BBC Value

[coalescent]

Independent review of the BBC's digital-only channels concludes that:

They have all largely met their remits and had a limited impact on their commercial competitors, it said.

But low viewing figures meant BBC Three and Four were poor value, it added.

BBC Three should relax its focus on 25- to 34-year-olds, the report says, calling it an "obsession" and a "creative straightjacket".

BBC Three and BBC Four need to increase their impact and value for money, while retaining their public service ethos

The channel's daily news show at 7pm should be scrapped because it "achieves nothing and attracts tiny audiences", while the BBC Four news show, The World, which airs at 8pm, should be substantially revamped or replaced.

And it says BBC Four should also have wider appeal and fewer arts programmes that "virtually no-one watches".

That last sentence really annoys me, because it seems to completely ignore the fact that at the moment, many people don't have access to the digital channels, full stop. I want to be watching many of those programmes; I just haven't been able to justify spending fifty pounds on a digital box yet. What I don't want is to get the channel and then for it to be watered down. And to be honest, I thought the whole point of BBC4 was that it didn't have to have wide appeal.

Comments

[sneerpout.livejournal.com]

One reason why I haven't bought a TV licence* is because I strongly object to being denied access to the other BBC channels. It's outrageously cheeky of the Beeb to expect fee payers to cough up another 50 quid just to receive these channels, given that ten per cent of each licence fee is spent on their development and funding. Humbug, etc.

*The other reason being that we don't own a television.

[lamentables.livejournal.com]

Never mind 50 quid, the only choice some of us have is between being limited to 4 terrestrial channels or investing in a satellite dish.

[sneerpout.livejournal.com]

Very good point. And then they wonder why the viewing figures are "disappointing".

[danmilburn.livejournal.com]

The article doesn't specify, but clearly they mean the ratings are disappointing in comparison to other non-terrestrial channels...

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Guardian article here has a bit more detail. And someone referring to those of us without digital boxes as 'refuseniks.' And someone suggesting that both channels be relaunched as 'mixed genre', which surely misses the point spectacularly.

[brisingamen.livejournal.com]

I'm not a refusenik; I've been waiting a) for the price to drop, b) for some reassurance that the service is stable ... but I'm tempted to refuse on the grounds that the arts programmes should be on terrestrial tv, rather than it being assumed that watching arts programmes is some sort of elitist occupation, that can then be phased out because no one watches them on BBC 4. I was under the (clearly erroneous) impression that the BBC, by virtue of being a public broadcasting service had some sort of duty to all its customers, and that means making a wide range of material available on the most widely available services. Reith must be turning in his grave. I, meanwhile, am getting really fed up with being penalised for having a taste in tv programming that doesn't run to makeover shows, makeover shows and more bloody makeover shows, and also for not having a set-top box.

[scribeoflight.livejournal.com]

What annoys me is that most of the digiboxes don't take cards for services like Film Four or E4... So you could get a box, but even if you wanted to, you couldn't "top it up" with other services - the box just doesn't have that facility.

Shame.

And I was ranting about this general topic last night - there don't seem to be any decent documentaries on BBC2 anymore.

[brisingamen.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'd noticed that too. I had vaguely thought that Film Four might be nice, if we had the facility anyway, etc. but maybe it's as well I don't watch that many films ...

There are precious few decent documentaries on tv, period, but BBC2 is getting worse and worse. I vaguely perked up at the thought of The Natural World (I had been enjoying Ray Mears' programme) until I discovered that it was going to be Simon King emoting all over the place this week. I'm sure he's wonderful but I do not like his style of quasi-anthropomorphising. I like my camera operators behind the camera, not in front of it.

And Horizon has become remarkably hit and miss, not that it's just a sink-hole for anything vaguely scientific, archaeological (and what is wrong with the Timewatch slot, exactly) and 'weird', and Timewatch is ...

I know that it's just that I'm getting old, I've seen it all before (I mean, I remember them doing the original stuff about the crater at Chixalub, etc.) and so on, but I can't believe I'm the only sentient being in the UK who's over forty and wants to be intelligently engaged by tv programmes.

And even Channel 4, which has had a surprisingly good run of history stuff this year (in among the dross, which has been legion), has taken to dotting individual episodes of series all over the bloody shop. I missed the rest of the series on Jewish Law because it was not shown on Mondays at 8 p.m., like the first one.

I'd get rid of the tv tomorrow except that it's not worth the hassle of having to deal with the TV Licensing Authority, who refuse to believe that anyone might do such a thing.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I can't believe I'm the only sentient being in the UK who's over forty and wants to be intelligently engaged by tv programmes.

Or indeed under 40. But hang in there; with the way demographics are going, youth tv will be a thing of the past in ten years' time.

[brisingamen.livejournal.com]

But aren't you under-40s supposed to be watching BBC3, or something.

