Results from interviews with stakeholders Final Reportdownloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review...Slow and protracted decision-making, with extended development times (particularly

BBC Trust’s Review of the WOCC Results from interviews with stakeholders

Final Report

Issue date

24th July 2008

Larkhill Consultancy Limited

Review of the WOCC – Qualitative Research

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................... - 3 - 1.1 Definition and purposes of the WOCC .................................................... - 3 - 1.2 Terms of reference for the review............................................................ - 3 - 1.3 The basis of our findings ......................................................................... - 3 - 1.4 Scope of this report ................................................................................. - 4 -

2 Executive summary ....................................................................................... - 4 - 3 Key themes..................................................................................................... - 6 - 4 Commissioners’ perspectives ...................................................................... - 7 -

4.1 The WOCC is a useful tool for commissioners........................................ - 7 - 4.2 Fairness and Transparency in commissioning ........................................ - 8 - 4.3 eCommissioning...................................................................................... - 9 - 4.4 Commissioning for network from the Nations and Regions................... - 10 - 4.5 Local commissioning has limited room for competition ......................... - 10 - 4.6 Hands-on approach to commissioning .................................................. - 11 - 4.7 The Genres ........................................................................................... - 11 -

5 In-house perspectives ................................................................................. - 13 - 5.1 How the WOCC and IHG are working ................................................... - 13 - 5.2 Openness .............................................................................................. - 15 - 5.3 Information ............................................................................................ - 15 - 5.4 Access................................................................................................... - 15 - 5.5 Influence................................................................................................ - 16 - 5.6 The In-house guarantee is less so for the Nations and Regions........... - 16 - 5.7 In the Nations and Regions ................................................................... - 16 - 5.8 Commissioning in the WOCC – fair and transparent?........................... - 17 - 5.9 Making the most of constrained commissioning budgets ...................... - 18 -

6 Independent producers’ perspectives ....................................................... - 19 - 6.1 How the WOCC and IHG are working ................................................... - 19 - 6.2 Commissioning in the WOCC – fair and transparent?........................... - 20 - 6.3 Commissioning issues........................................................................... - 20 - 6.4 Access................................................................................................... - 21 - 6.5 Process ................................................................................................. - 22 - 6.6 Influences .............................................................................................. - 24 - 6.7 Open complaints about commissioning are rare ................................... - 24 -

7 How we carried out the research................................................................ - 25 -

Page 2


1 Introduction For its first review of the Window of Creative Competition (WOCC) and related quotas, the BBC Trust commissioned a programme of interviews to gather the views of stakeholders. This report summarises the perspectives of each of the key groups: Commissioners, In-house producers and Independent producers. It draws on the results of the interviews and other submissions received from stakeholders.

1.1 Definition and purposes of the WOCC The Window of Creative Competition (WOCC) is the proportion of hours of network television programming commissioned by the BBC which is offered for competition between in-house and independent producers on a fair and equal basis. Set at one quarter (25%) of commissioned programme hours, the WOCC is open to non-qualifying as well as to qualifying independents – so called because they are eligible for the long-standing Independent Quota (also amounting to 25% of commissioned hours). This leaves half of commissioned programme hours which are guaranteed to in-house production, in a quota referred to as the In-house Guarantee.

Similar arrangements are being introduced into local television commissioning in the Nations1 and English Regions2.

For local commissioning in the Nations:

• The in-house guarantee is 60% (of output hours)

• Independents are guaranteed 25%

• Local commissioners plan to award a further 10% to independents

• The remaining 5% could be allocated either to in-house or independent productions.

For local commissioning in English Regions:

• The in-house guarantee is 75% (much of which is Current Affairs and Politics)

• Independents are guaranteed 25%.

1.2 Terms of reference for the review The BBC Charter and Agreement, 2006, lays down the requirements for the implementation of the WOCC and In-house guarantee scheme, alongside the established Independent quota. Also laid down is a requirement for the BBC Trust to review the arrangement every two years, checking compliance with the quota in terms of the allocation of commissioned hours and also the range and diversity of the programmes commissioned.

1.3 The basis of our findings To build a picture of how the WOCC and associated guarantee schemes are perceived by the different stakeholder groups, we interviewed:

• 25 Commissioners, across the genres and in the Nations and Regions

• 24 In-house producers (heads of centres and genres, in network production centres across the UK)

1 Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales 2 English Regions, comprising 12 centres, is treated as a single unit for the purpose of commissioning quotas.

Page 3


• 34 Independent producers (spanning a range of genres, sizes, locations, and levels of business with the BBC).

Whilst the principal aim of the interviews was to find out how the WOCC and the relevant associated quotas are working in practice, we recognised that for many producers the WOCC is a rather abstract notion irrelevant to their prime interest – winning commissioners over with the quality of their ideas. Thus we asked producers about their experience of working with BBC Vision Commissioning, with questions about the WOCC placed in that context.

The interviews with commissioners covered the commissioning process in their genres and any differences between the way in-house and independent producers are handled.

We used the interviews with in-house and independent producers to explore the differences between the experiences of these two groups with commissioning in general and how the experience varied between genres.

1.4 Scope of this report In the preparation of this report we consulted a wide range of stakeholders about their experience of working with the WOCC, In-house Guarantee and the BBC’s commissioning process. We were pleased that our interviewees engaged in full and open discussion with us.

Many of the discussions were quite wide ranging, touching on a variety of aspects related to the BBC commissioning process, some of which are the subject of other reviews by the BBC Trust, either planned or in progress. In compiling this report we have focussed on those issues with a direct bearing on the WOCC (and related quotas) and the way it is being implemented.

Many of those we talked to insisted on strict confidentiality as a basis for talking openly, so we have not attributed comments to individuals or organisations.

This report records the views expressed to us during the interviews. Views have been grouped together by subject, and we have made clear which come from commissioners, which from in-house producers and which from independents.

2 Executive summary The WOCC is broadly welcomed by commissioners, in-house producers and independent producers. However producers, in-house and independent, would like to know more about how it is being operated across the genres.

Independents welcome the expansion of opportunity provided by the WOCC and are less concerned with the details of the new scheme. They also welcome the increasing openness to their ideas and capabilities. However, some non-qualifying independents are concerned that the WOCC has not yet delivered the access to production opportunities that they had hoped for.

In-house producers welcome the In-house Guarantee and the opportunity to compete in the WOCC, but seek greater clarity on which opportunities are included in which scheme. Only with this can they plan their resources to maximise their value to the BBC and the public.

