The BBC - a British institution, a corporation that has been funded for almost 80 years by the public by an antiquated licence fee that goes to fund the programs of television and radio - headed up by a Director General - currently Mark Thompson and has over 25,000 staff in the UK alone!
OK, history lesson over - what is the issue?
The issue, as far as I and many others see it, is that now in 21st Century with technology developments and availability of content readily available - why should anyone have to pay a licence fee for this anymore?
iPlayer:The BBC have been at the forefront of testing new technology - their iPlayer is getting better - after a few shaky starts but it cost £20 million to develop* and over 4 years to get into Beta, continues to suck money for development as it attempts to support Mac and Linux - and more importantly the BBC have just released a very weak version of the iPlayer on the Nintendo Wii (we can blame the awful Opera browser and flash version for that one) but guarantee that there will be some more investment to make this work ? Which is a shame as we have lots of clients that have ideas and technology that would work well with the Wii - but to deliver some of the technology - could be cost prohibitive and to start a dialogue with Nintendo to see where synergies lie is another issue. It's easier to jump on the BBC gravy train than have a real business discussion with set KPIs and ROI and a business plan that includes revenue and costs
Competition All sounds great - but again - how fair is this to say Channel 4, Channel 5 or SKY? These companies have specific R&D budgets that they have to work to - along with business goals and targets as well as shareholders that they are accountable for. Yes the BBC have to answer to government bodies and the BBC Trust - but it's easy to say that they are developing technology and tools to "enhance the consumer experience and put the BBC at the forefront of technology development" - but at what cost?
Second Life The BBC jumped on the Second Life bandwagon with their 1 Big Weekend - again at what cost - and what came out of it? Where is the ROI for the licence payer? What was the next technical development and roadmap for Second Life based on the initial investment? These are costs and business rules that anyone else would need to justify before embarking down any technology driven venture? What was the justification, what was the total cost, how was that cost justified to the licence payer?
Who pays and gets paid Then look at the recent writers strike in Hollywood - part of this was that the writers of shows were being frozen out of any deals that involved their content being made available on the internet - YouTube, Network's websites etc... I agree that technology in the media space is fantastic - and I'm actively and heavily involved in progressing this with Conchango and our clients - but each step of the way we have to review all the elements of the business case - weigh up the pros and cons and in some cases drop some phenomenal technology innovations - because we can not justify the ROI to the stakeholders. The BBC replay their programs for the last 7 days - do the writers have their fee based on plays or duration? People that live in the UK and that do not own a TV or TV licence can now also watch and listen to BBC programs that the UK licence payer has already paid for? It doesn't stop their either - while in the US I can spoof my IP so that it looks like I was in the UK and enjoy the latest episode of Eastenders or listen again the awful Chris Moyles who as a licence payer contributes to his £630,000 annual salary - gain where is the ROI on a dj who plays music (and not even that much of that now) and then to add insult to injury Moyles sees that the few artists that he plays receive payments from MCPS / PRS - so he decides to compose some dire "jingles" and plays these and nets himself an additional £70K+ for his trouble - compare that to Virgin Radio or any other commercial radio station and again all salaries have to be justified by the work they do and the advertising revenue that can be generated for their show and audience.
I sat recently at a Guardian Media Summit - and watched how arrogant the BBC were in showing off what they had achieved - how far advanced they had become in terms of technology and what they were looking to do moving forward - with no regard for the others in the room that are trying to move on radio programs or Podcasts or interactive HD Radio - but the BBC were already there - being taken to see the latest Japanese developments - and then it hit me!
There are hundreds of business out there that are looking to deliver some intuitive media delivery tools and get in front of manufactures to develop some great experiences using some of the best brains in the industry - but they are either start-ups and can not afford the trip (that's if they even get to meet the right people) or existing business that can not justify a trip to the far east to discuss developments. The BBC is a powerful brand and big bank balance that can drive and command new developments - but at what cost? The licence payers cost!
So what do I suggest - time for Auntie Beeb to abdicate and step down from taking the handouts of the general public - in 2008 - I see no sense or need for an antiquated broadcasting medium that is based on a licence revenue that may have been relevant in the 20th Century - but in this digital media age - it is pathetic to think and see the adverts that warn you if you watch television without a TV licence then you will be fined or sent to jail!!!
What???
It's the 21st Century - incase the Government & BBC hasn't realised - and I can watch television from all over the world without the need for a "television set" - and as more and more people get their fix of television or radio or whatever media they are interested in via the web or streamed / downloaded from wherever - the TV was a medium for watching the media for the 20th Century. I despise seeing my licence fee being used to create "reality" programs where Andrew Lloyd Webber can find his next "Mary" or BBC create a program that is in effect broadcasting YouTube - with banal presenters - or paying Chris Moyles £600+K to be rubbish! Even worse is when the BBC then rip off it's licence payers by "fixing" competitions, or winners through their service - and for god sake - has no one worked out that when BBC Radio "DJs" ask people to TXT in what they are doing - or to join a competition (as long as its not fixed) or "what colour is the sky?" that the BBC charge an additional 25p for the privilege of "joining" in with the Radio Program?
No it's time the BBC stood on it's own two feet and compete with everyone else in the broadcasting arena - and then we will see just how long a "BBC presents You Tube" or "Graham Norton discovers another Nancy lives on in the fierce world of advertising and viewing figures.
Let the battle commence...
**UPDATE**
Just seen this from the TV Licensing run by the BBC - You need a TV Licence
to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, digital
box, DVD or video recorder, PC, laptop or mobile phone to watch or
record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. So if you really want to challenge this whole argument - here is the issue...
If you own a television and have the picture broadcasted to you via the analogue transmitters - then I guess yes you should pay the fee (although if you are blind and have a TV then you can apply for a 50% discount! Wooo! but If you use a digital box with a hi-fi system or
another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't
display TV programmes, you don't need a TV Licence.) This is just where the whole antiquated argument stems from - in this digital age - when consumers decide to watch content either streamed or narrowcasted - paid for via their ISP bill or Satellite bill then things start to look out of kilter - top that off with the content that the BBC produce that has already been paid for by the licence payer, the BBC decides to charge again via iTunes or the ill fated Kangaroo (before it even launches you can feel the tension building) the UK consumer is faced with paying for the content twice!
In the US (yes there is a wealth of channels and a lot is dross..) but ABC, NBC, Fox etc.. have survived by creating and producing top quality content that is available via your TiVO or Cable box subscription, then sold onto the world to recoup its costs (how happy is the licence payer in that the BBC is paying $1Million per episode of Heroes for example (33 episodes (22 Season 1 & 11 in Season 2) = $33Million)??
Is this a good use of licence payers money - yes I love Heroes - but would you pay $33Million of it???)
Time to change is now - and the government are incapable of making any real digital strategy with the BBC - and this my friends means that until we act then there will be nothing done even beyond 2011!