But they no longer do. They used to, but it's all been gradually binned off in favour of interminable dross. They don't even cover major sporting events properly anymore.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/bbc-re...
Chapter 4 for those which want some bedtime reading.
It has this interesting ‘perspective’:
“ Over the Charter period the BBC has gone from being a service almost every household paid for and used to one that almost every household uses but millions do not pay for. 94% of adults use the BBC per month yet fewer than 80% of households now contribute, down from over 90% in 2016/17. This fall in paying households is a result of a mismatch
between TV licence rules – predicated on live viewing – and the growing popularity of on-demand consumption and video sharing platforms. This leaves a public service with universal access and consumption, but a funding model that no longer captures universal contribution”
Translation: where we got near 100% payment of the license fee by household that has fallen to 80%. This is because of a ‘mismatch’ between licensing rules around live TV defintion vs on demand. And 94% still use it.
Which I think is absolute hogwash. The 94% comes from BBC own data unevidenced as far as I can see from the annual report. So that’s okay. And the decline may very well be down to small things like the mismatch between content considered worth watching vs the services (or lack of) provided by the BBC. But mileages may vary. But it’s the overall tin eared solution: ‘make everyone pay again’….
The only thing I watch from the BBC is the 10pm news once or twice a week. It means absolutely nothing to me. But I watch live non BBC TV so I pony up a wholely undeserved £180 a year.
gregs656 said:
Shock as BBC act in their own interests.
Maybe I should Shock as insert company name acts in their own interests
The BBC are making some smart moves to finally generate income from overseas users. Doing what the competition is doing to drive people to their (world leading) content is not a bad idea.
I know this places hates the bbc ofc.
As I note I don’t pay any other company of services they do not provide. Yet for the use of ‘live TV’ I pay an unrelated organisation for someone else’s content.Maybe I should Shock as insert company name acts in their own interests
The BBC are making some smart moves to finally generate income from overseas users. Doing what the competition is doing to drive people to their (world leading) content is not a bad idea.
I know this places hates the bbc ofc.
To be honest I sigh and continue paying the TV license because of threats but their flailing around for ‘alternatives’ like broadband receipts or a universal tax just strikes me as entitlement. Who the eff do they think they are?
‘What does the BBC do for me?’
‘Pretty much SFA’
Otispunkmeyer said:
Is this the report where they also suggest having a tax or levy on people's internet bills because "people consume stuff via the internet" therefore we need a bit of that money please?
I'd gladly pay for the BBC... If they made anything I wanted to see or listen to. But they no longer do. They used to, but it's all been gradually binned off in favour of interminable dross. They don't even cover major sporting events properly anymore.
This is where i am, the sooner it goes voluntary subscription the better, and the begging letters they send out are a joke.I'd gladly pay for the BBC... If they made anything I wanted to see or listen to. But they no longer do. They used to, but it's all been gradually binned off in favour of interminable dross. They don't even cover major sporting events properly anymore.
They had their age, and that isnt now.
I know alot of people still like and use the bbc, well fine pay the real huge cost of it then, i dont and refuse to.
They need to compete in the modern world, others like netflix manage it fine.
At least they admit the funding model is unsuitable, even if they reach different conclusions.
I suspect they want it to shift to an internet tax or general taxation under a Labour government, as they stand a much better chance of it happening.
I completely agree it should go to a subscription model, we have Greg Dyke to thank that it isn't already. I can't ever see it happening though, so we'll still end up paying for them.
How they are getting away with this I don't know : https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/fury-bbc-pays-white...
Aside from not being interested in any of their output the entire organisation doesn't impress me one bit.
I suspect they want it to shift to an internet tax or general taxation under a Labour government, as they stand a much better chance of it happening.
I completely agree it should go to a subscription model, we have Greg Dyke to thank that it isn't already. I can't ever see it happening though, so we'll still end up paying for them.
How they are getting away with this I don't know : https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/fury-bbc-pays-white...
Aside from not being interested in any of their output the entire organisation doesn't impress me one bit.
anonymoususer said:
The BBC are the same idiots who a few years back realised BBC3 was a dying/dead duck. They went to considerable expense showing "non advert" adverts advising people it was going on line. It was "evolving"
Then they, at considerable expense, bring it back to Freeview/ Freely/Freesat etc
They are floundering about
The BBC produced Three to try and serve the under-35 or possibly under-25 demographic, who were under-served. It didn't really work so it got binned.Then they, at considerable expense, bring it back to Freeview/ Freely/Freesat etc
They are floundering about
Then Ofcom complained that the BBC were under-serving that same audience, so they had to bring it back, at which point Ofcom launched a review into whether bringing it back was anti-competitive, which lesser minds might think was f
king ridiculous. It wasn't, so it came back.Now the BBC has to save £500m because people aren't paying their TV licence even though they consume BBC content, so they will probably kill off Three again.
