BBC3 & 4 Get Slated

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...326226,00.html

BBC digital channels 'poor value for money'

Owen Gibson, chief reporter
Wednesday October 13, 2004

BBC3 and BBC4 represent "poor value for money" and do little to connect
with viewers or drive the growth of digital TV, says a long-awaited
government report that will give further ammunition to the critics who
think they are a waste of licence payers' money.
An independent review ordered by the government today delivers a
scathing verdict on the BBC's digital channels, which are funded by more
than £150m a year of licence payers' money.

However, it praises the BBC's children's channels, CBeebies and CBBC.
CBeebies was recognised as "a triumph" while CBBC described as a
"distinctive service with high quality UK-produced content free from
advertisements".

"I recommend the BBC to stop thinking of BBC3 and BBC4 as niche channels
and start treating them as mainstream channels, like BBC1 and BBC2 but
smaller and more innovative," says Professor Patrick Barwise, the
respected economist who wrote the report.

"What people want from the BBC is more good programmes with broad appeal
that cover a range of genres."

The report, commissioned by the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, as part
of the run-up to charter review, also implicitly criticises the
government for allowing the BBC to launch channels that appeal only to
niche audiences.

BBC3 was launched 18 months ago but was borne out of BBC Choice, a
much-derided youth channel conceived as part of former director general
John Birt's blueprint for the corporation in the 21st century.

BBC3 soaks up £99.4m a year while arts channel BBC4 costs £35.2m a year
to run.

Prof Barwise says in his report that the channels largely met their
government remits, but they are still doing little to appeal to viewers
and should do more to attract "digital refuseniks" who have yet to
convert to digital TV.

"The obsession with 25 to 34s is a creative straightjacket from which
BBC3 should be released," he says, adding that both BBC3 and BBC4 should
be relaunched as mainstream mixed genre channels.

"BBC4 should be more selective about showing arts and other programmes
which virtually no one watches."

With BBC1 and BBC2 featuring more public service style broadcasting in
the run-up to charter review, Prof Barwise argues that BBC3 and BBC4
need to broaden their appeal.

Both channels should stop producing news programmes that hardly anyone
watches, said Prof Barwise, who is head of management and marketing at
London Business School.

BBC3's youth-oriented news at 7pm should be axed, he recommends, because
it "achieves nothing and attracts tiny audiences".

The introduction of the nightly news programme was one of the changes
made to the BBC3 schedule by controller Stuart Murphy at the behest of
Ms Jowell, who rejected plans for the channel in its first incarnation
on the grounds it was not distinctive enough.

Instead the money spent on news should be redeployed to be spent on
other factual programming, such as current affairs, science and business
shows.

This would enable BBC3 to "start the evening with strong programming
rather than trying to compete with Channel 4 News and Five News," the
report says. Similarly, BBC4's highbrow news show The World should be
either substantially revamped or replaced.

While Prof Barwise recognises BBC3 has produced a number of successful
shows, particularly comedies such as Little Britain and Monkey Dust and
drama Burn It, it fails to appeal to a wide enough audience.

Its biggest audiences are for repeats of EastEnders and BBC1 spin-offs
from shows such as Fame Academy and What Not to Wear. Innovative shows
such as last week's Flash Mob Opera could muster no more than 94,000
viewers.

BBC4 shows fare little better with audiences rarely exceeding 50,000 -
but repeats of the channel's shows on BBC2 attract reasonable audiences.
Earlier this week a late night repeat of BBC4's Race Age documentary
about racism in the 1960s got 500,000 viewers while National Trust and
Alan Clark Diaries got more than 2 million viewers on BBC2.

Prof Barwise's verdict will increase the pressure on Mr Murphy and the
new BBC4 controller, Janice Hadlow, who recently took over from launch
controller Roly Keating when he was promoted to head up BBC2.

He stresses his conclusions were intended to be "evolutionary not
revolutionary" and that more money should be pumped into BBC4 because it
was most likely to appeal to those without digital TV.

CBeebies is recognised as "a triumph" and CBBC was described as a
"distinctive service with high quality UK-produced content free from
advertisements".

"The BBC's digital channels have many strengths - CBeebies in particular
shows that a channel of substantial public value can be created at
minimal cost.

"But there is room for improvement. BBC3 and BBC4 need to increase their
impact and value for money, while retaining their public service ethos.
Key to this is appealing to a wider constituency, including those
thinking of adopting digital TV."

