Article
BBC cues up launch of 'Delivery Quality First' cuts
Managers briefed about how to explain changes to staff, but schedule for announcement understood to have slipped
BBC managers are understood to have been briefed at Broadcasting House over 'Delivering Quality First'. Photograph: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian
The BBC's "Delivery Quality First" cost-cutting programme is entering its final stages with senior BBC managers attending workshops on how to prepare staff for "the DQF journey ahead".
However, it is understood that the timetable to announce some of the biggest changes to the corporation's output in recent years has slipped and although staff have been told they will hear the results of DQF on 22 September, it could be put back to early October.
One source said: "The top BBC management team are due to meet on 15 September to finalise proposals and then the BBC Trust meets on 22 September. Lord Patten does not want the process to drag on so is looking to get the trustees to buy in to whatever is agreed before an announcement is made in early October."
Another source claimed that 6 October has been pencilled in to make public the results of DQF.
Managers have attended a series of lengthy briefings, including one on Tuesday at BBC Broadcasting House in central London, to teach them "how to tell the DQF story", according to a BBC memo.
It is understood that the briefings are being spearheaded by the BBC's director of business operations, Lucy Adams.
BBC management has completed a lengthy staff consultation process and there has been intense speculation about how the corporation is going to make a 16% cut in operating costs as a result of last year's licence fee settlement with the government.
Sources say executives are still looking to cut back BBC4 and bring it closer to BBC2, reduce BBC3's budget, increase the number of repeats and replace some of BBC2's daytime output, perhaps with some BBC4 programmes.
It is understood that the changes to BBC2 daytime have been analysed and could lead to up to a 2% fall in ratings.
Overall, around half the savings will come from cutting budgets for programmes and other content.
Other savings proposals include capping redundancy pay and getting rid of an "unpredictability allowance" paid to staff to compensate them for having shifts altered – moves that will prove unpopular with BBC News staff.
Around 131 of them are facing redundancy as a result of the move of BBC Breakfast, children's, sport, learning and parts of 5 Live and technology from London to Salford.
Cutting back on sports rights is also on the agenda, but it is thought that sport has already made a significant saving by cutting the amount it pays for Formula One rights by about half to some £30m after renegotiating its contract and sharing coverage with Sky.
There is also an internal row brewing over planned cuts to BBC Birmingham.
The regional centre is thought to have fought to keep production of popular soap Doctors at BBC Birmingham but could lose other shows such as Countryfile to other BBC production bases.
It remains to be seen what the effect of an online petition signed by about 41,000 people to save BBC4 from cutbacks will have. A similar rally by supporters to save BBC 6 Music managed to save the service from potential closure last year.
One source said that if the BBC Trust decides to "flex its muscles" it will be over "the future of the channels".
While the chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, has not officially ruled out closing a service, the director general, Mark Thompson, is apparently still keen to avoid a closure.
It is not the first time the two have had a difference of opinion.
Earlier this week it emerged that Thompson had signed a proposal drafted by Adams to bring back bonuses for senior executives. However it was vetoed by Patten.
"It's standard practice for management to hold discussions about how best to communicate changes to staff," said a spokeswoman for the BBC.
• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".
• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter at http://twitter.com/#!/mediaguardian and Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/mediaguardian
Related Content
User Comments
brush
6 September 2011 7:40PM
of an "unpredictability allowance" paid to staff to compensate them for having shifts altered – moves that will prove unpopular with BBC News staff.
One of the more interesting proposals.
So if the "unpredictability allowance" is removed then presumably the unpredictability of the shifts will be removed and BBC managers will have to learn how to organise working time properly.
traillblazer
6 September 2011 7:47PM
brush.
Or employ more people.
Ah!
How to tell the DQF story? Gimme strength.
MrRatfan1976
6 September 2011 8:23PM
"Earlier this week it emerged that Thompson had signed a proposal drafted by Adams to bring back bonuses for senior executives. However it was vetoed by Patten."
Good for Patten.
Maybe other people would sign up to a proposal that it would be a real bonus if the BBC got rid of Thompson and Adams? Over paid, out of touch? I ask that question.
Here's the story.
DQF is not about delivering quality. It's about delivering cost savings brought about by bad management, project overspend, fat cat Byford million pound payoffs and hasty decisions made whilst under the boot of the Mr Hunt/Mr Cameron and their crooked news international mates.
