Watching and waiting ...
We're all on tenterhooks today waiting to hear how many cuts will strike this department. Many colleagues are feeling very low this morning. We're hoping to talk to a representative from Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú management later so please let me know what your concerns are about Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú output. What questions would you like to ask? Hundreds of jobs to go in news? Does the prospect of job cuts and changes in output worry you? More repeats? Let me know.
Well done for trying to guess the names of the pix on yesterday's blog- you'll have plenty of time to get to know them before the new leader is declared on December. Vyle Hernia, maybe they'll settle for a Dick Emery lookalike!
Fearless Fred - you're right, we did take down two of the Lib Dem photos. Susan Kramer and Julia Goldsworthy both declared they weren't going to stand. So it looks like it could be an all -male lineup unless someone else comes forward.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
I hope Alan Yentob is on the list.
I hope Mr Bypass has something to say about 18 million for Jonathan Ross, and countless millions for sport coverage. I mean, where the hell is the sense in diminishing what is the world's greatest news organisation? For one, I am proud of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News, it's part of the fabric of this country, and frankly from my listener status it doesn't need interfering with.. I might say rebranding bulletins as 'Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News on Radio 4'' is pathetic. I am sure the people running Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News can avoid wasting money, does sending three satellite trucks to a news story for three different parts of the network go on anymore I wonder? It was mentioned that several journalists will be sent to cover the same story, but surely that is down to the different styles of coverage that are required, Newsnight need something different to PM, the political editor needs to deal with his specialism compared to the raw reporting for the six o colck news. Set budgets by all means, but don't seriously interfere network news and ciurrent affairs, the one part of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú that plays such a large part in all our lives. Get rid of the swearing, unfunny comedy and tatty unworthy features from the regions instead. They're idea of news coverage is often to read the emergency services press releases.
Please pass on my sympathy to all your colleagues, Carolyn, and to you too, of course. Change is difficult, and when you know the change is to cut costs, it is always a source of worry.
I'm truly sorry to hear that the TV Centre will be sold off as it is one of the Beeb's icons, and somewhere I have visited in the past. I well remember being in a lift with Tim Brooke Taylor in the days of the Goodies on my way up to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú bar, many years and a lighting technician boyfriend ago.
Will the sale of the TV Centre mean that the news centre also moves? I presume so - it's the same site, isn't it? Or will that arm of the Beeb remain in situ? It does seem an awful waste of money for the centre to have been developed recently for it now to be abandoned.
Staff cuts - Hard to say. I've been conscious of a certain amount of doubling, or even trebling, up of broadcasters in the last couple of years, presumably to make the money go further. And in years gone by I do believe there was quite a lot of 'waste' in the Beeb, which was clearly unacceptable. But cuts in recent years have, presumably, meant a much leaner machine, and there is a point at which further cuts mean a loss of effectiveness.
The bottom line is that the Beeb have less money to play with now. Somehow the books will have to balance. I do hope that Mark Thompson's plans are well conceived and that babies won't be thrown out with the bathwater. I think we can cope with more repeats, if necessary. I'm not sure if cutting out Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3 would make a huge difference, unless it is heavily staffed - after all, many of the programmes are run on other channels either before or after being shown on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3.
The reality is that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is now so much more complex than it was predigital that it is hard for the layman (and possibly, too, for Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú employees) to grasp what is involved and what changes would represent the most effective use of resources.
Main worries-
Overspend on some individuals pay checks - it really is obscecne.
Prospect of repeats of programmes no-one really wants to see.
Increase in 'cheap' tv eg reality shows (please no)
Decrease in quality
BUT it has often struck me that there are more reporters in some situtations than warranted, one per programme per event; is that really necessary?
I agree with Carl. No presenter is likely to be worth more than £200,000 pa. If they can get more elsewhere, let them go.
I thought the last round of cuts resulted in PM being presented by one person instead of two; does this round mean we get an avatar?
And one thing we really can do without is background music. Last night Mr. Titchmarsh asked us to listen to the sound of a bee, and it was completely drowned by muzack. Obviously the sound engineers were lazy or incompetent. Get rid.
PS Blog seems to be working this morning. Anyone know why?
