• silicon.com
• Technology
• Networks

By Will Sturgeon, 12 July 2004 11:35

COMMENT My favourite of the anecdotes wheeled out to chart the nation's understanding of the internet is about the elderly couple who travelled down from somewhere 'oop North' to Television Centre in Shepherd's Bush and told the man at the gate they were there to see the BBC's website - presuming it to be something to do with spiders but aware it was worth the journey because it was mentioned at the end of most programmes.

Now things have changed a little since those days of confusion but after years of expansion the BBC's web presence is set to shrink a little following recommendations in the government-initiated Graf report that it close a number of its websites.

Now, unlike the vast majority - or at least the vocal majority - of silicon.com readers I fully support almost any reasonable measures taken to rein in the BBC.

I know the BBC's news service is excellent (and so it should be, given the funding it receives) but the issue here wasn't the news coverage or the BBC's closely guarded impartiality or the fact that it provides the vital government counterbalance in a church and state democracy. Nor was it the fact the BBC is 'propaganda free' and a destination for those who live in countries which don't enjoy the same levels of freedom within the media.

We'll take those as read and get along a lot better if you remember that at no point am I suggesting we curtail the BBC's news coverage.

The government's complaints all centred on non-essential offerings such as games and entertainment features which are clearly accounting for public money in the form of licence fees and yet are directly competing with perfectly acceptable commercial services.

Some readers suggested this was simply more government sour grapes after the fiasco of the Hutton enquiry.

Now while I've not read it cover-to-cover I'm fairly sure the Hutton report at no point specifically made mention of Fantasy Football competitions - but clearly some people believe that to be the case. Either that or they are simply far too blinkered when it comes to understanding why aspects of the BBC's business model are not acceptable.

It has been argued that the BBC's anti-competitive practices are putting out of business UK firms who fight for commercial revenues in a market where the BBC has utterly destroyed any chance of a level playing field.

The dominance of the BBC is also stifling innovation within the media and nobody revels in that situation more than the BBC. It will often report how the BBC websites 'scoop top awards' or 'receive the most clicks'. Just last week the BBC site was boasting that it won the 'online ratings war' with its formulaic and rather staid Euro 2004 coverage.

So well done to the Beeb and the next time an innovative sports media site - such as the much-missed OneFootball.com, which provided detailed and informed comment, with an interesting selection of columnists, such as best-selling author Simon Kuper - goes out of business because it couldn't compete for clicks in a market cast in shadow by the BBC, I hope they'll polish their gongs with glee in Shepherd's Bush.

Owners of other media brands would rightly argue, 'Well give me your funding and I'll win awards'. In many respects they would be right. With no means of comparison there is no way to tell whether the online offering represents a worthwhile return on our investment but my guess is that brands more used to fighting for their life are far better positioned to innovate and, given the funding, would really raise the bar.

One reader who wisely opted to remain anonymous wrote in to say: "How sad. If commercial websites aren't up to competing, that is their problem."

That's one way to neatly side-step the small issue of the unreasonable headstart the BBC is given to produce online content.

The BBC is funded to the tune of many millions of pounds annually to provide its web coverage with no thought of ad revenues. Other sites must balance their expenditure against their income.

But some believe this is merely a case of the government keeping vote-swaying media baron Rupert Murdoch and his kith and kin happy.

Reader Colin Hinkley said: "The reason the BBC is constantly under attack is that it conflicts with the commercial interests of Rupert Murdoch and other media barons."

But perhaps the reader whose opinions most closely echoed my own was Richard Bence.

"The BBC has always had a reputation for high quality but its tentacles are now spreading into areas that do not provide value to licence-payers," he wrote. "It is not just Rupert Murdoch who is affected by the BBC but small UK companies. How can there be an effective marketplace when one of the players is a vast publicly funded body?"

It's a good point. It wouldn't be tolerated in any other marketplace. My point here isn't that the BBC needs to be closed down or run out of town, though I appreciate there are those who take any attack on the corporation to mean just that.

To use a less high-tech analogy that even that old couple at the beginning of this piece would understand, I want to see the internet nurtured and websites given the opportunity to grow and to innovate. In order for that to happen some of the BBC's less necessary branches need to be cut back to allow the sunlight to reach the more promising saplings on the ground. I'm fine with the BBC being the tallest, proudest, most admired tree in the garden but let's make sure it is a garden, with diversity, colour and growth and not a shaded wasteland beneath one monolithic oak.