If BBC Three does return, it won't have the US imports that were a driver to bring those young audiences to the quality UK output.
However, a return to linear for BBC Three is much welcome as to be honest, the BBC1 slots and going online haven't worked. I'm outside their demo, but have rarely watched Three output with the exception of the Stacey Dooley docs since going online.
Although as that budget went to BBC1 drama, which to be fair has done rather well in the time period, does that mean BBC1 are now scaling back on that?
I suspect BBC One drama will be protected, there might be less drama on BBC Two, two dramas originally earmarked for BBC Two are going to air on BBC One.
This is absolutely
insane
. If you were to create the BBC today, from the ground up, the absolute
last
thing you be suggesting is "linear TV channel to appeal to the under-30s" and "archive channel to be sold internationally on satellite multichannel providers". I am astounded.
Actually the last thing that you'd suggest is to a pricing models in which a large numbers of viewers are expected to pay 50% more than Netflix in order to access a streaming service that is more limited than Netflix in scope. If the BBC only wants to attract younger viewers to its streaming services they'll have no choice but to reduce the licence fee to a level that works out less expensive than Netflix for such viewers if they are going to attract any younger customers.
This is absolutely
insane
. If you were to create the BBC today, from the ground up, the absolute
last
thing you be suggesting is "linear TV channel to appeal to the under-30s" and "archive channel to be sold internationally on satellite multichannel providers". I am astounded.
Actually the last thing that you'd suggest is to a pricing models in which a large numbers of viewers are expected to pay 50% more than Netflix in order to access a streaming service that is more limited than Netflix in scope. If the BBC only wants to attract younger viewers to its streaming services they'll have no choice but to reduce the licence fee to a level that works out less expensive than Netflix for such viewers if they are going to attract any younger customers.
50% is only a valid percentage if you're comparing to Netflix's basic service, where you can only watch on one screen, and there's no HD. The licence fee is the equivalent of £13.13 a month, where you get HD, and no limit to the number of screens you can watch on (even on Netflix's most expensive service this is only 4 screens). And do Netflix give you a discount if you're blind or in a care home?
This is absolutely
insane
. If you were to create the BBC today, from the ground up, the absolute
last
thing you be suggesting is "linear TV channel to appeal to the under-30s" and "archive channel to be sold internationally on satellite multichannel providers". I am astounded.
Actually the last thing that you'd suggest is to a pricing models in which a large numbers of viewers are expected to pay 50% more than Netflix in order to access a streaming service that is more limited than Netflix in scope. If the BBC only wants to attract younger viewers to its streaming services they'll have no choice but to reduce the licence fee to a level that works out less expensive than Netflix for such viewers if they are going to attract any younger customers.
50% is only a valid percentage if you're comparing to Netflix's basic service, where you can only watch on one screen, and there's no HD. The licence fee is the equivalent of £13.13 a month, where you get HD, and no limit to the number of screens you can watch on (even on Netflix's most expensive service this is only 4 screens). And do Netflix give you a discount if you're blind or in a care home?
Thinking like this is a major part of the problem at the BBC. Realistically if people do not obtain a TV licence as soon as they move out of the family household they likely to get into a pattern of watching alternative forms of entertainment and are therefore unlikely to ever subscribe. This means that the BBC licence fee offer has to be competitive for young people moving out of the family household either into a bed sit alone or into university provided accommodation. For such people the ability to watch something on multiple screens at the same time is simply unnecessary and is therefore a pointless argument when trying to attract such people. Furthermore, in the case of students the terms and conditions of Netflix will typically allow a group of students living in the same property to share one account while the BBC expects each individual student to pay their own licence fee which further adds to the imbalance in pricing between the two options.
I have long thought that it would be a much more productive use of BBC funds to offer free licences to the under 25s than to the over 75s as this is likely to get such people into the habit of having a licence and watching BBC content which will make them much more likely to pay for a licence when they are older.
Last edited by AlexS on 20 May 2020 2:39pm - 2 times in total
Thinking like this is a major part of the problem at the BBC. Realistically if people do not obtain a TV licence as soon as they move out of the family household they likely to get into a pattern of watching alternative forms of entertainment and are therefore unlikely to ever subscribe.
To be fair, there's quite a lot of audience research that shows this isn't really the case. It's not a new problem that people often drift away from the BBC in their late teens and early 20s and are less likely to have a TV licence, but tend to come back during their 20s.
I’m struggling to get my head round what an archive channel would show. Would its remit be vaguely as it is now? Presumably not if arts is going to 2. Will it be any old stuff? It’s not really clear.
