BBC Four & CBBC to close

[Argyess]

I see some suggestions have been made about resurrecting the old afternoon BBC One slot after the linear CBBC channel has gone.  Interesting idea but can't see it happening myself.  The viewing figures were already low when they pulled kids programmes from BBC One in 2012.

[Steve Williams]

As for cost - BT and Virgin offer low cost broadband to those in receipt of certain benefits, and once again, by the time this decision is implemented the number of households without internet is going to be even lower than it is now

Yes, and worth looking again at the relevant part from Tim Davie's speech...
Over time we expect to consolidate and share more content between services, and expect to stop broadcasting some of our smaller channels on linear. This will include services like BBC Four, CBBC and Radio 4 Extra. But we won’t do this for at least the next three years because for the moment they are still delivering value to millions of viewers and listeners, at low extra cost.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/speech...-tim-davie

Funnily enough I was reading the Radio Times earlier and their piece about the new series of Stranger Things which starts today, which points out that since the last series, three years ago, the streaming market has completely changed and Netflix is no longer the unassailable behemoth it was then with numerous other streaming services now established and news that people are looking to give up some of their subscriptions. I know the past three years have been a bit different and some of the changes were vastly accelerated, but it emphasises that things can change greatly in the TV landscape in that time. As you say, in three years there will be a more developed broadbrand infrastructure, three more years of people replacing old TVs, three more years of new low-cost technology being developed and much else.

It's also worth pointing out that it's "at least" three years and they've been clear that the changes will not be made at an arbritary point or even at the same time. It's not the case that on 1st January 2025 they'll all be switched off. It will happen when it stops "delivering value to millions of viewers and listeners, at low extra cost" and the number of people watching them via linear TV becomes so low it's not worth it. And it won't just be done on a whim, but when the figures illustrate that. The BBC do absolutely tonnes of audience research and have statistics coming out of their ears.

It reminds me of digital switchover, there was much discussion when the timetable was announced that it was going to leave millions of people alienated because they would need to get a new TV, and people in rural areas relying on relay transmitters would have problems. But that all got ironed out and it was fairly painless at the end. And of course there's a great example here because the Beeb kept kids shows on BBC1 and BBC2 until the end of 2012, after every single part of the UK had undergone digital switchover and everyone had access to CBBC and CBeebies, and when the research they'd done illustrated that hardly any kids would be disenfranchised by the move. The Beeb doesn't do these things on a whim.

[Brekkie]

I think the big problem the BBC has is every time the budget is squeezed by the political decisions around the licence fee is that it's always a question of making cuts and always a question of trimming this service, axing that service, moving this service online, rather than thinking about their service as a whole and how to operate them as an entity.

BBC3, BBC4, CBeebies and CBBC all came about from the BBC having the funding for two additional linear streams, but now they're at a point where they have to seemingly axe one linear stream it perhaps shouldn't be a question of which of their existing channels to axe but rather how to deliver their services across three general channels rather than four.

Now I don't like the decision to close the CBBC channel but I think that is the better option than merging it with CBeebies. However I don't think in the evenings it should be a choice between BBC3 or BBC4, and we can't keep having this cycle where one of the is closed only to be reinstated down the track. For me you replace them both, and with the buzz word to cover this round of cuts being "Digital First" you can cater to both audiences with a new channel operating in a non-traditional form. I think the solution here is quite obvious - "BBC Boxsets". Each night from 9pm they show either a complete series of a sitcom, whether classic or for BBC3, or a drama over a couple of nights, or a documentary. It allows for a mix of new and archive content, a mix of content primarily commissioned for BBC iPlayer or series airing on BBC1/2 but available as a boxset. It brings a digital approach to the linear environment, and it doesn't leave them with hours to fill for the sake of it. Just close for the night once the show of the evening is done, or rerun it if there is time


Now perhaps if it got a more generic name it could still be used for any overflow sport or events in the evening as well as boxsets, but ultimately I think rather than BBC3, BBC4 or the red button that is where you put a renew emphasis on pop-up iPlayer channels. I think they can work for sporting events like the FA Cup and iPlayer and things like Radio 1's Big Weekend and Glastonbury. A bit trickier for the lower key weekly sporting events but having a generic BBC Sport pop-up channel alongside those for specific events like the FA Cup and World Snooker Championships would cover most things.


