UKC

Has anyone noticed that the outdoor BBC reporters wear some expensive
cold weather clothes? I met a team of them from BBC radio who were going to
report on a game at a smallish ground where they had to be on a platform on a gantry with little protection. But the kit they had. Their top jackets were £250+.

How can that be? Our license money gets spent on such quality programming. I am suprised they have money to waste.

In reply to pyle:

The BBC does give a contribution to the cost of waterproof clothing for staff who have to be out in all conditions. But it is taxable (unless it has the BBC branding on it), only applies to certain staff, and is certainly nowhere near £250

In reply to Milesy:

I remember when I was working in the Health and Social Affairs Unit at Television Centre. A massive box of jackets, all reasonable makes - Berghaus, Sprayway Mountain Equipment etc - got dropped in and all the correspondents dived in on it like a pack of starved jackals.

By the time they, and their producers had finished, there was nowt left for desk jockeys like me...

Arcteryx seems to be the brand of choice these days, by the look of it.

In reply to pyle:

Bear in mind that the BBC contrive to make their web site (and this is only their web site) cost 72 MILLION POUNDS a year.

Compared to that, justifying Arcteryx jackets for their roving reporters so they don't get wet when they stray ten yards from the catering truck would be small beer.

In reply to niggle:


Try to keep accurate Niggle. What you meant to say was that it costs £72 million. With a following wind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/29/bbc.digitalmedia

I'm not sure about this catering truck business, mind you. Not unless they can manage a decent latte.

In reply to MHutch:

Blablublublablahgggg...

Sorry, I'm just picking my jaw up off the floor. A HUNDRED AND TEN MILLION POUNDS?!?! You must be joking!

In reply to niggle:

I'm stuffed if I can work out what they spend it on. And I used to work there.

Games for the Dr Who website, I imagine.

In reply to MHutch:

Goodness knows. There are web sites which are thousands of times the size of the BBC's which cost less to operate.

Can we please please please just have a little bit of accountability at the beeb? Please?

In reply to niggle:

Don't ask me. My W12 days are long gone. Write to Barry Took, or someone.

In reply to niggle:

In its defence, I've got to say, the currency, quality, breadth and depth of the BBC site is probably second to none. Is it worth £110m though.....hmmm, who knows.

In reply to pyle:

Shock horror people in a highly appearance focussed job spending money on clothes?

Am I the only one who isn't shocked to see a news reporter wearing an expensive jacket? You probably wouldn't comment if they were wearing a £1000 designer frock.

In reply to Fraser:


Hole in the Wall?

Eastenders?

Repeats?

More repeats?

A news service so biased and anti-government that their own reporters complain on air about the extreme bias of what they're forced to read out?

I'd really, really like to see this "quality" output you mention. All I ever see from the BBC is trash.

In reply to pyle:

It was very noticeable a few years back how it was all TNF kit. Not bad product placement if you can get it !

In reply to Reach>Talent:


oi stop dampening the artifical outrage.
we need to burn them, burn them.

In reply to niggle:


A lot of it undoubtedly is, but most of the decent stuff that appears on TV appears on BBC.

I'm thinking of the likes of Planet Earth, Wild China, The Natural World etc. When you see some of the utter garbage on the likes of The Discovery Channel, it makes you realise just how good the BBC can be.

In reply to niggle:

"All I ever see from the BBC is trash".

Apart from The Great Climb obviously.

In reply to Reach>Talent:


And when said job involves spending long periods standing outside in cold wet winter weather...

This thread seems to be a perfect non-controversy.

In reply to MJ:


That didn't come out of the web site budget (in fact even the iPlayer isn't included in the 100+ million).

In reply to niggle:

!

I saw that figure and thought 'oh, a good chunk of that must be iPlayer-related'.

Blimey.

In reply to niggle:

Apologies, thought you meant the BBC as a whole.

In reply to DougG:


TV is a dead medium. It's being replaced by media which are more fun, more informative, cheaper and just plain better.

It's good that some people find the BBC turd more to their liking than the other turds, but it is still a turd.

In reply to niggle:

in fairness thats only a portion of whats on there Niggle. I think you recently became a father? in which case you will soon discover the wealth of content available to your little one both in terms of education and game based activities.

In reply to feepole:

I know you'l be lucky to find a Kjus jacket (as used for the winter Olympics) for less than £500

In reply to MHutch:
..

