Today we were reminded that the BBC was a member of the CBI, and may still be one.
Today we were also reminded that the BBC owns half of UKTV via BBC Worldwide which brings us channels such as ‘Dave’ and ‘Gold’ …
A television company that is part-owned by the BBC has sacked one of its executives, after he offered to provide them with a huge cache of confidential broadcasting data stolen from Ofcom, the media regulator.
UKTV, which operates channels such as Dave and Gold, is understood to have been offered six years’ worth of rivals’ revenue and spending data, which would have allowed the digital broadcaster to gain vital insights into other broadcasters’ programming budgets and income streams.
The BBC owns fifty per cent of UKTV, via a stake held by BBC Worldwide, the corporation’s commercial arm, with the remaining fifty per cent owned by Scripps, the American media giant.
Ever think the BBC might just be too big?
Well, they do seem to deal in Monopoly Money.
Coo-eee!
I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info, Alan. Do we have any idea what income the BBC derive from their shareholding in UKTV?
I wondered where the savings of 40% that Lord Hall was triumphantly claiming last autumn had gone without reducing the Licence Fee to about £75. Some of that saved money no doubt goes to maintain and expand the BBC ‘estate’.
I am still of the view, especially if the current BBC Trust is wound up, that a BBC Trust Fund should be created to finance the BBC in the medium to long term future.
Assets such as this UKTV shareholding could be sold and the proceeds held in trust with the income made available to the BBC ever after to fund their core activities: Radio 4, local Radio, BBC1 & World Service. BBC-supporting ‘Luvvies’ and other celebrities and high-earners, especially those who have become multi-millionaires thanks to the Licence Fee-payer, would be welcome to make donations to this Trust Fund keep the BBC going. All Licence Fee income would go initially to the Trust Fund and as further savings & efficiencies were made, unused Licence Fee in any given year could be added to the Trust Fund. The Licence Fee could then be reduced back to the point where it is a Licence Fee of £20-£25 and not a regressive and punitive tax of nearly £150.
In about ten years time, an annual income of about £500,000,000 from Licence Fee-payers plus the Trust Fund income should be enough to run a sufficiently large part of the BBC as we know it today in order to keep everyone satisfied. The Licence Fee could remain static to the point where, in the far long-term, it is eventually abolished as the Trust Fund income with future programme sales would fully finance the BBC. There would also be savings for the BBC from not having to deal extensively with Charter renewal and the fear of political machinations or interference. Rewards for those at the top of the BBC and an ever expanding tip of that pyramid would be constrained, and may shrink a bit, but that would not be such a bad thing.
OFCOM would be left with job of regulating the BBC’s output and dealing with major complaints.
The BBC then would be totally free and independent of any political control. The Conservative Party and the Labour Party should be very happy with this arrangement. The public, I imagine, would be very happy to have the BBC safe and see a very punitive, very unfair tax diminish and eventually disappear.
A much underrated point. The BBC not only has a huge guaranteed income from the license fee but also an apparently unlimited immunity to competition laws. Channels like Dave aren’t addressing market failures or under served communities. It’s pure dumping, using public subsidies to undercut commercial providers.
Not so sure about that, DJ.
Is not the existence of Dave TV indicative of a failure of the BBC (and, to be fair, ITV, C4 & Channel Five as well) in producing sufficient new programming and of a quality that people wish to watch? The main channels are fairly full of repeats. The BBC’s formerly three now two extra channels are choc full of repeats.
And where does Dave TV get its audience? From people who find the current diet of programmes with their repeats not to their taste so they go back to watch much older repeats on Dave TV. To me that seems to be a colossal market failure from a company with a guaranteed £3.6bn LF + £?bn programme & £?bn other enterprise sales turnover.
If the BBC was a FTSE100 company the whole Board, not just the CEO, would be sacked on a regular basis for that level of (criminal) under-performance.
Don’t forget that the bBBC wasted about £100,000,000 of our TV-tax on buying Lonely Planet, pouring more of our money into it, then selling at a big loss. The final sentence of its internal review says If the lessons are learnt and the recommendations of this review are followed then BBCWorldwide, appropriately and effectively monitored by the Executive Board, should be better positioned to develop, manage and grow its wide range of commercial businesses for the benefit of the whole of the BBC.
The statement on its acquisition contains an interesting paragraph about the bBBC Charter and Agreement:
The Agreement requires all commercial activities undertaken by the BBC to comply with four criteria. They must:
– fit with the BBC’s Public Purpose activities;
– exhibit commercial efficiency;
– not jeopardise the good reputation of the BBC or the value of the BBC brand;
– comply with BBC fair trading guidelines and in particular avoid distorting the market.
But it seems that it is up to the bBBC to decide if the bBBC is distorting the market!
The BBC does not like to go beyond the outskirts of Manchester for its news. ‘Outside source’ means they get their pictures from someone else Weather every hour. What do they do with their money?
Hard to forgive Mrs Thatcher for saddling us with Channel 4.
As I watch it -mute on, as Snow and his suckups leech life from the nations politics-I could kick Mrs T for thinking that an alternative to the BBC would somehow bring it into line.
These two are like Burke and Hare of Broadcasting history now…both mutually intent of making us into Venezuela or Belarus.
There must be no compromise-no mercy shown to these lefty parasites.
Fund you OWN student rags and bun runs you lard buckets.
Subscription and then privitise…before we create a land fit only for White Dee or Anjem Choudhury.
Channel 4 is using the strapline ‘A Unique Public Service Broadcaster’ in its self-sucking advertising. Given it and the BBC are like Siamese lefties claiming to be unique is a bit rich. To see just how immersed in bull-shit Channel 4 is have a peek at its website:
http://www.channel4.com/info/corporate
WARNING: Not suitable for those with high blood pressure, weak stomachs, pregnant women or immediately after eating.
SJ!!! I can’t believe I actually pressed on the link!! Damn you for putting it there!!
There’s so many things wrong with it but something instantly stood out. The white mans nemesis… Di-fucking-versity! According to the 2011 census 13% of the UK population is not white. This means that just 13 in 100 people on TV should be not white. How many do channel 4 throw on their fucking diversity page?… 4 out of 8…. Now I’m no Carl Friedrich Gauss, but that’s nowhere near 13% you white man hating bast@rds!!
Steve, Thanks for the warning. I plead guilty to 3 out of the 4 and have not clicked on the link !
Ever think the BBC might just be too big?
A state owned monopoly is never too big.