The BBC

Yes much less. The torch has pretty much passed imo.

Matt there's a lot! They've been pretty good at driving older listeners off. You might hear 'average age' get thrown around, which for Radio 1 is around 32 yo, but that's a very misleading stat. First of all, no one under 10 is measured by RAJAR. Second, think about how many people there are in the UK aged 10-25. Now think how many people there are aged 25-up. In order to have an average age of, say, 25, you need an absolutely massive number of the younger listeners to balance out all the older ones who just happen to have it on, have flipped it on at work, etc.

The controller (when there was one) liked to brandish 'the most common age' of listener to Radio 1, which is usually about 18 yo. Imagine a bar graph where each age has its own bar. The tallest bar is the 18 yo one.

1Xtra too for that matter. xp

Everyone I (we?) know over 40 has unwavering devotion to 6 Music I'm still a little surprised by. Not a criticism at all, just a little alienating for me!

Kier Starmer

is radio 1 dance permanent or just a temp thing? (i notice the schedules aren't on the main sounds schedule page)

(the first show i looked at was an essential mix that started with nick drake and i can't imagine anyone dancing to nick drake)

Lol. The app has the schedule but yeah, it’s not on web. That’s weird. I don’t know why that is.

Here to stay! It’s my favourite thing R1 have done in a long time. I’m just sad Mistajam has left.

That one was somebody called Midland, who apparently had the Essential Mix Of The Year in 2016.

A couple of months ago I was moaning about some garbage radio doc about the Spifire that was presented (with the kind of gushing questionable + mostly jingoistic claptrap that might cause D Egerton to have a stroke) by some tory sounding actor called Tuppence I kid you not. They must have been some complaints because now it seems to have resurfaced but they've ditched Tuppence for an apperent historian but using the same awful music (sounds like fucking Tame Impala i think) - not that I could suffer listening to it for more than a minute still.

Wait til you hear what her surname is.

(I'm assuming it's Tuppence Middleton who is now in every single period drama the BBC or ITV make)

that's the one!

christ, what kind of demented posho names their kid Tuppence ffs. Back in the 70's in old-school Yorkshire dialect my partner's mum used to say to her daughter's when they were going out on the lash and to the discoteque in Batley: Keep your hand on your h'apenny and there weren't be neigh trouble!

I think the challenge will be that the licence fee will be removed on the basis that it's unjustifiable where the BBC is no longer the sole or even main provider of entertainment to a lot of important demographics, and that this will be used as a way of manipulating their editorial position
Can you say more about the bit in bold? (Big disclaimer, I work there.)

― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 15 October 2020 14:22 bookmarkflaglink

So, this partly comes from a reading of the second Ofcom annual report. There are several weaknesses highlighted there (i still find a para that effectively says 'we can't see how you're delivering against your goals, or how your reporting relates to that process' to indicate a staggering failure of corporate governance - although that relates to diversity, it's a running theme. the BBC should just be good at governance.)

anyway the key bit here is:

Like all PSBs, the BBC is vulnerable to the rapidly changing media landscape, particularly in its struggle to attract and retain younger audiences. Unless it can address this, its ability to deliver its Mission and Public Purposes to the same level in future will be at risk. The BBC has made changes to its services and its content to attempt to address the issue. These include the launch of BBC Sounds, changes to the BBC iPlayer and putting more BBC Three content onto BBC One. However, time spent with the BBC by younger audiences across TV, radio and the BBC’s main online sites has declined further in 2018/19. Our review of the BBC’s news and current affairs output also suggests that the BBC is struggling to engage younger audiences with news and current affairs, particularly online. If the BBC can’t engage young audiences with its content, it risks losing a generation of viewers. If young people don’t consider the BBC as a core part of their viewing, then it may be hard to encourage them to pay the licence fee which will have significant implications for the BBC’s revenue and its ability to deliver its Mission and Public Purposes.

that is effectively saying your funding stream is under threat. for these reasons i know no one in the industry who thinks the licence fee will be possible to maintain beyond 2027, and there are several indications that the 2022 licence fee negotiation could see it radically reduced.

but in terms of any negotiation, it's a weak spot that The BBC is basically third behind Netflix and Youtube in terms of distribution brand familiarity amongst teenagers. it's no longer the broadcaster of choice or default for that demographic, which removes the justification for having everyone pay a licence fee if they want to watch television (if a licence fee is feasible in an OTT (over-the-top, internet delivery, think Netflix, or iPlayer) world.)

any negotiation will involve things that each side wants. what i perceive to be a government desire to have a Public Service Broadcaster media space that matches to a degree the print media space will be on the government wish list. the government can publicly pursue an argument to do with lack of justification for licence fee on the demographic side, while effectively seeking to trade more editorial control in their favour, traded for more funding spend. what 'editorial control' looks like here, as a meaningful negotiating ask, is somewhat opaque. an example might be, for instance, a de facto ban on, say, Lewis Goodall publishing a piece in the New Statesman, while overlooking an Andrew Neil equivalent's position wrt The Spectator. It might be about requiring more oversight of reporting. It might just be a continual pressure point exerted regularly in terms of day-to-day editorial, with the knowledge they've got them over a gun barrel.

Put very crudely, the Netflix argument will be rolled out, in public softly, in private with more threats, every time the Government feels that the BBC's editorial position has overstepped its mark. (This, like perhaps a few points regarding The Type of Polity We Have Now was a window opened by Alastair Campbell.)

that's my argument anyway.

i think i've rolled back slightly on some of it. the fundamental and probably incontrovertible need for a new funding settlement paradoxically makes me more relaxed, as basically 'we want to remove the licence fee' as a threat, would probably be met by responses of 'well, yes, which is why we're looking at x (x being tax - unlikely, broadband levy - interesting, subscription - disastrous for a PSB). still 2022 will be a critical negotiation point.

sorry, TH, i've overwritten my answer there, but hopefully that explains my thinking.

ok, i found some of the notes i made at the beginning of the year in response to the ofcom piece, which may be more (or less) intelligible than the above:

Government Pressure

The FT usefully summarised the five areas where the BBC will be under attack:
• General rhetoric and public boycotts of eg the Today programme – what the FT defined as 'guerilla tactics'.
• Licence fee renegotiation and funding settlements. Licence fee level due to be agreed in 2022, with overall funding model due for renegotiation in 2027. '"The calculation the government has to make is how big the backlash and political cost will be, because the BBC is — like the NHS — very much loved by the public.”
• Over-75s licence fee - which George Osborne pushed onto the responsibility of the BBC rather than the government, and to which the BBC agreed in what is hard now to see as a short-term agreement with long-term implications. BBC will be sending enforcement letters out soon, but Johnson has been quite noisy in opposing it. If the BBC is forced through public, media and government pressure to back down this will smash a huge hole in BBC finances and is the nearest term threat to the BBC.
• Decriminalisation of non-payment. Would knock a huge hole in the BBC finances again, and effectively require a different funding model prior to 2027. Would compound issues of enforcement for the over-75s, even if that does go ahead.
• Control over the Director General appointment, currently Tony Hall, due to leave during the course of this parliament, no later than 2022, but surely sooner rather than later.

BBC

It is also fair to say that the BBC has not been the best custodian of its own interest. The second annual Ofcom report that came out last year identified a huge problem with governance:
In the absence of a clearly articulated and transparent plan it is difficult for us to judge how much progress is being made and whether these steps will be far reaching enough to deliver substantive progress for audiences in these key areas.

That's damning - you haven't got a clearly stated plan and haven't produced any metrics by which it is possible to measure progress.

At the same time, one of the key Ofcom report demands – more engagement with young people to ensure sustainable viewing figures, is the crux of a really difficult, almost impossible problem.

Younger people are consuming media across more channels of distribution than ever before (YouTube, Netflix, social media being the obvious and commonly stated examples), with a result that the BBC is no longer channel that has the same for the people who will make up the audiences of the future. Ofcom saying, and it's an argument that will be given more voice by the media and government if they choose to go to war with the BBC on those five points above, that if you can't meet future viewing requirements, you can't justify the funding structure.

As traditional modes diverge more from what are seen as future modes (streaming, OTT etc), the ability to provide for everyone gets harder and harder, and requires maintaining two different technical platforms and sets of workflow. (Digital first).

The requirement for a wider range of content, meeting more widely diverse interests and demographics, across a number of platforms, will drive more cost, with funding decreasing. it's very unclear how that's winnable without a benevolent government. More, the BBC will not make money from news but from the international sale of dramatic content via BBC Studios. It's not clear how current affairs fits into that commercial model. Basically, 'impartial news' will be in a very weakly state.

