Tom Coates on Ashley Highfield
Tom has written a thoughtful, detailed and in my opinion accurate analysis of the failures of the BBC's Ashley Highfield which I strongly suggest anyone one who cares about the BBC or new media goes and reads.
I really hope that the BBC is strong enough to survive the damage done to its technical capability by John Varney (who has just announced his departure before the shit hits the fan as a result of his asinine deal with Siemens) and Ashley's incompetence and inability to harness, or indeed retain the considerable talents of the people available to him.
As a "first-time non-blogger/long-time lurker" I'll post the link because I think it's worth it: http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2006/07/whos_afraid_of_ashley_highfield.shtml
Posted by: Michael Walsh | July 19, 2006 at 08:39 PM
Doh! Thought I had. Corrected now - thanks Michael.
Posted by: Euan | July 19, 2006 at 08:50 PM
To whoever left that last anonymous comment (which I have deleted as I don't allow anonymous comments) neither Tom nor I have reason to be pissed off with the BBC. Not sure which of us you were referring to but to be honest we both care about the organsation still -hence the views expressed.
Posted by: Euan | July 19, 2006 at 09:46 PM
There's a couple of problems with Tom's analysis that's it's worth thinking about.
The problems with both iMP and Creative Archive come down to rights, and the inability of rights holders to get their heads round "teh future". I don't think you can blame Highfield too much fort the lack of movement there. And comparing Backstage to Flickr isn't fair: Flickr was designed from the ground up to have open APIs, while the BBC has a huge number of systems which barely talk to each other, let alone have the kind of APIs you could open up.
The problem with all the BBC's new media efforts is, in fact, managerial - but I'm not sure that this is Highfield's fault. The structure of BBC new media efforts has, frankly, been insane. Responsibility for new media projects has been split across numerous departments that have had only tangential relationships with either each other or "New Media Central". There has been NO overview of new media activity in a meaningful sense, managerially, because there has been no one at the top of the management scale who's job it has been to decide what projects live and die.
Posted by: Ian Betteridge | July 20, 2006 at 11:32 AM
So if things are going to be hard don't start bllowing your trumpet about them and enhancing your image before you know they are going to work.
Ashley has been in charge of new media for ages - going back to John Birt's day so if new media hasn't been sorted out in all that time, and it isn't his fault, I really don't understand what his job is!
Posted by: Euan | July 20, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Ian,
While rights are a huge issue with the Creative Archive, I'm not so sure that's the problem with iMP, MyBBC player, iBBC player, or whatever Ashley has decided to call it this month. It's pretty common knowledge that the BBC's development process is in the words of a colleague 'diabolical'. And really, Sky has been able to roll out in six months what the BBC has been working on and has yet to deliver after three+ years of development.
Why? You're right. The structure of the BBC's new media efforts is insane. But Ashley famously said that Friends Reunited had 15 employees, and he didn't understand why the News Website had a few hundred - this was several years and several rounds of cuts ago.
Sorry, the people I respect the most know that he wouldn't have survived the dot.com crash had he been in the private sector. His ideas are derivative. He is a market follower, not a leader.
I will cede that there hasn't been anyone who decides what projects 'live or die'. That's a pan-BBC problem. The resources are disippated throughout the organisation so strategy becomes incredibly difficult to execute. However, I would agree with Euan, the only effective strategy that Ashley has pursued is one of self-promotion.
Posted by: Kevin Anderson | July 20, 2006 at 10:39 PM
I'd suggest that iPlayer and the creative archive were announced before they should have been - both of them were mentioned publically by the ex DG in speeches at times when the BBC's new media ambitions were being criticised elsewhere (during the Graf investigation, if I remember correctly).
My hunch - and this is just a hunch, not any insider knowledge - is that they were used as sweteners at a difficult time, and could have benefitted from not being announced until later.
Unless, of course, the attention of early announcement was to force engagement from the rights bodies like the Writers' Guild Pact, and Equity.
My oppines, d'abord, are not those of my employer.
Posted by: k | July 21, 2006 at 04:03 PM
Eye opening to say the least.
Posted by: Franka Philip | July 26, 2006 at 01:11 PM