Quality v value

Four related posts about the BBC strategy review

Mark Thompson wants to "re-invest" £600m, a fifth of the BBC's cost base, in quality and originality. The problem here - quality is hard to measure, and is often simply a matter of opinion or assertion. And the strategy makes no mention of value, as used to be the watchword.

Would people flee to ITV and Sky if less was spent on circling hippos and the like at BBC programme junctions ? Would the quality of the BBC News channel improve or diminish if there were just one presenter rather than two most of the time ? Would the quality of Nick Robinson's input to the 10 O'Clock News improve or diminish if he was in an existing studio to make his point, rather than outside with a crew in the dark in Downing Street ? Would the quality of Lark Rise to Candleford improve or diminish if there were more or fewer animals in the background ? Would the quality of The One Show or Watchdog improve or diminish if they were in underused studios in Television Centre, rather than purpose-built sets in White City ?

Originality is measurable - and any move away from derivative home-buying, decorating, cooking, life-with-policemen-vets-fireman-type programming would be welcomed.

And originality doesn't have to be expensive. That Was The Week That Was didn't waste money on sets; in the States, The Daily Show spends on writers and talent, not look and feel.

For this re-investment to work, one has to be confident about the quality of the commissioning pipeline - the answer to the quality question has to be better than just more costume drama and a Shakespeare cycle.