Should there be a comprehensive overhaul of ALL BBC channels

The other thread of about the the axe of BBC three is quickly turning into a bog of ifs and buts and not alot about the actually demises of the channel.

( We are told about starting new thread )

I believe the BBC really does need to have a comprehensive overhaul of ALL BBC channels. This is whats causing most of the current problems, ie two many channel and not enough content, with to many repeats.

I believe A channel should be close down to help save money but I believe the content overall does not need to be suffer in any great deal.

BBC two and BBC parliament has plenty of space for BBC four programmes, saying that people have been questioning in the news section if the BBC news channel is also too thin on the ground, To be fair there are some good gems on the new channel but are hidden away.

I think the biggest problem is the remits of the current channel set ups, which I think should be scarped and overhauled to provide a better section of programmes without trying to tick boxes or place people into boxes.

All the content could be kept while placed elsewhere. Mind you. Should he bbc be selling off dead space at midnight to the porn channels to raise more more income?

What is the definition of too many repeats?

Personally, I'd like to see more repeats. Afternoon Classics on BBC Two and Top of the Pops 78/79 on BBC Four are great examples of how to do repeats well. I don't see why CBeebies seem to constantly commission new programmes either. Anything not shown for 6 years or more is going to be new to their target audience anyway. Why don't they just show things on a 6 year loop and maybe commission a couple of new programmes a year at most.

The biggest change that should, but won't, happen at the BBC is for them to make their own programmes again. Think of the savings that could be made if they weren't propping up all these independent production companies. Everyone knows outsourcing doesn't work. but the BBC are forced to do it.

There certainly needs to be a review in what differentiates BBC One and BBC Two - it strikes me the need for a separate BBC Three and BBC Four is caused by the state of BBC One and Two more than anything.

More broadly, there needs to be a rethink of what the BBC is, and what it should be (or try to be).

My thought for you: rather than merging BBC Two and BBC Four, what about replacing BBC Four with BBC Two? Merging them suggests moving a proportion of the BBC Four content to BBC Two, and otherwise keeping BBC Two as is. In my mind BBC One should be the place to showcase popular dramas, entertainment, news, soaps (etc.) - a slightly better fueled version of what it already is. BBC One's commercial rival/ counterpart should be ITV, in terms of remit.

BBC Two, on the other hand, should be the place to showcase riskier, less populist or creative-over-commercial programming (as currently seen on BBC Three and Four). In some ways it's already trying to be - you would never see half an hour of World News as a filler on BBC One, for example, or for that matter Newsnight. However moving The Review Show to BBC Four is a good example of the BBC seeing Two's remit as populist over interesting, which seems like a flawed overall strategy.

ITV has to outsource aswell and there hate it....

In response to the definition of too many repeats?

Two takes: There is not enough overhaul programming to fill all the slots, so cheap nasty fillers and the repeats of the cheap nasty fillers are used.

Secondly alot of the BBC daytime programmes are geared towards repeats on the sky channels. WHY the BBC are produced these shows in the first place has to be asked. like Heir hunters, every 10mins it repeats the same time, I dare say that is where the adverts would be slotted in. BBC has no right making shows like that to then sell on.....

I do like the Afternoon Classics, and hopeful "You rang m'lord" hi de hi, the Singing detective or even the Secret Army will all appear. I do believe the Classics should be widen to included Omnibus and Horizon BBC is sitting on a whole of programmes never been seen for years, even on SKY.

BBC one has no promise outside peak. BBC two is lost in space. BBC three is also full of repeats, but with gold if you look. BBC four is just trying to hard to get money.



Every top rated decent programme on BBC two always seems to get nicked by BBC one, which makes no since either. I agree with you trust see two as populist but a trail of populist stuff.

what I dont understand is if something good on BBC three it will head to BBC two of that good enough it will head to BBC one. This has to stop.

So the problem here isn't that these programmes are repeated, the problem is that they are made at all. I'd certainly rather they showed repeats of the fillers than made new episodes.



Unlike sitcoms, I guess things like Omnibus and Horizon need more legal work and fact checking before they can be repeated.

Of course the BBC have fallen into a trap where its trying to make more money out of its content IE like a commercial broadcaster instead of providing a content on its remint. Its been said many of the current programming from the BBC could be made by other stations. The matter of the fact is that 100% true, since my first sentence proves the point.

Of course BBC one, and to be fair along with all other BBC channels are trying to found a voice in the current digital climate. The only channels which are having any proper success are the two kids channels mainly because unlike the 30 odd other kids channels, its content is not shipped in from abroad.

I do believe BBC news and parliament needs to widens is content. and include more programmes.

It's not what the viewers want but if the BBC wants to strip down it should go all out and cut itself down to BBC1, BBC2, BBC News and a fourth stream for a combine kids service, with capacity in the evening for limited red button content. Rent out the rest of it's space to earn a bit of revenue and let Parliament pay for it's own broadcasting.