Isn't this whole focus-by-age group thing utterly ridiculous? It makes far too many assumptions about what PK (52 and seriously into guitar bands of the early 21st century – I let the guys in the CD shops think I'm buying stuff for my sons) and I (45 but feeling more fogier than fogey with every passing day) ought to like, and has no consideration of the fact that in common with most people we know we have a fairly broad taste in stuff. I like to be able to indulge my inner Mona the Vampire and watch Robert Hughes talking about Goya. That's a well-balanced life, that is.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

I don't actually think £50 for a digibox is unreasonable. The thing that bothers me is that BBC4 is the last place where you can find the sort of programmes that BBC2 was created to show -- and if they dumb it down then there will be nothing left on TV to interest anyone with a brain.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I can forgive it for now because the whole broadcast system's going to go over to digital anyway in a couple of years, and I see that as a Good Thing.

[fba.livejournal.com]

But then you get to the conundrum of how you switch of the analog service. People won't buy a STB because they are 'too expensive' (personally speaking I think that *50 is good value for a piece of electronics - but I have more disposible incoming than many). This means that digital only channels have low viewing figures. This has the knock on effect of them being seen has poor value-for-money. I'm not sure the BBC can win here. ITV Digital proved that the majority of people are not willing to pay a subscription - so the driver for FTA digital has to come from programming and the BBC has a part to play in that.

What annoys me is that the TV manufacturing industry aren't building DTV receivers into new televisions. It is like they are sticking their fingers in their ears and singing 'lalalalalala'. Once the coverage is there and the government decides to switch off analog there would be much less pain if recently purchased TVs (say, in the past five years - i.e. from now given that the switch off should be by 2010) already had the functionality.....

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

What annoys me is that the TV manufacturing industry aren't building DTV receivers into new televisions.

Really? I thought they had to?

If and when I'm ever able to buy a new TV, will have to pay close attention to that bit.

[fba.livejournal.com]

Take a look on one of the big retailers websites. Out of the 41 WS TVs Comet (for example) list only 6 have integrated digital recievers.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I thought they had to?

I bought a new TV last week - three hundred quid and I had to get a digibox too. I never stopped to think 'this is a damn ripoff' but it is isn't it?

[sneerpout.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. I'd be delighted to pay an extra 50 GBP or more on top of the cost of a new television if it had a built-in DTV receiver. I just balk at buying an analogue-only TV and then having to pay for more equipment on the side. It's inelegant.

[gagravarr.livejournal.com]

If it was built into the TV, it'd probably only be an extra fiver.

It's only 50 quid because you have to include the overall box, the user interface, the power supply, and a few other things that a TV already has. The decoding hardware is really cheap.

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

I wavered over buying a TV with a DTV receiver and decided not to, as I knew I was going to cable and would get them through that. I'm sorry I did, now, as I would like to be able to video freeview stations while watching something on the cable channel. I suffer from terrible "everything on at the same time" problems.

[sparkymark.livejournal.com]

I don't know anything about cable, but its not trivial to tape off an IDTV: the tuner's in the TV so it has to be on and on the right station to provide the input to the VCR (my TV can be programmed to wake up from stand-by at a given time to provide the signal to the VCR: then you have to program the VCR as notmal but to take its input from "Line 1". You can then achieve spectacular howlround effects by viewing the VCR channel on the TV!).

I've had the Playstation going through one Scart socket while recording the tuner through another, so you can do something other than watch what you are recording, but I'm not sure you can actually watch different TV whilst recording.

Nothing stops you watching the digital channel live and recording BBC1 with the analogue tuner in the VCR of course.

FYI bought my Wega about three years ago in the days when everyone else who could get digital TV had OnDigital: it cost £1200 when a similar analogue TV would have been £700.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, well, the TV license. I get very good value out of the freeview channel that is far and away more popular than all the others*; but the real benefit I get from my TV license is the BBC website, by a considerable margin the very best website in the entire world. Also 6Music, which is where our 8 month search for a radio station fetched up.

*CBeebies

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

I rather like The World - its a good alternative to C4 news, the best news on television, and has a usefully different, more global perspective.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Well, that's been my opinion the couple of times I've managed to see it. But apparently we're wrong.

[danmilburn.livejournal.com]

BBC3 is for the most part a waste of time. Endless repeats of rubbish sitcoms, crap films and yet more Eastenders.. The only worthwhile show I've noticed they've had was Bodies.

And to be honest, I thought the whole point of BBC4 was that it didn't have to have wide appeal.

Well, quite.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I'm quite willing to believe that. The only times I've ever felt a vague wish for BBC3 were when they were showing episodes of 24 a week before BBC2, and when they were showing episodes of Coupling a month before BBC2. But since they all arrived on BBC2 eventually ...

[zihuatenejo.livejournal.com]

If the BBC were forced to only show stuff the everyone watched then they might as well just close down and leave ITV and Sky to it. There is plenty of mass market crap around I for one am happy for the BBC to use a chunk of my licence fee for stuff that virtually no-one (including me) watches because I still feel that it is important for this content to be produced and shown. I thought that the advent of digital was supposed to provide more choice not more of the same.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I for one am happy for the BBC to use a chunk of my licence fee for stuff that virtually no-one (including me) watches because I still feel that it is important for this content to be produced and shown.

