how many bbc people to change a lightbulb

  lofty29 11:06 29 Jun 2009

Going from what is in the press about the 400, yes 400, it took to cover the glastonbury festival, it must take at least fifty. Dont get me wrong I think that much of the beeb gives value for money, but the overmanning of outside events by the corporation is taking the mickey out of the licence payers.

  jtt 12:13 29 Jun 2009

Many years ago, I heard a BBC broadcaster say on the radio that the answer to the lightbulb question was "six weeks".

  Covergirl 12:19 29 Jun 2009

. . . a lot of stages at Glasto. A lot of stages, a lot of performances and a lot of equipment.

How many in a team? I've no idea, but considering the (pretty much) blanket coverage on both radio and tv over the weekend, it sounds like "about right".

And the 400 will probably be the number of people involved in the whole shebang, from people putting white marks on the grass before the event, to cameramen, producers, directors, gaffers, best boys, grips etc including shift changes.

Pop a link on to the article you're on about.


  dagbladet 12:58 29 Jun 2009


So how many should it have taken to cover Glastonbury?

  wiz-king 13:17 29 Jun 2009

Thats only about 100 per shift allowing for a few absences. Sounds about right to me.

  dms_05 14:15 29 Jun 2009

For every one guy changing a light bulb on an OB the BBC has about 10 Managers we don't even know how to do it. It's not the front line people who are over staffed but the Byzantine management structure which eats up the money. The Beeb have had very well known consultants in to recommend change and then turned their ideas down when a lot of the managers would be fired. So remember your License Fee is keeping a very large number of unproductive people in very great luxury, for life. The problem is the Beeb doesn't recognise that these people are unnecessary for an efficient operation. But Joe Public has to cough up £4,000,000,000 each year to maintain the management structure - programmes, who cares about them.

  Stuartli 15:48 29 Jun 2009

The BBC's annual licence fee (provided by the Government through TV Licensing) was £3.4bn at the last count.

I agree that 400 to cover the Glastonbury festival seems a lot, but in view of the fact it covered BBC 1 and 2 plus the BBCi active channels, along with extensive radio coverage, it seems reasonable. See:

click here

The number would presumably include not only presenters, but camera crews, cable layers, video editors, producers et al.

Covering such a big festival - and there was some very fine entertainment on parade - would clearly take a high level of staff numbers.

I've no doubt that the BBC will be making money on the follow up sales..:-)

  Clapton is God 16:10 29 Jun 2009

"there was some very fine entertainment on parade"

That would be "fine entertainment" such as Tom Jones and Tony Christie, would it??

Ye, Gods.

  BT 17:07 29 Jun 2009

I see that there is yet another BBC reporter out in Los Angeles covering the Micheal Jackson story. They already had at least 2 there at the start and I see Emily Matliss was reporting on the 1 o'clock news from there today. Is it really necessary to keep sending out extra ones?

  Forum Editor 18:25 29 Jun 2009

what the maximum audience has been for any of the Glastonbury output.

  WhiteTruckMan 18:42 29 Jun 2009

with what FE might be hinting at.

Do (did) we *really* need such wall to wall coverage of glastonbury?


This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Dell XPS 13 9370 (2018) review

HomePod review

Comment regarder les Oscars 2018 ?