The BBC is cited as an example of successful public company, over and over again, and another example of good media company, the quality of their programs and the independence and prestige of their news. But what we do with the BBC in Mexico? A government enterprise like any other hostage of its officers and employees, the service itself basically.
a litmus test: Would you allow a public company makes money, lay off thousands of workers to streamline its operation? Of course not: the union and opinion leaders would prevent so great folly. Well, the BBC reported earnings of more than 15.400 billion pesos last year, yet prepares to lay off almost 2,600 workers, over 10% of its workforce, although the restructuring plan will hire several hundred workers (better educated, more needed), for what the net job loss would be only 1,800 workers. In the news area cuts will affect 300 to 400 workers.
How dare you do this, if, as a flagship public company, its priority is not making money?
If we can not answer this question, we'll never understand why a public company can become successful, if we can not answer this question, it is clear that we deserve Channel 11, Channel 22, TV UNAM, SEP Educational Television, Channel of Congress, Judicial Channel, TV Mexiquense, etc., etc., not the BBC. Or to just have heard that some of these public companies earn lots of money and lay off 10% of its staff? Not to mention
PEMEX or CFE, corporations that were privatized all practical purposes many years ago ... by its employees and officials, who handle them as if they were not as public companies, ie of all Mexicans. Company
public: those whose priority is to serve the public, its officers, employees, unions, governments. Believe that the interests of these groups can not always coincide with the interests of the public is irresponsible illusion.
Other information:
The BBC is not subsidized or government budget. (Do you know any Mexican government enterprise that receives no government subsidies or budget?)
The BBC is paid directly to the people watching television, using a monthly income of 240 pesos per month (ie not free). His business sales revenue is relatively low (600 million pounds) compared with what they receive directly from viewers (3.100 million pounds)
In Mexico, a farmer of the saw you buy a product with VAT in a shop in a nearby town is paying for public television channels can not see. Not so the thing in England.
The director of the BBC won 780.000 pounds per year: a little over 16 million pesos. (London is sooo expensive.)
Some stars make a lot more BBC: Jonathan Ross earns 6 million pounds a year, or about 125 million pesos. Graham Norton earn 5 million pounds per year (104 million pesos) and Terry Norton 800 000 (almost 17 million pesos). Despite layoffs in door, none of the major stars of the BBC will be reduced his salary. Cristina Pacheco suspect or Nicholas Alvarado do not earn salaries well. I suspect not even earn the earnings of directors of public television.
The BBC reported revenues of just over 4.000 million pounds in 2005-2006. His expenses were 3.237. Http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-big-question-why-is-the-bbc-cutting-jobs-and-how-will-the-upheaval-affect-its-output
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc
-397141.html # Finance
0 comments:
Post a Comment