Talk about ugly... for some reason US screen graphics are often garish, overcomplex and hard to read in my view. Look at this example from MSNBC this morning.
]]>Project Kangaroo is (or perhaps was, given the stance that now seems to be all too clear) an attempt to provide a "one-stop shop" for video-on-demand content from the major broadcasters, and by doing so has brought the wrath of those who ideologically believe that this sort of thing shouldn't really be permitted to happen.
The BBC's iPlayer had established an early and dominant lead in internet-based, video-on demand provision, so the biggest losers from Kangaroo's failure (if/when it happens) will be the other broadcasters that are involved in the project and were banking on its success to further promote their programming.
Indeed ITV was campaigning hard for the Kangaroo proposal to be accepted, so Michael Grade is likely to be the person that is most disappointed by the Competition Commission ruling even though there is still some scope for a more limited service to be implemented at some point.
Kangaroo's potential for failure was strongly highlighted when Ashley Highfield quickly hopped over to Microsoft just a few weeks after joining Kangaroo as its director; either Microsoft made him an offer he couldn't refuse or he noticed that something was distinctly wrong with the whole venture which in turn caused him to quickly jump ship.
The real issue with Kangaroo lies less with rival video-on-demand services (setting up such a service is non-trivial and requires the cooperation of major broadcasters), but perhaps relates more to the independent production sector, since the balance of power has been shifting slowly but steadily towards independent producers in recent years.
Kangaroo would have tilted the odds back towards the established broadcasters as well as perhaps upsetting BSkyB (if they didn't want to join) along with American broadcasters (ditto - witness the somewhat belated inclusion of the US-originated Hulu service), so these reasons alone meant that Kangaroo's acceptance was always going to be tricky.
As an aside, Peter Freeman's comments on how a monopoly can impose unfavourable terms in relation to licensing content to third parties might also cause some discomfort within BSkyB, especially given the recent ruling that effectively forces them to share some of their premium content with rival services.
And if BSkyB can monopolise various specific elements of television content, what's to stop Kangaroo being permitted to equally monopolise other elements under similar terms? It's clear that the goalposts on what is actively considered to be a 'monopoly' can be shifted depending on the viewpoint being employed.
What superficially seems to have been dodged is the fact that the major broadcasters control much of their content anyway, so Project Kangaroo could potentially end up being irrelevant as to whether or not they choose to share their content with others (as a consequence) along with the price being charged.
Indeed it's possible to balance the arguments for or against Kangaroo in either direction depending on who you feel holds the most credibility, and in this case the fact that there are already major rival video-on-demand services in existence seems to have been played down in relation to the judgement, although the full report may help to clarify this.
For example, certain programmes would never be made available via Project Kangaroo so viewers would still have to visit other websites to obtain them, therefore Kangaroo is likely to be just a substitute for the existing BBC/ITV/Channel 4 video websites as opposed to sucking demand from other sources such as iTunes.
All things considered, it's unlikely that Kangaroo will ever be approved in a sensible form under the current circumstances since any compromises imposed (if they can think of any practical ones, that is) may render the service almost useless compared to established sources such as the iPlayer and iTunes.
]]>I was going to start this blog entry with the words "You couldn't make this up", but after recent events that are all too obvious this seems fairly predictable given hindsight, namely someone getting into a small spot of bother for exposing themselves. On the radio. (And nothing was seen on the webcam either, just incase you've thought of that angle.)
If this develops into another 'Sachsgate', they could call it 'Jackgate'. Or 'Barrowgate'. Accompanied by the Daily Mail screaming: "Let's ban nudity on the radio".
Maybe not, but judging from the apologetic reaction emanating from the BBC on this occasion - including the withdrawal of the show from the iPlayer (the words "fruit and nuts" could have been bleeped out if they wanted to protect the ears of teenagers from being sullied with such filth) - the lessons of Sachsgate still haven't been learnt yet.
Namely, how not to (over)react when confronted with a 'crisis'.
]]>At least the downturn in the commercial property market has prevented the BBC from taking the easy, short-term solution of selling the family silver and has instead focused more attention onto the corporation's services; of which there is still much to be done judging from several recent events.