In terms of competition for opportunities in the WOCC, our findings suggest that producers perceive the commissioners as being generally open to good ideas regardless of whether from in-house or independents.

Page 4


Commissioners Commissioners welcome the flexibility the WOCC provides them to take the best ideas, regardless of whether from in-house or independents. However it does complicate the implementation of some of the BBC’s broader strategies, since when combined with other quotas and targets, the WOCC represents a further fragmentation of a falling commissioning budget.

The Independent Quota and In-house Guarantee allow commissioners scope to manage these two supply bases strategically, by directing sufficient business to ensure their continuing health.

In-house producers In house producers are supportive of the WOCC and the In-house Guarantee, which enables them to plan for the future and retain key talent.

Changes within Knowledge (formerly Factual) commissioning appear to be enabling in-house producers to build a more strategic and efficient relationship with commissioners, following a period of decline in Factual production.

However, in-house producers seek greater clarity and timeliness of information about which opportunities are in the WOCC (bringing additional money) and which are in the In-house Guarantee. This has a direct bearing on their resource planning, since each centre can only plan within their expectation of guarantee funding.

They tell us that they do not let the In-house Guarantee limit their horizons and feel increasingly able to compete with independent producers in the WOCC.

Although the in-house guarantee applies to all in-house production, it does not guarantee commissions to any particular production centre. In-house centres are therefore in competition with each other for funding. This is moderated by an increasing degree of genre specialisation in network production centres outside London, so that in-house network commissions can be focused and have more strategic impact. Commissioners refer to this as the ‘Centres of Excellence’ strategy.

In the Nations and Regions, in-house producers feel that they have to work particularly hard to win their network commissions against the large in-house departments in London as well as other in-house producers in the Nations and Regions.

Producers in the Nations and Regions feel that commissioners lack confidence in their abilities and the geographic separation makes it more difficult for the producers to convince them otherwise. This is compounded by what they perceive as a rapid turnover of commissioners. They feel this limits the BBC’s ability to sustain strategic development of network production in the Nations and Regions.

Shortcomings with the commissioning process, as perceived by in-house producers include:

• A lack of clarity on which opportunities are in the WOCC as opposed to the In-house Guarantee

• A myriad of quotas which fragments the commissioning budget and hinders commissioners from being strategic and benefiting from scale

• Disconnections between commissioners, genre heads and channel controllers, such that although a commissioner has supported development of an idea it is rejected when the genre or channel controller gets to see it

• The potential for established London-based producers to capture commissioner attention and confidence, causing them to overlook the

Page 5


capabilities of less well established producers including those located outside of London.

Independent producers Independent producers are generally positive about the introduction of the WOCC and what they see as the BBC’s increasing openness to the ideas and capabilities they bring. They see the WOCC as a welcome expansion of the opportunities available to them.

However, independent producers feel that they have little or no awareness of how the WOCC is being operated by commissioners. Few are particularly concerned about this because their primary interest is in communicating their best ideas to commissioners. They are happy to let the commissioners work out which quotas might be applied:

• Independent producers are encouraged by news that they, collectively, have won a large share of the WOCC. However there is a feeling that this could be reversed over time as in-house producers adapt to a more competitive environment

• Many of the independent producers we talked to see the commissioners as open and impartial. However a number felt that they reserve some sub-genres for in-house producers

• Although they observe shortcomings with the BBC’s commissioning process independents have learned to work constructively with commissioners to help both meet their objectives.

The shortcomings with the commissioning process, as perceived by independent producers are:

• Slow and protracted decision-making, with extended development times (particularly in the scripted entertainment genres)

• Disconnections between commissioners, genre controllers and channel controllers such that although a commissioner has supported development of an idea, it is rejected when the genre or channel controller gets to see it

• Fears that factors such as content rights might influence commissioners in deciding between in-house and independents’ propositions

• Variable standards in terms of the responsiveness and feedback provided by commissioners.

There are mixed views on the new Knowledge commissioning structure. Although independents are tending to reserve judgement at this stage, some see it as a welcome opportunity whilst others are concerned about the potential for additional delay in decision-making.

3 Key themes We have summarised here those themes that tended to recur across a range of stakeholders we spoke with.

Information flow is at the core of concerns expressed over the implementation of the WOCC so far, with our interviewees variously wanting to see:

• Earlier and clearer tagging of which opportunities are in the WOCC and which fall within the In-house guarantee or Independent Quota

Page 6


• Improved transparency around the way the WOCC and guarantee schemes are being operated and how they affect the commissioning process

• Independents in the Nations and Regions would like to see a similar level of transparency around the implementation of the network supply strategy

• Improvements in the efficiency of the commissioning process

• Improved transparency in BBC accounting, to allay fears of hidden subsidies for in-house producers.

4 Commissioners’ perspectives 4.1 The WOCC is a useful tool for commissioners The WOCC enjoys a high profile in commissioning, where it is seen as a useful tool for giving commissioners more choice and helping to raise the quality of production both within the BBC and externally.

When commissioners are presented with an interesting new idea they try to accommodate it using whatever flexibility is still available within the quotas. Commissioners use the In-house Guarantee and Independent Quota schemes to cover the programme commitments that are known or decided upon at an early stage, such as returning series. When these two quotas are full or a production would not fit the remaining budget then commissioners consider it for WOCC funding.

Commissioners also need to consider the Out-of-London quota requirements and might, for example, request the producer to consider making the programme in one of the nations.

4.1.1 In-house guarantee gives scope for taking a longer-term view The way in-house production is funded helps commissioners to take a longer term view and be prepared to consider multi-year projects for in-house production, with a greater level of risk than independent producers are typically willing to take on. For example, natural history documentaries can take years to make, with only limited and uncertain opportunities to film the intended targets and no guarantee of success.

4.1.2 Budget fragmentation hinders strategy implementation Although the commissioners perceive the WOCC to be meeting the objectives of raising standards through the encouragement of competition, the additional fragmentation of budget brings with it some challenges. Intersections of the WOCC with other quotas and targets is limiting commissioners’ flexibility and thereby hindering implementation of the BBC’s strategies. It also makes it harder for commissioners to ensure that the programmes produced are the best that can be provided for the schedule opportunities.