However they do not escape criticism altogether. The report recommends
some improvements in "tone and style" in CBBC.

Ms Jowell welcomed today's report, saying Prof Barwise's conclusions
would prove "illuminating" as the charter review process continues.

The BBC director of television, Jana Bennett, said the corporation would
"carefully consider the substance of the review, together with the
interesting recommendations and criticisms he has made".

The BBC governors have until November to respond.

Also published today is Ofcom's report on the market impact of the BBC's
digital services. It concludes that the BBC's digital channels have
contributed to digital take-up, although the scale of their contribution
may have been overstated by the corporation.

It adds that new measures should be considered to give greater certainty
to commercial rivals about the BBC's digital plans and that a formal
process should be developed for assessing the likely market impact of
the corporation's new services.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...326226,00.html

BBC digital channels 'poor value for money'

Owen Gibson, chief reporter
Wednesday October 13, 2004

BBC3 and BBC4 represent "poor value for money" and do little to connect
with viewers or drive the growth of digital TV, says a long-awaited
government report that will give further ammunition to the critics who
think they are a waste of licence payers' money.


Let's hope the Government now gives the BBC a kick to them to get more
viewers to BBC 3 and 4 by putting wider appeal programmes on.

Never had BBC 4 on. BBC 3 just a few times.

--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group.

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...326226,00.html

BBC digital channels 'poor value for money'

Owen Gibson, chief reporter
Wednesday October 13, 2004

BBC3 and BBC4 represent "poor value for money" and do little to connect with
viewers or drive the growth of digital TV, says a long-awaited government
report that will give further ammunition to the critics who think they are a
waste of licence payers' money.

BBC Three is of course just a E4 wannabe in typical BBC 'me too' fashion, Four
is serving its purpose as a ghetto, the less viewers the better as far as
they're concerned, it only reinforces their argument for removing such
programming from BBC One and Two and dumbing down anything that remains.


Az.

David wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...326226,00.html

BBC digital channels 'poor value for money'

Owen Gibson, chief reporter
Wednesday October 13, 2004

BBC3 and BBC4 represent "poor value for money" and do little to
connect with viewers or drive the growth of digital TV, says a
long-awaited government report that will give further ammunition to
the critics who think they are a waste of licence payers' money.


Let's hope the Government now gives the BBC a kick to them to get more
viewers to BBC 3 and 4 by putting wider appeal programmes on.

Never had BBC 4 on. BBC 3 just a few times.


I think BBC4 has some very good programmes on, although admittedly many
of them eventually end up on BBC1/2. BBC3 on the other hand is, IMO,
diabolical. One of the most annoying gripes I have with BBC3 is that
when there's a new episode of something, say Spy, because it's repeated
so bloody many times during the week you lose track of whether you've
seen it, or whether it's new. In the end I just give up and, surprise
surprise, Spy is now being shown on BBC2. Not that it was particularly
good in the first place. Somehow, the vast majority of the people they
found were sooo stupid you wouldn't trust them to do anything overtly,
let alone covertly.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:15:58 GMT, "David"
wrote:

Never had BBC 4 on.

So you know all about it, then.

BBC4 is one of the best things the BBC has done since the launch of
BBC2.

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow.
Overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
http://tinyurl.com/4gday

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

David wrote:

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...326226,00.html

BBC digital channels 'poor value for money'

Owen Gibson, chief reporter
Wednesday October 13, 2004

BBC3 and BBC4 represent "poor value for money" and do little to
connect with viewers or drive the growth of digital TV, says a
long-awaited government report that will give further ammunition to
the critics who think they are a waste of licence payers' money.


Let's hope the Government now gives the BBC a kick to them to get more
viewers to BBC 3 and 4 by putting wider appeal programmes on.

Never had BBC 4 on. BBC 3 just a few times.



I think BBC4 has some very good programmes on, although admittedly many
of them eventually end up on BBC1/2. BBC3 on the other hand is, IMO,
diabolical. One of the most annoying gripes I have with BBC3 is that
when there's a new episode of something, say Spy, because it's repeated
so bloody many times during the week you lose track of whether you've
seen it, or whether it's new. In the end I just give up and, surprise
surprise, Spy is now being shown on BBC2. Not that it was particularly
good in the first place. Somehow, the vast majority of the people they
found were sooo stupid you wouldn't trust them to do anything overtly,
let alone covertly.