Both Crowngate and Sachsgate were at least exacerbated (if not directly caused) by deficiencies in the BBC's PR department that had been caused by previous cutbacks, which just goes to show how something that looks superfluous on paper can have a deep impact within the corporation as a whole.
As mentioned before, it seems that the BBC had previously concentrated on cutting back on the things you don't see (such as paid researchers) in deference to making changes to things that are obvious such as axing programmes and services; the risk of the BBC's services declining in quality as a result starts to become all too real.
Personally I would merge BBC Three and the CBBC Channel - sending BBC Three (instead of Sport) to Salford - and perhaps replacing BBC Four with a proposal to make selected archive programming available on the iPlayer along with changing the remit of BBC Two slightly to accommodate what's left over.
If the BBC doesn't make radical and highly visible changes to its output, politicians and the public alike will start to question the validity of having a BBC that has spread itself too thinly. The aftermath of Sachsgate proves that the underlying issue is far more serious than isolated scandals and directly affects the integrity of the licence fee.
And a BBC Four full of repeats is the last thing that the BBC needs to justify itself to anyone.
]]>So the Government has decided rather tacitly to withdraw the earlier digital switchover help proposed for Channel 4 in deference to a more complete solution, which is not only what Channel 4 wanted in the first place but also the perfect excuse for backing out of a pledge that was rapidly threatening to be unworkable.
The fact is that the European Commission's objection to Channel 4 being given cash from the TV licence fee in order to fund its digital switchover has had far greater ramifications for any future blueprint for UK public service broadcasting than either the Government or (in particular) Ofcom is willing to admit openly in public.
Indeed this is all very embarrassing for Ofcom - even though nobody will dare to admit this - since Ofcom has spent some considerable time and effort drawing up possible future scenarios based around the principle of top-slicing the licence fee, yet nobody seemed minded to check whether or not some of the proposals were actually legal.
So Ofcom was effectively proposing options that were essentially unworkable because nobody bothered to check subsidy issues in relation to European law, therefore many of the suggested solutions ended up being based on ideology as opposed to reality. But of course none of this answers the question as to what will eventually happen to Channel 4.
The urgency to find a solution to all of the UK's public service broadcasting problems has accelerated due to worsening economic conditions along with the realisation that the electoral timetable (with a general election in the way) isn't exactly favouring a delayed solution.
Bearing in mind that the media industry accounts for an important chunk of UK trade both internally and in terms of valuable exports, the current economic circumstances have literally forced the Government into acting sooner rather than later in order to attempt to protect this important industry.
Some people have suggested that privatising Channel 4 might be the only economically viable option left under the current circumstances, and although this might have been considered a far-fetched option not so long ago, it all depends on whether ministers can persuade themselves that special legislation will be enough to protect Channel 4's remit.
Especially as the cash raised from Channel 4 privatisation could be eagerly devoured given the current circumstances, although any privatisation would raise awkward questions about ITV's public service remit and its regulation. Or lack of it, given Ofcom's past willingness to freely accept ITV's pessimistic viewpoint without contradiction.
The possibility of any additional taxation levied on the media industry in order to fund Channel 4 may be a non-starter given the current economic situation, so unless more money can be dragged up from somewhere it may be the case that government ministers may start to think of previously unthinkable things.
So what will happen to Channel 4 next year will be especially interesting, and ITV will also learn whether or not it will be able to eventually let go of all of its regional broadcasting responsibilities at the same time, as well as presumably addressing the issue of contract rights renewal that has plagued ITV plc in recent times.
]]>So, it's come to this. If you spent the grand total of 15p (other networks may vary) voting for John Sergeant on Strictly Come Dancing, you can get it back from the BBC.
It's fairly obvious what has happened - "Oh no", says the BBC, we're not getting flak from this one - we want big positive headlines like "Sergeant was 'loathed' on 'Strictly'" and "more than 2,000 complain over John Sergeant exit" instead.
