What should a 'cultural network' be doing?

[french frank]

Obviously, for breakfast readers, a regular attractive young lady on page three.

At least on alternating fortnights!

[teamsaint]

BBC 4 costs under 5% of the BBC1 budget.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/2013/executive/finances/expenditure.html

if savings have to be made, surely easier to make them on BBC1 and 2.

As Hall has said he will increase Arts and music spending, where will this go, if the BBC 150 hours allocation is completely cut?
will there be extra spending on fewer hours content?
Or will the Arts coverage go to BBC1 and 2 ?

[Gordon]

http://money.aol.co.uk/2014/03/03/bbc-may-axe-a-channel-to-save-money-which-one/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk-ws-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D247420

[french frank]

http://money.aol.co.uk/2014/03/03/bb...6pLid%3D247420

"However, there are those who argue that a channel like BBC 4 isn't about the number of viewers, it's about providing a quality, intelligent service that isn't available anywhere else."

For Radio 3, the good thing is that it carries so much BBC baggage: without Radio 3, what would happen to the Proms? Would they all be broadcast on Radio 4? Or televised on BBC Four (which would be a heck of a lot more expensive)? And where would the Performing Groups concerts be broadcast? But, for Radio 3 itself, Proms and Performing Groups cost them more of their budget than they are 'worth' in terms of hours of broadcasting; so Radio 3 has been supporting BBC brands (and reputation) on a barely increased budget since service licences were first introduced.

If BBC Three has a top rating programme of 880,000, Radio 1's Breakfast show alone has 6 million, so it might be thought that younger audiences are pretty well catered for. When it comes to television, why don't they just grow up? - There are plenty of programmes (like Top Gear, which is already on Three) to provide entertainment for a general 'adult' audience.

[Honoured Guest]

Next week (Sat 8 to Fri 14 March), new programming on BBC3 and BBC4:

BBC3
Sat None
Sun None
Mon 1h 30m
Tue 1h 30m
Wed 2h 30m
Thu 1h 30m
Fri None

BBC4
Sat 1h 35m (Belgian drama acquisition)
Sun 3h 10m (1h Ballet Season documentary; 30m Sky at Night magazine; 1h40m Italian cinema acquisition)
Mon 2h 0m (1h single documentary; 1h conversation)
Tue 1h 30m (two documentary series)
Wed 1h 45m (1h documentary series; 45m comedy acquisition)
Thu 3h 25m (1h30m two documentary series; 30m comedy drama; 1h25m two documentaries)
Fri 2h30m (two music documentaries)

If BBC3 were to end, most of that seven-hours-in-a-week of original programming could easily be rescheduled, most on BBC1 and some on BBC2, by either reducing in-week repeats on BBC1 or scheduling them an hour or so later. A reduced number of the endless late evening repeats of Family Guy, American Dad, etc. could be scheduled on BBC1 in place of some late night films. A reduced number of the endless early evening repeats of Dr Who, Merlin, etc. could be scheduled on BBC2 in place of some early evening tat. The same-day repeats of EastEnders can be dropped with the impending advent of BBC1+1.

However, if BBC4 were to end, there wouldn't be scheduling space for much of its original programming on BBC2 (and BBC1), even if some of the current BBC2 original output were to be axed. And many surviving BBC4 programmes would end up scheduled at 11.20pm after Newsnight, which would limit their potential audience. And I didn't list BBC4's "archive" output (currently Channel 4's The First World War documentary series), so the total loss of BBC4 programming would be even greater than just original programmes.

So, in summary, closing BBC3 would have much less impact on service provision than would the closure of BBC4.

[french frank]

So, in summary, closing BBC3 would have much less impact on service provision than would the closure of BBC4.

Leaving aside that it would make a greater saving: somehow, Three's content last year cost £89.7m, whereas BBC Four's cost £50m (a good deal less than CBBC, incidentally, which cost £81.6m - with an additional £30m for CBeebies). It does give an idea of the relative importance of the arts/culture to the BBC, especially considering a fair amount of BBC Four wouldn't fit very comfortably in that particular pigeonhole anyway).

But then, there's The Culture Show on BBC Two

[mercia]

I don't understand the finances of making programmes - why would making BBC3 online-only save so much money ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26447089

[french frank]

I don't understand the finances of making programmes - why would making BBC3 online-only save so much money ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26447089

I imagine that the programme/content will cost at least as much as it ever has, with the BBC Trust able to raise the level of the service licence budget every time they reissues the service licence. So, as far as I can see, it would save (apparently!) a proportion of just short of £30m which is down to 'Distribution/Infrastructure/Support' which last year amounted to £29.1m.

BUT, as far as I'm aware, a proportion of that is allocated charges to central costs, that is, general BBC costs which the various services contribute to as a share of their budget - 'property' and 'news gathering' being two examples. But that money is spent by the BBC anyway, so if BBC Three doesn't pay a share - someone else will have to.

I have no idea how the same programmes could cost less to produce if the channel were only available via the iPlayer. Anyone? HG?

[Add: I now see: According to industry newspaper Broadcast, moving BBC Three online "would amount to a sizeable step" towards delivering Lord Hall's £100m savings target by 2016. I suppose £10m would be 'a step'.]

[Gordon]

I have no idea how the same programmes could cost less to produce if the channel were only available via the iPlayer. Anyone? HG?

