BBC Four & CBBC to close

[Kunst]

And yes, there are lot of poor people around, but who doesn't have a wee bit or Internet, these days?

[Col87]

It’s daft people are suggesting the BBC should abandon digital first, given how connected people are these days, going back to linear and abandoning iPlayer would be extremely stupid

I never said abandon Iplayer I said they should be concentrating on providing PSB content not messing around using buzz words to hide cuts.

---

And yes, there are lot of poor people around, but who doesn't have a wee bit or Internet, these days?

 People who live in rural areas without broadband for a start. Internet even a wee bit can still be an additional cost.

[RR]

Which brings me to this need for the BBC to get viewers online. Programmes are already online. People know about iPlayer. Maybe it's the case they choose not to use it more than they already do because they don't like it? What exactly is the content that is going to make iPlayer use go through the roof? The shows that attract the most viewers every year are event TV, big dramas and live sport which cost serious money and are unrepresentative of the BBC's output on the whole. There isn't the budget for more of it.

Trying to convert linear viewers is also counterproductive if they miss key PSB content such as news because they binge-watch other stuff on the iPlayer. Then once they have ploughed the archive and rely on dribs and drabs, much like what has happened with Netflix, people will question what they are actually paying for.

One factor to take into account is the use of PVRs such as those from Sky, Virgin Media, BT, and on Freesat / Freeview. I'm sure I am not alone in recording programmes I intend to watch later, but if such programmes are no longer on a linear channel that option will not be available, and I will watch the likes of iPlayer instead. Sky and Virgin's catch up services (the latter doesn't include BBC programmes) have similar arguments.

[Kunst]

I'm "guilty" myself of watching (a not so huge amount) TV mostly with streaming these days, except for live programmes; it's not a crime anyway!

You can't really blame people, for not wanting their shows to be interrupted by advertising each 15 minutes or so (commercial operations) or sticking to an established TV schedule... I guess I like presentation, graphics, and things like that, but let's be real, it's a niche

And in 3 years, even some older people will convert to even more streaming, as broadband will be even more available

[XIII]

I’d be very surprised if there are that many people without access to the internet. It’s such an essential part of life that anyone who doesn’t have it will struggle to get along in life.

[Newshound47]

The thing is most programmes on the main five channels still have the majority of the viewers watch linear. There are not that many programmes that have over 50% watching it on catch-up.

[DTV]

To be honest, I am quite surprised at how lightly Radio (and not just local) has been cut. 

It's because it's the cheaper medium so there's less to cut.  For example BBC One costs £900 million a year, if they cut 10% of it's budget that's is the equivalent of Radios 1, 1 Xtra, Radio 3 and 6 Music .... so what's the better to cut?





That said it is their cheapest radio station, and one of the most popular digital-only stations that's getting the axe - Radio 4 Extra costs a bargain £3 million a year

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. 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).

Radio 3 is as expensive per listener hour as BBC One or Two are per viewer hour and is frequently accused of not offering anything really different to competitors like Classic FM. Radio 4 produces seven to eight hours of news and current affairs programming per day (not including WS simulcast), which produces elements of duplication with Radio 5 Live's news-oriented output. 5 Live's phone-in dominated schedule has also been criticised for offering little variation and being too similar to commercial competitors like LBC or Talk Radio. I just think that having one radio station that mixes 3's cultural and classical output with 4's dramas, comedies and non-factual talks with another station that combines 4's flagship news and factual programmes with some phone-ins and live sport gives a holy trinity of significant savings, no total elimination of any individual service and a better PSB justification for what is left.

English local radio is obviously responsible for a lot of duplication and is the largest single component of the BBC Radio buget, even with increased amounts of sharing between neighbours. But I don't think you'd particularly lose a lot if you merged most stations together to match the TV regions, with some potential exceptions (for instance, I think an argument can be made that the West Midlands county and the wider West Midlands region could be better served by different services).

Again, I understand that TV is more expensive and you get to cut less output per £ of savings, but I think there has been a real asymmetry in how the cutbacks have affected television and radio. BBC One might have the biggest budget by far, but it is also the only part of the BBC's broadcast output that is actually used by the majority of the population every week. Radio 2 is the only radio station with a weekly reach of over 20%. While the BBC, as a PSB, should obviously produce stuff for minority audiences that other broadcasters won't produce, I think people forget the other half of that bargain is producing popular programming that allows for the BBC to justify itself and ultimately allow for cross-subsidisation of those minority-interest services.

Apologies for the essay.

[Keith]

Having had a day to think about it overall I think the proposals are fairly reasonable, considering the situation they find themselves in with the licence fee.

With CBBC I'd have thought that most weekdays between 9am and 3pm there wouldn't be many viewers, as the majority will be in school. For those off sick there's offerings on iPlayer, as well as commercial offerings such as Netflix/Prime/Disney+. I'd like to think they'd consider reintroducing a limited amount of CBBC on BBC Two to allow some original content to get a linear showing, for example 5.15 to 6pm weekdays, and maybe Sunday mornings (similar to Saturdays).

For BBC Four it's fair to say the channel has already been stripped back quite a bit. Hopefully some of it's remaining content can be moved over to BBC Two, now that BBC Three has returned, and that might strengthen BBC Two's output. Axing the channel along with CBBC means that there isn't 12 hours a day of essentially dead airtime. I think it was still right for BBC Three to return to linear, as previous you had "BBC One, Two, Four" when looking at your TV guide. At least now "BBC One/Two/Three" doesn't give an awkward numeric gap.

