BBC to "cut number of programmes it makes" according to Davie

[telebox2001]

I get the politics behind the BBC Scotland channel, but I'd rather the BBC spent that money on good content rather than trying to placate Holyrood; lest we forget that Global were hauled infront of a select committee when they decided to network breakfast shows - despite that being something that they were legally allowed to do.

Furthermore, if Scotland did become an independent country the BBC would have a major revenue stream selling their programmes to Scottish broadcasters.

[DTV]

I get the politics behind the BBC Scotland channel, but I'd rather the BBC spent that money on good content rather than trying to placate Holyrood; lest we forget that Global were hauled infront of a select committee when they decided to network breakfast shows - despite that being something that they were legally allowed to do.

Furthermore, if Scotland did become an independent country the BBC would have a major revenue stream selling their programmes to Scottish broadcasters.

I'm not sure of the exact prices offered by BBC Studios to international broadcasters, but I doubt it is at 8% of production costs per broadcaster - which is what the BBC would need to be selling its entire output to the hypothetical SBS to break even. While axing BBC Scotland and moving its budget to BBCs One and Two could increase the overall network content budget by 2%, I doubt such a move would be acceptable politically - especially considering that most of BBC Scotland's budget came from BBC One and Two Scotland originally.

[Brekkie]

We're in danger of going down the "make cuts to what I don't use" route again.

We're really not.  



I've always felt BBC Three was a solution to a problem that didn't exist in that young people stream first and foremost; they consume very little linear TV that isn't live.



BBC Scotland I just don't get the point of. Why does Scotland need its own channel?  Why can't that content be bought into custom versions of One and Two like it is in other home nations?  Why is Scotland a special case?

Agree regarding BBC Scotland and it's actually made BBC Scotland less flexibile IMO with flagship events still on BBC1 Scotland, but the inability to shuffle the BBC2 schedule to take some displaced BBC1 programmes as done previously.  

BBC3 is a warning of be careful what you axe because you may soon regret it - but once it's gone it's very difficult to rebuild if you try and reinstate it even just a few years later.   I completely opposed the axing of BBC3 as I thought keeping a linear option open both for younger viewers who couldn't stream, but also to keep linear TV somewhat relevant, was important.    They then made it irrelevant, pushed a streaming strategy and are now scratching their brains as to why people aren't watching.


P.S.  The BBC have just announced the result of a deprivation study in which BBC services were removed from a group of 60 people who either wanted no licence fee or a reduced fee, along with a control group of 20 licence fee supporters, in return for getting the money saved back.   Within 9 days 70% of those in the group of 60 wanted the BBC back.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/d...tion-study

[adamiow]

I would have thought that the logical solution is to trim back commissions - knocking episodes off series to save money.

It is probably cheaper to commission longer series I would imagine, hence less series overall saving more money

It depends if they can afford to produce that level of new content, as repeats are going to be the most cost effective solution.

[Mike]

It's got to be said, some of what they're doing at the minute is at odds with that.

Do we need a BBC One North macro-region with bespoke schedule?
Do we need a BBC Scotland channel?
Do we need a lot of it? Save some money by consolidating some of the services, do we need x3 nations of BBC One and 2 of BBC Two? Can continuity be pre-recorded?
Do we need a logo being changed microscopically and glacial pace at an expense when it could've just been left alone?

All questions - but it could save a fair bit of cash in the long term. While we're at it, do we need 17 variations of BBC News for local interests, Look Hull doesn't seem to bring much at all to the lives of its viewers - it's just a pensioners outlet with Peter Levy. He can't be cheap.

We pay for the BBC, I don't think it's worth it anymore (others welcome to disagree) - I just think a focus on online and streaming is the way forward, linear TV needs to exist but it can't exist in one shape or another as it has for the past 30 years.

[all new Phil]

It's got to be said, some of what they're doing at the minute is at odds with that.

Do we need a BBC One North macro-region with bespoke schedule?
Do we need a BBC Scotland channel?
Do we need a lot of it? Save some money by consolidating some of the services, do we need x3 nations of BBC One and 2 of BBC Two? Can continuity be pre-recorded?
Do we need a logo being changed microscopically and glacial pace at an expense when it could've just been left alone?

All questions - but it could save a fair bit of cash in the long term. While we're at it, do we need 17 variations of BBC News for local interests, Look Hull doesn't seem to bring much at all to the lives of its viewers - it's just a pensioners outlet with Peter Levy. He can't be cheap.

We pay for the BBC, I don't think it's worth it anymore (others welcome to disagree) - I just think a focus on online and streaming is the way forward, linear TV needs to exist but it can't exist in one shape or another as it has for the past 30 years.

Some excellent points you make there. I think there’s an assumption that the status quo can’t be questioned or changed when it comes to regional news and local radio. I’d like the whole lot to be rethought - what channels we have and need, how regions and nations should figure in that etc. Why does BBC One Wales (for example) need it’s own pres and announcers and to go it’s own way at times - why can’t we have a UK-wide channel with opt-outs for nations at set times? Why does Oxford needs its own regional news opt but the whole of Scotland just has the 1 show? Would listeners not be just as well served with local radio that matches the tv region size?

[telebox2001]

Agree regarding BBC Scotland and it's actually made BBC Scotland less flexibile IMO with flagship events still on BBC1 Scotland, but the inability to shuffle the BBC2 schedule to take some displaced BBC1 programmes as done previously.