Some of the savings will impact on the ability of talented people to deliver very much at all, irrespective of the quality.
Some of the savings will deliver redundancy to skilled people.
Lets cut some crap here eh?
DQF is a another toxic issue Mr Patten to be mindful of during the next couple of months.
Toxic for staff morale, toxic for public perception of the BBC, toxic due to the way the BBC senior bonus seeking managers will try to spin the cuts as something worthwhile and beneficial.
Deliver the best programming and content possible first. Deliver truth and accuracy and deliver us news free from the evil news international and their MP friends.
Briantist
6 September 2011 10:17PM
It is understood that the changes to BBC2 daytime have been analysed and could lead to up to a 2% fall in ratings.
Once again, Guardian and Observer style guide: P - Info - guardian.co.uk says:
percentage rises
probably our most common lapse into "mythematics": an increase from 3% to 5% is a 2 percentage point increase or a 2-point increase, not a 2% increase; any sentence saying "such and such rose or fell by X%" should be considered and checked carefully
Briantist
6 September 2011 10:20PM
Also, I will say it again, if the BBC makes cuts to BBC services and doesn't demand back the £12m a year it pays Sky for channels that are already broadcast on free satellite to have their "Radio Times information" provided to Sky's customer's boxes, I will get a little vexed.
jno50
6 September 2011 11:50PM
So if the "unpredictability allowance" is removed then presumably the unpredictability of the shifts will be removed and BBC managers will have to learn how to organise working time properly.
That does sound nice and sensible.
But it's not just about organising shifts. News organisations do have to deal with unpredictability. If a big story breaks over a quiet weekend, staff will have to be called in on their day off to help handle it. The BBC seem to have decided they shouldn't be paid for this.
Just as it would be nice if the Guardian had enough staff on hand to sort out the howler in the headline and intro as pointed out by BBCRadioForum.
ZigZoomer
7 September 2011 7:28AM
But it's not just about organising shifts. News organisations do have to deal with unpredictability. If a big story breaks over a quiet weekend, staff will have to be called in on their day off to help handle it. The BBC seem to have decided they shouldn't be paid for this.
Fair enough.
But how much are the allowances?
How often are staff who receive such allowances actually called in on their days off?
Do the allowances represent value for money?
It might be that the BBC is paying too much for such flexibility -- like paying for annual travel insurance if you only go on holiday once a year.
mariajane
7 September 2011 8:05AM
..the allowances are part of people's salaries...and, indeed, on many occasions have been amalgamated into salaries.... what may be being proposed is cut in salary for future and maybe even current staff.. ... meanwhile managers are sneaking around trying to claw back the bonus system for themselves...
jno50
7 September 2011 9:17AM
It might be that the BBC is paying too much for such flexibility -- like paying for annual travel insurance if you only go on holiday once a year.
Might be. But the BBC isn't proposing to pay less, it's proposing to pay nothing - like going on holiday without any insurance at all.
Thisisnotmyrealname
7 September 2011 9:56AM
Unpredictability allowance (UPA) comes in two flavours. One is compensation for major short- or zero-notice changes to the work pattern (like, "you and your crew are off to Libya tomorrow for a fortnight").
The other is for changes to shift times at two weeks' notice and days off at six weeks' notice. In practice, though, everyday goodwill at the workplace means that people chop and change shifts and days pretty much at the drop of a hat.
We may be journalists in the news trade but we should still have some degree of stability in our home and family lives, and UPA is compensation for the disruption.
Taking away UPA will kill that goodwill stone dead. I'll have my shift times published six weeks in advance please, and five months' notice of a change to my off-duty days, as the BBC's own terms and conditions say.
Sit back and watch the fun as soon as the next big round-the-clock story breaks.
ZigZoomer
7 September 2011 9:57AM
..the allowances are part of people's salaries...and, indeed, on many occasions have been amalgamated into salaries....
@mariajane
I think you just contradicted yourself.
Thisisnotmyrealname
7 September 2011 10:00AM
"I think you just contradicted yourself"
No contradiction. Some BBC people have been moved onto different T&Cs, giving up their UPA but having it (or a good part of it) folded into their salary instead. So it becomes part of pensionable pay instead of being a separate allowance.
