« Topics
1234...323334
scottishtv1,553 posts since 6 Nov 2001
STV Central Reporting Scotland
As you say the Daily Drop is dire and isn't something the licence fee should be spent on - with the "BBC3" budget being cut so dramatically every single penny should be spent on programming.


Unfortunately, the plan is/was for "20% of budget will go on non-traditional content - such as micro-videos, listicles and gifs" as reported here.

*

The Daily Drop thing is pretty bad, not very engaging, and not enough there to have you want to go back and follow or check it a few times a day. Also, why link to a lot to Newsbeat - leeching off their content - when Newsbeat is already doing a good job on their own a properly designed website. Also, Newsbeat really is the standard of how to treat this audience - don't patronise them! "LOLs, WTF?!, ammazze".

It's clear this whole BBC Three online is a just a stop gap and I suspect the people in charge don't really want the non-programme content to work - they'll review it in a year or two, explain no-one is reading it, outline there are alternative sites online, state it's not the sort of thing the BBC shouldn't be doing and then just shut it down. THey should just cut the cr@p and do it now.

This prentend-y "move online" is an embarrassment to witness. Just make it the little section on the iPlayer which it will ultimately become. Also, given the channel has been run down so far recently, I'm starting to wonder whether it's even worth keeping the BBC Three brand at all now.
1
Jake473 posts since 10 Jan 2006
Central (East) East Midlands Today
As you say the Daily Drop is dire and isn't something the licence fee should be spent on - with the "BBC3" budget being cut so dramatically every single penny should be spent on programming.


Unfortunately, the plan is/was for "20% of budget will go on non-traditional content - such as micro-videos, listicles and gifs" as reported here.

*

The Daily Drop thing is pretty bad, not very engaging, and not enough there to have you want to go back and follow or check it a few times a day. Also, why link to a lot to Newsbeat - leeching off their content - when Newsbeat is already doing a good job on their own a properly designed website. Also, Newsbeat really is the standard of how to treat this audience - don't patronise them! "LOLs, WTF?!, ammazze".

It's clear this whole BBC Three online is a just a stop gap and I suspect the people in charge don't really want the non-programme content to work - they'll review it in a year or two, explain no-one is reading it, outline there are alternative sites online, state it's not the sort of thing the BBC shouldn't be doing and then just shut it down. THey should just cut the cr@p and do it now.

This prentend-y "move online" is an embarrassment to witness. Just make it the little section on the iPlayer which it will ultimately become. Also, given the channel has been run down so far recently, I'm starting to wonder whether it's even worth keeping the BBC Three brand at all now.


I wouldn't be surprised if they decide Three and Radio 1 are overlapping too much, and just roll it all into Radio 1.
trivialmatters544 posts since 15 Jan 2007
[quote="scottishtv" pid="994756"]
*

This prentend-y "move online" is an embarrassment to witness. Just make it the little section on the iPlayer which it will ultimately become. Also, given the channel has been run down so far recently, I'm starting to wonder whether it's even worth keeping the BBC Three brand at all now.


What on earth is with that bar chart, where the huge chunk represents 20% and the tiny sliver is 80%!

The BBC Three brand was always lame. The last thing they should be doing is trying to be hip n' yoof - it's beyond patronising. I'm embarrassed that they used "Listicles" in an actual pitch document. Cringe.
scottishtv1,553 posts since 6 Nov 2001
STV Central Reporting Scotland
The BBC Three brand was always lame. The last thing they should be doing is trying to be hip n' yoof - it's beyond patronising. I'm embarrassed that they used "Listicles" in an actual pitch document. Cringe.

I dunno, I can see it fitting in quite well with the current style of continuity, something along the lines of:
"Hey bros and sistas, did you LOL at our online listicle? No - then, gosh-mighty don't be a silly sausage and get onto the internet thingy-ma-jig with your fancypants smartphoney thing this instant, use your eyeballs and take a gander. Now, here's Family Guy."

That full presentation is here, btw.

While I'm on a rant, I see that they are uploading some of their own BBC content to YouTube, linking back to it from the BBC Daily drop website, and then warning that the licence-fee funded content you're about to watch may contain adverts as it's on YouTube - which the BBC has no control over?! Example is here.

