homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.234.128.25
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / UK Search and Internet Marketing News
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: IanTurner & engine

UK Search and Internet Marketing News Forum

    
BBC boss admits websites face chop
Some of the BBC's websites are likely to close
ukgimp




msg:260632
 9:40 am on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

He added that it would be "totally relaunched to make it a lot easier to use" before the end of the year.

[media.guardian.co.uk...]

 

creative craig




msg:260633
 9:49 am on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

"We have strategically positioned the move towards interactive TV because we've seen how popular it can be and it reaches people that don't necessarily spend a lot of time on the web,"

What about people who do spend alot of time on the web?

Craig

mat




msg:260634
 9:57 am on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

"We've got to work out what people look at and what they don't," he said.

8.5 million users and they're just now getting round to this? Dear me.

ukgimp




msg:260635
 12:11 pm on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

related : MyBBC closes

[theregister.co.uk...]

Legin




msg:260636
 1:03 pm on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

No wonder they need to cut back if they spend 74 million pounds on 8.5 million users. thats £8.70 per user. Ouch!

Allen




msg:260637
 1:04 pm on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

"We have strategically positioned the move towards interactive TV because we've seen how popular it can be and it reaches people that don't necessarily spend a lot of time on the web,"

Yeah, on Sky maybe. We still get zilch interactive stuff on NTL. :(

Allen

sem4u




msg:260638
 1:13 pm on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just about every show has its own website so I guess that they could remove some of them and cut down on that huge cost.

hayluke




msg:260639
 1:16 pm on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Just about every show has its own website so I guess that they could remove some of them and cut down on that huge cost.

..or start charging people who don't pay a licence fee to use the site ;)

nutsandbolts




msg:260640
 2:56 pm on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

"We have strategically positioned" = "We are cutting jobs".

Management speak, blah.

tosspot17




msg:260641
 3:04 pm on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

I can't help thinking that the decision to cut back a bit isn't purely money related.

There's been talk for some time now about how dominant the BBC's web presence is and whether this is fair given the way the corporation is funded.

Some articles;

[media.guardian.co.uk...]

While accepting that the BBC should have a role online, it believes that this should be limited to programme support and public-service materials, such as its award-winning news service.

[media.guardian.co.uk...]

Competitors in areas such as sports and entertainment have long complained that the BBC's dominance on the web hampers their own prospects.

[bipa.co.uk...]

We accept there is a role for the BBC but it should be in specific areas such as lifelong learning that aren't provided elsewhere. Those are the kind of constraints we're looking for

currybet




msg:260642
 5:53 pm on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

as a member of BBCi staff I feel obliged to point out that £8.70 per user is a drop in the ocean of the BBC's budget - the BBC is currently is dispute with Sky over the £2.57 per set box it costs simply to broadcast television encrypted over their network - thats without actually making the programmes!

its the interactive 24/7 services on telly that are getting "totally relaunched to make it a lot easier to use" - not the whole website

Marketing Guy




msg:260643
 6:01 pm on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi Currybet

£8.70 per user may be a drop in the ocean of the BBC's budget, but it's still a helluva a lot of money for a website to spend! :)

BTW since you have popped up, are you able to comment on the effectiveness of the recent redesign? :)

Ive been going to the BBC news site for years and would be interested in what impact it had.

Cheers
Scott

currybet




msg:260644
 6:14 pm on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

I don't work for the News part of New Media, so i don't have access to that info - I too would be fascinated!

All I can say is that when I first saw the re-designs on paper like most people I thought "Oh Change. Change is bad". But as soon as I went back to using the site in its effectively one column plus-a-bit-of-nav format I was struck by how narrow and odd if felt, and was positively gagging for the re-design to go live

Marketing Guy




msg:260645
 6:19 pm on Mar 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

I liked the old design. :)

I've found myself visting less parts of the site as before. But that may be just me!

Grrr....change is bad! ;)

It's not that there is anything wrong with the new design, it's just that I liked being able to scroll down extracts from current articles from the news homepage!

Scott

Ankheg




msg:260646
 4:48 am on Mar 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems another case of the BBC violating the old adage "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". First they reduce the World Service shortwave service, saying nobody listens to shortwave in English in the Americas anymore. Er, I did, and do. So then they say that we merkins should read the news online, or listen online (yeah, at 56k, with all the buffering issues and audio feed problems, reception was actually better on 6125KHz). And now they're going to reduce their web presence... What are we to do? RTE just isn't the same. :)

brotherhood of LAN




msg:260647
 5:01 am on Mar 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

We have strategically positioned the move towards interactive TV because we've seen how popular it can be and it reaches people that don't necessarily spend a lot of time on the web,"

Seems fair for the license payer in general. Remember that analogue TV, hopefully, will be turned off in the UK by 2010. Perhaps BBC have a role to play in this in the eyes of the govt.?

If so, they'll have to pull back their cannons from somewhere....

trismegisto




msg:260648
 12:06 pm on Mar 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

Itís really a shame to see this happen, I mean, BBC has the online presence we would like to see in most media communication companys. It is dominating the web because there is almost no other company doing so much on the web.

If such a giant as BBC canít avoid online budget cuts, who cans?

saoi_jp




msg:260649
 5:09 pm on Mar 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

"we merkins"

Do you know what this means?!? It's such an offensive term, so loaded with contempt...

Ankheg




msg:260650
 7:48 pm on Mar 15, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yes, I know quite well what 'merkin' means, and I use it with a sort of gentle contempt and in the spirit of self-deprecation... I think it's a quite fitting and appropriate term, and is certainly less threatening than most of the things I'd like to refer to King George 'Salad Creme' Bush and his subjects as...

Besides, I *am* a merkin, er, American, though I'm not terribly proud of the fact; it's *OK* for me to use the term. :)

GodLikeLotus




msg:260651
 10:37 pm on Mar 15, 2003 (gmt 0)

Personally I would like to see a drop in the Outragous wages that some people at the BBC earn. Although I loved Angus on "Have I Got News For You" does anyone in their right mind think he was worth £50k a programme?

brotherhood of LAN




msg:260652
 6:18 pm on Mar 16, 2003 (gmt 0)

>angus on that programme

maybe one for UK Gold now ;)

>job losses

out with the old and in with the new? [bbc.co.uk]? They were advertising this on BBC radio.

They sure can spread it around....looks like the web is the bottom of the pile

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / UK Search and Internet Marketing News
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved