Its sad to see it go. But im sure BBC Three with bring us some new show, proberly similar to 7 O Clock News, new set, titles and new time/name, slightly more newsy reports ,as BBC three have sofar axed all there remotely laid back/showbizy news shows .
If you're sure, you're stupid.
It has been axed for a reason- a handful of people watch it.
It (or anything like it) ain't coming back for a hell of long time.
The problem was publicity. It was only a plug at the end of the 6 summary - pretty pointless when you could have a set of brilliant trailers going out.
- Eddie Mair's seemingly candid statement about thinking they should have been a more serious news show. I was surprised anyway.
This was quite blatently an example of Eddie Mair's sacasm, that is his style. He did an interview in Mondays Independent Media section where he criticised his replacement on 'Broadcasting House' along with other colleagues.... fairly obvious that he was on a wind up,
It has been axed for a reason- a handful of people watch it.
It (or anything like it) ain't coming back for a hell of long time.
The problem was publicity. It was only a plug at the end of the 6 summary - pretty pointless when you could have a set of brilliant trailers going out.
Apparently more people watched BBC Three News than watched News 24 or Sky News in the same timeslot.
One problem with it is that it was in a state of flux for a while - it wasn't on air for long and had 3 titles, numerous formats and was broadcast in 2 diffrent timeslots. It was only the last 6 months or so that it settled down.
There will always be problems with the first programme on a channel..... there's no inherited audience
Promoting live BBC3 productions (ie: Liquid News, Celebdaq, BBC3 News) has always been a problem, in that they rarely advertised them, and whenever they did it'd be a half arsed effort. It's a big shame that the news has been scrapped, but it's equally annoying that it's been replaced with more bloody repeats.
- Eddie Mair's seemingly candid statement about thinking they should have been a more serious news show. I was surprised anyway.
Obviously your irony/sarcasm detector was turned off whilst watching...
Oh well, I thought he was being fairly serious in that moment (but clearly not at other times). To be honest all the other guests (excepting Eddie Mair) on that sofa were a bit of an embarassment last night.
Promoting live BBC3 productions (ie: Liquid News, Celebdaq, BBC3 News) has always been a problem, in that they rarely advertised them, and whenever they did it'd be a half arsed effort. It's a big shame that the news has been scrapped, but it's equally annoying that it's been replaced with more bloody repeats.
But then again, BBC 3 News and Liquid News were fairly expensive programes. They can make more new programmes wth the cash saved from 1 very expensive lilve one
- Eddie Mair's seemingly candid statement about thinking they should have been a more serious news show. I was surprised anyway.
Obviously your irony/sarcasm detector was turned off whilst watching...
Oh well, I thought he was being fairly serious in that moment (but clearly not at other times). To be honest all the other guests (excepting Eddie Mair) on that sofa were a bit of an embarassment last night.
Of course they were. I can see you making quite a few friends at the BBC soon then
Promoting live BBC3 productions (ie: Liquid News, Celebdaq, BBC3 News) has always been a problem, in that they rarely advertised them, and whenever they did it'd be a half arsed effort. It's a big shame that the news has been scrapped, but it's equally annoying that it's been replaced with more bloody repeats.
But then again, BBC 3 News and Liquid News were fairly expensive programes. They can make more new programmes wth the cash saved from 1 very expensive lilve one
Yeah they were, so even more reason to promote them and make the most of the show. The moaning that the shows were axed due to low ratings irritates me because they weren't promoted adequately. They were meant to be flag ship programmes.
I'd be interested to know what new shows they'll come up with next year. I didn't know their budget this year (£97m) is 2/3 that of Channel 5's!
Promoting live BBC3 productions (ie: Liquid News, Celebdaq, BBC3 News) has always been a problem, in that they rarely advertised them, and whenever they did it'd be a half arsed effort. It's a big shame that the news has been scrapped, but it's equally annoying that it's been replaced with more bloody repeats.