Production cost is mostly in the people [performers and in-house + sub-contracted production staff] and things [post production editing, equipment, IPR etc, location fees and costs etc etc] needed to produce a final file [a tape in the old days] ready for transmission. Typically too each programme will have to contribute to overheads. Out-sourcing some of this gives some way of controlling costs by using competitive tender and a commissioning process.

So the answer depends what you mean by "production cost" - the Actual cost or the Accounting cost. Any all up cost would also include the cost of transmission as well as contribution to BBC overheads. So if you took any given programme or channel off all media except on-line then you'd save the Arqiva cost of transmission by taking the stream/s out of the Freeview multiplex [and also those to Sky [now waived] Freesat and any other spectrum delivered medium] and in the case of Radio the FM and DAB streams and those sent to Freeview and Sky/Freesat. It would not remove the overheads unless they were reduced too - buildings, admin staff: HR, lawyers [!!], cleaners, etc, etc.

One ultimate end point for the BBC is to become on-line only and dump ALL costs associated with transmission except feeding the streams to network. This releases all the spectrum [together with all overheads that attach] it uses for mobiles - at least the Freeview bands beacuse the others are of little value.

[french frank]

So the answer depends what you mean by "production cost" - the Actual cost or the Accounting cost. Any all up cost would also include the cost of transmission as well as contribution to BBC overheads.

What I meant was the figure which the BBC lists separately as "content", which is what the quoted £85m (and service licence budget) refers to. The costs of transmission and shared costs are those listed as 'Distribution and Infrastructure/Support' with the the separate costs reported in the Annual Accounts.

The content would be the direct cost which wouldn't have to be paid by the BBC at all if the programme weren't made. So, a CD-based, presenter-led (or 'talent-led'!!!) programme could be little more than rights payments and freelance presenter, if the other staff were full-time BBC people. Recent figures were that the median cost for such programmes, per hour, was £650 for Radio 3, but £1,486 for Radio 2. A Radio 3 drama could cost, per hour, £20,000 - pretty much the same as an hour of comedy on Radio 2 or Radio 4.

These kinds of costs seem to me to be unavoidable, regardless of whether BBC Three is iPlayer only or not. So I don't see how much would be saved by that move.

[Gordon]

What I meant was the figure which the BBC lists separately as "content", which is what the quoted £85m (and service licence budget) refers to. The costs of transmission and shared costs are those listed as 'Distribution and Infrastructure/Support' with the the separate costs reported in the Annual Accounts.

The content would be the direct cost which wouldn't have to be paid by the BBC at all if the programme weren't made. So, a CD-based, presenter-led (or 'talent-led'!!!) programme could be little more than rights payments and freelance presenter, if the other staff were full-time BBC people. Recent figures were that the median cost for such programmes, per hour, was £650 for Radio 3, but £1,486 for Radio 2. A Radio 3 drama could cost, per hour, £20,000 - pretty much the same as an hour of comedy on Radio 2 or Radio 4.

These kinds of costs seem to me to be unavoidable, regardless of whether BBC Three is iPlayer only or not. So I don't see how much would be saved by that move.

Agreed. But once made don't some programmes have value beyond a single use, they become an asset in the archive and so have future as well as present value? The assumption is that much of this content is a one off transmission that cannot be re-used or sold on to other broadcasters. How do the accounts record sales of content abroad? Once on iPlayer it can be used by anyone anywhere [with restrictions] as many times as they like but currently there is no further revenue for that. Hence proposal to charge for it by extending the licence fee reach.

[Honoured Guest]

I don't understand the finances of making programmes - why would making BBC3 online-only save so much money ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26447089

This BBC Entertainment News story states that: "it would mean the digital channel's output would only be available through the iPlayer service." So, BBC3 would become a library of content and not a linear channel.

This would obviously save distribution costs, as discussed above by french frank. It would also cut the cost of presentation, announcement, etc.

I assume that a further cost saving might be that fees for a programme to be available on iPlayer only might be significantly less than the present fees for repeat broadcasts on free-to-view national television, with the same iPlayer access.

Remember that next week BBC3 broadcasts only seven hours of new programming, so its content is mainly repeats (same-day, same-week and older repeats of programming).

I guess there would also be some accompanying cut in new programming content on BBC2 and BBC1 because more BBC3 content would probably be repeated on those channels, to reach the wider general (non-youth) audiences who might now, for example, watch some comedy on BBC3 but might not chase future new BBC3 content online.

Also, the BBC may be able to negotiate a content reduction from the level of the current weekly BBC3 iPlayer library, which would further save costs, if permitted. So, for example, the current fourteen-a-week episodes of American Dad and Family Guy might be replaced by just seven episodes of each available on iPlayer, at half the cost.

[Honoured Guest]

Discussion of BBC3 online only rumours in the first ten minutes of this week's The Media Show

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wq26h

[french frank]

This BBC Entertainment News story states that: "it would mean the digital channel's output would only be available through the iPlayer service." So, BBC3 would become a library of content and not a linear channel.

Is that correct? I've just checked the iPlayer 'Watch Live' page and got the warning message about needing a TV licence. So, unless they speciifically say it will be a 'library' rather than a linear streamed service, I would take it as the latter.

[french frank]

Discussion of BBC3 online only rumours in the first ten minute's of this week's The Media Show
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wq26h

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26447089