The BBC has already "stripped" a lot of management over the years, there is a limit to how far you can remove management in any organisation before it affects either output, performance, quality, or some other area (such as health and safety*, human resources, complaints, rights management**)..
Whilst you are correct in what you say, it still does seem that there are maybe two or three layers of unnecessary management, which not only costs money, it makes decision-making more protracted (and therefore more costly). Sometime, this can also lead to a situation where it is far easier to pass a decision (or problem) along the management chain or simply not take any risk in addressing it, expecting (or hoping) that someone else will take the decision and carry the can (or passing it on because they are uncertain as to where the responsibility really lies).
The irony, is that the top heavy management problem could have been addressed years ago. It was only recognised when the government turned off the tap on the "horn of plenty."
Historically, the BBC has been run like a private club, drawing a lot of people from the "right" backgrounds and universities and "friends of the band."
The BBC has already "stripped" a lot of management over the years, there is a limit to how far you can remove management in any organisation before it affects either output, performance, quality, or some other area (such as health and safety*, human resources, complaints, rights management**).
For example the police cuts we were assured would not affect front line policing, just the excess of back room staff.
Of course the result of removing the specialist support stuff, did have an affect on front line staff - who were now doing paperwork and other jobs that used to be done by specialist (but lower paid) staff, often far more slowly as their skill set is different (it's much faster and cheaper to employ a proper typist who can do say 60+wpm to fill in a form than a higher paid general officer who might struggle at 20wpm).
IIRC the "Controllers" are effectively the top management for the channels, so are fairly important as they are (from memory) in overall charge of the day to day running of the channels and planning for the future (and I think in the case of the BBC making sure that the channel/station sticks to it's general area of programming).
Pretty much every radio and TV station in the world has a "controller" or equivalent.
*A reasonably important area when your organisation is sending people out to cover wars.
**A very important thing when dealing with IP.
The BBC must have had more reviews, re-organisations etc than just about any other organisation but some people always want more and will then complain about consultants!.
There is a lot of rubbish talked about layers of management. One of our bosses came back from a management meeting full of it and said they had been told that the local supermarket chain were so efficient that the girl on the checkout reported direct to the store manager. One of my colleagues asked about this next time he was there. The checkout girl laughed, there were lots of layers of management between her and the manager.
The police have the advantage of being able to manipulate crime figures to whatever they want them to be.
The irony, is that the top heavy management problem could have been addressed years ago. It was only recognised when the government turned off the tap on the "horn of plenty."
Historically, the BBC has been run like a private club, drawing a lot of people from the "right" backgrounds and universities and "friends of the band."
The BBC must have had more reviews, re-organisations etc than just about any other organisation but some people always want more and will then complain about consultants!.
There is a lot of rubbish talked about layers of management. One of our bosses came back from a management meeting full of it and said they had been told that the local supermarket chain were so efficient that the girl on the checkout reported direct to the store manager. One of my colleagues asked about this next time he was there. The checkout girl laughed, there were lots of layers of management between her and the manager.
The police have the advantage of being able to manipulate crime figures to whatever they want them to be.
Not strictly true.
Walk into your local M&S and count the number of staff on the floor in the food section.
Stock arrives late afternoon/early morning and the displays filled, by part-time staff. Then they'll go home. Then that's it for the rest of the day.
No departmental managers. Occasionally there may be a bit of stock that wouldn't go on first thing, so a couple of staff might attend to that late on, but they'll likely come off the checkouts. They don't even have check-out supervisors.
Product unavailable?
Try asking someone (if you can find anybody) if there's any more "out the back," you'll be out of luck. There's little or no "back" as they get daily deliveries.
I was referring to how Victoria Derbyshire survives like Alan Fletcher and Jackie Woodburne have on Neighbours - who's characters are as tired as Noel Edmonds and his game show. Then you realise she's married to a BBC producer Mark Sandell and Alan Fletcher is married to Jennifer Hansen, a former newsreader for Channel Ten, which broadcasts her husband's show (and does now on it's digital channel).
(Clearly VD and JH have some kiss-and-tell on Channel Ten/BBC bosses, otherwise Alan would've been axed by now and VD would've been long gone after 5Live)
This is the second thread in which you have mentioned this and it's no more relevant to this one than the other. What is your problem with Neighbours and Alan Fletcher?
Actually, never mind. I don't really care. I just think making up stuff like this is pathetic.
