Search results matching tag 'Mark Thompson'

The BBC could learn something from Silvio Berlusconi

673734 — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:06:00 GMT

One thing you have to admire about the Prime Minister of Italy are his balls. Metaphorically speaking of course.

Last week, trapped in yet more scandal over "beautiful women" attending his parties, he continued to insist that he has never paid for sex: "For those who love to conquer," he said, "the joy and the most beatiful satisfaction is in the conquest. If you have to pay, I ask you, what joy is there?"

A question every TV viewer in the UK should be asking as they are told to fork out £139.50 a year to access the BBC's services. And also a question BBC director-general Mark Thompson should be considering as he heads a review of the BBC's operations after being told to do so by the BBC Trust.

Yet with the BBC in charge of a review of its own future, you could say it's unlikely that any significant or welcome change will result. And commercial media owners can hardly be encouraged by the BBC's attitude at the recent Edinburgh TV Festival when the response from BBC executives to criticism from the likes of Sky's James Murdoch seemed to smack of arrogance and being out of touch with audiences.

While I'm not convinced that the BBC's investment in online services is wholly a bad thing for the public or even the commercial sector - everybody seems set to benefit from the leadership role the BBC played in developing the iPlayer - at least four measures should emerge from the review.

These are: the closure of digital TV service BBC3, which wastes tax payers money while offering nothing that commercial rivals cannot; a ban on cross-promotion of BBC TV and radio on other platforms; stricter controls on services such as Radio 1 which seem intent on aggressively copying commercial services rather than offering anything challenging or groundbreaking; and, finally, top-slicing of the hideously expensive licence fee to help the local news providers that have been damaged by the BBC's online investment. Even the money saved from closing BBC3 would be of some use to these regional news organisations.

Not that much of this seems likely with BBC executives responsible for the decisions. While Thompson's comments today on part-privatisation of commercial arm BBC Worldwide hint at a willingness to concede an inch, they may be designed to mask the BBC's intention not to do very much at all about playing a constructive part in a diverse media landscape.

BoJo's £250k 'chicken feed'

1704826 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:36:00 GMT

I happen to like Boris Johnson. I think he provides a bit of much-needed colour to the political scene, and he seems better at his job than that annoying nasal Red Ken but I don't live in London so what do I know.

But is he worth £250k for a weekly column in the Daily Telegraph? Yes - if they are stupid enough to pay it.

With typical Johnson disregard and seemingly oblivious to the prevailing mood of the nation, Johnson describes this as 'chicken feed'. Well it's not - even when compared to some of the eye-watering salaries available at ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC.

Finally some sense seems to be emerging - the BBC has suspended bonuses for its top execs (quite why they or anyone else on the public payroll needs bonuses I've never been sure) so DG Mark Thompson will only draw a basic of £647k. Similar moves have been made over at 'cash-strapped' Channel 4 - chief exec Andy Duncan has agreed to get out of bed for £600k a year - down nearly £300k on 2008. Which is nice of him.

But Johnson's burden on the taxpayer is just £140k for his salary as London mayor and I don't really care how much PLCs pay in salaries or columnists (and there are some shockingly bad ones on payrolls) as market forces will prevail.

So I suggest that given that the Daily Telegraph's parent company Telegraph Media Group has just posted a loss of £15.7m for 2008, Johnson enjoys the 'chicken feed' for as long as they are stupid enough to pay it. Soon, he may have to revert to newt feed rations.

Give Mark Thompson a hand - what would you like to see the BBC drop?

1704826 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Mark Thompson has finally admitted that the BBC must cut its budgets. Not, as you might expect, because it is lavish, over-staffed and is strangling its commercial rivals to death but because it might breach its ‘statutory borrowing limit'.

How awful if that happened. Oh well, nonetheless we should still celebrate the fact that it is having to suffer, albeit to a lesser degree, along with the rest of the industry and the country.

Thommo hasn't said where the cuts will come from so I'm after suggestions. It would be nice to see Jonathan Ross's salary sacrificed for the greater good and I'm sure we can live without BBC Three. What else?

Mark Thompson shouldn't relent even if Homes Under The Hammer stars walk out

1704826 — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:03:00 GMT

More shocking news for the BBC: The Scotsman reports that Tam Dean Burn has added his voice to the chorus of actors vowing never to work for the Corporation again unless it reverses its decision not to show the DEC broadcast.

What do you mean you've never heard of Tam Dean Burn? He found fame starring in two episodes of Hamish Macbeth as well as three episodes of The Bill over a decade ago, obviously, and has had walk on parts in minor BBC dramas, such as Holby City, ever since.

Mark Thompson, already on the ropes after numerous other BBC scandals, must have thought that things on his watch could not get any worse when former Soldier, Soldier and Boon actress (where she played Mandy), Samantha Morton, announced that she would be taking her talent elsewhere unless the broadcast was made, but he clearly underestimated the steely grit and moral rectitude of the theatrical fraternity.

But the BBC remains resolute. What will it take? PC Tony Stamp actor Graham Cole to also add his name to the list before Thompson relents?

Point is, for once, I agree with the BBC - in my view it is not up to the state-owned broadcaster to transmit this - or any other - charity plea. Surely people who are moved by the news pictures from the disaster zones to donate money are intelligent enough to do so without being browbeaten by the BBC or, indeed, a couple of two-bit publicity-seeking actors.

Mark Thompson's intervention is too late to save Trisha

1704826 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:44:00 GMT

Writing in today's Financial Times, BBC director-general Mark Thompson indicates that he would support a merger between Channel 4 and Five in order to save them costs and preserve his precious licence fee from any proposed top-slicing.

Sadly for Trisha Goddard, who has just been dropped by Five for being too expensive (yes, really) his intervention hasn't come soon enough.

Interestingly it was four years ago while Thompson was at C4 that a merger between the two stations was first mooted; it subsequently came to nothing. The rationale is still the same though and seems reasonable enough - cost efficiencies could be achieved by merging back office functions a merger while an increase in scale would create greater clout for negotiations, particularly in advertising.

Well that's the theory, but in practice what would a merged C4 and Five look like and how big a bargaining chip would its ad sales team have? Well here are some choice cuts from their terrestrial schedules today: as well as Going for Gold and Going for Gold Extra, Neighbours x2, Home and Away x2, a very old repeat of The Simpsons, Celebrity Dine With Me and Celebrity Big Brother, there is a TV movie and the 1954 film Three Coins in the Fountain.

Not great stuff to work with really is it - in fact in the entire day for both channels there are only two hours of what could be called original and distinct programmes worth advertisers buying into - the excellent War Zone on Five and the voyeuristically intriguing Half Ton Son on C4.

A merger is only part of the solution; better content for both is the key.

Shove it up your *** Mark Thompson

1704826 — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:36:00 GMT

Anyone else watch Mark Thompson's and Michael Lyons' performance before the Commons culture, media and sport select committee? There was pitiful little evidence of either wearing a hair shirt - in fact, neither looked that they were particularly bothered to be there.

Thompson said that the BBC had been responsible for a ‘serious editorial lapse'. No Mark, it had been responsible for a complete lapse in taste, judgment and management by allowing personally offensive material to be recorded in the first place in the name of entertainment - the fact that it was broadcast is secondary to this.

As for Lyons, his claim that the BBC Trust had still not decided Ross's fate looked disingenuous given that the BBC had already trumpeted his glorious return.

The BBC Trust was brought in to replace the discredited Board of Governors following the Gilligan affair. The problem is, that like its predecessor it has no power and is too allied to the management of the organisation. Perhaps it's time for the BBC to come under the auspices of Ofcom and receive proper regulatory control like the commercial media operations against which it seems determined to put out of business.

Jonathan Ross is still getting paid £4.6m too much

1704826 — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:41:00 GMT

Jonathan Ross will only get paid £4.6m of our money this year. What a shame.

By suspending him without pay for 12 weeks, the BBC is hoping that by mid-January we will all have forgotten about the appalling lapse in taste and regulatory control that led to the radio programme being transmitted.

And they are probably right. But to me it still doesn't lance the boil for the BBC at a time when the rest of the TV industry is suffering from falling revenues, when the whole concept of PSB is being discussed, when other broadcasters are putting a case for top-slicing of the licence fee and when the licence fee payers themselves are facing unprecedented pressure on their wallets.

Mark Thompson and Tim Davie, who must take ultimate responsibility for this, have emerged anything but covered in glory given how long they took in taking decisive action, for an apparent lack of compliance systems, and for coming up with what, at best, looks like a fudge.

More crucially, if Ofcom do choose to fine the BBC - in other words me and you - I expect this story will rear its heads again, whether Thompson and Davie like it or not.

So what are you going to do now Tim Davie?

1704826 — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:49:00 GMT

Good to see that Ross and Brand have been suspended. Let's just hope that it is without pay and that Mark Thompson finally shows some decisiveness and the ability to reign in an organisation that appears to be spiralling out of control by firing them.

A lot of heat and very little light has been generated by the affair - the only conclusion is that there are not enough rigorous controls on what presenters think they can get away with.

Some commentators claim that the whole thing has been whipped up by the press and that people who didn't listen shouldn't complain - that's clearly nonsense too. Out of sight and out of mind is no excuse and the sight of a 48-year old man giggling like a teenager with someone nearly half his age shows what a complete idiot Ross and how his superannuated ego has got out of control.

It all presents Tim Davie, erstwhile head of marketing at the BBC and now in charge of its radio output, in an interesting position. Will he try and crisis manage as his background will have taught him or will he show some genuine leadership? His response so far hasn't been that impressive - he says that it shouldn't have been broadcast. No Tim, it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.

Double standards: open season at the BBC vs tough rules for advertisers

695124 — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:40:23 GMT

Listening to BBC Director General Mark Thompson’s hair shirt speech yesterday, it occurred to me that there’s a rich irony out there. While advertisers and agencies take a rigorous regime for granted, our public service broadcaster has been playing fast and loose with the truth.

In our quest for politicians and the public to take our business seriously and give it the respect it deserves, I think the BBC’s disastrous fall from grace gives us useful ammunition. We mustn’t let up on A4A (Action for Ads) – even for one week in the holiday season. It is vital that the AA, IPA, ISBA and all leading advertisers and agencies keep up the pressure. We have extremely high standards under the watchful eyes of Ofcom, ASA and BACC. The proof of the pudding is in the public perception that if an ad makes a claim for the efficacy of a product, that claim is likely to be believed: “they wouldn’t be allowed to say that if it wasn’t true”.

Going back to the BBC, DG Thompson needs to cast his cleansing zeal much wider than insults to the Queen and misuse of phone-ins. How about shameless editorial bias in prioritising and slanting news bulletins? And how about relentlessly aggressive and rude interrogation of public figures? The news bias is insidious and dangerous. The routine viciousness of interviewers sets an appalling example. It must also skew coverage by putting off the honest but timid from coming on air, while encouraging liars with thick skins.

It all serves to make adland look wholesome.