Also with radio do we need Radio 1 Xtra - or could that be easily integrated into Radio 6 Music, and do we honestly need Radio 4 Extra as that programming could be easily put on the Radio 4 or even "networked" at certain times of the day on the local radio stations and possibly even Radio 2, through the night!
Do you actually know anything about any of the formats of these stations?
If radio stations flipped formats throughout the day, they wouldn't have anyone listening.
Also with radio do we need Radio 1 Xtra - or could that be easily integrated into Radio 6 Music, and do we honestly need Radio 4 Extra as that programming could be easily put on the Radio 4 or even "networked" at certain times of the day on the local radio stations and possibly even Radio 2, through the night!
Do you actually know anything about any of the formats of these stations?
If radio stations flipped formats throughout the day, they wouldn't have anyone listening.
Considering a lot of time of the local stations are now "partially" networked then that would save money and would probably bring new listeners! Whereas Radio 4 already has repeats so nothing new there and as Radio 2 is meant to be the "easy listening" station then some of Radio4 extra programmes could easily slip in through the night!
As for Radio 1 Extra - some of the presentation style and music is currently heard already on radio 1 and 6 music and as such wouldn't be such an upheaval to move the more successful programmes to 6music or even radio 1, to replace their lesser successful shows - thus strengthening both brands (6 Music and Radio 1) and bringing new listeners to the stations.
Lets put it this way I am a big fan of 6Music and wouldn't mind some of the programmes being replaced by those from 1Extra! Having 3 contemporary music stations is definitely overkill!!!
Also with radio do we need Radio 1 Xtra - or could that be easily integrated into Radio 6 Music
Not sure if I agree with that, I can't imagine keen listeners of Mistajam being too happy about their regular music line-up interrupted by Joy Division and Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds.
As for Radio 1 Extra - some of the presentation style and music is currently heard already on radio 1 and 6 music and as such wouldn't be such an upheaval to move the more successful programmes to 6music or even radio 1, to replace their lesser successful shows - thus strengthening both brands (6 Music and Radio 1) and bringing new listeners to the stations.
Lets put it this way I am a big fan of 6Music and wouldn't mind some of the programmes being replaced by those from 1Extra! Having 3 contemporary music stations is definitely overkill!!!
The formats are totally different, the majority of the audience for each station isn't going to tolerate the other kind of music. You clearly have no idea how radio is used by audiences and having some clarity about what the brand represents is vital.
Both stations have two very strong niches at the moment. There would be a near fatal drop off if any kind of merger occurred.
I see the reasoning for Radio nan Gàidheal, Radio Cymru and (at a slight stretch) Radio Foyle - but is there really any reason for separate stations for
both
Shetland and Orkney?
Many have argued that the BBC is facing the biggest change in its near one hundred year old history. In light of a number of recent scandals, the purpose of the BBC's funding has been put into question particularly in the modern, multi-channel environment.
There have been calls for the BBC to look into a subscription based service, similar to that of Netflix, and there has also been talk of the decriminalisation of the licence fee, which as it stands could see somebody landed with a criminal record if they refuse to pay the fee.
Many feel that the quality of the BBC is not what it was once, and the purpose of having a BBC 1, 2, 3, etc in an 'on-demand' world is a generally out of date idea. Evidently, more and more people are moving to online based services.
Despite this, the BBC is the longest running broadcaster and arguably does provide a service in areas that others don't.
What do you guys think?
No; even though the BBC have made some bad decisions, and scrapped some good TV programmes and ideas, they still broadcast some extremely popular and loved programmes. Long live the BBC!
I see the reasoning for Radio nan GÃ idheal, Radio Cymru and (at a slight stretch) Radio Foyle - but is there really any reason for separate stations for
both
Shetland and Orkney?
Shetland and Orkney are separate islands, 170-ish miles apart. They're not full radio stations, they're opt-out services of BBC Radio Scotland providing local programming for, at most, a couple of hours every day. That's what the BBC does, it provides local content for local people. I can't imagine someone in Lerwick is very interested in what's happening in Kirkwall.
I see the reasoning for Radio nan GÃ idheal, Radio Cymru and (at a slight stretch) Radio Foyle - but is there really any reason for separate stations for
both
Shetland and Orkney?
I'm guessing there wouldn't be much point to a shared service. Similar situation to BBC Guernsey and BBC Jersey. In fact they may have even less in common than the two Channel Islands? They are further away from each other. I guess in the case of local services, the more local you are, the less it makes sense to share.
Presumably as Shetland and Orkney have opt-outs from BBC Scotland (unlike Guernsey and Jersey which are big operations), the cost is quite low?
I do think the days of the licence fee are numbered, especially when the public perceives the BBC squanders its cash on trash like Don't Scare The Hare - and the BBC doesn't help itself in this respect.
But commercialising the BBC would be disastrous for all of UK television, and I'd think ITV in particular would want to oppose it. If you want your advert to hit 8 million viewers, you take it to ITV. Suddenly you'd be able to spend your cash with the BBC instead. ITV owes its income to the fact that the BBC doesn't carry adverts.
I do think the days of the licence fee are numbered, especially when the public perceives the BBC squanders its cash on trash like Don't Scare The Hare - and the BBC doesn't help itself in this respect.
But commercialising the BBC would be disastrous for all of UK television, and I'd think ITV in particular would want to oppose it. If you want your advert to hit 8 million viewers, you take it to ITV. Suddenly you'd be able to spend your cash with the BBC instead. ITV owes its income to the fact that the BBC doesn't carry adverts.
I like the BBC, because I don't have to sit and watch boring adverts halfway through my favourite programme.
I do think the days of the licence fee are numbered, especially when the public perceives the BBC squanders its cash on trash like Don't Scare The Hare - and the BBC doesn't help itself in this respect.
But commercialising the BBC would be disastrous for all of UK television, and I'd think ITV in particular would want to oppose it. If you want your advert to hit 8 million viewers, you take it to ITV. Suddenly you'd be able to spend your cash with the BBC instead. ITV owes its income to the fact that the BBC doesn't carry adverts.
But what else can you do. I've already made the argument against subscription, you've made the argument against advertising (and take a look at TVNZ to see what an advertising funded BBC would be like - indistinguishable from the private sector. Or Channel 4 for that matter...)
The other possiblity is grant-in-aid from the Exchequer, and you only have to look at ABC in Australia to figure out what that means. Suddenly the BBC would be subject to constant underlying threat of having its funding reduced if it gave negative coverage of the government. It would effectively turn it into a mouthpiece for the government of the day.
I do think the days of the licence fee are numbered, especially when the public perceives the BBC squanders its cash on trash like Don't Scare The Hare - and the BBC doesn't help itself in this respect.
But commercialising the BBC would be disastrous for all of UK television, and I'd think ITV in particular would want to oppose it. If you want your advert to hit 8 million viewers, you take it to ITV. Suddenly you'd be able to spend your cash with the BBC instead. ITV owes its income to the fact that the BBC doesn't carry adverts.
But what else can you do. I've already made the argument against subscription, you've made the argument against advertising (and take a look at TVNZ to see what an advertising funded BBC would be like - indistinguishable from the private sector. Or Channel 4 for that matter...)
The other possiblity is grant-in-aid from the Exchequer, and you only have to look at ABC in Australia to figure out what that means. Suddenly the BBC would be subject to constant underlying threat of having its funding reduced if it gave negative coverage of the government. It would effectively turn it into a mouthpiece for the government of the day.
