While the BBC may have it’s problems, it’s the envy of the world, or so says David Mitchell in this week’s Observer.
I agree, or I wouldn’t be posting this here.
These contradictions make it very easy to find fault with the BBC and let its critics evade the real question which is, simply: do we want it or not? It’s a binary choice, all or nothing. I once came across a very persuasive analysis of organisations (it’s from the book Intelligent Leadership by Alistair Mant) which divides them into two categories: bicycles and frogs.
A bicycle is put together from interchangeable parts. You can take a bicycle-like system apart, polish or improve elements and then reassemble it into something that works better. A frog, however, evolved as a whole. If you chop a little bit off, it’ll muddle along. And another little bit and another and it’ll still be a frog, albeit a less functional one. But finally, with one tiny further change, it will cease to be a frog and nothing you can do will ever put it back together. Well, the BBC is an organisation to melt Miss Piggy’s heart.
From: If you think Ashcroft is a scandal, what about the attacks on the BBC? | David Mitchell]
By the way, Auntie Beeb, my offer still stands: I’m ready to pay a full license fee for the privilege to see the (unadulterated) BBC here in the US. Even streaming over the Internet is good enough.
Hurray for David Mitchell, he absolutely nails the argument.
Interesting that the Observer (he was actually writing in the Guardian’s sister title) has recently come very close the being axed, and narrowly escaped for now suffering only a relaunch.
Of course many of the BBC’s opponents are probably aware it’s a frog, but like to pretend it’s a bicycle as a pretext for removing a few bits here and there. By the time everyone else realises it was a frog all along, it won’t be anymore and it will be too late to ever put it back together.
Opting in to paying the licence fee misses the point of the nature of the tax, by the way. The equivalent would be if the US or Arizona government were to collectively decide that each of its citizens would be obliged to pay £139.50 and could then choose to watch the BBC or not. And then would probably want influence over governance, and then there goes the B in BBC. It would be a bit like trying to augment a frog.
What the BBC should do, more aggressively, is to exploit its international markets: in effect to provide you with a great deal more content (perhaps over the internet) as a revenue generating exercise through BBC Worldwide. But then we’re back to Murdoch; he wouldn’t like the competition, and no one is going to risk pissing him off.
Hurray for David Mitchell, he absolutely nails the argument.
Interesting that the Observer (he was actually writing in the Guardian’s sister title) has recently come very close the being axed, and narrowly escaped for now suffering only a relaunch.
Of course many of the BBC’s opponents are probably aware it’s a frog, but like to pretend it’s a bicycle as a pretext for removing a few bits here and there. By the time everyone else realises it was a frog all along, it won’t be anymore and it will be too late to ever put it back together.
Opting in to paying the licence fee misses the point of the nature of the tax, by the way. The equivalent would be if the US or Arizona government were to collectively decide that each of its citizens would be obliged to pay £139.50 and could then choose to watch the BBC or not. And then would probably want influence over governance, and then there goes the B in BBC. It would be a bit like trying to augment a frog.
What the BBC should do, more aggressively, is to exploit its international markets: in effect to provide you with a great deal more content (perhaps over the internet) as a revenue generating exercise through BBC Worldwide. But then we’re back to Murdoch; he wouldn’t like the competition, and no one is going to risk pissing him off.
Observer, not Guardian… noted and fixed in the post. (I actually knew in the back of my mind that Mitchell wrote for the Observer, as he’s often writing about “saving the Observer” but the RSS feed comes from guardian.co.uk and with a ©Guardian and I just absolutely spaced it when I was posting.)
Funny you should mention the idea of influence and the license fee. I was at breakfast and was reading the tweet from Charlie Brooker (@chartlonbrooker) re Mitchell’s article, and was contemplating just how the BBC could develop a system by which I could ethically and legitimately pay for “real” BBC content and not unduly influence their content… and at that very moment I received e-mail about your comment.
Unfortunately, in any situation where money is involved, there will be influence… intentional or otherwise. I’m quite certain… and I can distinctly remember grumblings at the time… that Doctor Who, the original series, lasted longer than perhaps it should have because of the worldwide (and specifically US) sales of the program.
I would say that no one was intentionally exerting pressure, but you can imagine that Adam Smith’s invisible hand was perhaps waving in front of someone on the production or commissioning side – at least in their own minds.
How then can the BBC ever even justify overseas broadcasts or DVD sales if it must ever remain free of the taint of money’s seductive influence?
It’s not a question I can answer. I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer and I’d bet money this question has come up before.
However, given that they do license their content for overseas, I’m simply offering that I would be willing to pay as much as the license fee (which people seem to complain is a lot) for television that I absolutely would watch and am willing to have no say in what’s on.
I could argue that I have more influence now because I selectively buy BBC DVDs and therefore am giving them feedback as to what is “marketable” whereas if I simply subscribed to a BBC feed – one preferably without any measurement of ratings – I would have no influence except my nod of approval for the BBC itself.
It’s a thorny question and because of the uniqueness of the BBC, the waters they are navigating are uncharted.