The key strategies commissioners have to bear in mind are:

• Genre and channel strategies – where do the channels and genres feel they need to strengthen their output

• Creative Futures (otherwise known as ‘Fewer, Bigger, Better’)

• Supply strategy (emphasised since the introduction of the new Knowledge commissioning structure)

• Talent strategy, e.g. signing long-term deals with key BBC presenters.

The effects of budget fragmentation are felt particularly in the Knowledge genre, where a new commissioning structure was introduced, late in 2007, to facilitate a supply strategy alongside the genre strategy. Through the Knowledge supply

Page 7


strategy, the BBC wants to encourage development of its supply bases to ensure that it will be able to meet future requirements for out-of-London commissioning, increasing regional representation and growing market requirements for multiplatform content, for example.

With such a large volume of programmes to be commissioned in Knowledge, commissioners tell us that being strategic about content, costs and suppliers is critical to establishing 'a regular heart-beat of output that really matters to the channels and the audience’. However, the combination of quotas and targets, against a background of falling budgets overall, makes this very difficult to achieve.

A further complication is the need to phase delivery across 12 months to ensure that 'the buses arrive at the correct stops', balancing the needs of the channels.

The introduction of the WOCC means that in-house now has only 50% of the slate within which to implement its strategies. Since opportunities in the WOCC are open to competition there is now a substantial element of the strategy which has to be ‘left to chance’.

Commissioners told us that: 'Delivering a genre strategy and a supply strategy with split commissioning and now with a pot of money (the WOCC) that you are unable to use for this is almost a bridge too far'. …. 'It's a bit like trying to drive a strategy with a blindfold on'.

One example, the planned Planet Earth follow-on series, is a multi-year production. It is very expensive to make and assembling sufficient co-production funding is particularly difficult with the current low dollar-pound exchange rate. However expectations are high, so commissioners are trying to get the same quality for less. Trying to accommodate this mammoth production with such a fragmented budget is ‘very challenging’.

4.2 Fairness and Transparency in commissioning 4.2.1 Openness Moves to separate commissioning and production across the genres, in 2005, raised commissioners’ consciousness of the need to be even-handed between in-house and independent producers.

New appointments in Commissioning have brought in commissioning executives with direct experience of working for independent producers, with a greater appreciation of how to get the most out of these relationships. This has also contributed to a more open culture in Commissioning.

4.2.1.1 No reserved genres Commissioners told us that no genres or sub-genres are reserved for in-house producers, but that in a small number of genres the level of expertise and access to key talent makes in-house teams extremely competitive at this point. Commissioners acknowledge that independents also have significant expertise and may be able to match the in-house capabilities in the future.

In the case of Drama, literary adaptations are seen by commissioners as core to the BBC brand, demanding the highest production standards but within increasingly constrained budgets.

In the case of Natural History, commissioners point out:

• The degree of specialism required and the success of in-house units at attracting the necessary co-production funding for major works. They also point to successful natural history programmes from independent producers

Page 8


• The sustained investment in developing extremely rare skills (for example film crew trained in working at low temperatures or underwater etc.) and specialist equipment that would be difficult for an independent producer to justify commercially

• The high level of investment and risk inherent in some productions. For example where a new series about a rare wild animal would take perhaps four years to make with only occasional and uncertain glimpses of the creature

• Commissioners feel that the in-house funding model provides security to underpin such higher risk projects, taking a longer term view that would be harder for a commercial producer to justify.

4.2.2 Information Commissioners prepare briefing materials at the start of commissioning rounds, identifying opportunities and describing channel strategies. This material is provided on the Vision Commissioning website, for both in-house and independent producers to consult.

Commissioners also hold briefing days in London and other key locations around the UK. These take the form of presentations, followed by the opportunity for one-to-one meetings with producers. The events are structured so that there are equal opportunities for in-house and independent producers to benefit.

4.2.3 Access Commissioners like to meet with producers to hear about their latest ideas as well as to progress ideas in development or programmes in production.

They stress that the creative dialogue around new ideas is usually essential to commissioning success. Ideas presented to commissioners are rarely fully formed, and the starting point for dialogue could be as simple as a few sentences. Particularly in the scripted genres, producers are encouraged to engage with commissioners as early as possible so that an idea’s development can be finely targeted.

Although commissioners would like to have fully developed ideas presented to them ready for commissioning, it is rare for such ‘fait accompli’ to meet all the requirements that commissioners have to bear in mind3. In practice, particularly in scripted entertainment, fully-formed ideas from producers are rarely useful to the BBC.

Commissioners and their assistants try to make time to meet with new independents as well as with less familiar in-house producers. However, this is difficult in genres such as Knowledge where there may be hundreds of suppliers in contact with the BBC.

4.3 eCommissioning We heard a mixture of comments about the eCommissioning system, though most commissioners find it helpful for keeping track of proposals.

• One commissioning executive praised the system for raising standards in the way proposals are handled – from any source. Previously it was possible for paper proposals to go missing in a mountain of other paperwork. The new system enforces timely consideration and response. He explained that it is easy for commissioners to be so engaged with the creative aspects of their

3 Gavin and Stacey is cited as an example where the original script was considered to be so fine that no intervention was needed.

Page 9


role that their attention to administrative aspects sometimes suffers. Thus eCommissioning helps to keep the process on track

• However, another commissioning executive told us that he had found the system slow and mechanical to use. He wished that he could receive an email when a proposal had been submitted to avoid the need to remember to log in frequently.

4.4 Commissioning for network from the Nations and Regions Commissioners find it harder to commission network programmes from the Nations and Regions. They see key talent in the Nations and Regions as being sparse and 'very porous, with revolving doors all the time'. In compensation, however, there is a large pool of freelance production skills available.

In implementing the BBC’s supply strategy, which requires growth out-of-London, commissioners say they need to think of how to build talent in key centres in the Nations and Regions. For example, commissioners told us, ‘you need to think where you want Scotland to be in terms of talent etc. in 3 years time’, alongside all the other commissioning considerations.

4.5 Local commissioning has limited room for competition We were told that the BBC Nations and ‘English Regions’ have their own budgets and requirements for local commissioning. The budgets for non-news programmes are fairly small by network standards (for example £10m to £35m per annum), but local commissioners only need to fill the limited opt-out slots in the main networks (BBC One and Two), rather than stand-alone channels:

• Much of the available opt-out time (and around a third of the budget in the Nations) is allocated to local news

• In the Nations, the non-news opt-out time is subject to a scheme where:

o 60% of hours is guaranteed to in-house productions

o 25% is reserved for independent productions and a further 10% is planned to be allocated to independent productions

o The remaining 5% could go either to in-house or independent productions. This is relatively small and has therefore had little effect so far.