So off the BBC goes to launch a massive refund programme to sort out the three or four people that will actually bother to claim it. I suppose in a way it's quite clever - very few will exert the effort to reclaim their money and so the BBC will still have most of the phone call money in the bank.
But it'd have got a lot more respect from everyone if it had given it all to charity instead.
]]>Given my recent stance on the BBC's previous decision to drop Top of the Pops from the festive schedule, of course I'm pleased that it has been reinstated for this year, and it will be interesting to see what the ratings are for the two planned shows in light of the recent publicity.
However there is a downside to this return, namely the fact that Simon Cowell had previously expressed a desire to revive Top of the Pops as a commercial proposition, and in what respect the BBC's change of heart is directly related to this request.
(Incidentally the recent and very abrupt axing of After You've Gone and Phoo Action could have been intended to free up previously unallocated programming budget for these newly-announced TOTP specials,)
Recently there has been mounting pressure on the BBC not just to share its programming amongst commercial rivals (which has been the case for several years), but also to share its intellectual property in the form of programme formats amongst UK broadcasters, which are now often sold in the UK and abroad to the highest bidder on the open market.
Therefore if a commercial producer wants to make use of a format which the BBC holds the rights to but isn't currently exploiting (such as Top of the Pops), industry pressure could be brought to bear on the corporation to either force a format sale or to make the BBC use such a format itself even if the BBC feels that the time isn't right for its revival.
In Simon Cowell's case, he could undoubtedly make use of the Top of the Pops format to shamelessly promote acts from his other shows, so the commercial agenda is obvious here. However Top of the Pops in particular had a tradition of being unbiased in terms of its music coverage; its reputation (and former popularity) was based very much on this.
It's also arguable that the likes of The X Factor have effectively hijacked the mass market for pop music in the absence of Top of the Pops, especially as X Factor-related acts seems to be the only thing that is selling in respectable numbers in terms of music downloads these days (most of the chart seems to be occupied by acts with niche appeal).
Therefore if the BBC revived Top of the Pops itself, this could potentially threaten to unseat The X Factor's commercial dominance of mass market pop music, and Doctor Who proved that being bold can reap strong rewards in the process. No wonder then that Simon Cowell was showing interest as well as perhaps being worried as to what could happen.
Should the BBC have caved in to Cowell? For one thing, Top of the Pops isn't being revived as a full-time series just yet - and the ratings for the two specials will be the determination of what happens next - so if commercial interest has been expressed then the BBC could (and perhaps should) also consider a full-time revival as a consequence.
But only on its own terms.
]]>Usually the news that the BBC had axed a sitcom after three series would perhaps go relatively unnoticed unless it was particularly well-loved, but this news comes merely two days after the announcement that the planned BBC Three series Phoo Action had been cancelled just days before the start of production, ostensibly due to quality issues.
Dare I suggest that certain groups of people within the BBC have now been suddenly hit by a panic attack in relation to what little money is left for programme commissioning? And was axing After You've Gone the best thing to do solely on the basis of slightly disappointing ratings for the last series and the existence of Coronation Street?
The timing and nature of both of these decisions does seem to be a little too close to write off as being mere coincidence, and heaven forbid the possibility that someone has been sloppy in quality control. One thing's for certain - the BBC has to be careful as to how often it does this sort of thing otherwise it will be wasting precious money as a result.
]]>It's a sign of the times that the commercial broadcasters have teamed up with the independent producers' organisation Pact to lobby their case for product placement in television programmes, although given Andy Burnham's recent stance on this issue, some form of compromise is perhaps the best they can hope for.
The independent production sector which Pact represents has become successful in recent times but this success has come at a price for all concerned, with an economic downturn causing a greater deal of hardship for the indies since they only get paid on a per-production basis.
Therefore the incentive for that alternative (if somewhat minor by comparison) revenue stream from product placement is being welcomed by indie producers as a way of perhaps having some form of direct revenue stream for themselves. That is, if the broadcasters will let them do this for themselves.
Of course it's arguable that if commercial broadcasters produced more programming that people would willingly watch from start to finish, then loss of revenue via traditional advertising would be less of a problem than it currently is at present, but modern regulatory practice precludes actually telling broadcasters to make 'better' programmes.
