B.B.C 3 to be axed ?

[Man of Harveys]

but when did BBC ever do anything sensible?

Yeah, it's total crap isn't it.

 

[East Preston Gull]

It is shit and won't be missed, Those smug tools grimshaw and James will now be off our screens and stuck back on Radio(no)one

 

[Tricky Dicky]

This is the one that isn't the Andre Reiu channel?

It does have lots of good music stuff on. It used to show Arty, foreign classic films but this seems to have stopped

Yup, I'd noticed the Reiu thing too, but SA1 has quite a lot of music stuff that suits me, any Blues, Blues/Rock type stuff fits the bill (To be fair, BBC4 had the super doc "Life Of Riley" the other day about B.B.King).

 

[RM-Taylor]

It won't happen, 6Music and Asian Network are examples of the BBC saying this

Surely BBC Parliament should go though, who on earth watches that?

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

The BBC are incredibly out of touch and are starting to alienate their younger audience by scrapping the only channel targeted at young people. True, some programs on there have been shite - but ALL channels these days are showing some sort of crap. The assumption that all young people will just watch it online as well is ridiculous. The BBC tried some online-only shows last year and they all massively flopped. Had Gavin and Stacey for example been online-only, I highly doubt it would have made it past 1 series. If they think people solely watch programs online these days, why doesnt the BBC simply scrap every channel ?

Add this to the constant Radio 1 changes by getting rid of the popular Chris Moyles and replacing him with someone who is just interested in being friends with One Direction amongst other things, then you can see the BBC simply dont care. Its clear there is 2 camps with this, 1 camp are the ones who want to save it (IE its actual targetted audience) and the other camp the people who want it axed - who arent the target audience. Of course, the middle-aged people get the say over young people though.....

BBC4 gets MUCH lower viewing figures than BBC3, yet that gets saved - as does BBC Parliament. BBC4 could EASILY be merged with BBC2 and Parliament could be merged with BBC News, with added bits on the Red Button. Maybe they could simply cut back on the amount of shite they show too.

Incredibly short-sighted.

 

[RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased)]

It won't happen, 6Music and Asian Network are examples of the BBC saying this

Surely BBC Parliament should go though, who on earth watches that?

Oh come on, surely everyone watches full 8 hour re runs of the 1974 or 79 general elections, or the parliamentary select committee meetings on wether marmite is nice or not (it is by the way)

 

[Weststander]

Agreed. It's awful tripe for idiots. BBC4 on the other hand has become an institution since it launched. If they ever dabbled with that then I would refuse to pay my license.

BBC4 is brilliant. Music documentaries, dramas such as Mad Men, european subtitled crime dramas, occasional films, and some great comedies such as The Thick Of it.

According to the Guardian, axing BBC3 will help save £100m per year. - it makes sense as they rein in their extravagant budgets.

 

[Weststander]

The BBC are incredibly out of touch and are starting to alienate their younger audience by scrapping the only channel targeted at young people. True, some programs on there have been shite - but ALL channels these days are showing some sort of crap. The assumption that all young people will just watch it online as well is ridiculous. The BBC tried some online-only shows last year and they all massively flopped. Had Gavin and Stacey for example been online-only, I highly doubt it would have made it past 1 series. If they think people solely watch programs online these days, why doesnt the BBC simply scrap every channel ?

Add this to the constant Radio 1 changes by getting rid of the popular Chris Moyles and replacing him with someone who is just interested in being friends with One Direction amongst other things, then you can see the BBC simply dont care. Its clear there is 2 camps with this, 1 camp are the ones who want to save it (IE its actual targetted audience) and the other camp the people who want it axed - who arent the target audience. Of course, the middle-aged people get the say over young people though.....

BBC4 gets MUCH lower viewing figures than BBC3, yet that gets saved - as does BBC Parliament. BBC4 could EASILY be merged with BBC2 and Parliament could be merged with BBC News, with added bits on the Red Button. Maybe they could simply cut back on the amount of shite they show too.

Incredibly short-sighted.

BBC3 costs us £90m per year.
BBC4 costs us £35m per year.
Both have relatively low viewing figures, so the £90m stands out.

 

[melias shoes]

Add Uncle to that list.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

BBC3 costs us £90m per year.
BBC4 costs us £35m per year.
Both have relatively low viewing figures, so the £90m stands out.

Hence why I said they would be better off cutting BBC4 and Parliament and making savings elsewhere instead of yet again penalising young people, who will now not be catered for on the BBC except online, which again is an assumption that all young people get access to the internet and that all young people watch programs online.

Lots of shows will now not be made, however good they are, because there will simply be no space on BBC schedules or demand online.

