Quite an art form, 300 staff in total to cope with 22 separate locations mainly concurrent, with multiple simultaneous but different broadcasts over the space of three days, from a location that prior to their arrival had zero facilities for broadcast, or even power.
It makes me wonder how they would do if they doubled the staff (how many broadcasts and stages they could do at a time), or how tightly they could run a football match given their commercial competitors apparently need half as many staff to do something that is by comparison a walk in the park, and only lasts a few hours.
The 120 people for a Super Sunday game on Sky comes from Skys own magazine a couple of years ago- I seem to remember it being either some kind of behind the scenes feature or a question that had been sent in. It may have been repeated in articles in other publications since.
Its been backed up by people on these forums who've worked for Sky.
Didn't Glastonbury attract fewer viewers last year due to the "inane" presenters?
What plucked figures?
The BBC use about 300 people (in total, the actual number on site at any one time is likely to be far lower*), we know how many stages there are, and most get coverage at one point or another (and I've not even included things like roaming presenters).
We also know that the BBC typically has broadcasts from multiple of the stages on various outputs at any one time (and I believe some OB guys have stated that they actively record much more than is broadcast at the time)
The Sky figures are taken from their own advertising campaign a few years back when they were bigging up how complicated it was to do a broadcast from venues that have largely been (re)designed with such things in mind, to show how good value the Sky Sports package was.
I can't remember the year but IIRC it was something like 2005-10, and to be honest I can't be bothered to hunt through hundreds of adverts on youtube
*For example the contractors are unlikely to keep all the people needed to set up the electrical and comms on site after it's set up (they'll probably be sent home for a well needed rest until it's time to take it all down again).
Has anybody bothered to ask whether it's ethical that the BBC is giving so much promotion to an event that is so closely linked to left wing political causes and illegal drug use?
Greenpeace, Water Aid, the Left Field tent and the cult of climate change worship are all integral parts of this.
Oh please. When you say "cult of climate change" I assume you mean virtually universally accepted scientific fact by virtually all peer reviewed research on the subject.
What are these links between the festival and illegal drug use? It's like saying the BBC shouldn't show football, because of the close links with football hooliganism.
The Leftfield tent is a tiny part of the festival.
So no comments on the previous couple of posts, just a defection comment.
Needless to say the reports about low viewing figures probably came from the Daily Mail though tucked at the end of their piece is:
A BBC spokesman said the BBC2 viewing figures were around three times higher than the average for the timeslot and said the BBC’s Glastonbury website picked up an extra one million unique users as others tuned in online.
A report from the BBC shows the online broadcast was very successful
A record 1.5 million unique browsers accessing the BBC’s digital Glastonbury coverage
The first truly mobile Glastonbury with 42 per cent of total traffic across the weekend from mobiles and tablets
Around 700,000 requests for The Rolling Stones’ legendary performance (live and catch up, radio and TV requests)
Over 6.2m viewers on the BBC’s Red Button over the weekend, up by 77 per cent compared Glastonbury 2011
300 freeloaders getting their Glastonbury jollys paid for at our expense, I resent my licence fee money being used in this way.
The first of those comments is obviously the correct one. It is a massive event and the logistics for covering the entire event must be mind-blowing.
I'm sure the BBC get very good value for money out of it in terms of broadcasting hours.
My only complaint is that they're taking that godawful nightmare of a presenter that is Gemma Cairney. She is irritating, possibly mentally retarded and appears to know nothing about music whatsoever. I can't believe that the BBC are inflicting her on us again after her woeful performance at previous events. John Peel must be turning in his grave.
Has anybody bothered to ask whether it's ethical that the BBC is giving so much promotion to an event that is so closely linked to left wing political causes and illegal drug use?
Greenpeace, Water Aid, the Left Field tent and the cult of climate change worship are all integral parts of this.
Has anybody bothered to ask whether it's ethical that the BBC is giving so much promotion to an event that is so closely linked to left wing political causes and illegal drug use?
Greenpeace, Water Aid, the Left Field tent and the cult of climate change worship are all integral parts of this.
