+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 57 of 57
General Chat Thread, BBC 3 Axed in General; Originally Posted by tmcd35 I'd argue if anything on ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5 in the past 5 years ...
  1. #46

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,262
    Thank Post
    242
    Thanked 1,568 Times in 1,250 Posts
    Rep Power
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    I'd argue if anything on ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5 in the past 5 years could be called either innovative of forward thinking?

    The best TV of the past couple of years has been Danish imports shown on BBC4 - go figure.
    But that's the whole point... just think how many viewers Channel 4 received for Benefits Street. It's a very controversial and sensitive issue for many. The programme did its job and I bet the advertising revenues rocketed. People complained, but people still talked about it and tuned in.
    If the BBC developed and broadcasted it, they'd make absolutely nothing. They could try selling or licenses it to other channels, but I think in the context - it's extremely limiting.

    In my opinion is was a very bold move for Channel 4 to develop and broadcast this programme. To me this is the perfect example of being innovative.

  2. #47

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,734
    Thank Post
    1,272
    Thanked 1,645 Times in 1,101 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    The argument(s) for a TV license are completely flawed... if the viewers think it's any good and the numbers are high, then the advertisers will pay more. The irony is that the BBC could create carp programmes and still be paid for it. Where's the justification in that? ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 for example do not have this luxury, so you have to be innovative and forward thinking. It's a real business.
    I don't think that its quite as simple as that.
    The BBC has a public service obligation put on it as part of the licence fee conditions and I think that this is a good thing. It means that programmes are made that would not be broadcast on other channels as they aren't commercially successful enough to warrant their place. Minority groups can be catered for without having to worry about ratings and suchlike.
    Personally I think that the BBC's output is far superior the endless, lowest common denominator rubbish you get on the other channels, due to having a licence fee.

  3. Thanks to sparkeh from:

    mats (7th March 2014)

  4. #48

    SpuffMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,230
    Thank Post
    54
    Thanked 278 Times in 186 Posts
    Rep Power
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by sparkeh View Post
    Personally I think that the BBC's output is far superior the endless, lowest common denominator rubbish you get on the other channels, due to having a licence fee.
    Absolutely agree

  5. #49
    Sdrawkcab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    293
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 52 Posts
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by sparkeh View Post
    I don't think that its quite as simple as that.
    The BBC has a public service obligation put on it as part of the licence fee conditions and I think that this is a good thing. It means that programmes are made that would not be broadcast on other channels as they aren't commercially successful enough to warrant their place. Minority groups can be catered for without having to worry about ratings and suchlike.
    Personally I think that the BBC's output is far superior the endless, lowest common denominator rubbish you get on the other channels, due to having a licence fee.
    Damn right. The BBC produces stuff that is in the public interest, rather than stuff that will sell. This is vitally important in a world where everything is rapidly being turned into a commodity to be bought and sold.

    Plus, there are no adverts. I think having an advertising-free channel is incredibly important, especially when it comes to stuff like childrens TV.

  6. Thanks to Sdrawkcab from:

    mats (7th March 2014)

  7. #50

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,620
    Thank Post
    845
    Thanked 883 Times in 731 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Sdrawkcab View Post
    Damn right. The BBC produces stuff that is in the public interest, rather than stuff that will sell. This is vitally important in a world where everything is rapidly being turned into a commodity to be bought and sold.
    I think that's slightly debatable. Looking at shows like Top Gear, Doctor Who, Merlin, Musketeers, Robin Hood, etc. I'd say the Beeb always have half an eye on what they can sell into worldwide syndication and DVD releases. As evidenced by lack of historic content in iPlayer - they'd sooner make us pay twice with a DVD boxset than put it up for free.

  8. #51


    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    6,578
    Thank Post
    228
    Thanked 853 Times in 732 Posts
    Rep Power
    294
    [QUOTE=sparkeh;1139602
    Personally I think that the BBC's output is far superior the endless, lowest common denominator rubbish you get on the other channels, due to having a licence fee.[/QUOTE]

    they on occasions do but so much of their content is drivel like the voice or eastenders. Now why not set up a bbca (advertised channel) to put this stuff on let it pay for itself directly or not and keep bbc for stuff that other channels cant afford to do?

    ive just scrolled through a week of bbc schedules and apart from pointless i cant find one thing i would watch (now granted they have other channels but if their flagship is that devoid of content why would the others be much better) so thats a lot of money per week in tv license fees for 1 programme

  9. #52

    LosOjos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    5,447
    Thank Post
    1,438
    Thanked 1,168 Times in 797 Posts
    Rep Power
    707
    I had the opportunity to spend a week at BBC Birmingham last year and spent a little time with a couple of their engineers while I was there. A very important service the BBC do provide, but which isn't really advertised, is R&D. They are always working on new technologies and helping to develop real game changing ideas such as on demand services. I admit iPlayer isn't necessarily the best on demand service out there, but had the BBC not developed that and made it available for free, do you think Channel 4 would have done? As a commercial channel, it would be in their best interests to charge us to use it.