I agree with Carl:
Fewer outside broadcasts with no point: e.g "I'm Standing outside Number 10 now... nothing is happening..."
News programmes with just one presenter especially on News 24. (Today needs more than one as it's 3 hours long, that's OK. 24 can just change presenters every couple of hours...)
Junk the big news sets especially on News 24. All you need is a desk and a presenter. (A chair as well probably.)
Cut the "star" salaries to something sensible. (Especially Wogan - I love the man, but if he's earning £800K a year, I want him there 50 weeks of the year, not on holiday half the time.)
Don't bid silly money on sports events.
Scrap this stupid PC move to Salford. It won't change the London-centrism a jot, it'll just waste money and cause resentment.
Don't outsource any more key parts of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú; it costs a fortune more in the long-run.
Don't lay a finger on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Drama, Radio 4 or The World Service.
Oh yes, and fire all managers who haven't come up "from the studio floor". MBA graduates and the like should go, just leaving the ones who know about TV and radio production from experience. That should save a packet!
I simply can't understand the following, Sequin.
How do cuts of [roughly] 3% year-on-year [The Settlement wasn't THAT far below inflation] translate to some programmes [TV admittedly] losing FORTY PER CENT of their budgets ?
Secondly, when cash was a bit more available, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú added News 24 and a load of 'Press Red for News Multi-Screen' and Internet bo!!*x they didn't really need. Now that cash needs to be saved, instead of saying, let us liposuction some of this bloated fat, we will cut off half a leg and an arm to get down to our target weight !
This is the politics of the madhouse - imagine if you were going to save 20 % of your annual cinema bill by offering a quid or two less to the local picture house in exchange for leaving the cinema twenty minutes early.
And why are Mark Thompson / Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Trust Boy saying that we need fewer programmes but over a greater number of platforms ! ? Only tw@ts in advertising believe that the 'medium is the message' - FFS THE MESSAGE IS THE MESSAGE - GOT THAT ?
Our thoughts are with you and the team, must be very stressful for you. It's unbelieveable that they would focus cuts on one of the things the beeb does outstandingly well. There's plenty of mindless TV drivel to take an axe to. A lot of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ús TV output is indistinguishable from ITVs - that's not how its supposed to be.
Flogging Television Centre? Oh, brilliant!
Assuming anyone else would want it, they'll have to spend a few million decommissioning it, not to mention kitting out the replacement.
I suspect the announcement is a desperate ploy to put pressure on whatever flavour of Govt we get next, to put the funding back.
After all, it takes a wee while to dispose of the family silver.
Fifi
Cut exhorbitant salaries and let the b*ggers go if they won't work for sensible wages.
Cut crap "what the public wants" programmes and polish the jewel that is news and current affairs.
Bin TV and go with radio.
(((((((((frugs)))))))) to all who feel threatened.
xx
ed
"Quite frankly, I don't like you humans. After what you all have done, I find being 'inhuman' a compliment."
-- Spider Robinson, "Callahan's Secret"
Thu Oct 18 11:22:34 BST 2007
Bedd (7), I think part of the problem is that the license fee settlement was for a below inflation amount, while at the same time the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is having to fund a large proportion of the costs of the Digital switchover. So, not only do they have to spend less on what they currently do, they also have to spend significant outlay on a change to the broadcasting methodology. It is interesting to note that none of the other current analogue terrestrial broadcasters are having to pay anything towards the switchover. Could it possibly be that there is a hint of a "slap down" from the previous administration to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú in response to it not blindly accepting what it was told at the time?
On a side note, I notice that Ofcom is suggesting that the broadcast spectrum freed up by the transition to digital should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. That raises a few questions:
a) If it is auctioned off, why should the government get the money? Why shouldn't at least some of it go towards the terrestrial broadacasters who have changed their broadcast methodology?
b) Since High Definition (HD) is supposed to be the future of Video broadcasting, why is part of the spectrum for free to air broadcasting not ring-fenced to ensure that HD is avaiable in the future for those who choose not to subscribe to satellite or cable?
c) Do we really need to have more bandwidth for video on mobile phones???
First of all, having gone through the stress of 3 seperate cost-cutting/staff-cutting exercises over my years with a certain major music company my heartfelt sympathies go out to you all. I eventually took voluntary redundancy.