This current obsession with style over substance means that viewers are channel hopping like crazy in the pursuit of something that's somehow worthwhile, plus the US-influenced trend in providing recaps after every commercial break in turn helps to devalue the programme's content as a whole.
And the current trend for EPG-friendly programme names such as "World's Worst..." isn't exactly helping either, since they can end up promising something to the viewer that they ultimately don't deliver. Even though many viewers probably don't treat them that seriously anymore.
Then there's the proposed code of conduct for product placement to consider. You just have to laugh at some of the so-called "safeguards" being proposed - bearing in mind that they are voluntary as well - since on closer inspection they don't appear to be that effective in what they set out to do in the first place.
For example: "Transparency: a visual indicator to signpost paid-for product will be displayed at the beginning, end and as programmes resume after a break". That means the symbol won't be displayed whilst the product placement is actually on-screen, therefore a fair number of viewers wouldn't be aware of the product placement.
And given the fact that many channels insist on displaying their logo throughout programmes purely for promotional purposes, it's plain to see that the authors of the code just aren't serious about providing the intended function of informing the viewer; the subliminal aspects of product placement would still be very much present as a result.
So much for the claim of 'transparency', then.
There's also the claim that the new code will provide "Editorial independence: the separation of the commercial and creative in the process will ensure that there will be no programme distortion for commercial purposes". Let's see how long that will last, especially given the abysmal track record of certain broadcasters in this regard.
Allowing product placement in UK-produced drama will naturally increase the incentive for commercial broadcasters to commission contemporary-based productions, since they will be able to make more money that way. There's no place for Sony televisions or Rolex watches in a medieval costume drama.
Pact may say that "Product placement already exists in the UK in many forms, particularly through imported programming such as Lost, American Idol, CSI and Desperate Housewives", but conveniently fails to mention that some of those series have already been compromised by product placement.
In what way, may you ask?
In terms of drama, once you know that someone driving a certain make of car won't come to any harm, it more or less ruins any sense of suspense or expectation. Plus some of the crowbarred references to brand names in the dialogue as well as the camera dwelling on a brand name for longer than strictly necessary are just plain laughable.
Much of this may not happen under these proposed UK guidelines of course, but you can be sure that the marketing department will ensure that a certain make of sunglasses to be promoted will be shown relatively close-up as opposed to being only viewable in-shot with an aid of a magnifying glass.
So the claims of transparency and editorial independence provided by this new code may turn out to be a mirage when actually employed within drama productions, although there's still the distinct possibility that product placement may still be banned from drama as a whole but permitted in certain quiz shows and reality TV.
Whether Andy Burnham will cave in to the pressure being exerted by Pact and the commercial broadcasters remains to be seen, but some form of compromise may be inevitable in the end. But as Burnham himself has previously observed, allowing product placement does threaten to undermine some of the remaining qualities of UK drama.
Regardless of any promised safeguards in relation to the use of product placement within drama series, you simply don't have product placement in real life beyond the advertisements we see from day to day, so the hero of a drama may actually prefer Bang & Olufsen to Sony.
]]>The subject of whether or not the media recklessly promoted the concepts of property renovation for profit as well as the surge in buy-to-let activity that was assisted by cheap mortgages has been touched upon before in the MediaBlog, but there's another factor to consider as well.
Most notably it's the modern tendency of television and radio news bulletins to interview on-screen so-called 'experts' for advice on everything from the state of the railways to which credit card offers the best value for money, but perhaps when it comes to certain issues the 'expert' view is sometimes only marginally better than the average man in the street.
This is particularly the case when it comes to financial matters and predicting the future in relation to property prices, when various representatives from banks and estate agents were telling the public via supposedly credible news outlets that the property boom was set to continue for years to come, especially as they stood to directly profit from such activity.
It's this reliance on easy soundbites from these 'professionals' that perhaps convinced many people that the only future direction for property prices was upwards, since we were also being told that a steady flow of immigration coupled with a housing shortage would definitely keep UK property prices from collapsing like what they were starting to do in America.
