I was listening to Radio 1 this morning and it occurred to me that they spend an awful lot of time promoting (advertising) the non BBC websites Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. As these websites are set up to make people money (presumably through the advertising, although I don’t know enough about it) is this practice of free advertising on the BBC ok or is it (strictly speaking) against BBC rules?

They've been mentioning newspapers for years, what's the difference ?

THink if they just mentioned one of them then possibly. Are they advertising the sites themselves or the fact that the BBC can be found on them?

You're listening to Radio 1. That's where you're going wrong.

HTH

The average radio 1 listener does spend a lot of time on those sites, it's probably all they know.

Does the BBC say "I recommend twitter, much better than facebook"? It's not advertising, it's just talking about something they do in life. It's mad when people think the mere mention of a product equals advertising.

You appear to me lost, here you go:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

😉

You're listening to Radio 1. That's where you're going wrong.

…and this ^^

They've been mentioning newspapers for years, what's the difference ?

Good point, although it is slightly different as they report what is in the newspapers, but actively encourage people to register with and visit the websites to see videoes etc (which could easily be posted on the BBC's own website).

I think I'm just picking holes because Chris Moyles annoys me!

Edit:

You appear to me lost, here you go:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Not quite, as I'm just asking the question (not that it really matters) and not shouting from the rooftops for the bosses of the BBC to resign and be executed….yet!

Good point, although it is slightly different as they report what is in the newspapers, but actively encourage people to register with and visit the websites to see videoes etc (which could easily be posted on the BBC's own website).

Not really different, they're talking about activities happening within the website and you have to sign up to do that. Just like they talk about stories from the paper and you have to buy them to read those stories.

Quit your whining.

Im' not keen on the constant twitter talk as I personally can't see any value in the whole concept.

I think you have to avoid giving any one product undue prominence, but in some cases its unavoidable if one product dominates the market. Its difficult to talk about online auctions without speaking only about eBay for instance.

Facebok/twitter/youtube are 'channels' rather than products. Although they may generate advertising revenue the Beeb isn't necessarily selling their service just pointing the existing service users towards content. And non of the beeb's users need to pay to either join theses sights or access content. With youtube the more people who upload and view video the more money google looses so having one of the largest broadcasters in the world pointing to their content is probably doing google more harm than good.

Quit your whining

I'll concede that I am just being an old t**t then, but Radio 1 and all this Twitter Bollox really is SH1T 😀

Other social networking sites are available.

At least you can just ignore the BBC on facebook/twatter etc, it's this whole, "txt in let us know what you think" thing that pisses me off, why the **** do you think people care what some random knob stuck in traffic on the M1 thinks??

The music they play is entirely composed of songs by wandering minstrels who play their music just for the love of playing and never make a penny out of it.

What should be looked at are news stories which are nothing more than PR. A recent example was a doctor on the BBC news who was being interviewed about his campaign to ban butter – his funding came from a margarine manufacturer.