Broadband News
News, views and analysis
BBC continues to draw flack on video-sharing plan
03 Aug 2009 | 17.54 Europe/London
The BBC's decision to share online video content with four major newspapers was never going to slip under anyone's radar. One week on, columnists are still questioning the Beeb's motives - and it's since emerged the infamous BBC Trust could still derail the whole venture. With seemingly everyone writing about the plans having a vested interest in what actually happens, what's really going on?
On the face of it, the BBC sharing video with newspapers seems like a win-win situation: the BBC gets a bigger audience watching its content and the papers get something for nothing. (For the record, it's the owners of the Daily Mail, Guardian, Daily Telegraph and Independent that stand to benefit from the deal.) Of course, it's similarly obvious who misses out - and the members of the Fleet Street posse that aren't benefiting and the competing video outlets aren't exactly lacking the means to vent their grumbles.
"News International assessed the BBC's proposals and found that they not only impose onerous marketing conditions, but also offer little differentiation or benefit to customers of our websites," said a spokeswoman from News Corporation, which publishes The Times and The Sun. "We expect the BBC will require the [newspapers involved] to provide marketing for the BBC at no cost ... accepting a ban on advertising. This means that while they may not be charged, it is certainly not free and is likely to bring about a greater sameness of video content on a range of sites."
"We have consistently argued that content dumping by a publicly-funded broadcaster distorts the market and undermines the investment in video by commercial providers, such as the Press Association," said, predictably, someone from the Press Association. Meanwhile someone with an actual name - John Hardie, ITN's CEO - accused the BBC of "pulling the rug from under us" and "potentially undercutting a very important revenue stream." ITV and the PA are hoping the BBC Trust will do away with the BBC's video-sharing blueprint, much as it destroyed the corporation's plans for local news websites.
Then the whole issue of the Beeb sharing video was framed in what is increasingly the usual way: that it's a BBC trick. Some argue it's a move designed to protect its precious licence fee, others that it's designed to legitimise the BBC's website while directing more traffic its way. "I take my hat off to Mark Thompson, the director general, and his overpaid sidekicks," wrote one columnist today in a newspaper that actually, in theory at least, stands to benefit: the Independent. "At one and the same time they are undermining the case of their critics and promoting the BBC's interests."
But there's one thing that's agreed on by almost everyone: that the video-sharing deal is a big deal - a great big "groundbreaking," "landmark" deal - and you have to wonder why. Newspapers and the BBC are held to very different editorial codes and media laws: for the Beeb's video donations, one size may not fit all. Then there's the issue of "greater sameness" across websites that News Corporation is worried about, which seems to suggest there is room for competition after all. But since the papers can't actually work out how to earn and money from their websites, does anybody believe they'd be spending cash on video content anyway? And perhaps the BBC should be more worried than anyone at the prospect of it stealing surfers away to its own website, given its aforementioned fears for its licence fee and altogether separate fears for the site itself (specifically that its output could be curtailed).
Which leaves the question: what is actually going on? Despite all the media attention it's got - and was bound to receive - the video-sharing deal can be read as a cheap political gesture. "The BBC set out its intention to open up access to BBC news content as part of the Digital Britain process," said Mark Byford, its Deputy Director General and Head of Journalism. "We regard this initiative as a core part of the BBC working more effectively as a public service partner, with other media organisations utilising BBC news content." Is there a more cost effective way of seeming like actively striving for partnership while you passively allow the videos you've already made for yourself to be embedded in someone else's site?
On the face of it, the BBC sharing video with newspapers seems like a win-win situation: the BBC gets a bigger audience watching its content and the papers get something for nothing. (For the record, it's the owners of the Daily Mail, Guardian, Daily Telegraph and Independent that stand to benefit from the deal.) Of course, it's similarly obvious who misses out - and the members of the Fleet Street posse that aren't benefiting and the competing video outlets aren't exactly lacking the means to vent their grumbles.
"News International assessed the BBC's proposals and found that they not only impose onerous marketing conditions, but also offer little differentiation or benefit to customers of our websites," said a spokeswoman from News Corporation, which publishes The Times and The Sun. "We expect the BBC will require the [newspapers involved] to provide marketing for the BBC at no cost ... accepting a ban on advertising. This means that while they may not be charged, it is certainly not free and is likely to bring about a greater sameness of video content on a range of sites."
"We have consistently argued that content dumping by a publicly-funded broadcaster distorts the market and undermines the investment in video by commercial providers, such as the Press Association," said, predictably, someone from the Press Association. Meanwhile someone with an actual name - John Hardie, ITN's CEO - accused the BBC of "pulling the rug from under us" and "potentially undercutting a very important revenue stream." ITV and the PA are hoping the BBC Trust will do away with the BBC's video-sharing blueprint, much as it destroyed the corporation's plans for local news websites.
Then the whole issue of the Beeb sharing video was framed in what is increasingly the usual way: that it's a BBC trick. Some argue it's a move designed to protect its precious licence fee, others that it's designed to legitimise the BBC's website while directing more traffic its way. "I take my hat off to Mark Thompson, the director general, and his overpaid sidekicks," wrote one columnist today in a newspaper that actually, in theory at least, stands to benefit: the Independent. "At one and the same time they are undermining the case of their critics and promoting the BBC's interests."
But there's one thing that's agreed on by almost everyone: that the video-sharing deal is a big deal - a great big "groundbreaking," "landmark" deal - and you have to wonder why. Newspapers and the BBC are held to very different editorial codes and media laws: for the Beeb's video donations, one size may not fit all. Then there's the issue of "greater sameness" across websites that News Corporation is worried about, which seems to suggest there is room for competition after all. But since the papers can't actually work out how to earn and money from their websites, does anybody believe they'd be spending cash on video content anyway? And perhaps the BBC should be more worried than anyone at the prospect of it stealing surfers away to its own website, given its aforementioned fears for its licence fee and altogether separate fears for the site itself (specifically that its output could be curtailed).
Which leaves the question: what is actually going on? Despite all the media attention it's got - and was bound to receive - the video-sharing deal can be read as a cheap political gesture. "The BBC set out its intention to open up access to BBC news content as part of the Digital Britain process," said Mark Byford, its Deputy Director General and Head of Journalism. "We regard this initiative as a core part of the BBC working more effectively as a public service partner, with other media organisations utilising BBC news content." Is there a more cost effective way of seeming like actively striving for partnership while you passively allow the videos you've already made for yourself to be embedded in someone else's site?