(Similarly I think rather than BBC News suffering a death by a 1000 cuts rather than trying to keep the channel afloat you look at rebuilding it from scratch within the confines of the funding now available. That would probably end up being something more along the lines of CBSN. And then if you're truly about "digital first" you put the channel at the heart of a BBC News Portal which puts the channel alongside other content and makes it a valuable service to viewers, just in a new guise.)

[johnnyboy]

Now I don't like the decision to close the CBBC channel but I think that is the better option than merging it with CBBC.  However I don't think in the evenings it should be a choice between BBC3 or BBC4, and we can't keep having this cycle where one of the is closed only to be reinstated down the track.  For me you replace them both, and with the buzz word to cover this round of cuts being "Digital First" you can cater to both audiences with a new channel operating in a non-traditional form.  I think the solution here is quite obvious - "BBC Boxsets".  Each night from 9pm they show either a complete series of a sitcom, whether classic or for BBC3, or a drama over a couple of nights, or a documentary.  It allows for a mix of new and archive content, a mix of content primarily commissioned for BBC iPlayer or series airing on BBC1/2 but available as a boxset.  It brings a digital approach to the linear environment, and it doesn't leave them with hours to fill for the sake of it.  Just close for the night once the show of the evening is done, or rerun it if there is time

I like this idea. It actually reminds me of the original remit of BBC Choice with their weekend night catch-ups although I appreciate your suggestion is different.

They need to have a long-term approach, like you say, which focuses on delivering a set number of services. If the budgets change, they make the changes needed to continue delivering services to the highest quality.

The question is, and it's one on which we as a forum can't agree, which services?

[BBCMeridian]

Erm all the links were presented in the same style before the split in 2002, like for example these clips.

Quoting the Guardian article on CBBC and CBeebies' launch:

One crucial change is that, for the first time, BBC children's programmers have the freedom to target two distinct age groups (instead of lumping them together) and tailor the services appropriately.

Mr [Nigel] Pickard was recruited from the commercial sector two years ago when only one digital service was proposed: he successfully argued the television needs of a four-year-old were quite different to those of a 12-year-old.

Although I can't watch either channel from where I am, I agree with this approach. Stuck with one major English channel, I often found my early teenage self not being able to choose what to watch, as the 'children's TV' timeslot are often preschool programming on learning alphabets, than cartoons and teenage sitcoms. Like what others have repeatedly said, kids at different age have different needs, even if they're represented by the same faces.

"But they can choose what they want to watch online, it's much more convenient" - but I'd argue children's TV (strand or channel) is curated more carefully than, say, Youtube or TikTok algorithms. We've heard about terrible consequences led by online challenges, or NSFW content on a supposedly kids-friendly platform. With uncontrollable schedules, it's much easier for kids to be led astray by random content they consumed, especially in forms like autoplay.

---

Moving on to other aspects in the proposal, I'm not surprised with BBC4 closing, as their focus has shifted from the initial inspiring elements to whatever the BBC archive has. I think it can actually reposition the remaining channels: BBC1 as the place to be for fresh general entertainment, BBC2 is where you'd catch up your old-but-gold classics, and BBC3 is for the teens.

Some raise the necessity for BBC Scotland. I'm not too familiar with British politics, but to me it represents the viewers there better, when it has a separate identity. One thing I might change instead is BBC Alba: Can the two channels be broadcasted under the BBC Scotland banner? I mean, S4C used to do English/Welsh broadcasting, and RTE1 is a mix of English and Irish, maybe BBC Scotland can use the two languages concurrently as well?

I'm sorry but the guardian is wrong on this, it was a downhill for children's programmes on the BBC, Nigel Pickard damaged the children's brand on the BBC and I still stand by it, I still believe that younger and older children's audiences need to come together and I still believe that separating CBBC wouldn't happened if Nigel Pickard hadn't joined the BBC, another reason why I don't like the brand names and the logo was that when CBBC was last merged in 2001, it used corporate branding like they used the BBC One and BBC Two logos but added the C in front of them, and to be honest they could've still used the corporate logo and have the strand on One and Two known as C BBC, even if that means still launching two children's channels but instead of calling them CBBC and CBeebies, I would call them BBC Kids and BBC Junior, that's why I don't like the names of the channels and the fact that they're separated, never have and never will. Nobody has to agree with me but that's what I think.

[Newshound47]

The biggest issue with merging radio 4 and five is 4 would have to abandon having set news bulletins on some days Unless the BBC was willing to move important sporting events off radio all together to accommodate the times when they are two major live sporting events. The nature of sport broadcasting on the radio means it appeals to those who don’t have internet access at that moment.

[Col87]

I see some suggestions have been made about resurrecting the old afternoon BBC One slot after the linear CBBC channel has gone.  Interesting idea but can't see it happening myself.  The viewing figures were already low when they pulled kids programmes from BBC One in 2012.

But there was a difference then. In 2012 it was after digital switchover was complete and everyone had access to the CBBC channel. This is the channel going exclusively to Iplayer so it’ BBC Three all over again where people without decent internet are losing out.  
For everyone saying it don’t matter I disagree as well. The BBC needs to continue to provide children’s programs on linear Television. Considering license payers are paying for them why should anyone have to pay the license then pay for an internet to be able to watch them. Look what happened with BBC Three and them losing the target audience they still struggling to get that audience back. I can see the same happening here.

[L1]

I agree that the time is right for a wholesale review of all the BBC's channels. BBC Four going is a big opportunity to strengthen BBC Two making it the home of the arts, documentaries and shows traditionally seen on BBC Four. Two for many years has been the weak link in the portfolio IMO and now is a chance to address this.

Closing the CBBC Channel (although a pretty bold decision) seems to me to be the logical one. They can run the best of CBBC's shows in an afternoon block on Two and point viewers to the full catalogue on iPlayer. For the majority of CBBC's airtime the audience are at school anyway, not to mention the fact kids are largely watching over iPlayer aswell, and so again shutting the channel they can concentrate resources where the viewers actually are.

CBeebies is obviously a highly valued channel by it's audience at relatively low cost, and there isn't anything near as good provided outside the BBC and so I think completely the right decision in keeping that going. They obviously want to keep Three as the destination for the 16+ audience which isn't really served anywhere else on the BBC but I think extending CBeebies until 8PM would be a good move and erase the problem of Three being a wasteland pre-watershed frankly. Three again should be about showing the best of what they have up on iPlayer.

And BBC One is obviously the flagship channel which has the more unique role of providing a range of programming for a broader audience.

[Joe]

I was talking to Mr AndrewP about this yesterday and he said that whilst he understands why they want to shift everything on iPlayer hardly any of it's good. "Who's interested in Meet The Khans?"
He also said he felt the UI isn't as interesting or engaging as that of Netflix or Disney+
I wonder what everyone else's point of view is, perhaps the corporation should seek to improve its on-line offerings first before bludgeoning their traditional broadcast outlets.

Well to be honest, the iPlayer has attempted to coattail on the success of Netflix (in fact, in one of the BBC rebrand demos, we could see an interface not too dissimilar to the burning red streaming bridge) but I don't think they're doing enough to really gage with the audience.

One thing I've not seen is research groups who are actually reviewing the programming that BBC is producing for the service (that includes BBC Three content as well) and seeing what's really viable for them. Tell them to use nothing but iPlayer for their entertainment for a week and get results down for what audiences want out of their public service broadcaster. Really, the iPlayer is about as good as throwing darts (programme ideas) onto a wall (iPlayer) without really any prior review on what really caters to their demo, which should be a tech-savvy audience. All else fails, they lose that audience to streaming giants.

I'm not saying there ISN'T an audience for some programmes, but for the programmes that are advertised, surely there should be an algorithm telling them what they should watch? Not saying it's ethical, if say, the BBC promotes shows higher than others, but what is the BBC producing that audiences can't find better on Disney+? Amazon? etc.

Interested in why you think the BBC doesn’t use data to drive decisions? Is it because you don’t have access to it?

[Inspector Sands]

I, of course, appreciate that radio is overall a cheaper medium, but I think that Radio still gets off proportionately lightly with cuts - especially considering that all those radio stations do add up in monetary terms.

They do, but what's the better option for the BBC, which looks best for them - keep services on air, on the station list/EPG or trim the budget of a TV channel and lose a few episodes of a drama series? 

Its not a TV versus radio thing, it's not a punishment that must be equally given

Entire BBC TV services and now channels have been axed, while the question of axing or merging Radio stations, particularly local radio, doesn't seem to be seriously asked.
And I think there are cuts that can clearly be made - a rationalisation of Radios 3, 4 and 5 and a 50% reduction in the number of English local radio stations would save in the region of £70-90m (equivalent to the combined current budgets of BBC News and BBC Four).