20,000 people have signed a petition today alone to save BBC3, lots of celebrities included in that too, incredibly similar to when 6 Music was going to be axed, since then it has grown massively. Speaking of music, BBC3 was the primary cover channel for Glastonbury, Reading/Leeds Festivals and R1 Big Weekend - none of which might now get shown on TV.

On a side note, BBC1 costs over £1 BILLION, perhaps they could save money from the shite that occasionally gets served up on there.

 

[T soprano]

It's awful tripe for idiots.

I like it

 

[Weststander]

Hence why I said they would be better off cutting BBC4 and Parliament and making savings elsewhere instead of yet again penalising young people, who will now not be catered for on the BBC except online, which again is an assumption that all young people get access to the internet and that all young people watch programs online.

Lots of shows will now not be made, however good they are, because there will simply be no space on BBC schedules or demand online.

20,000 people have signed a petition today alone to save BBC3, lots of celebrities included in that too, incredibly similar to when 6 Music was going to be axed, since then it has grown massively. Speaking of music, BBC3 was the primary cover channel for Glastonbury, Reading/Leeds Festivals and R1 Big Weekend - none of which might now get shown on TV.

On a side note, BBC1 costs over £1 BILLION, perhaps they could save money from the shite that occasionally gets served up on there.

Disagree about BBC4 - love it, and know many others of differing age groups who do too. And great value at £35m, compared to BBC3 and others.

But I know what you mean about the cost of the main BBC channels. For example, whenever they cover Olympics and World Cups, they send dozens of immensely high paid celebs from their 'face fits' clique like Jonathan Edwards, Clare Balding, John Inverdale - mainly typically private educated and squeaky clean, on a jolly. In addition to costly production teams.

 

[T soprano]

Uncle was the best comedy Auntie have come up with in ages

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Disagree about BBC4 - love it, and know many others of differing age groups who do too. And great value at £35m, compared to BBC3 and others.

But I know what you mean about the cost of the main BBC channels. For example, whenever they cover Olympics and World Cups, they send dozens of immensely high paid celebs from their 'face fits' clique like Jonathan Edwards, Clare Balding, John Inverdale - mainly typically private educated and squeaky clean, on a jolly. In addition to costly production teams.

BBC3 is actually cheaper to run per hour than BBC2, BBC4 and Parliament as well. The BBC must surely have scope to cut back on wages, shite programming etc and keep channels as they are too, except Parliament - which may as well be axed, why this hasnt been considered either as well is beyond me as it can easily be incorporated onto the red button.

 

[Northstandite]

BBC3 is actually cheaper to run per hour than BBC2, BBC4 and Parliament as well. The BBC must surely have scope to cut back on wages, shite programming etc and keep channels as they are too, except Parliament - which may as well be axed, why this hasnt been considered either as well is beyond me as it can easily be incorporated onto the red button.

BBC4 costs £35m per annum, and BBC3 £90m per annum. For your per hour stat to be true, BBC3 would have to be broadcast for 3 times as many hours. Doesn't stack up.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

BBC4 costs £35m per annum, and BBC3 £90m per annum. For your per hour stat to be true, BBC3 would have to be broadcast for 3 times as many hours. Doesn't stack up.

Its from the BBC's Annual Report. http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/2013/executive/performance/performance-by-service.html

 

[RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased)]

I like it

Indeed.
I wonder what's more idiotic.
People who watch B.B.C 3 or people who lash out because they can't bear to think someone likes something you don't and doesn't agree with you.

 

[clapham_gull]

I always thought BBC 3 could (and still could be used) to broadcast programmes made by the person on the street. The ability to make something of enough quality is much easier than it was a few years ago.

An extended YouTube if you like. You can limit the length to 15 mins.

The overhead would be watching it and complying it (that's the process of ensuring nothing will offend especially pure watershed) but you could technically get the viewers to schedule the thing if they voted on line against a promo.

With younger viewers given them a sense of control and ability to contribute is quite important I think.

Every now and then an absolute gem would surface. That would probably work better online as well.

 

[beorhthelm]

The BBC are incredibly out of touch and are starting to alienate their younger audience by scrapping the only channel targeted at young people.

as i understand it they want to make it online only. its focused at the younger audience, who spend most their time online. so it is prehaps staying very much in touch with their target audience?

 

[clapham_gull]

as i understand it they want to make it online only. its focused at the younger audience, who spend most their time online. so it is prehaps staying very much in touch with their target audience?

It's slightly paradoxical. The BBC struggle to audiences in that age range because of the on line competition (including social networking) thus create a channel extremely focussed towards them.

They then decide to push that channel right back into the middle of the space they are competing against.

It does make sense financially now I guess because it's a cheaper way of distributing and younger viewers won't struggling adapting. However not too far in the future it won't be an option because ALL channels will be distributed over IP networks even if then you decide to watch it on a TV in your living room.