Posts
The news this week that the BBC Licence Fee is to rise by 3%, to £151 over the next five years, will be received with deep concern by many individuals, not least pensioners, the unemployed and those hard working families on low incomes – especially those who are already feeling the pinch of higher energy and mortgage costs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6273347.stm
Whilst there is a general consensus that the BBC does provide good quality and impartial programming we cannot ignore the argument that in today’s world greater choice is offered by other service providers such as Cable and Sky. It is natural that many people who subscribe to these services, at a premium often in excess of £40 per month, begrudge paying the licence fee. It is mistakenly viewed by many as simply a tax on television – and that is understandable up to a point, since every household has to pay the licence fee whether you watch the BBC or not.
The stark reality is that the BBC now has to compete with 24-hour news, entertainment, sports, documentaries, movies and more. The only way that the BBC can compete with this, in its current form, is to fund it through an increase in the licence fee. Perhaps the time has come to open the BBC up to corporate advertising? By this I don’t mean that there need be commercials on the scale shown by some other channels, since this is one of the factors that maintains the BBC’s uniqueness. This could, however, be achieved by corporate sponsorship of individual programmes. By doing this, the BBC could maintain its unique position - offering relevant and good quality, impartial programming whilst, at the same time, reducing the cost to the overall population.
Richie Northcote
3 comments:
There is little doubt that the licence fee is, in effect, a regressive tax. Like the council tax, it hits hardest those on lowest incomes.
A simple move to funding the corporation from general taxation, however, is not the complete answer. Some way must be found of insulating the BBC (whose excellence is generally acknowledged) from the whims of the government of the day and from HM Treasury. The fate of the canal network and nature conservation, both of which have seen their finances cut recently, shows the threat from the latter.
I'm not sure about sponsoring programmes, either. Sponsors could influence the content. We can already see the effects of the BBC ceding total control in its TV science programming. Since taking the decision to cost-share with US broadcasting organisations, the programmes have got more glossy, more sensational and less science-driven.
In the short term, the BBC bureaucracy should be tackled. It is natural for "a jobs for the boys" culture to grow when the corporation's existence is guaranteed, and that an increase in the licence fee, whenever it comes up for review, is assumed without question.
The setting up of the facility in Salford is a positive move. The more departments are moved out of London, where salaries are inflated, the better.
May I also suggest an independent Organisation & Methods team, with teeth, which can identify and eliminate non-essential activities and jobs?
Finally, the BBC should stop throwing money at self-obsessed personalities. This applies to the political as well as the "entertainment" arena.
- Frank Little
Your suggestion of creating an independent Organisation and Methods team is principled on the face of it. However, it would ultimately result in job losses - Something nobody wants to see.
When making the suggestion of opening up the BBC to programme sponsoring, I was talking about those more popular long running programmes such as Eastenders, Holby City, Casualty, etc. This would not only fund future programmes but would also relieve the burden on all of us who pay the Licence Fee and would not result in any job losses.
Naturally, those programmes involving investigative journalism, scientific research/exploration/expedition or socio-political debate and deliberation should remain free from Corporate Sponsorship. You would probably be hard pushed to find a suitable and willing sponsor for this type of programme anyhow.
Richie Northcote
> However, it would ultimately result in job losses - Something nobody wants to see.<
On the contrary, there is good evidence that there is too much padding in the BBC. Janet Street-Porter recalled, from her time as a producer, that a senior figure at the Beeb was able to find a job without difficulty for whoever was his latest object of desire.
Another non-job which has come to light is that of "diversity executive", at a salary of £90,000. One can safely double that figure, to take account of support staff etc., in order to reach the net cost to the licence-payer.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all in favour of diversity. A concern for diversity should be built-in to the management. What is wrong is merely to "tick the diversity box" by creating a new job title and then carrying on regardless.
I'm sure there are other examples.
- Frank Little
Post a Comment