Absolutely. I want the shows that only me and three other people are interested in, so I also want the shows that only four people, none of whom are me, are interested in.

[brisingamen.livejournal.com]

Yes, absolutely ... but it would be nice if they did put them where just a few more people could find them. There seem to be certain assumptions operating about who can, so to speak, 'afford' to watch what, and I do not think it becomes the BBC to effectively arbitrate on who gets to watch what in terms of highbrow and lowbrow programming. That's not what I pay the licence fee for. (Mostly I think I pay for some of the more acceptable bits of speech programming on Radio 3, and Melvyn Bragg on Radio 4 ... and I'm happy to pay for that because they're where people can get at them!)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

There seem to be certain assumptions operating about who can, so to speak, 'afford' to watch what, and I do not think it becomes the BBC to effectively arbitrate on who gets to watch what in terms of highbrow and lowbrow programming.

The thing is, it's only a temporary situation. In five years, BBC4 will be (to a first approximation) as widely available as BBC1 is now. I can't imagine it would have made any kind of sense to launch it as a traditional broadcast channel when you know you'll be switching to digital in the near future. This way, they get to try out the technology and add a good channel. Yes, you can argue that they should have just changed BBC2 rather than inventing BBC4, but to be honest I can't imagine that that would ever have happened.

So I don't really fault the Beeb too much on this one; if it's not a least-bad approach, it's pretty close to it. I'm rather more concerned that these independent reviewers want to bland up BBC4 before I ever get to see it!

[brisingamen.livejournal.com]

I hear what you say, but my perception has been that they pretty much shipped everything that made BBC2 worthwhile to BBC4 and then complained that no one watched it. One of my big concerns is that they're not actively encouraging people to make the move to digital by properly showcasing what's available. To me it makes no sense to, say, move all but the First and Last Nights of the Proms to Beeb4 and then complain that no one is watching it, any more than those infuriatingly smug little 'you can watch more about this on BBC4' trailers encourage me to rush out now and buy a box. They just make me want to smack someone in the teeth.

The problem, the Beeb keeps saying, is that people aren't going over to digital fast enough. Which may be true, but I think they've got to be looking at why people aren't going over to digital fast enough rather than suggesting that the channels aren't attracting anyone.

I actually suspect many people are holding out until the cut-off date, waiting to get a brand-new tv with added extras, rather than jury-rigging the whole thing together. I mean, I'm fairly unimpressed that, for example, I can't watch one programme and video another if I'm using the digibox (and it is copper-bottom guaranteed that if there are two programmes in a week that I want to watch they will be on at the same time). I'd quite like to wait until they've sorted that out.

And I'm just mutinous because the BBC is so bloody patronising about the whole thing, ditto the independent reviewers.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I want to see foreign language films, and old B/W films, on BBC4 in the evening

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

That's a good idea, although I wouldn't want them every evening.

Interesting disconnection

[applez.livejournal.com]

It has become increasingly common for digital receivers and digital-enabled plasma screen TVs to be found in US households. Simultaneously, there is very little digital programming available, making the everyday broadcasts look horrible on these larger screens.

Now, it seems, BBC has heaps of digital programming for a market lacking in receivers and TV systems.

---

My own view - now that I have to consider Larissa's vision, I may have to seriously considering getting large viewing systems ... but my limited house-space means I cannot realistically use one of those beheamouth systems. A wallmount plasma might be feasible (depending on cost), but for my earthquake concerns.

That leaves me with mobile screens and projectors, which I like most ... but digital programming will be of little value.

Re: Interesting disconnection

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but I thought you might get a kick out of this:

If presidential debates were moderated by SF fans ...

Re: Interesting disconnection

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

Now, it seems, BBC has heaps of digital programming for a market lacking in receivers and TV systems.

Well, 13 million households can receive digital programming so the market isn't exactly lacking. It's just not 100% which is what the BBC needs it to be in eight years time.

[ajp.livejournal.com]

BBC Three should relax its focus on 25- to 34-year-olds, the report says, calling it an "obsession" and a "creative straightjacket".

I'll say. I'm well and truly in that demographic - and I don't think that I have ever found anything I wanted to watch on BBC3.

The [BBC3] daily news show at 7pm should be scrapped because it "achieves nothing and attracts tiny audiences"

There's a simple reason for that. The people who watch the news, aren't watching BBC3 - the people who watch BBC3 don't care about the news...

And it says BBC Four should also have wider appeal and fewer arts programmes that "virtually no-one watches".

BBC4 has some great programmes; but unfortunately the big problem with it is that they seem to only cater for "one quarter of the circle". Where are all of the quality science programmes? Where are the history programmes? Why are there so few current affairs programmes?

What I don't want is to get the channel and then for it to be watered down.

Honestly, at the moment it needs changing. Most of the time it is really only appealing to those with a very limited taste. If that's you, then it's great - otherwise, not so much.