Well there are lots of ways to make money globally. BBC News is a trusted brand across the world and much more can be done, not just in the US, to monetize rolling news, apps, etc. Studios also owns UKTV which in turn owns Dave, Gold, intl streaming rights to natural history content etc. I won't pretend to understand it all but Tim Davie ran Studios for many years before taking this job so I expect this side of it he'll be taking a particular interest in.

As far as justifying the license fee goes you're right. It's a paradox. The audiences that are growing up without a BBC habit are by definition harder to reach, so how do you do that with a shrinking budget? There's a related structural paradox built into the BBC as well, in the form of the distribution policy, which requires full length programmes to only be available on platforms controlled by the BBC. It's sensible, insofar as if the BBC decided to put out programmes on Facebook, and then Facebook tweaked their algorithm, suddenly the service isn't 'universal', it's just reaching whoever Facebook has decided it ought to reach that week. But it means that the BBC has to try and drive young, diverse audiences to visit - and keep visiting - platforms that are universally old: live TV, iPlayer, Sounds - their audience profiles are all old. And do that with less money.

koogs here's the schedule to R1 Dance, it's just not linked anywhere on the web version of Sounds yet:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p080kbtk#on-now

In terms of the new DG, even though he does have this Tory bullshit in his past, he is much more tuned into the the brass tacks of the marketplace than Lord Hall who felt like he was always just kind of floating by on a cloud of elite institutionalism. So I do think that's an improvement.

As soon as I heard that there was an opporunity to play Jimmy Savile I grabbed the opportunity with both hands. I'm well known for playing villians and playing Mr Saville, some would say the greatest villian of all, is not something I could pass up. So I called the producers at the BBC and told them [Eddie laughs] I think I told them if they didn't cast me I was going to kill my family and then myself. Thank good I got the role otherwise I probably would have gone through with it too.

the bizarre and horrible Eddie Marsan opens up his terribly formed thoughts about playing Savile, well he always was a strong Sure Start advocate!

He’s gross.

lol probably some twitter parody, but I can never tell the difference tbh. Being that he is so grossly beyond parody to start with!

xp to Tracer Hand

Well there are lots of ways to make money globally. BBC News is a trusted brand across the world and much more can be done, not just in the US, to monetize rolling news, apps, etc. Studios also owns UKTV which in turn owns Dave, Gold, intl streaming rights to natural history content etc. I won't pretend to understand it all but Tim Davie ran Studios for many years before taking this job so I expect this side of it he'll be taking a particular interest in.

yeah i've been wondering about this. the contractual arrangements between BBC Studios and the BBC are a *nightmare* (they have to be to maintain a commercial/public service chinese wall between the two). But yes, there's plenty of opportunities with BBC Studios - will it be enough to fund a public service broadcaster, without getting rid of its public service remit though? i doubt it and i doubt anyone at BBC Studios would want studios profit put into non-profit programmes designed to cater to the UK's diversity requirements.

I do also wonder about the digital space. I (wrongly) thought that Britbox would be a flop because it couldn't get new flagship productions, which more often than not these days are co produced with the likes of Netflix. In fact it's done wonders as a sort of vehicle of UK sentiment, which of course is a gold mine. it's quite easy to call it Brexit streaming, but that's a bit unfair - i watched Boys from the Blackstuff on it recently, and it's got lots of good stuff on; if you want brexit tv just watch the daytime linear stuff. But there's no doubt which demographic it's catering for.

agree with you on Tim Davie.

Finally got the Sounds app so I can listen to the radio in bed

i doubt anyone at BBC Studios would want studios profit put into non-profit programmes designed to cater to the UK's diversity requirements.

Well the whole set-up is designed to plow money back into the domestic coffers of the BBC. As you say there's a hard divide between commissioning and programme-making and Studios is essentially a mega-indie at this point. They could theoretically make zero programmes for the BBC and pursue big deals with i.e. Netflix and Spotify. The profits would flow back to the BBC though. IME staff are fine with that and even kind of proud of it.

But yes, there's plenty of opportunities with BBC Studios - will it be enough to fund a public service broadcaster, without getting rid of its public service remit though?

No, not even under the most optimistic scenarios. That said I do think there is a massive amount that can be done that's not currently being done. It's not just about what Studios produces, it's about exploitation of existing domestic titles. Why not sell all the dramas straight into the ex-UK Audible catalog for, say, 5 years? etc. Britbox is an interesting example. I also thought it would flop. In a way it's just the next iteration of https://store.bbc.com/ (another Tim Davie joint) - but with optimized delivery and a subscription model. But it seems to be doing okay.

