But there are no universally watched programmes, I don't see why you are making that point?
And anyway, the BBC should not be making ratings its primary (not that important word) goal. It should be broadening its appeal, by broadening the genres that it covers, and increasing the quality and diversity of its output 9whilst still maintaining a general popularity). An increasingly difficult function..
And if it stops showing most sports, then a sizeable chunk of the population stop watching the BBC altogether.
For me the main issue is whether or not the sport remains on FTA TV. If it will, then there's no problem with the BBC missing out. It is madness for the BBC to be bidding against the other FTA channels. It's also worth bearing in mind that sport is taking on an increased importance for the commercial FTA channels because it is largely immune to being taped so the ads can be skipped, which happens with most other TV programmes.
But there are no universally watched programmes, I don't see why you are making that point?
Because, although I did not claim anything about universality, and although sport (or at least, some types of sport) are amongst the most-watched things on TV, there are still a fair number (many even) who don't watch, or are simply not interested. And what with "sport" being such a wide category (including amateur and professional, national and international), there will be some fans of one televised sport who have no interest in many other televised sports.
And if it stops showing most sports, then a sizeable chunk of the population stop watching the BBC altogether.
Hardly, as you say that as if this sizeable chunk only watch sport on the BBC. Yes, there might be a small number (and a virtual prize off the top shelf to the first poster here to claim that distinction, as I am sure that there will be at least one), but I'll wager that many others watch other things on there as well. after all, the BBC should be catering for a wide range of tastes, and a wide range of ages.
As a side issue, and I am just pointing this out, there have been posts in Broadcasting in the past asking whether a sport such as F1 belongs on the BBC, the posters saying that the race cars are simply mobile billboards, and the tracks carry so much sponsorship that the BBC should not be showing it. That sentiment can be applied to more and more sports of course. And some sports are now much more suited to a commercial broadcaster, where commercial tie-ins are being seen as increasingly lucrative.
I'm not sure what Fox means by that. I'm pretty sure Match of the Day only showed highlights of one or two matches per show in his BBC days.
Possibly it's a veiled criticism of Match of the Day's quality. Certainly the urgency and incisiveness of the punditry is not what it once was....
Seems to me that Match of the Day has long been considered the jewel in the crown of the BBC's sports output. But for me, it's massively overpriced considering it is only a highlights show, and a highlights show undercut by Sky's delayed live coverage. I would have thought the BBC would have adopted ITV's policy of focusing on good quality live football.
The BBC's tactic, in a nutshell, is to prioritise mass audience prime-time programming. The BBC's thinking is that this will maintain maximum public support for the BBC and its funding model.
BUT:
It is Government / Parliament that renews the Charter and sets the Licence Fee (!)
And what do the politicians think is more important for the BBC?
Politicians are much less likely to be interested in mass audience prime-time programming. And much more likely to be shocked when they hear the BBC is no longer showing the Grand National and Royal Ascot.
So the BBC is playing a very dangerous game.
And a certain group of politicians (you know who) is very likely to think that mass audience prime-time programming does not need and should not be funded publicly. So if they win the next GE outright (probably unlikely but certainly possible) then the BBC, as we know it, will have put itself in grave danger.
You can't really blame the BBC here, this has been - rather - forced on them to a large extent.
Now they have to walk the tightrope of securing SOME attractive content, and wasting loads on expensive live broadcasts that nobody really watches.
I'm not sure what Fox means by that. I'm pretty sure Match of the Day only showed highlights of one or two matches per show in his BBC days.
Quite, MOTD i much better than it used to be, there's MOTD2 and MOTD3 now as well.
I think he's guilty of "rose-tinted" spectacles here. Either that or he's trying to stir up an argument.
But silly statements don't really help, they just feed the minds of people who don't watch the output - and the wrong desicions will be reached as they pile the pressure on.