I suspect that the presenters are briefed to use caution with political organisations like Greenpeace but they must cover lots of events where political organisations have a presence. Should they drop all coverage of the Chelsea Flower Show if a political organisation had an exhibit?
Which figures did you think we're plucked from thin air?
The 22 locations, or the three days?
Feel free to correct them, but I'm guessing you won't, what with them being actual figures.
.
Sorry to be a pedant, Calico, but it's four days. There is some entertainment on several of the stages on Thursday for the early arrivers. Some of which is being recorded for future broadcast.
Oh please. When you say "cult of climate change" I assume you mean virtually universally accepted scientific fact by virtually all peer reviewed research on the subject.
What are these links between the festival and illegal drug use? It's like saying the BBC shouldn't show football, because of the close links with football hooliganism.
The Leftfield tent is a tiny part of the festival.
Climate change is real enough, but there is major disagreement within the scientific community as to whether mankind is to blame. Al Gore and other crooks have tried to hijack the debate, aided by very wealthy organisations with their own agendas. The earth's climate has always changed, it's worth remembering that.
As for illegal drug use, well, somebody has already died at this year's festival because of it.
The BBC has paid numerous visits to the Leftfield tent over the years, whether for Billy Bragg or the late Tony Benn.
I suspect that the presenters are briefed to use caution with political organisations like Greenpeace but they must cover lots of events where political organisations have a presence. Should they drop all coverage of the Chelsea Flower Show if a political organisation had an exhibit?
It's more intense at Glastonbury. There's a big advert for Greenpeace at the bottom of one of the main stages, as there is for Water Aid and Oxfam at other locations. I agree that the presenters generally proceed with caution, as they should.
All I'm really saying is that it has an internationalist, left-wing ethos.
Climate change is real enough, but there is major disagreement within the scientific community as to whether mankind is to blame. Al Gore and other crooks have tried to hijack the debate, aided by very wealthy organisations with their own agendas. The earth's climate has always changed, it's worth remembering that.
As for illegal drug use, well, somebody has already died at this year's festival because of it.
The BBC has paid numerous visits to the Leftfield tent over the years, whether for Billy Bragg or the late Tony Benn.
I don't think there is "major disagreement within the scientific community" at all. The overwhelming majority of peer reviewed research on climate change agrees that man has played a significant role in climate change.
That some people take drugs at the festival wasn't in dispute. I asked you what the connections were between the Glastonbury and illegal drug use. I'd be pretty sure that drug use isn't exclusive to Glastonbury, or that the festival is totally responsible for people taking drugs whilst at the festival. As for already - how many drug related deaths have there been over the last decade?
So what if the BBC paid numerous visits to the Leftfield tent over the years? I'm not sure what your point is here. Unless the BBC was ramming exclusively left wing politics down people's throats, then its not really an issue. Were they doing that? Would you argue that the BBC should ban Billy Bragg? And no - that's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested to know how you think the BBC should solve the Billy Bragg problem. For example, is it OK to show 15 minutes of Billy Bragg in the Leftfield tent if they show, say, an hour of Rod Stewart on the Pyramid stage?
Sorry to be a pedant, Calico, but it's four days. There is some entertainment on several of the stages on Thursday for the early arrivers. Some of which is being recorded for future broadcast.
I was being generous to the other poster.
Do Bodger and Badger on the Grandstand make it to the tv these days?
It's more intense at Glastonbury. There's a big advert for Greenpeace at the bottom of one of the main stages, as there is for Water Aid and Oxfam at other locations. I agree that the presenters generally proceed with caution, as they should.
All I'm really saying is that it has an internationalist, left-wing ethos.
Because they're such awful causes to give publicity to?
Glastonbury is the greatest festival in the world because it comes from the heart and it has a soul, not because it's a corporate piece of crap like most other festivals.
What?
The original comment made was that the 3D coverage of the IoW Festival would require double the amount of crew. It didn't, it required the same amount because there wasn't separate 2D coverage. The only difference is there are two cameras in each position rather than one but still operated by only one camera person.
With 3D coverage, doesn't each 3D camera also require someone in the truck to do the 3D effect (can't remember the exact term, something like a convergence puller)?
