I've always thought that the biggest way to save money within the BBC would be to get rid of BBC Three. It's only on for a limited time each day and even then it seldom shows anything new. It would be much easier to move its content onto BBC One, Two or even Four and get rid of some of their repeats. Perhaps it has produced some good drama and comedy but in the end it's all been taken by BBC One or Two and I don't think the benefits are worthy of the cost.
Speaking of repeats I'm annoyed that we're to see yet more repeats on all BBC channels. The only things I'd like to see repeated are the big dramas that are normally on around 8pm or 9pm but they're seldom repeated. Alternatively, if it has to be something suitable to daytime, then why don't they repeat some classic gameshows or comedy as opposed to the usual collection of antique and lifestyle programmes?
Speaking of repeats I'm annoyed that we're to see yet more repeats on all BBC channels. The only things I'd like to see repeated are the big dramas that are normally on around 8pm or 9pm but they're seldom repeated.
The problem is that the BBC are very quick to sell their best dramas to their commercial arm for repeat on the UKTV channels. ITV are just as bad.
It doesn't leave many decent things to repeat on their main terrestrial channels.
Lol on tonight's Have I got News..., the clip of Paxman asking the chairman of the BBC Trust if the BBC should be making shows like "My Man Boobs and Me"
It was good on 'This Week' yesterday, they had them taking out a comfy seat and all the guests and Andrew Neil were sat on crappy chairs with a glass of water on a cardboard box
Speaking of repeats I'm annoyed that we're to see yet more repeats on all BBC channels. The only things I'd like to see repeated are the big dramas that are normally on around 8pm or 9pm but they're seldom repeated.
The problem is that the BBC are very quick to sell their best dramas to their commercial arm for repeat on the UKTV channels. ITV are just as bad.
It doesn't leave many decent things to repeat on their main terrestrial channels.
Just because they sell rights to a programme to another broadcaster doesn't mean that they can't show the programme on a BBC channel too.
Speaking of repeats I'm annoyed that we're to see yet more repeats on all BBC channels. The only things I'd like to see repeated are the big dramas that are normally on around 8pm or 9pm but they're seldom repeated.
The problem is that the BBC are very quick to sell their best dramas to their commercial arm for repeat on the UKTV channels. ITV are just as bad.
It doesn't leave many decent things to repeat on their main terrestrial channels.
Just because they sell rights to a programme to another broadcaster doesn't mean that they can't show the programme on a BBC channel too.
No - though repeating drama on BBC One is not cheap (much lower repeat costs on the less mainstream channels), and in the case of independent productions the BBC may have far more limited rights.
Speaking of repeats I'm annoyed that we're to see yet more repeats on all BBC channels. The only things I'd like to see repeated are the big dramas that are normally on around 8pm or 9pm but they're seldom repeated.
The problem is that the BBC are very quick to sell their best dramas to their commercial arm for repeat on the UKTV channels. ITV are just as bad.
It doesn't leave many decent things to repeat on their main terrestrial channels.
Just because they sell rights to a programme to another broadcaster doesn't mean that they can't show the programme on a BBC channel too.
No - though repeating drama on BBC One is not cheap (much lower repeat costs on the less mainstream channels), and in the case of independent productions the BBC may have far more limited rights.
The independant contract which was forced on the BBC by Ofcon [sic] (not that they are supposed to involve themselves in the BBC because that would be state interference ) is a real have your cake and eat it for anyone who gets a commission.
In short the BBC pays for the programme - more or less upfront with our money but only has exclusive rights to it for two years then all rights and ownership revert to the company who make it. Not only does the Indie make a profit from our money but we don't own it after two years.
In all the Bull & Hype it is very easy to forget that we all own the BBC and therfore it is only reasonable to expect having paid for a programme to be made we would own it. You dont pay a builder to build your own house and pay for the materials and labour only to have it taken away 2 years later.
Speaking of repeats I'm annoyed that we're to see yet more repeats on all BBC channels. The only things I'd like to see repeated are the big dramas that are normally on around 8pm or 9pm but they're seldom repeated.
The problem is that the BBC are very quick to sell their best dramas to their commercial arm for repeat on the UKTV channels. ITV are just as bad.
It doesn't leave many decent things to repeat on their main terrestrial channels.
Just because they sell rights to a programme to another broadcaster doesn't mean that they can't show the programme on a BBC channel too.
No - though repeating drama on BBC One is not cheap (much lower repeat costs on the less mainstream channels), and in the case of independent productions the BBC may have far more limited rights.