Secondly I find myself once again echoing the thoughts of Big Sister with regards to the sale of TV Centre. I myself am actually working for the beeb on a 3 month contract (within Resources - not London based), but I did have to go to TV Centre for my pass the other week and it really is an iconic place - it reeks of television history and it will be very sad to let that go.
I agree with the vast majority of what is said here. Please continue to concentrate on what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does best in TV - News and Current affairs. I am also a big supporter of the children's channel, cbeebies. Make the sensible cutbacks that are needed without impacting on the quality. I am no expert but I guess in this day and age when technology has marched on programme making has become more sophisticated and costly and perhaps the increases in licence fees has been unable to keep up with the rising cost of making more and more sophisticated output with lots of bells and whistles. I personally have to confess that with regards to drama/comedy programmes I watch very little on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú lately. I am a fan of quality American dramas (e.g. Sopranos, West Wing) that a certain other channel brand airs. However, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú radio is all I ever listen to (having grown up on Radio 1 and now matured into 2 and 4). I think nothing beats Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio.
And I totally agree with all that is said regarding certain personsalities over-inflated salaries. While I enjoy their work immensely these figures are simply not warranted.
Ffred,
All far too obvious and worthwhile for highly-paid executives to even be bothered with.
You're right that it's probably more than a dash of slapdown from those who brought you the war on terror and its sibling the war on drugs.
I always felt (and still do) that the British had more of a unique gem on their hands than they realised (or were worthy of?)
Perhaps there's scope for a 'listener sponsored radio' approach like WBAI in NYC? I think not, but here's a fiver.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams,
we would be reorganised.
I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progresswhile producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralisation."
Caius Petronius, AD 66
Mandrell: "You know what I think?"
Doctor: "Ah, ah that's a catch question. With a brain your size you don't think, right?"
-- Dr. Who
Dear Sequin and team, I do so feel for you all today. No time at the moment to say much, except:
I so agree with Carl and Fifi. And sell off TC? Good God! Madness. So is everyone moving to Salford or wherever? I suppose that'll result in (at least) 2,000 voluntary redundancies - is that the reason? (in 'cynical' mode)
Who would buy it to keep the building? Is it listed?
And am I alone in suspecting that the 'Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News on Radio 4' thing is a reaction to rumours of the forthcoming News cuts?????
I agree with Carl, The Stainless Steel Cat, Vyle Hernia, Ed Inglehart et al (whoever Al is). It is indifensible to be making massive job cuts whilst paying obscene salaries to big name presenters. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to get back to applying itself to making educational, informative, entertaining programmes which are unlike those found elsewhere and get away from trying to win an imaginary ratings war by throwing the most money at the lowest common denominator.
It was a joy, in fact, to read Carl's contribution: I was beginning to think that I was the only one getting thoroughly wound up by that irritating new "'Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News on Radio 4" slogan. I have not, yet, thrown anything at my radio as a result but I fear it may only be a matter of time.
And I notice that the logos of all the radio networks have changed. Again. Presumably that had to be paid for.
I'm sure that one area in which money could be saved and the output of Radio 4 instantly improved would be by closing down the department that makes trailers.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to move away from competing for glitz and ratings and focussing more on doing what the others dont do that well
Stick to impartial factual reporting, drama and childrens programs etc and put more emphasis on discoverring new talent instead of chasing gross overpriced celebrities like Johnathan Ross whos salaries are equivelent to hundreds of employees
If I could choose I would stop paying my licence fee because I dont want people to burn it away on celebrities like jonathan ross but I dont have a choice so I should at least have a say
Listen to us the license payer dear Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and dont squander our money on overpaid individuals
Bring back the PM theme tune! Then you could cut back on a story eac night to save money.
The art stuff from Wrench-&-co is always so dull it makes the shipping forecast seem interesting.
I feel *really* strongly about this, but before I move into rant mode I would just like to express my sympathy and support all those affected by the announcement.
Right, rant mode engage...
Are you serious!!!!?
