>And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).
How is that deal any different than using Sky as a route to market for free-at-point-of-consumption public service content? J On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >Yes, this is true. And a charity can have wholly owned subsidiary > >that makes profits, in much the same way. > > > >BBC - not for profit corporation. > > > >BBC Worldwide - a global company that makes a profit. > > > >Gordo > > > > At 14:09 +0100 9/10/07, Mr I Forrester wrote: > > >[...] > Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has > been important for us and them. > [...] > > > And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with > the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of > IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide). > > And somebody paid for the server farm in New York for BBC News > Online, and I don't think it was the licence fee, since that could > not be justified, could it? > > Gordo > > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > -- Jason Cartwright Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44(0)2070313161
