I think the difference is, jake, that your company probably bases its decisions on commercial grounds, and the proposed relocation was seen to be commercially attractive and achieved the best results for shareholders. The costs and benefits fell on the Company and its shareholders. If the moved proved a costly failure, again it would be the shareholders who pick up the bill.
The BBC is somewhat different. It is funded by a compulsory tax on all those who watch television (whether they watch the BBC or not). Coobeastie suggest that “...People want the BBC to be less London-centric.” Which people would these be, exactly? It is true that after the move some 50% of BBC’s staff will still be in the capital. However, since announcing this proposal in 2004 the Corporation has struggled to provide a commercial reason why it should go ahead, citing such reasons as “...The corporation says the north currently has lower levels of approval of the BBC.” What does that mean? And will it be cured by ending a programme’s credits (when people have left the room to make a cup of tea) with “Made in Manchester” instead of “Made in London”. I doubt it.
To compare the BBC’s decision (and the actions needed to see it through) with one made by a commercial company is a bit specious. The BBC may well have valid reasons to transfer some staff to the Frozen North, but I doubt if their decision was made on commercial grounds.