I don't think there is "major disagreement within the scientific community" at all. The overwhelming majority of peer reviewed research on climate change agrees that man has played a significant role in climate change. ...
Their careers depend on it so they are not going to accept any alternative opinions just as a few hundred years ago there no "major disagreement within the scientific community" about the world being flat etc.
Climate has been changing for Millennia and the rate of change has not altered significantly in recent years.
Because they're such awful causes to give publicity to?
Glastonbury is the greatest festival in the world because it comes from the heart and it has a soul, not because it's a corporate piece of crap like most other festivals.
Clearly it's not a festival for the likes of you.
Oh come off it! Glastonbury is part-owned by Clear Channel Communications, an enormous, American, mass media company.
Greenpeace is about pushing leftist politics. I also dislike the way they harass fishermen and oil companies. Their 'activists' also physically damage property. Greenpeace is a HIGHLY controversial organisation. Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Greenpeace
Oxfam had uncomfortably close links to New Labour and is a political body, which has in recent years campaigned for a financial transactions tax. Oxfam said former CEO Lady Stocking was due to paid £119,560 in 2012/13 - which means that her pay increased by 19 per cent from £100,008 in 2009/10.
Glastonbury is as politicised and as corporate as any other festival, if not more so. Big business makes money from it.
As for the person who challenged me on climate change, believe me, there is HUGE debate within the scientific community as to whether mankind is to blame. You just have to look beyond the propaganda that the EU and its allies at the BBC feeds you. It's worth remembering that until very recently, the BBC Trust was chaired by Lord Patten, who receives a pension of £100,000 from the EU, which is removable if he criticises the EU in any way.
This is not a festival or a group of causes the BBC should be giving three days of free publicity to.
Comments
Your comments Solenoid?
Plucked figures, from the air, are such fun.
Didn't Glastonbury attract fewer viewers last year due to the "inane" presenters?
At least he had the decency to respond at all
Source for these figures please.
The 120 people for a Super Sunday game on Sky comes from Skys own magazine a couple of years ago- I seem to remember it being either some kind of behind the scenes feature or a question that had been sent in. It may have been repeated in articles in other publications since.
Its been backed up by people on these forums who've worked for Sky.
What plucked figures?
The BBC use about 300 people (in total, the actual number on site at any one time is likely to be far lower*), we know how many stages there are, and most get coverage at one point or another (and I've not even included things like roaming presenters).
We also know that the BBC typically has broadcasts from multiple of the stages on various outputs at any one time (and I believe some OB guys have stated that they actively record much more than is broadcast at the time)
The Sky figures are taken from their own advertising campaign a few years back when they were bigging up how complicated it was to do a broadcast from venues that have largely been (re)designed with such things in mind, to show how good value the Sky Sports package was.
I can't remember the year but IIRC it was something like 2005-10, and to be honest I can't be bothered to hunt through hundreds of adverts on youtube
*For example the contractors are unlikely to keep all the people needed to set up the electrical and comms on site after it's set up (they'll probably be sent home for a well needed rest until it's time to take it all down again).
Which figures did you think we're plucked from thin air?
The 22 locations, or the three days?
Feel free to correct them, but I'm guessing you won't, what with them being actual figures.
Still, if you want to keep digging, by all means do....
Oh please. When you say "cult of climate change" I assume you mean virtually universally accepted scientific fact by virtually all peer reviewed research on the subject.
What are these links between the festival and illegal drug use? It's like saying the BBC shouldn't show football, because of the close links with football hooliganism.
The Leftfield tent is a tiny part of the festival.
So no comments on the previous couple of posts, just a defection comment.
Needless to say the reports about low viewing figures probably came from the Daily Mail though tucked at the end of their piece is: A report from the BBC shows the online broadcast was very successful
The first of those comments is obviously the correct one. It is a massive event and the logistics for covering the entire event must be mind-blowing.
I'm sure the BBC get very good value for money out of it in terms of broadcasting hours.
