TV Home Forum

Where should the BBC cut costs?

(August 2007)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
RW
Robert Williams Founding member
I don't go along with this idea that the BBC can simply close one or more of its channels and just move their programming onto another channel. Yes, much of BBC3's output could exist on BBC1 and BBC2, BBC4 to a lesser extent, but to close either or both of those digital channels would simply be handing ratings over to the opposition. The BBC needs the digital-only channels in order to have any hope of competing with the likes of ITV and Channel 4 and all their multiple channels.

BBC3 does indeed show a lot of dross, but it is useful to have it there for things like the Eurovision semi-finals (may be two of them next year) and extended coverage of the music festivals, things that wouldn't see the light of day otherwise. I think the best option would be to drastically slash the budget and revert to the BBC Choice format of catch-up repeats from BBC1 and BBC2, with just a modicum of new programming.

In fact much more money would be saved by cutting BBC3's annual content budget (£92.9m) in half than closing 1Xtra, 6 Music and BBC7 which have content budgets of only £5-6 million each. (This compares to £30.8m for Radio 1 and £38.1m for Radio 2 - figures from the BBC Executive report).

Anyone who says that 6 Music could adequately be covered by Radios 1, 2 or commercial radio clearly never listens to it. Yes, some of the daytime output has unfortunately blanded out in recent times in pursuit of higher ratings, but programmes such as Stuart Maconie's Freak Zone, which I think justifies the existence of 6 Music all alone, would never exist on Radio 1 or Radio 2, let alone commercial radio.
TR
TROGGLES
The reason for sacking one third of the staff last year was to 'put the money on the screen' Its always been the same reason for the licence bid renewal. Everytime this happens the BBC builds more buildings and offices.
If the Beeb wants to save money don't waste £450 million building on Salford - something which they won't own and will be a glorified edifice to office furniture and - oh yes it would help if they built a studio too.

Another way to save money is to close the so called Yorkshire and Lincolnshire region and its hugely expensive headquaters and duplicated management. The programming could easily come from a cheap shed on the edge of town - which would be better suited to a studio rather than the odd shaped thing they have at the moment. It does not need an 'Open Centre' everyone else in Yorks & Lincs manages with a bus, why shouldn't Hull. Proberbly save about £2-3 million P/A. Hull doesn't produce anything else like a politics show or rugby league show so why bother, Save the money and put it into content on screen like the beeb promised.

The region used to work fine before th coming of Queenies Court - there was only a bare perceptable increase in ratings and they are falling flat now.
R2
r2ro
Robert Williams posted:

BBC3 does indeed show a lot of dross, but it is useful to have it there for things like the Eurovision semi-finals (may be two of them next year) and extended coverage of the music festivals, things that wouldn't see the light of day otherwise.


Although BBC Three was good at showing extra festival highlights, many of which I watched, they could be simply added to the BBCi stream or online, so there wouldn't be too much of a loss.

As for Eurovision semi-finals, surely they could be put on either BBC One or Two. I doubt they would but is keeping BBC Three for the odd programme really worth while?


Robert Williams posted:

I think the best option would be to drastically slash the budget and revert to the BBC Choice format of catch-up repeats from BBC1 and BBC2, with just a modicum of new programming.


But as do that they might as well just get rid of it entirely - repeats put on overnight on BBC One instead of N24, which will become redundant with the digital switchover, and the odd new programmes could be put on either BBC One or Two comfortably.

I really can't see much justification in keeping BBC Three.

TROGGLES posted:


Another way to save money is to close the so called Yorkshire and Lincolnshire region and its hugely expensive headquaters and duplicated management. The programming could easily come from a cheap shed on the edge of town - which would be better suited to a studio rather than the odd shaped thing they have at the moment. It does not need an 'Open Centre' everyone else in Yorks & Lincs manages with a bus, why shouldn't Hull. Proberbly save about £2-3 million P/A. Hull doesn't produce anything else like a politics show or rugby league show so why bother, Save the money and put it into content on screen like the beeb promised.

The region used to work fine before th coming of Queenies Court - there was only a bare perceptable increase in ratings and they are falling flat now.


This would be another good idea of saving money as at the moment Look North Hull has a very poor news output at a very high price. I think it could be covered as a sub-opt of the main Yorkshire region as opposed to an entirely separate region. The only problem is that now they have the fancy building in Hull, it's got to try and justify its existence someway or another. I suppose the building wasn't a total waste of money - I managed to get a BBC mug from there!
BE
bentoman
Hey...

If BBC3 is axed, where in the hell am I supposed to watch Family Guy....

Just axe CBBC and move all their programme to BBC One during daytime, and move more adult programme to BBC Two or Three, and cancel the BBC iPlayer crap trial and sell the programme on iTunes (hey, at least it supports more in production cost), and most importantly....

JUST GO WITH THE C4 METHOD, except show adverts before and after the programme, not in the middle of programme.
:-(
A former member
bentoman posted:
Hey...

If BBC3 is axed, where in the hell am I supposed to watch Family Guy....



bbc2: late at night
CR
crais
Why not axe BBC HD. Only a tiny fraction of the country can actually watch it. Just let Sky develop the HD market and then at a time when a large proportion of the country is HD ready then introduce an HD Channel.
DB
dbl
crais posted:
Why not axe BBC HD. Only a tiny fraction of the country can actually watch it. Just let Sky develop the HD market and then at a time when a large proportion of the country is HD ready then introduce an HD Channel.

Lovely and lets go back to black and white telly, and while were at it let's ditch widescreen Rolling Eyes When American networks started to broadcast in HD, not much viewers didn't have HD ready sets but look at it now 5 years later.
MA
markstewart
The BBC3 and BBC4 idea does sound good to me. BBC4 going does would be regrettable, but then the BBC shouldn't have rushed into this oh so great digital television if there was even the slightest hint that their current services would suffer as a consequence.
NG
noggin Founding member
crais posted:
Why not axe BBC HD. Only a tiny fraction of the country can actually watch it. Just let Sky develop the HD market and then at a time when a large proportion of the country is HD ready then introduce an HD Channel.


And BBC HD costs only a tiny amount. Surely - now that the BBC are making so much in HD, and it is almost impossible to buy a new half-way decent TV that isn't an HDTV, BBC HD is precisely what the BBC SHOULD be doing.

To make loads of shows in HD - which the BBC now has to do if it wants to sell them overseas - and not allow licence-fee payers to see them in HD seems perverse - like making everything in colour for the Americans but only showing them in black and white over here (which is, of course, precisely what happened on ITV in the 60s with series like The Avengers of course!)

The cost of transmission, and playout are minimal, and there is quite a lot of material available to the BBC in HD at very little extra cost.
JR
jrothwell97
I personally think that all the BBC channels which screen HD content should have an HD version - but not immediately. As soon as enough content is generated, I think it'd be perfectly sensible to upgrade BBCs 1, 2, 3 and 4 to HD on cable and satellite.

Either way, axing HD is certainly something that should be avoided.
BE
bentoman
623058 posted:
bentoman posted:
Hey...

If BBC3 is axed, where in the hell am I supposed to watch Family Guy....



bbc2: late at night


Late at night is not good enough, since everyone's asleep by then.

If they move it to BBC2, then show at 9 PM or something....
JR
jrothwell97
bentoman posted:
623058 posted:
bentoman posted:
Hey...

If BBC3 is axed, where in the hell am I supposed to watch Family Guy....



bbc2: late at night


Late at night is not good enough, since everyone's asleep by then.

If they move it to BBC2, then show at 9 PM or something....


Do you understand how a VCR works? Or perhaps a PVR or Sky+ box?

Newer posts