External Supply Review
Post categories: 91Èȱ¬ Online,Ìý91Èȱ¬ Trust,Ìýaccountability
| 12:30 UK time, Friday, 18 January 2013
Ìý
I'm Richard Smith and I look after feedback and public accountability for 91Èȱ¬ Online (including managing the small team who produce this blog and plan and deliver our 91Èȱ¬ Online Industry Briefings.)
Part of my role involves working with 91Èȱ¬ commissioners and external suppliers to facilitate the working relationship between 91Èȱ¬ Online and the UK's digital industry, whether these are big players or start-ups.
91Èȱ¬ Online is subject to a quota which ensures that we spend at least 25% of our eligible budget with external suppliers, with the aim of creating the highest quality service and the best possible value for money.
In 2011 the 91Èȱ¬ Trust asked us to report back with answers to six key questions relating to what our quota aims to achieve and how we work with the digital industry.
Today we're publishing our response. These findings and our recommendations are based on research carried out on our behalf by independent analysts , and today we are also publishing their final report (with some redactions where required for commercial confidentiality).
I'm pleased to say that the Trust have accepted our findings and recommendations. As a result we will be retaining the existing supply arrangements for at least two more years.
They've also asked to us to look at ways we can make further improvements in how we commission and work with external suppliers and to regularly review and report performance against our stated objectives.
Later this year we'll be publishing our 2012/13 Out-turn report for 91Èȱ¬ Online which will have further details about how we have fulfilled the quota this year. (Out-turn reports for previous years are available on our Commissioning web site)
If you are a digital business who work with 91Èȱ¬ Online and have any questions about the reports I'm happy to try and answer any queries - so please do leave a comment.
Richard Smith is head of public accountability, 91Èȱ¬ Online and Red Button.
Executive Response to the Trust Review of Online Supply 2012/13
Comment number 1.
At 18th Jan 2013, Carsten Ringsing wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 19th Jan 2013, JunkkMale wrote:'look after feedback and public accountability for 91Èȱ¬ Online '
Maybe you then can explain why this URL has been closed for months without getting the mods to kill even the question being asked?:
/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/helen-boaden-director-of-bbc-news-at-the-lse
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 21st Jan 2013, kruador wrote:"Why are some blog entries closed to comments?
"All blog entries are automatically closed after a period of time to help reduce spamming and off topic discussion. The default duration that entries are open to comments varies from blog to blog.
"Some entries may also be closed early for example if the debate has changed, run its natural course, or is no longer topical.
"In very rare cases an entry may never be opened to comments. For example if a story is so sensitive that commenting would put users or the 91Èȱ¬ at risk.
"The length of time entries are open to comments can likewise be extended, for example if the debate remains topical for an unusually long time."
- /blogs/about.shtml
You posted your question EIGHT MONTHS after the event. It was no longer timely, and it appears to be criticising a prior moderation decision.
I do not work for the 91Èȱ¬, I am not a moderator. I am explaining the normal practice, used by many blogs, which is to close entries for new comments, to reduce the moderation workload and the chance of attracting spam comments.
If you mean why was your question not removed, presumably no-one complained about it. Your question was presumably not answered because it is covered in the house rules: /blogs/moderation.shtml - only the commenter or their appointed representative can appeal against a moderation decision.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 21st Jan 2013, JunkkMale wrote:'3. At 12:16 21st Jan 2013, kruador '
"Why are some blog entries closed to comments?
A very thorough reply, especially from one who does not work for the 91Èȱ¬, ever has or would, no way. Uh-uh...
Cut & pasting vast tracts from the 91Èȱ¬'s own rulebook can serve on the how, but less so on the why, though. Especially self-serving exceptions.
I take it you are referring to my post (ignoring the irony of all around being modded out there... and here) as cited in the URL?
I am happy to see it has been reinstated, after a few months of the entire page being rendered unreadable, from actual story to any comments about it. Coincidentally when the topic and main protagonist was involved in matters that such a page could have complemented poorly. Clearly that awkward moment is now passed.
So what I was talking about was not my comment but the whole thing.
Though in addition I was talking to the mods about this question being removed the other day from another (relevant) The Editors thread simply for asking.
/blogs/bbcinternet/2013/01/news_connected_studio.html?postId=114915409
If you are going to leap to the defence of the 91Èȱ¬ in such a way, maybe first get to grips with what is actually needing answering?
I know what I mean. And I'd prefer the 91Èȱ¬ to reply than those who don't.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 21st Jan 2013, asma khan wrote:why bbc close some commeent and why they don't accept URL
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 21st Jan 2013, Bangladesh Music Network wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 22nd Jan 2013, Samson wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 22nd Jan 2013, Eliza Kessler wrote:Hi asma khan and JunkkMale
We remove comments which are off the topic of the blog post which in this case is the External Supply Review, so please keep your comments focused around that.
If you would like more info about how we moderate comments on blogs you can read our house rules.
Many thanks
Eliza Kessler
Content Producer
91Èȱ¬ Internet blog
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 22nd Jan 2013, JunkkMale wrote:From the post:
I look after feedback and public accountability for 91Èȱ¬ Online
If you wish to hold 'discussions' narrowed to the level you appear to want, it may be better to do so directly rather than on a public forum.
Also, as precedent, is the 91Èȱ¬ prepared to shut down any attempt by interviewers who often end by saying... 'While I have got you here..' to put a public figure on the spot on a related area?
If not, then add it to your many unique exceptions, too often protected by moddings, closures or FoI exclusions.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 22nd Jan 2013, Nayna Desai wrote:Glad there's some transparency regarding the use of external suppliers with the 91Èȱ¬... just finished off an audit with a broadcaster abroad and there was an unbelievable amount of leakage.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)