MF
Well I think the BBC are gonna overhaul one or two things in the wake of BBC Three's closure. CBBC would and should get an extra hour's broadcasting during it's day.
The main thing for BBC now is to have new idents for all it's stations and to find timeslots for BBC Three's important shows.
The main thing for BBC now is to have new idents for all it's stations and to find timeslots for BBC Three's important shows.
BR
A sports channel is a stupid idea for the BBC at the moment, especially with cost cutting. They simple haven't got the content and the content they do have is better served being on BBC1 or BBC2, or on the red button with greater flexibility in terms of how much they have to invest in the presentation of it - usually next to nothing.
I'll shamelessly repeat by idea for a BBC Sports channel - it can cover sports the BBC has rights to, along with sports that don't have a massive audience. As such they could probably cover them without paying any rights fees, as the sports bodies would welcome the coverage, and would help promote these sports.
This kind of channel would also stop the annual complaints when events like Wimbledon mess up the schedule.
They can use reports from the BBC Sports Centre as filler, along with archive content.
The slots freed up from things like Snooker moving from BBC Two could then be filled by BBC Three content.
This kind of channel would also stop the annual complaints when events like Wimbledon mess up the schedule.
They can use reports from the BBC Sports Centre as filler, along with archive content.
The slots freed up from things like Snooker moving from BBC Two could then be filled by BBC Three content.
A sports channel is a stupid idea for the BBC at the moment, especially with cost cutting. They simple haven't got the content and the content they do have is better served being on BBC1 or BBC2, or on the red button with greater flexibility in terms of how much they have to invest in the presentation of it - usually next to nothing.
DB
The main thing for BBC now is to have new idents for all it's stations
That comes last, not even a priority.
The main thing for BBC now is to have new idents for all it's stations
That comes last, not even a priority.
WS
Did you only read the first ten words of my post? I can only assume so, given that I addressed the issues you mentioned around cost and content. Following the Olympics, there was talk of a 24-hours niche sports channel launching (though it didn't). They were estimating costs to launch, covering 24 sports, at £5.5 million. Hardly breaking the bank.
A sports channel is a stupid idea for the BBC at the moment, especially with cost cutting. They simple haven't got the content and the content they do have is better served being on BBC1 or BBC2, or on the red button with greater flexibility in terms of how much they have to invest in the presentation of it - usually next to nothing.
Did you only read the first ten words of my post? I can only assume so, given that I addressed the issues you mentioned around cost and content. Following the Olympics, there was talk of a 24-hours niche sports channel launching (though it didn't). They were estimating costs to launch, covering 24 sports, at £5.5 million. Hardly breaking the bank.
GO
Did you only read the first ten words of my post? I can only assume so, given that I addressed the issues you mentioned around cost and content. Following the Olympics, there was talk of a 24-hours niche sports channel launching (though it didn't). They were estimating costs to launch, covering 24 sports, at £5.5 million. Hardly breaking the bank.
But it didn't launch because hardly anyone would be interested in niche sports. Why would they launch something like this when they're cutting stuff left, right and centre?!
A sports channel is a stupid idea for the BBC at the moment, especially with cost cutting. They simple haven't got the content and the content they do have is better served being on BBC1 or BBC2, or on the red button with greater flexibility in terms of how much they have to invest in the presentation of it - usually next to nothing.
Did you only read the first ten words of my post? I can only assume so, given that I addressed the issues you mentioned around cost and content. Following the Olympics, there was talk of a 24-hours niche sports channel launching (though it didn't). They were estimating costs to launch, covering 24 sports, at £5.5 million. Hardly breaking the bank.
But it didn't launch because hardly anyone would be interested in niche sports. Why would they launch something like this when they're cutting stuff left, right and centre?!
GO
No, I'm pretty confident that's not a main thing right now.
The main thing for BBC now is to have new idents for all it's stations
No, I'm pretty confident that's not a main thing right now.
:-(
A former member
The current format of Cbeebies is not the problem its the feed which it comes from is. YOU could actually share it with BBC two for all fairness, ie 6am - 7pm and 7pm - 1am. and move Daily Politics to BBC news, and Afternoon Classic to BBC one.
PC
[quote="623058" pid="906311"]The current format of Cbeebies is not the problem its the feed which it comes from is. YOU could actually share it with BBC two for all fairness, ie 6am - 7pm and 7pm - 1am. and move Daily Politics to BBC news, and Afternoon Classic to BBC one.[/]
In terms of tidying up the channels and stripping things back, it strikes me that shifting CBeebies programming to BBC2 makes a lot of sense, as long as the full hours are retained (CBeebies essentially being treated as a separate channel which happens to be on BBC2). BBC2 prime-time then almost needs to step back in time and become the home of alternative programming for all ages, thus making it possible to consider BBC4's future sometime down the line and catering for the BBC3 generation at the same time. Pushing them out to the ghettos of the iPlayer is a very bad idea for the BBC in the long-term, for fairly obvious reasons. It wins you brownie points with the Daily Mail for now, but in 10 years time these people will be making the decisions.
