I meant to say, perhaps Backstage would have more "success" if we could
commercially exploit the BBC content and give Auntie 20% instead of doing it
for free and giving the Beeb 100% of nowt. ("I ask for nothing"/"You shall
have it in abundance")
On 17/10/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I get the feeling that today is the end-of-the-BBC day: BBC.com users
> "unequivocally" believed advertising would reduce their trust in the BBC
> brand, so we now hear that..
>
>
> Ads set for BBC.com website
>
>
>
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2193103,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=4
>
>
> *Mark Sweney and Tara Conlan Wednesday October 17, 2007
> MediaGuardian.co.uk <http://www.mediaguardian.co.uk/>*
>
>
> BBC News and BBC Worldwide have agreed a deal that paves the way for
> advertising on the corporation's international website, BBC.com.
>
> The BBC Trust is discussing today giving the green light to plans to allow
> adverts on BBC.com.
>
> But MediaGuardian.co.uk <http://mediaguardian.co.uk/> has learnt that last
> week BBC News and BBC Worldwide, the corporation's commercial arm that
> oversees BBC.com, came to an arrangement that is being put to the trust
> this afternoon.
>
> According to sources, Worldwide has agreed to pay a minimum guaranteed
> income to the public service broadcasting part of the BBC.
>
> In return Worldwide gets the rights to use BBC news content for commercial
> gain and a licence to exploit the BBC brand commercially.
>
> Worldwide will also cover the loss of around £4m a year the BBC's
> international news website gets from the Foreign Office in grant-in-aid.
>
> On top of that, Worldwide has guaranteed a percentage of revenue raised
> from BBC.com advertising will go back to BBC news. It is not known what
> the percentage is.
>
> Last year the National Union of Journalists was told that the figure would
> be around 20% but it is thought the actual percentage is less than that.
>
> Opponents of the move to allow advertising on a BBC website have sent a
> round robin message to staff and a message to the BBC Trust, claiming that
> deal does not benefit BBC news as much as first thought.
>
> They claimed that while BBC.com ad revenue would be in dollars, costs to
> BBC news would be in pounds, leaving the financial benefit to the
> corporation's public service broadcasting arm open to exchange rate
> fluctuations.
>
> However, other sources denied BBC news is unhappy with the agreement as
> "all the major advertising firms work in dollars" and all major companies
> have to "hedge against market fluctuations".
>
> BBC executives are keen for advertising on BBC.com to go ahead to help
> fill the gap left by a lower-than-expected licence fee.
>
> Although the terms of the deal have been hammered out, BBC Worldwide
> cannot proceed with the proposals without the approval of the BBC Trust,
> which has already deferred the decision once.
>
> The trust asked senior management for more information on editorial
> safeguards, how revenues would be fed back to the BBC and how the site fits
> with Worldwide's wider strategy.
>
> But it is understood that BBC Trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons is keen to
> resolve the issue and sign it off today.
>
> Last month MediaGuardian.co.uk <http://mediaguardian.co.uk/> revealed that
> BBC Worldwide sidelined research that found that US audiences would be
> turned off by advertising on the international BBC website.
>
> According to a source involved in the research, a study commissioned by
> the corporation in late 2005 on the US west coast found that BBC.com users
> "unequivocally" believed advertising would reduce their trust in the BBC
> brand.
>
> Further research, conducted in key US cities including New York and
> Boston, drew the same conclusions.
>
> However, the BBC subsequently focused on later research studies that were
> more positive about the likely response to adverts on the international
> version of its website.
>
>
>
>
> On 17/10/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Thus...
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil_(cryptography)
> >
> >
> > On 17/10/2007, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 17/10/2007, Glyn Wintle < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The BBC could avoid all this mess if it eschewed DRM and instead
> > > employed
> > > > standard formats.
> > >
> > > The problems of DRM and Cross Platform are entirely separate concepts.
> > >
> > > Evidently the BBC has hoodwinked you. Ah large media companies trying
> > > to con the public, why does this seam like a bad dream?
> > >
> > > Implementing DRM at the OS (here I really mean lower level OS, i.e.
> > > the kernel, or wherever else you put the proper access control stuff)
> > > layer on an untrusted machine is pointless, the user has hardware
> > > access and can drop down to that level. If you are going to allow them
> > > to go under your DRM "protection", why not place it at the application
> > >
> > > layer? (most if not all DRM schemes do this, note that simply being
> > > shipped with the OS doesn't place an application in the OS layer
> > > security wise).
> > >
> > > So OS layer DRM is absolutely useless, now you have a 3 choices (4 if
> > > you count no DRM):
> > > 1. Implement DRM at the Hardware Layer, using tamper-proof hardware
> > > (has it's own problem hinged on key distribution, or getting trusted
> > > data to the hardware).
> > > 2. Accept it's going to be insecure and implement at the Application
> > > layer.
> > > 3. define an open standard (based on otgher standards, HTTP, XML
> > > TV-Anytime etc.) and let implementers worry about it.
> > >
> > > Selecting option one means the BBC will have to have a conversation
> > > with the likes of Intel, AMD and hardware manufactures, who will no
> > > doubt laugh them out of the office. It would them have to wait years
> > > for the old hardware to be replaced (or you could produce an external
> > > add on, but production of these would be tricky, who gets to produce
> > > it, without interfering in the market. If anyone can produce it have
> > > you compromised security be releasing decoding keys, etc.)
> > >
> > > Option 2 can (and does) "work" irrespective of Operating System. (by
> > > work I mean is implementable, it may also may attacks harder but in no
> > >
> > > way offers what a security expert would consider secure).
> > >
> > > Option 3 certainly works, it's worked for HTTP, Email and numerous
> > > other technologies (too many to mention)
> > >
> > > The BBC have never answered why they simple did not use a standard
> > > that would reach all platforms. It can be done. Why does the BBC pay
> > > OUR money to join standards committees (W3C, ETSI) if they are not
> > > going to use the standards produced?
> > > (Easier, Faster, Cheaper, Compliant with regulators, I see no
> > > downside, unless you work for Microsoft (or know someone who works
> > > there))
> > >
> > > > This is not a technology problem
> > >
> > > Cross Platform development was a technology problem, it's been fixed
> > > in many different ways. Unfortunately the BBC is either too
> > > incompetent or too corrupt to use any of the fixes developed by the
> > > likes of the IETF, IEEE, ISO etc.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > --
> > > Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open
> > > windows.
> > > -- Adam Heath
> > > -
> > > 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]/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Please email me back if you need any more help.
> >
> > Brian Butterworth
> > www.ukfree.tv
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Please email me back if you need any more help.
>
> Brian Butterworth
> www.ukfree.tv
>
--
Please email me back if you need any more help.
Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv
