OnePlus 5 review
I see the BBC have overspent by some £30,000000 on their Web Site. Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on better programmes.
I frequently use the BBC website and its well worth the money. One of the better websites around.
I am sure I get far more entertainment and information from the part of my licence fee that funds the website than I do from the part of the licence fee that pays for much of the broadcast network and I can imagine which part is larger.
Personally I would rather the BBC did away with some of its digital radio nonsense that only apply to small audiences that we all pay for than reduce the scope of the website. If the demand is there for the stations then by all means meet it, but only in proportion to the amount that is funded by the people that demand it.
'The BBC Trust's report said the incident was a "serious breach" of bbc.co.uk's service licence, which it issues as a remit for each of the corporation's TV, radio and online outlets.
'But the trust acknowledged that the fast-changing nature of the internet meant "some blurring of boundaries" would happen and make it more difficult for the BBC to be financially accountable.
'However, the trust said: "We believe that this problem should have been identified sooner and appropriate action taken."'
Okay, it looks like they made a pig's ear of things, but their web site is par excellence and I personally don't mind how much of my licence fee is spent on it.
So which department was robbed?
This is akin to the unauthorized overdraft fees argument.
Helping themselves to monies they are not authorised to do.
is one of the best public information resources in the world - if not the best. Nevertheless, £110 million is a very serious amount of money to spend on a website in 12 months - that's over £2 million a week.
Is one of the best around, and iplayer is useful. However, with so many repeated programmes around you do have to wonder about the cost. Couldn't some of it have been spent on producing some quality television (if such a thing exists!)
"BBC trustee Patricia Hodgson blamed the "arcane nature" of the corporation's internal financial reporting."
Working in financial reporting as I do, I have come across this attitude from time to time (although no one has ever called my work Arcane before, sadly). Far easier to pass the buck and claim the reporting wasnt up to standard, when in actual fact if people were to do their job properly, within the proper structures, then they might realise that they arent asking the right questions. The most obvious one being, "if our budget is £74m, how much of that have we spent so far".
No matter how arcane the reporting the bottom line is pretty easy to understand.
I agree completely. Working within budgets is a pretty basic aspect of business life, and an overspend of 48% is difficult to explain away. Simple budget management practices within departments should ensure that flags are raised when monthly spend rates show a potential year-end overspend.
The senior BBC managers responsible for the control of website finance should be ashamed of themselves.
I also think the BBC website is excellent but as for bstb3 comments about "digital radio nonsense that only apply to small audiences that we all pay for"
I always thought that catering for minority interests was what the BBC was all about and anyway I dare say that there are many who would consider the BBC website a minority interest.
As for the 30 million overspend, well that is indeed a disgrace and I wonder just how even the BBC can get away with such things. But I suspect that it is not the first or the last time for such happenings at the BBC.
To be fair, my comments were intended to be read that if there was a choice between downscaling the website OR reducing the scope of the minority radio channels, I would rather see the minority channels reduced. I also said it should be to the point of meeting the demand that there is in proportion to how much of a fee that demand produces.
The BBC has a public broadcasting obligation, this is what makes it what it is. In return it is paid for by the public via the licence fee. All I argue for is that in return it reflects proportionatly the demands of that public.
The website has 16.5million users per month (although of course they dont all pay a licence fee).
I wonder how many Jonathan Woss's you can get for £30 million. I know its enough to fund the Beeb's Eurovision commitment 150 times over. Imagine that, a thrice weekly Eurovision.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.