Along side the usual north face. camera operators and DoP's and directors wear arcteryx, focus pullers and loaders wear north face and trainees wear whatever's cheap :P

In reply to fxceltic:

Actually the only thing the wee one really likes on TV is Kerrang!

In reply to niggle:


Planet Earth, "turd"?

Have you ever seen it?

In reply to niggle:



I thought we were talking about the BBC website?

In reply to niggle:

Also, I'd be genuinely interested to learn of some of the....

In reply to Fraser:

No no no this is a thread about wanting the BBC reporters to be naked.

In reply to niggle:
>

Oh, you were so close. We're discussing the BBC website. Try to keep up.

In reply to Mikkel:

Aaaah, in that case can I vote for Kate Silverton please?

In reply to niggle:

ha!.... sounds like you've turned into a pretty decent dad ;-

"Rooooooooooooooccckk , oh sorry I've pooped my nappy"

cough

In reply to niggle:


You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder about the BBC.

Could you mention some of the quality programming you see on ITV or C4, so we can make a guess as to what sort of programming you like?

'cos you pay for all the commercial channels, too, in advertsing costs, regardless of whether you have a tv or not.

You can choose not to pay for the BBC, by not having a TV - and thus no TV licence - but I still pay for tv advertsing and thus for programmes like X-Factor, and Pop Idol, and Coronation Street etc etc etc

In reply to Dominion:


Eh?

I don't pay for advertising, the companies whose products they are pay for the advertising. They only get money from me if I buy their products. Obviously.

In reply to Fraser:


Facebook (estimated running costs of around $25-$30 million a year for a site which serves at least 5 times as many pageviews as any BBC site)

Wikipedia (estimated running costs of $10 million for a site which is at least ten thousand times as large as any BBC site)

The list could go on and on. In fact I can only find a few sites - YouTube in particular - which actually cost more than the BBC's offering and all of them serve many times as many pageviews and in some cases hold thousands or even millions of times as much data as th BBC.

I'm a professional web developer and have been for 15 years and to be perfectly honest I have no idea how the BBC manage to make their sites cost that much. If someone asked me to find a way to make that content cost that much, I honestly don't think I could. I'm stumped.

In reply to niggle:

I admire your jejune sometimes.

In reply to niggle:


not exactly the best comparisons since both are primarily dependent on user submitted content.

In reply to niggle:

The licence fee is worth it for i-Player alone, which is part of their web content.

The BBC is something to really be proud of IMO.

In reply to niggle:

I don't think Facebook, Wikipedia, Ebay or any other site with almost totally user-generated content is a fair comparison.

Doesn't explain why the Beeb costs so much, but TBH you don't need to find examples of cheaper, bigger sites to make that point.

In reply to MHutch:


Actually that's why I chose them. Remember that most of the BBC's web content is generated and paid for by other departments too and not by the BBC's web team.

In reply to Eric the Red:


That's a good example: the BBC spent tens of millions of pounds developing iPlayer, which is basically just a Flash video player. YouTube and Vimeo managed to build their own players too but did it for a minisculae fraction of the cost and their players are better, higher quality, more flexible, easier to use and have more features.

In reply to pyle:

The BBC cameramen out in the rain in Saddleworth yesterday only had a Mountain Equipment jacket and a broken umbrella, at least the ITV cameraman's umbrella wasn't broken.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21913923@N03/4987257372/

I get a few cast-off waterproofs from a friend who works in the industy, none have been top of the range (unless he keeps hold of them for himself

In reply to niggle:

You have been saying this on here for about 4 years. I haven't really noticed it happening. What are these media that are replacing it? I'm not having a pop at you, I'm genuinely interested!

In reply to niggle:

Not really, no. There is some crossover, for example correspondent pieces via Newsgathering, but most online content in news is written by online journalists and subeditors, and web editors sitting in other departments fall under the New Media umbrella and budget.

In reply to niggle: facebook - free content, basically the same page repeated ad-nauseum

Wikipedia - free content - standardised content management pages repeated, questionable content on many of them

YouTube - Free content - (see wikipedia above)

Counting page accesses is a bit like comparing 'The Sun' to 'Great Expectations'

I'd be interested to see any sites you have developed that have the same turnover of content that the BBC site has, using professional reporters rather than a bloke with an iPhone.

Steve D

In reply to SteveD:

That's pretty much my point.

Sure, I'll struggle to find a site which costs less than the BBC's if you'll only even look at it if it's the same size, uses the same structire, pays its staff the same and generates its content the same way.