• Local commissioners in the Nations generally insist that the current in-house guarantee level (60%) is a requirement for sustainability at the present time. This applies especially in the smaller nations, such as Northern Ireland, which argue that even with this higher level of guarantee they are still on the edge of viability

• Major recurring commitments, for example to sports coverage and local drama, have a large impact on output hours and budget but cannot easily be divided between independents and in-house. These reduce commissioners’ flexibility and make it difficult to fine tune the overall distribution. For example, in Scotland the local soap (River City) accounts for a high number of hours and a significant proportion of the local budget but can only be commissioned from one producer (in this case in-house).

Page 10


4.5.1 Incubator role for local As well as developing talent and new programme ideas, local commissioning in the Nations and Regions can play an important role in exploiting multiple platforms and in production innovation:

• The small scale of the local BBC organisations facilitates contacts between the platforms (TV, Radio, Internet etc.) and it is easier for convergent ideas to take root and grow

• Projects such as Coal House4, produced in Wales, use multiple platforms and engage the local audience in a new and interesting way, by allowing participants to contribute their own family stories from the heyday of mining. Similar leading-edge projects have emerged in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

4.6 Hands-on approach to commissioning When the BBC uses an independent producer it appoints an in-house executive producer to be responsible for the quality and standards compliance of the finished programmes.

These executive producers also form part of the commissioning team, acting as the ‘first-line’ interface between commissioners and independent producers. Particularly in scripted genres, they get involved in such details as casting and viewing of rushes and are aware that not all independents appreciate this to the same extent. One BBC executive producer told us that she does ‘micro-manage’, but insisted that a high level of attention to detail is a hallmark of BBC quality and that independent productions had benefited from it.

4.7 The Genres 4.7.1 Knowledge (Factual) Commissioners are very positive about the new commissioning structure in the Knowledge (previously called Factual) genre, installed at the end of 2007. They stress the ability it gives them to be strategic in the way they manage the two supplier bases (in-house and independent).

The original commissioning structure, in which commissioners were shared between Independents and In-house, appeared not to be working with the new separated commissioning and production model. In-house production, in particular, had undergone restructuring and seemed to need a more strategic approach. Other reasons given for introducing the new commissioning structure include:

• Ensuring greater transparency in WOCC decision-making in the Knowledge genre

• Simplifying implementation of the Knowledge strategy and other key BBC strategies.

Now, the in-house commissioning editors can devote their full attention to making the most of in-house capabilities. This should help deliver the best value from the In-house Guarantee.

The Independent commissioning executives take a strategic approach too, though the sheer number of suppliers in contact with the BBC makes this more of a challenge.

4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/coalhouse/

Page 11

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/coalhouse/


The two commissioning heads (Independents and In-house) talk to each other regularly to ensure that they avoid any wasteful duplication of effort, in terms of the proposals which they accept into development.

Whilst Knowledge commissioners find it relatively easy to fill the London part of their quotas, filling the out-of-London parts can be more difficult. However commissioners insist that quotas do not make the commissioning decisions for them. Instead, they invest time in working with producers (in-house and independents) in the Nations and Regions to ensure that their submissions will meet network requirements and to help them build a stronger creative base for the future.

Both heads (independent and in-house) make submissions for the WOCC on behalf of their supplier bases to the genre controller.

Every month, the genre controller and the channel controllers meet to decide which WOCC ideas will be commissioned. Business advisers are also present, but only in an advisory role. At that stage, the proposals are all considered to be ready for commissioning, so in principle no further creative discussion is required.

When we started our interviews for this review, the independent and in-house heads were excluded from the WOCC meetings to keep the proceedings more neutral, but we understand that recently the rules have changed and the two heads now attend too.

4.7.2 Fiction: Drama and Comedy Commissioners told us that the key problem in these genres is getting the right talent and that the BBC traditionally has used independents to a greater extent than in genres such as Knowledge.

New ideas submitted by producers are discussed within the Drama and Comedy commissioning teams respectively, introduced by the team members who have received the ideas. This provides a way of testing their broader appeal.

The Controller of Fiction likes to see all drama proposals before any final decision is taken, but delegates authority on authorising development to one of her team (the Head of Drama Commissioning). She is regularly in contact with her commissioning executives, who discuss new ideas frequently with her. Even commissioning executives/executive producers who are attached to the Nations and Regions feel they have a good understanding of what she is looking for since they typically spend at least part of every week in the same London office.

Sub-genres such as period drama are not ‘out-of-bounds’ to independent producers, but commissioners say that it is rare for them to find independent producers who can match the quality, access to talent and value provided by in-house producers. One such exception was the independent producer of Fanny Hill.

4.7.3 Entertainment Commissioners told us that Entertainment is another genre where the number of suitable suppliers is limited.

This enables higher quality creative discussions than are typically possible in the Knowledge genre, and facilitates the high level of investment required to develop the ideas that commissioners really feel are worth pursuing.

Independents make up a major part of the commissioners’ supply base and have done so for a number of years.

One of the key issues in this as in other genres is building sustainable and more competitive production bases outside of London.

4.7.4 Children’s Page 12


The restructuring of Children’s to ensure greater separation of commissioning and production responsibilities, together with the appointment of new commissioners in around 2005 led to a significant change of approach:

• Applying the BBC’s recently established ‘fewer bigger better’ philosophy, the commissioners shelved a large number of items in development, many of which were in-house.

• Instead of having around 16 new projects commissioned each year, CBBC commissioning decided to focus its limited budget on around half that number each year

• At around the same time, Children’s in-house production at ITV closed, adding to the pool of independent producers with experience in the genre

• These factors combined to produce the circumstances in which independent producers were winning over 50% of commissions.

The Children’s controller has introduced a new approach in which independent producers are treated much more as partners than they were in the past

• The CBBC and CBeebies commissioners try to be available to meet with new as well as established independents who are able to come and share their ideas and hear about commissioning requirements

• Children’s has been looking into the feasibility of providing direct access to audience data for independents, treating them on a par with in-house. However it appears that security reasons and commercial confidentiality are preventing this. In the meantime, independents must continue to request any audience information they want through their BBC executive producer contact.

Since 2006, in-house producers have re-tuned themselves into the commissioners’ requirements and they now appear to be winning an increasing share of commissions.

