5 ms·
They still produce a huge amount of content in conjuction with the Open University, and most of that educational content you're referring to was OU content as w
by PaulRobinson 1y ago
They still produce a huge amount of content in conjuction with the Open University, and most of that educational content you're referring to was OU content as well. The quality of it is much better than it was (trust me).
The "non-neutral-seeming news" you refer to suggests you've bought into the narrative proposed by those who don't feel served by it - both the far right and the far left, which suggests it must be doing something right - and famously the BBC has some of the most stringent and well-thought through editorial guidelines on earth. If somebody is telling you the BBC is biased, they're also probably suggesting some other news source (their own? GB News? Fox? An anti-vaxx group on FB?), is not.
The BBC could be doing a lot more to monetise through BBC Worldwide (their commercial arm), a massive, and massively popular, back catalogue to a point where the license fee could be reduced or even eliminated. The idea it becomes a generic streaming platform or relies on commercials regularly gets floated, but it's worth pointing out that the biggest supporters of that plan are owners of commercial media companies that feel they would win out and their narratives and perspectives would get to dominate.
It is a ~£13 subscription, sure, but compare it to what you get compared to say Sky TV, which also has adverts, and think about whether clipping it back to an offering similar to C4 (also public sector owned, but ad funded), would be something that actually makes you happier, and whether that editorial integrity could be maintained and all that local radio and journalism could still get paid for - they're arguably the only organisation still doing local journalism in the UK given the dog's dinner Reach is making of local papers.
I sense the future is going to a Reith-ian reset, and you'll see less investment in lower-rating, higher-cost programming (bye bye Eastenders or other soaps), sustained investment in audience favourites like Strictly, and perhaps a dial-up in drama to take on the commercial sector that they can then monetise through BBC Worldwide (including getting streamers to pay for access to it).
As to the other broadcasters, the picture is a little less confusing: the studios and production companies are doing fine, even if they're now selling to Amazon, Netflix, Apple and Disney. The channels themselves will just use their brand to shift people into those channels. Unfortunately, they're miles behind on the tech (just go and try ITV X - it's awful from a UX perspective), but they'll figure it out.
- permo-w 1y agothis is a fantastic, well-thought-out analysis of the kind that is all too rare amongst people talking about the BBC. thank you
- permo-w 1y agoI'd add that while I agree that the BBC could and perhaps should be doing a lot more to make profit from BBC Worldwide, I think the concern there is that too much focus on that could start to bring in unwanted incentives, such as prioritising the demands of foreign viewers over domestic, or even advertisers
- PaulRobinson 1y agoTo some extent, that has already happened. Strictly is now in almost every major market under a different name (Dancing with the Stars, etc.), Attenborough nature-docs are widely revered and incredibly popular, and Top Gear got into almost every country except the US (which got its own version), until a series of controversies (first Hammond almost dying, then Clarkson punching a producer, then Chris Evans being himself, then Flintoff almost dying), pushed it into the "let's stop doing this" list - at huge cost. For things where a format sale works (shows that need to be made locally to resonate, like Strictly), I think your concern is less of a risk. Attenborough/Top Gear style high-quality expensive content packages are more of a concern, but I think the worst we've seen there is that they end up doing weird things with the timings. You know in the UK that Attenborough docs run for 50 minutes, and there is then a 10 minutes "how we made it" bit? Foreign markets don't get that last bit - they buy the 50 minutes package, put ads around it to get it to an hour. In the UK we get a 10 minute filler DVD bonus track.
- permo-w 1y agomore interesting info. I'd also add Doctor Who as a really prominent example of it. the most recent series of Doctor Who is quite obviously aimed at more of an American audience, with a star known to Americans, being released on Disney, with Disney production values. whether that fully counts or is just a product of a production partnership or whether the production partnership is itself a sign of it, I do not know