The point is that other sites provide better content cheaper. They don't do it the way the BBC does it, that's the whole point. The BBC is grossly overfunded and has zero accountability, but it's funded at the threat of fines and imprisonment. Of course everything they do costs a thousand times as much as anyone else's version and is half as good. What would you expect?

In reply to niggle:

Depends on your definition of 'better content', really. It's unlikely you'll find a news provider that generates so much of its own content in core national and international news, specialist areas such as health and science, as well as offering local content written specifically for dozens of UK regions and nations. Which is why even attempting to offer up other sites as examples of better value is going to be flawed.

Doesn't mean you can't ask whether specific aspects of BBC's web coverage are good value for money, or suggest that perhaps the BBC shouldn't be doing some of this stuff.

In reply to MHutch:


Again, and at the risk of repeating myself, that's the point.

Why is the BBC doing it that way if other companies create better, more accessible, less biased content by doing it a different way - AND it's cheaper?

All you're really saying is that the BBC does it that way because it does it that way. That's not a good reason to go on producing content so bad that even the body supposed to monitor the BBC has to tell them to improve.

In reply to niggle:

Which content is so bad that the Trust has told them to improve it?

In reply to niggle: I'm afraid we are going to have to disagree on the quality of the content on the relative sites.


Steve D

In reply to SteveD:

you mean you dont you use facebook as the go to site for world news?

In reply to MHutch:

Well in the last few years they've been told to improve their coverage for the regions other than london, to provide more in Scotland, to provide more that's actually Scottish, to provide better daytime TV... in fact which bits of the BBC's content are up to scratch?

Doctor Who maybe?

In reply to Fraser:

I agree, Licence fee is £145. that's about £12 a month. For that you would get a pretty basic package from sky or some other provider. Crapy original programing compared to the BBC and a pretty much constant stream of advertising. I know what i prefer.
In my opinion the BBC is still the best all round broadcaster in the world and the licence fee is preety good value.

There is a constant campaign against the BBC my Murdochs rags and TV interests simply because he can't own the BBC.

In reply to niggle:

Let's stick to web specifics. That's what we're actually talking about.

In reply to dissonance:

"you mean you dont you use facebook as the go to site for world news"?

Don't be so daft. I, like everyone else, uses UKC for that

In reply to pyle:
People on the telly wearing fancy expensive clothes? Surely not.

I went to see 'Touching the Void' at the cinema when it opened in Sheffield; there were a lot of people wearing very expensive outdoor clothes to go see a film in the middle of town. You don't have to work for the BBC to be a fashion victim.

In reply to niggle:

Are you claiming that you buy absolutely no products that profit companies that advertise on television?

In reply to deepsoup:


Just a Bhoy from on here says he saw someone in the cinema sipping water from a bloody Sigg bottle!!

In reply to Blue Straggler:


Of course I buy the products.

I choose which products to buy and hence which advertising I pay for. I don't get that choice with the BBC and neither do you. I have to pay and then they do whatever they like with the money.

In reply to deepsoup:

"there were a lot of people wearing very expensive outdoor clothes to go see a film in the middle of town".

Is the rain and cold different in town centres?

In reply to niggle:

I find your grasp on the economics of advertising quite charming.

In reply to MJ:


yup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

In reply to DougG:
Ha ha, priceless. :O)

In reply to dissonance:

Fair enough, but it still gets cold and wet!!!

In reply to The New NickB:

Well, I kind of work in design and advertising so I've got a reasonable grasp of how it all works, yeah.

In reply to niggle:

You have to pay for Sky too. It's probably more expensive then the beeb and it's original programming is poor in comparison and you are exposed to a constant stream of adverts.

Do you really want to do away with the BBC to be replaced by more advertising and rubbish?

In reply to niggle:

The irony has not escaped me.

In reply to doz generale:


In comparison to what?

"Hole in the Wall"?

pfffffrt.

For my monthly subscription to sky I get hundred of times as much content as the BBC provides. Sure, some of it isn't to my taste. But someone's watching it.

In reply to niggle:

What things do you like on Sky? I must admit I miss Futurama, but aside from that, and the occasional thing on Discovery I might like, I'm struggling.

In reply to The New NickB:

I must admit to having a little wry smile on my face at that.

Steve D

In reply to niggle:

Dont be so sure. Alot of it is bought BBC or C4 programming or bought US programming. There is hardly any original programing on UK satalite channels.

Do you not think that BBC has the edge on news & current afairs, documentaries and natural history programming?
Not to mention news and documentaries on radio.

In reply to pyle:

Their top jackets were £250+.