Britain has a wonderful advantage over the rest of the World, it's called the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. Having a public service broadcaster, remote and removed from the grubby world of commercialism should allow that organisation to truely live up to its requirements to "Inform, educate and entertain". Being owned effectively by the licence payer means that decisions on programming should not be made on the basis of quality, not quantity. It should also ensure that said organisation remains independent both of the Government of the day, and the whims or political slants of an owner. The plans unveiled today do far more harm than good to these principles.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has to make efficiencies, fair enough, we all have to live within budgets. But this is not the way! Cuts to news, factual, childrens and other serious programming are in my view akin to the organisation slashing it's own neck. More repeats... of what exactly? If it were of "The Ascent of Man", "Alistair Cooke's America" or "Life on Earth", that is not entirely a bad thing. However, repeats of 'celeb paint drying on ice' or its like will only ensure the rapid decline of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú as the Goverment (of any colour) will be able to say the Beeb is not fulfilling its purpose as a public service broadcaster.
Simple efficiencies could be made as others have suggested by the reduction (or removal) of a few so called 'big name' presenters. I'm a big admirer of Jonathan Ross on Film [insert year here], I can't stand his Friday Night show - it's shallow, crass and tasteless, and does nothing to enhance the reputation of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, or Mr Ross. As others have mentioned I would favour the merging of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3 and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú4. Neither has sufficient programming to properly fill a schedule, so why not combine them? The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3 output could go out in primetime, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú4 programmes either side of that. I would not axe Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News 24, after what's left if you do? Sky News and CNN, that's what!
For heavens sake! You don't *have* to compete for audience share, so don't do it. Please, please don't dumb down. Do what you're good at, quality programming that is recognised and admired the World over. There are plenty of people who are crying out for quality programming, news, current affairs, serious and lighthearted factual programming along with good entertainment. I suspect there are a lot more who don't realise that that is what they are looking for...
Having seen television and heard radio around the World I can honestly say that I think the licence fee is worth every single penny. We just don't realise how lucky we are to have the Beeb, and on the basis of this report, I don't think Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú management of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Trust do either.
Rant mode cancel.
All I can say after that is, good night and good luck.
I hope the numpty that negotiated the settlement with the Government is the first to go!
What is "light factual 'middle-ground' programming" anyway?
Why is the corporation wielding the axe at the things it does bast - factual and children's programming.
Cancel Eastenders, and make the world a better place!
These cuts worry me as I only watch news, documentary and factual programmes..
I don't want to watch celebrities that I've never heard of in 'Strictly Come Ballroom Dancing On Ice'.
Funny how the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News choses that the Most Important Story of the day is... job cuts at Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News. Hard to be impartial, I know, but I thought the teenager shot in the head in Yorkshire might have warrented a mention? Or the European (not-)Constitution - what, in practice, is changing (yesterdays interview failed to clarify this).
I am a great supporter of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News, don't get me wrong. But todays choice of main headline is doing real damage to their reputation of impartiality.
I notice that none of the redundancies announced appear to be in Human Resources...
Plus ca change as they say in Germany...
I work for an insurance company, quite a good one. We are looking to cut costs so I said to the board, let's establish what business segments it is that we do really well and have a high reputation for. then cut the resource we devote to that. At the same time concentrating on a load of peripheral stuff that is as yet unproven. The board listened very carefully, and now I used to work for them.
I've just read the newsletter and that breakdown of job losses is insane!
500 News,
600 Documentary & Factual,
500 Regional.
How about;
500 from quiz and "reality" shows,
600 from cooking and home improvement shows and
500 from anything with "celebrity" in the title or concept.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should concentrate of its strengths - which are just what is being threatened here, and leave the pap to the commercial stations.
Are the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú cutting back on news programmes to pay the government back for not increasing the licence fee by the amount that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú requested?
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news programmes are still something that, as a country, we can be proud of. Please let us hold on to something, when I am abroad, that will enable me to hold my head up high.
Another thought:
Get rid of all those TV cooking programmes. They've become a "Must-have" for every channel. Helps solve the obesity problem at the same time.
There should be a ceiling for salaries somewhat below the level now paid to some - think how many good people are being lost so that J Ross can continue to earn his obscene salary. Less 'reality' more fact please!