This is the second thread in which you have mentioned this and it's no more relevant to this one than the other. What is your problem with Neighbours and Alan Fletcher?
Actually, never mind. I don't really care. I just think making up stuff like this is pathetic.
With the added bonus of it being factually accurate
The trouble with you "reading a lot about TV" as you say you do and not working in the industry, your facts are often suspect as it isn't first hand experience. So it's often just your perception.
You shouldn't believe everything you read.
Should I add a smiley?
No that'd be a bit childish.
The trouble with you "reading a lot about TV" as you say you do and not working in the industry, your facts are often suspect as it isn't first hand experience. So it's often just your perception.
If they're facts then they can't be suspect, can they?!
You shouldn't believe everything you read.
I tend to take things that people post at face value. Must be nice for you to be able to know exactly what is and isn't accurate when someone posts it!
Should I add a smiley? No that'd be a bit childish.
No, it would be forum netiquette to help in the interpretation of the written word with no context.
If they're facts then they can't be suspect, can they?!
I tend to take things that people post at face value. Must be nice for you to be able to know exactly what is and isn't accurate when someone posts it!
No, it would be forum netiquette to help in the interpretation of the written word with no context.
Whenever you start talking about your "facts," it always makes me smile.
I posted a comment on BBC repeats a while back and pointed out that on a particular day, there were 22 repeats across BBC1 and 2.
You rushed in in your (nightly) usual way to "prove" I was wrong and as evidence took the trouble to cut and past the whole schedule for BBC 1 and 2.
Unfortunately, in your haste to contradict me, you chose the wrong day!
So that's how good are your facts.
We all had a laugh about that one.
Whenever you start talking about your "facts," it always makes me smile.
I posted a comment on BBC repeats a while back and pointed out that on a particular day, there were 22 repeats across BBC1 and 2.
You rushed in in your (nightly) usual way to "prove" I was wrong and as evidence took the trouble to cut and past the whole schedule for BBC 1 and 2.
Unfortunately, in your haste to contradict me, you chose the wrong day!
So that's how good are your facts.
We all had a laugh about that one.
Okay. That's one example in my 10+ years on this forum. Got any others; more recent? Erm... no! That's why you keep mentioning that one every time.
Now, tell me again how the journalists employed by the BBC for their News channel don't do any journalistic work and are just employed to read an autocue.
Okay. That's one example in my 10+ years on this forum. Got any others; more recent? Erm... no! That's why you keep mentioning that one every time.
Now, tell me again how the journalists employed by the BBC for their News channel don't do any journalistic work and are just employed to read an autocue.
II've only recently told you that they don't do everything you've suggested they do.
Tell me again how Fiona Bruce, trawls daily the streets of the world looking for stories, writes them all up, decides the running order, searches for video footage, decides on the questions to ask contributing experts, checks with legal, then types out the auto-cue and then after spending two minutes in "wardrobe, hair and makeup," about all the time she'd have left, before presenting the news.
Meanwhile the whole of the BBC news staff including the editor, who should actually be responsible for the entire content, either play video games on their computers or spend their time down the pub.
Of course she's paid a lot of money for all this and not because she's seen as ,"the face of the BBC" and the reason why so many people watch her.
II've only recently told you that they don't do everything you've suggested they do.
Tell me again how Fiona Bruce, trawls daily the streets of the world looking for stories, writes them all up, decides the running order, searches for video footage, decides on the questions to ask contributing experts, checks with legal, then types out the auto-cue and then after spending two minutes in "wardrobe, hair and makeup," about all the time she'd have left, before presenting the news. .
As i have suggested to you before you can actually write to the BBC and ask to visit the newsroom, then you'll see what she - and the other staff - actually do.
I guarentee it will blow your prejudice apart!
Of course, you won't as you wouldn't like to open your mind, just preferring to bluster on here......
As i have suggested to you before you can actually write to the BBC and ask to visit the newsroom, then you'll see what she - and the other staff - actually do.
I guarentee it will blow your prejudice apart!
Of course, you won't as you wouldn't like to open your mind, just preferring to bluster on here......
Maybe I can assist the ill informed management specialist, whose ignorance is unlimited...
Like other newsreaders, she does not merely speak others’ words like an actor. She arrives five hours before the six o’clock bulletin, attends meetings to discuss the running order, helps decide a story’s angle, writes her own links.
"What we try to do with the ten is create a record for the day of what’s happening in the world.” She enjoys working in a team and prefers off-screen newsgathering “by a country mile” to appearing on air. Viewers who watch her calm delivery may not realise how busy she is: during film segments she’s constantly tinkering with her script.
