Sachsgate the Update

It's the story in the British media that just keeps on giving. Some weeks after comedian Russell Brand and TV host Jonathan Ross made sexually explicit phone calls to the home of actor Andrew Sachs, the BBC's governing body, the BBC Trust, has reported its view of the whole debacle.

The chairman of the Governors, Sir Michael Lyons, has made it clear that Brand/Ross overstepped the mark of taste/decency, but that this outcome was predictable. The people at fault primarily were those in production and editorial clearance teams who failed to stop the broadcast. Interestingly, Brand's show was produced by his own production company, and the Trust has also said that the BBC must review its working relationships with presenters who front shows made by their own outfits.

Additionally, the Trust recommends tightening up disciplinary procedures against those who fail to follow editorial guidelines.

One final point - the Trust also announced that senior BBC executives would be foregoing their bonuses this year. I was surprised to read that they get bonuses at all. Isn't the BBC supposed to be a Public Service Broadcaster? Since when did market forces capitalism creep into Broadcasting House?

Lord Reith, the founder of the BBC, must be turning in his grave.

One Minute Writing Winner

I don't suppose I'll get many opportunities to brag about my own writing accomplishments, so indulge me this little moment of glory.

At the top right of my blog page you'll see a button, announcing that I was a daily winner of the One Minute Writer Challenge. 

I came across this a week ago, idly browsing the Blog Buzz section. 

One Minute Writer is an idea so simple it's pure genius. Each day Beth Anderson, an American writer, posts a new topic onto her site (motto, 'You have 1,440 minutes a day. Use one of them to write.'). Contributors then have 60 seconds to offer a response. I can only think in verse for such a short response, so have been sending in 60 second poems. It's great fun. Really.

I have to admit to having become an OMW addict, not least because it means I can contribute quickly and then spend a few minutes browsing the excellent contributions that flood in.

If you click on the Winner's button at the top right hand side of my page it'll take you to my entry about vintage clothes. But do have a nosey through the other entries and daily topics. It doesn't take long and it's fascinating.

From an educational point of view, I'm enjoying the intellectual engagement with a new community. This seems to be social networking at a higher, more literate, level, and that's a great result of digital publishing technology enabling audiences to bypass the traditional closed-door approach of publishing houses. Sure, none of us are making any money, or at the most, I guess there are some making a paying hobby out if it, but the truth is that writing for an audience, to which you also belong, is an empowering and very positive experience.

Try it. You might like it....

Making money from online video

This is a thorny issue that has vexed professional producers of moving image content, whether it be TV or film, for some time.

On the one hand, video sharing sites like You Tube offer fantastic viral marketing opportunities. On the other, video sharing sites like You Tube offer fantastic video piracy opportunities.

So, the billion dollar question has been for the last 3-5 years, how do you make money out of online video, when the majority of your audience think file sharing is fine ('we'll be paying to go to the cinema the first time round' and other excuses), content appears freely no sooner than it receives a theatrical release, and tracking content round the world wide web is so hard?

A new company is aiming to offer a solution to institutions whose bread and butter work is the production of moving image content. The premise is simple: take copyrighted content, embed metadata (the information about information, or tags as they're known to most of us), turn it into any number of streaming formats, host it, syndicate it to other sites, like presumably, You Tube et al, generate reports about whose using it, then make a charge for providing (a) the means of tracking and (b) the means of somehow stopping pirates.

The company in question is called My Video Rights and I'm interested in it because it's attracted two heavyweights of the British media: Kelvin MacKenzie was the controversial editor of the Sun newspaper, one of the founders of influential if barmy cable TV station L!ve TV (the one with the Person of Restricted Growth, bouncing on a trampoline while reading the weather), and a man who tends to become involved in edgy media projects. The other is Peter Bazalgette, whose TV company Bazal I worked for happily for several years (Groundforce, Changing Rooms etc). Neither man is likely to have put their name to a venture they think has a small chance of success.

However, will it work, is the question I keep asking myself? Certainly, there needs to be some way for media institutions to monetize their online video assets. However, I can't help but think of small drops and large oceans when I try to imagine how this will actually work to the point of reaching a critical mass. 

At a time when advertising revenues have gone through the floor, the uptake of online video by audiences continues to grow, even if it does so at a reduced rate. Trying to square the need to raise revenue from someone, even if it's not the audiences themselves, but perhaps advertisers keen to see embedded links in video, or at the least some sort of metric data that proves eyeballs are eyeing content, is one heck of a challenge.

I wish the creators of My Video Rights all the very best. I am certain they will not be the last institution to attempt to crack this elusive media nut, but it would be great to see a British company leading the way.

Back to Life, Baz to Reality

I like Baz Luhrmann films. I remember working as the producer of a film review show for a London TV station back in the 1990s. I received an invite to attend the preview of his version of Romeo and Juliet. I had no idea what to expect, but anticipated a somewhat saccharine movie.

At the time I liked to see at least one film a week about which I didn't read the PR blurb. It was fun sitting in a cinema auditorium, with no idea what was about to unfold. And since I was watching films before they'd made it to general release, I enjoyed the incredible privilege of not having friends or family spoil the plot for me. Oh no, that was my job....

I mention this because after a seven year hiatus, excepting the over the top, if remarkable, advert for Chanel, that in 2004 cost millions to produce, Baz is back.

His great epic, Australia, is due to open in the UK on Boxing Day, and has its world premiere next week. The only problem is - he hasn't finished editing it yet.

The press are having a field day over why the $120 million film hasn't been placed in the can and sent off for preview.

Only Oprah Winfrey and her audience have seen a cut of the film, and that was without all the special effects included.

Naturally, the rumour mills are working overtime. The main claim alleges that Fox has forced Luhrmann to change the ending from one that's tragic to one that's happy. 

Entertainment magazine Variety has been following the story. Oprah Winfrey has provided a behind-the-scenes video, which doesn't give away the plot, but provides a quick insight into the challenges facing a cast and crew of more than 300, who decamped into the Outback.

The Guardian features an interview with Baz Luhrmann, in which he explains what makes him produce films that go against the grain of contemporary thinking.

If the ending has been changed because of focus group feedback it'll be a real shame. However, if Luhrmann is making his alterations because of a desire to complete the narrative, in a way that he believes is artistically closer to the ideals he held dear, when he embarked on this adventure, then we should trust him to make the right call.

Critics are pointing out that Titanic et al did not have happy endings, but still went on to break Box Office records. If Australia has a narrative that offers a plausible ending at its conclusion, together with fine acting and lush cinematography, then the mood of the finale will not matter.

It's worth observing how even those at the top of their game can still feel the heat of indecision and doubt. Remember that the next time you find yourself stuck at a creative crossroads during A level coursework!

The Face behind the Book

Given how powerful Facebook has become it's strange that every interview I read with Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of the world's biggest social networking site, seems rather bland. 

Maybe it's the increasing presence of PR minders, sent to preserve the corporate brand image, or perhaps the guy is genuinely introverted in a techno-geek way, but he manages to give little away about his passion or vision, either when reflecting about the past or looking forward to the future.

Nonetheless, if it's titbits you're after then here's the latest offering, which has appeared in the Guardian.