BBC 'To Close Recipes Website' As Part Of £15m Savings

[6Foot2]

Link: BBC 'to close recipes website' as part of £15m savings - BBC News

 

...All existing recipes are likely to be archived, though whether some could move to the commercial BBC Good Food website is still to be decided.

 

TV show recipes will be posted online but only made available for 30 days.

 

The BBC source said online services had to be "high-quality, distinctive, and offer genuine public value"....

 

Like BBC recipes? Get them quick! The BBC hosts approximately 11,000 on their website.

[sonofsanta]

I don't understand how removing content is improving the service to the public. I don't get why it's being claimed that "the BBC was never meant to be all things to all people". Why not? It's a public service, that should quite literally be its purpose! If it competes with commercial interests, maybe they should just up their game instead of whining and getting the BBC hobbled by ministers.

 

I love the BBC, and the continuous ideological attacks on it get tiring. Has it not proved its worth yet?

[6Foot2]

...I love the BBC, and the continuous ideological attacks on it get tiring...

 

With you on that one 100%.

 

Politically it's an easy target. Get up, bash the BBC and say it has to do 'this' instead of what it currently does. Then send the idea to committees. Another hard day's work in Parliament done and time for a pint.

[Arreks]

I don't see how it's costing them any money at all really. It's not like they have to pay further hosting fees. They could just stop adding further recipes and leave it as an actual archive.. sigh.

[sidewinder]

I don't understand how removing content is improving the service to the public. I don't get why it's being claimed that "the BBC was never meant to be all things to all people". Why not? It's a public service, that should quite literally be its purpose! If it competes with commercial interests, maybe they should just up their game instead of whining and getting the BBC hobbled by ministers.

 

I love the BBC, and the continuous ideological attacks on it get tiring. Has it not proved its worth yet?

 

^ Agree totally. This today has p*ssed me off (not that the other cuts haven't) mostly because it's just so utterly pointless. If they had to stop providing new recipes then it would just about be understandable (though not really as most are from their cooking shows and how much really does it cost for someone to write it up and then the BBC to host it?) but why remove or even archive something which is useful and costs a minimal amount to keep going?

 

The saddest thing is that reading the comments in the Guardian story of this, while most agree with us, some just don't get it. They have the same irrational hate of the BBC as the Tories and are convinced that 'the market' can cater for everything. Seriously why does everything have to be about profit? How can people be so short sighted?

[Grey-gear]

Have the recipes online for a 30 day period would be a decent way of hosting recipes, as I'm sure there are a few recipes on the web site at the moment that's not been viewed in a month or three. Though not sure how much removing the permanent website would save as I'm sure they could do cuts elsewhere and get more money saved (but hey I'm sure it's for the best)

[elsiegee40]

I, for one, will miss it. It's a useful source of ideas without being bombarded with pop ups.

 

The thing about cooking is that it isn't just about taking a recipe and cooking it exactly. Sometimes you take a set of ingredients and adapt other ideas into a complete dish. For me that might actually mean bits of 2 or 3 recipe ideas I have found on here.

 

On Radio 4 this morning they were making out that there's no need for 14 different spag bol recipes, but actually those flavour combinations might give you the ideas for something else entirely.

[jinnantonnixx]

I didn't even know about this site, might check it out before it's too late. I'm a terrible cook, but I'll have a go at something simple.

 

From the link:

Last year, Chancellor George Osborne said the BBC website was becoming "a bit more imperial in its ambitions".

"If you've got a website that's got features and cooking recipes - effectively the BBC website becomes the national newspaper as well as the national broadcaster.

"There are those sorts of issues we need to look at very carefully," he said.

 

Why, George? What's your concern? The Economy not engaging you enough?

Edited May 17, 2016 by jinnantonnixx

[sonofsanta]

"the national newspaper as well as the national broadcaster"--almost as if the nation owns it.

 

Sod off, Mr. Osborne.

[HarryMonkey]

"the national newspaper as well as the national broadcaster"--almost as if the nation owns it.

 

Sod off, Mr. Osborne.

 

Maybe they should take down their news pages as well then. Whilst they're at it, take the sport off too as that must cost a few bob.

[HarryMonkey]

There's a petition if anyone would care to sign it ..

 

https://www.change.org/p/bbc-save-the-bbc-s-recipe-archive

[Andrew_C]

There's a petition if anyone would care to sign it ..

