Reflection on action – Interview with Controller, BBC Three

As a further step in the reflection on action phase of this research project, I carried out an interview with Danny Cohen, then Controller of BBC3. He was not involved in the initial phases of the project but became interested in it when he was looking for new, younger talent to come up with ideas for BBC3. His interests in the project could be considered to be more symptomatic than those of its other sponsors who could be considered more determinist in their outlook (Williams 1975).

“I’m interested in new technology… and the media, and I’m also

interested in how you get at ideas from unusual places.” (Danny Cohen) Another way in which Cohen’s thinking contrasted with other senior managers working on the project, was in his rejection of the rhetoric of ‘ubiquitous creativity’:

“I’m not sure I quite believe everyone’s got a brilliant TV idea, not even in TV, people have different strengths and skills. Being a brilliant producer doesn’t always make you brilliant at coming up with the ideas for

television. So I’m very interested in getting ideas from different places.”

(Danny Cohen)

Asked to elaborate in his interest in getting ideas from outside, he explained:

“There’s a number of reasons for that. One is you risk only talking to a small amount of people, and that means there’s only so much air in the room. The other is that you tend, in these kinds of jobs, to talk to very senior people. And, you only get one kind of perspective.” (Danny Cohen)

One of the utopian arguments in favour of technology is that it disrupts cartels and can disintermediate bureaucrats who reduce value by sitting between ideas and

Page 188 of 258 capital (Gellman 1996; Heppell 2008). While not expressing this view explicitly, Cohen definitely hinted at his suspicions that the people pitching ideas to him were not always the originators of those ideas:

“And also, you don’t know… sometimes you don’t know who actually in a team is really coming up with the ideas. It may be someone very junior who’s very brilliant that you’re not getting to. Really, you need to be talking to them because they’re so good - rather than the Executive Producer or the Head of Development, and technology’s an enabler of that.” (Danny Cohen)

He then described the personal benefits of using technology to look for ideas and new talent, that is saving time in a way which he could fit in with the ‘reality of his everyday life’ (Wellman and Haythornthwaite 2008). Again this is a more

symptomatic and practical view of the benefits of technology than those expressed by the originators of the project.

“There are only so many hours in a day. My job involves meetings every half hour or on the hour from 9 till 6, 6.30. So, you only can meet so many people and you’ve got millions of other things you’ve got to do in your job, technology is one way where you can get at that people without (the need for more meetings).” (Danny Cohen)

Before meeting with Frank Ash to understand what the moo project was setting out to achieve, Cohen had been just about start another technology project for his channel, which he described as:

“A kind of suggestion box for BBC3, because I wanted just feedback from across the organisation of what they thought was good or bad about the channel and what they’d like and didn’t like and what they’d change…”

(Danny Cohen)

But then he found out about the moo project and Frank Ash met him and pitched him the idea, which he was interested in because he felt it would help him:

“Just to get fresh air into the room, ideas where you can see lots of different perspectives. I’m always interested in that. I’m interested in technology. So they came and pitched it and they set it up and I didn't have to do a huge amount, to be honest in the early stages.” (Danny Cohen)

As the competition progressed, and a long list of pitches were chosen, Cohen became more involved:

“I can’t actually remember how many I had to choose from, and then we shortlisted that down to about, six or eight. And they came and did a physical person pitch to me and I recruited a fellow judge for it. And

Page 189 of 258 people did that presentation in different ways. Some had props and, you know presentations. Some just spoke.” (Danny Cohen)

“And they had about ten minutes each to pitch their idea. And we gave them - because it was partly a training exercise - we gave each of them feedback on both their idea and the way they presented it.” (Danny Cohen)

Eventually the ideas were whittled down to just two, the prize being to go into development, not a commission. Cohen explained why:

“The way we did it was, we said that we had a winner, but we didn’t definitely confirm that commission. Because you don’t want to in the end, if there’s nothing good enough to be commissioned going forward, you want to spend the license fee payer’s money…” (Danny Cohen) Once the ideas were in development, for reasons that will be explained in the interview with Stephen Fingleton, only the Wu How idea was able to progress into full production.

“And we felt that Wu How was both a worthy winner and we could give it a go as an idea online and then put it onto TV.” (Danny Cohen)

When asked why they chose to develop the idea for online platforms first, Cohen explained:

“Because it’s natural form was short form. So, you know quite simply it was nuggety information. Also, it was experimental in its form and the Internet is a good place to experiment at low cost.” (Danny Cohen)

Cohen made a point similar to a comment made by Andy Mosse (Wu How’s creator) about the idea being difficult to communicate on paper, and a video-sharing platform being an easier way to pitch it:

“I think that it could of (been explained on paper), but it’s actually true of a lot of ideas, a lot of genres now, that the best way of pitching it is tape.”

(Danny Cohen) He went on to explain:

“About twelve years ago, I was Head of Development at a production company called Diverse. When I was doing it, it was nearly all paper.

And it’s very hard to imagine even, you know just over a decade ago, any development work being done on tape that wasn’t the next stage funded development work…, i.e. the broadcaster giving you x thousand pounds to go and make the tape.” (Danny Cohen)

Now he believes the Internet and low cost digital production have changed all that:

Page 190 of 258

“And because of the new technology and people’s ability now to edit their stuff on Macs and laptops, that’s completely changed. So a lot of the pitches I get, say for a documentary, there may be a paper pitch, but…

certainly BBC3, most of the commissions happen, because the tape was so compelling.” (Danny Cohen)

Cohen explained how video pitching made his job much easier, and his responses were likely to be much more immediate:

“Massively. Massively, And in different ways with different kinds of projects. So, in the case of that one, that was all about a way of understanding… Well two things actually. The style which is very distinctive and funny. So you couldn’t get that across on paper in the same way. But also their ability, because you could see how well they could do it. So it did those two things… I’m going to say, even if I’m in a tent in India, can I call you tomorrow?” (Danny Cohen)

In his opinion this is because video pitching:

“It brings it to life. It gives you confidence in style and tone and execution.

