« Topics
1234...15161718...414243
Matrix2,541 posts since 13 Feb 2004
London London
Which segues into a rant I want to have... when you consider fairly small-scale projects like Radio 2 Eurovision have bitten the dust, right up to one of the Corporation's four TV networks, it truly beggars belief how anyone has been able to sign off this channel, especially when the Scottish audience is already extremely well catered for by opts on BBC One and BBC Two.

The latter is disappearing once the new channel starts.


Have the short term stations been officially ruled out in future? I was always under the impression that they were the initiative of the production teams concerned, so it could well be that just the will, or the idea, isn't there at the moment.

Quote:
The short version is, I'm aggrieved that I am getting a poorer service for my money yet Scotland, once again arguing that it is some sort of special case, is getting an entire extra network, at the expense of the entire UK losing BBC Three.

It's not fair.

BBC Three as a linear channel closed years ago, there's no connection between that and the new channel - different budgets, different departments. And BBC Scotland is being launched with a tiny budget for a channel... and replacing an existing service.

The same goes for the niche radio services, minuscule budget and different department

The 'nations' will always be a special case, but then again they do lose out in terms of localness - Scotlands two radio stations aren't as local as the English equivalents, and neither is the TV news. Go tuning around the radio dial - in many places in the country you'll get more BBC services than someone in, say, Aberdeen.

Sorry mate but there is a connection between BBC Three's closure and BBC Scotland, I remember that the BBC closed BBC Three because they needed to save £30 milion pounds then one year later the news comes of the launch of BBC Scotland and the new channel has a budget of....surprise surprise £30 milion pounds The same amount of money the BBC supposedly saved by closing BBC Three! If to you that is not a connection....


I'm going to jump in and, I hope, provide a little difference in perspective.

For my two pence, the BBC's decision to close BBC Three came at a time when the corporation was being asked to make specific cuts. It is operating in a politicised environment, and part of that was the need (as I once heard it described) to operate within its suitcase (cf. envelope). I think there is a rationale that actually BBC 3 content, and audience, are much more adept at a Netflix style, on-demand service.

At the same time, the BBC is also responding to a clear increase in national sentiment in Scotland. I'd argue it actually follows a well established root of catering to dedicated national audiences, such as BBC An La et al. The cost of it is actually relatively small (I mean, BBC Three was being run on a shoe string towards the end) and if it gives the BBC some leverage in such a contested environment - and it meets its core aims - then I think it's probably a good thing.

As for BBC 3, and speaking as one of their demographic, I have to confess: I've not really missed it being a dedicated channel. I'll occasionally watch something via iPlayer (and why BBC 3 wasn't just merged as part of the iPlayer brand I don't know...) but I'd say there hasn't been the same level of disquiet as when BBC 6 Music was threatened with closure.

All in all, looks like a good move for the BBC and I'm quite looking forward to it.
5
Spencer For Hire, tightrope78 and 3 others
  • UKnews
  • Inspector Sands
  • Steve in Pudsey
gave kudos
Inspector Sands13,678 posts since 25 Aug 2004
It's also worth remembering that the cuts that led to BBC Three going online also led to the effective closing of BBC Local Radio in England in the evenings, replaced by a national programme.

That has recently been reversed with the stations receiving investment to fill that slot locally - which is better than the regional programmes that were there originally.

So it's not just Scotland who gets the money
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 8 January 2019 7:43am
2
tightrope78 and Steve in Pudsey gave kudos
roger delacroix
London London
Sorry mate but there is a connection between BBC Three's closure and BBC Scotland, I remember that the BBC closed BBC Three because they needed to save £30 milion pounds then one year later the news comes of the launch of BBC Scotland and the new channel has a budget of....surprise surprise £30 milion pounds The same amount of money the BBC supposedly saved by closing BBC Three! If to you that is not a connection....

The BBC Three closure announcement was made in 2014, and the announcement of the BBC Scotland channel was made in 2017. And the savings made by closing BBC Three were said to be over £50m.

Do you have a link? I thought they saved £30 milion pounds
roger delacroix
London London
The latter is disappearing once the new channel starts.


Have the short term stations been officially ruled out in future? I was always under the impression that they were the initiative of the production teams concerned, so it could well be that just the will, or the idea, isn't there at the moment.

BBC Three as a linear channel closed years ago, there's no connection between that and the new channel - different budgets, different departments. And BBC Scotland is being launched with a tiny budget for a channel... and replacing an existing service.

The same goes for the niche radio services, minuscule budget and different department

The 'nations' will always be a special case, but then again they do lose out in terms of localness - Scotlands two radio stations aren't as local as the English equivalents, and neither is the TV news. Go tuning around the radio dial - in many places in the country you'll get more BBC services than someone in, say, Aberdeen.

Sorry mate but there is a connection between BBC Three's closure and BBC Scotland, I remember that the BBC closed BBC Three because they needed to save £30 milion pounds then one year later the news comes of the launch of BBC Scotland and the new channel has a budget of....surprise surprise £30 milion pounds The same amount of money the BBC supposedly saved by closing BBC Three! If to you that is not a connection....