One positive note, Murdoch is 78 and he can’t live forever, and it’s clear that his heirs apparent don’t always agree with him…
Observer, not Guardian… noted and fixed in the post. (I actually knew in the back of my mind that Mitchell wrote for the Observer, as he’s often writing about “saving the Observer” but the RSS feed comes from guardian.co.uk and with a ©Guardian and I just absolutely spaced it when I was posting.)
Funny you should mention the idea of influence and the license fee. I was at breakfast and was reading the tweet from Charlie Brooker (@chartlonbrooker) re Mitchell’s article, and was contemplating just how the BBC could develop a system by which I could ethically and legitimately pay for “real” BBC content and not unduly influence their content… and at that very moment I received e-mail about your comment.
Unfortunately, in any situation where money is involved, there will be influence… intentional or otherwise. I’m quite certain… and I can distinctly remember grumblings at the time… that Doctor Who, the original series, lasted longer than perhaps it should have because of the worldwide (and specifically US) sales of the program.
I would say that no one was intentionally exerting pressure, but you can imagine that Adam Smith’s invisible hand was perhaps waving in front of someone on the production or commissioning side – at least in their own minds.
How then can the BBC ever even justify overseas broadcasts or DVD sales if it must ever remain free of the taint of money’s seductive influence?
It’s not a question I can answer. I’m not sure that anyone has a definitive answer and I’d bet money this question has come up before.
However, given that they do license their content for overseas, I’m simply offering that I would be willing to pay as much as the license fee (which people seem to complain is a lot) for television that I absolutely would watch and am willing to have no say in what’s on.
I could argue that I have more influence now because I selectively buy BBC DVDs and therefore am giving them feedback as to what is “marketable” whereas if I simply subscribed to a BBC feed – one preferably without any measurement of ratings – I would have no influence except my nod of approval for the BBC itself.
It’s a thorny question and because of the uniqueness of the BBC, the waters they are navigating are uncharted.
One positive note, Murdoch is 78 and he can’t live forever, and it’s clear that his heirs apparent don’t always agree with him…
The argument would be that BBC Worldwide is responsible for maximising the value of the BBC’s assets after the fact, and is not involved in commissioning. (In fact, on occasion, I think it may have been involved in commissioning but playing the role of a co-producer like any other). I do not have any special insight into whether this is honestly how this works, or any inside knowledge, but the BBC is certainly quite compartmentalised; it would surprise me (even if their market research was good enough to know) if anticipated DVD sales played a major factor given that they have the licence fee: a far bigger wodge.
And it comes back to the froggish nature of the corporation that this is how it operates in the UK; it has a revenue stream and a mandate to make stuff, so it does. The licence fee is incredibly cheap per user for us, and yet it is enough to fund the BBC well, precisely because we all have to pay it (and thus for everything the BBC does) whether we think it is good value or not. If it were open to market forces and we could pick and choose, different things would surely get made (influenced by the market) but one thing is certain: it would never represent as good value as what we get for our £139.50 (or whatever it is). So parts of the frog’s anatomy we might find distasteful: it’s funded by a poll tax, it’s paternalistic (it makes what’s good for us, not what we ask for), but every time the Royal Charter is up for renewal there’s a lot of fuss and then basically the BBC remains unchanged.
Because it’s a frog.
Now as to what the rights to supply international consumers with the same content actually really cost or be worth in the world marketplace I have no idea, but I suspect it would be more than the price licence fee. If the BBC offered everything through video streaming for £139.50 would it lose more of the revenue it gains through international sales than it would earn? I suspect so. Despite all that, I am sure there is a huge amount of scope for it to offer worldwide much more than it does now, and to everyone’s benefit.
And without compromising it’s frogginess.
The argument would be that BBC Worldwide is responsible for maximising the value of the BBC’s assets after the fact, and is not involved in commissioning. (In fact, on occasion, I think it may have been involved in commissioning but playing the role of a co-producer like any other). I do not have any special insight into whether this is honestly how this works, or any inside knowledge, but the BBC is certainly quite compartmentalised; it would surprise me (even if their market research was good enough to know) if anticipated DVD sales played a major factor given that they have the licence fee: a far bigger wodge.
And it comes back to the froggish nature of the corporation that this is how it operates in the UK; it has a revenue stream and a mandate to make stuff, so it does. The licence fee is incredibly cheap per user for us, and yet it is enough to fund the BBC well, precisely because we all have to pay it (and thus for everything the BBC does) whether we think it is good value or not. If it were open to market forces and we could pick and choose, different things would surely get made (influenced by the market) but one thing is certain: it would never represent as good value as what we get for our £139.50 (or whatever it is). So parts of the frog’s anatomy we might find distasteful: it’s funded by a poll tax, it’s paternalistic (it makes what’s good for us, not what we ask for), but every time the Royal Charter is up for renewal there’s a lot of fuss and then basically the BBC remains unchanged.
Because it’s a frog.
Now as to what the rights to supply international consumers with the same content actually really cost or be worth in the world marketplace I have no idea, but I suspect it would be more than the price licence fee. If the BBC offered everything through video streaming for £139.50 would it lose more of the revenue it gains through international sales than it would earn? I suspect so. Despite all that, I am sure there is a huge amount of scope for it to offer worldwide much more than it does now, and to everyone’s benefit.
And without compromising it’s frogginess.