Lord Hall Hall is bemoaning the BBC’s poverty and inability to compete with the commercial companies…
The BBC must look beyond its traditional competitors of ITV and Sky as it seeks new audiences.
Lord Hall describes it as a “flight to quality”, and says that the corporation cannot hope to match the spending of an organisation such as Netflix, which plans to spend $5 billion (£3.5 billion) on original commissions this year.
“We can’t win against a Netflix or an Amazon, because their budgets are just so much bigger,” he says. “They can concentrate their firepower on one or two or three things a year, whereas we’re delivering a service 24 hours a day.”
Likening the battle to the fight against the Spanish Armada, famously won by Sir Francis Drake’s nimbler, smaller vessels, Lord Hall said: “We have to think differently. We have to think like Drake’s ships. We’ve got to think lighter, simpler.”
Always thought Hall’s line of defence was that the public service BBC was unique and only it could provide the cultural uplift for Britain that its quality programming exemplified…along with its independent, impartial and unbiased news service. LOL.
Apparently Netflix has 75 million subscribers….can’t help thinking that if the BBC were to become a subscription service it could make far more money and rake it in from abroad as well. Why the BBC opposes subscription is beyond me especially as Lord Hall Hall keeps reminding us of the unique benefits of the BBC that help “make Britain the greatest cultural force in the world”. He needs to put his money-raising where his mouth is….does he not really believe that BBC is so unique and valuable that nobody will buy its programmes?
Oddly Lord Hall Hall’s comments are pretty much in line with the government’s…that the BBC should be smaller, smarter and concentrate on what it does best.
Now that IDS is gone, surely the addled brain dead drooling liberal freakzone that is the BBC could finally come out and claim that Blue Badge for their bandwagon and charabanc.
Mental defectives, eco-friendly disability scooters that would be quieter and mean they`d not have to repeat themselves so much and desist from shouting so loudly about green cheese, climate change and the benefits of anthrax, the joys of Islam.
Sift the box of frogs for yourselves, we all do it these days for nothing anyway.
Fantasies, delusional-others would call it mental illness of terminal dementia..they call it “informing public debate, thought-provoking and eye-catching”…”news analysis and current affairs”.
Did Pravda make `em all pay for the crap they spouted?
The BBC would LOVE to get all that disability lobby money-that`s why they`re so keen to ensure their client base can pay to fund them in perpetuity-poor sods unable to turn it off you see!
It’s quite simple. The BBC is too big and bloated, trying to compete in areas it doesn’t need to in order to justify taking more of our money.
Instead of pleading poverty it should be cut down to a reasonable size, thus reducing the licence fee or going to subscription.
Let’s say BBC 1 and 2, three or four radio channels, a much reduced BBC web site and iPlayer.
24-hour TV news and the World Service would have to justify their existence.
We could then forget about the local radio, local online news and all the peripheral services to “communities” and “initiatives” that would be better provided by independents.
If the BBC had its way with our money it would run an airline, rail services and a cinema chain in order to push its agenda down our throats.
Like a greedy child who doesn’t care where the money’s coming from, it does not know when to stop. Sooner or later Daddy is going to have to say “No”.
What is this “battle ” for ? Viewers ? If so why ? It’s as ridiculous as the M1 battling for traffic against the M4 .
Guaranteed Income BBC (other broadcasters have to earn their money or go into debt to develop earnings vehicles) should be asking hard questions of their Director of Strategy, such as “When are you going to resign?” Perhaps that nice Lord Hall will take a well-known phrase out of Alan Sugar’s book & also borrow some guts to go with it.
I guess none of this will take place and the likely £30 Licence Fee increase post Charter Renewal will get rounded up to a nice conveniently round £200 total for the new Licence.
BBC Advertising with Us! : ‘Plan your advertising campaign using the 2016 calendar of editorial highlights coming up on BBC World News and bbc.com.’
‘Explore the digital advertising possibilities with the Worlds most trusted news brand. Across Mobile, desktop, in app and on and off platform through social media bbc.com offers high quality current affairs, sport and lifestyle content to affluent and influential audiences across the globe’.
(quote):
▪ 85 million unique browsers per month
▪ 65 million Facebook likes
▪ 800 million mobile and app page views per month
▪ #1 news brand on Twitter
▪ 81% of bbc.com users don’t use another news site
▪ 1 international news website among affluent users
▪ Most used digital news provider among European opinion leaders
Depressing isn’t it? Particularly that: ‘ 81% of bbc.com users don’t use another news site’ or even (the more doubtful) : Most used digital news provider among European opinion leaders’ . But then I doubt anyone ever has verified such ridiculous claims by the BBC. We pay the BBC £145 per year, so that they can pitch for advertising (which is supposed banned by Royal Charter) and then who then pays the BBC for such ‘advertising’ anyway as its a public broadcaster for gods sake not a private twango. Its absurd. But hang on Who -would advertise on the BBC – perhaps dodgy governments seeking that fabled BBC ‘influence’- of SAUDI, EU, CONGO -etc. I get it now – the brand funds (which cannot be used for ‘Advertising’ ‘can be used to ‘influence’ (other) EU European Leaders (the rest spent attacking the Murdoch empire, The Tories, the Free Press etc.
When Lord Hall means the BBC TV funding is ‘unique’ is being economical with the truth. Its not unique – it’s a clear abuse of public funds to sponsor foreign powers or accept ‘advertising’ or ‘sponsorship’ from the EU (which it clearly does) but does not ‘report’ in its annual Corporate Report & Accounts. Why?
My next question is what happens to all that BRAND money? Why do we have to pay a TV license fee if the BBC are accepting (or selling) Advertising? What is the BBC ‘brand’ advertising’ and what is it’s ‘brand’ selling? Answers on a postcard please to BBC any questions… money in plain brown envelopes under the mat accepted.
http://advertising.bbcworldwide.com/home/advertisewithus/brands/bbc-com