*

That must be a mistake, surely they can host the BBC content (including clips,... sorry "micro-video") themselves.
Austin Tatious560 posts since 1 Jan 2016
HTV West Points West
Unfortunately, the plan is/was for "20% of budget will go on non-traditional content - such as micro-videos, listicles and gifs"


Ugh.

In principle, I'm generally all for the English language constantly evolving and adapting, but that's the sort of internet-generation terminology which I just can't abide. Thumbs down

*
I am the one viewer of ITV West News.
DJGM2,560 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Granada North West Today

Also how does being on ad-supported platforms like Youtube and social media sites fit with the being funded by the licence fee.


Not very well I'd imagine. It's only a matter of time before the more rabid, foaming at the mouth, BBC hating right-wing elements of the tabloid press, start to publish screaming front page headlines about it.


OUTRAGE AS YOUTUBE FORCES ADS INTO BBC THREE ON THE WEB.
Google's PROFITS boosted by TV Licence fee.
"The Not-So-Late-Show with Greg Mitchell" on Roch Valley Radio is on temporary hiatus due to admin delays with the local NHS Trust. Long story!
Isonstine2,499 posts since 28 Mar 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today
*

This prentend-y "move online" is an embarrassment to witness. Just make it the little section on the iPlayer which it will ultimately become. Also, given the channel has been run down so far recently, I'm starting to wonder whether it's even worth keeping the BBC Three brand at all now.


What on earth is with that bar chart, where the huge chunk represents 20% and the tiny sliver is 80%!

The BBC Three brand was always lame. The last thing they should be doing is trying to be hip n' yoof - it's beyond patronising. I'm embarrassed that they used "Listicles" in an actual pitch document. Cringe.


Likewise, I'm more bothered about the ill proportioned graphic.

Perhaps telling that the "long-form video" is made to seem very insignificant compared to all the detailed information about the online content.

I see the press release now...

"Our audience aren't watching the long-form videos as it suits the agenda to do away with this expensive part of the brand but all the online guff is very well liked and has received 900 likes from our 11 second attention spanners. But following a review, this online content is not something the BBC should be doing as it can be better served by the commercial sector."

Night night BBC 3.

Having said that, I'm not sure I can reference much anguish at the loss of BBC 3 - and I work with a fair few of their target audience. But, funnily enough, they like Strictly Come Dancing, X Factor, Bake Off, Britain's Got Talent, The Apprentice. Maybe, though, they'll miss it when it has gone?
Austin Tatious560 posts since 1 Jan 2016
HTV West Points West
Here's how my understanding and/or perception of the BBC Three story goes...

The station's initial launch was much-delayed, and I believe it was ultimately only just about approved by the-skin-of-its-teeth (by the BBC Trust/Ofcom/government/whoever's place it is to "approve" these things). So, presumably the proposed "yoof" remit was regarded as a questionable use of licence fee money? Or something?

I myself may or may not have been in the station's target demographic at any point during its existence to date (I'm currently 35). But, even if I was/am, my viewership of the channel has been infrequent at best.

My (admittedly perhaps not best-informed?) perception of the channel's content is that it's often been stuffed full of endless back-to-back runs/re-runs of things (e.g. endless Two Pints in the early days, endless Family Guy* in a more recent era, and so on). (*the latter also being a US import show, rather than original BBC-commissioned/produced content).

Considering the station's already relatively limited broadcasting hours (evenings and overnight only), by the time you take out all of the back-to-back repeats and/or imports, I'm not sure that there's *ever* really been enough fresh original content to justify a whole actual channel in its own right (not even an "evening only" one)?

Yes, some big popular cultural successes (e.g. Little Britain) were born on BBC Three. But, in an alternative dimension where BBC Choice/Three (and BBC Knowledge/Four?) were never invented, it's perfectly plausible that programmes like Little Britain would have been commissioned by BBC Two - the channel that gave us the very anarchic The Young Ones, for example.

It has oft been said by various people that Three and/or Four basically took different elements what Two used to do in days of yore, thus leaving Two rather struggling to find a purpose. The reason it's been oft said is... because it's true! Spreading essentially "two channels' worth" of content over three/four channels, makes about as much sense as a vegetarian butcher.

So, I for one applaud the closure of the BBC Three television channel as utterly sensible.
I am the one viewer of ITV West News.