That's the bit I don't get TBH.  I know during the 2014 referendum (and indeed in previous elections) BBC Two picked up the displaced BBC One shows, especially the day after the vote where Scotland got extended coverage but Network went back to normal programmes (although I imagine had Yes won, there was the option for network to take that coverage as well.)  Now, though, there isn't anywhere for displaced programmes to go - so they have to displace even more of network to timeshift the opted out shows, or just not show them at all.  When BBC Two is largely repeats, that makes it very easy to still get new network programmes out whilst broadcasting flagship Scottish events.

For example, why couldn't The Nine become The Six, and pre-empt the Six and Reporting Scotland, which is what was asked for to begin with anyway?

In any case, I can't see Nicola allowing a British company to be Scotland's national public broadcaster anyway. That would fly in the face of the raison d'être of wanting Scotland to be an independent country.  It might well be based in Pacific Quay, BBC Scotland staff will probably get TUPEd over, but the relationship with Auntie in London/Manchester/etc will be a very different one.

[Brekkie]

And the BBC Scotland situation shows why we need BBC1 and BBC2 to operate semi-independently in the nations. Would be interesting to see how appreciation varies across the nations but I do think we have a stronger BBC in Wales for the amount of opts they have on BBC1 and especially BBC2 Wales - scrap BBC2 Wales and you're losing the live sport for starters. Yes, we could have a BBC Scotland style channel I suppose but that lowers the profile of the content IMO and also adds hours to fill.

[XIII]

Agree regarding BBC Scotland and it's actually made BBC Scotland less flexibile IMO with flagship events still on BBC1 Scotland, but the inability to shuffle the BBC2 schedule to take some displaced BBC1 programmes as done previously.

That's the bit I don't get TBH.  I know during the 2014 referendum (and indeed in previous elections) BBC Two picked up the displaced BBC One shows, especially the day after the vote where Scotland got extended coverage but Network went back to normal programmes (although I imagine had Yes won, there was the option for network to take that coverage as well.)  Now, though, there isn't anywhere for displaced programmes to go - so they have to displace even more of network to timeshift the opted out shows, or just not show them at all.  When BBC Two is largely repeats, that makes it very easy to still get new network programmes out whilst broadcasting flagship Scottish events.

For example, why couldn't The Nine become The Six, and pre-empt the Six and Reporting Scotland, which is what was asked for to begin with anyway?

In any case, I can't see Nicola allowing a British company to be Scotland's national public broadcaster anyway. That would fly in the face of the raison d'être of wanting Scotland to be an independent country.  It might well be based in Pacific Quay, BBC Scotland staff will probably get TUPEd over, but the relationship with Auntie in London/Manchester/etc will be a very different one.

I would point out that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the UK and happily take the UK channels and I suspect that actually it might be financially viable to keep the BBC in Scotland rather go through the expense of launching the Scottish equivalent of RTE.

[tellyblues]

Another thing is that the BBC3 and Scotland channels were pushed through on hype and soundbites but the BBC would argue that people were fully aware of what they were getting because it was relayed to them one way or another. The simple fact is that the average viewer isn't going to read through 50 page proposals downloaded off the internet but when they hear stuff like "50% old 50% new" it sounds great but no-one bothers to tell them that this could mean 100% repeats but a channel is still within its remit if those repeats are original commissions.

[Josh]

Lest we forget that Global were hauled infront of a select committee when they decided to network breakfast shows - despite that being something that they were legally allowed to do.

Do you know when this was? Wouldn't mind having a watch on the Parliament website.

[telebox2001]

Lest we forget that Global were hauled infront of a select committee when they decided to network breakfast shows - despite that being something that they were legally allowed to do.

Do you know when this was? Wouldn't mind having a watch on the Parliament website.

It was the Scottish parliament but it would have been around early 2019 when the changes were announced.

[lobster]

I still can't understand why they brought BBC 3 back, I accept they don't have a crystal ball but clearly, even looking at the schedules from over the last few years it's been pretty clear there hasn't been enough quality content to go around, with even BBC One looking seriously stretched during daytimei.

Merging 2,3,4 into a single channel with any overspill just going on iPlayer - is such an obvious solution to the problem. Archive stuff can go on iPlayer anyway.

I think recycling content on CBBC and CBeebies is less of a problem because the audiences for those channels typically only sticks around for a few years, they've only got the cost of the doing the links then.

BBC 2 has lost it's identity which doesn't help, in the 1990s, particularly after the rebrand it was the place where you'd find alternative comedy and less mainstream stuff - 2,3,4 content seem such a natural fit to continue that genre split.

getting rid of BBC 3 and 4 is certainly preferable to dumping BBC Parliament or News 24, which would be a catastrophe.

[JetixFann450]

Again, we're coming to the "close it because I don't watch it" arguments again. The BBC are supposed to cater to everyone, but I agree that BBC Three is sorta limping on one leg. At least until Eurovision, where I'd imagine where most of the ratings will go instead. That, and really any music event like Glastonbury.

I'd argue it isn't because they don't have enough original content, but more so that said original content isn't new or, ironically, "original". And the motive to just constantly use iPlayer as a basis for viewership isn't going to work.

[tellyblues]

Coverage of Eurovision and Glastonbury was available before BBC3 came along so it's not channel specific and although it can appeal to 16-34s it's not aimed at them. Masterchef Australia is another anomaly - yes it may be intended for those kind of viewers in Oz but TV and culture is different there. Here the show is used to supplement viewing of the UK version which is mainly watched by older than 16-34 audiences.

Why not put it on BBC1 then? Oh, it's three years old...