Brand Republic
 
Edition:
UK |
Asia
 
Digital jobs

Jobs

Find over 3000 jobs
 

Directory

 

Gordon's Republic

Time to dump BBC Three? 

Comments:5   Add your comment
The BBC needs to save a lot of money. Is it time for the plug to be pulled on BBC Three? It has no raison detre. If it claims to be the channel for youth why not concentrate on producing low-budget content online instead? You don't need a money burning channel for that.

I say this as Sir Michael Lyons, the BBC chairman, admitted that the BBC may have to "do less" as it tries to meet budget cuts.

Speaking after his first 100 days as chairman, Lyons said the BBC faces "tough decisions" after the government imposed a lower than expected licence fee settlement.

He did not go into specifics, but he did not rule out services being closed down.

If anything should go it should be BBC Three, much of what it makes could go elsewhere on other BBC channels or online. The Three costs considerably more than £100m a year to run and there is no real indication as to why.

Its only real success is when it airs future episodes of the likes of 'Heroes' as it had previously done with '24'. Or catching up with 'Doctor Who', but the ability to increasingly watch these shows on video on-demand or online via iPlayer makes it increasingly redundant.

Last year it led its autumn schedule with a one-off special of the acclaimed 'Bodies', starring Max Beesley and 'Doctor Who' spin-off 'Torchwood'. All this demonstrates is that BBC Three is being given some shows early to attract an audience who would otherwise watch it on BBC Two or One.

What is the point of BBC Three? None that I can see and I do not see the BBC being damaged by closing this one channel down.

Its recent commissions could comfortably sit on BBC One or Two, such as the spin-off from BBC One hit drama 'Spooks'.

It has also commissioned its first broadband-only comedy. It has done okay on the comedy front, although much of it has been poor quality. Anything that is half decent ends up on BBC Two (why not just put it there in the first place -- such as 'Gavin and Stacey', the series about young love starring Alison Steadman and Rob Brydon) and the rest should be online only.

Online-only pilots are a winner with a younger demographic who are happy to download and watch on their PC or laptop. Not to mention mobile phone.

BBC Three costs far more than BBC Four to run, which has much more of a distinctive voice. BBC Three has been in trouble from the off when the corporation had its initial plans for the station rejected.

It might be that the corporation believes it needs another digital-only channel. That might well be a good idea, but it has to know what it is and define it clearly as BBC Three is not that channel.
Published Aug 09 2007, 02:16 PM by Gordon Macmillan
Filed under:

Comments

by Sean Murricane
August 9, 2007 3:17 PM
 
Given the huge amount of work they put in to be allowed to launch BBC Three it's a shame that so much of that has gone to waste, as it has degenerated into less than just a repeats channel. I still miss the wonderfully irreverent Liquid News. I felt the House of Tiny Tearaways was fantastic but suited much more to BBC1 or 2.
 
 
by Archie Strang
August 9, 2007 3:28 PM
 
I couldn't live without BBC3's eternal cycle of repeats of Three Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.
 
 
by Peter Petrelli
August 9, 2007 4:08 PM
 
Theres a BBC 3?
 
 
by JULIAN BRAY
August 12, 2007 12:45 PM
 
There is more than enough to cover the budget of BBC 3 and a few more channl;es for that metter. The corporation needs to underastand its public sector remit and simplky refuse the pay the mindbending contracts enjoyed by Mr Ross and his relatives ( All3 Media etc) like the City and property market supply and demand . The City hit with US sub prime lending chops the price of shares and will ultimately reduce the price of property over here. Tell Wossy ans all the rest that salarioes are capped at £1 million and that all extra activites will have to be split 50/50 with the corporation - in view odf the constant exposure tyhe corporation provides and the budget constraints will fade over a short period of time.
 
 
by Gordon Macmillan
August 13, 2007 11:29 AM
 
The huge salaries paid to stars is definitely an issue to consider. Ross is simply not worth it and it.
 
To comment on this post you have to be logged in

 

About this blog

Gordon's Republic

Brand Republic's daily blog on digital, media and plenty in between.
 

About the author

Gordon Macmillan

Blogging for:

Gordon's Republic

Member since: 03 Jun 2008

Last login: 23 Nov 2009

Total Posts: 1,617

 
 
 
 

Tags

 

Syndication