For me the main issue is whether or not the sport remains on FTA TV. If it will, then there's no problem with the BBC missing out. It is madness for the BBC to be bidding against the other FTA channels. It's also worth bearing in mind that sport is taking on an increased importance for the commercial FTA channels because it is largely immune to being taped so the ads can be skipped, which happens with most other TV programmes.
I'm not sure what Fox means by that. I'm pretty sure Match of the Day only showed highlights of one or two matches per show in his BBC days.
I've read/heard quite a lot from Paul Fox over the decades- I think he's referring to there being not enough action and too much chat and highlights being just major incidents rather a proper representation of how a match went.
I've favoured other BBC executives (eg Bryan Cowgill, Huw Wheldon) over Paul Fox, but he was right up there with the best of them and his leaving the BBC (for a second time)- he was brought in as Managing Director of TV to 'smooth things over', when Michael Grade and then, more especially, Bill Cotton decided to leave, following the arrival of John Birt as Deputy DG- 'coincided' with a significant change in the balance of the programming output.
I've read/heard quite a lot from Paul Fox over the decades- I think he's referring to there being not enough action and too much chat and highlights being just major incidents rather a proper representation of how a match went.
There was a brief statement somewhere (apologies, can't remember where so no link) that BBC MOTD last Saturday's first match (ie the match regarded as the first priority for viewers) Chelsea v Wigan had under 4 minutes of highlights shown.
I can't confirm this - I didn't time it.
At first glance it seems like this stat must be wrong but on second thoughts it may not be IF it is excluding replays - ie the actual highlights cut may have lasted say between 6 and 7 minutes but 3 minutes could have been replays. There were several highly controversial incidents so the ratio of replays : action would have been high.
If it is correct it is still pretty astonishing and would very much support the above point.
There was a brief statement somewhere (apologies, can't remember where so no link) that BBC MOTD last Saturday's first match (ie the match regarded as the first priority for viewers) Chelsea v Wigan had under 4 minutes of highlights shown.
I can't confirm this - I didn't time it.
At first glance it seems like this stat must be wrong but on second thoughts it may not be IF it is excluding replays - ie the actual highlights cut may have lasted say between 6 and 7 minutes but 3 minutes could have been replays. There were several highly controversial incidents so the ratio of replays : action would have been high.
If it is correct it is still pretty astonishing and would very much support the above point.
Even if that's true, it should be remembered that MOTD in the "old days" would have had NO highlights at all if it hadn't have been a featured match.
And, it wasn't that long ago that all the non-featured matches got was the goals.
The BBC can't and won't have sports that have priced themselves away from the BBC, and those sports get the viewing £££'s virtually guaranteed from subscribers.
And by "sports" I mean football, and Premierleague football in particular.
There are plenty of other sports which wouldn't get the subscriber £££'s but can be "bought" cheaply, and to the benefit of the BBC and of the sport. In the Olympics EVERY sport is covered, but how often on live BBCTV do you see those sports covered outside the Olympics?
World and European volleyball, table-tennis, handball, curling, hockey, badminton etc etc would fill hours of air-time for very little - for events outside the UK the BBC only has to buy the feed - and could be on the red-button so the precious air-time on 1 and 2 can still be filled with cowboy makeover antique cookery programmes.
Because, although I did not claim anything about universality, and although sport (or at least, some types of sport) are amongst the most-watched things on TV, there are still a fair number (many even) who don't watch, or are simply not interested. And what with "sport" being such a wide category (including amateur and professional, national and international), there will be some fans of one televised sport who have no interest in many other televised sports.
you still aren't making any sense
As a side issue, and I am just pointing this out, there have been posts in Broadcasting in the past asking whether a sport such as F1 belongs on the BBC, the posters saying that the race cars are simply mobile billboards, and the tracks carry so much sponsorship that the BBC should not be showing it. That sentiment can be applied to more and more sports of course. And some sports are now much more suited to a commercial broadcaster, where commercial tie-ins are being seen as increasingly lucrative.