I'm going to jump in and, I hope, provide a little difference in perspective.

For my two pence, the BBC's decision to close BBC Three came at a time when the corporation was being asked to make specific cuts. It is operating in a politicised environment, and part of that was the need (as I once heard it described) to operate within its suitcase (cf. envelope). I think there is a rationale that actually BBC 3 content, and audience, are much more adept at a Netflix style, on-demand service.

At the same time, the BBC is also responding to a clear increase in national sentiment in Scotland. I'd argue it actually follows a well established root of catering to dedicated national audiences, such as BBC An La et al. The cost of it is actually relatively small (I mean, BBC Three was being run on a shoe string towards the end) and if it gives the BBC some leverage in such a contested environment - and it meets its core aims - then I think it's probably a good thing.

As for BBC 3, and speaking as one of their demographic, I have to confess: I've not really missed it being a dedicated channel. I'll occasionally watch something via iPlayer (and why BBC 3 wasn't just merged as part of the iPlayer brand I don't know...) but I'd say there hasn't been the same level of disquiet as when BBC 6 Music was threatened with closure.

All in all, looks like a good move for the BBC and I'm quite looking forward to it.

''there hasn't been the same level of disquiet as when BBC 6 Music was threatened with closure.'' Then can you please explain why so many people were against the closure of BBC 3, there was a lot of criticism from notable parties, including Greg James, Matt Lucas and Jack Whitehall. and can you also please explain why after the move online a recent survey by Ofcom has discovered that only 8% of 16 to 34 year old people watch BBC Three content each week? https://www.a516digital.com/2018/10/ofcom-report-reveals-young-people.html
Inspector Sands13,678 posts since 25 Aug 2004

''there hasn't been the same level of disquiet as when BBC 6 Music was threatened with closure.'' Then can you please explain why so many people were against the closure of BBC 3, there was a lot of criticism from notable parties, including Greg James, Matt Lucas and Jack Whitehall.

The level of opposition to 6Music closing was a lot bigger than that of BBC Three. Yes there was a lot of criticism of it in the industry, in particular those stars and production companies that made programmes for it. But there wasn't the mass protest by the audience as there was with 6. It was opposed across the board - audiences, music industry, radio industry, even some MPs got on board.


There wasn't that with Three, people weren't as passionate about it as they were about 6. That's partly because radio is a very personal thing, but also because it is a unique station. A lot of what Three did on TV could have been done by E4, ITV2 or Comedy Central... in fact some of its shows have ended up on those channels



Quote:
and can you also please explain why after the move online a recent survey by Ofcom has discovered that only 8% of 16 to 34 year old people watch BBC Three content each week? https://www.a516digital.com/2018/10/ofcom-report-reveals-young-people.html

Doesn't surprise me, the BBC don't seem to promote it that much, and there's not much to attract people to it. As I say noone was really that passionate about it when it was on telly so it hasnt even got that following
roger delacroix
London London
Ironically those BBC Three shows that have gained traction since going iPlayer only are those that have then been given a linear airing on BBC One or Two.

This proves that closing BBC 3 was just wrong even the head of Ofcom now has said the same https://inews.co.uk/news/bbc3-tv-closure-reverse-too-early-ofcom-boss-says/ plus Roger Mosey, a former senior BBC executive, said the decision to close BBC3 as a TV station now “looks foolhardy” as the corporation battles to attract younger audiences.
noggin14,369 posts since 26 Jun 2001
Ironically those BBC Three shows that have gained traction since going iPlayer only are those that have then been given a linear airing on BBC One or Two.

This proves that closing BBC 3 was just wrong even the head of Ofcom now has said the same https://inews.co.uk/news/bbc3-tv-closure-reverse-too-early-ofcom-boss-says/ plus Roger Mosey, a former senior BBC executive, said the decision to close BBC3 as a TV station now “looks foolhardy” as the corporation battles to attract younger audiences.


Yes. The 'move online' was really a way of coping with such a massive budget cut that a linear channel would have been impossible to sensibly schedule with such little original content.
1
62305823,374 posts since 19 Aug 2005
I bet most people moaning were not in the demographics. I can tell you many people who were did watch bbc3 stuff on line... If you take away family guy, an eastenders repeat you have very little left.
Markymark6,863 posts since 13 Dec 2004
Meridian (North) South Today

Yes. The 'move online' was really a way of coping with such a massive budget cut that a linear channel would have been impossible to sensibly schedule with such little original content.


Yes. In fact BBC 4 struggles to fill its schedule, I often spot a programme of interest, then realise
I saw it a few months ago. In fact there's stuff on my PVR that comes round again 'live' before I've watched it.

The audience profile of BBC 4 is not as 'on line savvy' as 3's is, so the same trick probably wouldn't work (not that I'm saying the BBC 3 move has worked necessarily )
2
Alex Plain-Later gave kudos
No further posts are being accepted for this topic