My only complaint is that they're taking that godawful nightmare of a presenter that is Gemma Cairney. She is irritating, possibly mentally retarded and appears to know nothing about music whatsoever. I can't believe that the BBC are inflicting her on us again after her woeful performance at previous events. John Peel must be turning in his grave.
I suspect that the presenters are briefed to use caution with political organisations like Greenpeace but they must cover lots of events where political organisations have a presence. Should they drop all coverage of the Chelsea Flower Show if a political organisation had an exhibit?
Sorry to be a pedant, Calico, but it's four days. There is some entertainment on several of the stages on Thursday for the early arrivers. Some of which is being recorded for future broadcast.
Climate change is real enough, but there is major disagreement within the scientific community as to whether mankind is to blame. Al Gore and other crooks have tried to hijack the debate, aided by very wealthy organisations with their own agendas. The earth's climate has always changed, it's worth remembering that.
As for illegal drug use, well, somebody has already died at this year's festival because of it.
The BBC has paid numerous visits to the Leftfield tent over the years, whether for Billy Bragg or the late Tony Benn.
It's more intense at Glastonbury. There's a big advert for Greenpeace at the bottom of one of the main stages, as there is for Water Aid and Oxfam at other locations. I agree that the presenters generally proceed with caution, as they should.
All I'm really saying is that it has an internationalist, left-wing ethos.
I don't think there is "major disagreement within the scientific community" at all. The overwhelming majority of peer reviewed research on climate change agrees that man has played a significant role in climate change.
That some people take drugs at the festival wasn't in dispute. I asked you what the connections were between the Glastonbury and illegal drug use. I'd be pretty sure that drug use isn't exclusive to Glastonbury, or that the festival is totally responsible for people taking drugs whilst at the festival. As for already - how many drug related deaths have there been over the last decade?
So what if the BBC paid numerous visits to the Leftfield tent over the years? I'm not sure what your point is here. Unless the BBC was ramming exclusively left wing politics down people's throats, then its not really an issue. Were they doing that? Would you argue that the BBC should ban Billy Bragg? And no - that's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested to know how you think the BBC should solve the Billy Bragg problem. For example, is it OK to show 15 minutes of Billy Bragg in the Leftfield tent if they show, say, an hour of Rod Stewart on the Pyramid stage?
I was being generous to the other poster.
Do Bodger and Badger on the Grandstand make it to the tv these days?
Because they're such awful causes to give publicity to?
Glastonbury is the greatest festival in the world because it comes from the heart and it has a soul, not because it's a corporate piece of crap like most other festivals.
Clearly it's not a festival for the likes of you.
With 3D coverage, doesn't each 3D camera also require someone in the truck to do the 3D effect (can't remember the exact term, something like a convergence puller)?
Their careers depend on it so they are not going to accept any alternative opinions just as a few hundred years ago there no "major disagreement within the scientific community" about the world being flat etc.
Climate has been changing for Millennia and the rate of change has not altered significantly in recent years.
Oh come off it! Glastonbury is part-owned by Clear Channel Communications, an enormous, American, mass media company.
Greenpeace is about pushing leftist politics. I also dislike the way they harass fishermen and oil companies. Their 'activists' also physically damage property. Greenpeace is a HIGHLY controversial organisation. Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Greenpeace
Oxfam had uncomfortably close links to New Labour and is a political body, which has in recent years campaigned for a financial transactions tax. Oxfam said former CEO Lady Stocking was due to paid £119,560 in 2012/13 - which means that her pay increased by 19 per cent from £100,008 in 2009/10.
Glastonbury is as politicised and as corporate as any other festival, if not more so. Big business makes money from it.
As for the person who challenged me on climate change, believe me, there is HUGE debate within the scientific community as to whether mankind is to blame. You just have to look beyond the propaganda that the EU and its allies at the BBC feeds you. It's worth remembering that until very recently, the BBC Trust was chaired by Lord Patten, who receives a pension of £100,000 from the EU, which is removable if he criticises the EU in any way.
This is not a festival or a group of causes the BBC should be giving three days of free publicity to.
'The likes of me'? What does that mean exactly? I thought it was supposed to be smiley and friendly and for everybody!