BBC Website £36 Million Over Budget

New figures just released by the BBC Trust show that their internet operations have left a bill of £110m for the last 12 months of their operation. This is a staggering 48% over budget (or £36m).

During the review, the BBC Trust labelled the incident as a 'serious breach' of the BBC's service license agreement, and has put conditions on signing of a further £39m requested for the development of online services for the future. Unless the management of BBC.co.uk show 'improved management controls', they will not get this further finance.

Despite this, the Trust has said that statistics show that the 16.5 million monthly users of the BBC's web offerings are generally happy with the services they receive.

I'll leave it up to each of you to judge if the 48% overspend really constitutes a 48% rise in level of service delivered.

View: The Guardian

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Privatefirewall 6.0

Next Story

Dell Post Strong Q1 Profit Results

28 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Wow this is a change from the normal comments... BBC has an over budget site we get "Good" comments about it... a site in the USA is over budget costing tax payers its "horrible" maybe the US needs to start making better public sites *LOL*

well, people in the UK explicitly pay a fee for it , I think, unlike spain, which is "state funded" but that's all. and UKers seem to be "happy customers" in this case.

It doesn't matter whether it's 3.6 million or 36 million. The point is that they are a public service company who seem to have ignored their budget constraints. Who do you think ultimately pays for that overspend? We, the license payers.

it's a pittance given the overall BBC budget and for an overspend it's even more neglible in comparison with other public budget overspends like the London olympics for example.

its also a shame we pay for news agents all over the world who generally sit on there ass all day and get paid to do buggar all, probably most the year because there is nothing to report on, fire `em all

I think that it's probably about right. A lot of people forget that the BBC is a WORLDWIDE organisation, reporting around the globe on a number of things - I for one have been using it to get accustomed to Carribbean issues before I travel there next month. Running a global news service whilst upgrading their platform for it definitely can't be cheap. In addition to the added development costs and bandwidth, there's also going to be the need to train staff in using these tools, paying for licenses etc. Given the impeccable way they run it all, I'm suprised it's not a lot more to be honest.

£36 million sounds reasonable to me - the iPlayer is brilliant, the news pages were in need of a serious update and their bandwidth can't be cheap either!

Yeah i've seen more than a few from your good self as well. Everyone does it now and again and can slip through the nets of editors, at least it's a lot better than reading the Daily Mail.

The Iplayer servers probably go through more bandwidth in a day then you would go through in 10 years, I could quite easily see something like that costing millions to run.

^Exactly. Even though the iPlayer client uses a P2P network to distribute content, the flash player on the website steams it from the BBC, which would use up a lot of bandwidth.

makes me wonder who the beeb hire to create a site like this. 36mil ($72mil) is a lot of dough, I'm sure they could've spent a lot less.

I read once a government contractor charged £80 + fitting for a toilet seat, maybe something similer happened here

ha, yeah you're probably right. £36,000,000 is a crazy amount of money, it'd be interesting to see a breakdown of the costs. How much was the iPlayer - £500k?! It's a lot for a flash player that streams some video files!

(Cpugeni Ω said @ #6.1)
ha, yeah you're probably right. £36,000,000 is a crazy amount of money, it'd be interesting to see a breakdown of the costs. How much was the iPlayer - £500k?! It's a lot for a flash player that streams some video files!

The iplayer isn't just something they bought off the shelf that streams a few videos over the net from somebody's web space... don't forget about all the costs behind the scenes... storage (hundreds of terabytes, all raided and backed up), bandwidth (multiple gigabits), dedicated staff to run it, etc etc.

Well £36million isn't worth that.
However the iPlayer is worth a couple of million, well maybe less than £5million.

the bbc news website states 3.5m (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7425287.stm)... someone at the guardian got the wrong end of a very large stick?

I'm not sure - there's a pdf linked from the BBC's site to the full review, which although is a little bit unclear, does show a 48% overspend on the £85m allocated.

BBC review pdf - page 60/61

It also gives a £13m figure for spending that should have been credited, but has been disregarded with the figure, making me think the BBC have given a slightly skewed figure.

The new design + iPlayer + embedded video content makes it worthwhile in my eyes. It's a much better website now.