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

[telebox2001]

The Guardian have the full story...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/a...or-general

An difficult situation when the Corporation have just launched (or relaunched) a new linear channel.  Whilst cutting the amount of programmes may save the smaller linear channels, is there any point having so many linear channels if there is not enough content to fill them all?

With streaming becoming more and more at the forefront (especially services like iPlayer which are free at the point of delivery, which people appear to be turning to instead of Netflix et al) of the television landscape, do we need so many linear networks which broadcast relatively little in the way of live programming?

[JetixFann450]

This may put a hampering on the BBC Chameleon roll-out I'm assuming.

I think there has to be some sort of anchor that's preventing the BBC from going forward, and it obviously isn't the channels like BBC Three or BBC Scotland, although saying that I don't think either have been producing content that viewers particularly want, BBC Three moreso.

[Stuart]

Whether something is on a streaming service or a linear channel is rather irrelevant to many people these days. You still need new quality content at some point, whether it's produced by BBC Studios or Indies.

[Inspector Sands]

Yes, I don't think the launch of BBC Three meant a big increase in content being made for BBC Three. It's been a mixture of stuff that was originally made for it when it was non-linear and the odd thing the BBC had rights to anyway just given a broadcast outlet

[Stuart]

Why does Davie state:

. . . the overall shift to digital viewing could be seen in the viewing figures for the latest episode of Peaky Blinders, with almost half of its 8.7 million viewers watching on iPlayer.

There is no 'non-digital' broadcasting.  Is he afraid of calling iPlayer 'streaming'?

It makes me think that either he doesn't understand his brief, or doesn't want to accept the way content delivery has changed.

[telebox2001]

Why would he be afraid of calling iPlayer "streaming" - which it is?

If there's a list of things people would miss if the BBC went tomorrow, I'd take a small bet that iPlayer would be very near, if not at the very top, of it.

[Keith]

The timing of this does seem to coincide with today's news that the government was looking for more ways to help people with the cost of living crisis. If I was being cynical I'd suggest this might also be an attempt to prevent any further cuts to the licence fee.

I dare say if it wasn't for national politics they might consider closing the BBC Scotland channel. After all that channel has some original programming and requires an additional channel number & resources on platforms. Arguably if it were to close they could reintroduce BBC 2 Scotland, a promise to make Scottish programming more prominent, and maybe have a Scottish Six.

Radio stations such as 4 Extra are already essentially an archive service. Similarly BBC Two weekdays in the mornings already simulcasts with the News Channel. I dare say for small savings they might be tempted to look at trying to automate the likes of 1Xtra and 6 Music.

[DTV]

Fundamentally Davie isn't wrong that the BBC is spread too thin relative to its budget, but he is once again simply making allusions and not talking about specifics. It has undeniably got to the point where entire services have to axed or merged purely to save on operational costs. He is also not open about the fact that it has now got to the point that the viewer will notice further cuts in original programming.

He suggests that other channels might go down the BBC Four route of archive-only, but what's the point in having a stable of archive channels (especially when that is a function that UKTV already fulfills, with added profit). Plus, BBC One is the only of the four main BBC channels that is anywhere close to majority original content already. On BBC Two, there is as little as two hours non-news original content some weekdays. This upcoming weekend, there is only a single hour of BBC Two's schedule that is not a repeat or sports coverage (and that is an imported Ken Burns documentary).

[Brekkie]

I think there has to be some sort of anchor that's preventing the BBC from going forward.

I think we all know who that is.

No surprise at all - cuts in funding always means cuts in services however it is spun.

[tellyblues]

No reason why programmes made for BBC3 or BBC Scotland which sometimes appear on the two main channels couldn't be shown there in normal circumstances. The problem is they aren't prominent enough - same as before when the new channels were used as a bargaining tool so that people could see this content in primetime. Meanwhile, viewers of a particular demographic get catered for ahead of all others.

[TWO ident]

BBC Two could quite easily go back to being an evenings-only channel (barring politics and live sport), though as another poster said given the low amount of original content that’s on anyway it’s questionable how much would be saved. I guess it would save on a few repeat fees at least.

[DTV]

BBC Two could quite easily go back to being an evenings-only channel (barring politics and live sport), though as another poster said given the low amount of original content that’s on anyway it’s questionable how much would be saved. I guess it would save on a few repeat fees at least.

In fact, given that the BBC News channel produces little original content outside of 09:00-18:00, you could make an argument that, if worst comes to worst, you could merge BBC Two and BBC News - rolling news during the day, entertainment during the evening, tack The Papers onto Newsnight. You could even show Outside Source at 19:00 as that hour tends towards repeats anyway. Of course, during Sports events (Snooker, Wimbledon) you would hit a bit of a problem, but, unless there was a big story, you could easily reduce the news to hourly five-minute summaries or so for the core of the afternoon.

[XIII]

Turning BBC Two into BBC News in daytime is a daft idea, what happens to coverage of Wimbledon and Snooker as it can't all go to BBC One.

[DTV]

Turning BBC Two into BBC News in daytime is a daft idea, what happens to coverage of Wimbledon and Snooker as it can't all go to BBC One.

Well, as I said, you hit a bit of a problem for the few weeks a year that Wimbledon or Snooker is on. But in those cases you could easily drop an afternoon of rolling news if there are no major stories on. During an afternoon Snooker slot, that typically lasts from 13:00-17:15, you could have a short news update at 14:00 and 16:00 and a longer update or short bulletin at 15:00. It might be a departure from the rolling news we currently have, but it isn't dissimilar to what happened in the 90s with the hourly news summaries. If there are big stories, then the BBC would have to make a decision which should take priority - as they did before News 24.

Before you say 'but it isn't the 90s', well obviously. But what is being outlined is the BBC effectively returning to pre-digital levels of original content production. There is no need for the BBC to have post-digital levels of channels if they aren't going to produce enough content to fill them. At no point did I say this is what they should do, I merely suggested it as a radical possible solution to the problems facing BBC Two. Let's face it, ten years ago you and I would have said it was daft to simulcast 3 1/4 hours of BBC News on BBC Two during the morning, but here we are.

[TWO ident]

Turning BBC Two into BBC News in daytime is a daft idea, what happens to coverage of Wimbledon and Snooker as it can't all go to BBC One.

Really there’s no need to simulcast BBC News during ‘dead time’ now except perhaps in situations of major breaking news. BBC Two could just come on and off the air as and when needed just like it used to for Play School and the Open University. Even much of BBC One daytime is not exactly the pinnacle of public service broadcasting and should IMO be the first thing they look at when making cuts although I get castigated in another place for saying it.