But then again, BBC 3 News and Liquid News were fairly expensive programes. They can make more new programmes wth the cash saved from 1 very expensive lilve one
That's not strictly true - for the amount of money the 7pm news cost (to produce shows 5 days a week for 51 weeks a year) BBC Three has promised to make 5 new hours of current affairs on BBC Three. 5 new hours a year compaired with 2.5 hours x 51 a year .... current affairs is always more expensive per hour than live TV News.
Promoting live BBC3 productions (ie: Liquid News, Celebdaq, BBC3 News) has always been a problem, in that they rarely advertised them, and whenever they did it'd be a half arsed effort. It's a big shame that the news has been scrapped, but it's equally annoying that it's been replaced with more bloody repeats.
But then again, BBC 3 News and Liquid News were fairly expensive programes. They can make more new programmes wth the cash saved from 1 very expensive lilve one
That's not strictly true - for the amount of money the 7pm news cost (to produce shows 5 days a week for 51 weeks a year) BBC Three has promised to make 5 new hours of knowledge building programmes on BBC Three. Here's the quote from the press release at the time the show was axed ...
"As part of this plan, we will increase our commitment to new knowledge building programmes from a minimum of 45 to 50 hours a year."
5 new hours a year compaired with 2.5 hours x 51 a year .... current affairs is always more expensive per hour than live TV News.
Promoting live BBC3 productions (ie: Liquid News, Celebdaq, BBC3 News) has always been a problem, in that they rarely advertised them, and whenever they did it'd be a half arsed effort. It's a big shame that the news has been scrapped, but it's equally annoying that it's been replaced with more bloody repeats.
But then again, BBC 3 News and Liquid News were fairly expensive programes. They can make more new programmes wth the cash saved from 1 very expensive lilve one
No - they were quite expensive commissions, not expensive shows, there is a very big difference.
Liquid News was originally 6 shows a week, reduced to 5 and then 4, for 50-51 weeks of the year. The cost for all of these was obviously significant, however the cost for each half hour episode was actually pretty small, probably less than most other original half-hours on the network.
Similarly BBC Three's Seven O'Clock News, again 5 x 30 min shows a week (once Liquid was off-air), for 51 weeks of the year - 127.5 hours of output - was produced on a shoe-string "per episode" budget.
The difference between Liquid News and BBC Three News and other shows on BBC Three, is that they weren't repeated (apart from on-the-day with Liquid), so there were more than 250 episodes of each one every year. Individually the episodes were cheap to make - but there were a LOT more of them than, say, Body Hits, Trauma etc. (Which individually almost certainly cost more to make on a per-edition basis)
For some reason there is a theory that live TV is more expensive to make than recorded TV - which is actually not the case for many shows. Live TV doesn't require full post-production, only the recorded inserts are edited, so for a 30 minute Liquid/BBC Three News show which has studio chat, the post-production budget might actually be quite a lot lower than for a recorded show. (Given that BBC Three News had a core studio crew of TWO - for 60 Seconds bulletins - the rest were all shared with other BBC News shows or bought in hourly from BBC Resources - it is difficult to see how it could get much cheaper!) I suspect the studio budget for a show like Strictly Dance Fever on Three would be much higher...
The real reasons that BBC Three's Seven O'Clock News was axed were as follows :
1. The original plan for BBC Three didn't include a long-form news programme, it was only added when the DCMS rejected these initial plans as too commercial. The channel didn't really want it...
2. The channel very quickly scheduled the News at 1900, as a way of hiding it, and let it take the ratings poison that was a zero audience inheritance.
3. The Barwise report (based on the original 15 minute News Show I believe) decided that the News was not a success. This was a DCMS commissioned report.
4. BBC Three were able to approach the DCMS and say "your own report says we shouldn't have a long-form news show" - can we axe it? We'll commission an extra 5 hours of current affairs in its place (i.e. replace 125+ hours with 5...)
5. News have to make money savings to meet their value-for-money savings. By axeing BBC Three News (apart from 60 Seconds), they can make savings without having to be as harsh on BBC One, Two or News 24 output.
Ironically, the current incarnation of the show was growing an audience...