5 In-house perspectives In-house producers welcome the WOCC and the In-house Guarantee (IHG). They see the IHG as a basis for retaining their key talent and their ability to produce high quality programmes in the future. They are generally content with the current level of the guarantee, averaging 50% of originated programme hours, for network television production.

What they most want to see, however, is clarity on which opportunities are in the In-house Guarantee and which are in the WOCC. This is vital to their resource planning to retain the critical mass of talent needed to meet network commissioning standards.

5.1 How the WOCC and IHG are working Although they are familiar with the concepts, in-house producers have little idea of how the WOCC and IHG are being implemented in practice.

• In-house producers view the WOCC as a complex mechanism, but think it was the best way to resolve the pressures the BBC faced at the time of its introduction, in 2006. (Including the threat of a 50% independent guarantee)

• In-house producers are uncertain as to how competition in the WOCC is operating. A few were not totally clear, for example, whether it is open to all producers (in-house and independents) or only those invited by commissioners

Page 13


• A key problem that in-house producers see with the WOCC is that since the amount they win in the WOCC is not guaranteed, the scheme does not provide a basis for strategic management: in other words allowing them to plan for the future. For example, in-house producers need to invest continually in new digital technology in order to remain competitive. WOCC commissions do not help with making provision for these investments. Only IHG funds provide the required level of certainty

• In-house producers feel that the myriad of quotas, of which the WOCC and IHG are the latest, forces commissioners into operating a ‘micromanaged’ economy. This diverts commissioners’ attention and reduces their freedom to choose the best ideas

• The budget fragmentation that results from the intersections of quotas makes their combined effect very restrictive, impeding commissioners’ ability to use their funding strategically and to benefit from larger scale (long running series, for example).

In-house producers tell us that the WOCC hardly surfaces in the discussions they have with commissioners. With the exception of the relatively few WOCC tenders, it is rare for producers to be made aware of which programmes will be funded under the WOCC. When the WOCC does come up, it may not be entirely good news to the in-house producer:

• Some in-house producers believe that when a commissioner tags a programme as ‘WOCC’ it indicates that the proposal is on the commissioner’s ‘B’ list, because commissioners put the programmes they need or most want within whichever guarantee scheme applies (independent or in-house). Proposals allocated to the WOCC have to take their chances

• Taking this a stage further, some in-house producers told us that commissioners sometimes refer to a notional ‘regional WOCC’ which producers perceive to have even lower status. This translates to an opportunity within the WOCC which must be made by an out-of-London producer (to ensure that the BBC meets its quotas).

In house producers say that they really need to know which opportunities are in the IHG and which are in the WOCC, to enable them to plan more efficiently. They also need to know how the guarantee will be shared between the different production centres, since each centre must make its own plans.

Since the IHG determines the upper limit of permanent in-house resources, the in-house production business planners need to know which programmes will be funded within it as early as possible:

• In-house producers can only employ sufficient staff to meet commitments that fall under the IHG

• If they win further work under the WOCC, then they will need to use freelance staff to scale up to meet that transient demand.

An example of the impact of uncertainty about guarantee funding can be seen in the Factual production department in London– a large department which has just been through a major restructuring programme. Its recently appointed managers are keen to put their business on a sure footing for the future, but need more information from Commissioning to ensure that their plans for the business are viable.

In house producers say they are adapting to the new commissioning regime, by investing more effort in pitching to commissioners:

Page 14


• Coordinating across in-house production centres, especially in Factual, in-house producers are starting to make more of their regular meeting opportunities with commissioners to push in-house ideas more strongly

• They now put more effort into developing new programmes, recognising that this has traditionally been independent producers’ strength. The status of development has being raised and more funding is being allocated to it, often by the production centre itself although they also seek funding from the genres for specific projects

• In-house producers are becoming more imaginative and inventive in exploiting themes that bridge traditional genres – which, aside from engaging audiences in new ways, allows the producers to address two or more potential customers (e.g. commissioners in Drama and Factual)

• Heads of genres co-ordinate activities across production centres to reduce the risk of duplication and to balance the production load.

5.2 Openness Some in-house producers perceive that since the physical separation of commissioning and production in 2005, commissioners seem to be trying so hard to be impartial that it impedes their ability to have a continuing and effective dialogue with in-house producers. They feel this reduces value for the BBC and the public.

This separation particularly affected in-house Factual producers and was one of the considerations which led to the splitting of the commissioning structure in that genre.

5.3 Information In-house producers tell us that they value the Commissioner briefing days and find the website content very helpful. This is especially true for production centres outside London, where opportunities for contact with commissioners are necessarily sparser.

• In-house producers also value the opportunities for one-to-one meetings which are organised around the Commissioner briefing days

• We heard from one in-house production department about a lack of information, or even misleading information they received, concerning the success criteria for a tender in the WOCC. The producer felt that comments fed back at a late stage by commissioners, urging a radical change, were at the very least unhelpful.

5.4 Access In-house producers appreciate the benefits of the regular access they enjoy to commissioners, but point out that since BBC commissioners are their only customers it makes sense for them to have good lines of communication.

Some ‘out-of-London’ in-house producers refer to the difficulty of getting the attention of network commissioners. They feel that they have to work a lot harder to do so than well-established London producers (independents or in-house). We heard examples of leading in-house producers who have moved from London to the Nations and now find it much harder to win the attention and trust of network commissioners. They find that commissioners’ attitudes seem to change completely once they are over the border or across the water.

However, there are some encouraging signs that network commissioning is becoming more open to ‘out-of-London’ ideas:

Page 15


• Key in-house production heads from centres outside London now spend part of virtually every week in London to ensure that their centre gets its fair share of opportunities

• We also heard from in-house producers based in the Nations and Regions that network commissioners have recently started visiting their regions more often.

In the Nations, in-house producers are devoting time and budget to helping independent producers in their area to make the right connections with network commissioners. From local BBC funds, they:

• Provide advice to the independents on how to pitch

• Use their own meeting opportunities to introduce independents’ ideas and create pitching opportunities with the network commissioners

• Offer their own services as executive producers, as a reassurance to commissioners on quality.

5.5 Influence In-house producers feel that some independent producers have greater access opportunities and can more easily win the attention of commissioners. They observe that:

• A number of independent producers are ex-BBC and have personal contacts with senior executives in the Corporation

• Commissioners may pay more attention if they feel there is a risk of losing a winning idea to a competing broadcaster

• Commissioners may also feel that an idea from a big independent producer carries less risk than an idea from an in-house producer

• Commissioners may tire of the regular routines with the same in-house representatives.

