LONDON -- The BBC needs to set its creative sights higher, according to a survey of its own audiences.
In a more candid than usual annual report, published July 3, the corporation admits that viewers are saying "loud and clear they want fresh and new ideas."
This is according to the BBC Trust, the Beeb's new ruling body, which replaced the board of governors in January and is designed to be more representative of the audience than the old system.
The BBC Trust asked 4,500 people to assess the BBC's performance across a range of categories.
Education and news were ranked as the top two BBC priorities while entertainment was number three.
Almost half the sample said the corp. was failing to do enough to innovate and back new and exciting programs.
"This message, alongside a desire for high quality -- which need not necessarily mean high cost -- is consistent across all groups who have participated in our consultations and it is one of the key factors we will consider when deciding the BBC's strategic priorities in the autumn," said Lyons.
Director general Mark Thompson singled out fare like "Doctor Who," "Strictly Come Dancing," "Life on Mars" and "Planet Earth" for praise.
A body that regularly polls the audience, hmmmm. That seems a little more responsive than the Canadian model of traipsing everybody up to Gatineau to the CRTC, and seeing all the grubby cablers and casters first, does it not?
I wonder, if you wrote the questions in a neutral, non-ax grinding way (a la Shaw's hilarious, "don't you think we should be able to make more money and not ram Ontario crap down your throats?" survey earlier this year) what would people really have to say about Canadian programs? Especially if you started with the successes like Corner Gas?
CBC is the only network that I believe gets this kind of feedback regularly. And unless I miss my guess, what their surveys usually find is that people in Canada believe in the concept of the CBC and are dissatisfied with the execution -- esp. on the TV side.
Polling the audience. What an interesting idea.
3 comments:
Loved your posts on notes. And well spotted on the Variety piece. Guess how much attention that got in the BBC?
Wondering out loud:
How do the other private channels measure success over in the UK? Is it a ratings / demographics game?
ITV has PRIMEVAL which in my mind was as entertaining (if not more so) as DOCTOR WHO, and has developed a following. I am hoping the SciFi Channel here will pick it up.
SKY ONE has/had HEX which has been sold here to BBC America.
What are these "new and exciting programs" that set the standard by which the BBC is now being measured? Were the audiences asked to give examples of the programs they deemed "innovative?"
That would be more telling in the final analysis.
The BBC is in a unique situation. It's funded by a license fee that all TV viewers in the UK have to pay, kind of like an obligatory subscription. The cost of the license is set by the government, they'll take input from the BBC's board of governers but at the end of the day it's politicians who decide how much cash the BBC gets each year.
The BBC's charter states that it's duties are "to inform, educate and entertain" in that order. That'll keep parliament happy. But the public and some critics want it to produce more populist programming, like the newly revived and dumbed down Dr Who. If the public see the BBC getting good ratings then they think they're getting value for money, which is why it pumps out fodder like Who, reality shows, game shows etc. Opiate for the masses.
It's a tricky balancing act, on the one the hand they have a duty to produce "quality" programs, on the other they have to keep great unwashed happy. Running surveys like this helps the Beeb justify it's license fee to parliament.
Post a Comment