NV if you're over 35 I hope you lied about your age when you signed up for Sounds. We have KPIs to hit.

lol i have no idea what it says on long-standing BBC sign-in, took me a couple of goes to remember the password

If you created your login more than, say, 3 years ago you didn't need to give an age. Ah well.

next tame i'm looking i'll make meself 17 again

Ta!

shocking news, my birth year is the one field it won't let me change :O

Starve the kids not a news story apparently! Basically nothing on the BBC news website about this ongoing controversy but there is some Pro gov anti migrant stuff.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54642788 is on the politics page but yeah

I'm not surprised that someone has written a book defending the BBC from the political Right (while seemingly ignoring the critiques from the Left).

But I *am* surprised that it's Peter York.

https://www.penguin.co.uk/authors/74145/peter-york.html?tab=penguin-books

there were chunks of this in guardian review on saturday.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/23/what-now-for-the-bbc

i'm not sure whether i'm allowed to have an opinion on this.

i'm not sure whether i'm allowed to have an opinion on this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54014210

The top priority would be to "renew our commitment to impartiality", he said.

...

He added: "If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC."

New social media guidelines for presenters and staff will be "rigorously enforced", he said.

(was mostly tongue in cheek. we are waiting on published guidelines and then we will see. a lot of staff rightly not happy about this.)

Assumption that he’s talking about on-air news presenters but “should not be working at the BBC” is wide enough to include like, HR staff and second oboist so yeah - need clarification there. Requiring that every employee be devoid of engagement and political conviction is not going to lead to better output

it's also unlikely to address most of the issues identifed with ooh just off the top of my head Laura K

Koogs: yes, I read that article last night, hence my raising York.

Am I the only person surprised to see York taking this stand? It really doesn't seem like him.

yes NV agreed

here is a news story about three horrific unjustifiable murders

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54729957

here is a section of that story called What's the context?

Nice was the target of one of France's deadliest attacks in recent years, when a 31-year-old Tunisian drove a truck into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on 14 July 2016, killing 86 people.

Days later a priest, Father Jacques Hamel, had his throat cut during morning Mass at a church in Rouen.

Thursday's attack has echoes of another attack earlier this month near a school north-west of Paris. Samuel Paty, who was a teacher in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, was beheaded days after showing controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad to some of his pupils.

The murder has heightened tensions in France and the government's attempt to crack down on radical Islam has angered Turkey and other countries.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has called for a boycott of French goods.

The situation worsened after a cartoon on Mr Erdogan appeared in the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

as you can see, it details some of the previous brutal murders carried out by people acting in the name of Islam

here is a story about a brutal racist attack carried out on two women in Paris last week

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/21/two-muslim-women-stabbed-under-eiffel-tower-by-white-women-shouting-dirty-arabs-13455196/

sorry for the Metro link, i can't find any coverage on the BBC site. including in the "context" section of today's report

i'm keeping this out of the main "terrorism in Europe" thread because i don't want to rerun some prior disagreements. i don't know what conclusions i can safely draw from these observations, but they worry me.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/individual-use-of-social-media#2rulesandexpectationsofsocialmediauseforallcolleaguesemployeescontractorsandfreelancers

h) Do not post anything that couldn’t be said on-air or on BBC platforms.

i) Do not sacrifice accuracy for speed. Second and right is always better than first and wrong – an inaccurate post is a problem for you, your colleagues and the BBC.

j) Do not break news on a personal account; if you have a story to break, the BBC platforms are your priority, even if it takes slightly longer.

I wonder who the drafter of those clauses had in mind

great, just in time! wouldn't want to say spread disinformation during an election!

I’d love to see this one in court tbh

Exclusive: BBC staff have been banned from attending LGBT pride events and told they could be suspended if they breach the new rules. David Jordan, the head of editorial policy and standards, took the decision on Wednesday. https://t.co/9ZNm7pJsrV

— Benjamin Butterworth (@benjaminbutter) October 29, 2020

this new system works GREAT

are they also forbidden from publicly disclosing their sexuality?

ban poppies also

The tl thinks this is so the bbc don’t have to take a view on trans rights.

just another day of feeling one's sense of personal safety eroded!