No, but she does a lot more than you think she does.
You have incorrect thoughts, and you can't open your mind in case you are wrong.....
Her main function is to attract people to watch the BBC news rather than the news on any other channel.
How much input these people have in the compilation of the bulletins is of far lesser importance than their primary function.
They aren't paid big money for their journalistic skills.
Try and "open your mind" to that unassailable fact.
Her main function is to attract people to watch the BBC news rather than the news on any other channel.
How much input these people have in the compilation of the bulletins is of far lesser importance than their primary function.
They aren't paid big money for their journalistic skills.
Try and "open your mind" to that unassailable fact.
How many BBC news readers have you employed or managed in your illustrious career in brodcasting?
How many BBC news readers have you employed or managed in your illustrious career in brodcasting?
None, I've never been in "brodcasting."
But it's a question of applying a bit of common sense.
I've said on previous occasions that they will be involved, in the way sub-editors are in newspapers, but they can't do it all by themselves. If they could, there would be no point in having any news staff or an editor.
Now this seems far more important to some than it is to me, so I'll leave you with the thought that you've failed to alter my opinions.
They aren't paid big money for their journalistic skills.
.
No, they're paid for the journalistic skills, reliability, and ability to present the news in an enviroment where what they're talking about can change with little or no notice.
Oddly enough whilst there are a lot of people with journalistic skills, a good amount with the ability to present stuff to camera, and a good amount who can adjust to things changing rapidly, the number who can do all of the above live is fairly low, and tends to take a long time to build up those skills.
A lot of the "presenters" doing the news also have fairly serious qualifications in fields related to the one or more aspect of the news.
For example a number of the news team have things like qualifications in finance, history, the culture of other countries, fluency in at least one additional language etc.
I think the days of them just reading the news (if that was ever really the case) are long gone.
No, they're paid for the journalistic skills, reliability, and ability to present the news in an enviroment where what they're talking about can change with little or no notice.
Oddly enough whilst there are a lot of people with journalistic skills, a good amount with the ability to present stuff to camera, and a good amount who can adjust to things changing rapidly, the number who can do all of the above live is fairly low, and tends to take a long time to build up those skills.
A lot of the "presenters" doing the news also have fairly serious qualifications in fields related to the one or more aspect of the news.
For example a number of the news team have things like qualifications in finance, history, the culture of other countries, fluency in at least one additional language etc.
I think the days of them just reading the news (if that was ever really the case) are long gone.
You are, of course, correct.
However, this is one of Doghouses pet subjects, so expect bluster in return. Either that, he'll scarper off and return with it all in a later thread.
Comments
Whilst you are correct in what you say, it still does seem that there are maybe two or three layers of unnecessary management, which not only costs money, it makes decision-making more protracted (and therefore more costly). Sometime, this can also lead to a situation where it is far easier to pass a decision (or problem) along the management chain or simply not take any risk in addressing it, expecting (or hoping) that someone else will take the decision and carry the can (or passing it on because they are uncertain as to where the responsibility really lies).
Historically, the BBC has been run like a private club, drawing a lot of people from the "right" backgrounds and universities and "friends of the band."
The BBC must have had more reviews, re-organisations etc than just about any other organisation but some people always want more and will then complain about consultants!.
There is a lot of rubbish talked about layers of management. One of our bosses came back from a management meeting full of it and said they had been told that the local supermarket chain were so efficient that the girl on the checkout reported direct to the store manager. One of my colleagues asked about this next time he was there. The checkout girl laughed, there were lots of layers of management between her and the manager.
The police have the advantage of being able to manipulate crime figures to whatever they want them to be.
And all Jazz lovers, the gits.
In the late sixties and early seventies, the BBC hierarchy were jazz lovers, hence the Jazz 625 series and weekly programmes from Ronnie Scott's club.
Those running the BBC probably listened to a lot of jazz at Oxbridge.
Not strictly true.
Walk into your local M&S and count the number of staff on the floor in the food section.
Stock arrives late afternoon/early morning and the displays filled, by part-time staff. Then they'll go home. Then that's it for the rest of the day.
No departmental managers. Occasionally there may be a bit of stock that wouldn't go on first thing, so a couple of staff might attend to that late on, but they'll likely come off the checkouts. They don't even have check-out supervisors.
Product unavailable?
