« Topics
12345
mr_vivian285 posts since 11 Oct 2015
UTV Newsline
Nothing mentioned by the BBC Trust has indicated that the BBC Three brand would disappear, so I'm not sure why people think BBC Four would be an unsustainable numeric in the 'family of channels' on offer (especially as it started when BBC CHOICE was still broadcasting).

Having 'one', 'TWO', 'Three (online)' and 'FOUR' is no more illogical than ITV removing the numeral from their premier channel and yet retaining 2, 3 & 4.


I'm sorry but I disagree. ITV comes before ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4. BBC3 comes half way through a sequence of BBC channels. I really feel both BBC3 and BBC4 should have been rebranded. Though to be honest will BBC4 also disappear in the near future? Wink


BBC FOUR is hanging on only just.....

I reckon you'll see BBC Three back on the EPG but instead of it coming from the Aerial it'll just stream to your YouView box / Smart TV / Etc

I notice Vintage TV is setup this way. It's on the EPG but you need an Internet Connection to view it.
Jon6,359 posts since 11 Apr 2005
Central (West) Midlands Today
I've always thought the 'Three' brand and slot should be put out to tender to run on TV. Then the winning bidder gets to run a UKTV type channel showing all BBC Three's online content a few weeks after. In addition to this recent archive stuff and brought in programmes from overseas could be shown. It would just mean the BBC could make savings and create extra income whilst ensuring that audience continues to be served through it's own slot on broadcast TV.

It would also would make more sense than having BBC Four in a no mans land on the EPG.

115: Three
116: BBC Four
Charlie Wells3,547 posts since 26 Nov 2003 Moderator
Anglia (West) Look East (West sub-opt)
I've always thought the 'Three' brand and slot should be put out to tender to run on TV. Then the winning bidder gets to run a UKTV type channel showing all BBC Three's online content a few weeks after. In addition to this recent archive stuff and brought in programmes from overseas could be shown. It would just mean the BBC could make savings and create extra income whilst ensuring that audience continues to be served through it's own slot on broadcast TV.

It would also would make more sense than having BBC Four in a no mans land on the EPG.

115: Three
116: BBC Four

Sorry but I have to disagree. If a rival wishes to run a 'BBC Three' type channel then they can set one up and acquire the rights to the programmes or commission similar programming. For instance Sky One has already acquired the rights to Don't Tell the Bride, whilst ITV have acquired the rights to Family Guy. I know some companies (Avalon springs to mind) would have like to bought BBC Three's branding, presumably to piggybacked off the BBC's success and show their (notably Avalon's TV) programmes.
"Listen, we've all got something to bring to this conversation, but from now on what I think you should bring is silence." - Rimmer
1
Whataday7,108 posts since 13 Sep 2001
HTV Wales Wales Today
How many people do ITV employ on GMB compared to Brekafast?


GMB definitely has the higher staffing levels. Their studio costs must dwarf the BBC's.



I would say Breakfast is better integrated into BBC News than GMB is to ITV News which means GMB has to have its own reporters etc.

Is there still a separate sales team for ITV Breakfast or has that been merged into ITV?
Jon6,359 posts since 11 Apr 2005
Central (West) Midlands Today
I don't think the BBC should be calling any commercial broadcaster a rival for starters. The BBC should always act in the interests of the licence payer. I believe very much the BBC should create popular programming but never should it consider another broadcaster a rival.

My idea is no different to original UKTV concept, only it's a way to ensure the public don't lose out.