Never listened to 6 music so can't agree or otherwise .Except to say hearing all the presenters pleading to keep it is a bit like turkeys and xmas etc etc .
But one area i feel strongly enough about to ask the question on the trust site is news .Is it really necessary for the BBC to run a 24 hour news channel ?I read the other day about the eye watering amounts of money some presenters i'd never heard of were getting .I would be interested to know the viewing figures and how much this service costs to run.So if and when i get an answer i'll give you their response .
Finally another big money saver .Get rid of the likes of Hanson and co and dump Match of the Day !and Moyles and his overpaid cronies ok i'll stop now ! 😳

Not everybody works 9-5…

Interesting graph from the guardian

I'll link to it too as it comes up a bit eeny on here

BBC Budget

Easy. Get rid of all the football stuff.

It's just advertising, and it's a shame to see all those delicate lads falling over and getting injured so often.

"790" mill. from "commercial business" – and not an advert in sight. Hmmmm.

"123" mill. licence fee. Hmmmmm.

"790" mill. from "commercial business" – and not an advert in sight. Hmmmm.

The BBC has commercial channels, with adverts, DAVE and all the similarly chummy named former UKTV channels are mostly owned by the BBC and are a way of generating a commercial income from their back catalogue

Its interesting that the channels they talking of cutting are so small in terms of costs that you struggle to find them on that graphic.

they are sacrificial lambs – costs wise 6 music and BBC AN are small fry

I'm pleased the BBC is cutting down the size of its website. It will make it easier to see on my mobile.

Its interesting that the channels they talking of cutting are so small in terms of costs that you struggle to find them on that graphic.

And that they spend more on restructuring than they do on 6Music.

they need to bin off Ross and Moyles, and jobs a good un, and the whole world is a better place.

Personally i think, if they swapped 6 music, and radio 1, for a week (ie: put R1 on the net, and 6 music on FM) they wouldnt swap it back again.
the ratings would rocket.
i dont know anyone who chooses to listen to R1, other than, theres nothing else availible in the car/van (other than Old-fm-R2, or commercial tripe)

But £123m to collect from 25 million homes only equals about £5 per home, so thats' a pretty good ratio.

On another tact; £33m for S4C (on top of its £94m grant) – so for the (lets be generous) 500k viewers = £250 each…

And of all the Welsh I know (my others halfs' family are Welsh), and one speaks Welsh – and then only to her pal, so the rest of us have no idea what they are discussing…

they should save some money and bring in some new blood whilst getting rid of some of the old blood…. Ross and so on.

6 Music should stay IMO as it provides a viable alternative to R1. I just wish the news wasn't always broadcast in really basic, easy listening snippets and focused on music.

R4 should stay. it is – for the most part – a fantastic institution. anyone listen to 'The World Through 100 Objects'? brilliant. bit gutted that i have to wait till May for the next installment.

alot of programming on BBC1 could be chucked without any loss to quality. same can be said for News 24.

the jumpy jumpy flashy flashy woo look at us tv should be left to the commercial channels.

the media should be there to inform and educate, not to provide so-called entertainment through shows such as dancing on frozen water et al. the BBC shouldn't be competing with the likes of ITV.

and, without causing a knee jerk reaction from the perceived lefties, why is there the Asian Network and 1Xtra? it would appear to me that they are saying the other nine stations don't provide any content for these groups. is this the case? without wanting to sound daily mail (but failing) why don't the BBC provide White Middle Class Radio?

and, without causing a knee jerk reaction from the perceived lefties, why is there the Asian Network and 1Xtra? it would appear to me that they are saying the other nine stations don't provide any content for these groups.

I was going to ask the opposite, why is there an Asian Network, but not a Caribbean Network and an African Network and an Oriental Network, etc… Not that I especially see the need for them, just wondered why one is present and not the others.

without wanting to sound daily mail (but failing) why don't the BBC provide White Middle Class Radio?

You're right, you have failed 😉 What are Radios 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 if they're not White Middle Class Radio?

ah, but they're not marketed as white middle class, are they? why alienate (perhaps not the right word) a group of society by giving them their own radio?

it's the sort of thing that would kick start my old BNP workmate into a verbal frenzy of nastiness.

Aaah, I see your point (oo-er).

when the winter olympic downhill event were on last week at whistler creekside clare balding and graham bell were stood in whistler village watching the big screen that had been erected, approx 4 miles away!!! why not put them in a studio in sheperds bush with a big screen and save the air fare and hotel cost that would have been astronomical for the 3-4 weeks they were out there.
look after the pennies……

looking at that breakdown of the money paid to the 'talent' comparing the £2m clarkson recieves for a dozen shows a year with the 6m Ross gets for 30-40 shows a year, plus nearly as many film programmes,plus a weekly radio programme looks like rather good value.

flatfish +1,
I believe there where more BBC staff at the Winter Olympics than Team GB members. The same arguement should also apply to the news, why does a reporter have to be stood outside a building telling us what happened, why couldn't they do it from the studio and save the travel cost's.

skidartist
I believe Clarkson's programmes are very lucratiuve and syndicated all over the world, can't imagine that anyone globally would want to watch/listen to Woss, i would imagine that Clarkson's fee is relativly good value in comparison.