There are problems with this. How would licence fee payers react to losing another channel, possibly two? Perception is key. The Daily Politics would have to go to BBC1 - politically marginalising it would be a bad move. Would this and a wider remit for BBC2 hit viewing figures? What happens when there's an event like the Winter Olympics? What about weekends?
But if the BBC's argument is that it doesn't have enough cash and wants to concentrate on getting the important stuff right, then it could do worse than focus on going back to basics. If there is any overspill - say live coverage of the Proms - then it could use the red button for this.
In terms of tidying up the channels and stripping things back, it strikes me that shifting CBeebies programming to BBC2 makes a lot of sense, as long as the full hours are retained (CBeebies essentially being treated as a separate channel which happens to be on BBC2). BBC2 prime-time then almost needs to step back in time and become the home of alternative programming for all ages, thus making it possible to consider BBC4's future sometime down the line and catering for the BBC3 generation at the same time. Pushing them out to the ghettos of the iPlayer is a very bad idea for the BBC in the long-term, for fairly obvious reasons. It wins you brownie points with the Daily Mail for now, but in 10 years time these people will be making the decisions.
There are problems with this. How would licence fee payers react to losing another channel, possibly two? Perception is key. The Daily Politics would have to go to BBC1 - politically marginalising it would be a bad move. Would this and a wider remit for BBC2 hit viewing figures? What happens when there's an event like the Winter Olympics? What about weekends?
But if the BBC's argument is that it doesn't have enough cash and wants to concentrate on getting the important stuff right, then it could do worse than focus on going back to basics. If there is any overspill - say live coverage of the Proms - then it could use the red button for this.
:-(
A former member
How many Red button streams does the BBC still have? Trying to clean up the channels will not be easy, unless BBC can place Tennis, darts and the snooker onto on of those feeds?
PC
I suppose they could do a BBC Three and put any overspill from the Red Button onto the website.
The BBC is really playing a high stakes game here at the moment, and not one that I'm confident they will win. Closing down a channel and telling people to go to the web is a dangerous move for a corporation trying to keep as many viewers as possible.
Danny Cohen is talking about lobbying for a rule change so that anyone who uses the iPlayer at all, not just for live streaming, will have to pay a TV licence. Now, as with newspaper websites struggling to make money, once you've given something away for free it's very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. How the heck are they going to police that one?
In addition to talk of the BBC moving from licence fee to subscription - and I know it was a Murdoch paper that had that story, but the idea has now been floated and will have had some basis - the corporation is playing a dangerous game here. Give us more money or the channels get it. I'm not sure they will get the response they want.
I do wonder how many people would actively subscribe. Personally apart from the odd big event and huge show, I could actually live without BBC TV. Radio's another matter, but they won't be charging for that.
The events of the past week have, for the first time, left me wondering whether the compulsory licence fee will at some point be at risk. I'd still put the chances as low as 20%, but I wouldn't have even entertained the possibility before that.
How many Red button streams does the BBC still have? Trying to clean up the channels will not be easy, unless BBC can place Tennis, darts and the snooker onto on of those feeds?
I suppose they could do a BBC Three and put any overspill from the Red Button onto the website.
The BBC is really playing a high stakes game here at the moment, and not one that I'm confident they will win. Closing down a channel and telling people to go to the web is a dangerous move for a corporation trying to keep as many viewers as possible.
Danny Cohen is talking about lobbying for a rule change so that anyone who uses the iPlayer at all, not just for live streaming, will have to pay a TV licence. Now, as with newspaper websites struggling to make money, once you've given something away for free it's very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. How the heck are they going to police that one?
In addition to talk of the BBC moving from licence fee to subscription - and I know it was a Murdoch paper that had that story, but the idea has now been floated and will have had some basis - the corporation is playing a dangerous game here. Give us more money or the channels get it. I'm not sure they will get the response they want.
I do wonder how many people would actively subscribe. Personally apart from the odd big event and huge show, I could actually live without BBC TV. Radio's another matter, but they won't be charging for that.
The events of the past week have, for the first time, left me wondering whether the compulsory licence fee will at some point be at risk. I'd still put the chances as low as 20%, but I wouldn't have even entertained the possibility before that.