Try asking someone (if you can find anybody) if there's any more "out the back," you'll be out of luck. There's little or no "back" as they get daily deliveries.
Actually, never mind. I don't really care. I just think making up stuff like this is pathetic.
With the added bonus of it being factually accurate
The trouble with you "reading a lot about TV" as you say you do and not working in the industry, your facts are often suspect as it isn't first hand experience. So it's often just your perception.
You shouldn't believe everything you read.
Should I add a smiley?
No that'd be a bit childish.
I tend to take things that people post at face value. Must be nice for you to be able to know exactly what is and isn't accurate when someone posts it!
No, it would be forum netiquette to help in the interpretation of the written word with no context.
Whenever you start talking about your "facts," it always makes me smile.
I posted a comment on BBC repeats a while back and pointed out that on a particular day, there were 22 repeats across BBC1 and 2.
You rushed in in your (nightly) usual way to "prove" I was wrong and as evidence took the trouble to cut and past the whole schedule for BBC 1 and 2.
Unfortunately, in your haste to contradict me, you chose the wrong day!
So that's how good are your facts.
We all had a laugh about that one.
Now, tell me again how the journalists employed by the BBC for their News channel don't do any journalistic work and are just employed to read an autocue.
as I don't see the logic in suggesting that each service should not require its own overall editorial control -
As hard as I might try to explain such realities - through personal knowledge - such ignorance prevails here day -
which is huge shame.
Nice to talk to you again, but its sunny outside!
and whilst listening, read a little about Grange Park Opera and particularly Pimlico Opera
then you could write a few words about why you think this is having "too many fingers in too many pies"
because, you see, I think its exactly the kind of broadening of experience that the BBC should be involved in.
II've only recently told you that they don't do everything you've suggested they do.
Tell me again how Fiona Bruce, trawls daily the streets of the world looking for stories, writes them all up, decides the running order, searches for video footage, decides on the questions to ask contributing experts, checks with legal, then types out the auto-cue and then after spending two minutes in "wardrobe, hair and makeup," about all the time she'd have left, before presenting the news.
Meanwhile the whole of the BBC news staff including the editor, who should actually be responsible for the entire content, either play video games on their computers or spend their time down the pub.
Of course she's paid a lot of money for all this and not because she's seen as ,"the face of the BBC" and the reason why so many people watch her.
So you want to debate one finger in your favourite pie?
As i have suggested to you before you can actually write to the BBC and ask to visit the newsroom, then you'll see what she - and the other staff - actually do.
I guarentee it will blow your prejudice apart!
Of course, you won't as you wouldn't like to open your mind, just preferring to bluster on here......
Oh!
So you think she does do all that?
Bless.
No, but she does a lot more than you think she does.
You have incorrect thoughts, and you can't open your mind in case you are wrong.....
Her main function is to attract people to watch the BBC news rather than the news on any other channel.
How much input these people have in the compilation of the bulletins is of far lesser importance than their primary function.
They aren't paid big money for their journalistic skills.
Try and "open your mind" to that unassailable fact.
How many BBC news readers have you employed or managed in your illustrious career in brodcasting?
None, I've never been in "brodcasting."
But it's a question of applying a bit of common sense.
I've said on previous occasions that they will be involved, in the way sub-editors are in newspapers, but they can't do it all by themselves. If they could, there would be no point in having any news staff or an editor.
Now this seems far more important to some than it is to me, so I'll leave you with the thought that you've failed to alter my opinions.
You stated as fact...
This knowledge came to you in a dream, while looking for the remote?
Of course you could have just made it up and hoped no one draw attention to it.
By the way Boots is to reduce its staff by 700 presumably you've been telling them for years they've had too many office staff. ;-)
No, they're paid for the journalistic skills, reliability, and ability to present the news in an enviroment where what they're talking about can change with little or no notice.
Oddly enough whilst there are a lot of people with journalistic skills, a good amount with the ability to present stuff to camera, and a good amount who can adjust to things changing rapidly, the number who can do all of the above live is fairly low, and tends to take a long time to build up those skills.
A lot of the "presenters" doing the news also have fairly serious qualifications in fields related to the one or more aspect of the news.
For example a number of the news team have things like qualifications in finance, history, the culture of other countries, fluency in at least one additional language etc.
I think the days of them just reading the news (if that was ever really the case) are long gone.
You are, of course, correct.
However, this is one of Doghouses pet subjects, so expect bluster in return. Either that, he'll scarper off and return with it all in a later thread.