This lack of knowledge amongst journalists outside of the advice being fed to them by these 'experts' helped to create the consensus amongst media outlets that Robert Peston mentioned in his speech, and in turn helped to perpetuate the myth that property prices would continue on an upward trend and cheap credit would be around for years to come.
And as a direct consequence, few people seemed fit to publicly consider the possibility of those cheap mortgage offers being abruptly withdrawn or the prospect of some of those immigrants leaving the UK if they lost their job or couldn't afford to rent or buy a property.
Ironically in these times of economic uncertainty, the related reporting activity now seems to centre around specific individuals such as the BBC's Robert Peston, presumably because much of the media (and the public) had been betrayed by a succession of 'experts' hence they're now relying on the one or two people that actually know something.
Maybe if media organisations had concentrated on retaining highly paid senior researchers as opposed to employing inexperienced juniors as a cost-cutting measure, certain news and current affairs outlets would have relied less on people with a vested interest in reporting one state of affairs as opposed to providing a truly balanced opinion.
]]>As other EMC writers will confirm, I sometimes get into trouble for championing (some) Daily Mail values and the rules of polite society in an arena that delights in using that newspaper's name as a swear word.
So it is perhaps with some surprise that I find myself disagreeing with Paul Dacre, the Mail's editor-in-chief, when he criticized Mr Justice Eady for bringing in a privacy act by the back door.
Mr Eady ruled that the News of the World should not have intruded into the privacy of Max Mosley by publishing lurid details of sado-masochistic sex sessions he took part in. Whatever you think of his private life, Mr Mosley, although a high-profile person in the public eye, is not a public figure in the sense that an MP or High Court judge or someone else who draws a government salary certainly is. The NOTW story, while undoubtedly of interest to the section of the public that is titillated by salacious reporting, did not constitute serving the public interest.
Mr Dacre overstates his case. Last time I checked, it was not an offence to display evidence of criminal conduct in high (or not so high) office, nor to point out the hypocrisy of an MP who stood for election on a family values platform, devoted family pictures an' all, who subsequently went on to cheat on his wife. Mr Dacre is probably miffed that Mr Justice Eady's ruling is liable to cramp some of the Daily Mail's excesses, which, for all the sympathy I have with a good subset of its views and positions, may be no bad thing.
]]>Apologies in advance for mentioning the 'S' word again, but I'll try to keep it relatively brief this time. Yes it's the return of 'Sachsgate', this time with the resignation of Radio 2's head of specialist music and compliance Dave Barber ahead of the apology that will be broadcast tomorrow, and it doesn't take a genius to deduce the reasoning behind this resignation.
It seems that the BBC has all the necessary procedures in place to stop potentially contentious material from being transmitted such as those well-documented prank messages left on Andrew Sachs' answering machine, but because there was a 'process failure' (so to speak) it's inevitable that human error was ultimately to blame here.
Therefore the person charged with the responsibility of broadcast compliance issues would inevitably have to carry a portion of the blame, even if it was the Radio 2 controller (Lesley Douglas) that ultimately caused these problems by not maintaining a suitably arms-length relationship between controller and presenter.
Hopefully once the apology has been broadcast tomorrow the BBC can stop self-flagellating itself, but three events on the horizon will help to resurrect the Sachsgate spectre. Firstly the return of Jonathan Ross will inevitably attract comments from certain sections of the tabloid press, and it will be interesting to see how this will be handled.
And then there are the reports from the two external regulators - namely the BBC Trust and Ofcom - that will be published; the latter will be interesting in terms of how it judges the BBC for the handling of the issue and what punishment (if any) will be prescribed, plus both reports will inevitably be compared to each other.
All that to look forward to next year (most likely), but in the meantime here's some music. Presented by someone who's decidedly non-contentious.
]]>It may be true that if Channel 4 Radio had been up and running two years ago it could have survived an economic downturn. But crucially the ad revenue would have still had to have come from somewhere, so someone else would have lost revenue as a result (even TalkSport, heaven forbid) even if Channel 4 Television was forced into providing a subsidy.
Plus with Bauer being forced to close its Mojo radio station at the end of the month as well as keeping previous GCap/Global station closures in mind, now is definitely not the time to launch new commercial radio stations - especially digital ones - regardless of the platform.
So UTV blaming Channel 4 is like blaming a nonexistent messenger for delivering the wrong message, although the intention was perhaps to criticise the general economic models that Channel 4 and its partners were using which have recently become invalidated as a result of economic change that was perhaps inevitable.
And it's strange that no one is daring to criticise the high transmission costs that seem to be instrumental in DAB's current woes, not to mention the current licensing arrangements. But there again commercial radio is stuck in the grasp of both Ofcom and Crown Castle unless it tries its hand at internet radio streaming.
At least UTV is still performing reasonably well from a financial perspective, which at least proves that regional television has life left in it. Now if only Ofcom can reconcile regional television with ITV plc's obligations instead of allowing the horse to bolt before closing the stable door.
]]>
Talk about ugly... for some reason US screen graphics are often garish, overcomplex and hard to read in my view. Look at this example from MSNBC this morning.
]]>
Last night found me glued to the BBC News US Election coverage on the BBC website until I dragged myself away at 3am, with Ohio called for Obama and Virginia undeclared. I was watching both the live TV feed and also reading the auto-updating text under the video window on the "Live text: US Election 08" page.
Most of the text appearing there was from BBC correspondents in the US and elsewhere with commentaries on what was going on, between updates on the actual results and predicted results appearing every few moments – in the early stages of the results process at least. It was incredibly useful stuff, especially as I was helping colleagues on our internet radio station who were driving an Election Night virtual party in Second Life for members of the on-line US Library systems and were interspersing dance music with the latest results.
What I didn't need was the stupid "tweets" from Twitter - SMS-length text comments from anybody and everybody with nothing but the usual stupid partisan comments you might expect. This kind of thing maybe has its place in some people's minds, but surely not in pole position on the main page on the BBC's website carrying headline coverage of an extremely significant event – and probably the most important page on their site last night.
I went to the BBC News web coverage of the US elections for authoritative news and comment – the facts and reasonable projections, what the media across the US and beyond was saying, and live commentary from BBC staff on the ground. I did not need annoying, useless, meaningless partisan comments thrown in every other entry from uninformed amateurs with axes to grind.
Please, please, BBC, don't do this again. Amateur Hour I am sure has its place for some people [sigh] but can we keep it to designated "Have Your Say" pages and not splatter it over the main news coverage? I come to BBC News for professional news coverage, not background noise.
Thank you and goodnight.
]]>Based on a comment made by Sir Michael Lyons that slightly hinted that he might just conceivably be a fraction in favour of the BBC's proposals for the expansion of local news reporting on its website, the Newspaper Society's lawyers have sent a letter to the BBC Trust and Ofcom asking them to suspend the public value inquiry into the corporation's plans.
That's just how desperate the newspaper groups are to stop the BBC's local news expansion proposals at absolutely any cost, and you certainly get the impression that any compromise plan that is drawn up won't be any good to them either.
Regional newspapers have had a tough time of things recently, with some papers even resorting to giveaways to prop up their falling circulation. The problem of course is the rise of the internet, enabling local news to be obtained free of charge from various websites, and the BBC wants to plug gaps in local news coverage with its existing resources.
In theory it should be possible for both the BBC and commercial rivals to co-exist in the sphere of local news just like the regional BBC and ITV services did for many years, although it's the spectre of falling ad revenues and the complication of regional and local newspaper groups that makes life even more complicated this time round.
The only way forward that may be agreeable to all parties is perhaps a pledge from the BBC that it won't offer a full local news service in areas that already have a decent local news presence on the internet, but there needs to be a unarguable definition of "decent news service" for this to work. Just how long is that piece of string?
Plus don't forget that ITV already offers a reasonable online regional news presence, even if its regional broadcast TV service seems to be continually being cutback. And there's the ever present threat of someone like Google moving into UK regional news, which could well happen if the BBC is forced to abandon its regional news plans.
So the message to regional newspaper groups seems to be: "Be careful what you wish for".
]]>