I'd rather vote to kick Osborne & Whittingdale into orbit.

[sidewinder]

Have the recipes online for a 30 day period would be a decent way of hosting recipes, as I'm sure there are a few recipes on the web site at the moment that's not been viewed in a month or three. Though not sure how much removing the permanent website would save as I'm sure they could do cuts elsewhere and get more money saved (but hey I'm sure it's for the best)

 

I'd say recipes are one of the few things which don't date with time. Also most people don't find them from the BBC site itself, they'll get them from Google searches

[sparkeh]

I'd rather vote to kick Osborne & Whittingdale into orbit.

So that's what voting with your feet means...

[speckytecky]

They could save money by revamping their news output on BBC 1 between 0600 and 0900 hours. The current Sofa format is cringworthy. I end up switching over to another channel if Minchin or Monchetty are in 'look at me mode' Carol Kirkwood is the only saving grace. As to the Travelling Sofa I just wonder what's that all about; their business slot with Adam Shaw used to be worth watching. As to the Sports coverage I'm baffled why they think we need beating over the head with it multiple times in an hour. The website on the other hand is fabulous and the spend on it has happened resulting in a very use-able and useful tool. Surely it's not going to save them more than a few quid keeping the recipe content live?

[psydii]

**looks at a folder called 'becta' on his hard disk**

 

I'm just going to leave this here: Downloading an Entire Web Site with wget | Linux Journal

 

**wanders off whistling**

[pcstru]

I don't understand how removing content is improving the service to the public. I don't get why it's being claimed that "the BBC was never meant to be all things to all people". Why not? It's a public service, that should quite literally be its purpose! If it competes with commercial interests, maybe they should just up their game instead of whining and getting the BBC hobbled by ministers.

Up their game how? Most newspapers are struggling to find ways to fund themselves in the new 'web age' - sales of actual papers are struggling to fund the enterprises. The guardian - arguably one of the leading news websites currently loses money on their website. How exactly do they compete with a corporate entity that is publicly funded to the tune of nearly £3,600,000,000 in 2015 with nearly £190,000,000 going into "online"?

 

I'm a huge fan of the BBC and am comfortable with public ownership of infrastructure and services but there needs to be a clear remit, one that is stuck to and one that allows private enterprise to compete. The BBC should be taking risks and doing things where others will not. They should be making content that appeals to minority interests or would never get commissioned in the private sector because it is simply not a commercial proposition. Are a collection of recipes really part of the BBC's core purpose? Sure they could be said to "inform" "educate" or "entertain", but they can also be done extremely well by anyone (and are) and the BBC doing them as a public service is of little real value.

Edited May 17, 2016 by pcstru

[psydii]

In geographic markets where there isn't a 'BBC' equivalent, private enterprise still struggles to deliver quality content and make money. Interestingly one of the exceptions, Netflix, has a significantly lower revenue than Sky, yet doesn't seem to have an issue with the production of quality original materials. Furthermore, both have revenue far in excess of the Beeb.

 

Neutering the beeb, and stripping out their content is not going to improve things for Private Enterprise, because someone will always be selling it cheaper, and that is just a race to the bottom.

 

I actually have real concerns with the commercialisation of iPlayer, at the moment it is not really a competitor of NetFlix et al, but moving forward with this plan, it is going to be opened to those criticisms.

[localzuk]

Your argument leads to the BBC becoming a shell of its self though @pcstru. One which only caters to minority subjects, and therefore brings up the question "why does it need so much money if no-one uses its content?". That then leads to further cuts, and further diminishing of the services it provides.

 

The BBC site is world class as it provides content in an easy to access manner. Simple as that. Its competitors do not provide as clear content, in as easy to access a manner. Sad to say, but adverts diminish the site quality. Especially those sites that spread articles across multiple pages.

 

In regards recipes, I have to disagree with other sites doing it well. I have spent a lot of time looking at recipes online, and there are *very* few good quality sites. Instead what we have is un-curated garbage, with recipes that call for jars of pasta sauce instead of a recipe for pasta sauce... The BBC is one of a very small number of high quality recipe sites, that's for sure.

 

Also, another service they're looking to scrap is the Travel site. The reason people use that site over others? Its more up to date, accurate and easy to use than most others. Local travel news is poor to say the least, especially online provision. Ok, the AA site is pretty good, but it isn't as accurate as the BBC's one - looking at it for this area, it has multiple roadworks missing, and an incident.

