This is what I think should happen: BBC Three should go 24 hours (Not sure how feasable this is/costs involved etc.). BBC Four should be on from 8pm till 4am - As it's really aimed at a niche market and i don't know anybody that watches it.
The comedies and dramas shown on BBC Three should remain BBC Three only for AT LEAST 6 months. The likes of Little Britain etc. make it onto BBC Two far too soon after Three - what's the point!?
Get more exclusives on the channel and advertise a bit more and the BBC could be on to a winner. Something needs to be done, anyhow!
I think the 7 O'Clock News - mainly because of Eddie Mair - is excellent. Can't understand the comments made about it.
Yes, it's an excellent programme, but 7pm is a dreadful time for the media-savvy audience they are going for since the relaunch - up against C4 News and Five News.
I think they should move the programme over to News 24, and at a time where it does not clash with a terrestial news programme.
It will probably get a simular, if not greater audience, than it does on BBC3.
Well the BBC Three News often beats the audience for News 24 at 1900 - and indeed sometimes the combined audience of News 24 and Sky put together. 7pm is not a good time for news because of C4 News. Also both C4 and Five News actually loose audiences for their channels - The 7 does actually build an audience as it starts at 0!
One thing which I think they should do is swap the channels round so that CBeebies shares with Three and CBBC shares with Four. Then I'd change it so that Three starts/CBeebies closes down at 6pm and Four starts/CBBC closes down at 8pm.
This would give Three more time to build an audience up to the news at 7. It would also give CBBC time to do more teenage stuff from 7-8pm. Four's more of a later evening channel so would be OK starting at 8, and CBeebies kids shouldn't need TV after 6pm. Read them a story!
Except that the CBeebies Bedtime Hour (1800-1900) is one of the most popular features of the channel.
A wonderful paragraph in the document suggests that viewers may appreciate THREE more if it gave them a chance to catch up on things they'd missed on BBC ONE or TWO. Well there's a novel idea.
Cough, BBC CHOICE, cough.
Well make the bedtime hour from 5-6pm!
That's not Bedtime! What are you going to suggest next? Breakfast moves to after lunch?!
Considering the BBC had to include a news programme in the BBC3 proposal to get it past the government, now this report is suggesting it be axed, this is hyprocrisy gone mad!
I agree that far too much BBC3 programming ends up on the main channels, it's not much to tempt 'digital refusniks' when they know virtually everything will be repeated on BBC1 or BBC2.
I think the main problem with BBC3 is repetition, particularly in the 7-9 slot. Ever since Liquid News ended they seem to have had real problems filling that slot, and so week in week out it seems to be the same old things like Trauma and Body Hits, repeated over and over again. The first series of Little Angels received over 20 repeat runs in six months, which is just ridiculous. The BBC made a rod for their own back by promising that 80% of the output would be commissioned for the channel itself - which then became one of the government's conditions of approval. This gives them little choice but to endlessly repeat their own output. A partial return to the 'catch-up' role that BBC Choice I think would be welcome, along with some of the quirkier, more experimental programming that Choice had but seemed to disappear when it changed to BBC3.
And as for BBC4, so what if it receives small audiences? So it should, it's showing minority, non-dumbed down programming that wouldn't otherwise receive an outlet on television. It's a haven from endless makeover and reality shows. Radio 3 also receives relatively small audience figures, but no one complains about licence fee money going towards that.
If BBC3 and BBC4 had been a roaring success they would have been criticised for being too popular and taking audiences from the commercial channels. The BBC can't win in this situation.
Professor Patrick Barwise, the author of the government-commissioned review of the BBC's digital services that today was scathing about BBC3 and BBC4, has said that the corporation should not be allowed to launch any more channels.
Now my first point is that I don't think that the report is "scathing", however the bit about new channels is odd, since when you refer to the document in question, page 39 of the CBBC and CBeebies review reads:
Quote:
Recommendations arising from the above review: More use of the archive, especially of the BBC's own programmes which were funded by the license fee and as such, should be freely accessible to the public who paid for them: a CBBC 'Gold' channel would be welcome.
I must note at this point the poor use of English throughout the document, including the most incredible overuse of brackets I've ever seen. Also note the spelling mistake in the
title
of the BBC THREE and FOUR document which reads: DCMS REVIEW OF BBC DIGITIAL SERVICES.
BBC 3 should have all / Mostly entertainment and BBC News at 7 is on BBC 3 and BBC N24 and would come from a brekafast style studio. 60 seconds would be bought back. CBBC channel will go onto 7:30 and Cbeebies would go onto 6:30. Any ideas to change this would be welcomed.....
