About this blog

  • My day job - I am founder of Battenhall, communications agency for the social media economy.


Subscribe to this blog

  • Subscribe to this site by email or RSS

    This is my personal blog and does not reflect the views of my company or clients.

Blog powered by Typepad


« Murdoch empire on BBC - it's completely outrageous | Main | Return of the David Milliband blog »

April 28, 2006


I don't understand Dennis' comments.

Why should this lead to the commercialisation of the BBC?

Most of this 'value' is intangible. Most of these intangible values are delivered because of the BBC's relationships with a wide range of publics. Should this relationship management activity be allocated as investments? If so how much of the relationship management cost should move from P&L to the ballance sheet.
If there is a practice of public relations called 'relationship management' is it an investment or a cost.

If the licence fee goes, where does it get the bulk of its income? It would be crazy not to capitalise on the wealth in its growing digital vault. Especially in the political and economic climate of the moment.

Given that its crown jewels have not been monetised, that's one heck of a vault. The annuity value alone of syndicating content globaly is staggering. Think of the Fools and Horses re-runs on the Sky channels. Do you think Sky gets that for free?

What about its audio assets. At the very least don't you think they'll want to monetize things like John Peel studio sessions to die hard rock and punk fans?

What about the value to social historians of series like the Archers? It already has an extensive fanzine but folk like Peggie Archer are institutions among large swathes of the grey pound market. It's also an integral part of our recent cultural history from a sociological perspective. Imagine mashing snippets from the entire Archers archive and mashing it up with interviews from the cast. What about including searchable listener reaction to key events over the history of the series. Make that searchable. Make it freely available to academics who develop an authoritative wiki that in turn is a live resource, but moderated academically so that it retains its value.

Now does it make sense?

To David's point - The BBC is already monetizing to a limited extent. The Ricky Gervais thing by The Guardian demonstrated the monetization potential for podcast distribution by morphed old style media.

This is not an ads play necessarily but a way of working the Web 2.0 metaphor into helping to preserve its future. The institute that is Auntie to 60 million people and countless others around the world is not going to sacrifice its cultural status as part of a cultural shift.

That would be like shooting the Queens corgies as a cost cutting exercise. We may not be too fond of the old girl these days but we draw the line at killing off the things we do like about her.

I am proposing ways in which that transition could be achieved such that it satisfies every stakeholder.

I am therefore theorizing scenarios based on an as yet unconnected yet available set of facts that I am locating within the context of the BBCs Web 2.0 style technology play.

It doesn't have to be right or wrong but I believe that as a stakeholder in the BBC (they get my attention give me mine) that I have a right to raise the question.

The comments to this entry are closed.