As I said, I mention that in passing.
you aren't mentioning it in passing so why say that? literally have no idea what you are jabbering on about, really don't.
You can't really blame the BBC here, this has been - rather - forced on them to a large extent.
to an extent but the BBC are clearly now using it as an excuse to pretty much stop doing sport. even the rights they do hold they don't exploit properly.
to an extent but the BBC are clearly now using it as an excuse to pretty much stop doing sport. even the rights they do hold they don't exploit properly.
They were desperate to hang on to F1, and MOTD too.
They're having to concentrate resources, but they certainly don't want to stop doing sport.
Some sports (or some sporting events) do get high viewing figures *FA Cup Final, World Cup final, Grand National etc)
Some people, even many people, don't like sport.
The term "sport" covers many different types of event, from football (premiership, championship), to hockey, F1, rallying, table tennis, badminton, squash, athletics, shooting, fencing, cricket, rugby (union and league), ice hockey, speedway, archery, horse racing, 3-day eventing, show jumping, ice skating, swimming, diving, gymnastics.... (you should get the picture). On that basis very few sports fans will be interested in more than a handful of those sports., and quite possibly there will be many who are only interested in one sport.
So of course, when clumped together, nowadays sport is pretty much up there as one of the most watched things on tv (live sport especially). But not many individual sports are the most watched things on TV.
you aren't mentioning it in passing
Er, yes I am, it is in passing because it has no direct relevance to the earlier part of my reply, but has some relevance to the main discussion in the thread, and I was hoping that you or any other poster might find it an interesting point to add to the discussion. But never mind, seeds on stoney ground ......
so why say that?
Er, to expand the discussion, and to highlight the point that has been made before that some sports are becoming increasingly difficult for the BBC to cover and stay within the terms of its Charter obligations and Editorial Guidelines regarding sponsorship and logos within programmes. And where the rights holders are starting to look at other commercial tie-ins, which makes it even more difficult for the BBC to compete for those rights.
literally have no idea what you are jabbering on about, really don't.
So simply ignore it then rather than posting a rather aggressive-looking response to it. It won't offend me if you or any other poster chooses to ignore it now either.
But not many individual sports are the most watched things on TV.
Yes they are, I admit this is because other genres on tv don't put in the viewers like they did before but that dosn't change the facts, the big UK sports when shown on FTA tv pull in big viewing figures.
Er, to expand the discussion, and to highlight the point that has been made before that some sports are becoming increasingly difficult for the BBC to cover and stay within the terms of its Charter obligations and Editorial Guidelines regarding sponsorship and logos within programmes.
What do you mean "increasingly difficult"? What sports are suffering from this? What "editorial guidelines"? If anything covering sport is easier for the BBC than it was 20-30 years ago when plenty of sports had various tobacco/alcohol companies as their main sponsors.
And where the rights holders are starting to look at other commercial tie-ins
Examples please because I have no idea what you mean.
Yes they are, I admit this is because other genres on tv don't put in the viewers like they did before but that dosn't change the facts, the big UK sports when shown on FTA tv pull in big viewing figures.
I did say "not many". Boy, this is becoming increasingly difficult, I am going to leave you and your abrupt posting to it.
BTW BBC Editorial Guidelines for commercial services and product prominence:
Sir Paul conveniently forgets that in his day the BBC only paid a fraction of what they do now for sports rights and operated a cartel with ITV over live football. Let's just remind ourselves of the sports the BBC still has
Olympic Games 2012/16
Commonwealth Games
Euro 2012 football
MOTD (almost certain to be extended to 2017)
World Cup football 2014
Boat Race
Six Nations rugby
Open golf
Wimbledon/Queen's Club (until 2017)
Scottish FA Cup final
Sir Paul conveniently forgets that in his day the BBC only paid a fraction of what they do now for sports rights and operated a cartel with ITV over live football. Let's just remind ourselves of the sports the BBC still has
Olympic Games 2012/16
Commonwealth Games
Euro 2012 football
MOTD (almost certain to be extended to 2017)
World Cup football 2014
Boat Race
Six Nations rugby
Open golf
Wimbledon/Queen's Club (until 2017)
Scottish FA Cup final
You forgot the World Athletics Championships, 2015 and 2017
Indeed, the cupboard is bare
well it is if that list does not contain the sport that you want to watch, but there is still sport there going forward (and, judging by some DS threads that pop up on a regular basis, too much for some, especially at the weekend).
Kinda makes things harder for them as wasn't the cost of the sport OBs cross-subsidised by other series and formats that were sold abroad (like all the drama, That's Life etc)?
Yes - the Shiny Floor Shows are cheaper in that respect - but weren't programmes like Challenge Anneka *better*?
Something to be said for running OBs, playout etc in-house...
Comments
BBC in Need
But there are no universally watched programmes, I don't see why you are making that point?
And if it stops showing most sports, then a sizeable chunk of the population stop watching the BBC altogether.
Hardly, as you say that as if this sizeable chunk only watch sport on the BBC. Yes, there might be a small number (and a virtual prize off the top shelf to the first poster here to claim that distinction, as I am sure that there will be at least one), but I'll wager that many others watch other things on there as well. after all, the BBC should be catering for a wide range of tastes, and a wide range of ages.
As a side issue, and I am just pointing this out, there have been posts in Broadcasting in the past asking whether a sport such as F1 belongs on the BBC, the posters saying that the race cars are simply mobile billboards, and the tracks carry so much sponsorship that the BBC should not be showing it. That sentiment can be applied to more and more sports of course. And some sports are now much more suited to a commercial broadcaster, where commercial tie-ins are being seen as increasingly lucrative.
As I said, I mention that in passing.
Possibly it's a veiled criticism of Match of the Day's quality. Certainly the urgency and incisiveness of the punditry is not what it once was....
Seems to me that Match of the Day has long been considered the jewel in the crown of the BBC's sports output. But for me, it's massively overpriced considering it is only a highlights show, and a highlights show undercut by Sky's delayed live coverage. I would have thought the BBC would have adopted ITV's policy of focusing on good quality live football.
You can't really blame the BBC here, this has been - rather - forced on them to a large extent.
Now they have to walk the tightrope of securing SOME attractive content, and wasting loads on expensive live broadcasts that nobody really watches.
Quite, MOTD i much better than it used to be, there's MOTD2 and MOTD3 now as well.
I think he's guilty of "rose-tinted" spectacles here. Either that or he's trying to stir up an argument.
But silly statements don't really help, they just feed the minds of people who don't watch the output - and the wrong desicions will be reached as they pile the pressure on.
Diddums to the commercial broadcasters.....
They're not having that hard a time of it..
I've read/heard quite a lot from Paul Fox over the decades- I think he's referring to there being not enough action and too much chat and highlights being just major incidents rather a proper representation of how a match went.
I've favoured other BBC executives (eg Bryan Cowgill, Huw Wheldon) over Paul Fox, but he was right up there with the best of them and his leaving the BBC (for a second time)- he was brought in as Managing Director of TV to 'smooth things over', when Michael Grade and then, more especially, Bill Cotton decided to leave, following the arrival of John Birt as Deputy DG- 'coincided' with a significant change in the balance of the programming output.
There was a brief statement somewhere (apologies, can't remember where so no link) that BBC MOTD last Saturday's first match (ie the match regarded as the first priority for viewers) Chelsea v Wigan had under 4 minutes of highlights shown.
I can't confirm this - I didn't time it.
At first glance it seems like this stat must be wrong but on second thoughts it may not be IF it is excluding replays - ie the actual highlights cut may have lasted say between 6 and 7 minutes but 3 minutes could have been replays. There were several highly controversial incidents so the ratio of replays : action would have been high.
If it is correct it is still pretty astonishing and would very much support the above point.