[pcstru]

Your argument leads to the BBC becoming a shell of its self though @pcstru. One which only caters to minority subjects, and therefore brings up the question "why does it need so much money if no-one uses its content?".

You must read a lot into my 'argument' to get that! My point is just that it needs a very clear remit and that we do need to be careful about how it competes with commercial operations. Perhaps by corollary if I read a lot into your argument, I'd say that leads to a lack of competition by private sector, diminishing choice and a monopolisation of (say) news (because others cannot compete) by an organisation that is easily subverted by political pressures and biases.

Also, another service they're looking to scrap is the Travel site.

I think this highlights the mistake on remit and clarity. Just because the BBC can/could/would do something better than others, does not mean it should be doing that. They would probably do a good EduGeek site, maybe even better than this - no annoying ads etc. That could be said to "inform, educate and entertain". So do you think they should do EduGeek? If not, why is that out of their remit, but a travel site (of which there are many to choose from) is a good thing for them to do?

[localzuk]

You must read a lot into my 'argument' to get that! My point is just that it needs a very clear remit and that we do need to be careful about how it competes with commercial operations. Perhaps by corollary if I read a lot into your argument, I'd say that leads to a lack of competition by private sector, diminishing choice and a monopolisation of (say) news (because others cannot compete) by an organisation that is easily subverted by political pressures and biases.

 

We already know that's not the case though. Countries world-wide have no BBC equivalent as it is now, and being like that hasn't improved the commercial services available - just look at the USA as a prime example.

 

I think this highlights the mistake on remit and clarity. Just because the BBC can/could/would do something better than others, does not mean it should be doing that. They would probably do a good EduGeek site, maybe even better than this - no annoying ads etc. That could be said to "inform, educate and entertain". So do you think they should do EduGeek? If not, why is that out of their remit, but a travel site (of which there are many to choose from) is a good thing for them to do?

 

Its a good question. As a socialist, I can't actually see a reason why they wouldn't provide such a service, other than them never having provided a similar service in any industry that I know of. Are you saying that the UK is better off without the higher quality offerings that the BBC has, simply because their remit isn't clear? How does that work?

[mole]

I cannot stand that Minchin woman, will always turn over channel if that is on. And what's with the constant sport (football) every 20 mins. News should be news, football should be.....lets not go there.

[sonofsanta]

an organisation that is easily subverted by political pressures and biases.

 

Is it? It always seems like both sides are complaining about its coverage, which is usually a good sign it's striking the right balance if everyone is equally offended. It feels to me like the BBC remains remarkarbly neutral, particularly in the face of some of the comments from Whittingdale.

[pcstru]

We already know that's not the case though. Countries world-wide have no BBC equivalent as it is now, and being like that hasn't improved the commercial services available - just look at the USA as a prime example.

I'd agree that the comparison with the USA is not good (they do have some public service broadcasting but not nationally) but I don't think the situation is comparable to the situation we are actually in. We have a BBC and we have private enterprise and we have a (fairly) new means for people to access information and content. That situation is proving extremely difficult for the private sector - Broadcast TV is losing ad revenue as people go on-line, newspapers are being challenged because people do not want to pay for content when high quality content is provided FOC by the BBC. I accept that a large part of the problem those enterprises face will need to be solved by those enterprises (I'm not trying to deprive them of fair competition or have the government spoon feed them), but that is being made extremely problematic by the BBC moving into the same space while funded by licence payers.

 

Its a good question. As a socialist, I can't actually see a reason why they wouldn't provide such a service, other than them never having provided a similar service in any industry that I know of. Are you saying that the UK is better off without the higher quality offerings that the BBC has, simply because their remit isn't clear? How does that work?

 

I am saying that we need to be careful or we risk losing independent, high quality journalism that is provided by the likes of the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, The Times etc. We will then be left with something that is within reach of political tinkering and the BBC will lose it's motivation and ability to deliver high quality news, entertainment and information. I'm saying that recipes and travel review websites do not seem to me to be in the remit of a public service Broadcasting organisation and the fact that the BBC now finds itself curating such content strongly suggests to me that their remit is/has not been clear enough.

[HarryMonkey]

So should the BBC stop doing travel bulletins on its radio programs simply because commercial radio does it (albeit not as well)?