BBC Three & Four 'poor value'

It was The News Show when it was on at 1945 ... changed to 7 o'clock news when it moved to 7pm

I don't see the value at all of the 7 o'clock News. 60 Seconds is a worthy addition, and I think a 15 minute Newsbeat style bulletin at 11pm would be much more of a public service.

I think BBC3 and BBC4 would actually attract better audiences if they acted more like ITV2, repeating programmes screened on BBC1 & 2.

BBC1 and 2 seem very stale now all experimental comedy and drama is stuck on BBC3. It be much more of a service for BBC3 to offer another chance to see new programming from BBC1/2, than the other way round. However, I do think the strategy of premiering the next episode on BBC3/4 immediately after it airs on BBC1/2 works well.

BBC4 is more difficult. Alot of it's content could bolster BBC2 - especially between 6 and 8pm and after Newsnight.

Again, repeating documentaries from BBC1/2 would be a good idea - shows like Panorama, One Life and This World. Also, the showing a British film every weeknight at 9pm could bring in viewers - and help the BBC improve it's commitment to British movies.

It is a bit of a problem, but then it's not uncommon for a digital station to have frequent repeats - you're more likely to miss something because most of us can't record and watch diffrent things. It is handy to have a programme shown several times in a week but for it rto be shown every month or so is too much

I'm in agreement regarding the sheer level of repeats on Three. I must have seen Two Pints (good as it is) all the way through 4 times now. But that said I was delighted to have all those chances to catch Swiss Toni's second series. It was absolutely brilliant.

As is Little Britain.

Little Britain- 1.8 million
My Life on Film- 500,000

"Poor value" my arse

Of course, we should judge the performance of a channel over one night shouldn't we. It's hardly a corner turned.

Little Britain
Bodies
Monkey Dust
Burn It
Nighty Night
Spy
Little Angels
Dreamspaces
The Smoking Room
Body Hits
The Mighty Boosh
Flashmob: The Opera
The 7 O'clock News with Eddie Mair
and more.....

"poor value" my arse

With the exception of a couple of programmes, all poor performers which have consigned the channel to the lower depths of the digital spectrum.

BBC Three has a 0.7 per cent share of viewing in digital homes, even though it has a programming budget of nearly £100 million, hence the poor value tag. Anyone with a basic sense of economics can see this.

Little Britain, as fab as it might be, would still be produced by the BBC as it will be going out on mainstream BBC One anyway. This in itself is not sufficient basis to maintain such a white elephant of a channel.

But is it just ratings?

Look at Sky One- can you name a comparable list of homegrown dramas, comedys and factual programmes from a channel with a near comparable budget?

Can you find a similar degree of risk taking on ITV2 or E4?

The ratings will come- the outstanding ratings last night are a reflection of the effect of a returning series that has got national exposure on BBC Two.

I expect the second series of the simply OUTSTANDING Bodies to get similarly impressive ratings after it receives its terrestrial premiere in the coming weeks. The same goes for Nighty Night, Monkey Dust and The Mighty Boosh.

Once BBC Three has a small collection of solid hits, people will sample it expecting quality programmes. And I doubt they'd be disappointed- from here the ratings will grow for those shows not shown on terrestrial.

Any channel can set up and buy in shows from the US, or produce "Extra" programmes or live stream the latest "celebrities locked away" nonsense.

It takes a channel with real drive, ambition and guts to produce the list of programmes above- in my opinion BBC Three is delivering far above the demands of its remit....the use of the term "poor value" reeks of someone who has looked at ratings and ignored the actual output of the channel. I say it again- "poor value" my arse.

But wheres the creativitiy on BBC1 and 2 - it seems to have gone. I do think BBC3 do produce alot of good content - but maybe from the second series they should premiere on the terrestrial networks - although that would conflict with the BBC's digital plans.

To be honest it's BBC4 I have more of a problem with. I think in the long term three channels would work well, with "general" programming on BBC1, more factual programming on BBC2 with the comedy and youth element on BBC3 (so kind of a BBC2 2)

I think BBC One's recent schedule has been as creative as its ever been- with the likes of the Natural History of Britain, HImalaya and the upcoming Space Odyssey (in factual), Hustle, Spooks and the upcoming dark comic-drama Blackpool (in drama), continued outstanding news coverage and the upcoming Ten Interactive and unbeatable coverage of the Olympics and Euro 2004. To name but a few examples.

There is, and never has been, a lack of creativity at BBC. I would send someone for counselling if they thought ITV, C5 or any non-BBC digital channel have displayed any serious creativity in the last year. C4 have their moments, but the ongoing obsession with property porn and cheap reality TV is lowering standards unbelievably.

Back to BBC Three- the effect of Little Britain cannot be underestimated- last nights rather unhyped documentary about the original Band Aid (part of Thinking Thursday) got 550,000 viewers- a factual show record for the channel.

Many more people are now going to sampling BBC Three and I still maintain they won't be disappointed by what they find. I'll say it again- poor value "my arse".

The problem with BBC1 is for every "Himalaya", they have a "Should I Worry About Sausages?".

Agree BBC3 has some gems, but I think the concern is not so much viewers of digital TV don't get quality from BBC3, but more that the programme makers don't get the audience they deserve.