Thinking like this is a major part of the problem at the BBC. Realistically if people do not obtain a TV licence as soon as they move out of the family household they likely to get into a pattern of watching alternative forms of entertainment and are therefore unlikely to ever subscribe.
To be fair, there's quite a lot of audience research that shows this isn't really the case. It's not a new problem that people often drift away from the BBC in their late teens and early 20s and are less likely to have a TV licence, but tend to come back during their 20s.
Any research from more than a couple of years ago is simply meaningless as the scope of video content available at the touch of a button that doesn't require a licence has expanded exponentially over the past few years. This means that it is extremely likely that the proportion of those genuinely not needing a licence has almost certainly grown relative to those who don't buy a licence but watch BBC content anyway. It is likely to be mostly those in the latter group who go on to buy licences as they get older, not because there desire to watch BBC content has increased but because changes in their circumstances reduce the incentive to avoid paying for a licence.
Isn't there a case for streaming linear channels through iPlayer and on platforms like Freeview Plus? I think the murky depths of 260+ in the EPG already has similar services.
Similar to how services like PlutoTV works. Automated for the most part, and draws off VoD catalogues, but streams them in a linear form for the luddites and people who prefer appointment to view.
I think it’s important to note how little this Plan actually commits to – the word ‘continue’ is quite prominent throughout the skim through I had. Remember there’s to be a new DG whenever possible.
I think floating the idea of a linear BBC Three is just another example of the lack of strategy for 16-34-year olds at the moment. It sort of mirrors the debacle of moving CBBC to a younger audience profile and then bungling BBC Switch and then wondering why teens left the corporation. Moving Three online was a bold and risky move that had some logic to it. The immediate cost, of course, was plummeting viewer engagement for 16-34 year olds.
I think that was from a misguided view that because younger viewers are less bothered by where they get their content from, that they would all up sticks and move with the channel to iPlayer as told. And that they’d not notice a drop in investment. Taking a channel online only means you stop paying for infrastructure of broadcasting it…and of course, so goes the limited broadcasting hours. Online, you have unlimited room for content, and an audience that doesn’t think online viewing means 15-minute quirky programmes shot on an iPhone.
BBC Three online hasn’t been a disaster (apart from that audience metric) and I think it’s mostly hit trouble in the branding and access areas, which again, is a nightmare with an audience who is agnostic about the provider. My biggest criticism of the linear channel is that used American imports and live overspill to tent-pole its offerings anyway, which is perhaps not always appropriate for the BBC and I’m not sure going back is moving forward!
In terms of access, selecting a channel on the iPlayer makes no sense for an online service – the BBC really need to look at channel branding becoming less prominent on iPlayer – the iPlayer audience does not care. However, their advertising of programmes through social media and more traditional advertising techniques has meant that several titles have poked through the public consciousness successfully (and before BBC One showings) – Normal People being the current one. The make up of the landing page on iPlayer is crucial, not the channel branding. The BBC are aware of that though, but I wish it’d be more confident in ditching the channel brands.
I think BBC Two will struggle in the coming lean year (because of the production gap) to fill it’s schedules, so it stealing from Four makes sense. I expect One will pinch ‘Race Across The World’ and the contestants will become stars like they did on Bake Off.
The archive idea for Four also is an easy one to achieve and makes it easier to switch off as a linear service in the coming years, regardless of whether Three returns. They may want to gradually build up an online service in tandem with the linear, and then more quietly close off the channel. But I just don’t think there’s much scope for either of the brands to continue when they go post linear, so it would make sense for the archive service to be a strand ‘on BBC Four’ and hope that it doesn’t look odd that the strand is the only thing on the channel. That would allow for live event spill over though, from a branding perspective.
As a side note, if Three and Four did make a comeback, the Eurovision Semi-Finals would go on BBC Two?! It’s unclear which has a focus on live music? BBC Three fits for the audience profile still but Four seems like an uncomfortable home if this plan goes ahead. I think the last Glastonbury coverage on iPlayer was a signal that they are moving away from relying on these linear channels to cover large events anyway.
Furthermore, in the case of students the terms and conditions of Netflix will typically allow a group of students living in the same property to share one account while the BBC expects each individual student to pay their own licence fee which further adds to the imbalance in pricing between the two options.
This is untrue. If you are a student, you are only required to pay for a separate TV Licence if you are wanting to watch in your own room if you have a separate tenancy agreement for your room or you are living in halls. A single licence will cover a shared living space in that scenario. If the tenancy agreement is a joint one, then only one licence is required.
Sharing one account is all well and good if nobody at all wants to watch something as the same time as someone else.