TE
Surely by concentrating on populist subjects that by their very nature people already know about you negate part of your remit to inform? Also, won't the licence fee be seen as more irrelevant if you increasingly provide content that is available elsewhere?
IN
I can't see the content, is there an indication on what classes as niche? I agree with the previous member, documentary makers should be free to pursue anything however niche to throw a spotlight on it.
OM
I'm sure you could find comments from a number of BBC Controllers going back 20 odd years for the need for higher impact programming.
You only really know what has impact after broadcast. "Bros: After The Screaming Stops" was an example of a documentary having a relatively low profile slot on BBC4 on its first airing and then when memes from the documentary gained traction on social media, got a higher profile repeat a month later on BBC2.
Some of the most successful programmes happen in spite of, not because of, commissioning editors. "It's A Sin" has received huge critical praise and coverage on prime time programming, but was reportedly rejected by the BBC and ITV and cut down by Channel 4 from 8 to 5 episodes.
You only really know what has impact after broadcast. "Bros: After The Screaming Stops" was an example of a documentary having a relatively low profile slot on BBC4 on its first airing and then when memes from the documentary gained traction on social media, got a higher profile repeat a month later on BBC2.
Some of the most successful programmes happen in spite of, not because of, commissioning editors. "It's A Sin" has received huge critical praise and coverage on prime time programming, but was reportedly rejected by the BBC and ITV and cut down by Channel 4 from 8 to 5 episodes.
JO
I liked It’s A Sin but I’m not sure if it could have sustained 8 episodes.
I'm sure you could find comments from a number of BBC Controllers going back 20 odd years for the need for higher impact programming.
You only really know what has impact after broadcast. "Bros: After The Screaming Stops" was an example of a documentary having a relatively low profile slot on BBC4 on its first airing and then when memes from the documentary gained traction on social media, got a higher profile repeat a month later on BBC2.
Some of the most successful programmes happen in spite of, not because of, commissioning editors. "It's A Sin" has received huge critical praise and coverage on prime time programming, but was reportedly rejected by the BBC and ITV and cut down by Channel 4 from 8 to 5 episodes.
You only really know what has impact after broadcast. "Bros: After The Screaming Stops" was an example of a documentary having a relatively low profile slot on BBC4 on its first airing and then when memes from the documentary gained traction on social media, got a higher profile repeat a month later on BBC2.
Some of the most successful programmes happen in spite of, not because of, commissioning editors. "It's A Sin" has received huge critical praise and coverage on prime time programming, but was reportedly rejected by the BBC and ITV and cut down by Channel 4 from 8 to 5 episodes.
I liked It’s A Sin but I’m not sure if it could have sustained 8 episodes.
TE
Full Zoom meeting with Tim Davie - he talks about "niche" programming at 8 mins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPydSCrUIFU
More detail at https://www.documentarytelevision.com/uk/bbc-director-general-floats-deep-cuts-to-documentaries-in-smarter-bigger-better-strategy/
Sensitive refers to volume of programming.
This implies a belief that one landmark doc can be made from the combined budgets of several niche docs. That may be true in some cases but it isn't in all. An undercover investigative doc can be filmed very cheaply and achieve the same - if not greater - impact than one that requires a large budget.
Also, what is thought to be landmark and what hits with the public doesn't tally.
The Years That Changed Modern Scotland on BBC Scotland is meant for a general audience and has a big name in Kirsty Wark to front it but it has tanked because, IMO, it's the same stuff that everyone has seen before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPydSCrUIFU
More detail at https://www.documentarytelevision.com/uk/bbc-director-general-floats-deep-cuts-to-documentaries-in-smarter-bigger-better-strategy/
Quote:
Mr Davie said his focus would be on doing less – and one area ripe for cuts is documentaries. He said that content which is worthy but gets few viewers will be cut from the schedules.”
Cutting documentary output will be “sensitive,” he said, but the BBC should concentrate on “landmark work”.
Cutting documentary output will be “sensitive,” he said, but the BBC should concentrate on “landmark work”.
Sensitive refers to volume of programming.
This implies a belief that one landmark doc can be made from the combined budgets of several niche docs. That may be true in some cases but it isn't in all. An undercover investigative doc can be filmed very cheaply and achieve the same - if not greater - impact than one that requires a large budget.
Also, what is thought to be landmark and what hits with the public doesn't tally.
The Years That Changed Modern Scotland on BBC Scotland is meant for a general audience and has a big name in Kirsty Wark to front it but it has tanked because, IMO, it's the same stuff that everyone has seen before.
MA
It's only a mile and a half long. One of the UK's pathetic A Roads
Yeah, but the follow up doc on the A304 was awful..
It's only a mile and a half long. One of the UK's pathetic A Roads