The independant contract which was forced on the BBC by Ofcon [sic] (not that they are supposed to involve themselves in the BBC because that would be state interference ) is a real have your cake and eat it for anyone who gets a commission.
In short the BBC pays for the programme - more or less upfront with our money but only has exclusive rights to it for two years then all rights and ownership revert to the company who make it. Not only does the Indie make a profit from our money but we don't own it after two years.
In all the Bull & Hype it is very easy to forget that we all own the BBC and therfore it is only reasonable to expect having paid for a programme to be made we would own it. You dont pay a builder to build your own house and pay for the materials and labour only to have it taken away 2 years later.
I guess the question is - do we pay less for the programme to be made in lieu of not owning the rights to it in perpetuity? (Kind of like the building doing the work for 75% of the real cost, but then owning a bit of the extension afterwards, and 2 years later selling it to the neighbours so that they can have parties in it!)
Surely they're going all wrong about this, I may be repeating what has already been posted in this thread but this is what I would have done:
* Cut Wossy's ridiculous wage, I like him but there's no way he's worth £6Million, also the rest of those on the £1million+ wages, some of the managment have 6-8 figure sum pay packages.
* Shut down either BBC 3 or BBC 4, the programme content from one of those channels (BBC 4) could easily go onto another channel (BBC 2)
* Keep TVC but let others used some of the facilities (Like LWT's Kent House where LWT, GMTV, LNN & Hat Trick all shared facilities as well as others)
* Perhaps trim some of the Radio stations down, do we need to Radio 5's? Do we need Radio 7?
* Sell off the share in UKTV, seeing as there are more repeats due on BBC TV, why have two sets of channels with repeats?
Surely they're going all wrong about this, I may be repeating what has already been posted in this thread but this is what I would have done:
* Cut Wossy's ridiculous wage, I like him but there's no way he's worth £6Million, also the rest of those on the £1million+ wages, some of the managment have 6-8 figure sum pay packages.
* Shut down either BBC 3 or BBC 4, the programme content from one of those channels (BBC 4) could easily go onto another channel (BBC 2)
* Keep TVC but let others used some of the facilities (Like LWT's Kent House where LWT, GMTV, LNN & Hat Trick all shared facilities as well as others)
* Perhaps trim some of the Radio stations down, do we need to Radio 5's? Do we need Radio 7?
* Sell off the share in UKTV, seeing as there are more repeats due on BBC TV, why have two sets of channels with repeats?
Surely this would help.
1 - As ridiculous as it is, Jonathan Ross is under contract, so if the BBC pull out they'd still have to pay out his contract.
2 - BBC have the space for BBC3 and BBC4, so how would closing them be a use of money. Moving the content to BBC1/2 would still mean the content is being produced, and still costing the same amount. Having the four channels is better value for money than the 2 or 3 as it will allow for the narrative repeats which ultimately allow more people the opportunity to watch the content.
Repeated content on BBC1 during primetime isn't going to change at all - while on BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4 it's more about making better use of the content available, so will probably mean more BBC3/4 programmes get an airing on BBC2, where they are reborn as new programmes once again.
3 - Others use the facilities, and there are dozens more studio facilities across the country. Regardless of the licence fee, most of the day to day on-screen operations are moving out of TV Centre anyway, with BBC News joining BBC Radio at Broadcasting house and childrens and sport moving to Manchester - whether that's wise or not.
Most drama and comedy is shot on location - or at regional studios across the country, leaving only a handful of studio shows to be produced at TV Centre.
The same can probably be said for many rival channels and companies too - meaning their probably isn't the demand to hire out spare studio space too - so in the long run it might be better for the BBC to hire studio space as it's required rather than have a number of studios kept running - but empty most of the week.
4 - 5 Live Sports Extra is certainly required, but as for the rest I'm not so sure. The difficulty though is the digital radio channels do all serve their niches pretty well - and it's difficult to identify one that should be axed. It's a case of all or none I think.
If any BBC Radio channels were to close, it would be in local radio.
Personally I think BBC Radio should be run as a not-for-profit commercial organisation along the same lines of Channel 4 - but that's never going to happen especially now Channel 4 will be doing that themselves.
5 - UKTV is presumably profitable by now and returns a profit for the BBC. Also, keeping it's stake in UKTV means that it's easier for the BBC to keep the rights to it's archive by selling the content to UKTV, but presumably having an arrangement where the BBC can still screen it.
) is a real have your cake and eat it for anyone who gets a commission.
