Where should the BBC cut costs?

I don't understand why slides are currently so shunned. They can allow for a programme to be promoted in half the time that a trail would last and still be able to explain the programme just as well.

The downfall of trails like the food fight versions for The Restaurant , is that they are full of what is essentially superfluous content, rather than voiceover descriptions or previews to inform. The programme slide is the antithesis of this commercial style of trail, and not only 'cuts to the chase' quicker but is a perfect means for promotional variety, in a way I would have thought useful and valid, given the current climate where holding the viewers' attention between the 'gaps' has become so important.

I've noticed in a way, that ident symbols have notably replaced the programme slide in how they serve continuity: rather than the CA just telling the viewer what programme is starting now over the symbol, there are many occasions where it is also used (or only used) to promote the subsequent prog and its time, whether that's "...in 45 minutes" or whatever - and that was previously the type of anno often reserved for a slide preceding the ident.

Maybe within the silent globe days (and still during Sign Zone) it's alright but not so much otherwise. Slides are strangely archaic now.

I think, in this context, the word 'slide' could easily be substituted with the word 'image' (still or moving). It would be like a teaser, but with a voiceover mentioning the particular programme and when it is on.

The general lack of programme slide use is mentioned, and what happens shortly after? Shown on BBC2...

http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/bbctwobbcparlslide0731aug.jpg

But, as it was both an exceptional case and a cross-promotion of BBC Parliament, this still suggests that, outside of BBC1's Sign Zone, the main BBC channels refuse to show a slide for a programme actually on their own channel.

My take on it is that the BBC's costs are spiralling out of control because they have too many services which are underused and it's more than time that the BBC accept that in order to avoid either ridiculous spiralling of the TV licence or reducing quality as they run the same services with less money, they would be better off giving some the axe.

They are also going to have to live with the fact that it is a very real possibility that the TV licence will eventually become completely untenable, will be scrapped, and the BBC of the future may well have to be a much leaner machine.

Sadly, I've got a nasty feeling that the cuts will be made based on avoiding political backlash rather than anything else. For instance, I don't see that Asian Network deserves to exist - it just can't be justified based on the number of people using it compared to the money it costs. Yet they'll never dare to scrap it or reduce it's budget for fear of being branded racist.

However, as others have said, local radio and local TV from the BBC are more important now than ever before, as commercial local radio has started on a merger process similar to ITV (there are worrying parallels between commercial radio of now and ITV of the early 90's) and as ITV is clearly going to dispense of regional broadcasting as soon as possible (and as OFCOM are clearly not going to stop it from happening). However, I've got a nasty feeling that this is exactly where the axe will fall.

If people are going to push for cost cutting at the BBC (which I accept must happen), it must come with a push for a programme of cost cutting by giving the axe to services which can't possibly be justified based on usage, not just what's politically easiest to get away with.

I'd suggest the following immediate cuts/restructuring before taking more time to review others:

Asian Network - reasons stated above. The beeb should not fold at petty accusations of racism based on this closure.

1xtra - There was never any need for this to exist. The genre it serves was allready catered for by Radio 1. Like Asian Network, it was created for nothing other than multi-culturalist willy waving.

6 Music - Again, I don't see that they do anything which isn't allready done by the commercial stations or which couldn't be accomodated on Radio 1.

BBC7 - it's effectively 'Radio 4 Classic', so make it that. Stop giving it the budget and remit of a full radio station when it has a tiny audience and doesn't justify it. Just make it a cheaply run archive service as a celebration of what what Radio 4 has done in the past, so that Radio 4 can concentrate on producing the best speech-based material that they can, without BBC7 stealing bits of their remit to justify it's existence.

BBC 3 - it was a nice idea, but everything succesful ever made has just been transferred to BBC1 or BBC2. It's little more than a repeats archive now - but have you ever noticed how similar it's schedule is to UK Gold at present? Apart from the small number of genuine old material still shown on UK Gold, the 2 channels are effectively clones of each other showing exactly the same programmes. Although the BBC can never officially acknowledge UKTV as being part of them or promote their channels, their influence in UKTV is such that they could easily pave the way for UK Gold to go FTA (and be on DTT) and save money by closing BBC3. This will also allow BBC2 to build itself back up again - BBC3 and 4 were born entirely out of programming which used to be in BBC2's remit, it'd be nice if that channel was allowed to take back some of the programming which it was created to provide.

As I mentioned above however, I do not back any cuts in regional services. As the commercial sector is increasingly deregulated and as the totally ineffective regular continues to refuse to regulate and control, it is clear that within a short while the BBC will be the only broadcaster to produce regional television. And I genuinely believe that local radio won't be far behind. We need the BBC to provide regional services now more than ever before, this is not an area where they should be making cuts.


BBC4 launched a year before BBC3, so I don't see the branding of the channels as bothering them too much.

Wouldn't one of the most effective budget cuts be gained from axing or greatly reducing the marketing department and all their little Hitlers who are paid thousands to determine the format/duration of end credits and telling continuity announcers/presentation producers how to do their jobs, while making no valid creative contribution to the programmes themselves? At least that way, no programme services would be cut.

Not really, it keeps the genres of music it plays off Radio 1. 1Xtra music's policy isn't mainstream enough to fill the airtime of Radio 1 and certainly would never be played on a legal commercial station. Just look how commercially bland Kiss and Choice have become compared with 1xtra



Again not really, the commercial stations don't cover '6music' type-music, probably XFM comes nearest but that's not as broad - a commercial station could never be that niche. It's aimed too old for Radio 1, Radio 2 could certainly do what 6music does.... but they'd have to destroy Radio 2's format to do so.

6Music is filling that gap that the loss of GLR and the gearshift of VH1 have left



It is a cheaply run archive service.... it's run on an absolute shoestring. The only new stuff is the kids shows and that's something that should really be kept because no-one else is doing them.



I don't think they should make cuts to any service, certainly not scrap a channel. Just cut down on needless expenses and non-broadcast/online related activities (and I term 'marketing' as a necessary broadcast related activity). They do continually cut and cut budgets and staff, but often in the wrong areas - programme making rather than back-end

But then the people making the programmes would get frustrated because no-one's promoting their programmes!

Marketing people, by definition, know jack sh*t about television and many of those currently in the industry came in from outside. In their absence, the Presentation department would be more than capable of assuming the role of promotion - and would know the most effective ways to do it.

But who would 'the presentation department' get to do 'marketing'..... yes they'd get people who know about marketing and promotion

I believe most would pay more to the BBC But I think the BBC need to cut cost first, there is alot of cuts that could be done, I don;t mean to the Actully channel or radio stations ( expect BBC3 which of course could give it slots to a porn company)

But I don;t think the BBC should get another penny until there streamline and get better vaule for the money there get

The amount the BBC waste is bad enough, without tehm stating there have to cut progrommes!

Marketing- that's one of those overinflated, opportunistically created job sectors that really shouldn't exist in its own right, like management consultancy and insolvency practitioning.