Fearless:
"Ofcom is suggesting that the broadcast spectrum freed up by the transition to digital should be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
If it is auctioned off, why should the government get the money? Why shouldn't at least some of it go towards the terrestrial broadacasters who have changed their broadcast methodology?"
Excellent point. How can we get Govt to do this? We know that online petitions are always rejected; we know that peace (anti-war on Iraq) marches are rejected. Any ideas, anyone?
Just hope the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú doesn't have to bid!
Mark Thompson is a complete idiot.He should stop dumbing down our Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.We pay the licence fee,so why can't he listen to the public who want decent news and current affairs programmes rather than the inane semi-porn jackass tv dished out onÂ鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3.It is patronising to suppose that young people want to watch this drivel-those with the desire to do so can find acres of it on sattelite channels or the internet.I have two teenagers,both of whom regularly listen to radio 4 for the excellent comedy and also the news on the Today programme before school/college and PM in the evening whilst doing homework.How much does Mr Thompson get paid for making such crap decisions?Maybe the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú could save money by getting rid of him!!!!!
If the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú suddenly needs to fire 1800 people one has to ask how long have they been in redundant posts? How much have all these 'surplus to requirement' people cost over they years? And how much will it really cost to lay these people off?
If nothing has radically changed within the last month this is management failure on a particularly grandiose scale over a prolonged period. Who has been responsible for the ongoing unneccessary cost to the licence-fee payers? And what has the Board of Governors to say about their failure to control and oversee?
I totally agree with Wonko. When I came to the UK 6 years ago (I'm French), I was amazed at the superior quality of the programming on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú compared to French public channels, especially the news, current affairs, documentaries and factual programmes. Which is exactly what these cuts are targeting.
Maybe Mark Thompson should be made to watch France 2 for a whole week to see what what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú risk becoming. He would change his plans, guaranteed!
SSCat (24) : Nicely put, Puss.
Grrrrrrrrrrrr!
Fifi
I'm with Wonko and the majority on this. It's idiocy of the first water. Cut the best, leave the rest.
The higher one gets in 'management', (or politics?) the more divorced from commonsense one seems to become.
Sad, but true. Very sad.
Salaam, etc. ed
As long as the one presenter per news program is a nice looking female with a low-cut top and a short skirt, I'm in favor of it.
SSC (24), Vyle (26), Sue (27), and Fifi (32).
I concur
FFred
i just heard today's idiot-of-the hour cal a certain Ross "a top quality entertainment star" WHAT?
GRRRRR! (tears hair and anything inreach into tiny bits)
ed
Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run. Over unsounded gorges, through the rifled hearts of mountains, under torrents' beds, unerringly I rush!
-- Captain Ahab, "Moby Dick"
Thu Oct 18 17:20:43 BST 2007
Ed, calm yourself!
this is by some particular definition of 'top quality', some particular definition of 'entertainment', and some particular definition of 'star'; you don't have to agree with the definitions that have to be assumed for this to have been a meaningful suggestion.
... have a Glen Morangie ...
Of course one other way to cover the loss of news reporters etc would be to no longer cover Parliament/Party politics. Sadly some government has to be reported on, but as little as possible. Those who provoked the cuts no longer get reported on.
This might work on the principle that politicians *love* exposure, and denying them this might make them thing again. But tabloid revelation-style news should also be eschewed, since - as PJ O'Rourke pointed out -, to call a politician a liar, an adulterer and a cheat means you've read his autobiography.
Someone quick put a preservation order on TV Centre (only to wind up the agents who have to try & flog it). And BH while they're about it, in case a "prime Central London" site is just too attractive...
I declare an interest; I don't own a TV, or watch it elsewhere. Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio is on most of the time (mostly R4/R3)
Thanks Chris, don't mind if I do.
JR is worth a sensible salary, say even 150k p.a. Who needs more?
xx
ed
When the Universe was not so out of whack as it is today, and all the stars were lined up in their proper places, you could easily count them from left to right, or top to bottom, and the larger and bluer ones were
set apart, and the smaller yellowing types pushed off to the corners as bodies of a lower grade ...
-- Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad"
Thu Oct 18 21:42:40 BST 2007
Cat, Vyle;
Spot on chaps!
Sue;
A salary cap, great idea.
