Abroad a lot BBC content (including the news) already has adverts next to it, so why not online?
J 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 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 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<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil_%28cryptography> > > ) > > > > > > 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 > -- Jason Cartwright Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44(0)2070313161