Yeah, I think you get those two things. It brings it to life. It gives you a clear sense of execution and it tells you something about the ability of the producers. Arguably that increases the work (because it takes more time). But actually it’s an increase in work that enables you to make a more informed decision. So it’s not wasted extra time.” (Danny Cohen) When he explained why he thought this change might suit younger programme-making talent more, it was the first time in the interview that I heard any rhetoric – a form of the digital natives’ rhetoric; where young people have a greater facility with technology, video production and prefer to communicate with images over words (Prensky 2001).

“And so I mean that seems to me to play into the hands of younger people coming in, because they’ll probably just want to get out and do it rather than write it down. And also they have the skill sets to both produce, shoot and edit.” (Danny Cohen)

Asked if he could see digital and social technology completely replacing the existing processes, Cohen was sceptical:

“The flipside of all of this is, I think, this is a route to ideas, but I don’t think it’s ever going to replace or be as important as being in a room and talking. So, I think there’s an interesting question about how much of it is a first-stage tool…, and how much of it could be the whole process.”

(Danny Cohen)

“And also you’re having a conversation. It’s not only looking them in the whites of the eyes, which is absolutely right, it’s also answering loads of questions about how they’re going to do it.” (Danny Cohen)

Page 191 of 258 We then discussed the social aspect of moo, and whether it did or did not influence him, he appeared to be circumspect about what Surowiecki calls the ‘wisdom of crowds’ (Surowiecki 2005). Was he surprised that the Wu How pitch attracted the most positive comment (24 comments)?

“I wasn’t really, because I thought it stood out a mile. Creatively, I think it stood out. But I don’t believe in commissioning by democracy. Or

popularity. It’s the wrong way to do things. Because part of good commissioning is… part of it is giving people what they don’t think they want. So I think it’s interesting, but you can’t bear it in mind too much.”

(Danny Cohen)

He then explained why it was important to keep his brief for the competition (and commissioning rounds in general) fairly loose and unspecific:

“If the commissioner tells you exactly what they want…the first thing is you get everything the same. The second thing is if you knew what you wanted you wouldn’t be asking for it, you’d be making it. And the third thing is, more than anything, you want the thing you haven’t thought of and didn’t know about. Because it’s fresh and because that would mean innovation and all those different things.

One of the difficult things you’ve got to try and do as a commissioner, is give enough information that it’s clear enough, but not be too prescriptive that you narrow off possibility…” (Danny Cohen)

While making sense to a commissioner, he understood how difficult this could make things for producers trying to work out where to focus their attention when

generating ideas:

“And so by pure logic. That means it’s not something I’m going to tell you I want.

So, you sit there and try to tell them what you want and you think, “This must sound quite vague. Is it actually so vague it’s annoying?” Am I being clear enough, but you’re always trying to steer a line between being clear enough and not being too prescriptive that you shut off something…” (Danny Cohen)

12.7.1 Interview Summary

12.7.1.1 How has this interview helped answer the research question?

This interview demonstrates how the project enabled the BBC to work in two significant new ways.

Page 192 of 258 Despite his rejection of the notion of ‘ubiquitous creativity’ shared by Frank Ash and Alan Yentob, Danny Cohen saw that the moo project would open up a direct

channel to BBC colleagues with ideas outside of his network. He also felt that sometimes the people pitching to him were not the people with the ideas, and again the site would enable him to get to them.

Danny also saw the benefits of pitching using digital video, which was much cheaper and easier to do using low cost digital technology and a channel such as moo. This allowed the programme makes to show off their ability to a much greater extent than pitching on paper or even in person.

12.7.1.2 Is there any further original contribution?

Danny Cohen commented that digital technology could only get you so far, and you still needed to meet the prospective talent in person to look them in the eye, so the commissioner or controller could use their judgement in deciding if the new talent could actually deliver.

He also found it “interesting” that the ‘crowd’ arrived at the same decisions as he did, but felt it was an easy choice as the two finalists were so superior. He wasn’t persuaded that commission is a democratic process.

The interview also revealed what we could call the commissioner’s conundrum – how does a commissioner provide enough detail in a brief to generate good ideas to fill a slot – but not give so much detail that they get ten versions of the same idea?

12.7.1.3 My reflections

In this interview, we have seen how Danny Cohen’s interest and involvement in Phase Two of the moo project were symptomatic. That is, he had some problems he needed to solve – he wanted more ideas for BBC3, he wanted those ideas to come directly from young programme makers – and technology provided him with a possible solution.

This contrasts with a deterministic view of technology, one where technology is created in the expectation that humans will adapt themselves to it, which is more similar to the mind-set in evidence in Phase One of the project.

It is interesting to note that the project was only able to meet its objective of getting a programme commissioned and on air when the mind-set shifted from one of

technological determinism to a symptomatic use of technology, and the project

Page 193 of 258 became aligned with the everyday lives and goals of both its end users and its business sponsors.

12.8 Reflection on action – Interview with Competition