There is also a fear held by some producers that commissioners might have an eye to their future career in making commissioning decisions.

5.6 The In-house guarantee is less so for the Nations and Regions In-house producers in the Nations and Regions told us that everything they pitch for is in competition, whether with in-house or with independents. They find it a challenge to compete, given the size, reputation and visibility of higher profile London-based producers (in-house and independents). Thus they point out that the In-house Guarantee does not guarantee them any commissions.

However the producers are confident in their abilities to create network productions of high quality and say that they simply need opportunities to win the trust of commissioners.

5.7 In the Nations and Regions BBC Nations have generally slimmed down in-house network production capacity in genres outside their designated centres of excellence. This enables them to make the most of development funding from network commissioners.

They, therefore naturally look to independents as sources of network programmes in the other genres and have an incentive to cooperate with the independents to ensure as full a bouquet of genres from their region as possible.

Page 16


5.8 Commissioning in the WOCC – fair and transparent? 5.8.1 High overheads In-house producers point to their high overhead costs (typically between 15% and 20% of programme budget) as a disadvantage when compared to independent producers. The overheads cover central functions over which the in-house producers have little control.

In-house producers believe that lower costs, together with advance payments on rights (from distributors), give independent producers more scope to discount than they have.

In-house producers also note that, as part of the leading UK broadcaster, they have public service responsibilities (participating in reviews, hosting visits etc.). Whilst they are pleased to do these things there is a cost.

5.8.2 eCommissioning needs a common understanding It has taken in-house producers a while to adapt to the formalisation of the way they propose ideas to commissioners, which they feel could displace the creative dialogue that is key to achieving high quality productions5:

• In-house producers see eCommissioning as a blunt tool and worry that it cannot adequately capture all the nuances of ideas they can express in face to face conversation

• To make eCommissioning work successfully, there needs to be a common understanding of the rules – which does not appear to have been reached yet. There are continuing dialogues between commissioners and producers about how the system can be used to enhance the effectiveness of the commissioning process.

5.8.3 Disconnections in commissioning pose a risk to producers In-house producers remark on how frequent changes in commissioning staff are disruptive to their business, with the need to build new relationships and the hiatus in decision-making that occurs whilst the new incumbent settles in. They feel that anticipation of a short tenure may reduce the incentive for commissioners to invest time and effort in developing the supplier base (in-house as well as independents).

This issue is felt even more acutely by producers who are based outside London, and therefore need to invest more heavily in time and travel costs to build relations with new commissioners.

In-house producers often have to work with junior commissioning executives, and hope that the merit of their ideas will rise intact through the genre hierarchy. However, whilst a junior commissioner may be positive about a producer’s idea, the channel and/or genre controller may ultimately reject it. The issue is that this ultimate rejection might occur only after several months of development – at a substantial cost to the producer:

• A perceived high rate of turnover of commissioning staff may contribute to the disconnections. Another may be a lack of opportunities to get to know each other’s programmes tastes, ambitions for the channel, strategy etc.

• One of the ‘disconnection’ examples we heard about was provided by an in-house Factual producer, who received sufficient encouragement from the

5 Commissioners assume that in-house ideas will only be put on eCommissioning when there has been an expression of interest by a commissioner – thus the face to face dialogue will already have occurred.

Page 17


commissioning executive to invest in around 100 modifications of an idea over a period of nearly a year. Only at that point did the relevant channel controller get an opportunity to look at the item and decide that it was not right for the channel

• Another in-house producer contrasted the situation now with that of several years ago, where (in-house) producers were able to talk to both the channel controller and genre head, separately if desired. By being able to talk to the channel controller, the producer was able to form a good appreciation of the context for his or her programme within the schedule – understanding the tone and pace that might fit best. Now that genre controllers and their commissioning executives form a barrier/filter between channel controllers and producers, it is harder for the producer to guess what the controller might be looking for. The risk of ultimate rejection by the channel controller is therefore enhanced

• Another example reported to us was of a long-running show which was axed by a new genre controller – only to be resurrected a few months later by a new channel controller.

5.8.4 Concerns about WOCC decision-making in Knowledge Some in-house producers expressed concerns about the impartiality and rigour of the WOCC decision-making in Knowledge. Although they thought WOCC meetings were meant to take decisions purely on the basis of business factors and channel preferences, they have the impression that in practice the meetings are being drawn into 'editorial' discussions.

5.8.5 Complaints Generally in-house producers prefer to resolve any difficulties with their commissioner contacts directly. In principle, complaints could be escalated up the line management inside Vision, but this would be a last resort. Generally, it is in the in-house producer’s interest not to cause difficulties for the commissioning executive who is responsible for awarding them work.

5.9 Making the most of constrained commissioning budgets 5.9.1 Late commissioning decisions put production quality at risk Decisions on items in the WOCC are typically left somewhat later than those in the In-house Guarantee or Independent Quota.

In-house producers report cases where commissioners left it very late to take commissioning decisions, relative to the target transmission slot. With so little time available, producers may be forced into incurring additional costs and making quality trade-offs.

5.9.2 Year-tight budgeting can be wasteful We heard from in-house producers that the BBC’s year-tight budgeting can cause producers to be put under unnecessary stress and money to be wasted. One example was given of a programme which was not needed for transmission until after the end of the budget-year. The Corporation’s budgeting rules require the broadcasts to occur within the year when it was ‘booked’, regardless of schedule needs. Thus the programme production had to be hastened unduly and the first transmission occurred in the early hours just before budget-year end. The programme was then repeated in its intended slot, unnecessarily incurring a repeat fee.

Page 18


6 Independent producers’ perspectives Independent producers in general are positive about the introduction of the WOCC but lack an understanding of how it is really being operated. They also welcome the BBC’s apparent increasing openness to the ideas and capabilities they bring. Many see the WOCC as a welcome expansion of the opportunities available to them.

In general, independents have a positive view of the BBC and want opportunities to apply their creative talents to meeting its needs. However some independents feel that the BBC does not empathise with them and does not make the most of the talents they bring. They feel the BBC would get better value by treating them more as partners.

They also feel that the slowness and other perceived vagaries of the BBC’s commissioning process expose them to commercial risks that in-house producers do not have to face.

6.1 How the WOCC and IHG are working Independent producers tell us that the WOCC hardly surfaces in the discussions they have with commissioners. With the exception of the relatively few WOCC tenders, it is rare for producers to be made aware of whether a programme is being made available in the WOCC. In fact it was quite difficult to persuade a number of independents to take part in this ‘WOCC Review’ because they felt that they had had no experience of it and knew very little, if anything, about how it is working.

Most independent producers are focused on developing exciting ideas and see the WOCC as an issue for BBC commissioners. However a number of producers would like to know more about how the WOCC is being implemented, particularly in terms of:

• The scale and nature of opportunities in the WOCC (as opposed to those in the ‘Independent Quota’) and

• The way in which the scale and nature of opportunities vary across the genres.

This information is especially important to non-qualifying independents, for whom the WOCC represents the only source of production opportunities with the BBC.

Independent producers expected the WOCC to increase the number of opportunities available to them. In practice, there is little awareness of any difference it has made.

Independents are encouraged by their greater collective share of the WOCC in its first year. However they fear that this might be reversed in the coming years.

6.1.1 Competing for network production in the Nations and Regions We were told that in nations where in-house production is strong in a particular genre, it can be difficult for a local independent to win commissions for programmes for BBC networks in the same genre.

This led one independent producer to suggest that the WOCC and associated quotas be applied to each nation separately. So instead of a 25% independent guarantee applying over all network production in the UK, there would be a requirement for 25% of production from each nation separately to originate from independents in that nation etc..

Page 19


6.2 Commissioning in the WOCC – fair and transparent? The WOCC is designed to enable competition between independents and in-house, such that standards rise overall and the BBC benefits from increasing value for its programme budget.

In conducting research for the WOCC Review, we recognised the central importance of commissioning and wanted to understand the process for in-house and independent submissions. To confirm that both sides have a fair chance when proposing for opportunities in the WOCC, we looked at the experiences of both and any differences in the way they are handled by the commissioning process.

6.3 Commissioning issues In general, independent producers have a high level of respect for commissioners in the BBC, seeing them as talented individuals. They regard the high quality of programmes in the BBC schedules as a testament to this. However not all independent producers are completely happy with the commissioning process.

The main issues that surfaced in our interviews were:

• Delay, apparently caused by a combination of the need to consult multiple internal stakeholders, internal politics and overstretched commissioners

• Risks to projects in development from disconnections in the decision-making hierarchy

• Variable response times and variable feedback quality.

These issues have also come up in our interviews with in-house producers, but independents tended to be more vocal about them and drew comparisons with other UK broadcasters.

We now review the views expressed to us as they affect fairness and transparency in the commissioning process.

6.3.1 Openness Most of the independent producers we talked to felt that commissioners are generally open to the best ideas and willing to invest in the necessary creative dialogue to give the ideas a fair chance.

A number of independents remarked on having seen a significant change towards increased openness since the appointment of the current Director General in 2004. The appointment of ex-independent commissioning executives also seems to have helped. However independent producers still believe that they are excluded from winning commissions in certain sub-genres:

• Literary adaptations

• Soaps

• Natural History

• Specialist Factual.

Independents say that they pick up signs from commissioners that are strong enough to dissuade them from investing in developing proposals to the BBC, in these potentially profitable areas.

6.3.1.1 A large in-house slate can block opportunities for independents Some independent producers, particularly in Drama and Knowledge genres, told us that many of their ideas get turned down on the grounds that there is a similar project

Page 20


on the in-house slate. It appears to independents that some of the in-house projects never actually seem to come to fruition, but having a large slate of them would appear to block potential opportunities for independents.

6.3.2 Information Independent producers tell us that they find the Commissioning website content and the Commissioner briefing days very helpful. However they feel there is no substitute for face to face meetings with commissioners:

• The briefings are particularly vital to up-and-coming independents. More established independents who already have the benefit of regular contact with commissioners also find that they are a useful confirmation of the commissioning priorities

• Producers also value the opportunities for one-to-one meetings which are organised around the Commissioner Day briefings:

o It is difficult for newer independents to target their proposals until they have established a relationship with the relevant commissioner(s). They therefore crave opportunities to talk with and earn the trust of commissioners

o As one new independent producer put it: ‘We feel we’re still outside the wall, lobbing stuff over and hoping for a hit’.

• Although not directly connected with commissioning, some independent producers told us that they would value getting access to the BBC’s Audience Online data, as in-house producers can. This would help them gain a better understanding of how their programme is performing and identify areas for improvement. At present, access to this information depends on the willingness of the independent’s commissioning executive contact to provide extracts for them.

6.4 Access In general, independent producers believe that in-house producers, particularly those in London, have better access to commissioners than they do. However there is a range of views on how significant this advantage is:

• Established independent producers report that they have meetings with commissioners on a fairly regular basis, becoming more frequent when programmes are in production. These access opportunities are typically built on the producer’s reputation for good ideas and high quality delivery

• Independent producers feel that the most junior tier of commissioning teams (referred to as executive producers) are basically overworked and therefore less able to spend sufficient time on the large numbers of proposals that are submitted to them

• Independent producers who are not known to commissioners find it difficult to become recognised and earn opportunities to prove their capability.

6.4.1 Access for producers in the Nations and Regions Independent producers whose production is based in one of the Nations or English Regions are increasingly looking to open an office in London:

• Independent producers who lack a London presence often face much higher costs (time and fares) in getting access to and winning the trust of London-based commissioners. They find it particularly hard when commissioners’

Page 21


schedules change at the last minute – potentially causing their trip to be wasted

• A London presence enables them to target a number of domestic and international commercial broadcasters, as well as the BBC.

The alternative to maintaining relationships with London commissioners is to build a relationship with a BBC executive producer attached to the local nation or region, who is part of the network commissioning team – for example the Drama commissioners/executive producers Anne Mensah (Glasgow) and Julie Gardner (Cardiff):

• These local relationships work well for a number of independents; particularly where the local in-house department is small or absent in the independent producer’s genre

• The Comedy commissioning executive based in Manchester is much appreciated by independent producers in that region and from other parts of the UK

• In the scripted genres, we heard that some independent producers find it useful to present proposals to different commissioning executives, because personal taste varies considerably. They also fear that individual commissioners might tire of seeing them too often

• However, in certain genres, independent producers report feeling less confident in the support they get from their local nation or region in presenting ideas to network commissioners. This seems to apply particularly to independent producers in the Factual genre, where their local nation may have a sizeable in-house department to ‘feed’.