For what it's worth, I'm in the prime BBC Three age range (1, and here's what I think about it;

People should be able to go onto a channel knowing what is on there. To be fair to BBC Three, people could name a generic, BBC Three-ish title (something like 'Sex, Virgins and Leeds Fest Dreams') and they knew that after 11, Family Guy was probably on. BBC Four has a similar demographic, so you could expect to see something exceptionally unique to BBC Four. I think the same can't really be said for BBC Two and One - they lack their own style.

In a digital era, one would assume all people have access to all channels. Therefore, instead of giving One and Two larger budgets, shouldn't they focus on making three, distinctive channels that people actually know the content of?

Currently, the BBC operates Parliament, News, CBBC, CBeebies, Two, One, Three and Four. Here is how I, as a humble, only just starting to pay my license fee, 18 year old, would streamline the channels;

BBC One; would show light entertainment, sporting events (continued over the Red Button also), News and Drama, and run as the flagship, 34+ channel. I would have it showing light comedy and dramas, with the same mix of Homes Under the Hammer and Heir Hunters during the day and Pointless and The One Show (that pains me to write) in the afternoon, the News and increased funding from Drama to fill the nights.

BBC Two; I would have this as the main 'Alternative' channel. Fair enough, have it showing Antiques Roadshow and Allo! Allo! and Are You Being Served? during the day, but I would radically change their nighttime lineup. I would fill it with Chat Shows like Graham Norton, things like Have I Got News For You? and even put Family Guy on later. There would still be room for Top Gear and specialist shows like that, even time for The Sky at Night and Springwatch and Black and White movies, but the later night emphasis should move away from serious intellectual programming and more towards humorous programs and innovative comedy, a bit like Three without the cringeworthy documentaries. You could even call it BBC Three on Two, if Three is remaining an internet brand. I think it should be a little like BBC Two was in the 90's - risky, a little adventurous but with programming that appeals to a minority, like Gardeners World or Tomorrow's World - but it should change it's remit from Knowledge based programming to alternative comedy and drama, because I think that's where it is best. I would also reclaim Miranda for BBC Two in this vain.

BBC Four; I would merge BBC News, BBC Four as now and Documentary, Current Affairs and Arts/Culture elements of BBC Two into one Factual and Serious channel. This would mean programmes like Question Time, Daily Politics and (most significantly) Newsnight would make its way to a really heavy-weight channel in the middle of the EPG. I would make it 24 hours a day, and I would have it filled with Documentaries and Public Service commitments, and I would have regular News Bulletins and Updates, and I would have this mixed with things like HARDtalk and Click. In the evening, I would have BBC Four follow up the News at 6 with it's own Flagship news show, this kicking off the night-time schedule that would comprise of Serious Discussion Programmes, Documentaries and even Foreign Dramas and Dramatisations of BBC Four now, ending with Newsnight after the News at 10 and Question Time following it on a Thursday.

BBC Parliament; relatively unchanged as it's cheap to run and simple to run.

BBC Extra: A channel simply for times when there needs to be more coverage, can run in the same vain as BBC Choice and run repeats most of the day but can be used during the Olympics, World Cups or even Elections/Proms. A bit like BBC 5Live Sports Extra.

CBBC/CBeebies/TBBC (?); I would have this as with many Children's channels, From 6-8 CBBC programming, from 8-3 CBeebies, and from 3-7 CBBC again, ending with a bedtime story for CBeebies at 7.30/6.30 (which ever is better). I would after this launch into a channel that caters for the demographic forgotten by BBC, 12-17 year olds. From 7pm-6am I would run a channel showing 90's sitcoms (a little bit like the old Trouble remit) but also cooler Cartoon's like Aqua Teen Hunger Force and even commission original programming for young adults.

So from 7 to 6, each with their own remit and scope. A lot of radical change though, granted.

How much money does the BBC make from its BBC world wide operations? where does the profits end up?

BBC Two is the main issue, has no budget across most of the day so basically produces new content for about 4 hours. This content is not well defined and sits somewhere that is not mainstream enough for BBC1, not highbrow enough for BBC4 and not young experimental enough for BBC3

CBBC also continues to have the problem of airing kids programmes all day when the audience is out for at least half the air time.

As everyone has digital tv now, all the channels should be revised and they shouldn't be afraid of changing the channel remits and moving programmes from one to another if it fits better. Utimately creating 3 good channels with the best content.

Given, as Andrew said, most of the CBBC channel's airtime is when its target audience are in school, and Cbeebies' must be targeting a relatively small number of households, is there a good argument for keeping them as different services today? Parents of young children are no less likely to have access to iPlayer than anyone else, and the child-friendly versions of iPlayer should prevent other obstacles too...

Merging the two channels (though maintaining the brand) would presumably save several million that could go towards, say, BBC One drama or other services, and in tandem with other savings/ reductions might make more sense than the current set up.

What about during the holidays? saying that 3 and 4 years olds are know how to work the Cbeebies app on smartphones and computers.