Should the BBC dump half of their website?

[David]

Current proposals from the BBC include the closure of BBC 6Music and the Asian Network. But they are also proposing to remove half of their website. How practical is this? Should the content simply be removed or should it be left to rot?

In any case, what is your opinion of the BBC? Are they dominating the market? Are they stifling competition? If they are good at what they do (I think they are), why should they be stopped just so that someone else can do it less well (and probably at a cost)?

I love the BBC. It is unique. Why should it be pared down just because it doesn't conform to the prevailing capitalist model of content creation?

[Kris M]

I agree David, the BBC is unique and it is good at what it does. However, the unique way that the BBC is funded means that essentially it is a public service. Therefore it should come under the same public scrutiny with regards to its finances. While I understand the need to run niche services like Radio 6 and the ASIA network - the BBC is trying to be too much to too many people and therefore is in danger of jepordising the production of quality programmes on its more popular services - showing little ROI to the masses who pay vast amounts of money to keep it going.

We should also take note that other public network TV channels (ITV) which have up to 15million viewers are currently incredibly strapped for cash and so it seems unfair that these should have to struggle when the BBC is paying out thousands to keep afloat channels only watched by a handful of people.

However, I think web services are much cheaper to run than TV channels and so they should probably look into hosting content / web sections for these niche groups rather than dedicating programming production and terrestrial bandwidth to them!

I should also point out that the BBC has commerical arms on its equipment, worldwide and BBC America services. It also earns stacks of money from channels such as UK GOLD for repeats. Hence it does have its hands in many pots when it comes to revenue.... Can you tell I'm anti-TV license?

[Stewart]

The key difference is that the tax payer is funding the BBC on the basis that it makes programs and delivers content that a pure play commercial channel would not do because it is driven by advertiser and pure commercial concerns. I think that the BBC has become confused about its key goals and has strayed into areas which if it had a clearer vision it would not have entered. If it removes itself from some of these more commercial areas presumably there will be a financial impact and it seems reasonable to expect to see some contraction.

I for one think that the BBC has done a great job on the web but it has also dumbed down its core programming over recent years and if shutting down some areas which it percieves as less core will result in improvement then I see that as a good thing. If you talk to industry insiders they no longer talk about the BBC making the best programmes in the world this mantle seems to have been taken by HBO and I'd like to see it returned.

An alternative and more cynical view is that perhaps this is all about the fact that Rupert Murdock wants to charge for news content and the BBC was a thorn in his side!

[Tom]

The BBC should provide a public service in the sense of doing things which commercial operators do not wish to do.
The BBC should not use taxpayers money to put commercial operators out of business. The lines may be hard to draw but the principles are clear.
I regard purchase of the Lonely Planet as a great mistake and severely detrimental to the Rough Guides etc.
The only bits of the BBC website I use regularly are the weather forecasts, the programme schedules, ,the iPlayer content and the records of news items. Which other parts are worth having? All that magazine-style stuff they churn out seems like total waste to me - but I have not seen enough of it to make a fair judgement.
The weather content on the website is much better than the TV forecasts - which seem designed to provide a platform for staff to get paid more for using their unnecessary faces to block good views of the maps. Just think how much more comprehensible the forecasts would be in they had a national map, instead of a body, on the left of the screen and the local maps on the right of the screen.
The BBC is far too concerned about jacking up staff salaries.

[kae101]

For me, there is A LOT on the BBC website that is a waste (there are some female dedicated parts which lack love and real drive) and from this view I can identify lots of sections that perhaps are not working. I think its perhaps an idea to archive such sections, but not to nuture something the BBC are attempting to create simply to corner a section of the market.

However, this does not mean the great work they have done with many of their sections (I don't believe the news until I have read it on the BBC) is great indeed and maybe the ditching of much of its site will allow them the time to concentrate on these.

I do also enjoy that they offer these great services in many forms. I actually love the weather to be on the telly as I like the human aspect of weather and how it changes our lives (its the geography student in me), but prefer the news online as I spend the whole time wondering why they sent a reporter to the old bailey, when its shut, on my dime so they can have a picture of it in the background. Who cares?

The BBC seem to be showing they are spending our money wisely, but it might be nice to be asked what we consider to be 'wisely'.

KA

[Tom]

Rod Liddle says the BBC recently faced a choice between selling Radio1, which has content that can be found on a 100 other stations, and cancelling Radio6, which has content not available elsewhere. Their choice reveals their priorities: go for the big audiences which justify big salaries for their staff.

[David]

That is precisely why the current strategy makes no sense whatsoever and will likely fail. The BBC should provide niche programming that would not otherwise be available and allow the commercial world to take care of commercial sectors of the market - assuming that they must contract at all (and I'm not sure any of it is a good idea). My fear is that if they do nothing, the Murdoch Conservatives will dismantle them.

[Tom]

Well put. I agree with David.

[kae101]

Devil's advocate here (sorry!) can the BBC justify the license fee on catering for the few not the many?

Your arguments about wages aside (I wish I worked three hours a day talking on the radio and getting paid 6 figures) how would the BBC defend a 'cater for the few' approach?

KA

[kae101]

And just to make controversy beautiful...

click here

KA