Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Oh wow, was reading that article earlier and the Beeb's position was that nothing was decided.

Guess it has been now!

 

I quite liked BBC 3 when it launched but I barely even glance at it now. And for the celebs saying about it being the home of BBC comedy, BBC 2 has generally had much better comedy on it.

Posted

Not sure how it will save money? I'm guessing the main cost of the channel comes from actually making the programes? Which will still happen... just broad casted online?

 

I watch BBC3 in bed sometimes on my freeview TV so I am a bit dissapointed with this! I never watch anything online bar downloading stuff on my sky box on demand in the living room

Posted
Why BBC 3 and not BBC 4? BBC 4 gets about 4 million less viewers per week than 3!

 

BBC 4 should have been merged with 2 and BBC 3 kept!

 

Perhaps more of BBC 4's viewers pay their license fee ;)

  • Thanks 2
Posted

You can't beat a bit of Family Guy every evening, despite the fact the BBC repeat the same episodes about 50 times a year!

 

Oh well, I think they should make everything online only, then do away with the license fee altogether!

Posted

Does this mean they'll have to rename BBC4 as BBC3 :) that'll confuse 'em.

 

I think some of the shows on BBC America are a lot better than they show here - for ex Copper (which they axed after 2 series)

Posted
Why BBC 3 and not BBC 4? BBC 4 gets about 4 million less viewers per week than 3!

 

BBC 4 should have been merged with 2 and BBC 3 kept!

The simple answer is budget - BBC Three: £85m vs BBC Four: £49m. According to the press, Auntie has to save £100m and I guess BBC3 is closer to the mark. Did you know the BBC spent over £100m on "The Voice"? Axing that one program means they could save the entire channel, but that's not going to happen., as Danny Cohen thinks it's great television. Me, I think it's grate television!

 

The problem with moving BBC4 to BBC2 is BBC4 shows many series, which would get lost during the endless overruns of snooker, tennis, darts, etc.

Posted
The simple answer is budget - BBC Three: £85m vs BBC Four: £49m. According to the press, Auntie has to save £100m and I guess BBC3 is closer to the mark. Did you know the BBC spent over £100m on "The Voice"? Axing that one program means they could save the entire channel, but that's not going to happen., as Danny Cohen thinks it's great television. Me, I think it's grate television!

 

The problem with moving BBC4 to BBC2 is BBC4 shows many series, which would get lost during the endless overruns of snooker, tennis, darts, etc.

 

How on earth do they manage to spend £100m on 'The Voice'?

Posted
How on earth do they manage to spend £100m on 'The Voice'?

 

You need a lot of expensive man hours on autotune to make that even remotely bareable.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
Meh...it wasn't very good anyway. Family Guy repeats were about the only thing worth watching. I get more entertainment flicking back and forth between Russia Today and Sky News in the current crisis. "Wasn't us!" "Was them." "We blame them." "They blame us...it was them."
Posted

And for the celebs saying about it being the home of BBC comedy, BBC 2 has generally had much better comedy on it.

 

I was gonna say, when was the last time a good comedy series premiered on BBC3? Probably around the time of stuff like The Mighty Boosh, years ago.

Posted
Sad times I enjoy BBC3, as was said 4 should go as should parliament and one of the kids channels that will save money.
Posted
Im guessing it's probably cause the likes of Will-I-Am and Kylie Minogue don't come cheap, probably got endless expenses
Posted
sadly bbc is becoming more and more like itv (i cant remember the last time i watched anything on itv (touring cars on itv4 yes but itv1/2/3 i honesltly cant remember when i last watched them other than quick chage channel thats on record and i dont want to see the end channel flicking from bbc2) apart from pointless, dr who, allo allo and top gear there is all but noting on i want to watch apart from the odd documentary or one off program. cant remember the last time i saw anything on bbc3/4 given up on family guy /american dad on there i always seem to record the same episodes ive seen so many times i can almost recite them
Posted

Listened to a lot of debate on this on the radio whilst I was embroiled in the Hell hole that is St. Nicholas Circle, Leicester at rush hour.

 

Anywho, the thing that surprised me is just how well BBC 3 is doing compared to other channels in terms of market share and hitting is demographic. I think it was something like 4% market share compared to Sky Sports 2% and Sky One 1%.

 

It purely comes down to economics though, they need to save money and moving 3 gives them a fair chunk of that whilst enabling them to wrap it up in some 'Hey we're down with the kids' spiel.

Posted (edited)

£100m on the voice, well Will.I.Am, and Tom Jones are getting close to £300k per show, and there are around 32 shows in a season, so between them they're taking £19.2m of that £100m. The remaining judges are getting around £200k per show and are taking around £12.8m of the £100m. That there is £32m of the £100m budget. They also pay around £10k a week per judge for accomodation, security, food etc. This is around 12 weeks of shows, so thats £120k per judge, per series so thats another £480k for one series.

 

So, just for the judges alone, £32.5m (rounded to nearest 100k) is spent on the show.

 

If you count in the crew and how much they get per show etc (all the camera, sound, editing etc) thats around £800k for everyone else involved per show. This is around £25.6m for the show.

 

So between Judges and crew, you have spent £58.1m

 

The remaining £41.9m goes on advertising the show (papers, tv guides, tv adverts) I think it was around £28m which went on the advertising. The remaining is used for paying for accomodations and food and security for the singers on the show and what have you.

 

They also generate around £25m per series in the voting lines, so they get around 1/4 of their money back so to speak.

 

 

I agree however the show is a massive waste.

Edited by featured_spectre
Posted

Most of the BBC 3 shows are supposed staying on the new web delivered version. Well that blows a big hole in the alleged funding saving doesnt it?

 

Transmission and distribution costs are a tiny part of the ~£85 million running costs for the channel every year, and anyway the satellite & dtt capacity is already contracted for as its split time with one of the kids channels.

 

Note the carefully avoided point in the news that BBC1 +1 will be launched in the not too distant future. Wonder how much THAT is going to cost in repeats fees to already overpaid "stars"???

 

I dont watch much on BBC 3 but I wont be watcing anything once its web only - our sub 3 meg "broadband" isnt fast enough to stream tv. It struggles with scaffy quality youtube videos a lot of the time....

Posted (edited)

How long before TV's can receive web tv anyway... in two years time we will probably be wondering what all the fuss was about.

 

I can probably get it on my NowTV box

Edited by JJonas

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...