The problem is that such things have been proposed in the past and rejected because they either don't make any sense in terms of public service or are just so unpopular. Look at when they wanted to close 6Music for example. 

Radio is not TV, to a certain extent they can move programmes between BBC1,2,3,4 fairly easily, but each radio station has a unique genre and has done since the 60s, its less of an option. You may say that there's news programmes on Radio 4 and Radio 5 so why not put them together, but they're different things for different audiences - PM and Five Live Drive aren't the same thing. I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue and The Proms aren't the same thing 

Local radio has been cut to the bone, both in previous cuts and by stealth over covid. Halving their number by merging stations is something that helps no-one, you get a station that's equally irrelevant in both areas. Also it's one of the few things that the BBC does that no one else does, with a few exception. Destroying a popular local radio station for the saving equivalent to a few episodes of Casualty isn't the way to go 

There's also the political pressure, any Radios 3,4 are very controversial, they appeal to a certain section of society that wouldn't let them change substantially. Equally politicians appear in Radio 4, 5 and local stations and are able to address different audiences through them.

[Newshound47]

Tim Davie was head of Radio during the time that the campaign to save 6 music existed so he knows full well how closing radio stations can lead to major campaigns against it.

[Brekkie]

Quoting the Guardian article on CBBC and CBeebies' launch:
Although I can't watch either channel from where I am, I agree with this approach. Stuck with one major English channel, I often found my early teenage self not being able to choose what to watch, as the 'children's TV' timeslot are often preschool programming on learning alphabets, than cartoons and teenage sitcoms. Like what others have repeatedly said, kids at different age have different needs, even if they're represented by the same faces.

"But they can choose what they want to watch online, it's much more convenient" - but I'd argue children's TV (strand or channel) is curated more carefully than, say, Youtube or TikTok algorithms. We've heard about terrible consequences led by online challenges, or NSFW content on a supposedly kids-friendly platform. With uncontrollable schedules, it's much easier for kids to be led astray by random content they consumed, especially in forms like autoplay.

I'm sorry but the guardian is wrong on this, it was a downhill for children's programmes on the BBC, Nigel Pickard damaged the children's brand on the BBC and I still stand by it, I still believe that younger and older children's audiences need to come together and I still believe that separating CBBC wouldn't happened if Nigel Pickard hadn't joined the BBC.

The only evidence I've ever seen to support your opinion is your opinion.   

Virtually everyone else and every tangible measure used by the BBC, not to mention the fact virtually every commercial rival took the same strategy, shows that your opinion is not shared by many.

If anything moving the content online would be justification to split CBBC further into say 6-9 year olds and 10-12.

[Inspector Sands]

Tim Davie was head of Radio during the time that the campaign to save 6 music existed so he knows full well how closing radio stations can lead to major campaigns against it.

Indeed, radio stations are very different to TV in the way that audiences think of them. Radio stations are very personal, people feel more ownership with them than a TV channel and are feel much more passionate toward them. It's a more personal medium.

[Brekkie]

I, of course, appreciate that radio is overall a cheaper medium, but I think that Radio still gets off proportionately lightly with cuts - especially considering that all those radio stations do add up in monetary terms.

They do, but what's the better option for the BBC, which looks best for them - keep services on air, on the station list/EPG or trim the budget of a TV channel and lose a few episodes of a drama series? 

Its not a TV versus radio thing, it's not a punishment that must be equally given

... cut for length ....

Quickly dipping into the radio argument I think it feels more protected because even with Global becoming more of a force it is still the area where the BBC are most dominant and isn't under threat from subscription models like TV.  

5 Live though seems to be the BBC4 of the argument, overlaps as the last of the 5 main stations to launch, but for me it's probably the most important national station and in many ways complements R4 rather than competes with it.  I suspect the audience profiles of the two are quite different.   Some would argue the growth of news based speech radio in recent years might be a reason to axe it but for me that is exactly why it is more needed than ever considering the obvious political leanings of most of their commercial rivals.

[XIII]

In regard to the Internet, keep in mind that with 4G and now 5G, people have access to faster internet than ever before and it's only going to get faster.

If I am to be honest, there is no benefit having a weekday afternoon kids block because it'll be little watched. What more likely to happen is selected CBBC content airing say on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon every so often with maybe a weekend  morning block on BBC Two just like they on ITV with CITV content.