So, who is going to pay for all the server juice and bandwidth used by international users?
As I understand it bbc.com is to bbc.co.uk what BBC World is to BBC News 24. BBC World has adverts (geotargetted quite nicely - even crazy text ads in places I've watched it), so I don't see why the fact that it's on the internet means that it shouldn't have ads. GeoIP has been in use at the BBC for a while - its pretty accurate. J On 17/10/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 17/10/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Abroad a lot BBC content (including the news) already has adverts next > > to it, so why not online? > > > Because a) it damages the brand; and b) UK licence fee payers should not > have to see adverts for content they have paid for just because they are (or > their PC thinks they are) outside the UK. > > > 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 <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<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 > > > > > -- > 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