The closure of the Oxford and Cambridge opt-outs is one that'll presumably get relatively few objections national. As well as saving on broadcasting additional regional news programmes it presumably saves money on not needing separate BBC One HD channels for Cambridge and Oxford. Both already get share their Sunday Politics show with the wider region (e.g. Cambridge & Norwich), so the local politicians won't lose out on their appearances. It'll be interesting to see if BBC One North still goes ahead now.

[tellyblues]

The argument of accessibility aside, BBC1 and BBC2 doesn't show enough content for younger viewers, which is partly the reason why the average age of a BBC viewer is so high. That programmes made for "a general audience" can appeal to younger viewers is irrelevant as they aren't represented on screen.

[Kunst]

Having had a day to think about it overall I think the proposals are fairly reasonable, considering the situation they find themselves in with the licence fee.

With CBBC I'd have thought that most weekdays between 9am and 3pm there wouldn't be many viewers, as the majority will be in school.  For those off sick there's offerings on iPlayer, as well as commercial offerings such as Netflix/Prime/Disney+.  I'd like to think they'd consider reintroducing a limited amount of CBBC on BBC Two to allow some original content to get a linear showing, for example 5.15 to 6pm weekdays, and maybe Sunday mornings (similar to Saturdays).

For BBC Four it's fair to say the channel has already been stripped back quite a bit.  Hopefully some of it's remaining content can be moved over to BBC Two, now that BBC Three has returned, and that might strengthen BBC Two's output.  Axing the channel along with CBBC means that there isn't 12 hours a day of essentially dead airtime.  I think it was still right for BBC Three to return to linear, as previous you had "BBC One, Two, Four" when looking at your TV guide.  At least now "BBC One/Two/Three" doesn't give an awkward numeric gap.

The closure of the Oxford and Cambridge opt-outs is one that'll presumably get relatively few objections national.  As well as saving on broadcasting additional regional news programmes it presumably saves money on not needing separate BBC One HD channels for Cambridge and Oxford.  Both already get share their Sunday Politics show with the wider region (e.g. Cambridge & Norwich), so the local politicians won't lose out on their appearances.  It'll be interesting to see if BBC One North still goes ahead now.

A very reasonable and balanced post I would say (with the same observations I had): moving CBBC to something like 4pm-6pm as a window on Two, would definitely work, just as moving some BBC4 content on Two.


They save a whole frequency this time , with no dead time, and YEAH, BBC One-Two-Three work a lot better than BBC One-Two-Four!!
I so think shutting down Three was a big mistake!

[AndrewP]

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.


Does anyone know which WS languages will be switched off on radio?

[Rex]

Having had a day to think about it overall I think the proposals are fairly reasonable, considering the situation they find themselves in with the licence fee.

With CBBC I'd have thought that most weekdays between 9am and 3pm there wouldn't be many viewers, as the majority will be in school.  For those off sick there's offerings on iPlayer, as well as commercial offerings such as Netflix/Prime/Disney+.  I'd like to think they'd consider reintroducing a limited amount of CBBC on BBC Two to allow some original content to get a linear showing, for example 5.15 to 6pm weekdays, and maybe Sunday mornings (similar to Saturdays).

For BBC Four it's fair to say the channel has already been stripped back quite a bit.  Hopefully some of it's remaining content can be moved over to BBC Two, now that BBC Three has returned, and that might strengthen BBC Two's output.  Axing the channel along with CBBC means that there isn't 12 hours a day of essentially dead airtime.  I think it was still right for BBC Three to return to linear, as previous you had "BBC One, Two, Four" when looking at your TV guide.  At least now "BBC One/Two/Three" doesn't give an awkward numeric gap.

The closure of the Oxford and Cambridge opt-outs is one that'll presumably get relatively few objections national.  As well as saving on broadcasting additional regional news programmes it presumably saves money on not needing separate BBC One HD channels for Cambridge and Oxford.  Both already get share their Sunday Politics show with the wider region (e.g. Cambridge & Norwich), so the local politicians won't lose out on their appearances.  It'll be interesting to see if BBC One North still goes ahead now.

A very reasonable and balanced post I would say (with the same observations I had): moving CBBC to something like 4pm-6pm as a window on Two, would definitely work, just as moving some BBC4 content on Two.


They save a whole frequency this time , with no dead time, and YEAH, BBC One-Two-Three work a lot better than BBC One-Two-Four!!
I so think shutting down Three was a big mistake!

I don't think they'd need to worry about Freeview capacity either at least for SD multiplexes, closing the fourth BBC stream saves them enough for another Red Button channel in case. HD is a tough one - BBC Three HD isn't there in Scotland and Wales. 

Relaunching Three also streamlines some of the content that was shunted to Four too, like sport overflow coverage and music concerts.

[JetixFann450]

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.

[i.h]

And yes, there are lot of poor people around, but who doesn't have a wee bit or Internet, these days?

 People who live in rural areas without broadband for a start. Internet even a wee bit can still be an additional cost.

Rural areas are actually more likely to have better internet than many in urban areas, since copper-based solutions don’t work so well, they had to go straight to fibre to the home. It’s a tiny issue now & it will be virtually insignificant by the time these decisions go through. BT actively wants the copper gone and is going at full speed to get there. But again, the speed is relatively unimportant, you only need a few megs to do this & very very few people are unable to get that even today.

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

[Markymark]

I’d be very surprised if there are that many people without access to the internet. It’s such an essential part of life that anyone who doesn’t have it will struggle to get along in life.

Indeed, you often see outrage on social media when an area's broadband or mobile network goes down, from folk, saying, 'I have no Internet connection, I can't do anything !

Err..........