ZigZoomer
7 September 2011 10:03AM
Might be. But the BBC isn't proposing to pay less, it's proposing to pay nothing -
We don't know that for certain. This is an article based on unnamed sources.
It might be part of the negotiating tactics.
You depress expectations by leaking a few outrageous proposals to the press.
But what you actually announce is less outrageous.
ZigZoomer
7 September 2011 10:07AM
@Thisisnotmyrealname
They can't be part of your salary if they are later amalgamated into your salary.
Otherwise the allowances would be part of your salary in the first place, and not part of your total compensation.
ZigZoomer
7 September 2011 10:12AM
@Thisisnotmyrealname
I'm not saying that you shouldn't have an unpredictability allowance.
I'm just questioning whether current arrangements are good value for money for licence fee payers.
It might be better to cut UPA altogether, and then use the cash to pay overtime to staff who are needed to work overtime.
tpbeta
7 September 2011 10:39AM
UPA was originally a pay rise by another name - one which was not pensionable and gave the management some fringe benefits in terms of the flexibility of staff deployment which is much needed in News.
Removing it would therefore be a paycut by another name, and one that would hit the lowest paid the hardest, since most of the reporters and all of the management had it wrapped into their main salary.
I imagine News could cope by bullying younger producers into filling the flexibility gap, but I would think that cutting it would also trigger a strike. A typical London based news producer would be losing £5 grand from a £40 grand salary, which would be very painful.
Some will say this sounds like a very BBC-ish allowance which should be scrapped. Of course Sky News doesn't have UPA, but then their producers are typically paid £60 grand.
BirminghamListener
7 September 2011 1:04PM
Does anyone remember when Birmingham was a amjor production centre for all networks across the BBC?
Now, apart from The Archers, it seems to be one newsroom.
RIP Pebble Mill.
Phazer
7 September 2011 5:02PM
I'm just questioning whether current arrangements are good value for money for licence fee payers.
It might be better to cut UPA altogether, and then use the cash to pay overtime to staff who are needed to work overtime.
Hahaha. Salary adminstration for overtime payments is incredibly expensive. The answer to that is absolutely unquestionably no, unless UPA is something like 50% of salary.
Phazer
thecatwithnotail
7 September 2011 5:07PM
The majority of the public who have had their cages rattled and clicked a little button on an e-petition, don't seem to realise what's in the report, and most of the stories I've read in the press have done nothing to assuage audience concerns.
After reading that the channel was under threat, I read the section on BBC Four, and - *gasp* - it makes perfect sense, and seems to be a good idea for moving the channel forward after cutbacks, with a stronger identity.
Most of the people over on the facebook group are fearful that the channel is going to be totally ruined - going on to mention all of the documentaries, arts programmes, music programmes etc that they love. The very things that the DQF report says the channel will focus on.
Moving the entertainment and drama over to BBC Two makes perfect sense.
A total non-story, being whipped up to create anti-BBC sentiment perhaps?
Tara, not sure what your agenda is other than causing panic and then get patted on the head by your bosses for generating paper sales as you did with the Jerry Springer The Musical story, but hey, that seems to be what your profession is all about.
Bakelite
7 September 2011 11:35PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
glen40
8 September 2011 10:18AM
"the DQF journey ahead"
"how to tell the DQF story"
People are actually being paid to write this sort of offensive, patronising shit.
What's the betting the person responsible for writing that tripe won't be one of those who end up losing their job?
misterselecta
8 September 2011 10:24PM
I'd cut BBC News 24, which is long past its initial proposition (there's hardly a lack of TV/radio/internet news channels now is there?). Apart from ringfencing iPlayer, I'd take an axe to BBC Online, who are spending money just as much as they were in the Huggers' expansionist era. Most of my cuts axe would be reserved for BBC1 - it's undistinctive and (at over 20 times the cost of BBC4) not good value for money.
WeFearChange
6 September 2011 7:29PM
PLEASE keep signing at www.savebbcfour.com.
No login is needed, no email address, just your name.
Only BBC Four would have aired world-class foreign language television such as Heimat: A chronicle of Germany, original Wallander, The Killing and Spiral.
BBC Four has also given birth to shows such as Newswipe, The Thick of It, Lead Balloon, Getting On, Fantabulosa!, Women in Love, The Long Walk to Finchley and The Road to Coronation Street.
It is not BBC2!