I watch very little BBC. In fact I could easily not watch any. Mrs IRC however while not a great BBC content user would not feel happy getting demanding letters and stonewalling any visitors.
It is a disgrace that the criminal justice system is used to enforce compliance with a tax to watch non BBC content.
I don't think their 94% guess is anywhere near accurate. None of my children, all aged 30s, pay the licence or watch broadcast TV. It is dying and needs put out it's misery.
Slimmed down and subscriptionto watch BBC - in fact why not stop over the air TV transmission and go to internet only. Save money. Easy to work the subscription model.
If they can move phones to wifi only regardless of consumer opinion why not TV?
It is a disgrace that the criminal justice system is used to enforce compliance with a tax to watch non BBC content.
I don't think their 94% guess is anywhere near accurate. None of my children, all aged 30s, pay the licence or watch broadcast TV. It is dying and needs put out it's misery.
Slimmed down and subscriptionto watch BBC - in fact why not stop over the air TV transmission and go to internet only. Save money. Easy to work the subscription model.
If they can move phones to wifi only regardless of consumer opinion why not TV?
Otispunkmeyer said:
They don't even cover major sporting events properly anymore.
Can't afford to. Various commercial governing bodies like the Premier League, the IOC etc decided to pursue money over public access, so the BBC either spends huge amounts of money trying to compete, which it would take a beating for, or it makes do with the statutory minimums like a maximum of two live streams of the Olympics, which it takes a beating for. Can't win.trashbat said:
an't afford to. Various commercial governing bodies like the Premier League, the IOC etc decided to pursue money over public access, so the BBC either spends huge amounts of money trying to compete, which it would take a beating for, or it makes do with the statutory minimums like a maximum of two live streams of the Olympics, which it takes a beating for. Can't win.
Hmm, but I wonder how smart they are about it.When ITV bowed out of F1 in 2008 the BBC approached FOM and offered a deal, it was so good that Ecclestone didn't even try and barter, he just took the deal. 3 years later BBC decided it didn't want to cover the costs that it had suggested, so went to Sky for a share deal, agreed it with Sky and then presented it to FOM, of course in time they dropped all coverage completely.
In reality they were the only serious player in the game in 2008 so could have pushed for a more sensible deal and/or again in 2011 when they decided they needed to change things.
Worth noting they launched their DMI project in 2008 also, £100m spent and they gained virtually nothing. 2 years later they abandoned London after spending a billion to move to Manchester.
So I'm not sure in all cases its a problem with the sport rights holders asking too much.
Crafty_ said:
Hmm, but I wonder how smart they are about it.
When ITV bowed out of F1 in 2008 the BBC approached FOM and offered a deal, it was so good that Ecclestone didn't even try and barter, he just took the deal. 3 years later BBC decided it didn't want to cover the costs that it had suggested, so went to Sky for a share deal, agreed it with Sky and then presented it to FOM, of course in time they dropped all coverage completely.
In reality they were the only serious player in the game in 2008 so could have pushed for a more sensible deal and/or again in 2011 when they decided they needed to change things.
Worth noting they launched their DMI project in 2008 also, £100m spent and they gained virtually nothing. 2 years later they abandoned London after spending a billion to move to Manchester.
So I'm not sure in all cases its a problem with the sport rights holders asking too much.
I don't think I agree with all of your assessments there, but either way, the BBC is a very long way from even its 2011 capabilities. It may be well on its way to being finished as an organisation.When ITV bowed out of F1 in 2008 the BBC approached FOM and offered a deal, it was so good that Ecclestone didn't even try and barter, he just took the deal. 3 years later BBC decided it didn't want to cover the costs that it had suggested, so went to Sky for a share deal, agreed it with Sky and then presented it to FOM, of course in time they dropped all coverage completely.
In reality they were the only serious player in the game in 2008 so could have pushed for a more sensible deal and/or again in 2011 when they decided they needed to change things.
Worth noting they launched their DMI project in 2008 also, £100m spent and they gained virtually nothing. 2 years later they abandoned London after spending a billion to move to Manchester.
So I'm not sure in all cases its a problem with the sport rights holders asking too much.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff