Brought on by the BBC deciding their top execs deserved up to £100k bonuses. Massive budget cuts in programming but the execs deserve bonuses?
Mmmmmmmm. let's investigate.
Am I wrong here? Aren't bonuses supposed to be paid for some kind of achievement? But a quick perusal of the figures don't point to much in the way of achievement.
Total average weekly viewing hours per person for BBC1 and 2 for Feb to May 2008 - 29.65
For the same period 2007 - 30.37
Doesn't seem to be an achievement in my book. Seems to be going backwards if anything.
Let's have a look at BBC flagship shows EastEnders and Holby City.
Week ending 25th May 2008 [to avoid Euro 2008 distortions] EastEnders 9.2 million viewers. Holby City 5.1 million.
Week ending 27th May 2007 - EastEnders 9.91 million Holby City 5.16 million.
Sooooooooooooo? In a year where they appear to have lost both viewing time per person per week and close on a million viewers from top rated shows, they get a bonus? Not to mention the decimation of news and current affairs, documentaries and the world renowned BBC Wildlife Unit.
What do they get when they really cock up? A knighthood?
A show I was on had close on half a million quid shaved off it's budget. No rhyme or reason for it other than that was the proportion of budget cuts it had to bear. The powers that be [marketing] then decided to spend at least that amount and more on an advertising push for the show.
That budget cut caused massive problems for the quality of the show. Core actors couldn't be held on contract and became restless. Extras were kept to the barest minimum and restrictions placed on the stories we could tell because of the non availability of cast. But what the heck, so long as you can fool enough of the people enough of the time with a fancy ad campaign.
Get these people out and get people in there who know what the hell they are doing other than the ability to line their pockets .