6.5 Process 6.5.1 Variable response timing and quality Many independent producers report long delays in receiving a response to a submission, some getting no response at all in a few cases. The problem seems to be particularly acute in the Knowledge genre, where commissioners are receiving a large number of submissions from potential suppliers. However Drama is also singled out in respect of delays in decision making and the drawn out development.

The extent and quality of feedback on proposals seems to be quite variable, particularly in the Knowledge genre:

• One producer regarded some of the replies he had received as offensive, given the track record of his company

• Not all producers feel the need for detailed feedback, but others (particularly newer producers) found it helpful when commissioners had taken the trouble to provide it.

A number of independent producers praised Daytime commissioners for the promptness and quality of feedback they give, wishing that these standards could apply across all the genres.

Some independent producers in scripted entertainment complained that some commissioning decisions often came relatively late compared to the required transmission time. In principle, independent producers could refuse to take the commission at such a late stage, but in practice they would be reluctant to waste the time they have already invested in development.

Page 22


6.5.2 Commissioning process seems very slow Even independent producers who are otherwise happy with the commissioning process tend to find it slower and more cumbersome than with other broadcasters. Producers unanimously say they would rather hear a quick ‘no’ rather than endure a protracted process that wastes time and money. A ‘no’ would allow them to take the idea elsewhere or devote their attention to other ideas.

Some describe the commissioning system as chaotic:

• It is difficult to predict how long it will take to get a conclusive answer

• One independent contrasted it with the deterministic process used in BBC Radio’s commissioning (known as RAP), where producers know the day and the hour at which they will be informed of the decision.

A number of independents have the impression that a major reason for the delay in considering new ideas is that commission team members are involved in the minutiae of on-going production work.

Some independents felt it would be better if they could get direct access to the channel controllers. Another felt that the BBC’s elegant separation of the roles of genre and channel avoided the chaos it observed at some other broadcasters.

6.5.3 Power concentration in Drama commissioning Concentration of power with the Controller of Fiction is regarded as an issue by a number of independents, particularly in Drama. They are critical of the delays that they feel result from the need for all ideas to be agreed by her:

• Although the independents have tremendous respect for her, they feel that the sheer volume of ideas/scripts she has to read inevitably limits the pace of development and decision-making

• However although many independents complain about this restriction, none said they would be happy to see an additional layer of assistants between themselves and the perceived decision maker

• Some independents also feel that the assistants/commissioning executives are not always good at guessing which ideas will meet the controller’s requirements.

6.5.4 Mixed reactions to the new Knowledge commissioning structure The new Knowledge structure imposes a division between commissioners handling in-house submissions and those handling independent producer submissions. Since WOCC submissions can come from either group, the decisions are taken by the genre controller, in consultation with channel controllers.

Many independent producers are reserving judgement to allow the new structure to bed in. Some see the new structure bringing opportunities for them whilst other more established independents have concerns that the extra layer it introduces will reduce the speed and likelihood of getting ideas commissioned. One producer said: ‘It needs only two people to say yes, but many can say no’.

Those independents who are more positive about the new structure say that they have really noticed a change in their commissioning fortunes. They feel that the internal competition between commissioners, fostered by the new structure, appears to give them access to genres which they previously thought reserved for in-house producers.

Most independents recognised that the sheer volume of submissions places the BBC’s commissioning system under stress. A few felt that the BBC should focus on a

Page 23


smaller number of key suppliers, such as the ten or so typically favoured by other major UK broadcasters. They felt that by trying to maintain an illusion of fairness, the BBC is missing out on the higher level of creative partnership it could enjoy with a more selective supplier strategy.

6.5.5 eCommissioning We received a range of comments on the effectiveness of eCommissioning, though for most independent producers, the system appears to make little difference to the way they work:

• Echoing concerns expressed by in-house producers, some independents were worried that eCommissioning might displace some of the valued creative dialogue with commissioners

• Some producers felt offended by receiving ‘standard automatic responses’ rejecting their ideas. It made them feel that their ideas had not been valued or given due consideration

• Independent producers believe that not all commissioners take the new system seriously and this affects their own reactions

• A small independent in one of the nations told us that it had not had much success in winning commissions, but makes sure it submits regularly on eCommissioning as a defence against arguments that producers do not pitch from that nation.

6.6 Influences 6.6.1 Concerns that content rights are taken into account Several independent producers told us they were concerned about a public statement made by Peter Salmon6 (who is in charge of BBC in-house production) that commissioners should bear in mind the superior rights position the BBC enjoys from in-house production.

They feel that commissioners should make decisions on the merit of the ideas rather than on the basis of rights value, which would favour in-house producers.

Independents are concerned that there may be other influences, driven by BBC strategy for example, which would lead commissioners to make a choice for reasons other than the quality of the idea. They remark on:

• A lack of transparency in the commissioning process

• Uncertainty of who is involved in the decision and how many ‘ticks’ it will need.

6.7 Open complaints about commissioning are rare As is the case with in-house producers, few independent producers are prepared to complain openly about the commissioning process. Many independent producers who are regular suppliers to the BBC told us that they value their relationships with commissioners too much to want to take the risk of complaining.

6 Chief Creative Officer, BBC Vision

Page 24


Page 25

7 How we carried out the research. We interviewed commissioners across the genre departments and a representative sample of both producer constituencies: in-house and independent.

In total we carried out 83 interviews across the three stakeholder groups, outlined in the following sections.

Commissioners We interviewed 24 commissioners accompanied by their business managers, covering the following genres:

• Children’s (CBBC and CBeebies)

• Comedy

• Drama

• Entertainment

• Knowledge

• Local (English Regions, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales).

In house producers We interviewed 24 heads of genre and of production, covering the following genres and centres:

• Belfast

• Birmingham

• Bristol

• Cardiff

• Glasgow

• London – Children’s, Comedy, Drama and Factual,

• Manchester.

Independent Producers We interviewed senior representatives of 34 independent producers. The sample of companies chosen covered a wide range of key characteristics:

• Genres: Children’s, Comedy, Drama, Daytime, Entertainment, Factual/Features and Specialist Factual

• Location: English Regions, London, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

• Turnover: ranging from tens of millions of pounds per annum to a few hundred thousand pounds

• Level of business with the BBC: from zero upwards.

Documents

Results from interviews with stakeholders Final Reportdownloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review...Slow and protracted decision-making, with extended development times (particularly