    It is important to have a network that isn't dictated by advertising and viewing figures, if for nothing else than to keep the commercial networks in check.

  10. #53
    Gibbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    896
    Thank Post
    206
    Thanked 343 Times in 238 Posts
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    I think that's slightly debatable. Looking at shows like Top Gear, Doctor Who, Merlin, Musketeers, Robin Hood, etc. I'd say the Beeb always have half an eye on what they can sell into worldwide syndication and DVD releases.
    My OH works in this field, working with the BBC to sell their products overseas. Sherlock is the next big export they're pushing.

    And its no co-incidence that the views of the UK viewers of Top Gear think its the same and boring. They make more money selling it overseas to countries that love the same format. That's why they don't review small UK cars on there - it wouldn't mean anything to the bigger denominator of worldwide viewers.
    Last edited by Gibbo; 7th March 2014 at 01:01 PM.

  11. #54

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,072
    Thank Post
    853
    Thanked 2,676 Times in 2,270 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    I think that's slightly debatable. Looking at shows like Top Gear, Doctor Who, Merlin, Musketeers, Robin Hood, etc. I'd say the Beeb always have half an eye on what they can sell into worldwide syndication and DVD releases. As evidenced by lack of historic content in iPlayer - they'd sooner make us pay twice with a DVD boxset than put it up for free.
    Top Gears syndication alone probably pays for a large chunk of the BBC all by itself topping up the broadcasting fee.

  12. #55

    SpuffMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,230
    Thank Post
    54
    Thanked 278 Times in 186 Posts
    Rep Power
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by sted View Post
    they on occasions do but so much of their content is drivel like the voice or eastenders. Now why not set up a bbca (advertised channel) to put this stuff on let it pay for itself directly or not and keep bbc for stuff that other channels cant afford to do?
    Because they have to tread a tricky middle path. If they ditched the shows that bring in a big audience, their viewing figures would fall and all those politicians and their unpleasant paymasters would say "Look, no one is watching the BBC, they cannot justify having a licence fee" and it would be game over - personally I'm not keen on a lot of the stuff on BBC1, but a lot of people are - I gravitate to BBC2 & 4 and Radio 4 and the website and think its a flipping bargain when you stack it against Sky or Virgin - imagine how sparse their output would be without the endless repeats of the beeb's previous shows.

  13. #56

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,734
    Thank Post
    1,272
    Thanked 1,645 Times in 1,101 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    505
    So, I was listening to Radio 5 as I drove into work today and the head of iPlayer was on talking about BBC 3.
    Now, he did sound a bit confused about the whole thing but he said that all BBC 3 content accessible via the iPlayer would be broadcast on BBC 1 and BBC 2 as well.

    Now I am confused

  14. #57

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,620
    Thank Post
    845
    Thanked 883 Times in 731 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    326
    What he's not saying is that any use of BBC1 or BBC2 airtime for former BBC3 programs would necessitate cuts in BBC1/2 programming that would have been broadcast had BBC3 been on air, and of course there won't be enough available airspace on BBC1/2 for all of BBC3's programming. In deed the best of BBC3 usually made it's way across to BBC1/2 anyway at some point, so not a lot of change from BBC1/2 programming. All in all I'd say the head of iPlayer was being a little disingenuous and trying to put a positive spin on the situation.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. BBC axe HD channel
    By DAZZD88 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10th October 2011, 09:41 AM
  2. BBC to axe F1 to save BBC4
    By penfold_99 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 29th July 2011, 01:26 PM
  3. Problems with BBC bitesize page.
    By Kyle in forum Windows
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 30th April 2007, 09:55 AM
  4. Securus on the BBC
    By Netman in forum IT News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 20th January 2006, 10:53 AM
  5. BBC Streaming media app
    By Dos_Box in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 9th September 2005, 07:21 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •