Originally posted by mercia
View Post
But if you work on the basis of content getting the 'time it needs', realistically people would probably begin to baulk at being expected to listen regularly for two hours at a time, and at a specific time. So 45 mins, 60 mins, 90 mins would be better but - I think - the more separate programmes, the more expensive they get (different presenter, different production team &c &c) so 2 hours would be an attempt at an (un?)happy compromise. Cheapest radio is one presenter playing CDs - which is why programmes are longer: they can economise on content and pay the presenter a hefty whack (NB does not apply to R3 which I think does - and should - pay out for the content. But I'm not a presenter ).
Unlike some, I do think that a Shakespeare play needs to be broadcast in one go, not divided up into separate acts, one per night. Same goes for opera. But apart from that, it's hard to think of a programme that would need 3 hours, or wouldn't be better split into 2 or 3 shorter episodes.
Comment