Smaller may not be so beautiful
Although some of us were expecting some major reorgs at the BBC, including bits and bobs of something-or-other moving to Manchester, I am sure the loss of so many jobs came as a surprise to many people.
I really don't know enough about the circumstances to be able to comment usefully on the benefits or otherwise of moving bits to Manchester - others who know are in a better position to do that. I also can't say much about the sacking of administrative staff for the same reasons. But I am worried about some of the things that are being mooted.
One is the comment made by someone - I can't remember who it was - that under Dyke, the BBC had been "too competitive". I really don't quite know what this means. I am used to the commercial companies whingeing about the BBC stepping on their toes, and in my view this means that the BBC is simply doing too well. If the BBC is meeting its public service remit, and it gets the balance right between populist programming (which keeps people happy that plenty of people are watching the programmes and thus the licence fee is well-spent, even if the commercial lads complain that it's something they could be doing and the BBC should focus on things they are not doing) and worthy Reithian programming (which makes people happy because the BBC is doing things the commercial companies don't - but raises criticism of the use of the licence fee because fewer people are watching) then I don't see there is a complaint to make about competitiveness. Not to mention the fact that if the BBC makes money from commercial divisions then it means that it can do more than the licence fee on its own permits. So this comment is a bit of a problem for me.
I have also never seen the point of outsourcing everything. You would think that having several channels as the BBC does, there would be plenty of work for in-house production staff and facilities. Why is it cheaper to place more work with smaller, independent production companies each with a need to make money and duplicating various functions? Not that I have anything against indies, of course: I always liked the idea of Channel 4 as originally constituted. But it seems to me that all too often the reason for this kind of move is that it gets things off one, noticeable budget and on to another that is under less scrutiny. This kind of operation is political, not actual, economy, and might actually cost more in the long run. I would like to see the BBC saving money by bringing more work in-house to be served by an efficient, well-equipped and effective BBC creative workforce. I bet that will save more money in real terms, even if budgets move the wrong way as far as convincing the Government or whomever is concerned. Can't people see through those kinds of balance-sheet twiddling by now?
I recently read Greg Dyke's biography, Inside Story, which I recommend to everyone, incidentally. It is about a great deal more than Gilligan and Hutton: it tells you a lot about someone who turns out to be a very likeable man, and I certainly respected him before. In the book, Dyke talks about focusing the BBC more on making excellent programmes. Despite the work of some outside contractors, I think he succeeded in that. Evidently during his tenure the BBC took on about as many staff as will be let go as a result of the latest shake-up, which is allegedly intended to do... the same thing. Now I understand the need one DG might feel to put down his predecessor, but... Meanwhile, one might actually reasonably compliment the BBC's PR department for the upbeat way in which they have managed to spin this news that, for many, will be dire.
Now Dyke's successor, Mark Thompson, is promising more funding for quality programming across the board. But in doing so, he's cutting 400 jobs from factual and learning - specifically, the part that makes programmes like Watchdog. This is because in-house production overall is to be cut from 70 to 60 per cent. Now, this isn't 'specialist factual', that makes the landmark history and science programming - they'll actually get more money - but it's still a concern to see it being cut back. And in fact one way or another, everyone's budgets will be cut back. Programme-makers are expected to cut 15% in 'efficiency savings' with the promise of jam tomorrow if they succeed. The big assumption is that there is that much inefficiency now. As far as I'm concerned, I'm afraid that I think it's more likely that you will make better programmes with more people (as long as it's not 'too many') than you will make them with less, all things remaining equal.
Obviously, there has no doubt been a lot of research into how efficient the BBC is overall, and it is perhaps no surprise that there is some fat that can be trimmed in an organisation as large as this. The big problem with an organisation funded by public money (one way or another) is the tendency towards a Civil Service mentality, where everyone spends a lot of time covering their backs, and this reduces efficiency. But is 10% of the total workforce 'fat'? Almost certainly not, even if you take out those affected by increased use of independent production companies.
I am very much in favour of the BBC producing better and better programmes. I certainly hope to see more 'quality' programming in the future, especially from specialist factual (please can you speed up Horizon a little?). BBC Four and Two are my clear favourite channels. But is more independent production really the best way to go about it? You would think you'd want to keep your flagship programmes close at hand, and is it really more efficient or just moving costs from one budget to another, where it will cost more in real terms. Luckily, there won't be an increase in the independent production quota from 25% - but for an additional 25%, indies and in-house will be in a "window of creative competition". That could mean increasing the quota by the back door - especially if your in-house production capability is emasculated and less able to compete.
Overall, how much of the job-cutting is really 'needed' and how much is it to encourage the Government to look kindly upon the Corporation in 2006 - and perhaps to appease the former's commercial broadcasting friends - and will it make any difference come Charter review? Well I certainly hope all this proves to be worth it.
Perhaps these changes will be good for the Corporation in the long run, and we really, really need a strong, effective and independent BBC. But right now, my concerns also lie with those staff who will be compulsorily laid off. However good the reasons for the staff reductions, the bottom line is that they affect real people. My thoughts are with you.