Agreed. I rate BBC4, especially for the foreign language films and
retro-type stuff - an episode of Z-Cars from the 1960s is on tomorrow
(don't let me down video). BBC3 isn't too bad, but what really f*cks me
off is that any film shown is broken-up into 60 minute chunks by 60
Second news broadcasts - utter bollox.

IMO, some of the BBC3/4 time should be used (more than now) to
second-show some of the stuff from BBC1/2. If I had to decide though,
BBC3 should get the chop.


Clem

Aztech wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...326226,00.html

BBC digital channels 'poor value for money'

Owen Gibson, chief reporter
Wednesday October 13, 2004

BBC3 and BBC4 represent "poor value for money" and do little to
connect with viewers or drive the growth of digital TV, says a
long-awaited government report that will give further ammunition to
the critics who think they are a waste of licence payers' money.

BBC Three is of course just a E4 wannabe in typical BBC 'me too'
fashion, Four is serving its purpose as a ghetto, the less viewers
the better as far as they're concerned,


I think BBC4 has some really good programmes on it, and I'm pretty much
in agreement that the main problem with BBC TV is BBC1, as this bloke
says:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...325896,00.html

Comparing the funding each channel gets, the amount squandered on BBC1
is bloody incredible, and paying £2m to Graham Norton "to nurture him"
is just a joke. BBC1 gets about £1bn per annum IIRC, yet BBC4 only gets
about £50m. I'd far prefer BBC4 to take some funding from BBC1, because
at least BBC4 will make some interesting programmes.

Apart from BBC News, MOTD, Panorama, Question Time, and the very
occasional thing like Spooks, I can't think of anything that springs to
mind that I watch on BBC1.


it only reinforces their
argument for removing such programming from BBC One and Two and
dumbing down anything that remains.


Yeah, BBC1 seems to be going down the same road as ITV1, i.e. crap.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio

Clem Dye wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

I think BBC4 has some very good programmes on, although admittedly
many of them eventually end up on BBC1/2. BBC3 on the other hand is,
IMO, diabolical. One of the most annoying gripes I have with BBC3 is
that when there's a new episode of something, say Spy, because it's
repeated so bloody many times during the week you lose track of
whether you've seen it, or whether it's new. In the end I just give
up and, surprise surprise, Spy is now being shown on BBC2. Not that
it was particularly good in the first place. Somehow, the vast
majority of the people they found were sooo stupid you wouldn't
trust them to do anything overtly, let alone covertly.


Agreed. I rate BBC4, especially for the foreign language films and
retro-type stuff - an episode of Z-Cars from the 1960s is on tomorrow
(don't let me down video).


You should get one of these:

http://tinyurl.com/6bz4r


BBC3 isn't too bad, but what really f*cks
me off is that any film shown is broken-up into 60 minute chunks by 60
Second news broadcasts - utter bollox.


You mean you *can* wait more than an hour for news?


IMO, some of the BBC3/4 time should be used (more than now) to
second-show some of the stuff from BBC1/2. If I had to decide though,
BBC3 should get the chop.


Neither are going to get the chop, so if anything, I agree with what the
author of the report says and stop BBC3 having to target itself at 25-34
year olds, because the vast majority of the comedy that they commission
is aimed at younger people, but it's just ******** really.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio

"Alan White" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:15:58 GMT, "David"
wrote:

Never had BBC 4 on.

So you know all about it, then.

BBC4 is one of the best things the BBC has done since the launch of
BBC2.

I draw the line at a six part documentary about the Mann family in German
with English subtitles.

And what's the point in them broadcasting all through the night when it's
just repeats of what went before?

--
Max Demian

"Alan White" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:15:58 GMT, "David"
wrote:

Never had BBC 4 on.

So you know all about it, then.

BBC4 is one of the best things the BBC has done since the launch of
BBC2.

Indeed. It is a bit like the old BBC2 - which because few people could
watch - could experiment with some interesting stuff - or just throw out the
whole schedule to cover cricket or an opera. Look what happened when BBC2
went mainstream.

People dismiss 50,000 as a viewing figure. But how do you weigh 50,000
enthusiastic viewers of challenging material against 5 million couch
potatoes of another soap/makeover? We certainly get told that just 5,000 in
the RAH for a Prom is a distinctive and wonderful triumph for British
culure!

And I think we spend rather more on S4C for not a lot more viewers and,
unlike BBC4, not available to most of those paying for it... Shouldn't we
shining the bright light of accountability and value for money thataway?

--
Stuart

Autumn Sale - register BIZ domains for $4.95
http://www.bizzy.net/