(27-05-2022, 03:49 PM)BBCMeridian Wrote:The only evidence I've ever seen to support your opinion is your opinion.(27-05-2022, 09:08 AM)W. Knight Wrote: Quoting the Guardian article on CBBC and CBeebies' launch: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.
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.
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.
@Brekkietweets
