OnePlus 5T review
Could someone please remind me how much money the BBC spends on their Internet site Annually.
Thanks in advance
Good memory, Powerless :)
They spent £100m on our web site in 2001/02, according to the .pdf at click here
For a more accurate figure add 50%...;-))))))))0
Hmm - libellous comments about the BBC's auditors?
Oh no, you added lots of ))), so it doesn't count :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
It's one of the best websites anywhere in the world - worth every penny.
show a total spend of £100 million on BBCi (Internet), which is a huge amount by anyone's standards. Having said that my own opinion is that the site is the best public information site anywhere in the world, you could browse it for days and still only see a small amount of what's available.
The news site is a resource that's used by millions of people, and they are currently trialling a system whereby certain classifications of external sites can apply to have a BBC news feed. The response has been overwhelming, and I have four clients in the waiting list for news as to whether they've been approved for the service.
In all honesty there would be little point in trying to fudge the figures for online expenditure - there's a fairly bright spotlight shining on the Online side of the corporation, and the truth would be out in the end - the BBC is accountable to Parliament for what it spends, and there are plenty of people analysing the BBC figures with the finest of fine toothed combs.
There has been a good deal of criticism about the corporation's policy of spending £100 million of license payers' money on something that can only be seen by people with Internet access, and they (BBC) have naturally staunchly defended their actions. By way of background it's worth looking at some statistics:
As of February this year, 38 per cent of UK adults had never accessed the Internet, and of those three quarters said they had no plans to do so in the coming year - that's a quarter of all adults in the country. On the other hand internet access is increasing, and 45% of UK households now have an internet connection - that represents a potential internet audience of nearly 29 million adults. Of these, 79% use the Internet to find information about goods and services, and the latest figures available (March 2002) show a massive 549 million page impressions a month - it's the most visited content site in Europe.
Whether or not you think the expenditure is warranted will depend on your personal point of view of course, and license payers who don't use the Internet may well feel aggrieved at the cost. On the other hand, it could be said that you'll never please the whole audience, or even the majority of it all the time. There's a good dea of transmitted output that in my opinion is a total waste of license money and I don't watch it, but I accept that there's probably a large audience for it.
This wasn't intended as a rant, and I know you only asked for a figure, so my apologies for waffling on. I have som BBC clients, so I tend to have a particular interest.
alone is worth the money. AND the BBC has given permission to download its content for personal use.
the bbc have an internet site, which anyone in the world on the web can view. but, only those who buy a licence in the UK PAY for it. i haven't got a licence because i haven't got a tv.
should the site be a subscription only service?
What about the BBC World Service?
And...what about the radio that you no doubt do listen to?
The licence is a complicated business and not something I believe we could really discuss on this site.
So, having paid for a licence you want us to pay again to access the BBC site?
The whole thing about the Internet is that web sites can be seen by anyone, anywhere in the world. The people of America paid for the library of congress site, and the huge FBI site, but nobody has seriously suggested that only Americans should be allowed to see it.
We should be proud of the BBC site - it's among the best in the world, and acknowledged as such.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.