Even if that's true, it should be remembered that MOTD in the "old days" would have had NO highlights at all if it hadn't have been a featured match.
And, it wasn't that long ago that all the non-featured matches got was the goals.
And by "sports" I mean football, and Premierleague football in particular.
There are plenty of other sports which wouldn't get the subscriber £££'s but can be "bought" cheaply, and to the benefit of the BBC and of the sport. In the Olympics EVERY sport is covered, but how often on live BBCTV do you see those sports covered outside the Olympics?
World and European volleyball, table-tennis, handball, curling, hockey, badminton etc etc would fill hours of air-time for very little - for events outside the UK the BBC only has to buy the feed - and could be on the red-button so the precious air-time on 1 and 2 can still be filled with cowboy makeover antique cookery programmes.
you still aren't making any sense
you aren't mentioning it in passing so why say that? literally have no idea what you are jabbering on about, really don't.
to an extent but the BBC are clearly now using it as an excuse to pretty much stop doing sport. even the rights they do hold they don't exploit properly.
But you have to concede Sir Paul Fox has a point and isn't just making things up.
They were desperate to hang on to F1, and MOTD too.
They're having to concentrate resources, but they certainly don't want to stop doing sport.
I think he is exagerrating somewhat in order to get a reaction.
Some sports (or some sporting events) do get high viewing figures *FA Cup Final, World Cup final, Grand National etc)
Some people, even many people, don't like sport.
The term "sport" covers many different types of event, from football (premiership, championship), to hockey, F1, rallying, table tennis, badminton, squash, athletics, shooting, fencing, cricket, rugby (union and league), ice hockey, speedway, archery, horse racing, 3-day eventing, show jumping, ice skating, swimming, diving, gymnastics.... (you should get the picture). On that basis very few sports fans will be interested in more than a handful of those sports., and quite possibly there will be many who are only interested in one sport.
So of course, when clumped together, nowadays sport is pretty much up there as one of the most watched things on tv (live sport especially). But not many individual sports are the most watched things on TV.
Er, yes I am, it is in passing because it has no direct relevance to the earlier part of my reply, but has some relevance to the main discussion in the thread, and I was hoping that you or any other poster might find it an interesting point to add to the discussion. But never mind, seeds on stoney ground ......
Er, to expand the discussion, and to highlight the point that has been made before that some sports are becoming increasingly difficult for the BBC to cover and stay within the terms of its Charter obligations and Editorial Guidelines regarding sponsorship and logos within programmes. And where the rights holders are starting to look at other commercial tie-ins, which makes it even more difficult for the BBC to compete for those rights.
So simply ignore it then rather than posting a rather aggressive-looking response to it. It won't offend me if you or any other poster chooses to ignore it now either.
Yes they are, I admit this is because other genres on tv don't put in the viewers like they did before but that dosn't change the facts, the big UK sports when shown on FTA tv pull in big viewing figures.
What do you mean "increasingly difficult"? What sports are suffering from this? What "editorial guidelines"? If anything covering sport is easier for the BBC than it was 20-30 years ago when plenty of sports had various tobacco/alcohol companies as their main sponsors.
Examples please because I have no idea what you mean.
BTW BBC Editorial Guidelines for commercial services and product prominence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-commercial-services-product-prominence
Olympic Games 2012/16
Commonwealth Games
Euro 2012 football
MOTD (almost certain to be extended to 2017)
World Cup football 2014
Boat Race
Six Nations rugby
Open golf
Wimbledon/Queen's Club (until 2017)
Scottish FA Cup final
Indeed, the cupboard is bare
well it is if that list does not contain the sport that you want to watch, but there is still sport there going forward (and, judging by some DS threads that pop up on a regular basis, too much for some, especially at the weekend).
Yes - the Shiny Floor Shows are cheaper in that respect - but weren't programmes like Challenge Anneka *better*?
Something to be said for running OBs, playout etc in-house...