Surely the jackets would be a form of sponsorship not bought by the BBC?

I do not know if this is the case but surely to cost of TNF etc giving a a few jackets out for free is beneficial as how many ppl watch the morning weather for example on BBC?? pretty good advertising if you ask me.

If this is the case the manufacturer would give them the top jacket and not some boil in the bag jacket the reporters wouldnt want to wear?

In reply to MHutch:

Beat me to it - you're comparing apples and elephants, which is neither fair nor appropriate.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

>> Perhaps I should have explained that I was talking about the quality of outdoor gear that any winter climber would love to have. Not tweeds etc.
They had the whole winter climbing kit, gloves, hats etc. However, on that freezing gantry they probably needed it.
What I don't get is the reporter doing on a street report, who wear the heavy hill jackets but keep their heads bare so that the viewers recognise them. Or does the Beeb insist that they are seen full face?

In reply to DougG:



true......... place was a fleece fest. It was in the top floor of the UCI in Glasgow, I took the lift, not hard core enough for the stairs.

Back to the OP as this web stuff bores me..... Why shouldn't employees in foul conditions get decent PPE? Fck standing in the pishin' rain for 4 hours in a pac-a-mac, not what they are paid for.

In reply to doz generale:


What you see at the cinema is "bought" content. What you see at the theatre is "bought" content. It's not relevant who makes it.


Natural history, sure. It's amazing what you can do with an effectively unlimited budget and an audience who have to pay to stay out of prison.

Current affairs? The BBC makes Fox News look unbiased. Twice in the last two weeks their own breakfast presenters have commented on the fact that in any given "news" piece they give thirty seconds air time to the government spokesperson immediately followed by two minutes of anti-government vox pop, a minute for the opposition minister and two minutes to an anti-government union rep.

Okay, we get it. The BBC's producers don't like the coalition. But they could at least pretend to be professional and unbiased.

In reply to niggle:

I've just spent 6 weeks in NZ. All of their tv has adverts and many more than we do even on commercial channels. It's awful, the content is tripe. The BBC is brilliant and compared to some other things I spend £12 a month on, quite possibly the best value 'product' I buy.

For £12 a month I get all the radio, good quality tv and internet content. There is tripe yes, but for every Chris Moyles there is a 6Music, for every 'Hole in the Wall' there is a Planet Earth. For every glib news story on the internet there is iPlayer.

Frankly, you moan a lot.

How much is Spotify? £10 a month I think for just music!

And again:


In reply to niggle:

You have been saying this on here for about 4 years. I haven't really noticed it happening. What are these media that are replacing it? I'm not having a pop at you, I'm genuinely interested!

In reply to niggle:


And most people have no choice at all about paying for tv advertising, because they either drive a car, or shop at a shop that sells advertised products. So there is always a markup on pretty much everything you buy.

And that markup exists whether you have a TV or not.

As I said, you can choose not to have a TV, and a TV license. It's very difficult not to pay for advertising.

Plus having ad breaks every 12 minutes during the recent Marple on ITV1 (I was at my mum's house, so I watched that) was very irritating.

I wonder about the future of tv advertsing, because I suspect a lot of people can now record things and also play back whilst still recording. So you just start watching a 2 hour program on ITV about 30 minutes later than it's scheduled start, and you can fast forward through the adverts, and not watch them. But you are still paying for them, of course, even though most people are not seeing them.

That's a business model that is doomed to fail soon. Or will there be legislation to prevent "tv recorders" from fast forwarding through adverts? The technology has existed for a long time to pause the recording of programs when the adverts start, but the tv channels stopped that dead in it's tracks...

||-)

In reply to niggle:
Why do you keep posting this? I have to pay for my shopping and guess what, if I didn't I'd go to prison. So therefor I pay for my shopping due to threat of going to prison. Right. I don't see your point. No one is forcing you to have a TV license just as no one forces me to BUY that pair of jeans.

Fox news isn't a news channel, it's entertainment. Have you watched it? Have you seen bill O'Reilly. Are you joking here? The BBC has pops at all party's in general. I don't really have a political allignment and therefore don't feel victimised everytime the opposition or the goverment get more/less coverage.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Well they are actually, even for people like me who only spend a couple of months a year in our house in England and use a satellite dish to capture programs most of the time as the normal TV aerial reception for which we are forced to pay is so bad... A bit like the BBC in general which has really gone down hill these days... (especially it's news service BTW). It's downright robbery to make everybody pay for the BBC when many never even watch it.