There's a range of unhelpful advice about how to cut the BBC down to size in the Sunday papers. Matt Brittin will have already formed a hypothesis, set about challenging it, and boiled things down to three BIG ISSUES. He may have idly applied GE-McKinsey nine-box matrix, ranking the BBC's activities by 'attractiveness' versus 'business unit strengths'.
But Lisa Nandy has set different parameters: keeping aiming at universal reach, on funding levels that might match current licence fee rates without 'avoidance'. She may be coming round to a precept from direct taxation, supervised by a Commission of some sort.
Matt's decisions will be 'data-driven', looking to balance the audience the BBC currently holds, with the opportunities to reach more in different ways. Let's hope he makes sure that the stats for online and smartphone eyeballs match BARB and RAJAR for length and depth of engagement, and for credit back to the BBC. Too many people seem too be hiding the brand in the hunt for yoof; certainly too many people think pushing out dashcam footage is a public service.
Matt doesn't need to make less content; he needs to make sure it's all produced at price not distorted by history ("Sit coms are too expensive" "High end drama won't work at low rates". Podcasts started as fast, cheap and cheerful responses to current trends and events, often denied broadcast space by stuck-in-the-mud commissioners preferring a low-risk comfy life with staples that have filled their schedules for 30-plus years. Now BBC podcasts have a superstructure of a size similar to linear radio. I expect the recent move into documentaries for YouTube will suffer in the same way.
So, Matt, make content production No 1; make sure its got genuine quality, baseline-costed, then organise it and distribute it for the 21st century.