I find that graph a little confusing.
Surely "Talent" is an expenditure, while "Government grant for World Service" is an income.

Hello the Oldfart…

This site has changed !

Hope all good fella

Surely "Talent" is an expenditure, while "Government grant for World Service" is an income.

"Talent" is wages, as shown.

"Government grant for World Service" is an expenditure, and it's shown as one.

How much does it cost to fly those idiots to Argentina for that Total Wipeout program that's on a Saturday night?

I thought they were taking the pi$$ when they kept saying it's made in Argentina but then I discovered it's true!

comparing the £2m clarkson recieves for a dozen shows a year

to be fair, clarkson does a lot more than a dozen shows a year.

skidartist – Member

"790" mill. from "commercial business" – and not an advert in sight. Hmmmm.

The BBC has commercial channels, with adverts, DAVE and all the similarly chummy named former UKTV channels are mostly owned by the BBC and are a way of generating a commercial income from their back catalogue

So, on the "BBC", not an advert in sight. Hmmmm….

I imagine (though not sure) that "commercial business" also covers things like syndication of BBC programmes to other networks, revenue from BBC magazines, DVD sales etc.

"Government grant for World Service" is an expenditure, and it's shown as one

What's that colour chart down the bottom right then with "Income" against the brown bit?
Surely "Commercial Business" is an income, not an expenditure too ?
And why is "Licence Fee" in its own little box off the main graph and shown smaller than "Licence Fee Collection Costs" ?
All in all, a badly drawn, confusing graph.

I find that graph a little confusing.
Surely "Talent" is an expenditure, while "Government grant for World Service" is an income.

eh?

Talent is shown as Wages (Light Blue)

Government grant for World Service is Income (Brown)

seems pretty straightforward to me!

Radio 3 appears to have dis-proportionately large budget, although possibly less dis-proportionate than Jonathan Ross, Anne Robinson or Graham Norton…

GrahamS, see miketually's reply above, that's what I was responding to.
It is confusing having income and expenditure all mixed up on one chart though, even with the different colours.

I thought they were taking the pi$$ when they kept saying it's made in Argentina but then I discovered it's true!

Its a syndicated show, its not a Beeb creation, its a US format different regions buy in to it and effectively rent the set and crew for their version of it. So on one day a handful of contestants and a talking head get flown in from the UK for our version and rent the set and crew, the next day a bunch from a dutch channel do the same thing and so on, its effectively a timeshare gameshow.

I'd say its a pretty economical way of doing things (the show gives me the boak though)

flatfish – Member
comparing the £2m clarkson recieves for a dozen shows a year

to be fair, clarkson does a lot more than a dozen shows a year.

Each top gear series is 7 episodes, usually two series a year. Am I missing something else he makes?

Why would Radio 4 cost so much?

And what the heck does Anne Robinson do apart from the weakest link & watchdog? She's 2nd highest paid!

Why would Radio 4 cost so much?

Because its pretty much all original created content, morning noon and night, every day. Everything you hear as been written, researched. performed, created and produced by them. Its not just some bloke with a haircut given an open mic to say whatever pops into his head in the 30 second gaps between the pop songs.

Without having more facts its hard to be specific but if they have spent £1.4 BILLION on the redeveloped / refurbished Portland Place HQ then they just must be wasting money. It defies common sense that the money is spent carefully. It runs easily the best tv channels in UK and radio 4 is worth going to war for but most of the rest could be left to the private sector. Noone should earn more than a few £'00,000. Ironically, the only person I know who does work there is a radio 5 researcher and he is paid peanuts despite having encyclopaedic knowledge and contacts.

I could save millions v quickly if i was let loose there.

as far as i can work out 6 music costs each listner bout £13 per year. radio 4 and 5 are £11 and £12 respectivley. radio 3 is £27! radio 1 & 2 come in at about £4 per person per year.

why then has 6 music been singled out in that list?

sources

http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/01/information-beautiful-bbc-o-gram-spending#zoomed-picture

Sorry, I meant to say that the grant is an income.

Surely "Commercial Business" is an income, not an expenditure too ?

Yes, it is.

And why is "Licence Fee" in its own little box off the main graph and shown smaller than "Licence Fee Collection Costs" ?

That's a separate section, comparing channels, not bits of the BBC.

All in all, a badly drawn, confusing graph.

It's not a graph, it's a graphic. It's just showing relative sizes of different income and expenditure streams. I thought it was very well done, like most Information is Beautiful graphics.

Each top gear series is 7 episodes, usually two series a year. Am I missing something else he makes?

try wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson

i know not everything you read on wikipedia is true before you use that response but why would his tv/book/appearances be untrue

So he guests now and then on other people's shows, which he'll get a bit of appearance money for, but I don't the BBC pay him to write for the Times and the Sun