Superiorboggart makes a really valid point. Thompson is unaccountable to the people who pay his wage. Us. How do we vote the fool out of office?
Chuck also makes a cracking point. If these people can be axed now then why couldn't they before? Management failure writ large.
Cut the antiques/home sale/home improvements/cooking themes clean off the air. Ditch Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's 3 & 4 and do it now. "Two pints of lager and a packet of crisps"? Packet of crap, more like. Lousy, lousy quality. Unfunny comedies. Lowbrow ordure of the worst kind. Axe Eastenders and cheer the nation up. David Dickinson's permatan must cost a fortune.
Whatever happened to; educate, inform, entertain as the sole criteria for programme makers?
And anyone who reads Private Eye knows that although Milord Birt is long gone his spirit lives on in the internal memos sent to staff, filled with unintelligible jargon and gibberish. Designed to bamboozle, not motivate. If you can't blind them with science then baffle them with b*llsh*t. Grade was supposed to cut the crap, Thompson has re-instated it.
And whoever suggested getting rid of the middle management, young aggresive suits weighed down with a mass of MBA's and zero commonsense, you've got my vote. The first thing most big organisations do when cutting jobs is ditch a layer of two of management and flatten out the structure. The next is to outsource everything to India. "Here is the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News on Radio Four from Bangalore, in association with TCS/Wipro/Xansa". After all you don't have to be in Britain to sit behind a desk and read an autocue.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be populated by programme makers only, whether in front of the mike or behind it, and from the very top to the newest recruits. Those who would rule in any organisation must first serve their time doing the real work.
Oh, and cancel the Salford move. Salford is an ars*h*l* of a place. I suppose it's one way of persuading your people to leave of their own free will though. Threaten to move them to the North-West and they'll be fighting to get out and stay in London.
Si.
I, like perhaps many PM listeners yesterday, was both surprised and shocked to hear how much entertainer Jonathan Ross earns from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. I had the dubious pleasure of being involved with a private function in London recently where MR. Ross was host. He stood in front of an invited audience and got few laughs. He quite simply wasn't funny. His material said nothing about him being a comic genious. Then again, I guess if he's getting £18 million of license payers money over the next 3 years, he probably doesn't care if he's funny or not. He's just laughing all the way to the bank. To then hear Mark Thompson defend spending these outrageous sums of money on the so called, "Todays' Talent", that you and I apparently need in order to survive is surely an insult to our intelligence... Isn't it? I love my Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, but sadly after todays, "comic" revelations to licence payers, surely Mr Thompson will feel the need to invest in more of those good old, "TV detector vans", in the future. Oh.. and if you think that's funny, why not send me half a million quid?
Martin Beedle - Hear hear! However, there appears to be one way in which Mr. Ross (or it could be his agent!) is a genius, namely, in his powers of persuasion. That's the only way I can think he managed to negotiate such a lucrative contract.
When you think of all the talent there is out there who, I'd imagine, would be happy with a tenth of that figure to cover their fees - people like Harry Hill, Paul Merton, Andy Hamilton, even that reformed conservative MP Giles Brandreth, just to name a very few off the top of my head - it is bewildering that the Beeb, or indeed ITV, would feel obliged to pay out such sums to just one performer.
Mark Thompson made a comparison on WatO yesterday with how the Beeb paid large fees for Morecambe and Wise years ago, but to compare those much loved -indeed much demanded - comedy talents with Jonathan Woss is, to my mind, slanderous. Their shows regularly attracted over 20 million viewers, and once they moved to ITV, attracted by larger fees, their ratings slumped due to inferior material. The money spent on M and W proved a wise investment, since reruns of their programmes are still very popular. I doubt this will be true when we come to revisit Mr. Ross in years to come.
Martin Beedle,
I know a Martin Biddle.
Big Sister,
I'd pay Giles Brandreth to keep his mouth shut.
Martin Beedle @ 41, you used the phrase 'how much entertainer Jonathan Ross earns from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.'
I am not convinced that *anyone* 'earns' slightly under twelve pounds per minute of a twenty-four hour day seven days a week with no time off for sleeping or eating... it's just *too much* for even a complete and universally acknowledged genius to be worth. He gets it; I can't believe that he earns it.