Digital relationships beyond the ´óÏó´«Ã½
Post categories: stakeholders,Ìýstakeholders
| 16:42 UK time, Wednesday, 14 April 2010
When I took on the role of Head of External Relationships in September last year, I was really keen to understand how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ was perceived by its online creative partners, and how we could use that insight to add value to our audience offerings and to the market as a whole. I knew we were on track in terms of delivering on our service licence requirements to externally source 25% of our eligible content and services, but I felt this was only half the story. I wanted to find a way to really turn the conversation around and highlight some of the real benefits the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s digital presence might have to offer.
So I asked to carry out some market survey work, and to market test some ideas that we'd been working on in ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online, in collaboration with our online working group made up of industry representatives - the . I also asked Digital Public to build a map of services across the UK, and to create a picture of the digital content and services market as a whole, so we could begin to fine tune our approach and engagement in this space. I wanted to know what digital agencies really thought about working with the ´óÏó´«Ã½, and what we could do to build on and improve our creative relationships with them.
What came back was a rich tapestry of views from both agencies and our own commissioners, but with a number of common themes emerging loud and clear. One of those themes highlights a real desire for agencies to work with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ - recognition of our values, reputation and brand is a strong positive factor in this. But there's also a clear call for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to stand shoulder to shoulder with its creative digital partners, and to facilitate new opportunities for collaboration outside ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online. This is an important insight that deserves some reflection. It's a recognition of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s important but relatively mid-sized presence as a buyer in the digital economy, set apart from its much bigger role in the traditional broadcast media. I think it helps to form a more nuanced view that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is by no means the most important partner of choice for creative agencies as a whole, both in financial terms and in the sometimes mysterious way in which the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is seen to engage creatively with the sector as a whole.
So what are we doing now to help digital indies go beyond their relationships with the ´óÏó´«Ã½? One of the ways we're doing this is to provide showcasing opportunities for the wide range of talent we work with, helping them gain wider exposure both in the UK and internationally, whilst fairly crediting those whose efforts help us build one of the most respected and well loved websites in the world. In February, we hosted a showcasing event focusing on design, facilitating discussions with ´óÏó´«Ã½ teams and between the 30 digital indies that took part. Today, in Cannes, we're , providing opportunities for content buyers and others to gain unique insights into both ´óÏó´«Ã½ and indie perspectives, as each commissioner and producer unravels the concept and innovation behind each of their projects. We hope to be able to share some of the showcase presentations with you here in the next week or so.
I think this is a great way the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can add value to the online marketplace above and beyond its financial contribution. We're working through analysing and addressing all of the feedback we've had from the research we've conducted so far, and we're hoping to implement some important changes over the next few months in collaboration with you (more on that in a future blog). In the meantime, I'd be happy to hear your ideas about how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can do more to add value to its relationships in this space.
Brij Sharma is Head of External Relationships, ´óÏó´«Ã½ FM&T.
Comment number 1.
At 14th Apr 2010, Ed Lyons wrote:Frankly, that was really hard to read, it had so much management-speak in it.
"online creative partners" - who are we talking about here? What are they partners in?
"audience offerings" what 'offerings' are we talking about? Websites? Games?
"25% of our eligible content and services" - eligible content and services? Eligible in what way?
"find a way to really turn the conversation around" - what conversation? Who's talking to who and about what?
"a map of services across the UK" - Still not sure what these services are - but surely being the internet, they're pretty much available everywhere in the UK? Or are these services not on the internet?
"create a picture of the digital content and services market as a whole" - A list (presumably not literally a picture) of everyone who is producing stuff on the internet?
- "a rich tapestry of views" - i.e. nothing very conclusive? Who are these 'agencies'? Who are 'commissioners'?
You need to remember you're writing on a public blog with a presumably relatively lay audience. Maybe I'm just being thick, but this blog post isn't particularly interesting, and it took a fair amount of careful reading between the dense metaphors to see that.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 15th Apr 2010, SteveoBagins wrote:I love the Beeb, but.....
This is a great example of what is killing the ´óÏó´«Ã½! Let the programme makers get on with making programmes and stop wasting money on all this managment flimflam. (Quite why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has to outsource 25% of its content and services is byond me anyway). With all the debate going on about ditching some pretty well respected radio brands within the beeb, websites and cutting abck in other 'front-line' I am suprised no one has sussed, that if you get rid of all the unnessecerly levels of managment and departments that exist only to keep the politicians happy, there would be plenty of money available to make amazing programming AND keep all the current brands.
Vote Me and i'll rescue the Beeb! ;)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 15th Apr 2010, TV Licence fee payer against ´óÏó´«Ã½ censorship wrote:Anyone got the contact details for the 'Plain English Society', they might care to offer a translation?! As Ed says, far to much management speek, most of which is just there as padding and jargon... :-(
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 15th Apr 2010, _marko wrote:To cut through the flim-flam you have to concentrate on decisions and choices. Assuming no-one has made any yet, what are the proposed decisions and choices?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 15th Apr 2010, Uncivilservant wrote:How pompous, and how not to communicate. The text reminds me of an NHS manual on how to conduct surgery on a fractured eyelash.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 15th Apr 2010, Hymagumba wrote:I have no idea what this post is about. Could someone please explain?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 15th Apr 2010, iloveyoubrother wrote:Interesting that digital agencies want to see the ´óÏó´«Ã½ be more proactive in promoting their work. It's, of course, also in the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s interest to align itself with the best creative talent out there, and send the message that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is an influential and collaborative partner in the creative process. Currently, that doesn't really come across. And I think this is one of the problems inherent in the culture of the ´óÏó´«Ã½. There is so much to support about the ´óÏó´«Ã½, so much the public can get behind. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ should be doing everything it possibly can to state its aims and ambitions more clearly. You need to be more transparent. There's risk associated with that, but people who work and play in the digital space gravitate to honesty and openness and that's where you need to be.
I'd like to hear the ´óÏó´«Ã½ start talking about 'the greater good' and your work being placed in the wider context of paid for services online. You have News International charging, the biggest newspaper in Japan now charges - you can't even link or copy text from their articles. The likelihood is that The Guardian may have to charge. But what they are all missing is that they could remove services that are unpopular or duplicated elsewhere 'for the greater good' of being able to offer universal access. That's what you are doing - you are not dismantling the ´óÏó´«Ã½, you are defending it and its Reithian remit from a pretty scary economic environment.
If someone said from the ´óÏó´«Ã½ says, bluntly, 6 music or start charging for services, or increasing the license fee or scrapping the license fee, I'll think you'll find the public dialogue turning to identifying what should be cut, rather than objecting to cuts at all.
Basically, you're doing a good job. In fact, you guys are heroes. The Real Saviours of the ´óÏó´«Ã½. You just need to start communicating a little more effectively.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 19th Apr 2010, Brij wrote:Sorry if this came across as being vague - the main point was to highlight the showcasing opportunities for digital agencies we're currently working on. I'll be sharing more of the detail from the Digital Public research, and our response to it, soon. When I do, I'll make sure I put in a bit more background about my role, why it's important for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to invest in web content and services from outside agencies, and try to set it all within the context of the other proposals that might affect ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online in the future (eg reducing the overall ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online service licence budget) currently being considered by the Trust.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 19th Apr 2010, TV Licence fee payer against ´óÏó´«Ã½ censorship wrote:Brij, thanks for the follow up and the offer to blogging further on what is I'm sure a very interesting and valued relation with external suppliers, but when you do please remember that most who will be reading this public blog are neither work in the industry nor are management, this is the internet and not the ´óÏó´«Ã½ intranet, and thus trade / 'management speek' either just flies over the head of them or goes down like a lead balloon (if that is not mixing metaphors...).
Also, another point, is there any analogue acquisition in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and more, if there isn't, is there any point in all this talk about "creative digital partners", surely they are just external suppliers (or "partners" if you like), the internet is noting other than digital, it has never been anything else so why refer to IP content as being "Digital"?! Anyway, to many outside the industry it doesn't actually matter what was used to create the content, what matters to them is what the content is.
Information yes, industry buzz-words no.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 23rd Apr 2010, Londonchristian wrote:Groan.... That was a painful read.
Are my license fee payments really used to pay for people to come up with that kind of nebulous management talk?
I remember the ´óÏó´«Ã½ mantra 'inform, entertain and educate' from a long time ago. It seems to have been replaced with "confuse, complicate and 'use insight to add value to our audience offerings"
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 23rd Apr 2010, Mikerb wrote:Nope, read it twice, still don't get it.
I understand the individual words, it's just the way they're put together.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)